Eocene intra-plate shortening responsible for the rise of a faunal pathway in the northeastern Caribbean realm.

Intriguing latest Eocene land-faunal dispersals between South America and the Greater Antilles (northern Caribbean) has inspired the hypothesis of the GAARlandia (Greater Antilles Aves Ridge) land bridge. This landbridge, however, should have crossed the Caribbean oceanic plate, and the geological evolution of its rise and demise, or its geodynamic forcing, remain unknown. Here we present the results of a land-sea survey from the northeast Caribbean plate, combined with chronostratigraphic data, revealing a regional episode of mid to late Eocene, trench-normal, E-W shortening and crustal thickening by ∼25%. This shortening led to a regional late Eocene-early Oligocene hiatus in the sedimentary record revealing the location of an emerged land (the Greater Antilles-Northern Lesser Antilles, or GrANoLA, landmass), consistent with the GAARlandia hypothesis. Subsequent submergence is explained by combined trench-parallel extension and thermal relaxation following a shift of arc magmatism, expressed by a regional early Miocene transgression. We tentatively link the NE Caribbean intra-plate shortening to a well-known absolute and relative North American and Caribbean plate motion change, which may provide focus for the search of the remaining connection between 'GrANoLA' land and South America, through the Aves Ridge or Lesser Antilles island arc. Our study highlights the how regional geodynamic evolution may have driven paleogeographic change that is still reflected in current biology.

Introduction

Darwin [1] already recognized that the West Indies (Greater Antilles, Bahamas, and Lesser Antilles) appear to have been colonized by South American terrestrial mammal faunas. By now, paleontological findings of chinchilloid rodents [2, 3] and eleutherodactylids [4] have identified that part of this colonization occurred in late Eocene to early Oligocene times (∼40–30 Ma). This is consistent with relaxed molecular clock constraints from terrestrial faunal elements from the Caribbean such as sloths (recently extinct [5, 6]) and spiders [7], amphibians such as eleutherodactylid frogs and bufonids [8, 9], and freshwater aquatic organisms such as cichlids [10, 11].

This is surprising, because these islands are separated from the South American continent by the mostly oceanic, and deep-marine Caribbean plate. This intriguing colonization inspired the hypothesis that dispersals occurred through emerged areas forming a contiguous or semi-contiguous land bridge: the hypothesis of ‘GAARlandia’, the land of Greater Antilles and Aves Ridge [12, 13]. Indeed, the Paleocene-Late Eocene Grenada Basin separates the Aves Ridge from the Lesser Antilles arc where Cretaceous to Paleogene volcanic and plutonic rocks of island arc affinities occur, thus Itturalde-Vinent and McPhee [12] postulate that the Aves ridge and the Lesser Antilles consisted once in a single volcanic arc connected with the Aruba-Tobago belt to the south and the Greater Antilles to the north. According to these authors, the synchronous cessation of volcanic activity along Aves and the opening of the Grenada Basin might reflect a local change in the subduction regime. Today, the Aves Ridge is a submarine high, but still submerged to ∼1km depth, formed by a former, Mesozoic to possibly Paleogene volcanic arc, and most islands of the Lesser Antilles are post-Eocene volcanoes separated by deep-marine basins [14, 15] (Fig 1A). Because the land bridge has so far not been demonstrated from the geological or geophysical record, and no mechanisms have been shown to explain its rise and demise, the alternative hypothesis would be over-water dispersal through flotsam [16].

Fig 1

Geodynamics of the Caribbean plate.

A) Present-day. The North, South American and Caribbean Plate motions are provided in blue, red and green, respectively, in the hot spot reference frame [27]. B) 35 Ma after [20]. The GAARlandia land bridge, as drawn by [12] and [2], is indicated in light pink; the arrow indicates the dispersal of South American non-aquatic animals toward the Greater Antilles. PR, VI, AR, GB and CLIP, Car, Sam, Nam stand for, Puerto-Rico, Virgin Island, Aves Ridge, Grenada Basin, Caribbean Large Igneous Province, Caribbean plate, South American plate and North America plate, respectively. C) Map of the Lesser Antilles showing the Aves Ridge, Grenada Basin, Lesser Antilles and crustal thickness (iso-contours from gravity modeling after [28, 29]; white dots: Moho depth estimates based on receiver function inversions from [30, 31]). Figure made with GeoMapApp (www.geomapapp.org) / CC BY [32].

