SCIENCE CHINA

Earth Sciences
•REVIEW•
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-019-9538-2
............................

Subduction tectonics vs. Plume tectonics—Discussion on driving

forces for plate motion
1,2,3* 1,3 1,4 1,3,4 5,1
Ling CHEN , Xu WANG , Xiaofeng LIANG , Bo WAN & Lijun LIU
1
State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China;
2
CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;
3
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
4
Innovation Academy for Earth Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China;
5
Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign 61820, USA

Received May 20, 2019; revised October 30, 2019; accepted November 4, 2019; published online January 2, 2020

Abstract Plate tectonics describes the horizontal motions of lithospheric plates, the Earth’s outer shell, and interactions among
them across the Earth’s surface. Since the establishment of the theory of plate tectonics about half a century ago, considerable
debates have remained regarding the driving forces for plate motion. The early “Bottom up” view, i.e., the convecting mantle-
driven mechanism, states that mantle plumes originating from the core-mantle boundary act at the base of plates, accelerating
continental breakup and driving plate motion. Toward the present, however, the “Top down” idea is more widely accepted,
according to which the negative buoyancy of oceanic plates is the dominant driving force for plate motion, and the subducting
slabs control surface tectonics and mantle convection. In this regard, plate tectonics is also known as subduction tectonics. “Top
down” tectonics has received wide supports from numerous geological and geophysical observations. On the other hand, recent
studies indicate that the acceleration/deceleration of individual plates over the million-year timescale may reflect the effects of
mantle plumes. It is also suggested that surface uplift and subsidence within stable cratonic areas are correlated with plume-
related magmatic activities over the hundred-million-year timescale. On the global scale, the cyclical supercontinent assembly
and breakup seem to be coupled with superplume activities during the past two billion years. These correlations over various
spatial and temporal scales indicate the close relationship and intensive interactions between plate tectonics and plume tectonics
throughout the history of the Earth and the considerable influence of plumes on plate motion. Indeed, we can acquire a
comprehensive understanding of the driving forces for plate motion and operation mechanism of the Earth’s dynamic system
only through joint analyses and integrated studies on plate tectonics and plume tectonics.
Keywords Driving forces for plate motion, Negative buoyancy of plates, Subduction tectonics, Plume tectonics

Citation: Chen L, Wang X, Liang X, Wan B, Liu L. 2020. Subduction tectonics vs. Plume tectonics—Discussion on driving forces for plate motion. Science
China Earth Sciences, 63, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-019-9538-2

1. Introduction
Plate tectonics mainly describes the large-scale horizontal
motions of rigid plates on the spherical shell of the Earth, and
is a unique geodynamic process among all planets in the
Solar system. The current plate motion rate varies from 1 to
* Corresponding author (email: lchen@mail.iggcas.ac.cn)
−1
10 cm yr (Figure 1a; Frisch et al., 2011) with an average of
−1
~4.8 cm yr (Zahirovic et al., 2015). Plate reconstruction
studies reveal that both the speed and direction of a single
plate and the average kinematics of all plates change dra-
matically over time (Figure 1b; Zahirovic et al., 2015; Müller
et al., 2016). However, it remains unclear why plate motion
changes over time and what the driving force is.
The driving forces for plate motion is a fundamental

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 earth.scichina.com link.springer.com
2 Chen L, et al. Sci China Earth Sci

Figure 1 Map showing plate motions on Earth. (a) Present-day plate movement (Frisch et al., 2011). White arrows indicate the present-day relative motions
at plate boundaries, and yellow arrows the absolute plate motions relative to a reference system based on stationary hot spots. Numbers near arrows represent
−1
the motion rates in cm yr . The length of each arrow is in direct proportion to the motion rate. (b) Global root mean square plate velocities since 220 Ma, with
−1
approximately 4.8 cm yr at present (modified from Müller et al., 2016).

