Comment on "Assessing Discrepancies Between Previous Plate Kinematic Models of Mesozoic Iberia and Their Constraints" by Barnett-Moore et al

Abstract

In their recent paper, Barnett-Moore et al. (2016) reflect on current models of Iberian plate motion in the Jurassic and Cretaceous as well as ongoing debates on the reliability of the various types of kinematic data that form independent constraints on Iberia's motion relative to Eurasia. They question the validity of various marine geophysical, seismic, tomographic, geological, and paleomagnetic data sets from the Bay of Biscay, Central Atlantic Ocean, and Iberia for kinematic reconstruction of Iberia and conclude that neither models invoking Aptian-Albian transtension, nor compression, are consistent with currently available data. An important element in their analysis is that they discard the large paleomagnetic data set from the Jurassic and Cretaceous from Iberia based on perceived limitations of that data set. In addition, they argue that seismic tomographic images exclude a scenario of subduction in the Aptian-Albian in the Pyrenees, and based on this "question the validity of current plate reconstructions, their constraints, and geodynamic scenarios, which are in support of this scenario [e.g., Vissers et al., 2016]." We welcome the discussion raised by Barnett-Moore et al. (2016) on the reliability and usefulness of paleomagnetic data as independent constraint for Iberia's plate motion in the Mesozoic. Taking these paleomagnetic data at face value, Vissers et al. (2016) recently showed that these are consistent with an ~40° counterclockwise rotation of Iberia in the Aptian, requiring up to 500 km of Aptian convergence across the Pyrenees, that is, through subduction. In this comment, we aim to critically assess whether and how the concerns on the quality of paleomagnetic data raised by Barnett-Moore et al. (2016) may allow for an alternative explanation, particularly one with a Mesozoic rotation of Iberia that is small enough so as to not requiring subduction. We also reassess whether seismic tomographic images indeed refute subduction scenarios, using 8 S wave and P wave tomographic models including those used in Barnett-Moore et al. (2016).