Potential mechanisms for uplift and subsidence of a land bridge include intra-plate deformation, volcanism, and dynamic topography. In that respect, it is interesting that in the Eocene epoch leading up to the rise of the conceptual land bridge, the American and the Caribbean plates where involved in a major relative and absolute plate motion change, leading to a tectonic reorganization of their boundaries (e.g., [17-21]). In a mantle reference frame, the Caribbean Plate had until the mid-Eocene been slowly moving NE towards North America, whilst North America moved SW wards. Between 50–40 Ma, North American absolute plate motion changed to westwards [20, 21], the Caribbean Plate became near mantle stationary, and a new plate boundary formed along the E-W trending Motagua-Cayman transform system, cutting off Cuba and the Yucatan Basin from the Caribbean Plate [18, 19] (Fig 1A). Around the same time, the buoyant Bahamas bank entered the subduction zone below Cuba and Hispaniola, uplifting these two Greater Antillean islands, solving part of the GAARlandia hypothesis [12] (Fig 1). Puerto Rico followed in the late Eocene-early Oligocene [22], but the northern Lesser Antilles and the Aves Ridge were away from, and not significantly affected by this collision (Fig 1B). However, due to this plate reorganization, from the middle Eocene onwards, highly oblique subduction below the Lesser Antilles became trench-normal subduction, i.e. at much higher net subduction rates, which may have contributed to regional deformation and uplift and crustal growth through magmatism (Fig 1C). The tectonic evolution of the northeastern Caribbean region is thus of interest to evaluate the plausibility of the GAARlandia hypothesis.

Here we evaluate to what extent mid-Eocene changes in plate kinematic setting generated intra-plate deformation that may have contributed to land uplift and emergence in the northern Lesser Antilles islands. Most of these islands are Miocene and younger volcanoes, but the northeastern ones, between the active volcanic arc and the trench, expose Eocene volcano-sedimentary rocks [23, 24] that reveal evidence for Caribbean plate deformation [23, 25]. We study the Eocene deformation history based on the onshore geological record of St. Barthélemy Island combined with offshore seismic profiles orthogonal to the Lesser Antilles trench that were collected during the GARANTI cruise [26]. We evaluate our findings in terms of the occurrence, timing, and style of intra-plate deformation, and estimate whether this may have contributed to the rise and demise of a landmass that would have connected the Greater Antilles to the Aves Ridge.

Geodynamic history and geological settings

The Caribbean Plate consists mainly of Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous oceanic crust derived from the Farallon Plate [33]. Its lithosphere is partly covered by the ∼90 Ma Caribbean Large Igneous Province [14, 34], which lies west of an extinct intra-oceanic arc represented by the Aves Ridge and an associated Jurassic back-arc basin to the east that currently underlies the Lesser Antilles islands [14, 15, 17] (Fig 1C). The plate migrated northeastward between the Americas during Cretaceous to early Eocene times, accommodated by southwest-dipping sub-duction below the Greater Antilles arc now found on Cuba, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico [17], and a propagating transform plate boundary, or a highly oblique subduction zone along the eastern Caribbean plate boundary. During the 50–40 Ma plate reorganization, subduction became near-trench-normal at the Lesser Antilles trench [20]. In the upper plate, the oceanic Grenada back-arc basin started forming in the southeastern Caribbean region [28, 35], while small-scale field evidence has been presented suggesting that the northeastern Caribbean region underwent shortening [23, 36]. The Aves Ridge lies in the present-day back arc region of the Lesser Antilles active arc. From north to south, there is a conspicuous morphologic dichotomy: between the Aves Ridge and the active arc in the south lies the Grenada basin with a flat bathymetry, a mean depth of 2800 m, and a shallow ∼10–15km depth Moho. In the north, however, the seafloor topography is rough, its mean bathymetry is -1400 m, and the Moho is deeper, ~25 km [28, 29](Fig 1C). The Moho beneath the present-day arc and the fore-arc even reaches 29–38 km depth in northern Lesser Antilles [30, 31, 37]. (Fig 1C). Such a thick crust there is puzzling, and may have even been thicker given that the northern Lesser Antilles region accommodated extension since at least the Oligocene–Miocene interval [23, 38, 39]. Remnants of Eocene–Oligocene magmatic rocks and synchronous and younger sediments are exposed in the northeastern Lesser Antilles forearc, whereas most other islands expose upper Miocene to recent active arc magmatic rocks. These Eocene–Oligocene volcanic rocks were often formed subaerially, and erosional unconformities have been documented above Paleocene–Eocene marine series affecting the Anguilla and Saba banks [23, 24, 40]. This suggests that during and after the Eocene Caribbean plate reorganization, the northeastern Caribbean region underwent vertical motions and emergence, followed by subsidence, which is of interest in evaluating the GAARlandia hypothesis.

