Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Subduction controls the distribution and fragmentation of Earth’s tectonic plates

Nature volume 535, pages 140–143 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The theory of plate tectonics describes how the surface of Earth is split into an organized jigsaw of seven large plates1 of similar sizes and a population of smaller plates whose areas follow a fractal distribution2,3. The reconstruction of global tectonics during the past 200 million years4 suggests that this layout is probably a long-term feature of Earth, but the forces governing it are unknown. Previous studies3,5,6, primarily based on the statistical properties of plate distributions, were unable to resolve how the size of the plates is determined by the properties of the lithosphere and the underlying mantle convection. Here we demonstrate that the plate layout of Earth is produced by a dynamic feedback between mantle convection and the strength of the lithosphere. Using three-dimensional spherical models of mantle convection that self-consistently produce the plate size–frequency distribution observed for Earth, we show that subduction geometry drives the tectonic fragmentation that generates plates. The spacing between the slabs controls the layout of large plates, and the stresses caused by the bending of trenches break plates into smaller fragments. Our results explain why the fast evolution in small back-arc plates7,8 reflects the marked changes in plate motions during times of major reorganizations. Our study opens the way to using convection simulations with plate-like behaviour to unravel how global tectonics and mantle convection are dynamically connected.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Snapshots of convection calculations and of Earth with associated spectral heterogeneity maps of the temperature field and seismic velocity field.
Figure 2: Plots of the logarithm of cumulative plate count versus the logarithm of plate size for four yield stress values and Earth.
Figure 3: Number of triple junctions per 1,000 km of subduction zones versus the average tortuosity.
Figure 4: Global viscosity maps of model 2 and the associated kinematics.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Le Pichon, X. Sea-floor spreading and continental drift. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 3661–3697 (1968)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bird, P. An updated digital model of plate boundaries. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 4, 1027 (2003)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Morra, G., Seton, M., Quevedo, L. & Müller, R. D. Organization of the tectonic plates in the last 200 Myr. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 373, 93–101 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Seton, M. et al. Global continental and ocean basin reconstructions since 200 Ma. Earth Sci. Rev. 113, 212–270 (2012)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sornette, D. & Pisarenko, V. Fractal plate tectonics. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1105 (2003)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vallianatos, F. & Sammonds, P. Is plate tectonics a case of non-extensive thermodynamics? Physica A 389, 4989–4993 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sdrolias, M., Roest, W. R. & Müller, R. D. An expression of Philippine Sea plate rotation: the Parece Vela and Shikoku Basins. Tectonophysics 394, 69–86 (2004)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor, B., Zellmer, K., Martinez, F. & Goodliffe, A. Sea-floor spreading in the Lau back-arc basin. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 144, 35–40 (1996)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moresi, L. & Solomatov, V. Mantle convection with a brittle lithosphere: thoughts on the global tectonic styles of the Earth and Venus. Geophys. J. Int. 133, 669–682 (1998)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Trompert, R. & Hansen, U. Mantle convection simulations with rheologies that generate plate-like behaviour. Nature 395, 686–689 (1998)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tackley, P. J. Self-consistent generation of tectonic plates in time-dependent, three-dimensional mantle convection simulations: 1. Pseudoplastic yielding. Geochem.Geophys. Geosyst. 1, 1021 (2000)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Coltice, N., Seton, M., Rolf, T., Müller, R. & Tackley, P. J. Convergence of tectonic reconstructions and mantle convection models for significant fluctuations in seafloor spreading. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 383, 92–100 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ricard, Y., Bercovici, D. & Schubert, G. A two-phase model for compaction and damage: 2. Applications to compaction, deformation, and the role of interfacial surface tension. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 8907 (2001)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Stein, C., Schmalzl, J. & Hansen, U. The effect of rheological parameters on plate behaviour in a self-consistent model of mantle convection. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 142, 225–255 (2004)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. van Heck, H. J. & Tackley, P. J. Planforms of self-consistently generated plates in 3D spherical geometry. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L19312 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bello, L., Coltice, N., Rolf, T. & Tackley, P. J. On the predictability limit of convection models of the Earth’s mantle. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 15, 2319–2328 (2014)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Williams, S. E., Müller, R. D. & Landgrebe, T. C. W. An open-source software environment for visualizing and refining plate tectonic reconstructions using high-resolution geological and geophysical data sets. GSA Today 22(4), 4–9 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Becker, T. W. & Boschi, L. A comparison of tomographic and geodynamic mantle models. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 3, 1003 (2002)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. van Heck, H. J. & Tackley, P. J. Plate tectonics on super-Earths: equally or more likely than on Earth. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 310, 252–261 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tackley, P. J. Modelling compressible mantle convection with large viscosity contrasts in a three-dimensional spherical shell using the yin-yang grid. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 171, 7–18 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Matthews, K. J., Seton, M. & Müller, R. D. A global-scale plate reorganization event at 105–100 Ma. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 355–356, 283–298 (2012)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stegman, D. R., Schellart, W. P. & Freeman, J. Competing influences of plate width and far-field boundary conditions on trench migration and morphology of subducted slabs in the upper mantle. Tectonophysics 483, 46–57 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Barckhausen, U., Ranero, C. R., Cande, S. C., Engels, M. & Weinrebe, W. Birth of an intraoceanic spreading center. Geology 36, 767–770 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Petterson, M. G. et al. Geological–tectonic framework of Solomon Islands, SW Pacific: crustal accretion and growth within an intra-oceanic setting. Tectonophysics 301, 35–60 (1999)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Harbert, W. Late Neogene relative motions of the Pacific and North America plates. Tectonics 10, 1–15 (1991)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tebbens, S. F. & Cande, S. C. Southeast Pacific tectonic evolution from early Oligocene to present. J. Geophys. Res. 102(B6), 12061–12084 (1997)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cloetingh, S. A. P. L., Gradstein, F. M., Kooi, H., Grant, A. C. & Kaminski, M. M. Plate reorganization: a cause of rapid late Neogene subsidence and sedimentation around the North Atlantic? J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 147, 495–506 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van der Meer, D. G., Torsvik, T. H., Spakman, W., van Hinsbergen, D. J. J. & Amaru, M. L. Intra-Panthalassa Ocean subduction zones revealed by fossil arcs and mantle structure. Nat. Geosci. 5, 215–219 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Amante, C. & Eakins, B. W. ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model: Procedures, Data Sources and Analysis www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/relief/ETOPO1/image/color_etopo1_ice_low.tif.zip (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009)

