Search

The closure of an ancient ocean basin via oceanic arc‐continent collision has two subduction styles with opposite polarities, which may proceed via subduction polarity reversal (SPR) or a subduction zone jump (SZJ). Interpreting the geometry or kinematic evolution of ancient collisional zones, especially the original subduction polarity, can be challenging. Here we used 2D thermo‐mechanical modeling to investigate the dynamic evolution process of SPR versus SZJ. Our modeling predicts different structural, topographic, magmatic, and basin histories for SPR and SZJ, which can be compared against, and help interpret, the geologic record past sites of oceanic closure during collisional orogens. Our results match geologic observations of past collisions in Kamchatka, eastern Russia, and the Banda Arc, eastern Indonesia, and thus our results can help effectively decode the evolutionary history of past arc‐continent collisions. Plain Language Summary: Determining the geometry and kinematic evolution of ancient subduction zones that experienced collision with an oceanic island arc can be challenging based on the surface geology along. Such collisions usually result in different dynamical evolution processes, namely subduction polarity reversal (SPR) or a subduction zone jump (SZJ). Here we conducted numerical modeling of oceanic island arcs that collide with a continental margin to explore the dynamic evolution process of different subduction styles. Our results reveal geologic indicators to decipher SPR versus SZJ in natural oceanic arc‐continent collisions, such as the distribution of thrust faults, metamorphic rocks, magmatism, crustal thickness, and topography. The numerical simulations help explain the geologic history of Kamchatka in eastern Russia and Banda Arc in eastern Indonesia. This study provides provide new insights and implications diagnosing the polarity of vanished subduction in arc‐continental systems. Key Points: New numerical models with convergent velocity boundary condition for deciphering subduction polarity during arc‐continent collisionsThrust faults, metamorphic rocks, magmatism, topography and Moho morphology can be used as indicators to diagnose subduction polarityThe evolution of subduction polarity reversal well explains the tectonic activities of the Kamchatka and Banda Arc in the Cenozoic [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]