question, and has long been the focus of debate in Earth

Sciences. It is possible to determine the major factors af-
fecting plate motion, but it is difficult to quantitatively assess
their respective contributions (Wessel and Müller, 2015).
There are two schools of ideas regarding the driving forces
for plate motion: “Bottom up” vs. “Top down”. “Bottom up”
means that tectonic plates represent the outer boundary layer
of mantle convection cells, and their movement is controlled
by the motion of the underlying mantle system (left part of
Figure 2). The idea was proposed prior to the establishment
of the plate tectonics theory, e.g, in the 1930s and 1960s, in
Arthur Holmes and Harry Hammond Hess’s books (Holmes,
1931; Hess, 1962). During the time the theory of plate tec-
tonics was established, Tuzo Wilson and Jason Morgan
further developed this idea. They proposed that the upwel-
ling mantle, as one branch of mantle convection (hereinafter
if not specified, it refers to whole mantle convection), would
originate from the core-mantle boundary, and interact with
the base of the plates, promoting continental breakup and
plate motion (Wilson, 1963, 1973; Morgan, 1971).
The other school of ideas is “Top down” tectonics. It states
that both plate tectonics and mantle convection are results of Figure 2 “Bottom up” and “Top down” plate tectonics-driven mechan-
the evolution of the Earth’s outer shell, i.e., the plates (right isms (modified from Courtillot et al., 2003). LLSVP, Large Low Shear
part of Figure 2). This idea was initially proposed by Don Velocity Province.
 Chen L, et al.
Anderson and other scientists (Anderson, 2001; Foulger and
Natland, 2003), who attributed plate tectonics to only upper-
mantle convection. Later, it was refined to suggest that the
evolving surface plates not only control plate tectonics but
also the style of mantle convection, including the formation
of mantle plumes (right part of Figure 2; Conrad and Lith-
gow-Bertelloni, 2004; Li and Zhong, 2009).
The essence of “Top down” tectonics is that the negative
buoyancy of subducting slabs is the main driving force for
plate motion (Anderson, 2001; Stern, 2007). Accordingly,
plate tectonics is alternatively described as “subduction
tectonics” because of the decisive role of subducting slabs.
“Top down” tectonics gains more attention because it has
been shown to be consistent with observations from many
different methods and disciplines. Most of the supporting
evidence comes from the Phanerozoic, especially geologic
and geophysical data, as well as plate reconstructions during
the past 200 Ma (Zahirovic et al., 2015; Müller et al., 2016,
see Section 2). Then, the question becomes how far back to
the earlier history we can apply the “Top down” tectonics,
and whether it could explain the long-term evolution of the
Earth. This question is closely related to the initiation and
evolution of plate tectonics on the solid Earth.
Plate tectonics, as one of the two major tectonic systems on
Earth, is characterized as the downward movement of the
Earth’s outer shell into its deep interior. In contrast, plume
tectonics, the other major tectonic system, refers to deep
mantle materials rising from the core-mantle boundary to the
surface. Plate tectonics and plume tectonics likely constitute
the two dominate geodynamic systems during the Earth’s
evolution, and many researchers proposed that these two tec-
tonic systems and their interactions control the supercontinent-
superocean cycles, and the Earth evolution (e.g., Maruyama,
1994; Li and Zhong, 2009; Li et al., 2019). However, how
much of the driving force for plate motion comes from
mantle plumes, and how plate tectonics actually interacts
with plume tectonics, remain ambiguous and controversial
(Maruyama et al., 2007; Li and Zhong, 2009; Faccenna et al.,
2013; Buiter and Torsvik, 2014; Hu et al., 2018).
In this paper, we firstly discuss the roles of different factors
in driving plate tectonics based on multiple lines of evidence.
We then analyze the interplay between plate tectonics and
plume tectonics based on geodynamic constraints. We finally
discuss how plate tectonics and plume tectonics would have
affected the long-term evolution of the Earth, and possible
changes in the functions of respective forces in driving plate
tectonics through time.
2. Driving forces for plate motion—negative
buoyancy of subducting slabs
According to the concept of “Top down” tectonics, both plate
Sci China Earth Sci 3
tectonics and mantle convection are dependent on the nature
and status of plates at the Earth’s surface. Subduction in-
itiates likely because of the gravitational instability of the
oceanic plates. A subducting slab is denser than the sur-
rounding mantle, and its negative buoyancy exerts a pulling
force to the surface plate and hence drives plate motion (e.g.,
Anderson, 2001; Stern, 2007). This idea stemmed from
multidisciplinary evidence including geophysical observa-
tions, plate kinematics, mechanical analysis, plate re-
construction, and numerical modelling.
2.1 Evidence from focal mechanism of intermediate-
depth and deep-focus earthquakes in subduction zones
In the early stage of the development of the plate tectonics
paradigm, seismic observations show that slab-pull from
subducting slabs acts as a major force to drive plate motion
(e.g., Isacks et al., 1968; Isacks and Molnar, 1969). Seis-
mologists analyzed focal mechanism solutions of inter-
mediate-depth (70–300 km) and deep-focus (>300 km)
earthquakes inside subducting slabs. They found that the two
possible slip planes form a 45° angle to the dip plane of the
subduction seismicity zone (Wadati-Benioff zone), which
indicated that the compression (P) or tension (T) axis is
parallel to the dip plane (Isacks et al., 1968). Such a result
further reveals that the intermediate-depth and deep-focus
earthquakes are caused by the stress from slabs rather than by
the slab movement relative to the surrounding mantle. Focal
mechanism data (Isacks et al., 1968) further suggest that, the
T axis of most intermediate-depth earthquakes in subduc-
tions zones is parallel to the dip plane of the Wadati-Benioff
zone, probably reflecting a downward stretching of the
subducting slab due to its own gravity. On the other hand, the
P axis of deep-focus earthquakes is also parallel to the dip
plane of the Wadati-Benioff zone, perhaps suggesting a
compression in the down-going slab due to the resistance of
the deeper mantle (lower mantle). At the overlapping depths
between intermediate-depth and deep-focus earthquakes
(~300 km), the seismic activity decreases significantly,
which is termed as a seismic gap. It might be related to either
slab break-off or the interaction of the compression and
tension stresses that minimizes the resultant stress. In some
regions (e.g., Tonga subduction zone), it is always the P axis
of earthquakes at various depths that is parallel to the dip of
the Wadati-Benioff zone. This is possibly due to the sub-
duction of the slab faster than that induced by the slab pull-
force, resulting an overall resistance from the mantle (Figure
3).
Based on the above seismic observations, Isacks and
Molnar (1969) concluded that subducting oceanic slabs
could provide considerable forces to drive the movement of
plates through their own gravity. Later studies revealed that
slabs would experience phase transitions at ~410- and ~660-
4 Chen L, et al.
Figure 3 Distribution of stresses within slabs constrained by focal mechanism solutions (modified from Isacks and Molnar, 1969). Filled and unfilled
circles represent down-dip extension and down-dip compression, respectively. Extensional stress near the upper surface of slabs at shallow depths originates
from slab bending at the beginning of subduction. White and black arrows in gray circular shadows show the P and T axes for intermediate-depth and deep-
focus earthquakes.
km depths, gaining additional negative and positive buoy-
ancy and thus under a stretching and shortening regime at
these depths, respectively. Such processes may further ac-
celerate or prevent plate motion at the surface (e.g., Quin-
teros and Sobolev, 2013). However, there are different views
about the mechanisms of the intermediate-depth and deep-