  30. French, S. W. & Romanowicz, B. A. Broad plumes rooted at the base of the Earth’s mantle beneath major hotspots. Nature 525, 95–99 (2015)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lay, T., Hernlund, J. & Buffett, B. A. Core–mantle boundary heat flow. Nat. Geosci. 1, 25–32 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ricard, Y., Richards, M., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. & Le Stunff, Y. A geodynamic model of mantle density heterogeneity. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 21895–21909 (1993)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mitrovica, J. X. Haskell [1935] revisited. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 555–569 (1996)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tosi, N. et al. A community benchmark for viscoplastic thermal convection in a 2-D square box. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 2175–2196 (2015)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gordon, R. G. in The History and Dynamics of Global Plate Motions (eds Richards, M. A. et al.) 143–159 (Geophysical Monograph Series, Vol. 121, American Geophysical Union, 2000)

  36. Goudarzi, M. A., Cocard, M. & Santerre, R. EPC: Matlab software to estimate Euler pole parameters. GPS Solut. 18, 153–162 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhong, S., Gurnis, M. & Moresi, L. Role of faults, nonlinear rheology, and viscosity structure in generating plates from instantaneous mantle flow models. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 15255–15268 (1998)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results was funded by the European Research Council within the framework of the SP2-Ideas Programme ERC-2013-CoG under ERC grant agreement 617588. We thank S. Durant and E. Debayle for helping to make Fig. 1e, i and E. J. Garnero for his inputs. Calculations were performed on the AUGURY supercomputer at P2CHPD Lyon. N.C. was supported by the Institut Universitaire de France. R.D.M and M.S are supported by ARC grants DP130101946 and FT130101564.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire de Géologie de Lyon, École Normale Supérieure, UMR 5276 CNRS, Université de Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France,

    Claire Mallard & Nicolas Coltice

  2. Institut Universitaire de France, 103 Boulevard Saint Michel, Paris, 75005, France

    Nicolas Coltice

  3. EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, Madsen Building F09, University of Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia

    Maria Seton & R. Dietmar Müller

  4. Department of Earth Sciences, Institute of Geophysics, ETH Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 5, Zurich, 8092, Switzerland

    Paul J. Tackley

Authors
  1. Claire Mallard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolas Coltice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Seton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Dietmar Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul J. Tackley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.M. developed the methodology for analysing the convection models, conducted the plate analysis, contributed to the interpretation and wrote the manuscript. N.C. conducted the convection calculations, contributed to the development of the methodology and analysis, contributed to the interpretation and wrote the manuscript. M.S. and R.D.M. provided guidance with GPlates and scripts, contributed to the interpretation and wrote the manuscript. P.J.T. provided the StagYY convection code, guidance on using it and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Mallard.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Maps of the surface of a snapshot from a convection model with a yield stress of 150 MPa and of the plate layout of Earth.

a, Map of sea-floor age with the youngest ages in red characteristic of mid-ocean ridges and the oldest zones in blue characteristic of subduction zones. m.y., millions of years. b, Map of non-dimensional horizontal divergence, with divergence zones (mid-ocean ridges) shown in red and convergence zones (subduction zones) in blue. c, d, Maps of the plate sizes of the convection model (c) and Earth (d). The plate size categories are determined in Extended Data Fig. 3.

Extended Data Figure 2 Subsurface temperature of a convection model with a yield stress of 150 MPa showing a diffuse plate boundary.

a, Global temperature (colour scale) and surface velocities (arrows). The dark zones represent subduction zones and the light zones indicate mid-ocean ridges. b, Zoom-in of the red boxed region in a showing a diffuse boundary; the steady lateral change of velocity directions (red arrows) characterizes the intraplate diffuse zone (grey shaded area), allowing the determination of a diffuse boundary (black dashed line).

Extended Data Figure 3 Plots of the logarithm of the cumulative plate count versus the logarithm of the plate size for the snapshots of model 2 and Earth.

The data for Earth is taken from ref. 2. The plots show the distribution of microplates in light blue, small plates in mid-blue and large plates in dark blue. The equations of the black fit lines and the correlation coefficients R2 are also shown.

Extended Data Figure 4 Plot of the fraction of large plates adjoining a triple junction versus the type of triple junction for model 2 and for Earth.

The data for Earth is taken from ref. 2. The red rectangles correspond to model 2 and the black circles to Earth. The coloured backgrounds indicate of dominance of each boundary type: blue shows triple junctions that are mainly composed of subduction zones, red shows the dominance of mid-ocean ridges or transform boundaries and green the dominance of diffuse boundaries. T, trenches; R, ridges; D, diffuse boundary. We added a type of triple junction T(RRR); these triple junctions are directly connected to curved trenches and produce back-arc basins with small plates, hence they are included in the area of the plot dominated by subduction zones. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the fraction of large plates around a triple junction for model 2 and Earth.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mallard, C., Coltice, N., Seton, M. et al. Subduction controls the distribution and fragmentation of Earth’s tectonic plates. Nature 535, 140–143 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17992

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17992

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing