Each Lamont‐Doherty sonobuoy located on well‐dated crust has been carefully analyzed to determine crustal structure down to oceanic layer 3. Results from the Atlantic and the Pacific are compiled separately in order to study crustal structure as a function of plate age in both oceans, since they have very different spreading rates. Layer 2A (refraction velocity about 3.6 km/s) in the North Atlantic is 1.5 km thick at the ridge crest and thins consistently to about 100 m as the crust ages to about 60 m.y. Layer 2A in the east Pacific is 0.7 km thick at the ridge and thins to about 100 m at about 30 m.y. This difference in thickness is probably attributable to the much faster spreading rate in the Pacific. A poorly refractive acoustic basement layer about 200 m thick with similarities to layer 2A but not necessarily composed of the same materials is measured sporadically in the Pacific M‐Series plates and even less consistently in the Atlantic. This layer is not recorded in the Cretaceous or the Jurassic quiet zones. Regressions of refraction velocities in layer 2A as a function of age show that its velocity increases from about 3.3 km/s at the ridge crests to that of layer 2B on crust about 40 m.y. old. There is no corresponding increase of velocity with age in any of the deeper layers. The high resolution of the air gun/sonobuoy records shows that the layer 2B refraction line breaks directly to layer 3 velocities (46 times in the present work) or to a line with a velocity of 6.1 km/s (114 times in the present work), which we call layer 2C. The variance of the velocities in 2C is one fourth that of 2A and 2B, which indicates relative lithological uniformity in 2C. It does not seem likely that layer 2A really thins; what appears to be a thinning of the layer may actually be the result of an increase of its refraction velocity with age. However, the 2A/2B interface is well‐defined by large amplitude refractions from 2B on crust that is younger than about 30 m.y., which seems to rule out a transitional zone at the base of layer 2A where it ‘converts’ to 2B. The seismic observations seem to require a diagenetic process or repeated basaltic intrusions; both processes raise serious objections.

No abstract

No abstract