focus earthquakes within slabs. For example, some re-
searchers argued that the gravitational force due to the den-
sity contrast between the subducting slab and surrounding
mantle is insufficient to trigger deep-focus earthquakes. In
the meanwhile, the volume contraction associated with phase
transitions of slab materials may be responsible for the
generation of these earthquakes (Guest et al., 2003; Liu and
Zhang, 2015).
2.2 Evidence from statistical analysis of plate kine-
matics and dynamics
The good correlation between the rate of plate motion and
the length of subduction zone reflects an important effect of
slab pull on plate motion. For example, both the plate ve-
locity at the present-day (Forsyth and Uyeda, 1975) and the
mean plate velocity for the past 200 Ma (Zahirovic et al.,
2015) are positively correlated with the length of the sub-
duction zone, i.e., the longer the slab the greater the grav-
itational force is, and thus the faster the corresponding plate
moves. Other features of the plate, such as the size, cir-
cumference, and length of the mid-ocean ridge, are not sta-
tistically correlated with the plate velocity (Forsyth and
Uyeda, 1975). This observation further indicates that slab
pull plays a key role in driving plate motion.
The thickness of plate (lithosphere) is another important
parameter that affects plate motion. Analysis on the influ-
ence of plate thickness on plate motion rate can provide
constraints on the driving mode of plate tectonics. Compared
to oceanic lithosphere, continental lithosphere extends much
deeper to over 200 km beneath some ancient cratons (Gung
Sci China Earth Sci
et al., 2003; Artemieva, 2009). The thick continental litho-
sphere enlarges the contact area between plates and the un-
derlying convecting mantle, thus enhancing the coupling and
increasing the shear traction force at the lithosphere-asthe-
nosphere boundary (Conrad and Lithgow-Bertelloni, 2006).
The statistical data of global plate motions shows that the
larger the continental part is, the slower the plate moves
(Zahirovic et al., 2015). Such observations suggest that the
enhanced coupling between lithosphere and asthenosphere
and the increased shear traction at the interface between the
two could prohibit fast plate motion. This is inconsistent with
the mantle convection-driven mechanism, i.e., “Bottom up”
tectonics, but provides a piece of evidence for “Top down”
tectonics.
Quantifying the forces on plates is essential for a better
understanding of various driving forces and their relative
contributions to plate motion. Forsyth and Uyeda (1975)
performed the first such analysis. Based on the observations
of plate motions and geometries, they estimated the relative
magnitudes of various forces exerted on plates, including
ridge push, slab pull, shear traction between slabs and un-
derlying mantle, trench suction and other forces that resist
plate motion (Figure 4). The force of slab pull was found to
be an order of magnitude larger than other forces, including
ridge push and shear traction from mantle (Forsyth and
Uyeda, 1975). Three-dimensional laboratory experiments
further show that the older (i.e., the denser) the slab the larger
the dip angle is, or the longer the slab extends downward the
larger the net slab pull force (without the part balanced by the
resistance to subduction) becomes. This explains why the
movement of the oldest Pacific plate is faster than that of
other plates (Schellart, 2004).
2.3 Slab pull vs. slab suction
It has generally accepted that slab morphology, subduction
and associated mantle processes are all dependent on the
 Chen L, et al.
Figure 4 Forces acting on the plate (modified from Forsyth and Uyeda, 1975). FRP, ridge push; FSP, slab pull; RDO, RDC, shear traction between oceanic/
continental plates and underlying asthenospheric mantle; FSU, trench suction; RS, resistance to slab subduction; RCR, colliding resistance; RTF, transform fault
resistance.
characteristics and nature of the subducting slab. In a case of
an old, heavy oceanic plate, it is expected to result in rapid
and steep subduction, with weak coupling between the sub-
ducting and overriding plates. Such weak coupling further
leads to extensional deformation of the overriding plate,
eventually giving rise to the formation of a trench-arc-
backarc basin system. In contrast, subduction of a young slab
(younger than 20–30 Ma) is thought to be characterized by a
shallower dip angle, strong coupling with and hence com-
pressional deformation of the overriding plate. There is no
backarc basin developed in such a case (e.g., Jarrard, 1986;
Stern, 2002). New observations (Figure 5), however, bring
challenges to this view. Global comparisons show that there
is no significant correlation between plate convergence rate
and age (thus density) of oceanic plate. For example, the
oceanic crust is older than 180 Ma and younger than 20–30
Ma at the Izu-Ogasawa-Mariana subduction zone and Gua-
temala-Nicaragua-Costa Rica subduction zone, respectively.
The plate convergence rates there, however, are not very
different. Another example comes from the western Pacific
subduction zone where the plate convergence rate varies
significantly along the trench, but appears to be dispropor-
tionate compared to the age of the oceanic plate. Further
taking into account the whole circum-Pacific subduction
zone, it is obvious that the variations in the shape and dipping
angle of subducting slab are rather complicated, showing
little correlation with the age (density) of oceanic plate
(Figure 5). These observations indicate that factors other
than the properties and nature of the plate itself may play
considerable roles in controlling the subduction morphology
of the corresponding slab and associated processes.
Mechanical analysis and geodynamic simulations (Figure
6) show that a subducting slab exerts a direct pull force on
the plate in contact with it at the surface and leads the plate to
move horizontally. Moreover, the down-going slab excites
mantle circulations through viscous coupling, which in turn
Sci China Earth Sci 5
drive the movement of the overriding plate by basal shear
traction. The latter is known as slab suction, representing the
force that the subducting slab exerts indirectly on the Earth’s
surface plates via the convective mantle. The slab pull force
is mostly generated by slabs in the upper mantle and is di-
rectly exerted on the plates at the Earth’s surface that are
connected to the slabs, whereas the slab suction force is
dominantly contributed by slabs in the more viscous lower
mantle. The relative importance of slab pull and slab suction
and their effects on plate motion depend not only on the
subducting slabs themselves, but also on the rheological
properties of the surrounding mantle (Billen, 2008). In ad-
dition, in subduction zones, slab pull and slab suction have
distinct influences on the overriding plate. Slab pull causes
the overriding plate to move away from the subduction zone,
whereas slab suction results in trench-ward motion of the
overriding plate (Red arrows in Figure 6, Conrad and Lith-
gow-Bertelloni, 2004), if only considering a simple case
(e.g., no lateral variations in viscosity or two-dimensional
model).
Analyses on the theoretical calculations and the observed
plate motions reveal that neither slab pull nor slab suction
alone can explain the present-day global plate motion rate,
instead their combination contributes more than 90% of the
driving force for plate motion. This gives a good inter-
pretation not only to the absolute plate motion rate in the
global scale but also to the phenomenon that the overriding
plates move towards the trenches at a slow rate in subduction
zones. Moreover, the calculated results show that plates with
mature subduction zones move 3–4 times faster on average
than those without subduction zones, consistent with the
present observations (Lithgow-Bertelloni and Richards,
1998; Conrad and Lithgow-Bertelloni, 2002, 2004).
Slab pull, slab suction and other forces that affect plate
motion are not immutable, but have strong temporal and
spatial variations. It has been reported that contributions of
6 Chen L, et al. Sci China Earth Sci

