Tectonic processes in the Southern and Middle Urals: an overview

D. BROWN1, V. PUCHKOV2, J. ALVAREZ-MARRON1, F. BEA3, & A. PEREZ-ESTAUN1

1
Institute of Earth Sciences ‘Jaume Almera’, CSIC, c/Lluı́s Solé i Sabarı́s s/n, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
(e-mail: dbrown@ija.csic.es)
2
Ufimian Geoscience Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Karl Marx 16/2, Ufa 45000 Bashkiria, Russia
3
Department of Mineralogy and Petrology, Fuentenueva Campus, University of Granada, 18002 Granada, Spain

Abstract: The tectonic evolution of the Uralide orogen began during the Late Palaeozoic as the continental margin of Baltica entered an
east-dipping (today’s coordinates) subduction zone beneath the Magnitogorsk and Tagil island arcs. The subsequent arc–continent col-
lision resulted in the development and emplacement of an accretionary complex over the continental margin, the development and defor-
mation of a foreland basin, and the extrusion of high-pressure rocks along the arc–continent suture. There is mounting evidence that, at
about the same time as arc –continent collision was occurring along this margin of Baltica, eastward-directed subcontinental subduction
of the Uralian oceanic crust was also taking place beneath the Kazakhstan plate. This subcontinental subduction is thought to have
resulted in the formation of a continental volcanic arc. The final closure of the Uralian ocean basin and the start of collision
between the Baltica and Kazakhstan plates occurred during the Late Carboniferous. This continent –continent collision resulted in devel-
opment of the Late Carboniferous to Early Triassic western foreland fold and thrust belt and foreland basin of the Uralides. The foreland
fold and thrust belt displays a large amount of basement involvement, extensive reactivation of pre-existing faults, and a small amount of
shortening. At the same time, widespread strike-slip faulting accompanied by melt generation and granitoid emplacement took place in
the interior part of the Uralides, leading to the transfer of material laterally along the strike of the orogen. The final crustal structure of the
Uralides that resulted from the combination of all of these tectonic events is bivergent, with a crustal root reaching c. 53 km depth.

Extending for nearly 2500 km from near the Aral Sea in the south
to the islands of Novaya Zemlya in the Arctic Ocean, the Uralide
orogen of Russia marks the eastern boundary of the Early Palaeo-
zoic continent Baltica and its collision zone with the Siberian and
Kazakhstan plates during the Palaeozoic assembly of Pangaea. For
descriptive purposes the Uralides have traditionally been divided
into a number of longitudinal zones (Fig. 1a) that are largely
based on the ages and palaeogeography of the dominant rocks
within them (e.g. Ivanov et al. 1975; Khain 1985; Fershtater
et al. 1988; Puchkov 1997). From west to east these zones are
the Pre-Uralian zone, the West Uralian zone, the Central Uralian
zone, the Magnitogorsk –Tagil zone, the East Uralian zone and
the Trans-Uralian zone. Additionally, the Uralides have been
divided geographically into the Southern, Middle, Northern, Cis-
Polar and Polar Urals. The Pre-Uralian, West Uralian and
Central Uralian zones contain syntectonic Late Carboniferous to
Early Triassic sediments of the foreland basin, Palaeozoic plat-
form and continental-slope rocks, and Archaean and Proterozoic
rocks of the East European Craton (part of Baltica). These three
zones were affected by Uralide deformation and make up the fore-
land thrust and fold belt (e.g. Kamaletdinov 1974; Brown et al.
1997b). The Magnitogorsk– Tagil zone consists of Silurian to
Devonian intra-oceanic island arc volcanic rocks and overlying
volcaniclastic sediments. The Magnitogorsk– Tagil zone is
sutured to the former continental margin of Baltica along the
Main Uralian fault. The East Uralian zone is composed predomi-
nantly of deformed and metamorphosed volcanic arc fragments
with minor amounts of Precambrian and Palaeozoic rocks
thought to represent continental crust (Puchkov 1997, 2000;
Friberg et al. 2000b). The East Uralian zone was extensively
intruded by Carboniferous and Permian granitoids (Fershtater
et al. 1997; Bea et al. 1997, 2002), forming the ‘main
granite axis’ of the Uralides. The East Uralian zone is
juxtaposed against the Magnitogorsk – Tagil zone along the East
Magnitogorsk– Serov – Mauk fault system. The Trans-Uralian
zone is composed of Carboniferous volcano-plutonic complexes
(Puchkov 1997, 2000). Ophiolitic material and high-pressure
rocks have also been reported (Puchkov 2000). The contact
between the East Uralian and Trans-Uralian zones is exposed
only in the Southern Urals, where it is a serpentinite mélange.
Rocks that unequivocally belong to either the Kazakhstan or
Siberia plates do not crop out in the Uralides.
It is generally accepted that the tectonic evolution of the Uralides
(Hamilton 1970; Zonenshain et al. 1984, 1990; Puchkov 1997,
2000; Brown & Spadea 1999; Alvarez-Marron 2002; Bea et al.
2002) began with the development of intra-oceanic island arcs in
the palaeo-Uralian ocean, which were then accreted to the
margin of the East European Craton. Meanwhile, subcontinental
subduction is thought to have been taking place along the margin
of the Kazakhstan plate, forming Andean-type arcs. The Uralian
orogeny began in the latest Carboniferous as the Uralian ocean
basin closed and the Kazakhstan plate, followed by the Siberia
plate, collided with Baltica. Continent – continent collision contin-
ued until the Early Triassic. With the exception of minor Triassic
transtension, intra-plate volcanism, erosion and basin inversion
during the development of the West Siberian Basin, the Uralide
orogen has been preserved, relatively intact, since the Permian,
providing an ideal place to study Palaeozoic orogenic processes.
The aim of the paper is to summarize a number of the key tectonic
processes that formed the Southern and Middle Urals (Fig. 1b). It
begins with the earliest recognizable event and progresses through
time to the final crustal structure that is observable today. Emphasis
is placed on two transects, which are focused around two deep
seismic surveys, EUROPROBE’s Seismic Reflection Profiling
in the Urals (ESRU) survey in the Middle Urals and the multi-
component Urals Seismic Experiment and Integrated Studies
(URSEIS) survey in the Southern Urals (Fig. 1b).
Tectonic units and processes
Arc – continent collision (Mid-Devonian to
Early Carboniferous)
The Tagil and Magnitogorsk volcanic arcs developed during the
Silurian–Devonian (Tagil) and the Early Devonian– Early Carbon-
iferous (Magnitogorsk) in an intra-oceanic setting (Seravkin et al.
1992; Yazeva & Bochkarev 1996; Spadea et al. 1998, 2002;
Brown & Spadea 1999; Herrington et al. 2002) and began to
collide with the margin of Baltica in the late Mid-Devonian (Mag-
nitogorsk) and the Early Carboniferous (Tagil) (Puchkov 1997;
Brown & Spadea 1999). The Tagil arc, in the Middle Urals, is
made up of Silurian andesitic basalts and Lower Devonian tra-
chytes and volcaniclastic rocks, overlain by 2000 m of Lower

From: GEE , D. G. & STEPHENSON , R. A. (eds) 2006. European Lithosphere Dynamics.

Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 32, 407–419. 0435-4052/06/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2006. 407
408 D. BROWN ET AL.
and Middle Devonian limestone that, in the east, is intercalated with
calc-alkaline volcanic rocks (Antsigin et al. 1994; Yazeva & Boch-
karev 1994). The Tagil arc has been deformed and folded into an
open synformal structure (e.g. Bashta et al. 1990; Ayarza et al.
2000b) and has been metamorphosed to lower greenschist facies.
By far the best preserved and exposed, and therefore the most
studied of the Uralide arcs, is the Magnitogorsk arc in the Southern
Urals. It is composed of Emsian boninite-bearing arc-tholeiites in
the forearc region, followed by Emsian to Givetian arc-tholeiite
to calc-alkaline volcanic rocks of the Irendyk volcanic front; all
of which display a clear intra-oceanic island arc signature
(Fig. 2a; Seravkin et al. 1992; Spadea et al. 1998, 2002; Brown
& Spadea 1999; Herrington et al. 2002). These volcanic units
form the basement on which up to 5000 m of Frasnian- to
Famennian-age forearc basin volcaniclastic sediments were
deposited (Fig. 2a; Maslov et al. 1993; Brown et al. 2001).
Lower Carboniferous shallow-water carbonates and, locally,
basalt– rhyolite volcanic rocks unconformably overlie the arc
edifice. Locally, Lower Carboniferous granitoids intrude the
arc. Deformation in the Magnitogorsk volcanic arc is low, with
only minor open folding and thrusting (Brown et al. 2001). The
metamorphic grade barely exceeds sea-floor metamorphism.
In the Southern Urals, a well-preserved accretionary complex
developed during the Magnitogorsk arc– continent collision
(Figs 1b and 2b) (e.g. Bastida et al. 1997; Brown et al. 1998;
Fig. 1. (a) Map showing the zones of
the Urals and its geographical divisions
from north to south. The area discussed in
this paper is indicated by the box.
(b) Geological map of the Southern
and part of the Middle Urals. The legend
shows the disposition of the various
tectonic units discussed in this paper. The
locations of the cross-sections in Figures
2 and 5 are shown, as is the location of
Figure 6 and the ESRU and URSEIS
seismic profiles.
Brown & Spadea 1999; Alvarez-Marron et al. 2000). The accre-
tionary complex is composed of Silurian to Middle Devonian con-
tinental slope and platform sedimentary rocks (Suvanyak
Complex) that were detached from the East European Craton,
and were overthrust by c. 5 km of late Frasnian and Famennian
syncollisional volcaniclastic turbidites (Zilair nappe) sourced pre-
dominantly from the accretionary complex to the east with minor
input from the Magnitogorsk arc (e.g. Puchkov 1997; Brown et al.
1998; Brown & Spadea 1999; Alvarez-Marron et al. 2000; Willner
et al. 2002) (Figs 1b and 2b). These units are flanked to the east by
eclogite- and blueschist-bearing gneisses of the Maksutovo
Complex that record a peak metamorphic pressure and tempera-
ture of 20 + 4 kbar and 550 + 50 8C (Beane et al. 1995; Hetzel
et al. 1998; Schulte & Blümel 1999), and a peak metamorphic
age of c. 380– 370 Ma (Fig. 2c; Matte et al. 1993; Lennykh
et al. 1995; Beane & Connelly 2000; Glodny et al. 2002).
Recently, microdiamond aggregates have been described from
the Maksutovo Complex, suggesting that even higher pressures
were achieved than those recorded by the metamorphic mineral
assemblages (Bostick et al. 2003). The highest structural level
of the accretionary complex is the Sakmara Allochthon in the
south and the Kraka lherzolite massif in the north. The accretion-
ary complex is at present sutured to the Magnitogorsk arc along
the east-dipping Main Uralian fault zone, a mélange that contains
several kilometre-scale ultramafic fragments, one of which records
 TECTONICS IN SOUTHERN AND MIDDLE URALS
metamorphism under mantle conditions (Savelieva & Nesbitt
1996; Savelieva et al. 1997, 2002; Scarrow et al. 1999).
The geochemistry of the Magnitogorsk arc volcanic rocks
(Spadea et al. 1998, 2002; Herrington et al. 2002), the structure
of the accretionary complex and its forearc (Brown et al. 1998,
2001; Alvarez-Marron et al. 2000), the high-pressure rocks
beneath and along the suture zone (e.g. Hetzel et al. 1998;
Hetzel 1999; Beane & Connelly 2000; Brown et al. 2000), and
the ophiolitic, mafic and ultramafic material (Savelieva et al.
1997, 2002; Scarrow et al. 1999) show that the Palaeozoic tectonic
processes that went into its formation can be favourably compared
with those in currently active settings such as the west Pacific
(Fig. 3a; Puchkov 1997; Brown et al. 1998; Brown & Spadea
1999; Herrington et al. 2002; Spadea et al. 2002). For example,
boninitic lavas found in the oldest arc volcanic units provide a
geodynamic marker that records the initiation of intra-oceanic
subduction and the early development of the arc (Spadea et al.
1998; Brown & Spadea 1999). High-pressure rocks along the
backstop of the accretionary complex were in part derived from
continental margin material (Hetzel 1999), and the Mid-Devonian
age of the high-pressure metamorphism provides a constraint for
determining the timing of the entry of the continental crust into
the subduction zone (Brown et al. 1998). The pressure,
409
Fig. 2. (a) Geochemical and isotope data
for Magnitogorsk extrusive rocks. Plots
of Emsian age-corrected Nd and Sr isotope
ratios for Baimak–Buribai, Irendyk
and Karamalytash formations show
depleted mantle sources and secondary
radiogenic Sr enrichment. Th/Yb
v. Ta/Yb plot shows mostly intraoceanic
arc affinities. A stratigraphic column
for forearc basin stratigraphy is also shown.
After Brown & Spadea (1999).
(b) Upper crustal cross-section across the
Magnitogorsk forearc and the
accretionary complex showing the
structural architecture of the arc–continent
collision zone in the Southern Urals (after
Alvarez-Marron et al. 2000). The location of
the section is shown in (a). (c) Radiometric
age determinations from the Mindyak and
Maksutovo complexes and a P–T path of
the lower unit of the Maksutovo Complex.
Data are taken from the sources discussed
in the text. The upper path is for a
garnet–mica schist and the lower path for
an eclogite. The open arrows indicate a
generalized retrograde path.
temperature and thermochronology of the Maksutovo Complex
and other high-pressure rocks along the arc – continent suture
provide evidence for the flux of material in the subduction zone
channel during its evolution (Fig. 3b; Brown et al. 2000). The sedi-
ments overlying the volcanic arc record (near) surface processes
such a growth folding (Brown et al. 1998, 2001; Alvarez-Marron
et al. 2000). The widespread occurrence of debris flows within the
Late Devonian Zilair formation is thought to represent seismic
events (seismites), and may be related to the arrival of the full thick-
ness of the continental crust at the subduction zone (Brown et al.
2001). The accretionary complex was subsequently reworked
during the formation of the foreland fold and thrust belt (see below).
Subduction beneath the Kazakhstan plate (Late Devonian
to Late Carboniferous)
To date, little is known about what happened along the margin of
the Kazakhstan plate prior to or during its collision with Baltica, as
no rocks that can be unequivocally assigned to its plate margin
have been recognized in the Uralides. Nevertheless, some recent
studies suggest the presence of a continental volcanic arc that
may have developed on the active margin of the Kazakhstan
410 D. BROWN ET AL.

