2. Palaeozoic and Mesozoic evolution and the basement of the Southern Central Andes

The early Palaeozoic geologic evolution of the study area is characterized by the accretion of allochthonous terranes to the western margin of Gondwana (Fig. 1; Ramos et al. Reference Ramos, Jordan, Allmendinger, Mpodozis, Kay, Cortés and Palma1986). The Cuyania terrane is an exotic block of Laurentian origin (Thomas & Astini, Reference Thomas and Astini1996) that docked against western Gondwana in Ordovician time (Ramos, Dallmeyer & Vujovich, Reference Ramos, Dallmeyer, Vujovich, Pankhurst and Rapela1998; Thomas & Astini, Reference Thomas and Astini2003). The Chilenia terrane is a suspected allochthonous terrane of unknown origin, accreted to Gondwana in Devonian time (Ramos et al. Reference Ramos, Jordan, Allmendinger, Mpodozis, Kay, Cortés and Palma1986; Basei et al. Reference Basei, Ramos, Vujovich and Poma1998; López & Grégori, Reference López and Gregori2004; Massone & Calderón, Reference Massone and Calderón2008; Willner et al. Reference Willner, Gerdes, Massonne, Schmidt, Sudo, Thomson and Vujovich2011; Heredia et al. Reference Heredia, Farías, García-Sansegundo and Giambiagi2012). Early Palaeozoic sedimentation was predominantly marine, and the sediments are exposed in thrust sheets of the Precordillera range (Fig. 2).

Figure 1. Pre-Andean elements of the study area. The suture between terranes/microplates accreted to Gondwana in Palaeozoic time, the extent of Permo-Triassic Choiyoi magmatism and the basins developed during Palaeozoic and Mesozoic times are shown. Note that Palaeozoic basin development also took place in other sectors of the study area, only the Precordillera basin, not covered or intruded by Choiyoi magmatism, is shown.

Figure 2. (a) Morphotectonic units of the Andes between 30° and 36°S, showing the fold and thrust belts of the Cordillera Principal and the structural style (thin- v. thick-skinned). The location of the present magmatic arc and slab depth contours from Cahill & Isacks (Reference Cahill and Isacks1992) are also shown, indicating the extent of flat-slab subduction in the study area. (b) Simplified geologic map of the Andes between 30° and 36°S, based on SEGEMAR (1997) and SERNAGEOMIN (2003). The location of the cross-sections of Figures 4 and 6 is also shown.

Retroarc basins developed throughout the region in Carboniferous – Early Permian times (Limarino & Spalletti, Reference Limarino and Spalletti2006). The sediments deposited in these basins were subsequently deformed along with older rocks during the Gondwanan orogeny (Keidel, Reference Keidel1916; Du Toit, Reference Du Toit1937; Cawood, Reference Cawood2005), locally known as the San Rafael phase (Azcuy & Caminos, Reference Azcuy, Caminos and Archangelsky1987; Ramos, Reference Ramos, Clark, Burchfield and Suppe1988).

The Late Permian – Early Triassic time period was characterized by a widespread extensional event associated with the initial break-up of Gondwana (Charrier, Reference Charrier1979; Llambías, Kleiman & Salvarredi, Reference Llambías, Kleiman, Salvarredi and Ramos1993). The acidic magmatic rocks of the Choiyoi Group (Llambías, Kleiman & Salvarredi, Reference Llambías, Kleiman, Salvarredi and Ramos1993; Sato et al. Reference Sato, Llambías, Basei and Castro2015) were formed during this event in west-central Argentina, covering a significant part of the study area (Figs 1, 2b).