Figure 5 Oceanic plate ages and plate convergence rates (Nishikawa and Ide, 2014) compared with the structure of high-velocity subducting slabs (blue)
constrained from seismic tomography (Fukao and Obayashi, 2013). White circles in tomographic images represent earthquakes with magnitude larger than 4
within 50 km from the target profile (ISC earthquake catalogue 1964–2008).

Figure 6 Slab pull and slab suction. Modified from Conrad and Lithgow-Bertelloni (2004).

the present-day slab pull and slab suction to plate motion
appear to be significantly different from those in the early
Cenozoic, displaying apparent temporal variations (Conrad
and Lithgow-Bertelloni, 2004). In addition, researchers
propose that for orogens formed at convergent plate
boundaries, the relative strength of slab pull and slab suction
may control the pattern of the orogeny, the variation of which
is used to decipher the spatial differences of orogenic char-
acteristics in different regions such as Himalaya-Tibet, An-
dean Cordillera and Mediterranean (Faccenna et al., 2013).
In slab pull dominated orogenic belts, the subducting slab
and the overriding plate move in the same direction hor-
izontally, and trench retreat results in extensional deforma-
tion in the overriding plate without obvious crustal
thickening (e.g., Mediterranean). On the other hand, in slab
suction dominated orogenic belts, the subducting slab and
the overriding plate move toward each other horizontally,
with compressional deformation and obvious thickening of
the crust in the overriding plate (e.g., Himalaya-Tibet, Cen-
tral Andes). This view links the deep subduction processes
with the surface orogenic structures, providing a new win-
dow to understand the deep-shallow coupling and its dy-
namic mechanism.
Besides these two forces, other forces like ridge push,
gravitational potential energy induced by topography or
crustal thickness variations also contribute to the present-day
plate motions. However, some studies point out that the
contributions of these forces are one order of magnitude less
than that from subducting slabs (e.g., Forsyth and Uyeda,
1975; Lithgow-Bertelloni and Richards, 1998; Stern, 2007).
 Chen L, et al.
Previous studies on the forces induced by subducting slabs
or other forces are mostly based on simple models. In par-
ticular, these models only consider the radial variations in the
density structure and rheological properties. Recent geody-
namic studies show that lateral variations in the rheological
properties would significantly affect the relative strength of
individual forces and thus their contributions to plate motion
(Billen, 2008; Li and Ribe, 2012). For example, adopting
different viscosities for both plates and underlying mantle in
modelling has given rise to different views on the slab-in-
duced forces especially slab suction and its role in driving
plate motion (e.g., Goes et al., 2008; Stadler et al., 2010). If
taking into account the lateral variations in global-scale li-
thospheric viscosities (above 200 km depth), gravitational
potential energy associated with surface topography cannot
be neglected in driving plate motion compared to slab-in-
duced forces (Ghosh and Holt, 2012). Therefore, a deep in-
sight into individual forces and to better understand driving
forces for plate motion requires more relevant observations
and detailed quantitative assessments of the Earth’s structure
and properties.
3. Plate tectonics vs. plume tectonics
Current observations suggest that oceanic plates subduct due
to their own negative buoyancy, and slab pull and slab suc-
tion contribute to most of the driving forces and thus control
the plate motion (Forsyth and Uyeda, 1975; Conrad and
Lithgow-Bertelloni, 2002; Stadler et al., 2010). Plate tec-
tonics is thus also known as subduction tectonics, suggesting
that the “Top down” regime dominates at present. However,
the Earth system has undergone an evolution of ~4.5 Gyr.
The structure and properties from the surface to the deep
Earth have changed significantly since the early Archaean.
Plate tectonics may have also evolved since its first ap-
pearance on Earth, presumably having a periodic character as
exemplified by the supercontinent-superplume cycles
(Maruyama, 1994; Li and Zhong, 2009; Li et al., 2019). Then
we may ask: can the present-day “Top down” tectonics ex-
plain the long-term evolution of the Earth? Moreover, as the
other end-member tectonic system on Earth, how has “Bot-
tom up” tectonics (or plume tectonics) been related to and
interplayed with “Top down” tectonics? In the following, we
will discuss these basic questions for understanding plate
tectonics and the evolution of the Earth system.
3.1 Interactions between plate tectonics and plume
tectonics at various time scales
Plate reconstruction studies show that both the individual
plate motions and the global mean plate velocity exhibit
time-dependent characteristics (Zahirovic et al., 2015; Mül-
Sci China Earth Sci 7
ler et al., 2016). Some of the variations are difficult to be
attributed to the changes in slab pull and slab suction, but
rather closely related to the activities of mantle plumes.
The Indian plate motion speed increased abruptly to >15
−1
cm yr at ~67–65 Ma at the beginning of the Cenozoic and
−1
kept high at >10 cm yr until ~52 Ma, after which it de-
creased. By contrast, the African plate experienced exactly
opposite variations in the speed of movement (Cande and
Stegman, 2011; Müller, 2011). To date such a kind of abrupt
changes of plate motion has not yet been well explained by
variations in either slab properties or subduction processes,
or both. If considering only the negative buoyancy of sub-
ducting slabs, both geodynamic simulation results and cur-
rent geodetic observations show that the maximum plate
−1
motion rate can reach at most about 8–9 cm yr (Conrad and
Hager, 1999; Goes et al., 2008). Hence, subduction alone is
difficult to explain the dramatic acceleration to more than 10
−1
cm yr of the Indian plate and the simultaneous slow-down
of the African plate (Müller, 2011).
Based on the analysis of geophysical data in the Indian
Ocean, researchers from Scripps Institute of Oceanography
proposed that the abnormally rapid movement of the Indian
plate at 67–52 Ma and the deceleration of the African plate
may be related to the activity of the Reunion plume, the head
of which arrived and impinged on the base of the lithosphere
at about 67 Ma (Cande and Stegman, 2011). After its pro-
posal, some researchers tested this model through geody-
namic simulations and found that the effect of the Reunion
plume head could indeed accelerate the Indian plate motion.
However, the plate speed is difficult to reach more than 10
−1
cm yr (van Hinsbergen et al., 2011). In addition, the plume
and associated magmatic activities and thermal anomalies
have only a short-term effect of less than 3 Myr (Chenet et
al., 2007; Armitage et al., 2011). It is also difficult to explain
the rapid motion of the Indian plate lasting for ~15 Myr
(Müller, 2011). Nevertheless, the study by Cande and Steg-
man (2011), which links plume activities to plate motion,
provides a new way to explore plume-plate relationship and
interactions and to further understand the driving forces for
plate motion.
From a global scale, the plate motions were the fastest in
the early Cretaceous (~140–120 Ma) with an average rate of
−1
9–10 cm yr , about twice of the present rate (Figures 1b and
7a). The global mean oceanic crustal age decreased rapidly
from ~50 Myr at 140 Ma to less than 40 Myr at 120 Ma, the
lowest since the beginning of the Phanerozoic (Figure 7b;
Müller et al., 2016). The younging of oceanic crust in this
period would have resulted in relatively low densities of
subducting slabs, which are difficult to be responsible for the
fastest plate motions of the same period. On the other hand,
plume activity was the strongest in the early Cretaceous, as
manifested by the development of numerous Large Igneous
Provinces (LIPs) globally, such as Gascoyne (136 Ma),
8 Chen L, et al.
Paraná-Etendeka (135 Ma), Piñón (123 Ma), Manihiki (123
Ma), Ontong Java and Hikurangi (122 Ma), Kerguelen (118
Ma) (Dodd et al., 2015; Prokoph et al., 2013). The Ontong
Java-Manihiki-Hikurangi oceanic plateau in the southwest
Pacific Ocean is probably the product of the largest mantle
plume event since 200 Ma (Taylor, 2006), with the eruption
area of basalts covering over 1% of the Earth’s surface. It has
been suggested that strong interactions between plumes and
plates can significantly weaken and thin the lithosphere and
reduce the coupling between lithosphere and asthenosphere,
leading to a reduction of resistance but an acceleration to
plate motion (Kumar et al., 2007). This mechanism can
reasonably explain the significant increase in the global
mean plate speed in 140–120 Ma. The total length of the
global continental rift system is much longer in the early
Cretaceous than that at any other time period (Figure 7c;
Brune et al., 2017). This corresponds well to the coeval rapid
plate motions, probably also being a reflection of enhanced
global plume activities.
The plate-plume interactions and the strong influences of
plume activities on plate tectonics are not only evident in the
recent era but also during the Earth’s long-term evolution
since the formation of plate tectonics. The classic example is
the supercontinent assembly and breakup with a period of
600±100 Myr, which reflects the coupling of superplume
with supercontinent cycles throughout the geological history
(Figure 8; Li and Zhong, 2009). According to Li and Zhong
(2009), during the process of supercontinent assembly, sub-
duction tectonics plays a dominant role in continental con-
vergence; while during the process of supercontinent
breakup, superplume activity dominates over plate tectonics,
resulting in the weakening and breakup of supercontinent. A
new study further proposes that due to the interactions be-
tween subduction tectonics and plume tectonics, the Earth
system may have a tectonic cycle twice the timescale of
supercontinent, i.e., superocean cycle of 1000–1400 Myr (Li
et al., 2019). If further confirmed, it would suggest that
subduction tectonics and plume tectonics interplay over
multiple timescales in a complex manner, which controls the
complicated evolution of the entire Earth system.
3.2 Plate-plume interaction at various depths
The subducting slabs and rising plumes, being the down-
welling and upwelling of mantle convection, respectively,
interplay with each other at various depths and on different
spatial scales, which further affects the mode and dynamic
processes of mantle convection, as well as the style of plate
motion on the Earth’s surface.
At the core-mantle boundary areas, the subducted slab
materials are expected to move horizontally and push the two
Large Low Shear Velocity Provinces (LLSVPs), i.e., the
source regions of plumes, resulting in the changes in their
Sci China Earth Sci
shapes, promoting the development of plumes at their edges,
and probably even providing materials to the LLSVPs (see
the review by Garnero et al., 2016). It was proposed that the
long-term slab subduction along the circum-Pacific zone
may have led to an obvious southward migration of the
northern edge of the Pacific LLSVP and thus a moving
source of the Hawaiian plume at the core-mantle boundary at
~100–50 Ma. The southward migration might have slowed
down thereafter. Such a spatial-temporal variation of the
plume source location (Hassan et al., 2016), in addition to the
change in the rate and direction of the Pacific plate motion
presumed previously (Sharp and Clague, 2006), could ex-
plain the sharp bend of the Hawaii-Emperor chain at ca. 50
Ma. A comprehensive understanding of the bend and the
overall shape of the Hawaii-Emperor chain may require an
integrated investigation on the spatial-temporal relationship
between the plume source location at the core-mantle
boundary and the plate motion on the surface (Torsvik et al.,
2017).
New results and interpretations challenge the traditional
view that deeply rooted plumes are relatively fixed. A recent
geodynamic simulation study further suggests that the in-
teractions between subducted slabs and LLSVP edges can
trigger the formation of bilaterally zoned plumes, the rising
of which to the surface under certain plate motion conditions
is responsible for the distinct chemical zoning of basalts
along the Hawaii-Emperor volcanic chain (Dannberg and
Gassmöller, 2018). The above explanation and model, which
though still need more observations to verify, provide new
insights in understanding the complicated interactions be-
tween plate tectonics and deep plume sources and their
shallow responses.
During the processes of slab sinking and plume rising, the
interactions of the two could lead to different results if the
condition within the mantle changes. One example comes
from the petro-geochemical study of the diamond inclusions
enclosed in the late Cretaceous kimberlite in Juina, Brazil. It
indicates that a plume probably ascended and reached the top
of the lower mantle at 95–92 Ma, where it might have in-
teracted with a subducting slab and carried the oceanic
crustal materials within the slab further to the surface (Walter
et al., 2011). In this scenario, the subducting slab failed to
prevent the upwelling of the plume. However, recent studies
on the dynamics of the Cenozoic volcanism in western North
America suggest that the subduction of the Farallon slab may
have largely prevented the Yellowstone plume from rising,
and the formation of the volcanoes, including the Yellow-
stone hotspot track might have been dominantly related to
the shallow mantle flows induced by the subduction of the
Farallon slab (Leonard and Liu, 2016; Zhou et al., 2018). The
characteristics of slab-plume interactions and associated
distinct results are closely related to the morphologies,
rheological properties, relative spatial positions of the slab
 Chen L, et al. Sci China Earth Sci 9