Fig. 3. (a) The early convergent history in the Southern Urals is marked by the generation of boninite-bearing arc-tholeiites in the Magnitogorsk forearc (T1),
followed by arc-tholeiite to calc-alkaline volcanism. With the entry of the East European Craton continental crust into the subduction zone, volcanism waned and stopped,
and high-pressure metamorphism of its leading edge took place (T2). The arrival of the full thickness of the continental crust at the subduction zone is marked by
increased sedimentation in the forearc basin and deposition of arc-derived volcaniclastic turbidites across the subducting slab (T3). These, together with offscraped
continental material, the exhumed high-pressure rocks, and a lherzolite massif, formed an accretionary wedge. A broad mélange zone containing ultramafic
fragments separates the forearc basement from the accretionary wedge, and marks the damage zone that developed along the backstop region. From Brown &
Spadea (1999). (b) T1: during the Early Devonian suprasubduction-zone material was subducted to upper mantle depths. T2: by the end of the Early Devonian,
when the East European Craton appears at the subduction zone, steady-state intra-oceanic subduction was under way. Geotherms are from van den Beukel (1992).
T3: with the entrance of the East European Craton into the subduction zone the thermal regime would have departed from steady state. Geotherms are from
van den Beukel (1992) for a continental heat flow of 70 mW m22. The dotted line indicates van den Beukel’s continental crust, whereas we have chosen to show
a thinned continental crust (dark grey). The lowest frame shows an enlargement of the area shown in the box in T3. When the downgoing slab had reached a
depth of 50– 70 km, the Proterozoic sediments with a quartz rheology were detached, interacted with the mantle wedge, and the exhumation history began.

plate. In particular, data from granitoids in the East Uralian zone
point in this direction (Bea et al. 2002).
A number of Uralide granitoids formed in what is thought to be
two subduction settings from the Late Devonian to Late Carbonifer-
ous (Fig. 4; Bea et al. 1997, 2002; Montero et al. 2000). The first
subduction-related magmatism occurred from about 370 Ma to
350 Ma, and is found in the eastern sector of the East Uralian
zone. Bea et al. (2002) interpreted this phase of magmatism to
have been related to an east-dipping subduction zone located to
the east of the accreted Magnitogorsk arc, and to have produced
I-type granitoids such as those of the Chelyabynsk and the Chernor-
echensk batholiths. An older continental component in these grani-
toids can be interpreted to be the result of their formation on the
continental margin of the Kazakhstan continent (Bea et al. 2002).
A second phase of subduction magmatism occurred from about
335 Ma to 315 Ma, and is found in the western part of the East
Uralian zone, between 558N and 588N (Bea et al. 2002). Bea
et al. (2002) have interpreted this phase to have been related to a sub-
duction zone located to the east of the accreted Tagil arc, and that
dipped eastward underneath the older continental arc. This subduc-
tion event produced batholiths composed of I- and M-type granitoids
with little, if any, continental component. Magmatic activity directly
related to subduction ended before the Permian.
Friberg et al. (2000b) have described mafic to felsic gneisses of
largely Silurian and Devonian age (note, however, that there are
large errors on the age determinations) and volcano-sedimentary
rocks in the East Uralian zone that have been interpreted to rep-
resent a volcanic arc complex. It is into this arc complex that
the above-discussed granitoids intrude, suggesting that the
gneisses may be a deep, metamorphosed part of the arc. In the
 TECTONICS IN SOUTHERN AND MIDDLE URALS 411

Fig. 4. (a) Schematic map of the Southern and Middle Urals, outlining the late orogenic strike-slip fault system and the location of subduction-type granitoids.
(b) Continental-crust normalized REE plots of Early Carboniferous subduction-related granitoids (from Bea et al. 2002). These subduction granites are enriched in
trace elements of continental affinity such as Rb, Ba, Th, U and Li, suggesting that the protolith was composed of oceanic materials plus a significant fraction of old
crustal materials. (c) 1Nd(t) v. 1Sr(t) of Uralide subduction granitoids (from Bea et al. 2002). Neither 87Sr/86Sr(t) nor 143Nd/144Nd(t) values bear any relation to the
age, but depend on the geographical longitude. The Early Carboniferous batholiths in the east, at Chelyabinsk and Chernorechensk, are composed of granitoids with
significantly higher 87Sr/86Sr(t) but lower 143Nd/144Nd(t) than similar rocks of the Late Carboniferous batholiths in the west, which have identical (in some cases
more primitive) 87Sr/86Sr(t) and only slightly lower 143Nd/144Nd(t) compared with oceanic plagiogranites.

Southern Urals, however, the East Uralian zone is primarily com-
posed of amphibolite-facies metapelites that are thought to rep-
resent continental crust (e.g. Puchkov 1997, 2000). The presence
of Early Carboniferous subduction-related granitoids in this zone
may indicate that the continental crust was part of the Kazakhstan
plate at some stage. Finally, the eastern parts of the URSEIS and
ESRU seismic reflection profiles image west-dipping reflectivity
throughout the crust of the Trans-Uralian zone which has
been interpreted to possibly represent east-vergent structures
related to imbrication along the margin of the Kazakhstan plate
(Tryggvason et al. 2001; Brown et al. 2002).
The foreland fold and thrust belt (Late Carboniferous
to Early Triassic)
The foreland fold and thrust belt of the Middle and Southern Urals
(which includes the Pre-Uralian, West Uralian and Central Uralian
zones) contains syntectonic Late Carboniferous to Early Triassic
sediments of the foreland basin, Palaeozoic platform and slope
sediments, the Archaean and Proterozoic basement of Baltica,
and the arc –continent collision accretionary complex. The fore-
land fold and thrust belt developed from the Late Carboniferous
to the Late Permian– Early Triassic (Kamaletdinov 1974; Brown
et al. 1997b; Puchkov 1997). The foreland fold and thrust belt
between c. 568N and 598N is a narrow, north– south-trending,
west-verging basement-involved thrust stack measuring c. 50 –
75 km in width from the Main Uralian fault (the arc– continent
suture) to the frontal folds (Fig. 1). In this area it is flanked to
the east by the Precambrian-cored Kvarkush Anticline, and to
the west by the foreland basin (Fig. 1). Balanced cross-sections
and the amount of shortening have not been determined for this
part of the orogen, and farther discussion of it is beyond the
scope of this paper. By far the best studied area of the foreland
fold and thrust belt is in the Southern Urals (from c. 568N to
518N), where its architecture has often been compared with that
of other thrust belts from around the world, especially that of
the Appalachians (e.g. Kamaletdinov 1974; Kruse & McNutt
1988; Rodgers 1990). However, recent structural mapping and
seismic reflection data have shown the southern Uralides to be
different (see below) (Brown et al. 1997b, 1998, 1999;
Perez-Estaun et al. 1997; Giese et al. 1999; Alvarez-Marron
2000; Alvarez-Marron et al. 2002).
Between c. 568N and 538N, the Southern Urals foreland fold and
thrust belt is a c. 150 km wide, west-vergent thrust wedge made up of
Precambrian basement in the Bashkirian Anticline, the accretionary
complex, Palaeozoic platform and foreland basin sediments (Figs 1
and 5). Palaeozoic shortening in this part of the thrust belt is c. 20 km
or less (Fig. 5a and b; Brown et al. 1996, 1997b, 1999; Perez-Estaun
et al. 1997; Giese et al. 1999). South of 538N the foreland fold and
412 D. BROWN ET AL.

