THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
SCHOOL OF GEOSCIENCES
FOURTH YEAR GEOLOGY and GPG
HONOURS COURSE
EVOLUTION OF THE MODERN
EARTH
EASC10090
2013 - 2014
(September 2013)
p2
EME COURSE COORDINATOR
Prof. Alastair Robertson
Room 331, Grant Institute of Earth Science,
School of GeoSciences, King’s Buildings,
The University of Edinburgh,
West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW
Phone: 0131 650 8521
Fax 0131 668 3184
e.mail: Alastair.Robertson@ed.ac.uk
EME COURSE TEAM
Professors: Godfrey Fitton (JGF), Ian Main (IM), Kathy Whaler (KAW),
Hugh Sinclair (HDS), Dick Kroon (DK) Alastair Robertson (AHFR); Drs
Jenny Tait (JT) and Andrew Bell (AFB)
p2
p3
COURSE STRUCTURE
The EME course forms a key part of the Geology, and Geology & Physical
Geography (GPG) Honours degree programmes. Details of the marks
applicable are given in the 4th year Honours booklets for Geology and
GPG.
The style of teaching and lecture content differs somewhat from previous
years and you should be prepared for this. During 1st, 2nd and 3rd years the
lectures commonly convey information that you are expected to know for
the exam. In contrast, the 4th year teaching (in preparation for the 'real
world') is generally an introduction to a selected topic, and you are then
expected to put in extra time into your own reading and thinking about the
topics covered. The course will draw extensively on material covered by
everyone in previous years and will break new ground, as indicated below.
EME teaching consists of thematic lectures coupled with a small number
of integrated case histories. These are intended as supporting material.
Questions will not be set in the degree exam uniquely on these topics but
they will provide geological examples which you will be expected to
incorporate onto your answers on the questions set, as appropriate.
The subjects covered in the lectures and integrated case histories are
principally related to the evolution of the Earth from Late Precambrian to
Recent time. The course is loosely divided into 4 related components:
Framework topics (Earth & Mars), lectured by Profs. Ian Main and Kathy
Whaler; Modern and Ancient processes: Profs. Hugh Sinclair and Dick
Kroon; Continent-ocean interaction: Prof. Alastair Robertson and Dr Jenny
Tait; Integrated case histories: Prof. Alastair Robertson and Dr Andy Bell.
Reference list. You will be issues with a consolidated list references,
generally 2 key references per topic (session). These are designed to
complement and extend the lecture content. For each lecture you are
expected to spend about 7 hours of reading and supplementary study. Be
sure to obtain your copies of these key papers. You may be given
additional references on a lecture-by-lecture basis but the consolidated
reference list should be your priority for independent study.
p3
p4
The classes are normally held in the Main Lecture Theatre 201 Grant
Institute, but may on occasion be in room 304B in the Grant Institute (as
advised). The lectures will usually be held on Monday at 10-12pm and
Tuesday at 9-11am.
ASSESSMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE EME THEORY
PAPERS
The EME course is examined by one 3-hour-long theory paper sat in the
Examination diet after Semester 1 teaching end. You will be asked to
answer three questions, one from Part A and two from Part B, with ample
choice.
Part A is generally testing knowledge and understanding of EME topics as
they were presented, with the additional expectation that relevant material
covered in earlier years that has been developed and applied in fourth year
will also be incorporated in your answer.
Part B will be interdisciplinary and reach across the structure of EME, and
could include topical issues of current Earth Science. It will again expect
inclusion of earlier relevant material, but in contrast to Part A questions,
may ask you to apply your knowledge in ways that have not been directly
addressed during the course. You might be asked, for example, to propose
a programme of field and laboratory investigation to elucidate the nature
of a particular kind of terrain in an orogenic belt, or to review possible
mechanisms of regional-scale uplift. A question such as that last one may
never have been addressed in any single lecture and will require you to go
back to first principles – what are the physical mechanisms which could
cause uplift, and then what geological processes that you may have
encountered at some time in your courses over the years, or in literature
that you have read, could meet the requirements? You could also be asked
to interpret some data or a diagram.
Part A questions are weighted more towards accurate recall, whereas in
Part B we look more for evidence of a capability to reason from first
p4
p5
principles and to demonstrate that you understand the logic behind
particular procedures, for example, the construction of a Rb-Sr isochron
diagram, rather than just a knowledge of the conclusions drawn from it.
FORMATIVE FEEDBACK
You will be set a choice of several essays (similar to those to be set in the
degree exam) at the first meeting of Week 6 (Monday 21st October) and
you have one week later to answer one of the questions.