Eocene thrusting in the Lesser Antilles

Onshore deformation

St. Barthélemy Island (NE of the Caribbean Plate, Fig 1C) exposes middle Eocene to lower Miocene interbedded volcanoclastic rocks and limestones, both intruded by shallow plutons (Fig 2A) [23, 24]. The regional bedding is monoclinal with a mean dip of 20°toward the S-SE, with local perturbations in the vicinity of intrusions or normal faults [23]. In the eastern part of the island, however, we mapped previously unrecognized folds and faults. There, a volcano-sedimentary and carbonate series that is tilted ∼70°W-WSW is separated by a hanging wall cutoff from a 10°SSW-dipping footwall (Fig 2B). The contact consists of a brittle shear zone with striations indicating westward displacement (Fig 2B and 2C). We interpret this structure as a thrust ramp-and-flat system with a top-to-the-W displacement, indicating a flat part located offshore to the east, crosscut by granodioritic intrusion as well as by younger, steeply dipping normal faults (Fig 2D). The hangingwall limestone beds consist of wackestones with large benthic foraminifera (S1 Fig) (e.g., Coleiconus christianaensis Robinson, S1Aa and S1B Fig, and Barattolites trentinarensis Vecchio and Hottinger), indicating early to mid-Eocene ages -Ypresian to Lutetian/Bartonian- [24, 41]. The occurrence of rotaliids such as Medocia sp. (S1Ab Fig), miliolids such as Praerhapydionina (S1Cb Fig) and planktonic foraminifera, such as Turborotalia pessagnoensis (Tourmakine and Bolli) and Planorotalites pseudoscitula (Glaessner) (S1Cc and S1D Fig), further constrains the age to the Lutetian (P10-P12a, 47.8-41.2 Ma; [42, 43]). The post-thrust magmatic intrusion was dated at 39.79 ± 0.78 Ma (40Ar/39Ar on feldspar, sample SB16-10; Legendre et al., 2018). An andesitic dyke exposed in the footwall immediately below the thrust (Fig 2B and 2D, yielded an age of 42.53 ± 0.86 Ma (40Ar/39Ar on feldspar, S1 File). Thus, the time range for thrusting is constrained between ca 42.5 Ma and ca 39.8 Ma (with 2σ level errors).

Fig 2

St. Barthélemy.

A) Simplified geological map modified after [23, 24]; B) High-resolution map of the eastern part of the island, stereograms shows the average dip in the footwall (autochthonous) and hangingwall (allochthonous) of the thrust; radioisotopic and biostratigraphic age are indicated. Field photograph of C) the highly tilted allochthonous lying on the sub-horizontal autochthonous and D) shows the thrust with striation indicating a WSW directed thrusting, E)∼ E-W cross section AA’ of the thrust.

Spatial extension of the thickened domain

Offshore seismic profiles and gravity data were acquired during the GARANTI cruise west of St. Barthélemy, around and on the Saba Bank, in the Lesser Antilles arc, and backarc area (S2 File) (Fig 3). We provide a 2D model of gravity data (S3 File) that gives a 40 km crustal thickness below the Lesser Antilles forearc, which is consistent with previously published data (30, 31)(Fig 4A and 4B). We correlated the seismic stratigraphy correlated with the stratigraphy constrained in the SB2 petroleum well [40] (Fig 3A). A major erosional unconformity separates a upper Eocene and younger retrograding sedimentary sequence (34.7 and 38.4 Ma andesites sit at the base of this sequence; [40]), from an inverted Paleocene to mid-Eocene basin, whose basement is inferred to be Late Cretaceous in age. Our 3D block model is constrained by land-sea correlation of seismic lines with field-mapping and shows the regional deformation pattern characterized by imbricated thrust slices and a west-verging thrust system (Fig 3B). We have reconstructed displacements along the steep dipping normal faults (Fig 4C), unfolded the thrust sheet along the ramp-flat system toward the trench and also restored lower crustal shearing (Fig 4D).We estimate a bulk shortening of 25%, which for our section amounts to. ~75 km (Fig 4D). Previous estimates suggested ≥15% of Oligocene and younger extension in the northern Lesser Antilles region [23, 38].

Fig 3

Onshore-offshore geological correlation.