Figure 7 Global root mean square plate speeds (a), mean age of global oceanic crust (b), and continental rift length through time (c) in the past 200 Myr.
(a), (b) are modified from Müller et al. (2016), and (c) from Brune et al. (2017). Red thick lines in (c) represent rift length history combining continent-scale
rifts with additional rifts from the geological record. Abbreviations in (c): CAtl, central Atlantic; NAtl, northeast Atlantic; NAmIbr, North America/Iberia;
GoM, Gulf of Mexico; EWGo, East and West Gondwana; NAmGre, North America/Greenland; IndMad, India/Madagascar; WAnt, West Antarctic Rift;
AusAnt, Australia/Antarctica; IndAus, India/Australia and Antarctica; SAtl, South Atlantic; WCARS, West and Central Africa; AusZea, Australia/New
Zealand; SCS, South China Sea; GoC, Gulf of California; GoA, Gulf of Aden; RedS, Red Sea; EARS, East African Rift System.

and plume and the depth of the interaction. Although pre-
vious studies provide important clues and basis for con-
straining the process and mechanism of slab-plume
interactions, key parameters and properties are still in-
sufficiently constrained at present and thus no comprehen-
sive and systematic understanding has been reached.
In the shallow upper mantle, plumes would interplay with
the overriding plates after reaching the bottom of the litho-
sphere. Such an interplay involves the basic processes of the
Wilson cycle, such as continent/supercontinent breakup and
ocean floor spreading, as well as major geological problems,
such as continental reworking and craton destruction. This is
an important research subject of plate tectonics and con-
tinental dynamics. Since the establishment of the plate tec-
tonics theory, some researchers have linked the continent/
supercontinent breakup to large-scale mantle upwelling.
However, debates remain on whether tectonic activities re-
sult in the breakup of continents and the formation of plume
ascending channels, or plumes play a decisive role in the
continental breakup, or both (e.g., Burke and Dewey, 1973;
Storey, 1995; Courtillot et al., 1999; Buiter and Torsvik,
2014; Zhang et al., 2018). In most cases, continental breakup
is spatially and temporally correlated with LIPs. Analysis
results suggest that even if tectonic processes such as sub-
10 Chen L, et al.
Figure 8 Comparison of the supercontinent time evolution (a) and the probability distribution of Large Igneous Province (LIP) events (b) on the Earth
(modified from Li and Zhong, 2009). Concentrated periods of LIPs correspond well to supercontinent breakup periods during which the plume activities are
intense and the subduction activities are weak; when LIPs are less developed, supercontinent assembly occurs with weak plume activities but strong
subduction activities.
duction dominate during the continental breakup, plumes at
least promote and accelerate the breakup process (Figure 9a,
Buiter and Torsvik, 2014; Wan et al., 2019).
From the current “Top down” view, mid-ocean ridges
(MORs) are zones of passive mantle upwelling controlled by
plate subduction. However, in cases of plumes interacting
directly with MORs, the features of the MORs would be
strongly affected by these interactions. For example, plume-
ridge interactions can make the corresponding MOR stabi-
lize for a long time (Figure 9b, e.g., Southwest Indian Ocean,
southern South Atlantic, a part of East Pacific Rise), a feature
obviously different from most other MORs that migrate with
time. In this case, LIPs would repeatedly form at locations
where MORs and plumes interact, which would further
change the composition of the ambient upper mantle
(Rowley et al., 2016; Whittaker et al., 2015). Plume-ridge
interactions can also facilitate the formation of (continental
or oceanic) micro-blocks and strongly affect the seafloor
topography (Li et al., 2018).
A recent geodynamic study further shows that the lower
part of the thick lithosphere beneath stable cratonic regions
could be modified/removed through delamination due to its
strong interactions with rising plumes, possibly accom-
panying obvious surface uplift (Figure 9c). As the plume
activity weakens, the cratonic lithosphere may experience
vertical accretion and thus thickening via cooling (Hu et al.,
2018). Compared with the mechanism proposed for craton
destruction, in which the nature and properties of the cratonic
lithosphere have changed and the craton lost its stability
under the crucial influence of oceanic subduction (Zhu et al.,
2011; Liu and Li, 2018; Wu et al., 2019), this mode em-
phasizes the roles of plumes in thinning and reactivating the
presumably stable cratonic lithosphere that is indeed struc-
turally heterogeneous both laterally and vertically. This
opens up a new perspective for understanding the long-term
evolution of continents.
Taken together, the “Top down” plate/subduction tectonics
and “Bottom up” plume tectonics have interacted with each
other at various time scales and spatial ranges during the
Sci China Earth Sci
Earth’s evolution, and have jointly controlled the evolution
processes of the Earth system. Even at the present day when
subduction tectonics dominates and subducting slabs provide
up to 90% of driving forces for plate motion, plumes still
exert important impacts on the behavior and dynamic pro-
cesses of the entire Earth from the very surface to the core-
mantle boundary even to the core. At different evolution
stages or different spatial ranges throughout the geological
history, the relative importance of plate tectonics and plume
tectonics may have changed, and so the corresponding forces
they provided to drive plate motion and their roles in the
whole Earth system may have also changed. Many studies
have been conducted and various models have been pro-
posed on this aspect, including not only the aforementioned
multi-timescale evolution model of supercontinent-super-
ocean superplume coupling (Li et al., 2019), but also many
others (e.g., Figure 1 in McNamara, 2019) such as the plume
tectonics model (Maruyama, 1994), which combines sub-
duction tectonics (mainly refers to downgoing cold plumes
in the lower mantle) with hot uprising plume tectonics. A
thorough understanding, accurate evaluation and judgment
of these models have become an important step to explore
the driving forces of plate tectonics and the relationship and
interaction between plate tectonics and plume tectonics from
the four-dimensional time-space perspective.
4. Conclusion
Since the theory of plate tectonics was proposed in the 1960s,
Earth scientists have been constantly exploring the driving
forces for plate motion, debating about whether it is the
mantle convection-driven “Bottom up” mechanism or the
plate-controlled subduction-driven “Top down” mechanism
that dominates, and about the relationship and interactions
between these two mechanisms throughout the Earth’s dy-
namic evolution. The debates stem from different views/
understandings on plates and plate tectonics and on the re-
lationship between plate tectonics and the Earth system.
 Chen L, et al. Sci China Earth Sci 11

