Subcrustal density inhomogeneities of Northern Eurasia as derived from the gravity data and isostatic models of the lithosphere

Artemjev, M.E.; Kaban, Mikhail K.; Kucherinenko, V. A.; Demyanov, G.V.; Taranov, V.A.

doi:10.1016/0040-1951(94)90275-5

Cited by 76 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These correlations between lithosphere age and composition (and hence density) are constrained from xenoliths and xenocrysts from kimberlites and thus are limited by the areas of kimberlite pipes. On a regional scale, density structure of the upper mantle in Siberia has been studied primarily by gravity modeling (Artemjev et al, 1994;Kaban et al, 2003), although some attempts have been done to convert Milanovsky, 1996;Kuznetsov, 1997;Reichow et al, 2002;Rosen, 2003;Gladkochub et al, 2007). (a) Thin black lines -boundaries between basement terranes; I-VI -Anabar subcraton with Archean terranes (I -Tunguska, II -Magan, III -Daldyn, IV -Markha terranes) and Proterozoic Olenek superterrane (V -Hapchan; VI -Birekte terranes); VII -Aldan-Stanovoy subcraton.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Density heterogeneity of the cratonic lithosphere: A case study of the Siberian Craton

Cherepanova

Artemieva

2015

Gondwana Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Density heterogeneity of the cratonic lithosphere: A case study of the Siberian Craton

Cherepanova

Artemieva

2015

Gondwana Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The CRUST2.0 sediment data consist of soft and hard sediment model components using a laterally varying density structure, but without taking fully into consideration the density increase with depth due to sediment compaction. An improvement in accuracy can then be expected when utilizing a depth-dependent sediment density model (e.g., Artemjev et al 1994). An application of the final stripping correction due to anomalous density structures within the CRUST2.0 consolidated crust layers significantly changed the gravity gradient field (Table 1).…”

Section: Error Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Crustal Density Structures on GOCE Gravity Gradient Observables

Tenzer¹,

Novák²

2013

Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the gravity gradient components corrected for major known anomalous density structures within the Earth's crust. Heterogeneous mantle density structures are disregarded. The gravimetric forward modeling technique is utilized to compute the gravity gradients based on methods for a spherical harmonic analysis and synthesis of a gravity field. The Earth's gravity gradient components are generated using the global geopotential model GOCO-03s. The topographic and stripping gravity corrections due to the density contrasts of the ocean and ice are computed from the global topographic/bathymetric model DTM2006.0 (which also includes the ice-thickness dataset). The discrete data of sediments and crust layers taken from the CRUST2.0 global crustal model are then used to apply the additional stripping corrections for sediments and remaining anomalous crustal density structures. All computations are realized globally on a one arc-deg geographical grid at a mean satellite elevation of 255 km. The global map of the consolidated crust-stripped gravity gradients reveals distinctive features which are attributed to global tectonics, lithospheric plate configuration, lithosphere structure and mantle dynamics (e.g., glacial isostatic adjustment, mantle convection). The Moho signature, which is the most pronounced signal in these refined gravity gradients, is superimposed over a weaker gravity signal of the lithospheric mantle. An interpretational quality of the computed (refined) gravity gradient components is mainly limited by a low accuracy and resolution of the CRUST2.0 sediment and crustal layer data and unmodeled mantle structures.

show abstract

“…In regional studies, a more accurate dependence of sediment density on depth may be adopted for sedimentary basins (cf. e.g., [3]). The equiangular 2 arc-deg global density and thickness data of the consolidated (upper, middle, and lower) crust components from CRUST2.0 were used to compute the crust density contrast stripping gravity corrections relative to the reference crustal density of 2,670 kg/m 3 .…”

Section: Numerical Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spectral harmonic analysis and synthesis of Earth’s crust gravity field

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We developed and applied a novel numerical scheme for a gravimetric forward modelling of the Earth's crustal density structures based entirely on methods for a spherical analysis and synthesis of the gravitational field. This numerical scheme utilises expressions for the gravitational potentials and their radial derivatives generated by the homogeneous or laterally varying mass density layers with a variable height/depth and thickness given in terms of spherical harmonics. We used these expressions to compute globally the complete crustcorrected Earth's gravity field and its contribution generated by the Earth's crust. The gravimetric forward modelling of large known mass density structures within the Earth's crust is realised by using global models of the Earth's gravity field (EGM2008), topography/bathymetry (DTM2006.0), continental icethickness (ICE-5G), and crustal density structures (CRUST2.0). The crust-corrected gravity field is obtained after modelling and subtracting the gravitational contribution of the Earth's crust from the EGM2008 gravity data. These refined gravity data mainly comprise information on the Moho interface and mantle lithosphere. Numerical results also reveal that the gravitational contribution of the Earth's crust varies globally from 1,843 to 12,010 mGal. This gravitational signal is strongly correlated with the crustal thickness with its maxima in mountainous regions (Himalayas, Tibetan Plateau and Andes) with the presence of large isostatic compensation. The corresponding minima over the open oceans are due to the thin and heavier oceanic crust.

show abstract

Subcrustal density inhomogeneities of Northern Eurasia as derived from the gravity data and isostatic models of the lithosphere

Cited by 76 publications

References 6 publications

Density heterogeneity of the cratonic lithosphere: A case study of the Siberian Craton

Density heterogeneity of the cratonic lithosphere: A case study of the Siberian Craton

Effect of Crustal Density Structures on GOCE Gravity Gradient Observables

Spectral harmonic analysis and synthesis of Earth’s crust gravity field

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About