The essay is limited to 1000 words (not including diagrams and
references). Only hand-drawn, hand annotated diagrams should be
included of the type you would reproduce in an exam.
The essay will be assessed according to the following criteria:
• Clear organization with sub-headings;
• Correct facts and clear explanation;
• Use of geological examples;
• Use of annotated diagrams;
• Citation of references (a few ones)
• Combining information from different lectures as appropriate;
• Analytical, critical and questioning approach
You should draw on the taught material and your own reading in this
course, and also from other courses from Years 1, 2 and 3, as appropriate.
Better results may be gained if you prepare a draft of your essay within 5
days, and ask a fellow student to assess your work on the above criteria.
You can then make any modifications. Submit a hard copy of your essay to
the drop-box in the Teaching Organisation in the Grant Institute while also
submitting an electronic copy via LEARN before 4 pm on Wednesday
30th October.
p5
p6
Week 1:Framework aspects
Monday
16 Sept
MLT
Tuesday
17 Sept
MLT
10 – 10.50 am
11 – 11.50 am
IM Structure and Rheology
of the Lithosphere- What is
the lithosphere?
Fundamentals of lithosphere
rheology IM
IM Structure and Rheology of
the Lithosphere- What is the
lithosphere?
- Fundamentals of lithosphere
rheology (contd.) IM
9 – 9.50 am
KAW Planetary geology
and comparative
planetology
10 – 10.50 am
KAW Planetary geology and
comparative planetology
History of the solar system
– origin, formation and
composition Surface
features and processes
responsible Internal
structure Atmosphere
History of the solar system –
origin, formation and
composition Surface features
and processes responsible
Internal structure Atmosphere
Week 2: Modern and ancient geological processes
Monday
23 Sept
MLT
10 – 10.50 am
11 – 11.50 am
HDS – Source to Sink 1 The growth of mountain
topography;
Mountain Building,
Erosion, critical wedges,
Plateaux, post orogenic
landscapes.
HDS Source to Sink 2 –
Controls on sediment yield
from mountain belts.
Geomorphic/tectonic control of
sediment discharge to the
ocean: the importance of small
mountainous rivers; Sediment
flux from a mountain belt
p6
p7
Tuesday
24 Sept
MLT
derived by landslide mapping;
Bedrock incision, rock uplift
and threshold hillslopes in the
northwestern Himalayas
9 – 9.50 am
10 – 10.50 am
HDS - Source to Sink 3 HDS Source to Sink 4 Sediment flux by mountain
Sediment trapping in foreland
rivers
basins
River catchment shape,
Thrust Loads and Foreland
distorted drainage basins as Basin Evolution;
markers of crustal strain east Foreland basin subsidence
of the Himalaya; Contrasting driven by topographic growth
sediment delivery to
versus plate subduction.
foreland basins
Week 3: Modern and ancient geological processes
and start of Continent-ocean interaction
Monday
30 Sept
MLT
Tuesday
1 Oct
MLT
10 – 10.50 am
11 – 11.50 am
DK Pelagic sedimentation
principles. 1
Palaeoceanography.
Sediment types and
distributions; depositional
processes.
DK Pelagic sedimentation
principles. 2
Palaeoceanograpy
Astrochronology and
acidification of the
Oceans
9 – 9.50 am
10 – 10.50 am
AHFR Fault geometries and
their evolution
Models of fault growth. N
Observations in extensional
provinces (e.g. Western
AHFR Sedimentation 1.
Early Rift phase.
Sedimentary processes;
Modern and ancient examples;
Clastic and carbonate settings;
p7
p8
USA and Greece).
Failed rifts (aulacogens)
Development and linkage of W USA case history
fault segments. Relay ramps.
Ancient rifts (e.g. Gulf of
Suez and the North Sea)
Alpine case history
Week 4: Continent-ocean interaction
Monday
7 Oct
MLT
Tuesday
8 Oct
MLT
10 – 10.50 am
11 – 11.50 am
AHFR Rift and passive
margin sedimentation 2.
Transition to passive margin.
Clastic- and carbonatedominated rifted margins.
Ancient examples. AHFR
Alpine case history
Rift and passive margin
sedimentation 3.
Sedimentation on mature
passive margins; E USA
example;
Recent sedimentary processes.
E USA margin deep sea drilling
case history
9 – 9.50 am
AHFR
Arc-trench sedimentation
and high-level structure.
Form, structure and fill of
trenches and accretionary
prisms. Accretion:
geophysical, bathymetric
and heat-flow;
Subduction erosion;
Franciscan melange case
history
10 – 10.50 am
AHFR Back-arc basins
Modern and ancient back-arc
basins.
e.g. Mariana, Lau, Japan.