Figure 9 Three interaction modes between plume and overlying lithosphere. (a) Plumes promote and accelerate the continent breakup initially produced by
tectonism (Buiter and Torsvik, 2014). (b) Plume-ridge interaction (Whittaker et al., 2015). Left: If a plume is located just below a MOR, the interactions
between them make the MOR stay stationary for a long time; In the case that the plume is not right below the MOR, the MOR migrates with time, and the
farther the plume from the MOR, the faster the MOR moves. Right: reconstructed absolute MOR locations (coloured lines) and reconstructed LIPs (purple)
around hot-spots (circles). Black thick lines delineate the two LLSVPs above the core-mantle boundary. CATL, Central Atlantic; EPAC, East Pacific; NATL,
North Atlantic; NWIR, Northwest Indian Ridge; SEIR, Southeast Indian Ridge; sSATL, southern South Atlantic; SWIR, Southwest Indian Ridge. (c)
Removal of deep mantle lithosphere due to the upwelling of plumes along weak zones within the previously stable cratonic lithosphere, which leads to
isostatic surface uplift and subsidence in regions with and without lithospheric removal, respectively (Hu et al., 2018).

Further studies about the driving forces of plate movement
are therefore deemed to focus on these two aspects.
Firstly, a better understanding of the nature of plates,
especially their rheological behavior becomes the breach of
studying the driving forces for plate motion in the future.
While the density-determined negative buoyancy of sub-
ducting slabs provides important forces to drive plates to
move, the rheological properties of plates control the plate
speed and deformation characteristics under such driving
forces, as well as the way and process of slab subduction and
its interactions with the surrounding mantle (Billen, 2008;
Stadler et al., 2010; Li and Ribe, 2012). The classical theory
of plate tectonics is based on the rigid plate model. It as-
sumes that tectonic deformations are concentrated only on
narrow plate boundaries. Actual observations, however, re-
veal significant internal deformations of continental and
even oceanic plates (e.g., Tapponnier and Molnar, 1977;
Gordon and Stein, 1992; Yin, 2010). At present, the strength
12 Chen L, et al.
of oceanic plates constrained by subduction models (yield
stress ~100–200 MPa) is significantly different from that
measured in the laboratory (~1 GPa), and controversies re-
main regarding the causes of such a big difference (e.g.,
Kumamoto et al., 2017; Karato and Barbot, 2018). There is
also no consensus on the depth-dependent rheology of sub-
ducting slabs and its distinction from that of the surrounding
mantle (Stadler et al., 2010; Liu and Stegman, 2011; Ghosh
and Holt, 2012). The cognition of the density and rheological
properties of continents is still at the infancy stage (Flesch et
al., 2000; Lee et al., 2011; Liu and Hasterok, 2016; Hu et al.,
2018).
Overall, it is imperative to combine multidisciplinary ob-
servations, such as those from seismology, gravity and
geodesy with geodynamic simulations and experiments, to
comprehensively constrain plate deformations at various
spatial and temporal scales, and to profoundly study the
rheological properties of plates. These are essential for fur-
ther redefining the driving forces for plate motion and un-
derstanding the nature of plate tectonics.
Moreover, the issue of driving forces for plate motion in-
volves not only the nature of plates and operation modes of
plate tectonics, but also the evolution of the whole Earth
system. Such an issue is closely related to many key factors
on Earth, including the way of dynamic coupling and ma-
terial and energy exchange between the Earth’s shallow
depths and deep interiors (Braun, 2010; Li et al., 2010),
origin of plumes and effects of mantle convection (McNa-
mara, 2019), surface processes and periodic evolution of
supercontinents-superplumes as well as their relationship
(Maruyama, 1994; Li and Zhong, 2009; Wan et al., 2019). In
short, the essence of the issue is about the dynamic operation
process and mechanism of the Earth system, which have
become the cutting-edge research and challenges in the
studies of plate tectonics, continental dynamics and Earth
system science (Strategic Plan for the Development of Dis-
ciplines-Plate Tectonics and Continental Dynamics, 2017).
As the geologist Peter Molnar said in the book “Plate
Tectonics: An Insider’s History of the Modern Theory of the
Earth”, the question is not only “what drives plate tec-
tonics?”, but also “which processes and properties dictate the
range of dimensions that plates and the underlying convec-
tion take?”. In order to fully understand the driving forces of
plate tectonics and dynamic evolution of the whole Earth, it
is necessary to take plate tectonics as an inextricable part of
the Earth system, to integrate tightly various tectonic pro-
cesses that take place at either shallow or large depths and in
a way either top down or bottom up, and to carry out sys-
tematic and profound research from the global perspective.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to the scientific editor and three
reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which improved
our manuscript. We appreciate helpful discussions with colleagues in Cof-
Sci China Earth Sci
fice 442 in IGGCAS. This research was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 91855207 and 41688103), the
Strategic Priority Research Program (A) of the Chinese Academy of Sci-
ences (Grant No. XDA20070302) and the independent project of the State
Key Laboratory of the Lithospheric Evolution, IGGCAS (Grant No. SKL-
Z201704-11712180).
References
Anderson D L. 2001. Top-down tectonics. Science, 293: 2016–2018
Armitage J J, Collier J S, Minshull T A, Henstock T J. 2011. Thin oceanic
crust and flood basalts: India-Seychelles breakup. Geochem Geophys
Geosyst, 12: Q0AB07
Artemieva I M. 2009. The continental lithosphere: Reconciling thermal,
seismic, and petrologic data. Lithos, 109: 23–46
Billen M I. 2008. Modeling the dynamics of subducting slabs. Annu Rev
Earth Planet Sci, 36: 325–356
Braun J. 2010. the many surface expressions of mantle dynamics. Nat
Geosci, 3: 825–833