A) Map of the Northeastern Caribbean plate showing the location of the GARANTI Cruise seismic lines and the. Onshore-offshore geological correlation B) Correlation between the lines GA15C and C2 showing the upper Eocene regional unconformity (Orange) sealing the Eocene inverted basin. Inset: location of St. Barthélemy and seismic lines; C) Strain pattern of the Northern Lesser Antilles forearc-arc–backarc integrating land-sea data (for correlation between all the seismic data please refer to the Fig 1 provided in S2 File). The bathymetry has been extracted from the GEBCO 2014 Grid, version 20141103, GEBCO website.

Fig 4

Crustal strain.

A) Model of the crustal thickness (inversion of gravimetric data) along a NE-SW trending line from the trench to the Venezuela basin (location Fig 1C); B) Crustal strain pattern of the Northern Lesser Antilles; C) Restoration of the extensive deformation; D) Restoration of the compressive deformation.

Discussion

Crustal shortening and thickening, and subsequent extension and thinning are expected to lead to uplift followed by subsidence in the time interval of the hypothesized GAARlandia land bridge. Correcting for this thickening would reduce the crustal thickness from the fore-arc to the Aves Ridge to approximately 30km, on par with the thickness of the crust in the southern Lesser Antilles arc where no evidence for shortening exists and that likely underwent only magmatic thickening [37] (Fig 4C).

We infer that the geodynamic cause of our reconstructed overriding plate shortening is regional, restricted to the NE Caribbean plate. On the Greater Antilles islands to the west, Cenozoic shortening prior to and during the Eocene collision with the Bahamas platform was restricted to accretionary orogenesis, stacking sedimentary units belonging to the subducting North American Plate below the overriding Caribbean lithosphere [12, 44]. On Cuba, latest Cretaceous metamorphic core complexes did not undergo inversion (e.g., [45]), suggesting that collision was not associated with major upper plate shortening, and uplift was instead dominated by underthrusting of buoyant accretionary prism rocks and Bahamas crust. In the southeast Caribbean region, upper plate deformation was extensional instead of compressional, resulting in Paleogene opening of the Grenada basin (e.g., [46]), and there is little evidence for major inversion. We infer that the shortening of the northeastern Caribbean plate is probably a response to the change in the North American absolute plate motion and the related Caribbean plate reorganization. This reorganization changed the absolute motion of North America from southwest to west ([20], Fig 5), which also affected its subducted portions. At the Lesser Antilles trench, which became near-mantle stationary [20], the change resulted in trench-normal, regular subduction, but in the Puerto Rico region in the north, the change must have induced westward motion of subducted lithosphere, so-called slab dragging [47, 48]. We infer that northeastern Caribbean E-W shortening is a response of the junction region between the N-S and E-W portions of the plate boundary to this change in absolute motion of the subducting North American plate. This may for instance have led to a local flattening of the slab that was previously proposed to explain the westward migration of the active arc [49]. Late Eocene intra-plate shortening straightforwardly explains the uplift leading to the observed aerial erosional surface [23, 24] and the subsequent regional hiatus spanning the late Eocene and much of the Oligocene, thereby supporting the hypothesis of an intra-oceanic subaerial connection between Puerto Rico and the northern Lesser Antilles (‘GrANoLA’ land, i.e. Greater Antilles-Northern Lesser Antilles,Fig 5), which is fully consistent with the antiquity and phylogenetic affinities of fossil chinchilloid rodents from the concerned islands (early Oligocene–Holocene; Borikenomys praecursor and ‘giant hutias’; [3]). Post-Oligocene demise of this landmass is reflected in a regional Miocene transgression due to regional subsidence, and is straightforwardly explained by trench parallel forearc extension and forearc block rotation in combination with thermal relaxation related to the cessation of arc activity in the northeastern Lesser Antilles islands [25, 39, 50].

Fig 5

Paleogeography of the northern Lesser Antilles realm at 35 Ma.

Map of the eastern Caribbean at 35 Ma modified after [20], showing the domain affected by upper crustal shortening. GrANoLA stands for ‘Greater Antilles-Northern Lesser Antilles’.

Yet, the uplift and emergence of the northeastern Caribbean region add credibility to the GAARlandia hypothesis as it supports the presence of landmasses larger than the ones currently present in the region. Nevertheless, regional topography south of GrANoLA is not satisfactorily constrained yet and thus it remains unclear whether a continuous landspan or closely-spaced islands have occurred there by mid-Cenozoic times, as suggested by [13]. In any case, this topographic pattern and the short temporal duration of this event have most likely acted as a filter for Paleogene terrestrial vertebrates. Moreover, our results shed new light on the tectonic and geodynamic changes that affected the eastern Caribbean region and the area of the hypothesized land bridge during the late Eocene biological dispersion. This provides an urgency for further study of the potential causes and locations of land bridge formation and demise of a connection of to South America, in the Aves Ridge or Lesser Antilles arc and forearc region.