In Late Triassic and Early Jurassic times, continued extension generated the isolated hemigrabens of the Cuyo basin and the initial depocentres of the Neuquén basin (Legarreta & Gulisano, Reference Legarreta, Gulisano, Chebli and Spalletti1989; Kokogián, Fernández Seveso & Mosquera, Reference Kokogián, Fernández Seveso, Mosquera and Ramos1993; Legarreta & Uliana, Reference Legarreta, Uliana and Caminos1999). By Middle Jurassic time, the depocentres of the Neuquén basin coalesced, and the basin achieved its maximum size (shown in Fig. 1 for the study area). Deposition continued during Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous times with alternating marine and continental conditions. Andean uplift at these latitudes started in Late Cretaceous time (c. 90 Ma; Tunik et al. Reference Tunik, Folguera, Naipauer, Pimentel and Ramos2010; Di Giulio et al. Reference Di Giulio, Ronchi, Sanfilippo, Tiepolo, Pimentel and Ramos2012; Mescua, Giambiagi & Ramos, Reference Mescua, Giambiagi and Ramos2013; Balgord & Carrapa, Reference Balgord and Carrapa2016). The present topography of the Andes in the study area is the result of a Miocene to recent stage of deformation and uplift (Ramos, Reference Ramos and Caminos1999; Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Mescua, Bechis, Tassara and Hoke2012; Buelow et al. Reference Buelow, Suriano, Mahoney, Kimbrough, Giambiagi and Mescua2015; Suriano et al. Reference Suriano, Mardonez, Mahoney, Giambiagi and Mescua2015).

As will be described in the following, the pre-late Triassic events resulted in the development of the basement of the Southern Central Andes, including a Precambrian metamorphic mafic–ultramafic basement of the Cuyania terrane, a metamorphic basement associated with the Chilenia terrane, of which information is scarce, and a volcanic–plutonic suite of predominantly acidic rocks of the Choiyoi Group. While the Choiyoi Group rocks are widely exposed throughout the study area, knowledge of the Cuyania and Chilenia basements comes from limited outcrops, complemented in the case of Cuyania with studies of xenoliths included in Miocene volcanic rocks and geophysical data. In the area affected by Choiyoi magmatic activity, Palaeozoic sedimentary rocks were covered and intruded by Choiyoi rocks. Therefore, Palaeozoic rocks were disrupted and appear today as discontinuous outcrops surrounded by Choiyoi rocks. In these areas, we consider them incorporated into the basement, following previous works (e.g. Kozlowski, Manceda & Ramos, Reference Kozlowski, Manceda, Ramos and Ramos1993; Manceda & Figueroa, Reference Manceda, Figueroa, Tankard, Suarez and Welsink1995; Kley, Monaldi & Saltify, Reference Kley, Monaldi and Saltify1999 and many others). In contrast, in sectors outside of the Permo-Triassic magmatic activity like the northern Precordillera (Fig. 1), the Palaeozoic sedimentary packages were not disrupted and are considered as part of the sedimentary cover (Cristallini & Ramos, Reference Cristallini and Ramos2000).

Since the Late Cretaceous deformational episode, the basement became involved in deformation in many sectors of the Andes, while in other sectors thin-skinned fold and thrust belts developed. The thick-skinned sectors include the Cordillera Frontal, the southern end of the Precordillera, and the Malargue and La Ramada fold and thrust belts of the Cordillera Principal (Figs 2, 3). Palaeozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary sequences were involved in Andean deformation as a result of the propagation of basement structures, locally forming thin-skinned fold and thrust belts like the northern Precordillera and the Aconcagua fold and thrust belt in the Cordillera Principal (Figs 2, 3). In the Precordillera, Andean structures partially reuse the pre-Andean (Gondwanan) decollement level according to some authors (e.g. Alonso et al. Reference Alonso, Rodríguez-Fernández, García-Sansegundo, Heredia, Farías and Gallástegui2005).

Figure 3. Depth in kilometres to the top of the weak ductile layer (interpreted as a detachment level) in the study area, obtained from the Tassara & Echaurren (Reference Tassara and Echaurren2012) crustal model. The colours represent the shallowest depth at which the condition ‘ductile yield strength < 100 MPa’ is satisfied. White areas correspond to areas in which that condition does not occur for the upper crust. See text for more details.