Brune S, Williams S E, Müller R D. 2017. Potential links between con-
tinental rifting, CO2 degassing and climate change through time. Nat
Geosci, 10: 941–946
Buiter S J H, Torsvik T H. 2014. A review of Wilson Cycle plate margins:
A role for mantle plumes in continental break-up along sutures?
Gondwana Res, 26: 627–653
Burke K, Dewey J F. 1973. Plume-generated triple junctions: Key in-
dicators in applying plate tectonics to old rocks. J Geol, 81: 406–433
Cande S C, Stegman D R. 2011. Indian and African plate motions driven by
the push force of the Réunion plume head. Nature, 475: 47–52
40
Chenet A, Quidelleur X, Fluteau F, Courtillot V, Bajpai S. 2007. K- Ar
40
dating of the Main Deccan large igneous province: Further evidence of
KTB age and short duration. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 263: 1–15
Conrad C P, Hager B H. 1999. The thermal evolution of an Earth with
strong subduction zones. Geophys Res Lett, 26: 3041–3044
Conrad C P, Lithgow-Bertelloni C. 2002. How mantle slabs drive plate
tectonics. Science, 298: 207–209
Conrad C P, Lithgow-Bertelloni C. 2004. The temporal evolution of plate
driving forces: Importance of “slab suction” versus “slab pull” during
the Cenozoic. J Geophys Res, 109: B10407
Conrad C P, Lithgow-Bertelloni C. 2006. Influence of continental roots and
asthenosphere on plate-mantle coupling. Geophys Res Lett, 33: L05312
Courtillot V, Davaille A, Besse J, Stock J. 2003. Three distinct types of
hotspots in the Earth’s mantle. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 205: 295–308
Courtillot V, Jaupart C, Manighetti I, Tapponnier P, Besse J. 1999. On
causal links between flood basalts and continental breakup. Earth Planet
Sci Lett, 166: 177–195
Dannberg J, Gassmöller R. 2018. Chemical trends in ocean islands ex-
plained by plume-slab interaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 115: 4351–
4356
Dodd S C, Mac Niocaill C, Muxworthy A R. 2015. Long duration (>4 Ma)
and steady-state volcanic activity in the early Cretaceous Paraná-
Etendeka Large Igneous Province: New palaeomagnetic data from
Namibia. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 414: 16–29
Faccenna C, Becker T W, Conrad C P, Husson L. 2013. Mountain building
and mantle dynamics. Tectonics, 32: 80–93
Flesch L M, Holt W E, Haines A J, Shen-Tu B. 2000. Dynamics of the
Pacific-North American plate boundary in the WeStern United States.
Science, 287: 834–836
Forsyth D, Uyeda S. 1975. On the relative importance of the driving forces
of plate motion. Geophys J Int, 43: 163–200
Foulger G R, Natland J H. 2003. Is “Hotspot” volcanism a consequence of
plate tectonics? Science, 300: 921–922
Frisch W, Blakey R, Meschede M. 2011. Plate Tectonics-Continental Drift
and Mountain Building. Heidelberg: Springer. Chapter 1. 5
Fukao Y, Obayashi M. 2013. Subducted slabs stagnant above, penetrating
through, and trapped below the 660 km discontinuity. J Geophys Res-
 Chen L, et al.
Solid Earth, 118: 5920–5938
Garnero E J, McNamara A K, Shim S H. 2016. Continent-sized anomalous
zones with low seismic velocity at the base of Earth’s mantle. Nat
Geosci, 9: 481–489
Ghosh A, Holt W E. 2012. Plate motions and stresses from global dynamic
models. Science, 335: 838–843
Goes S, Capitanio F A, Morra G. 2008. Evidence of lower-mantle slab
penetration phases in plate motions. Nature, 451: 981–984
Gordon R G, Stein S. 1992. Global tectonics and space geodesy. Science,
256: 333–342
Guest A, Schubert G, Gable C W. 2003. Stress field in the subducting
lithosphere and comparison with deep earthquakes in Tonga. J Geophys
Res, 108: 2288
Gung Y, Panning M, Romanowicz B. 2003. Global anisotropy and the
thickness of continents. Nature, 422: 707–711
Hassan R, Müller R D, Gurnis M, Williams S E, Flament N. 2016. A rapid
burst in hotspot motion through the interaction of tectonics and deep
mantle flow. Nature, 533: 239–242
Hess H H. 1962. History of Ocean Basins. In: Engel A E J, James H L,
Leonard B F, eds. Petrologic Studies: A Volume in Honor of A. F.
Buddington. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. 599–620
Holmes A. 1931. Radioactivity and earth movements. Trans Geol Soc
Glasgow, 18: 559–606
Hu J, Liu L, Faccenda M, Zhou Q, Fischer K M, Marshak S, Lundstrom C.
2018. Modification of the Western Gondwana craton by plume-litho-
sphere interaction. Nat Geosci, 11: 203–210
Isacks B, Molnar P. 1969. Mantle earthquake mechanisms and the sinking
of the lithosphere. Nature, 223: 1121–1124
Isacks B, Oliver J, Sykes L R. 1968. Seismology and the new global
tectonics. J Geophys Res, 73: 5855–5899
Jarrard R D. 1986. Relations among subduction parameters. Rev Geophys,
24: 217–284
Karato S I, Barbot S. 2018. Dynamics of fault motion and the origin of
contrasting tectonic style between Earth and Venus. Sci Rep, 8: 11884
Kumamoto K M, Thom C A, Wallis D, Hansen L N, Armstrong D E J,
Warren J M, Goldsby D L, Wilkinson A J. 2017. Size effects resolve
discrepancies in 40 years of work on low-temperature plasticity in
olivine. Sci Adv, 3: e1701338
Kumar P, Yuan X, Kumar M R, Kind R, Li X, Chadha R K. 2007. The
rapid drift of the Indian tectonic plate. Nature, 449: 894–897
Lee C T A, Luffi P, Chin E J. 2011. Building and destroying continental
mantle. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci, 39: 59–90
Leonard T, Liu L. 2016. The role of a mantle plume in the formation of
Yellowstone volcanism. Geophys Res Lett, 43: 1132–1139
Li S, Suo Y, Li X, Liu B, Dai L, Wang G, Zhou J, Li Y, Liu Y, Cao X,
Somerville I, Mu D, Zhao S, Liu J, Meng F, Zhen L, Zhao L, Zhu J, Yu
S, Liu Y, Zhang G. 2018. Microplate tectonics: New insights from
micro-blocks in the global oceans, continental margins and deep mantle.
Earth-Sci Rev, 185: 1029–1064
Li S Z, Zhang G W, Liu B H, et al. 2010. The future of structural geology in
the new century: Advances in fields of deep-sea, deep-interior, deep-
space and deep-time and related key techniques (in Chinese with
English abstract). Earth Sci Front, 17: 27–43
Li Z H, Ribe N M. 2012. Dynamics of free subduction from 3-D boundary
element modeling. J Geophys Res, 117: B06408
Li Z X, Zhong S. 2009. Supercontinent-superplume coupling, true polar
wander and plume mobility: Plate dominance in whole-mantle tec-