Our work connects geodynamic changes underlying the Caribbean plate reorganization to regional paleogeographic evolution which is reflected in current biology. The geodynamic change leading to and resulting from the plate reorganization may provide context to search for the connection of GrANoLA to South America through the Aves ridge or the Lesser Antilles arc. We identify the causes and evolution of the Grenada basin though to be Eocene in age [20, 28, 35, 46, 51, 52] (Fig 5), as the next frontiers in finding a geodynamic explanation for the rise and demise of the alleged GAARlandia faunal land bridge.

Conclusion

The intriguing dispersals of terrestrial South American faunae to the Greater Antilles islands in the northern Caribbean region are thought to have occurred over a so far undocumented ‘GAARlandia’ land bridge. We perform a land-sea survey combined with chronostratigraphic data in the NE Caribbean region, which reveals a regional episode of mid-Eocene, trench-normal ∼E-W intra-plate crustal shortening (±75 km) and thickening (up to 40 km) that affected the northern Lesser Antilles realm. This episode coincides with a regional late Eocene–Oligocene hiatus in the Lesser Antilles that reveals uplift of a landmass between Puerto Rico and northern Lesser Antilles and lends credibility to the GAARlandia hypothesis. We tentatively explain this deformation as a response to a well-documented North American absolute plate motion change and a reorganization of the Caribbean plate boundary. Our results now direct attention to the connection from the NE Caribbean region to South America, through the Aves Ridge and/or the Lesser Antilles arc, and provide geodynamic context for intra-plate deformation and vertical motions in the time window of South American faunal dispersion to the northern Caribbean region.

Photomicrograph of the stratigraphical significant foraminifera found in Pointe Toiny limestones.

Scale bars = 1mm. A) a) Coleiconus christianaensis (Robinson), b) Medocia sp., c) Textularia sp., sample PON8. B) Coleiconus christianaensis (Robinson), sample PON1. C) a) Halimeda sp., b) Praerhapydionina sp., c) Turborotalia pessagnoensis (Tourmakine and Bolli), sample PON4. D Planorotalites pseudoscitula (Glaessner), sample PON1.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Geochronology: 40Ar/39Ar dating.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Marine geophysics: GARANTI cruise data acquisition and processing.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Gravity data modeling method.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-20355

Eocene intra-plate shortening responsible for the rise of a fauna pathway in the northeastern Caribbean realm

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Philippon,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luca Pandolfi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

two reviewers evaluated your manuscript and both suggested minor revisions. Please check and follow the detailed reviewer' comments about your manuscript and provide a detailed reply for any rebuttal.

Looking forward to receive your revised version.

Sincerely,

Luca Pandolfi

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'Financial support has been provided by INSU TelluSYSTER and GAARAnti project (ANR-17-CE31-0009). DJJvH acknowledges Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) Vici grant 865.17.001.'

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

a. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 'NO'

b. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that Figures 1, 2, 3 and 5 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted.

All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2, 3 and 5 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium; the GARANTI Team.

In addition to naming the author group, and listing the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript, please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors provide critical new observations on the hypothesis framed by Iturralde-Vient (and MacPhee (1999) that a terrestrial corridor of some kind briefly linked South America with island groups in the present Caribbean Sea ~34 Ma. This work concentrates on one part of the story: evidence for uplift and emergence in the northern Lesser Antilles at the end of the Eocene. Their results are consistent with earlier work, and such corroboration is important. The missing part of the puzzle, as the authors recognize and will hopefully explore further in additional contributions, concerns how or even whether GRANOLA was related to the uplift and emergence of the Aves Rise in order to complete the landspan hypothesized in the original version of the GAARlandia hypothesis. The jury is still out on that point.

I want to emphasize to the editors of this journal that this work is properly multidisciplinary in its significance, as the subject matter is very much of interest to paleobiologists. The original GAARlandia proposal has been both criticized and supported by biologists using different data sets and means of inference. The Phillipon et al. paper adds important new information about the reorganization of the terrestrial realm in the end-Paleogene Caribbean Sea, which geologists and biologists alike will find intriguing. This paper also identifies important constraints on timing and correlated tectonic events.