3. The Andean orogeny and shortening distribution between 30° and 36°S

The rise of the Andes began in the study area in Late Cretaceous time (Mescua, Giambiagi & Ramos, Reference Mescua, Giambiagi and Ramos2013; Balgord & Carrapa, Reference Balgord and Carrapa2016), with deformation limited to the western part of the Cordillera Principal (Fig. 2a). The present topography of the Andean Cordillera is mainly the result of the Miocene to recent deformation (Ramos et al. Reference Ramos, Aguirre-Urreta, Álvarez, Cegarra, Cristallini, Kay, Lo Forte, Pereyra and Pérez1996; Ramos, Reference Ramos and Caminos1999; Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Mescua, Bechis, Tassara and Hoke2012; Buelow et al. Reference Buelow, Suriano, Mahoney, Kimbrough, Giambiagi and Mescua2015; Suriano et al. Reference Suriano, Mardonez, Mahoney, Giambiagi and Mescua2015). The development of flat-slab subduction since ~ 12 Ma in the northern part of the study area (30–33°S; Fig. 2) is interpreted to have a major role in the evolution of Andean deformation (Jordan et al. Reference Jordan, Isacks, Allmendinger, Brewer, Ramos and Ando1983; Ramos, Cristallini & Pérez, Reference Ramos, Cristallini and Pérez2002). The cessation of magmatic activity in the arc and the uplift of the Sierras Pampeanas 700 km east of the trench are particular features of the flat-slab segment.

The morphotectonic units comprising the Andes in the study area are shown in Figure 2, indicating the structural style (basement v. cover deformation) developed in each. Many works have proposed that upper-crustal deformation in the study area developed over a regional detachment within the basement, but the location of this level varies depending on the different authors at between 20 and 10 km depth (Allmendinger et al. Reference Allmendinger, Figueroa, Synder, Beer, Mpodozis and Isacks1990; Kozlowski, Manceda & Ramos, Reference Kozlowski, Manceda, Ramos and Ramos1993; Manceda & Figueroa, Reference Manceda, Figueroa, Tankard, Suarez and Welsink1995; Kley, Monaldi & Saltify, Reference Kley, Monaldi and Saltify1999; Cristallini & Ramos, Reference Cristallini and Ramos2000; Farías et al. Reference Farías, Comte, Charrier, Martinod, David, Tassara, Tapia and Fock2010).

As for some of our previous works (Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Mescua, Bechis, Tassara and Hoke2012, Reference Giambiagi, Spagnotto, Moreiras, Gómez, Stahlschmidt and Mescua2015 b), we use the geophysically constrained three-dimensional model of lithospheric and crustal structure along the Andean margin presented by Tassara & Echaurren (Reference Tassara and Echaurren2012) in order to obtain a thermomechanical representation that can be used for estimating the geometry of potential crustal detachments. As explained elsewhere (see details in Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Mescua, Bechis, Tassara and Hoke2012, Reference Giambiagi, Tassara, Mescua, Tunik, Alvarez, Godoy, Hoke, Pinto, Spagnotto, Porras, Tapia, Jara, Bechis, García, Suriano, Pagano, Sepúlveda, Giambiagi, Moreiras, Pinto, Tunik, Hoke and Farías2015 b), the 3D geometry of the Lithosphere–Asthenosphere Boundary (LAB) of Tassara & Echaurren (Reference Tassara and Echaurren2012) is considered an isotherm of 1350°C. Thermal conduction with radiogenic heat production in the upper crust is assumed in order to compute the 1D geotherms that can be extrapolated in a 3D temperature field; each geotherm is then used along with constitutive rheologic laws for brittle and thermally dependent ductile deformation in order to construct 1D yield strength envelopes (Burov & Diament, Reference Burov and Diament1995). After extrapolation in 3D, this thermomechanical model predicts the possible rheological (brittle–elastic–ductile) behaviour of crust and mantle under loading by differential tectonic stresses and can be used to identify weak ductile mechanical layers inside the crust, where upper-crustal faults are likely rooted. The model is built with a 2 km vertical resolution. For high geothermal gradients at the Cordilleran axis, the intracrustal discontinuity separating upper and lower crust in the original model of Tassara & Echaurren (Reference Tassara and Echaurren2012) serves as the base of a weak ductile layer located in the upper crust, with a predicted ductile strength lower than the average differential stress caused by far-field tectonic forces of 100 MPa (Coblentz & Richardson, Reference Coblentz and Richardson1996). Therefore, this crustal weak zone would flow under this tectonic load, allowing its possible use as a mechanical detachment level for upper-crustal faults. Figure 3 shows a map of the depth (with respect to sea level) to the top of such a weak layer, located at between ~ 3 and 10 km in the study area. The bottom of the weak layer (see Fig. 4) is located at a depth of between ~ 5 and 18 km. The cross-sections presented in Figure 4, which were built without taking into account the thermomechanical models, show an upper-crustal detachment located at depths similar or slightly deeper than the weak ductile layer. Taking into account the vertical resolution of 2 km in the thermomechanical model and the fact that this model is based on present conditions, we consider that overall, both detachment estimations (structural and geophysical) are consistent. We can thus assume that the depth to detachment within the basement during Andean deformation is rooted at less than 18–20 km throughout the study area. We can therefore characterize the basement for Andean deformation based on the geophysical studies detailed in Sections 2a–c.