Fig. 5. (a) Balanced and restored cross-section across the central Bashkirian Anticline (after Perez-Estaun et al. 1997). The calculated shortening is c. 20 km. The
location is shown in Figure 1. (b) Balanced and restored cross-section across the southern Bashkirian Anticline (after Brown et al. 1997b). The calculated shortening
is c. 17 km. The location is shown in Figure 1b. (c) Surface slope v. basal dip angle relationships for critical wedges. Calculation of the surface slope of section 3
using the equation a ¼ arctan(tan b/H2S) 2 b (where a is the surface slope, b is the basal slope and H is shortening) yields an a value of 1.18, for a taper
(t ¼ a þ b) of 4.18. This value of t requires only a small amount of material to have been eroded from the frontal part of the belt, and is in agreement with
fission-track data (Seward et al. 1997; 2002). It also yields realistic values for average strain (AR ¼ (tan t/tan b)) of 1.3 : 1, and would place the section within
the subcritical field. (See Brown et al. (1997a) for further explanation).
 TECTONICS IN SOUTHERN AND MIDDLE URALS 413

thrust belt is dominated by the Southern Urals accretionary complex
(Brown et al. 1998, 2004; Alvarez-Marron et al. 2000; Fig. 1b).
Cross-sections by Brown et al. (2004) indicate a very different struc-
tural style from that of the thrust belt to the north, in the Bashkirian
Anticline, although the amount of shortening in this part of the thrust
belt also appears to be small.
The Uralides foreland fold and thrust belt exhibits a number of
features that differentiate it from other Palaeozoic thrust belts.
For example, the amount of shortening is very small, with vertical
displacement along faults nearly equal to horizontal displacement
(Brown et al. 1997b; Perez-Estaun et al. 1997). Mechanically, the
thrust belt may never have reached a critical taper, and developed
as a subcritical wedge (Fig. 5c; Brown et al. 1997a). The amount of
basement involvement is high, and in many cases thrusting appears
to have been localized by reactivation of two sets of pre-existing
structures in the basement (Brown et al. 1997b, 1999; Perez-Estaun
et al. 1997; Giese et al. 1999). Reactivation of structures parallel to
the developing Uralide structural grain resulted in the incorpor-
ation of crystalline thrust sheets into the thrust belt at an early
stage in its development, whereas those at a high angle to the
Uralide structural grain influenced the location and development
of lateral structures that can explain along-strike structural
changes (Fig. 6; Perez-Estaun et al. 1997; Brown et al. 1999).
The small amount of shortening, together with the localization of
thrusts along pre-existing structures, suggests that the basal detach-
ment may also be controlled by a Precambrian feature within the
basement, or is absent completely.
Late orogenic strike-slip faulting and granitoid
emplacement (Late Carboniferous to Early Triassic)
The internal part of the Uralides is made up of a late orogenic
strike-slip fault system (e.g. Echtler et al. 1997; Friberg et al.
2002; Hetzel & Glodny 2002) that extends for more than
700 km along the Uralides before it disappears beneath Mesozoic
cover in the south and north (Fig. 7a). Throughout much of the
Middle and Southern Urals this strike-slip fault system corre-
sponds to the East Uralian zone, although the currently defined
Main Uralian fault in the Middle Urals appears to be its western
limit there (Ayarza et al. 2000a; Brown et al. 2002). Dating on
one segment of the strike-slip fault system indicates a Late
Permian to Early Triassic age (247– 240 Ma) for the development
of fault-related mylonites (Hetzel & Glodny 2002), and latest Car-
boniferous (305– 291 Ma) ages for associated metamorphic rocks
(Echtler et al. 1997; Eide et al. 1997).
The late orogenic strike-slip fault system was extensively
intruded by latest Carboniferous to Permian granitoids, first in
the southern part (292– 280 Ma) and then in the northern part
(270–250 Ma; Fig. 7; Bea et al. 1997, 2002, 2006; Montero
et al. 2000). In general, the granitoids were emplaced at a high
level in the crust, at c. 12– 15 km depth (Fershtater et al. 1997).
These granitoids have a high SiO2 content, and are mildly peralu-
minous, with elevated Rb, Cs, Ba, Th and U contents (Fig. 7b),
but with an unusually primitive Sr and Nd isotopic composi-
tion (Fig. 7c) (Bea et al. 1997 2002; Fershtater et al. 1997;

Fig. 6. (a) Geological map of the northern Bashkirian Anticline (location is shown in Fig. 1b). (b) Simplified, balanced and restored cross-sections across the northwestern
part of the Bashkirian Anticline (locations are shown in (a)) (after Brown et al. 1999). Comparing the map and the cross-sections, it should be noted how the
Yurmatu anticline changes abruptly along strike into the Inzer syncline. Such a change is strongly indicative of a lateral structure (the Inzer lateral ramp in (a)).
Also, the Karatau fault is an excellent example of a lateral structure across which displacement is transferred toward the foreland. (c) Schematic block diagram
showing the relationships between hanging-wall structures and basement topography (after Brown et al. 1999). It should be noted that, because of problems in the
projection, the Karatau fault and the Inzer lateral ramp have not been drawn in their true orientation relative to the transport direction; in reality they are somewhat
oblique to the orientation shown.
414 D. BROWN ET AL.

Fig. 7. (a) Schematic map of the Southern and Middle Urals outlining the late orogenic strike-slip fault system and the location of continental-type granitoids.
(b) Continental-crust normalized trace element and REE plots of Permian collision-related granitoids. A, gabbros; , diorites; , granodiorites; open crosses, granites.
For Dzhabyk, additionally, crossed squares and open circles represent the Mochagi and Rodnichki quartz monzonites, respectively (from Bea et al. 2002). The
average Permian granite of the Uralides has a trace element composition characteristic of continental granites, in which some trace element anomalies characteristic
of arc magmas, although attenuated, are still recognizable. The only materials able to produce partial melts with this conjunction of mantle-like isotope and
crust-like chemical composition are subduction-related rocks with a short crustal residence time of a few tens of million years. (c) 1Nd(t) v. 1Sr(t) of Uralide
continental granitoids (from Bea et al. 2002). The isotopic signature of the Permian continental-type granitoids is very primitive, with 87Sr/86Sr(t) and
143
Nd/144Nd(t) values that match the subduction granites. This feature excludes continental materials older than Silurian as a possible protolith.