I have only one recommendation. In fairness, Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee (1999) actually provided a detailed tectonic model within the context of the then-understood geological framework and evolution of the Caribbean Plate. This modelm was the basis for the reconstruction of GAARlandia´s paleogeographic scenario, whereas the text of the present paper largely overlooks this and even seems to imply that it was largely derived by paleobiogeographical considerations. Of course paleogeography and paleobiogeography overlapped: this is why the West Indies are such an interesting problem to both disciplines.

Here are some relevant passages:

“The Cretaceous and Paleogene volcanic and plutonic rocks of island arc affinities occur in Aves Ridge [AR] (Bunceet al., 1970; Fox et al., 1971; Nagle, 1972; Bouysse et al., 1985; Westercamp et al., 1985; Holcombe et al., 1990), as do Mesozoic and Eocene volcanic rocks in Lesser Antilles LA (fig. 15). This basic compositional similarity suggests that, from Cretaceous through Eocene time, AR and LA [Lesser Antilles] were a single entity: the AR–LA Volcanic Arc (Pinet etal., 1985; Bouysse et al., 1985). This arc was presumably linked geologically to the Aruba/Tobago Belt in the south and the eastern Greater Antilles in the north, because all of these landmasses possess a similar Cretaceous volcanic arc-ophiolite basement.”

“If AR and LA once comprised a single arc, it can be concluded that, at some time in the past, the GB that now separates these two entities did not exist. However, the age of this basin has not been well constrained. Inconclusive seismic evidence suggests that Granada Basin GB is filled by sedimentary rocks of Paleocene (?) to Recent age (Pinet et al., 1985; Bouysse et al., 1985; Bird, 1991), while dredge hauls from the basin’s margins consist of mostly Eocene and younger sedimentary and volcaniclastic rocks (fig. 21).” [See also fig. 21 in Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee (1999)].

“According to Pindell (1994), GB opened between the Paleocene and Late Eocene, but we postulate a somewhat younger date (Late Eocene or younger) for the following reasons. If GB is interpreted as a back-arc basin, the disjunction of the AR–LA arc into two independent geological units (Aves Ridge remnant arc and Lesser Antilles active arc) would have probably been caused by a local change in the subduction regime (e.g., alteration of angle of dip of lower slab, or migration of position of subduction zone). We hypothesize that this event was correlated with Late Eocene cessation of volcanic activity in AR (and a concomitantly great increase in activity in LA) and increased thickness of Oligocene and younger sediments in GB (see seismic sections in Nemec [1980] and Pinet et al. [1985])."

Obviously the present paper provides a much more thorough examination of the relevant evidence than we could have provided 20 years ago, but since the history of ideas is important in science, we request that the authors recognize the insights of the GAARlandia model as well as its limitations (such as the still-ambiguous evidence for linkage between northern GAARlandia and the eastern end of the Greater Antilles).

A minor point: In fig. 5, Puerto Rico is colored as part of GRANOLA, which is fine, but it was in fact included in GAARlandia as well. Can this be shown by overlapping coloration?

Some minor, mostly grammatical points are commented on in the text.

Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting manuscript and I am glad to have had the opportunity to review it. Overall the manuscript is well organized and the data is presented properly and analyzed thoroughly with no major issues. I only have a number of minor suggestions (listed below), mainly from a grammatical point of view and some regarding the content, which I hope the authors take into consideration. The figures are very well done and informative.

General comments:

1) One point that might be added in the discussion is that although GrANoLa does not confirm the presence of a full landspan, it does confirm and support the presence of landmasses larger than the ones currently present in the region. This in turn could support a slightly distinct view mentioned by Iturralde-Vinent (2006), that instead of a continuous landspan, it consisted of a number of closely spaced islands separated by shallow marine channels. The presence of closely-spaced islands in place of a continuous landspan, plus the short temporal duration of this event, could have acted as a filter, thus accounting for the relatively low taxonomic richness of terrestrial vertebrates in Paleogene deposits in the region.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A. 2006. Meso-Cenozoic Caribbean Paleogeography: implications for the historical biogeography of the region. International Geology Review 48:791–827.

MacPhee, R. D. E., and M. A. Iturralde-Vinent. 2000. A short history of Greater Antillean land mammals: biogeography, paleogeography, radiations, and extinctions. Tropics 10:145–154.

2) A good part of the references with geographic names need to be capitalized properly.

Specific comments:

Line 22: I suggest changing: “... respect, is interesting...:” to “... respect, it is interesting...”

Line 34: I suggest changing: “... in the Late Eocene-Early Oligocene…” to “... in the late Eocene-early Oligocene…” Late and Early are no longer used as formal subdivisions of the Eocene and Oligocene and should not be capitalized.

Line 57: typo, delete “lies west of.”