Figure 4. Cross-sections of the Andean orogen between 30° and 36°S, indicating shortening distribution across-strike. See text for details. (a) Cross-section at 32°S (based on Cristallini & Ramos, Reference Cristallini and Ramos2000). Inset shows the thin-skinned Río San Juan cross-section of the Precordillera (according to the same authors). (b) Cross-section at 33°S (Based on Cegarra & Ramos, Reference Cegarra, Ramos and Ramos1996; Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Mescua, Bechis, Martínez and Folguera2011; Jara et al. Reference Jara, Likerman, Winocur, Ghiglione, Cristallini, Pinto, Charrier, Sepúlveda, Giambiagi, Moreiras, Pinto, Tunik, Hoke and Farías2015). Inset shows the northern thin-skinned Aconcagua fold and thrust belt based on Cegarra & Ramos (Reference Cegarra, Ramos and Ramos1996). (c) Cross-section at 33°40’S (based on Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Tassara, Mescua, Tunik, Alvarez, Godoy, Hoke, Pinto, Spagnotto, Porras, Tapia, Jara, Bechis, García, Suriano, Pagano, Sepúlveda, Giambiagi, Moreiras, Pinto, Tunik, Hoke and Farías2015b ). Inset shows the southern Aconcagua fold and thrust belt with a mixed thin- and thick-skinned deformation. (d) Cross-section at 35°S in the thick-skinned Malargüe fold and thrust belt (based on Mescua et al. Reference Mescua, Giambiagi, Tassara, Giménez and Ramos2014). Inset shows a detail of the Las Leñas area, where Andean thrusts uplift the Choiyoi basement.

We will analyse the upper-crustal shortening distribution across the strike of the orogen for selected cross-sections of the foreland fold and thrust belts (east of the Miocene to present magmatic arc). Figure 4 displays the structural style as well as the shortening distribution across each transect. The northern transects (A and B in Fig. 2) correspond to the flat-slab segment, transect D is in the southern ‘normal’ subduction segment, and transect C is located in the transition. The along-strike decrease in shortening to the south in the study area is likely the result of flat-slab development in the north.

