Variable shortening on the Main Frontal Thrust in Nepal

The Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) is the youngest, most active, and southernmost thrust system in the Himalaya. It is located in the footwall of the Main Boundary thrust (MBT), deforming Miocene to Pliocene age Siwalik Group rocks. Although often considered a single, continuous fault, in reality as many as four subparallel faults, spaced 5-30 km apart, make up this fault system. Estimates of total shortening across the MFT for eastern and central Nepal vary from 15 to 40 km, based on cross-sections and surface measurements. However, when the same methods are applied, shortening does not vary significantly along strike (Hirschmiller et al., 2014), suggesting contrasting methodologies rather than a difference in interpreted along strike structural history. Based on high resolution seismic reflection imaging, we present new interpretations of total shortening recorded by the MFT system in central vs. eastern Nepal (200 km apart), together with a detailed transect of field observations in central Nepal. Our structural interpretations demonstrate that the geological shortening recorded on the MFT ranges from >20 km in central Nepal to <1 km in far eastern Nepal. Geodetic measurements show only a slight decrease in interseismic convergence from central (15±1 mm/yr) to eastern Nepal (14±1 mm/yr) and therefore cannot explain this dramatic difference (Lindsey et al., in prep). Taken at face value, these results imply that the MBT must have been much more recently active in eastern Nepal ( 70 ka) than central Nepal ( 1.4 Ma). We propose an alternative model that does not require this dramatic difference in the age of the MFT. As one end-member, it is indeed possible that the MFT may have broken forward much more recently in the east. However, it is also possible that older MFT thrust sheets have formed, and then have been consumed as the MBT passively slid south in the hanging wall of the MFT. Distinguishing between these models is important not only for understanding the evolution of the MBT and MFT, but also plays a critical role in assessing the current geometry and earthquake hazard associated with the Main Himalayan Thrust, the décollement that underlies the entire system (e.g., Hubbard et al., 2016). We explore the implications of these two end-member models and identify ways in which each model could be tested.