Line 95: I suggest changing: “... a hangingwall…” to “... a hanging wall…”

Line 105: I suggest changing: “... Turborotalia possagnoensis…” to “... Turborotalia pessagnoensis…”

Figure 1 caption (page 3): I suggest changing “C) shows a Map of the …” to “C) Map of the …”

Figure 4 caption (page 5): “D)” is missing.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ross D. E. MacPhee

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

29 Sep 2020

Reviewer #1: Ross MacPhee

The authors provide critical new observations on the hypothesis framed by Iturralde-Vient (and MacPhee (1999) that a terrestrial corridor of some kind briefly linked South America with island groups in the present Caribbean Sea ~34 Ma. This work concentrates on one part of the story: evidence for uplift and emergence in the northern Lesser Antilles at the end of the Eocene. Their results are consistent with earlier work, and such corroboration is important. The missing part of the puzzle, as the authors recognize and will hopefully explore further in additional contributions, concerns how or even whether GRANOLA was related to the uplift and emergence of the Aves Rise in order to complete the landspan hypothesized in the original version of the GAARlandia hypothesis. The jury is still out on that point.

I want to emphasize to the editors of this journal that this work is properly multidisciplinary in its significance, as the subject matter is very much of interest to paleobiologists. The original GAARlandia proposal has been both criticized and supported by biologists using different data sets and means of inference. The Phillipon et al. paper adds important new information about the reorganization of the terrestrial realm in the end-Paleogene Caribbean Sea, which geologists and biologists alike will find intriguing. This paper also identifies important constraints on timing and correlated tectonic events.

We thank the reviewer for his very positive comments.

I have only one recommendation.

In fairness, Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee (1999) actually provided a detailed tectonic model within the context of the then-understood geological framework and evolution of the Caribbean Plate. This modelm was the basis for the reconstruction of GAARlandia´s paleogeographic scenario, whereas the text of the present paper largely overlooks this and even seems to imply that it was largely derived by paleobiogeographical considerations. Of course paleogeography and paleobiogeography overlapped: this is why the West Indies are such an interesting problem to both disciplines.

Here are some relevant passages:

“The Cretaceous and Paleogene volcanic and plutonic rocks of island arc affinities occur in Aves Ridge [AR] (Bunceet al., 1970; Fox et al., 1971; Nagle, 1972; Bouysse et al., 1985; Westercamp et al., 1985; Holcombe et al., 1990), as do Mesozoic and Eocene volcanic rocks in Lesser Antilles LA (fig. 15). This basic compositional similarity suggests that, from Cretaceous through Eocene time, AR and LA [Lesser Antilles] were a single entity: the AR–LA Volcanic Arc (Pinet etal., 1985; Bouysse et al., 1985). This arc was presumably linked geologically to the Aruba/Tobago Belt in the south and the eastern Greater Antilles in the north, because all of these landmasses possess a similar Cretaceous volcanic arc-ophiolite basement.”

“If AR and LA once comprised a single arc, it can be concluded that, at some time in the past, the GB that now separates these two entities did not exist. However, the age of this basin has not been well constrained. Inconclusive seismic evidence suggests that Granada Basin GB is filled by sedimentary rocks of Paleocene (?) to Recent age (Pinet et al., 1985; Bouysse et al., 1985; Bird, 1991), while dredge hauls from the basin’s margins consist of mostly Eocene and younger sedimentary and volcaniclastic rocks (fig. 21).” [See also fig. 21 in Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee (1999)].

“According to Pindell (1994), GB opened between the Paleocene and Late Eocene, but we postulate a somewhat younger date (Late Eocene or younger) for the following reasons. If GB is interpreted as a back-arc basin, the disjunction of the AR–LA arc into two independent geological units (Aves Ridge remnant arc and Lesser Antilles active arc) would have probably been caused by a local change in the subduction regime (e.g., alteration of angle of dip of lower slab, or migration of position of subduction zone). We hypothesize that this event was correlated with Late Eocene cessation of volcanic activity in AR (and a concomitantly great increase in activity in LA) and increased thickness of Oligocene and younger sediments in GB (see seismic sections in Nemec [1980] and Pinet et al. [1985])."

Obviously the present paper provides a much more thorough examination of the relevant evidence than we could have provided 20 years ago, but since the history of ideas is important in science, we request that the authors recognize the insights of the GAARlandia model as well as its limitations (such as the still-ambiguous evidence for linkage between northern GAARlandia and the eastern end of the Greater Antilles).

Following the reviewer, the introduction has been reworked and now provides a better knowledge of the GAARLandia hypothesis published by Iturralde Vinente and Mc Phee in 1999.

