 |
| Titel |
Comparison of publically available Moho depth and crustal thickness grids with newly derived grids by 3D gravity inversion for the High Arctic region. |
| VerfasserIn |
Nina Lebedeva-Ivanova, Carmen Gaina, Alexander Minakov, Sergey Kashubin |
| Konferenz |
EGU General Assembly 2016
|
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
en
|
| Digitales Dokument |
PDF |
| Erschienen |
In: GRA - Volume 18 (2016) |
| Datensatznummer |
250134787
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 EGU/EGU2016-15552.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| We derived Moho depth and crustal thickness for the High Arctic region by 3D forward and inverse gravity modelling method in the spectral domain (Minakov et al. 2012) using lithosphere thermal gravity anomaly correction (Alvey et al., 2008); a vertical density variation for the sedimentary layer and lateral crustal variation density. Recently updated grids of bathymetry (Jakobsson et al., 2012), gravity anomaly (Gaina et al, 2011) and dynamic topography (Spasojevic & Gurnis, 2012) were used as input data for the algorithm. TeMAr sedimentary thickness grid (Petrov et al., 2013) was modified according to the most recently published seismic data, and was re-gridded and utilized as input data. Other input parameters for the algorithm were calibrated using seismic crustal scale profiles.
The results are numerically compared with publically available grids of the Moho depth and crustal thickness for the High Arctic region (CRUST 1 and GEMMA global grids; the deep Arctic Ocean grids by Glebovsky et al., 2013) and seismic crustal scale profiles. The global grids provide coarser resolution of 0.5-1.0 geographic degrees and not focused on the High Arctic region. Our grids better capture all main features of the region and show smaller error in relation to the seismic crustal profiles compare to CRUST 1 and GEMMA grids. Results of 3D gravity modelling by Glebovsky et al. (2013) with separated geostructures approach show also good fit with seismic profiles; however these grids cover the deep part of the Arctic Ocean only.
Alvey A, Gaina C, Kusznir NJ, Torsvik TH (2008). Integrated crustal thickness mapping and plate recon-structions for the high Arctic. Earth Planet Sci Lett 274:310–321.
Gaina C, Werner SC, Saltus R, Maus S (2011). Circum-Arctic mapping project: new magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the Arctic. Geol Soc Lond Mem 35, 39–48.
Glebovsky V.Yu., Astafurova E.G., Chernykh A.A., Korneva M.A., Kaminsky V.D., Poselov V.A. (2013). Thickness of the Earth’s crust in the deep Arctic Ocean: results of a 3D gravity modeling Russian Geology and Geophysics 54, 247–262.
Jakobsson M, Mayer L, Coakley B, Dowdeswell JA, Forbes S, Fridman B, Hodnesdal H, Noormets R, Pedersen R, Rebesco M, Schenke HW, Zarayskaya Y, Accettella D, Armstrong A, Anderson RM, Bienhoff P, Camerlenghi A, Church I, Edwards M, Gardner JV, Hall JK, Hell B, Hestvik O, Krist-offersen Y, Marcussen C, Mohammad R, Mosher D, Nghiem SV, Pedrosa MT, Travaglini PG, Weatherall P (2012). The international bathymetric chart of the Arctic Ocean (IBCAO) version 3.0. Geophys Res Lett 39, L12609.
Laske, G., Masters., G., Ma, Z. and Pasyanos, M. (2013). Update on CRUST1.0 - A 1-degree Global Model of Earth's Crust, Geophys. Res. Abstracts, 15, Abstract EGU2013-2658, 2013.
Minakov A, Faleide JI, Glebovsky VY, Mjelde R (2012) Structure and evolution of the northern Barents-Kara Sea continental margin from integrated analysis of potential fields, bathymetry and sparse seismic data. Geophys J Int 188, 79–102.
Petrov O., Smelror M., Shokalsky S., Morozov A., Kashubin S., Grikurov G., Sobolev N., Petrov E., (2013). A new international tectonic map of the Arctic (TeMAr) at 1:5 M scale and geodynamic evolution in the Arctic region. EGU2013-13481.
Reguzzoni, M., & Sampietro, D. (2014). GEMMA: An Earth crustal model based on GOCE satellite data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation
Spasojevic S. & Gurnis M., (2012). Sea level and vertical motion of continents from dynamic earth models since the late Cretaceous. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 96, pp. 2037–2064. |
|
|
|
|
|
|