Tyrrhennian sea case history.
p8
p9
Week 5: Continent-ocean interaction
10 – 10.50 am
11 – 11.50 am
Monday JGF Large Igneous
14 Oct
Provinces; occurrence;
MLT
importance; age range;
Role of plumes;
LIP ocean interaction;
Geological examples
Tuesday 9 – 9.50 am
15 Oct
MLT
AHFR Ophiolite geology.
Ophiolite stratigraphy and
structure reviewed. Semail,
Troodos, Newfoundland, W.
Mediterranean, circumPacific. Ophiolites as
spreading phenomena &
oceanic markers. Comparison
with normal MOR's
Integrated case history
AHFR
BRIDGE (Mid-Ocean Ridge
project)
Key features of Mid-Ocean
Ridges as seen in recent
submersible studies and landbased work in Iceland;
ancient land-based examples
10 – 10.50 am
10-10.50
AHFR Pelagic sediments
Importance for ancient record;
Examples in orogenic belts;
Processes of formation;
Specific examples from the
Alpine-Mediterranean Tethys
mainly
Week 6: Continent-ocean interaction
Monday
21 Oct
MLT
10 – 10.50 am
11 – 11.50 am
AHFR Tectonic evolution of
Mesozoic Tethys in the
Mediterranean region;
Palaeotethys vs Neotethys;
Tectonic settings and
AHFR Neotectonic evolution of
the Eastern Mediterranean.
Tectonic and sedimentary
effects of current plate motions.
Back-arc extension; slab
p9
p10
processes;
Palaeotectonic developmnt
SW Turkey case history
AHFR
rollback effects;
Extensional basins
W Turkey extensional basin
case history
9 – 9.50 am
10 – 10.50 am
Week 7: Continent-ocean interaction and
Integrated case histories
Monday
28 Oct
MLT
Tuesday
29 Oct
MLT
10 – 10.50 am
11 – 11.50 am
JT Tectonic evolution and
palaeogeography:
quantifying reconstructions
using palaeomagnetism.
Examples from the Pacific
(W. USA) Atlantic (Tethyan
region) and the SWEAT
Hypothesis
AHFR Iapetus ocean
Regional distribution around
N Atlantic mainly;
Summary of key aspects in
Britain and Ireland;
Comparison with Appalachians
and Newfoundland.
Tectonic models and processes
Newfoundland case history
9 – 9.50 am
Integrated case history
AHFR Oman
Regional setting;
Rift history; passive margin
setting; oceanic units;
role of melanges and
metamorphic sole; ophiolite
stratigraphy; sulphides;
emplacement and younger
setting
10 – 10.50 am
Integrated case history
AHFR & JGF W USA
Transect from Rocky
Mountains to the Pacific ocean;
Continental interior;
Palaeozoic evolution;
Mesozoic development;
Cenozoic magmatism;
Focus on accretionary and
ophiolite settings
p10
p11
Week 8: Continent-ocean interaction and intergrated case histories.
Monday
4th Nov
Tuesday
5th Nov
TBA
10 – 10.50 am
11 – 11.50 am
AHFR Himalayas and Tibet
Pre-collisional development
Evidence for rifting and
passive margin development
in India;
Evidence for northward drift
of India;
Subduction and ophiolite
genesis;
Collision; foreland basin;
Crustal structure of Tibet
Case history-Ladakh
AHFR Strike-slip tectonics and
sedimentation in continental
and oceanic settings
Field observations.
Analogue modelling. Flower
structures.
Sediment architecture and
dispersal in pull-apart basins.
Terrane dispersal; indentor
tectonics; example of
Tibetan region
Ecemis Fault Zone, S Turkey
case history
9 – 9.50 am
AFB Integrated case history
Seismotectonics &
Himalayas. Fault- plane
solution exercise.
Crustal structure and
tectonics in an active
convergence zone.
10 – 10.50 am
AFB Integrated case history
contd. Seismotectonics &
Himalayas. Fault- plane
solution exercise.
Crustal structure and
tectonics in an active
convergence zone.
p11
p12
Appendix:
GRADE DESCRIPTORS
The Meaning of Grades in the Common Marking Scheme
What follows is a modified version of the College Grade-related Marking
Criteria, here related specifically to the requirements of the EME course,
and intended to be a reasonable description of the criteria actually used by
the EME course teams.
Characteristic features of answers in the middle of each class division are
outlined below, for each class division.
First Class
(Corresponding to Class A2 in the new extended Common Marking
Scheme, as detailed in the Grade-Related Marking Criteria (GRMC) from
College; see the extract in the Glg4 and GPG4 Assessment Regulations
Booklet.)
