Comparison of crustal thickness from two gravimetric-isostatic models and CRUST2.0

The Mohorovičić discontinuity is the boundary between the Earth’s crust and mantle. Several isostatic hypotheses exist for estimating the crustal thickness and density variation of the Earth’s crust from gravity anomalies.The goal of this article is to compare the Airy-Heiskanen and Vening Meinesz-Moritz (VMM) gravimetric models for determining Moho depth, with the seismic Moho (CRUST2.0 or SM) model. Numerical comparisons are performed globally as well as for some geophysically interesting areas, such as Fennoscandia, Persia, Tibet, Canada and Chile. These areas are most complicated areas in view of rough topography (Tibet, Persia and Peru and Chile), post-glacial rebound (Fennoscandia and Canada) and tectonic activities (Persia).The mean Moho depth provided by CRUST2.0 is 22.9 ± 0.1 km. Using a constant Moho density contrast of 0.6 g/cm3, the corresponding mean values for Airy-Heiskanen and VVM isostatic models become 25.0 ± 0.04 km and 21.6 ± 0.08 km, respectively. By assuming density contrasts of 0.5 g/cm2 and 0.35 g/cm3 for continental and oceanic regions, respectively, the VMM model yields the mean Moho depth 22.6 ± 0.1 km. For this model the global rms difference to CRUST2.0 is 7.2 km, while the corresponding difference between Airy-Heiskanen model and CRUST2.0 is 11 km. Also for regional studies, Moho depths were estimated by selecting different density contrasts. Therefore, one conclusion from the study is that the global compensation by the VMM method significantly improves the agreement with the CRUST2.0 vs. the local compensation model of Airy-Heiskanen. Also, the last model cannot be correct in regions with ocean depth larger than 9 km (e.g., outside Chile), as it may yield negative Moho depths. This problem does not occur with the VMM model. A second conclusion is that a realistic variation of density contrast between continental and oceanic areas yields a better fit of the VMM model to CRUST2.0. The study suggests that the VMM model can primarily be used to densify the CRUST2.0 Moho model in many regions based on separate data by taking advantage of dense gravity data.Finally we have found also that the gravimetric terrain correction affects the determination of the Moho depth by less than 2 km in mean values for test regions, approximately. Hence, for most practical applications of the VMM model the simple Bouguer gravity anomaly is sufficient.

[1]  Zdenek Martinec,et al.  Boundary-Value Problems for Gravimetric Determination of a Precise Geoid , 1998 .

[2]  Z. Martinec.  The Density Contrast At the Mohorovičic̀ Discontinuity , 1994 .

[3]  H. Moritz.  Advanced Physical Geodesy , 1980 .

[4]  F. A. Vening Meinesz,et al.  Une Nouvelle Méthode Pour la Réduction Isostatique Régionale de L’intensité de la Pesanteur , 1931 .

[5]  S. Haines,et al.  INDEPTH III seismic data: From surface observations to deep crustal processes in Tibet , 2003 .

[6]  H. Nataf,et al.  3SMAC: an a priori tomographic model of the upper mantle based on geophysical modeling , 1996 .

[7]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  The exterior Airy/Heiskanen topographic–isostatic gravity potential, anomaly and the effect of analytical continuation in Stokes' formula , 1998 .

[8]  C. Reigber.  Earth Observation with CHAMP : Results from Three Years in Orbit , 2005 .

[9]  M. McNutt,et al.  Mapping the descent of Indian and Eurasian plates beneath the Tibetan Plateau from gravity anomalies , 1996 .

[10]  C. Bassin,et al.  The Current Limits of resolution for surface wave tomography in North America , 2000 .

[11]  A. Vogel,et al.  Improvement of Convergency in Iterative Gravity Interpretation , 1972 .

[12]  D. Schmidt,et al.  A Preliminary Gravitational Model to Degree 2160 , 2005 .

[13]  C. Readings,et al.  Gravity field and steady-state ocean circulation mission , 1996 .

[14]  Fernando Sansó,et al.  GOCE: The Earth Gravity Field by Space Gradiometry , 2002 .

[15]  On the Computation of the Effect of the Attraction of Mountain Masses as disturbing the Apparent Astronomical Latitude of Stations in Geodetic Surveys , 1855 .

[16]  Z. Martinec,et al.  Spherical harmonic expansion of the Earth's crustal thickness up to degree and order 30 , 1991 .

[17]  W. Sitter.  The Figure of the Earth , 1901, Nature.

[18]  Reiner Rummel,et al.  Comparisons of global topographic/isostatic models to the Earth's observed gravity field , 1988 .

[19]  Houze Xu,et al.  Moho undulations beneath Tibet from GRACE-integrated gravity data , 2007 .

[20]  M. Cheng,et al.  GGM02 – An improved Earth gravity field model from GRACE , 2005 .

[21]  J. Lemoine,et al.  Earth Gravity Field and Seasonal Variability from CHAMP , 2005 .

[22]  Hans Sünkel.  Mathematical and Numerical Techniques in Physical Geodesy , 1986 .

[23]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  A method of estimating the Moho density contrast with a tentative application of EGM08 and CRUST2.0 , 2011 .

[24]  R. Tenzer,et al.  Global maps of the CRUST 2.0 crustal components stripped gravity disturbances , 2009 .

[25]  J. Pratt.  I. On the attraction of the Himalaya Mountains, and of the elevated region beyond them, upon the plumb-line in India , 1855, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

[26]  The gravity and isostatic Moho undulations in Qinghai–Tibet plateau , 2000 .

[27]  Z. Martinec.  A model of compensation of topographic masses , 1993 .

[28]  C. Fowler,et al.  The Solid Earth: An Introduction to Global Geophysics , 1990 .

[29]  Christopher Jekeli,et al.  Gravity, Geoid and Space Missions , 2008 .

[30]  D. Oldenburg.  The inversion and interpretation of gravity anomalies , 1974 .

[31]  R. Ray,et al.  A new global crustal thickness map , 1982 .

[32]  B. Heck,et al.  A comparison of different isostatic models applied to satellite gravity gradiometry , 2005 .

[33]  Houze Xu,et al.  Three-dimensional forward and inverse models for gravity fields based on the Fast Fourier Transform , 2006, Comput. Geosci..

[34]  Vening Meinesz.  Fundamental tables for regional isostatic reduction of gravity values , 1940 .

[35]  David Gómez-Ortiz,et al.  3DINVER.M: a MATLAB program to invert the gravity anomaly over a 3D horizontal density interface by Parker-Oldenburg's algorithm , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[36]  Lindrith Cordell,et al.  Iterative three-dimensional solution of gravity anomaly data using a digital computer , 1968 .

[37]  G. Balmino,et al.  European Views on Dedicated Gravity Field Missions: GRACE and GOCE , 1998 .

[38]  E. Grafarend,et al.  Ellipsoidal representation of the topographical potential and its vertical gradient , 2005 .

[39]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  Solving Vening Meinesz-Moritz inverse problem in isostasy , 2009 .

[40]  Gabi Laske,et al.  CRUST 5.1: A global crustal model at 5° × 5° , 1998 .

[41]  H. Sünkel.  Global topographic-isostatic models , 1986 .

[42]  Robert L. Parker,et al.  The Rapid Calculation of Potential Anomalies , 1973 .

[43]  W. Heiskanen,et al.  The Earth And Its Gravity Field , 1959 .