In the northern transect (32°S), Cristallini & Ramos (Reference Cristallini and Ramos2000) estimated 15 km of shortening in the La Ramada fold and thrust belt in the eastern Cordillera Principal, over Chilenia and Choiyoi basements, and 4 to 6 km in the Cordillera Frontal developed on Choiyoi basement (Fig. 4a). Shortening along this transect is mainly concentrated in the Precordillera, where the Palaeozoic sedimentary units form a thin-skinned fold and thrust belt over Cuyania basement. The basement here is not involved in the outcropping structures. Unlike the rest of the study area, in the northern Precordillera the Palaeozoic structures were not covered by Choiyoi magmatism. Balanced cross-sections by different workers have estimated shortening between 88 and 136 km (Von Gosen, Reference Von Gosen1992; Cristallini & Ramos, Reference Cristallini and Ramos2000), although the Precordillera reactivates a late Palaeozoic thrust belt developed during the San Rafael phase, and there is some debate on the proportion of Cenozoic v. Palaeozoic shortening. Alonso et al. (Reference Alonso, Rodríguez-Fernández, García-Sansegundo, Heredia, Farías and Gallástegui2005) and Álvarez Marrón et al. (Reference Álvarez Marrón, Rodríguez-Fernández, Heredia, Busquets, Colombo and Brown2006) have proposed that most shortening in the Precordillera is pre-Andean. According to these authors, Andean shortening would be less than half that previously proposed (45 km of Andean shortening for the San Juan River cross-section at 31°30’S; Alonso et al. Reference Alonso, Rodríguez-Fernández, García-Sansegundo, Heredia, Farías and Gallástegui2005). In spite of this discussion, there is a consensus on the structural style, corresponding to a thin-skinned fold and thrust belt for both pre-Andean and Andean deformation, and on the higher shortening in the Precordillera than in the Cordillera Principal and Frontal.

The Aconcagua transect (33°S) presents a quite different shortening distribution across strike (Fig. 4b). The Aconcagua fold and thrust belt of the Cordillera Principal, with a thin-skinned deformation of Neuquén basin sediments, absorbed most of the shortening, calculated by Cegarra & Ramos (Reference Cegarra, Ramos and Ramos1996) as ~ 63 km. A few more kilometres (< 10 km) of shortening in the Western Cordillera Principal can be deduced from the cross-sections of Jara et al. (Reference Jara, Likerman, Winocur, Ghiglione, Cristallini, Pinto, Charrier, Sepúlveda, Giambiagi, Moreiras, Pinto, Tunik, Hoke and Farías2015). Chilenia/magmatic arc and Choiyoi basement underlies this fold thrust belt. The transition between both basement domains is not well documented, since the western extent of Choiyoi magmatism in the subsurface is not clear. Shortening for the Cordillera Frontal is estimated at ~ 15–20 km, and the southern Precordillera only shows ~ 10 km of shortening (Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Mescua, Bechis, Martínez and Folguera2011). Both morphotectonic units are developed on Choiyoi basement in this area, without a well-developed, continuous sedimentary cover. Furthermore, the southern Precordillera was affected by normal faults during the Triassic development of the Cuyo basin, disrupting the possible detachment levels of the Palaeozoic sediments.

The distribution of shortening along the Maipo–Tunuyán transect (33°40’S) is similar to the Aconcagua transect, but displays smaller amounts of shortening in each morphotectonic unit (Fig. 4c; Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Tassara, Mescua, Tunik, Alvarez, Godoy, Hoke, Pinto, Spagnotto, Porras, Tapia, Jara, Bechis, García, Suriano, Pagano, Sepúlveda, Giambiagi, Moreiras, Pinto, Tunik, Hoke and Farías2015b ). The Cordillera Principal, developed over Chilenia and Choiyoi basement with a Neuquén basin sedimentary cover, shows ~ 50 km of shortening, and the Cordillera Frontal, developed over Choiyoi basement without a sedimentary cover, shows ~ 15 km of shortening; the Precordillera is replaced at this latitude by limited inversion of the Cuyo basin developed over Choiyoi basement, accumulating less than 5 km of shortening (Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Spagnotto, Moreiras, Gómez, Stahlschmidt and Mescua2015a ).