The candidate is completely at home discussing the material, having
a considerable depth of knowledge (main criterion in Part-A) and an
ability to produce a properly supported argument in a logical, ordered
sequence with clear understanding of the underlying principles
involved (main criterion in Part-B). There is clear attention to the
question as set, throughout. Signs (i.e. not extensive tracts) of
original thought in the form of arguments, observations or critical
reviews of received wisdom that have not been presented during the
course. Evidence of reading from the recommended literature and
usually beyond, shown by reference to the sources of key ideas and
the location of important examples, but not necessarily the full
bibliographic details. Clear diagrams are included, directly relevant
to the argument and fully incorporated into the answer, i.e. they are
p12
p13
an inherent and essential part of the answer, not just added for gloss
or padding.
Upper Second Class (mid 2.1)
The material is essentially correct, is well organised and generally
answers the question without major omissions but is largely drawn
from the lectures. Original arguments and lines of reasoning are
generally absent. Part-A answers are careful recall but the point of
the question frequently disappears from view under the weight of
worthy detail. Misunderstandings are generally absent but the actual
level of understanding is occasionally ambiguous as the writer
transcribes notes rather than presents a careful, well-constructed
argument. Part-B answers of the interdisciplinary type are
dominated by judicious splicing together of lecture material rather
than much newly constructed argument. There are some flashes of
original thought and definite attempts to answer the question and
cross boundaries, but this is not sustained throughout the answer.
First-principles-type answers are more or less sound but not
comprehensive in coverage. Data interpretation answers are solid,
covering the main points but missing the subtleties, the alternative
interpretations and the penetrative analysis. Diagrams are sound but
not particularly well integrated or embedded effectively into the
progression of argument or explanation.
Lower Second Class (mid 2.2)
The answer is incomplete with insufficient relevant information
presented and characteristic additions of irrelevant material by way
of attempted compensation. There are some good points but not
enough to merit an upper 2nd. There are some clear demonstrations
of understanding but some errors of fact and usually some clear
instances of misunderstanding. The dominant characteristic is a
patchwork of recalled material with poor links and no clear thread of
directed argument. Part-B answers are generally characterised by
Part-A-type chunks of recall rather than insight or incisiveness but
p13
p14
nevertheless manage to bring out some relevant points. Firstprinciples-answers have one or two principles correct, others
incorrect and are usually bulked out with examples without the
principles attached at all. Data interpretation answers get only some
of the main points correct and miss others altogether, along with
higher-order subtleties. Overall the answer has more reasonably
sound material in it than it has errors and irrelevancies.
(There are however a number of ways to achieve a 2.2 which do not fit this
template exactly. All induce a feeling of considerable disappointment in
the examiner. Notably, there is the “tantalising fragment answer” that
contains a page or so of promising material but is simply too thin to merit
a decent mark. Then there is the “wilfully deviant answer”, that starts
well, gains some credit, but then becomes enamoured of its own voice and
sails off into completely foreign territory, often quite accurately, but alas
with no relation to the question.)
Third Class
The answer has a bare minimum of correctly recalled facts and
relevant argument. There is much irrelevant material. Factual errors
and evidence of misconceptions are common. Material comes
recognisably from the lectures alone, but is often much distorted.
There will be some evidence of understanding of the point of the
question or of the need to present a cogent argument, but not a great
deal. Answers are typically in the form of a hopeful offering of
material, recalled with obvious difficulty. The answer nevertheless
passes the following two tests: does this candidate demonstrate a
level of knowledge and understanding greater than would be found in
a candidate who had not attended the course but had the same
background? Does the candidate’s level of correct knowledge and
understanding manage to outweigh the evidence of lack of
understanding and incorrectly recalled factual material? Is this, in
fact, a “Senior Honours-level answer”?
p14
p15
Fail
Answers do not pass the tests posed in the last section. Positive
features are either outweighed by misconceptions and errors or are so
vague as to be useless. Answers which completely fail to answer the
question set, either by deliberate intent as in those that imply: “I
know nothing of this topic so how about this lot?”, or by
misinterpretation of the wording of the question, will also fail.
A Note regarding ‘misreading’ of a question:
Possible ambiguities in A question will almost certainly have been looked
for and eliminated in advance by the examiners. If a catastrophic
misreading of the question occurs, it is likely to be your fault, but the
examiners will give as much credit as possible if a missed ambiguity is
acknowledged by them after due consideration of all the reasonable
interpretations of the question as set. Note that it is essential to answer the
question as set and that little credit will be given to material, even if
scientifically correct, that strays from the meaning of the question. Never
re-interpret a question to be able to supply information that you happen to
know if it is off the question. Short relevant answers to the point will score
more credit than long ones off the topic.
p15