tonics. Phys Earth Planet Inter, 176: 143–156
Li Z X, Mitchell R N, Spencer C J, Ernst R, Pisarevsky S, Kirscher U,
Murphy J B. 2019. Decoding Earth’s rhythms: Modulation of super-
continent cycles by longer superocean episodes. Precambrian Res, 323:
1–5
Lithgow-Bertelloni C, Richards M A. 1998. The dynamics of Cenozoic and
Mesozoic plate motions. Rev Geophys, 36: 27–78
Liu L, Hasterok D. 2016. High-resolution lithosphere viscosity and dy-
namics revealed by magnetotelluric imaging. Science, 353: 1515–
1519
Sci China Earth Sci 13
Liu L, Stegman D R. 2011. Segmentation of the Farallon slab. Earth Planet
Sci Lett, 311: 1–10
Liu L, Zhang J S. 2015. Differential contraction of subducted lithosphere
layers generates deep earthquakes. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 421: 98–106
Liu M Q, Li Z H. 2018. Dynamics of thinning and destruction of the
continental cratonic lithosphere: Numerical modeling. Sci China Earth
Sci, 61: 823–852
Maruyama S, Yuen D A, Windley B F. 2007. Dynamics of plumes and
superplumes through time. In: Yuen D A, Maruyama S, Karato S I,
Windley B F, eds. Superplumes: Beyond Plate Tectonics. Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands. 441–502
Maruyama S. 1994. Plume tectonics. J Geol Soc Jpn, 100: 24–49
McNamara A K. 2019. A review of large low shear velocity provinces and
ultra low velocity zones. Tectonophysics, 760: 199–220
Morgan W J. 1971. Convection plumes in the lower mantle. Nature, 230:
42–43
Müller R D. 2011. Plate motion and mantle plumes. Nature, 475: 40–41
Müller R D, Seton M, Zahirovic S, Williams S E, Matthews K J, Wright N
M, Shephard G E, Maloney K T, Barnett-Moore N, Hosseinpour M,
Bower D J, Cannon J. 2016. Ocean basin evolution and global-scale
plate reorganization events since Pangea breakup. Annu Rev Earth
Planet Sci, 44: 107–138
Nishikawa T, Ide S. 2014. Earthquake size distribution in subduction zones
linked to slab buoyancy. Nat Geosci, 7: 904–908
Prokoph A, El Bilali H, Ernst R. 2013. Periodicities in the emplacement of
large igneous provinces through the Phanerozoic: Relations to ocean
chemistry and marine biodiversity evolution. Geosci Front, 4: 263–276
Quinteros J, Sobolev S V. 2013. Why has the Nazca plate slowed since the
Neogene? Geology, 41: 31–34
Rowley D B, Forte A M, Rowan C J, Glišović P, Moucha R, Grand S P,
Simmons N A. 2016. Kinematics and dynamics of the East Pacific Rise
linked to a stable, deep-mantle upwelling. Sci Adv, 2: e1601107
Schellart W P. 2004. Quantifying the net slab pull force as a driving me-
chanism for plate tectonics. Geophys Res Lett, 31: L07611
Seton M, Müller R D, Zahirovic S, Gaina C, Torsvik T, Shephard G,
Talsma A, Gurnis M, Turner M, Maus S, Chandler M. 2012. Global
continental and ocean basin reconstructions since 200 Ma. Earth-Sci
Rev, 113: 212–270
Sharp W D, Clague D A. 2006. 50-Ma Initiation of Hawaiian-Emperor
Bend records major change in Pacific plate motion. Science, 313: 1281–
1284
Stadler G, Gurnis M, Burstedde C, Wilcox L C, Alisic L, Ghattas O. 2010.
The dynamics of plate tectonics and mantle flow: From local to global
scales. Science, 329: 1033–1038
Stern R J. 2002. Subduction zones. Rev Geophys, 40: 1012
Stern R J. 2007. When and how did plate tectonics begin? Theoretical and
empirical considerations. Chin Sci Bull, 52: 578–591
Storey B C. 1995. The role of mantle plumes in continental breakup: Case
histories from Gondwanaland. Nature, 377: 301–308
Strategic Plan for the Development of Disciplines-Plate Tectonics and
Continental Dynamics. 2017. Jointly Funded by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China and Chinese Academy of Sciences (in
Chinese). Beijing: Science Press
Tapponnier P, Molnar P. 1977. Active faulting and tectonics in China. J
Geophys Res, 82: 2905–2930
Taylor B. 2006. The single largest oceanic plateau: Ontong Java-Manihiki-
Hikurangi. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 241: 372–380
Torsvik T H, Doubrovine P V, Steinberger B, Gaina C, Spakman W, Do-
meier M. 2017. Pacific plate motion change caused the Hawaiian-
Emperor Bend. Nat Commun, 8: 15660
van Hinsbergen D J J, Steinberger B, Doubrovine P V, Gassmöller R. 2011.
Acceleration and deceleration of India-Asia convergence since the
Cretaceous: Roles of mantle plumes and continental collision. J Geo-
phys Res, 116: B06101
Walter M J, Kohn S C, Araujo D, Bulanova G P, Smith C B, Gaillou E,
Wang J, Steele A, Shirey S B. 2011. Deep mantle cycling of oceanic
crust: Evidence from diamonds and their mineral inclusions. Science,
14 Chen L, et al.
334: 54–57
Wan B, Wu F, Chen L, Zhao L, Liang X, Xiao W, Zhu R. 2019. Cyclical
one-way continental rupture-drift in the Tethyan evolution: Subduction-
driven plate tectonics. Sci China Earth Sci, 62: 2005–2016
Wessel P, Müller R D. 2015. Plate tectonics. In: Schubert G, ed. Treatise on
Geophysics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 6: 45–93
Whittaker J M, Afonso J C, Masterton S, Müller R D, Wessel P, Williams S
E, Seton M. 2015. Long-term interaction between mid-ocean ridges and
mantle plumes. Nat Geosci, 8: 479–483
Wilson J T. 1963. Evidence from islands on the spreading of ocean floors.
Nature, 197: 536–538
Wilson J T. 1973. Mantle plumes and plate motions. Tectonophysics, 19:
149–164
Wu F Y, Yang J H, Xu Y G, Wilde S A, Walker R J. 2019. Destruction of
Sci China Earth Sci
the North China craton in the Mesozoic. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci, 47:
173–195
Yin A. 2010. Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Asia: A preliminary synthesis.
Tectonophysics, 488: 293–325
Zahirovic S, Müller R D, Seton M, Flament N. 2015. Tectonic speed limits
from plate kinematic reconstructions. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 418: 40–52
Zhang N, Dang Z, Huang C, Li Z X. 2018. The dominant driving force for
supercontinent breakup: Plume push or subduction retreat? Geosci
Front, 9: 997–1007
Zhou Q, Liu L, Hu J. 2018. Western US volcanism due to intruding oceanic
mantle driven by ancient Farallon slabs. Nat Geosci, 11: 70–76
Zhu R X, Chen L, Wu F Y, Liu J L. 2011. Timing, scale and mechanism of
the destruction of the North China Craton. Sci China Earth Sci, 54:
789–797
(Responsible editor: Xiong XIONG)