Montero et al. 2000; Gerdes et al. 2002, pp. 3–19). Bea et al. (2002)
interpreted this to have resulted from recycling of the older conti-
nental arc material that was deeply buried after the collision; they
also interpreted Permian crustal melting to be the result of a combi-
nation of radiogenic heating of an overthickened sialic crust, from
local underplating by mafic magmas, and from local accumulation
of heat and fluids related to the oblique, crustal-scale strike-slip
shear zones that finally assembled the Uralides.
The existence of a late orogenic strike-slip fault system along the
entire interior of the Uralides suggests that widespread mass trans-
fer took place along the axis of the orogen during the late stages of
its tectonic evolution. Estimates of displacement along some
strands of this fault system range from a few tens of kilometres
to more than 100 km (Ayarza et al. 2000a; Hetzel & Glodny
2002). The presence of high-grade metamorphic rocks near the
surface at the time of granitoid generation suggests extensive exhu-
mation of material from the lower crust and its emplacement into
the upper crust. The widespread melting of deep crustal material
and its subsequent emplacement in the upper crust is also indica-
tive of mass transfer. Both these processes are also suggestive of
heat transfer from the lower crust, as hot material in the form of
granulites and melt ascends and is emplaced in the colder upper
crust. The evolution of the melt emplacement from south to
north is also suggestive either of heat transfer along strike in the
orogen, or differential heating from south to north. Much work is
needed on the structure, kinematics, granitoids, and geochronology
of this important strike-slip fault system before it is possible to
fully understand its relevance to orogen-parallel mass and heat
transfer during the late stages of the Uralian orogeny.
Final crustal structure (Late Triassic to Recent)
The ESRU (Juhlin et al. 1998; Fig. 8a), URSEIS (Berzin et al.
1996; Fig. 8b), and reprocessed Russian seismic reflection or
refraction surveys provide significant new data for interpreting
the crustal structure of the Uralides (Steer et al. 1995, 1998;
Carbonell et al. 1996, 1998, 2000; Echtler et al. 1996; Knapp
et al. 1996; Friberg et al. 2000a, 2002; Brown et al. 2002). In
the Southern (URSEIS) and Middle (ESRU) Urals the East
European Craton crust thickens eastward from c. 40 km to c.
48 km, and is imaged by subhorizontal to east-dipping reflectivity
that can be related to its Palaeozoic and older evolution (Fig. 8).
The suture zone between Baltica and the accreted terranes, the
Main Uralian fault, is poorly imaged in the URSEIS section, but
in the ESRU section it is imaged as a zone of east-dipping reflec-
tivity that extends from the surface into the middle crust; it marks
an abrupt change to weakly subhorizontal reflectivity in the Tagil
 TECTONICS IN SOUTHERN AND MIDDLE URALS 415

Fig. 8. (a) Interpreted line drawings of the coherency filtered, depth-migrated ESRU data (after Brown et al. 2002). (See Fig. 1b for location). The main suture
zones that bind the tectonic units together have been interpreted to end at the Moho. Their exact location at depth cannot be unambiguously interpreted, and has therefore
been shown as a zone in which they may possibly occur. The location of the UWARS wide-angle Moho is from Juhlin et al. (1998). (b) Interpreted line drawings
of the coherency filtered, depth-migrated URSEIS vibroseis data (after Tryggvason et al. 2001). (See Fig. 1b for location). The main suture zones that bind the
tectonic units together have been interpreted to end at the Moho. Their exact location at depth cannot be unambiguously interpreted, and has therefore been shown
as a zone in which they may possibly occur. The location of the URSEIS explosion-source reflection Moho (Steer et al. 1998) and the refraction Moho
(Carbonell et al. 1998) are shown along with the Moho imaged in this dataset.

arc (e.g. Ayarza et al. 2000a). East of the Main Uralian fault, the
Magnitogorsk (Southern Urals) and the Tagil (Middle Urals) vol-
canic arcs display moderate to weak upper crustal reflectivity, and
diffuse middle to lower crustal reflectivity. The Moho beneath
both arc complexes is poorly imaged in the reflection data, but
based on refraction data is interpreted to be at 50– 55 km depth
(Fig. 8; Thouvenot et al. 1995; Juhlin et al. 1996; Carbonell
et al. 1998). East of the arc complexes, the wide zone of
anastomosing strike-slip faulting and granitoids of the East
Uralian zone is imaged in the seismic sections as clouds of
diffuse reflectivity interspersed with, or cut by sharp, predomi-
nantly west-dipping reflections. In the Southern and Middle
Urals, west-dipping reflectivity of the Trans-Uralian zone
extends from the middle crust into the lower crust, where it
appears to merge with the Moho (Echtler et al. 1996; Knapp
et al. 1996; Steer et al. 1998; Friberg et al. 2000a, 2002; Brown
et al. 2002). The URSEIS experiment imaged a number of
sub-Moho reflections (Knapp et al. 1996; Steer et al. 1998) that
may represent deformation scars related to the Uralian orogeny.
The overall seismic reflection pattern of the Uralide crust as
imaged by the URSEIS and ESRU data is bivergent, perhaps
representing the original collision-related crustal architecture
(Fig. 9). With the exception of possible minor extensional features
in the eastern part of the ESRU section (Friberg et al. 2002), there

Fig. 9. Generalized crustal-scale structural cross-section of the Southern Urals along the URSEIS profile. The location of the Moho is from Carbonell et al. (1998)
and Steer et al. (1998).
416 D. BROWN ET AL.
is little evidence in the seismic reflection fabric for large-scale
extensional collapse of the Uralides. The URSEIS and ESRU sec-
tions indicate that crustal thickness and Moho topography change
somewhat between the Southern and Middle Urals, although the
crustal root can be seen to extend along the western volcanic
axis of the orogen. Recently, Diaconescu & Knapp (2002)
argued that the formation of eclogite in the root zone may have
led to an isostatically balanced system that ultimately preserved
the Uralide structure. However, petrophysical modelling of the
Uralide crust along the URSEIS transect indicates that the root
zone is made up of mafic garnet granulite and not eclogite
(Scarrow et al. 2002; Brown et al. 2003), so perhaps other as
yet unidentified processes have been active. The Uralide orogen
records a long and complex subduction –accretion history (e.g.
arc– continent collision along the margin of Baltica, Andean-type
subduction beneath Kazakhstan) prior to the final collision that
gave it its final bivergent architecture. The complex late orogenic
history, which involved extensive wrench faulting accompanied
by widespread melt generation and granitoid emplacement in the
interior of the orogen (see above), probably significantly over-
printed and/or reworked much of the subduction- and accretion-
related tectonic fabric, giving this zone its varied and complex
reflection seismic character. For example, orogen-parallel mass
transport of material, as outlined above, may account for the sub-
horizontal reflectivity in the lower crust imaged in the ESRU
seismic reflection profile (Koyi et al. 1999).
Fig. 10. Schematic plate model for the
Southern Urals, outlining the key tectonic
processes over time that went into the
building of the Uralides.
Conclusions
The Uralide orogen of Russia was one of the main orogens
built during the Palaeozoic assembly of Pangaea. Unlike the
Variscide – Appalachian orogenic system, which was largely
rifted apart by the opening of the Atlantic Ocean or extensively
overprinted by post-orogenic processes, the Uralides have been
preserved intact, providing an opportunity to study the tectonic
processes that went into forming this Palaeozoic orogen.
Clearly, subduction and accretion processes dominated during
the Mid-Devonian to Early Carboniferous, as intra-oceanic
island arcs collided with Baltica. During the same time period,
we interpret that Andean-type continental arc(s) were forming
on the margin of Kazakhstan (Fig. 10). The Southern Urals is of
particular importance in the subduction and accretion history of
the Uralides because it contains one of the best preserved
examples of an arc – continent collision in any Palaeozoic
orogen. The state of preservation and the level of exposure
allow this arc– continent collision to be compared in detail with
those that are currently active around the world, providing unpre-
cedented insight into Palaeozoic tectonic processes. With the
closure of the Uralian ocean, deformation began in the western
Uralides foreland fold and thrust belt and, concomitantly, depo-
sition of the foreland basin began (Fig. 10). The Uralides foreland
fold and thrust belt is distinct from most other thrust belts, in par-
ticular in the amount of shortening, the amount of basement
 TECTONICS IN SOUTHERN AND MIDDLE URALS
involvement, and the along-strike structural changes. Why the
shortening is so small is not clear. Perhaps the far-field stress
induced by a highly oblique continent –continent collision was
too small to imbricate the dense crust of the island arc systems
that formed the margin at that time, and merely resulted in
the reactivation of earlier structures in the basement. Whatever
the reason, the small amount of shortening allows the relationship
between the pre-existing basement structures and changes in struc-
tural style to be correlated. At the same time as the foreland fold
and thrust belt was forming, the interior part of the orogen under-
went extensive strike-slip faulting, metamorphism, melt gener-
ation and emplacement, and exhumation (Fig. 10). Finally, the
bivergent crustal structure of the Southern and Middle Urals
reflects the crustal stacking that occurred on both sides of
the orogen during the subduction and accretion stage and during
the continent– continent collision stage.
References
ALVAREZ -MARRON , J. 2002. Tectonic processes during collisional oro-
genesis from comparison of the Southern Urals with the Central Var-
iscides. In: BROWN , D., JUHLIN , C. & PUCHKOV , V. (eds) Mountain
Building in the Uralides: Pangea to Present. Geophysical Mono-
graphs, American Geophysical Union, 132, 83–100.
ALVAREZ -MARRON , J., BROWN , D., PEREZ -ESTAUN , A., PUCHKOV , V. &
GOROZHANINA , Y. 2000. Accretionary complex structure and kin-
ematics during Paleozoic arc –continent collision in the Southern
Urals. Tectonophysics, 325, 175–191.
ANTSIGIN , N. I., ZOLOEV , K. K., KLUZINA , M. L., ET AL. 1994. Descrip-
tions of the stratigraphic schemes of the Urals. Urals Stratigraphic
Committee, Ekaterinburg [in Russian].
AYARZA , P., BROWN , D., ALVAREZ -MARRÓN , J. & JUHLIN , C. 2000a.
Contrasting tectonic history of the arc– continent suture in the
Southern and Middle Urals: implications for the evolution of the
orogen. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 157, 1065 –1076.
AYARZA , P., JUHLIN , C., BROWN , D., ET AL. 2000b. Integrated geological
and geophysical studies in the SG4 borehole area (Tagil volcanic
arc—Middle Urals): location of seismic reflectors and source of the
reflectivity. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 21333 –21352.
BASHTA , E. G., KUSHKOV , V. N., SHATORNAYA , L. N., GLUSHKOV , A. N.
& SERGEEV , V. A. 1990. First results from the drilling and investi-
gations of the Urals superdeep borehole (SG-4). Mineral Geology
SSSR, 19 –30 [in Russian].
BASTIDA , F., ALLER , J., PUCHKOV , V. N., JUHLIN , C. & OSLIANSKI , A.
1997. A cross section through the Zilair Unit (southern Urals). Tec-
tonophysics, 276, 253–264.
BEA , F., FERSHTATER , G., MONTERO , P., SMIRNOV , V. & ZIN’KOVA , E.
1997. Generation and evolution of subduction-related batholiths
from the central Urals: constraints on the P –T history of the
Uralian orogen. Tectonophysics, 276, 103–116.
BEA , F., FERSHTATER , G. & MONTERO , P. 2002. Granitoids of the Urals:
implications for the evolution of the orogen. In: BROWN , D., JUHLIN ,
C. & PUCHKOV , V. (eds) Mountain Building in the Uralides: Pangea
to Present. Geophysical Monographs, American Geophysical Union,
132, 211–232.
BEA , F., FERSHTATER , G. B., MONTERO , P., SMIRNOV , V. N. & MOLINA ,
J. F. 2005. Deformation-driven differentiation of granitic magma: the
Stepninsk pluton of the Uralides, Russia. Lithos, 81, 209–233.
BEANE , R. J. & CONNELLY , J. H. 2000. 40Ar/39Ar, U –Pb and Sm–Nd
constraints on the timing of metamorphic events in the Maksyutov
Complex, southern Urals, Ural Mountains. Journal of the Geological
Society, London, 157, 811– 822.
BEANE , R. J., LIOU , J. G., COLEMAN , R. G. & LEECH , M. L. 1995. Petrol-
ogy and retrograde P –T path for eclogites of the Maksyutov
Complex, southern Urals Mountains, Russia. Island Arc, 4, 254–266.