South of 34°S, the Cordillera Frontal sinks below Cenozoic sediments, and the Andes comprise only the Cordillera Principal, as shown by the Rio Salado transect (35°S). This cross-section (Fig. 4d), taken as an example of the structural style and shortening of the thick-skinned Malargüe fold and thrust belt, where Choiyoi basement is overlain by a Neuquén basin sedimentary cover, presents a combination of tectonic inversion of Mesozoic normal faults and thrusts developed during Cenozoic time (Kozlowski, Manceda & Ramos, Reference Kozlowski, Manceda, Ramos and Ramos1993; Manceda & Figueroa, Reference Manceda, Figueroa, Tankard, Suarez and Welsink1995; Mescua & Giambiagi, Reference Mescua and Giambiagi2012; Mescua et al. Reference Mescua, Giambiagi, Tassara, Giménez and Ramos2014). Along the Malargüe fold and thrust belt, shortening decreases to the south from 27 to 10 km (Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Mescua, Bechis, Tassara and Hoke2012).

A summary of shortening variations in the study area and basement features is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Basement, cover, structural style and shortening variations in the morphotectonic units of the study area

4. Estimation of the strength of the different basement domains and sedimentary rocks

In upper-crustal conditions, deformation is controlled by brittle fracture or frictional sliding (Jaeger, Reference Jaeger1969; Sibson, Reference Sibson1974, Reference Sibson1977).

Rock strength calculations for brittle failure can be made using the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, but that requires extensive laboratory testing of samples to determine the cohesive strength and coefficient of internal friction (Jaeger & Cook, Reference Jaeger and Cook1979; Zoback, Reference Zoback2010), data which is not available for the different rock types of the study area. General compilations indicate that properties of sandstones and granitic rocks overlap, while mafic metamorphic rocks are stronger (Carmichael, Reference Carmichael1982). A simplified version of the failure criterion, the linearized Mohr–Coulomb envelope (Colmenares & Zoback, Reference Colmenares and Zoback2002), can be used to describe the strength of rocks based on two parameters: the coefficient of internal friction (μ_i ) and the unconfined compressive strength (UCS).

Some empirical formulations have been developed to relate the UCS of a rock to different properties such as P-wave velocity (Vp), density (ρ), Young's modulus (E), etc. This approach to calculating rock strength implies that the coefficient of internal friction is of secondary importance because even weak rocks have high internal friction (Zoback, Reference Zoback2010), and therefore UCS is a good representation of rock strength. Average values of some of these properties are available for rocks in the study area from a number of geophysical studies (as detailed below and in Table 2). We will use the equation proposed by Freyburg (Reference Freyburg1972):

(1) $$\begin{equation} {{\it UCS}}\;{\rm{ = }}\;{\rm{0}}{\rm{.035}{\it Vp}}\;{\rm{ - }}\;{\rm{31}}{\rm{.5}} \end{equation}$$

Table 2. Density and P-wave velocity of basement and sedimentary rocks in the study area. Results for unconfined compressive strength (UCS) using equation (1)

as a first-order approximation of rock strength to brittle failure in the study area.

However, in most cases, the strength of rocks in the upper crust responds to frictional sliding along a pre-existing surface, since these rocks usually have inherited structures. In our case study, basement and sedimentary rocks have experienced long histories of tectonic activity before Andean deformation that generated fractures of different directions (e.g. Von Gosen, Reference Von Gosen1992; Giambiagi et al. Reference Giambiagi, Mescua, Bechis, Martínez and Folguera2011; Mescua & Giambiagi, Reference Mescua and Giambiagi2012). A linear frictional failure criterion applies, which can be defined in terms of the differential stress, and allows us to estimate rock strength from density as (Sibson, Reference Sibson1974; Ranalli & Murphy, Reference Ranalli and Murphy1987):

(2) $$\begin{equation} {{\rm{\sigma }}_{\rm{1}}}\;{\rm{ - }}\;{{\rm{\sigma }}_{\rm{3}}} \ge {\rm{ \beta \rho gz}}\left( {{\rm{1}}\;{\rm{ - }}\;{\rm{\lambda }}} \right) \end{equation}$$

where σ₁ and σ₃ are maximum and minimum compressive stresses, respectively, g the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m s⁻²), z is depth (km), λ the pore fluid factor (ratio of pore fluid pressure to overburden pressure) and β a parameter depending on the type of faulting regime, with values of 3, 1.2 and 0.75 for thrust, strike-slip and normal faulting regimes, respectively, if a friction coefficient of 0.6 is assumed (following Byerlee, Reference Byerlee1978). Therefore, the frictional failure criterion defines a pressure-dependent mechanism, unaffected by temperature. Assuming hydrostatic pore fluid pressure, the main control on upper-crustal rock strength for a particular faulting regime is rock density. Estimates obtained using equation (2) are conservative, since we use the same friction value of 0.6 (the lower value indicated by Byerlee, Reference Byerlee1978) for all rocks.