Indeed, the Paleocene-Late Eocene Grenada Basin separates the Aves Ridge from the Lesser Antilles arc where Cretaceous to Paleogene volcanic and plutonic rocks of island arc affinities occur, thus Itturalde-Vinent and McPhee (1999) postulate that Aves ridge and the Lesser Antilles consisted once in a single volcanic arc connected with Aruba-Tobago belt and the Greater Antilles to the south and north, respectively. According to these authors, the synchronous cessation of volcanic activity along Aves and the opening of the Grenada Basin might reflect a local change in the subduction regime.

A minor point: In fig. 5, Puerto Rico is colored as part of GRANOLA, which is fine, but it was in fact included in GAARlandia as well.

Can this be shown by overlapping coloration?

Yes indeed, this has been corrected

Some minor, mostly grammatical points are commented on in the text.

All the suggestions made by the reviewer have been taken into account.

Reviewer #2: Anonymous

This is a very interesting manuscript and I am glad to have had the opportunity to review it. Overall the manuscript is well organized and the data is presented properly and analyzed thoroughly with no major issues. I only have a number of minor suggestions (listed below), mainly from a grammatical point of view and some regarding the content, which I hope the authors take into consideration. The figures are very well done and informative.

We thank the reviewer for his very positive comments.

General comments:

1) One point that might be added in the discussion is that although GrANoLa does not confirm the presence of a full landspan, it does confirm and support the presence of landmasses larger than the ones currently present in the region. This in turn could support a slightly distinct view mentioned by Iturralde-Vinent (2006), that instead of a continuous landspan, it consisted of a number of closely spaced islands separated by shallow marine channels. The presence of closely-spaced islands in place of a continuous landspan, plus the short temporal duration of this event, could have acted as a filter, thus accounting for the relatively low taxonomic richness of terrestrial vertebrates in Paleogene deposits in the region.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A. 2006. Meso-Cenozoic Caribbean Paleogeography: implications for the historical biogeography of the region. International Geology Review 48:791–827.

MacPhee, R. D. E., and M. A. Iturralde-Vinent. 2000. A short history of Greater Antillean land mammals: biogeography, paleogeography, radiations, and extinctions. Tropics 10:145–154.

Following the reviewer, the discussion has been implemented with a sentence:

"The uplift and emergence of the northeastern Caribbean region add credibility to the GAARlandia hypothesis as it supports the presence of landmasses larger than the ones currently present in the region. Nevertheless, regional topography south of GrANoLA is not satisfactorily constrained yet and thus it remains unclear whether a continuous landspan or closely-spaced islands have occurred there by mid-Cenozoic times, as suggested by Itturalde-Vinente (2006). In any case, this topographic pattern and the short temporal duration of this event have most likely acted as a filter for Paleogene terrestrial vertebrates."

2) A good part of the references with geographic names need to be capitalized properly.

Geographic names have been capitalized properly.

Specific comments:

Line 22: I suggest changing: “... respect, is interesting...:” to “... respect, it is interesting...”

Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions

Line 34: I suggest changing: “... in the Late Eocene-Early Oligocene…” to “... in the late Eocene-early Oligocene…” Late and Early are no longer used as formal subdivisions of the Eocene and Oligocene and should not be capitalized.

Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions

Line 57: typo, delete “lies west of.”

Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions

Line 95: I suggest changing: “... a hangingwall…” to “... a hanging wall…”

Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions

Line 105: I suggest changing: “... Turborotalia possagnoensis…” to “... Turborotalia pessagnoensis…”

Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions

Figure 1 caption (page 3): I suggest changing “C) shows a Map of the …” to “C) Map of the …”

Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions

Figure 4 caption (page 5): “D)” is missing.

Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions

Submitted filename: Rebuttal_letter.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Oct 2020

Eocene intra-plate shortening responsible for the rise of a faunal pathway in the northeastern Caribbean realm

PONE-D-20-20355R1

Dear Dr. Mélody Philippon,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luca Pandolfi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

I'm glad to accept the revised version of your manuscript. You taken into account all the comments and suggestions of both reviewers and modified the manuscript accordingly.

Thank you for your very interesting submission.

Sincerely,

Luca Pandolfi

PS: concerning changing in funding information, please contact the Team at plosone@plos.org

Reviewers' comments:

9 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-20355R1

Eocene intra-plate shortening responsible for the rise of a faunal pathway in the northeastern Caribbean realm

Dear Dr. Philippon:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luca Pandolfi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE