IASPEI - Picture Gallery
IASPEI - Picture Gallery IASPEI - Picture Gallery
IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-13, 2007 Perugia, Italy (S) - IASPEI - International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior JSS017 Oral Presentation 2367 Mantle contributions to elevation in China continent: results of thermal isostasy analysis Mr. Shan Bin Key Laboratory of Dynamic Geodesy Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics, CAS IASPEI Xiong Xiong The failure of simple isostasy models which involve crustal density and crustal thickness alone, to explain the surprising observations of high elevation over thin crust and low elevation over thick crust in some tectonic blocks of China continent, suggests that the contribution of lithosphereic mantle for isostasy should be incorporated. Thermal isostasy, which is based on the fact that a change in temperature results in a change in volume and therefore in density, should be taken into account. In this study, using mass balance model, we conducted thermal isostasy analysis to separate the contributions of crust and mantle to surface elevation. Based on 723 heatflow measurements in China mainland and additional data from the global heatflow dataset, we divided China mainland and its adjacent area into nineteen tectonic units to exhibit overall variations of heat flow pattern. The contribution of crust to elevation was calculated with crustal structure and related parameters which were derived from seismological studies. Introducing temperatures of Moho and thickness of lithospheric mantle, and applying mass balance model, we calculated the contribution to elevation from the buoyancy of lithosphere mantle. The results suggest that the elevation of most tectonic units could be explained well by integrating the contributions from crust and lithosphereic mantle. For instance, the elevations of the Cuxiong and Tarim basins, 1900m and 1230m, are far from the predictions by Airy isostasy model, which are ~2275m and ~2050m, respectively. By assigning Moho temperatures of Cuxiong and Tarim basins, 900oC and 500oC, we obtained the results that the elevations were reduced by the mantle lithosphere contribution of ~-320m for the Cuxiong and ~-980m for the Tarim, resulting in a combined elevation of ~1955m for the Cuxiong and ~1070m for the Tarim, respectively. Therefore, after integrating the two contributions together, we found the elevation difference calculated by the mass balance model between the two tectonic units fitted well with the observed one. The contribution of lithospheric mantle can be understood in the way that high temperatures in the upper mantle reduce density by thermal expansion and compensate for thin high density crust, and vice versa. The compensation status was also in good agreement with the results of vertical crustal movement derived from geodetic studies. Our study suggests that mantle contribution to lithosphere isostasy is so important that it should be taken into accounted in isostasy analysis. Furthermore, since mantle contribution is estimated from lithosphere thickness and average temperature of lithospheric mantle, thermal isostasy analysis provides an effective way to constrain roughly the temperature of Moho in the areas where geothermal observations are not available. Keywords: thermal isostasy, elevation, china
IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-13, 2007 Perugia, Italy (S) - IASPEI - International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior JSS017 Oral Presentation 2368 Thermal evolution and stability of the cratonic lithosphere Prof. Jean-Claude Mareschal GEOTOP-UQAM-McGill University of Quebec at Montreal Claire Perry, Claude Jaupart The Archean geological record indicates elevated temperatures in the lower crust while the preservation of Archean features in the mantle requires mantle temperatures to remain sufficiently low. Archean provinces are presently characterized by low heat flow, with an average of 41 mW m2, i.e. less than the global continental average (56mW m2). The range of regionally averaged heat flow values in Archean Provinces (18-54mW m2) is narrower than in younger terranes. But there are important variations in crustal heat production between different Archean Provinces. At the end of the Archean, when crustal heat production was double the present, surface heat flow varied over a range (45-90 mW m2) as wide as that presently observed in Paleozoic Provinces. For the present-day vertical distribution of radioelements, high heat production during the Archean is insufficient to account for elevated lower crustal temperatures. High temperature-low pressure metamorphism conditions require additional heat input, for example by emplacement of large volumes of basaltic melts, crustal thickening or higher concentrations of radio-elements in the lower crust than at present. In the Archean, with a crust thicker than 40km or with the radio-elements uniformly distributed throughout a 40km thick crust, the lower crust was near melting and, with an effective viscosity 1019 Pa s, it could not sustain the stress due to crustal thickening. Long-term crustal stability requires the enrichment of the upper crust in radioelements through melt extraction from the lower crust. After root emplacement, thermal conditions in cratons remained far from equilibrium for 1-2Gyr. Depending on the mechanism of root formation, temperature at 150km might only be 150K higher than present, implying that the lithospheric mantle remained sufficiently cold and strong to preserve Archean features. In thick continental lithosphere, temperatures in the crust and deep in the continental root are effectively decoupled for a long time Keywords: heatflow, craton
- Page 645 and 646: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 647 and 648: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 649 and 650: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 651 and 652: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 653 and 654: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 655 and 656: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 657 and 658: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 659 and 660: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 661 and 662: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 663 and 664: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 665 and 666: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 667 and 668: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 669 and 670: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 671 and 672: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 673 and 674: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 675 and 676: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 677 and 678: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 679 and 680: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 681 and 682: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 683 and 684: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 685 and 686: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 687 and 688: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 689 and 690: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 691 and 692: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 693 and 694: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 695: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 699 and 700: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 701 and 702: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 703 and 704: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 705 and 706: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 707 and 708: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 709 and 710: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 711 and 712: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 713 and 714: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 715 and 716: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 717 and 718: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 719 and 720: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 721 and 722: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 723 and 724: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 725 and 726: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 727 and 728: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 729 and 730: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 731 and 732: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 733 and 734: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 735 and 736: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 737 and 738: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 739 and 740: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 741 and 742: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 743 and 744: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 745 and 746: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-13, 2007 Perugia, Italy<br />
(S) - <strong>IASPEI</strong> - International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's<br />
Interior<br />
JSS017 Oral Presentation 2367<br />
Mantle contributions to elevation in China continent: results of thermal<br />
isostasy analysis<br />
Mr. Shan Bin<br />
Key Laboratory of Dynamic Geodesy Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics, CAS <strong>IASPEI</strong><br />
Xiong Xiong<br />
The failure of simple isostasy models which involve crustal density and crustal thickness alone, to<br />
explain the surprising observations of high elevation over thin crust and low elevation over thick crust in<br />
some tectonic blocks of China continent, suggests that the contribution of lithosphereic mantle for<br />
isostasy should be incorporated. Thermal isostasy, which is based on the fact that a change in<br />
temperature results in a change in volume and therefore in density, should be taken into account. In<br />
this study, using mass balance model, we conducted thermal isostasy analysis to separate the<br />
contributions of crust and mantle to surface elevation. Based on 723 heatflow measurements in China<br />
mainland and additional data from the global heatflow dataset, we divided China mainland and its<br />
adjacent area into nineteen tectonic units to exhibit overall variations of heat flow pattern. The<br />
contribution of crust to elevation was calculated with crustal structure and related parameters which<br />
were derived from seismological studies. Introducing temperatures of Moho and thickness of<br />
lithospheric mantle, and applying mass balance model, we calculated the contribution to elevation from<br />
the buoyancy of lithosphere mantle. The results suggest that the elevation of most tectonic units could<br />
be explained well by integrating the contributions from crust and lithosphereic mantle. For instance, the<br />
elevations of the Cuxiong and Tarim basins, 1900m and 1230m, are far from the predictions by Airy<br />
isostasy model, which are ~2275m and ~2050m, respectively. By assigning Moho temperatures of<br />
Cuxiong and Tarim basins, 900oC and 500oC, we obtained the results that the elevations were reduced<br />
by the mantle lithosphere contribution of ~-320m for the Cuxiong and ~-980m for the Tarim, resulting<br />
in a combined elevation of ~1955m for the Cuxiong and ~1070m for the Tarim, respectively. Therefore,<br />
after integrating the two contributions together, we found the elevation difference calculated by the<br />
mass balance model between the two tectonic units fitted well with the observed one. The contribution<br />
of lithospheric mantle can be understood in the way that high temperatures in the upper mantle reduce<br />
density by thermal expansion and compensate for thin high density crust, and vice versa. The<br />
compensation status was also in good agreement with the results of vertical crustal movement derived<br />
from geodetic studies. Our study suggests that mantle contribution to lithosphere isostasy is so<br />
important that it should be taken into accounted in isostasy analysis. Furthermore, since mantle<br />
contribution is estimated from lithosphere thickness and average temperature of lithospheric mantle,<br />
thermal isostasy analysis provides an effective way to constrain roughly the temperature of Moho in the<br />
areas where geothermal observations are not available.<br />
Keywords: thermal isostasy, elevation, china