BERZIN , R., ONCKEN , O., KNAPP , J. H., PEREZ -ESTAUN , A., HISMATULIN ,
T., YUNUSOV , N. & LIPILIN , A. 1996. Orogenic evolution of the Ural
Mountains: results from an integrated seismic experiment. Science,
274, 220–221.
417
BOSTICK , B., JONES , R. E., ERNST , W. G., CHEN , C., LEECH , M. L. &
BEANE , R. J. 2003. Low-temperature microdiamond aggregates in
the Maksyutov metamorphic complex, south Ural Mountains,
Russia. American Mineralogist, 88, 1709 –1717.
BROWN , D. & SPADEA , P. 1999. Processes of forearc and accretionary
complex formation during arc–continent collision in the Southern
Ural Mountains. Geology, 27, 649–652.
BROWN , D., ALVAREZ -MARRON , J. & PEREZ -ESTAUN , A. 1997a. Preser-
vation of a subcritical wedge in the south Urals foreland thrust and
fold belt. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 154, 593–596.
BROWN , D., ALVAREZ -MARRON , J., PEREZ -ESTAUN , A., GOROZHANINA ,
Y., BARYSHEV , V. & PUCHKOV , V. 1997b. Geometric and kinematic
evolution of the foreland thrust and fold belt in the Southern Urals.
Tectonics, 16, 551– 562.
BROWN , D., JUHLIN , C., ALVAREZ -MARRON , J., PEREZ -ESTAUN , A. &
OSLIANSKI , A. 1998. Crustal-scale structure and evolution of an
arc –continent collision zone in the Southern Urals, Russia. Tec-
tonics, 17, 158–171.
BROWN , D., ALVAREZ -MARRON , J., PEREZ -ESTAUN , A., PUCHKOV , V. &
AYALA , C. 1999. Basement influence on foreland thrust and fold belt
development: an example from the southern Urals. Tectonophysics,
308, 459–472.
BROWN , D., HETZEL , R. & SCARROW , J. H. 2000. Tracking arc–continent
collision subduction zone processes from high pressure rocks in the
Southern Urals. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 157,
901– 904.
BROWN , D., ALVAREZ -MARRON , J., PEREZ -ESTAUN , A., PUCHKOV , V.,
AYARZA , P. & GOROZHANINA , Y. 2001. Structure and evolution of
the Magnitogorsk forearc basin: identifying upper crustal processes
during arc–continent collision in the Southern Urals. Tectonics, 20,
364– 375.
BROWN , D., JUHLIN , C., TRYGGVASON , A., ET AL. 2002. The crustal archi-
tecture of the Southern and Middle Urals from the URSEIS, ESRU,
and Alapaev reflection seismic surveys. In: BROWN , D., JUHLIN , C. &
PUCHKOV , V. (eds) Mountain Building in the Uralides: Pangea to
Present. Geophysical Monographs, American Geophysical Union,
132, 33–48.
BROWN , D., CARBONELL , R., KUKKONEN , I., AYALA , C. &
GOLOVONOVA , I. 2003. Composition of the Uralide crust from
seismic velocities (Vp and Vs), heat flow, gravity, and magnetic
data. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 210, 333–349.
BROWN , D., ALVAREZ -MARRON , J., PEREZ -ESTAUN , GOROZHANINA , Y.
& PUCHKOV , V. 2004. The structure of the south Urals foreland
fold and thrust belt at the transition to the Precaspian Basin.
Journal of the Geological Society, London, 161, 813–822.
CARBONELL , R., PEREZ -ESTAÚN , A., GALLART , J. ET AL. 1996. A crustal
root beneath the Urals: wide-angle seismic evidence. Science, 274,
222– 224.
CARBONELL , R., LECERF , D., ITZIN , M., GALLART , J. & BROWN , D. 1998.
Mapping the Moho beneath the Southern Urals. Geophysical
Research Letters, 25, 4229 – 4233.
CARBONELL , R., GALLART , J., PEREZ -ESTAUN , A., ET AL. 2000. Seismic
wide-angle constraints on the crust of the southern Urals. Journal
of Geophysical Research, 105, 13755 –13777.
DIACONESCU , C. C. & KNAPP , J. H. 2002. Role of a phase-change Moho
in stabilization and preservation of the Southern Uralide Orogen,
Russia. In: BROWN , D., JUHLIN , C. & PUCHKOV , V. (eds) Mountain
Building in the Uralides: Pangea to Present. Geophysical Mono-
graphs, American Geophysical Union, 132, 67 –82.
ECHTLER , H. P., STILLER , M., STEINHOFF , F., ET AL. 1996. Preserved colli-
sional crustal architecture of the Southern Urals—Vibroseis
CMP-profiling. Science, 274, 224–226.
ECHTLER , H. P., IVANOV , K. S., RONKIN , Y. L., KARSTEN , L. A., HETZEL ,
R. & NOSKOV , A. G. 1997. The tectono-metamorphic evolution of
gneiss complexes in the Middle Urals, Russia: a reappraisal. Tectono-
physics, 276, 229– 251.
EIDE , E. A., ECHTLER , H. P., HETZEL , R. & IVANOV , K. 1997. Cooling age
diachroneity and Paleozoic orogenic processes in the Middle and
Southern Urals. Terra Nova, 9(Abstract Supplement 1), 119.
FERSHTATER , G. B., BEA , F., BORODINA , N. S. & MONTERO , P. 1988.
Lateral zonation, evolution, and geodynamic interpretation of
418 D. BROWN ET AL.
magmatism of the Urals: new petrological and geochemical data.
Petrology, 6, 409–433.
FERSHTATER , G. B., MONTERO , P., BORODINA , N. S., PUSHKAREV , E. V.,
SMIRNOV , V., ZIN’KOVA , E. & BEA , F. 1997. Uralian magmatism: an
overview. Tectonophysics, 276, 87–102.
FRIBERG , M., JUHLIN , C., GREEN , A. G., HORSTMEYER , H., ROTH , J.,
RYBALKA , A. & BLIZNETSOV , M. 2000a. Europrobe seismic reflec-
tion profiling across the eastern Middle Urals and West Siberian
Basin. Terra Nova, 12, 252–257.
FRIBERG , M., LARIONOV , A., PETROV , G. A. & GEE , D. G., 2000b.
Palaeozoic amphibolite– granulite facies magmatic complexes in
the hinterland of the Uralide Orogen. International Journal of
Earth Science, 89, 21–39.
FRIBERG , M., JUHLIN , C., BECKHOLMEN , M., PETROV , G. A. & GREEN ,
A. G. 2002. Paleozoic tectonic evolution of the Middle Urals in
light of the ESRU seismic experiments. Journal of the Geological
Society, London, 159, 295–306.
GERDES , A., MONTERO , P., BEA , F., FERSHTATER , G., BORODINA , N.,
OSIPOVA , T. & SHARDAKOVA , G. 2002. Peraluminous granites fre-
quently with mantle-like isotope compositions: the continental-type
Murzinka and Dzhabyk batholiths of the eastern Urals. International
Journal of Earth Science, 91, 1–17.
GIESE , U., GLASMACHER , U., KOZLOV , V. I., ET AL. 1999. Structural fra-
mework of the Bashkirian anticlinorium, SW Urals. Geologische
Rundschau, 87, 526–544.
GLODNY , J., BINGEN , B., AUSTRHEIM , H., MOLINA , J. F. & RUSIN , A.
2002. Precise eclogitization ages deduced from Rb/Sr mineral
systematics: the Maksyutov complex, Southern Urals, Russia.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 66, 1221 – 1235.
HAMILTON , W. 1970. The Uralides and the motion of the Russian and
Siberian platforms. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 81,
2553 –2576.
HERRINGTON , R. J., ARMSTRONG , R. N., ZAYKOV , V. V., MASLENNIKOV ,
V. V., TESSALINA , S. G., ORGEVAL , J.-J. & TAYLOR , R. N. A. 2002.
Massive sulfide deposits in the South Urals: geological setting within
the framework of the Uralide Orogen. In: BROWN , D., JUHLIN , C. &
PUCHKOV , V. (eds) Mountain Building in the Uralides: Pangea to
Present. Geophysical Monographs, American Geophysical Union,
132, 155– 182.
HETZEL , R. 1999. Geology and geodynamic evolution of the high-P/
low-T Maksyutov Complex, Southern Urals, Russia. Geologische
Rundschau, 87, 577–588.
HETZEL , R. & GLODNY , J. 2002. A crustal-scale, orogen parallel strike-
slip fault in the Middle Urals: age, magnitude of displacement, and
geodynamic significance. International Journal of Earth Science,
91, 231–245.
HETZEL , R., ECHTLER , H. P., SEIFERT , W., SCHULTE , B. A. & IVANOV ,
K. S. 1998. Subduction- and exhumation-related fabrics in the Paleo-
zoic high-pressure –low-temperature Maksyutov Complex, Antingan
area, southern Urals, Russia. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
110, 916– 930.
IVANOV , S. N., PERFILYEV , A. S., YEFIMOV , A. A., SMIRNOV , G. A.,