We calculated the strength of the different basement and sedimentary rocks to brittle failure and frictional sliding using equations (1) and (2) and V_p and ρ estimates for Cuyania basement rocks (Pérez Luján et al. Reference Pérez Luján, Ammirati, Alvarado and Vujovich2015), Precordillera Palaeozoic sedimentary rocks (Pérez Luján et al. Reference Pérez Luján, Alvarado, Guell, Sáez and Vujovich2013; Perucca & Ruiz, Reference Perucca and Ruiz2014), Choiyoi basement and Neuquén basin sedimentary rocks (Rojas Vera et al. Reference Rojas Vera, Folguera, Zamora Valcarce, Giménez, Ruiz, Martínez, Bottesi and Ramos2010), and Cuyo basin sedimentary rocks (Miranda & Robles, Reference Miranda and Robles2002), as well as the theoretical calculations of density for different lithologies and their variation with depth of Tassara (Reference Tassara2006). The data are shown in Table 2, and results are summarized in Figure 5. In all those works, V_p estimates are given for certain depths, and we only calculated strength from equation (1) for the depths reported in those publications. In contrast, equation (2) allowed us to estimate a continuous curve for frictional rock strength variations with depth, assuming that density variations for each unit are well represented by the values shown in Table 2. It must be noted that the sedimentary successions contain shale and gypsum horizons that do not respond to these strength calculations, being very weak rocks that act as ductile detachment levels (see Section 2.d).

Figure 5. Strength against frictional sliding of basement and sedimentary rocks with depth. When two curves are shown for a rock unit, they correspond to the maximum and minimum density values indicated in geophysical works as shown in Table 2. (a) Strength contrast between the strong Cuyania basement and the Precordillera Palaeozoic basement rocks, which favoured the development of the thin-skinned northern Precordillera. (b) Strength contrast between the Chilenia/magmatic arc basement, which favoured the development of the thin-skinned Aconcagua fold and thrust belt. (c) Lack of strength contrast between the Choiyoi basement and the Neuquén basin rocks, which favoured basement involvement in the deformation.

7. Concluding remarks

Several researchers have argued that the existence of a thick, continuous sedimentary basin and the presence of extensional basin depocentres were the main factors controlling the development of thin-skinned and thick-skinned belts, respectively (e.g. Allmendinger & Gubbels, Reference Allmendinger and Gubbels1996; Kley, Monaldi & Saltify, Reference Kley, Monaldi and Saltify1999).

The analysis of rock strength variations in the Southern Central Andes indicates that thin-skinned thrust belts with high amounts of shortening developed where the basement was strong. Therefore, a basement with a high strength contrast to the overlying sedimentary basin seems to be a requisite for the formation of thin-skinned belts, hindering basement involvement in the deformation. This is the case for Cuyania basement and Precordillera Palaeozoic rocks, and for Chilenia/magmatic arc basement and Neuquén basin rocks.

In areas where thick sedimentary basins overlie weak basement (with strength similar to basin rocks), thick-skinned deformation took place. While basement involvement can be favoured by weak pre-existing normal faults, in some areas it is the result of Andean thrusts, indicating that the basement is not significantly stronger that its cover. Our strength calculations for Choiyoi basement and Neuquén basin sediments support this idea.

In this way, while the total shortening for each transect is a result of the dynamics of the subduction system, the across-strike shortening distribution in the foreland thrust belts of the Andes between 30 and 36°S is controlled by the strength contrast between the different basement domains and the sedimentary cover. A secondary contribution by the geometry of the depocentres of the Neuquén basin is also supported.