The results of global and regional studies often show significant disagreement between the Moho depths determined using seismic and isostatic models. In this study, we estimate the differences between these two models...The results of global and regional studies often show significant disagreement between the Moho depths determined using seismic and isostatic models. In this study, we estimate the differences between these two models in central Eurasia. The Vening Meinesz-Moritz （VMM） inverse problem of isostasy is utilized to determine the isostatic Moho depths. The estimated VMM Moho depths are then corrected for the sediment density contrast. The application of this correction improves the agreement between the isostatic and seismic Moho models. The existing discrepancies between the isostatic and seismic models are finally modeled by applying the non-isostatic correction, which accounts for the unmodelled mantle density heterogeneities and other geodynamic processes, which are not taken into account in classical isostatic models. Our results reveal that the non-isostatic correction still cannot fully describe mechanisms affecting the Moho geometry along the convergent continent-tocontinent tectonic plate boundaries occurring beneath Himalayas despite an overall good performance of the applied method.展开更多
According to Vening Meinesz-Moritz （VMM） global inverse isostatic problem, either the Moho density contrast （crust-mantle density contrast） or the Moho geometry can be estimated by solv- ing a non-linear Fredholm ...According to Vening Meinesz-Moritz （VMM） global inverse isostatic problem, either the Moho density contrast （crust-mantle density contrast） or the Moho geometry can be estimated by solv- ing a non-linear Fredholm integral equation of the first kind. Here solutions to the two Moho parame- ters are presented by combining the global geopotential model （GOCO-03S）, topography （DTM2006） and a seismic crust model, the latter being the recent digital global crustal model （CRUST1.0） with a resolution of 1°×1°. The numerical results show that the estimated Moho density contrast varies from 21 to 637 kg/m3, with a global average of 321 kg/m^3, and the estimated Moho depth varies from 6 to 86 km with a global average of 24 km. Comparing the Moho density contrasts estimated using our least-squares method and those derived by the CRUST1.0, CRUST2.0, and PREM models shows that our estimate agrees fairly well with CRUST1.0 model and rather poor with other models. The estimated Moho depths by our least-squares method and the CRUST1.0 model agree to 4.8 km in RMS and with the GEMMA1.0 based model to 6.3 km.展开更多
基金financial support (No.214273812)supported by the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB) (No.76/10:1)
文摘The results of global and regional studies often show significant disagreement between the Moho depths determined using seismic and isostatic models. In this study, we estimate the differences between these two models in central Eurasia. The Vening Meinesz-Moritz （VMM） inverse problem of isostasy is utilized to determine the isostatic Moho depths. The estimated VMM Moho depths are then corrected for the sediment density contrast. The application of this correction improves the agreement between the isostatic and seismic Moho models. The existing discrepancies between the isostatic and seismic models are finally modeled by applying the non-isostatic correction, which accounts for the unmodelled mantle density heterogeneities and other geodynamic processes, which are not taken into account in classical isostatic models. Our results reveal that the non-isostatic correction still cannot fully describe mechanisms affecting the Moho geometry along the convergent continent-tocontinent tectonic plate boundaries occurring beneath Himalayas despite an overall good performance of the applied method.
文摘According to Vening Meinesz-Moritz （VMM） global inverse isostatic problem, either the Moho density contrast （crust-mantle density contrast） or the Moho geometry can be estimated by solv- ing a non-linear Fredholm integral equation of the first kind. Here solutions to the two Moho parame- ters are presented by combining the global geopotential model （GOCO-03S）, topography （DTM2006） and a seismic crust model, the latter being the recent digital global crustal model （CRUST1.0） with a resolution of 1°×1°. The numerical results show that the estimated Moho density contrast varies from 21 to 637 kg/m3, with a global average of 321 kg/m^3, and the estimated Moho depth varies from 6 to 86 km with a global average of 24 km. Comparing the Moho density contrasts estimated using our least-squares method and those derived by the CRUST1.0, CRUST2.0, and PREM models shows that our estimate agrees fairly well with CRUST1.0 model and rather poor with other models. The estimated Moho depths by our least-squares method and the CRUST1.0 model agree to 4.8 km in RMS and with the GEMMA1.0 based model to 6.3 km.
