2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.03.032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic evidence for the depression of the D ″ discontinuity beneath the Caribbean: Implication for slab heating from the Earth's core

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
17
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
6
17
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, Fisher et al (2003) did not perform travel time corrections for the 3-D mantle, and used ScS/S amplitude ratios, which are potentially contaminated by variations in S-wave amplitude due to the subducting Farallon slab (Section 2.2 and Text S1). Ko et al (2017) used a grid-search approach to study the S V structure of  D in roughly the same region as our event cluster S. The pattern of lateral S V anomalies they observe at the CMB is globally consistent with our results, with high S V at the CMB except in a region that corresponds to the low-velocity corridor S3. However, they found smaller S V just above the CMB.…”
Section: Comparison To Previous Studiessupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In particular, Fisher et al (2003) did not perform travel time corrections for the 3-D mantle, and used ScS/S amplitude ratios, which are potentially contaminated by variations in S-wave amplitude due to the subducting Farallon slab (Section 2.2 and Text S1). Ko et al (2017) used a grid-search approach to study the S V structure of  D in roughly the same region as our event cluster S. The pattern of lateral S V anomalies they observe at the CMB is globally consistent with our results, with high S V at the CMB except in a region that corresponds to the low-velocity corridor S3. However, they found smaller S V just above the CMB.…”
Section: Comparison To Previous Studiessupporting
confidence: 81%
“…First, Ko et al. (2017) fixed VS above D to PREM, while in our models VS in this region is not fixed and is smaller than PREM; and second, they used amplitude information but did not invert for QS, possibly resulting in a stronger negative VS gradient just above the CMB in order to increases the amplitude of the ScS waves on synthetics to match the data (Section 5.2). Ko et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The anomalous traveltime delays in the ScS arrivals disappear for the closer events, which implies that the source of the low-velocity anomaly is situated within the lower mantle. Recently, Ko et al (2017) reported a pile-like low-velocity structure (PLVS) underneath a fast slab below northern South America (Figure 3a). The proposed location of this PLVS is well correlated with the ScS bounce points at the coremantle boundary (CMB), which are delayed for the raypaths from event 2012.149.…”
Section: Inversion Methodology and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We grid search for the six parameters by minimizing the differences in the travel times, amplitudes, and waveforms between the synthetics and the data. The cost function ε is defined as the sum of the L2 norm of the misfit errors for different events as follows (Ko et al, ): ε=j=15φjφ=i=S,italicScS‖‖ΔTiσnormalΔTi+i=S,italicScS‖‖ΔAiσnormalΔAi+i=S,italicScS‖‖1t1t2uobstusyntτdtt1t2uobs()tnormaldtt1t2usyn()tnormaldti/σitalicDCi where i and j correspond to the phase and event indices, respectively, and Δ T i and Δ A i account for the misfits in the Δ T and Δ A measurements, respectively, from the S and ScS phases between the observed u obs and synthetic u syn data sets. The numerator in the third term evaluates the degree of waveform dissimilarity between u obs and u syn according to the so‐called decorrelation coefficient (DC), which is defined as one minus the normalized cross‐correlation coefficient (CC) between u obs and u syn , wherein τ is the time shift at which the cross‐correlation coefficient attains its maximum.…”
Section: Waveform Modeling and Inversionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As we mentioned above, our preferred double‐crossing model contains a negative velocity change within D" (Figure ), but it is seemingly not well constrained by waveform forward modeling alone; the argument is based on the fact that the preferred single‐crossing model with a negative velocity gradient within D" can also moderately explain the observations (Figure S1). In addition, a velocity reduction of −1.5% (Figure ) or −2.7% (Figure S1) relative to IASP91 at the CMB appears to be required to reproduce the data, which may be a result of insulation effect by long‐lasting stagnation of slabs atop the CMB—leading to continuing heating from the core (e.g., Ko et al, ). The existence of a slow anomaly atop the CMB may cancel out in part the residuals of SKKS and SKKKS caused by waves passing through the fast anomaly in D" (Figures , and ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%