NECHEUKHIN , V. M. & FERSHTATER , G. B. 1975. Fundamental fea-
tures in the structure and evolution of the Urals. American Journal of
Science, 275, 107–130.
JUHLIN , C., KNAPP , J. H., KASHUBIN , S. & BLIZNETZOV , M. 1996. Crustal
evolution of the Middle Urals based on seismic reflection and refrac-
tion data. Tectonophysics, 26, 21–34.
JUHLIN , C., FRIBERG , M., ECHTLER , H., GREEN , A. G., ANSORGE , J.,
HISMATULIN , T. & RYBALKA , A. 1998. Crustal structure of the
Middle Urals: results from the (ESRU) Europrobe Seismic Reflection
Profiling in the Urals Experiments. Tectonics, 17, 710–725.
KAMALETDINOV , M. A. 1974. The Nappe Structures of the Urals. Nauka,
Moscow [in Russian].
KHAIN , V. E. 1985. Geology of the USSR; First Part, Old Cratons and
Paleozoic Fold Belts. Borntraeger, Stuttgart.
KNAPP , J. H., STEER , D. N., BROWN , L. D., ET AL. 1996. A
lithosphere-scale image of the Southern Urals from explosion-source
seismic reflection profiling in URSEIS ’95. Science, 274, 226– 228.
KOYI , H. A., MILNES , A. G., SCHMELING , H., TALBOT , C. J., JUHLIN , C. &
ZEYEN , H. 1999. Numerical models of ductile rebound of crustal
roots beneath mountain belts. Geophysical Journal International,
139, 556–562.
KRUSE , S. & MCNUTT , M. 1988. Compensation of Paleozoic orogens: a
comparison of the Urals to the Appalachians. Tectonophysics, 154,
1–17.
LENNYKH , V. I., VALISER , P. M., BEANE , R., LEECH , M. & ERNST , W. G.
1995. Petrotectonic evolution of the Makysutov complex, southern
Ural Mountains, Russia: implications for ultrahigh-pressure meta-
morphism. International Geology Review, 37, 584–600.
MASLOV , V. A., CHERKASOV , V. L., TISCHCHENKO , V. T., SMIRNOVA ,
A. I., ARTYUSHKOVA , O. V. & PAVLOV , V. V. 1993. On the stratigra-
phy and correlation of the middle Paleozoic complexes of the main
copper –pyritic areas of the Southern Urals. Ufimsky Nauchno
Tsentr, Ufa (in Russian).
MATTE , P., MALUSKI , H., CABY , R., NICOLAS , A., KEPEZHINSKAS , P. &
SOBOLEV , S. 1993. Geodynamic model and 39Ar/40Ar dating for
the generation and emplacement of the high pressure (HP) meta-
morphic rocks in SW Urals. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie de
Sciences, Série II, 317, 1667 –1674.
MONTERO , P., BEA , F., GERDES , A., ET AL. 2000. Single-zircon evapor-
ation ages and Rb– Sr dating of four major Variscan batholiths of
the Urals. A perspective on the timing of deformation and granite
generation. Tectonophysics, 317, 93–108.
PEREZ -ESTAUN , A., ALVAREZ -MARRON , J., BROWN , D., PUCHKOV , V.,
GOROZHANINA , Y. & BARYSHEV , V. 1997. Along-strike structural
variations in the foreland thrust and fold belt of the southern Urals.
Tectonophysics, 276, 265– 280.
PUCHKOV , V. N. 1997. Structure and geodynamics of the Uralian orogen.
In: BURG , J.-P. & FORD , M. (eds) Orogeny through Time. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 121, 201–236.
PUCHKOV , V. N. 2000. Paleogeodynamics of the central and southern
Urals. Ufa Pauria, Ufa (in Russian).
RODGERS , J. 1990. Fold-and-thrust belts in sedimentary rocks. Part 1:
Typical examples. American Journal of Science, 290, 321–359.
SAVELIEVA , G. N. & NESBITT , R. W. 1996. A synthesis of the strati-
graphic and tectonic setting of the Uralian ophiolites. Journal of
the Geological Society, London, 153, 525–537.
SAVELIEVA , G. N., SHARASKIN , A. Y., SAVELIEV , A. A., SPADEA , P. &
GAGGERO , L. 1997. Ophiolites of the Southern Uralides adjacent
to the East European continental margin. Tectonophysics, 276,
117–138.
SAVELIEVA , G. N., SHARASKIN , A. Y., SAVELIEV , A. A., SPADEA , P.,
PERTSEV , A. N. & BABARINA , I. I. 2002. Ophiolites and zoned
mafic –ultramafic massifs of the Urals: a comparative analysis and
some tectonic implications. In: BROWN , D., JUHLIN , C. &
PUCHKOV , V. (eds) Mountain Building in the Uralides: Pangea to
Present. Geophysical Monographs, American Geophysical Union,
132, 135–154.
SCARROW , J. H., SAVELIEVA , G. N., GLODNY , J., MONTERO , P., PERTSEV ,
A. N., CORTESOGNO , L. & GAGGERO , L. 1999. The Mindyak Palaeo-
zoic lherzolite ophiolite, Southern Urals: geochemistry and geochro-
nology. Ofioliti, 24, 239–246.
SCARROW , J., AYALA , C., & KIMBELL , G. S. 2002. Insights into orogen-
esis: getting to the root of the continent –ocean –continent collision in
the southern Urals, Russia. Journal of the Geological Society,
London, 159, 659–672.
SCHULTE , B. A. & BLÜMEL , P. 1999. Prograde metamorphic reactions in
the high-pressure Maksyutov Complex, Urals. Geologische
Rundschau, 87, 561–576.
SERAVKIN , I., KOSAREV , A. M. & SALIKHOV , D. N. 1992. Volcanism of
the Southern Urals. Nauka, Moscow [in Russian].
SPADEA , P., KABANOVA , L. Y. & SCARROW , J. H. 1998. Petrology, geo-
chemistry and geodynamic significance of Mid-Devonian boninitic
rocks from the Baimak-Buribai area (Magnitogorsk Zone, southern
Urals). Ofioliti, 23, 17–36.
SPADEA , P., D’ANTONIO , M., KOSAREV , A., GOROZHANINA , Y. &
BROWN , D. 2002. Arc –continent collision in the Southern Urals: pet-
rogenetic aspects of the fore arc complex. In: BROWN , D., JUHLIN , C.
& PUCHKOV , V. (eds) Mountain Building in the Uralides: Pangea to
Present. Geophysical Monographs, American Geophysical Union,
132, 101–134.
 TECTONICS IN SOUTHERN AND MIDDLE URALS
STEER , D. N., KNAPP , J. H., BROWN , L. D., RYBALKA , A. V. & SOKOLOV ,
V. B. 1995. Crustal structure of the Middle Urals based on reproces-
sing of Russian seismic reflection data. Geophysical Journal Inter-
national, 123, 673–682.
STEER , D. N., KNAPP , J. H., BROWN , L. D., ECHTLER , H. P., BROWN , D. L.
& BERZIN , R., 1998. Deep structure of the continental lithosphere in
an unextended orogen: an explosive-source seismic reflection profile
in the Urals (Urals Seismic Experiment and Integrated Studies
(URSEIS 1995)). Tectonics, 17, 143–157.
THOUVENOT , F., KASHUBIN , S. N., POUPINET , G., MAKOVSKIY , V. V.,
KASHUBINA , T. V., MATTE , Ph. & JENATTON , L. 1995. The root of
the Urals: evidence from wide-angle reflection seismics. Tectonophy-
sics, 250, 1– 13.
TRYGGVASON , A., BROWN , D. & PEREZ -ESTAUN , A. 2001. Crustal archi-
tecture of the southern Uralides from true amplitude processing of the
URSEIS vibroseis profile. Tectonics, 20, 1040 –1052.
VAN dEN BEUKEL , J. 1992. Some thermomechanical aspects of the sub-
duction of continental lithosphere. Tectonics, 11, 316– 329.
419
WILLNER , A. P., ERMOLAEVA , T., GOROZHANINA , Y. N., ET AL. 2002.
Surface signals of an arc –continent collision: the detritus of the
Upper Zilair Formation in the Southern Urals, Russia. In: BROWN ,
D., JUHLIN , C. & PUCHKOV , V. (eds) Mountain Building in the Ura-
lides: Pangea to Present. Geophysical Monographs, American Geo-
physical Union, 132, 183–210.
YAZEVA , R. G. & BOCHAREV , V. V. 1994. Post-collisional Devonian
magmatism of the northern Urals. Geotectonics, 27, 316–325.
YAZEVA , R. G. & BOCHKAREV , V. V. 1996. Silurian island arc of the
Urals: structure, evolution and geodynamics. Geotectonics, 29,
478– 489.
ZONENSHAIN , L. P., KORINEVSKY , V. G., KAZMIN , V. G., PECHERSKY ,
D. M., KHAIN , V. V. & MATVEENKOV , V. V. 1984. Plate tectonic
model of the South Urals. Tectonophysics, 109, 95–135.
ZONENSHAIN , L. P., KUZMIN , M. I. & NATAPOV , L. M. 1990. Uralian fold-
belt. In: PAGE , B. M. (ed.) Geology of the USSR: a Plate-Tectonic
Synthesis. American Geophysical Union, Geodynamics Series, 21,
27– 54.