Many studies have highlighted the role of coupling between surface processes and flow in the lower continental crust in deforming the crust and creating topographic relief over Quaternary timescales. On the basis of the rheological knowledge gained, it is suggested that intraplate seismicity can also be caused by coupling between surface processes and flow in the lower continental crust. This view is shown to be a natural consequence of the modern idea that isostatic equilibrium is maintained by flow in the weak lower crust in response to erosion and sedimentation. It is supported by a general correlation between the vigour of surface processes and rates of intraplate seismicity, and by instances of seasonal seismicity that correlates with seasonal climate. Human interference in the environment can affect surface loading: for instance, deforestation for agriculture or urban development can cause increased erosion rates; global warming is expected to cause increased storminess (and thus increased erosion rates) and/or global sea-level rise. The possibility of increased rates of seismicity resulting from these processes should thus be considered in future hazard assessment.Surface processes as a cause of intraplate seismicity Figure 1. (a) Graph of estimated temperature T against depth z for the Palaeozoic continental crust beneath the Atlantic Coastal Plain (ACP) of South Carolina. Calculations use T , e.g., Lachenbruch, 1970), where T 0 is the mean surface temperature, K is the thermal conductivity of the crust, A 0 and D are the surface radiogenic heat production and its scale depth, and q 0 is the heat flow at the base of the lithosphere. T 0 is set to 20°C (cf. Bollinger et al., 1985). Values of K (3·29 W m −1°C−1 ) and A 0 (2·70 µW m −3 ) are from the borehole at Springfield, SC, ~150 km NW of Charleston. D = 8 km (typical for the ACP); q 0 is set to 48·5 mW m −2 (close to the 48·2 mW m −2 typical for the ACP) to give the observed surface heat flow at Springfield of 70·1 mW m −2 . All these geothermal data are from Costain et al. (1986). This calculated geotherm roughly matches the local ~15 km depth limit of seismicity (with 90 per cent of events shallower than 13 km), which is thought to represent thẽ 300°C isotherm (see, e.g., Bollinger et al., 1985), and indicates a Moho temperature (for 35 km depth) of 588°C. Extrapolated, it predicts the ~1400°C asthenosphere temperature at ~90 km depth, a conservative value given the ~80 km lithosphere thickness from seismic tomography (van der Lee, 2002). (b) Predicted variation of viscosity η with depth z across this lower crust, which from (a) is taken as spanning 15-35 km depth. η is calculated as η = η L exp(G/RT) (Westaway, 1998), where R is the molar gas constant (8·3143 J K −1 mol −1 ) and T(z) is the temperature predicted at each depth in (a). G (150 kJ mol −1 ) and η L (6·67 × 10 7 Pa s) parametrize the lower-crustal rheology (see Table I).
Figure 2.Diagram illustrating an eroding region that provides the sediment source for an adjacent depocentre, with isost...