1984
DOI: 10.1029/jb089ib01p00473
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Crustal structure of the Lomonosov Ridge and the Fram and Makarov Basins near the North Pole

Abstract: Reversed refraction surveys were conducted along and across the Lomonosov Ridge as part of the 1979 Lomonosov Ridge Experiment. Interpretation of the strike profiles indicates a 5‐km‐thick upper crustal layer with a velocity of 4.7 km/s overlying a 15‐ to 20‐km‐thick layer of 6.6 km/s material. An upper mantle velocity of 8.3 km/s is indicated by a few pn arrivals. High‐amplitude reflection events recorded from this boundary can be successfully modeled by a transition zone of rapidly changing velocity over a d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They base their interpretation on seismic wide‐angle results (for location see Figure : LORITA profile). However, the crustal thickness of the LR plateau is 26–27 km [ Jackson et al ., 2010], which is roughly similar to the crustal thickness of the central LR near the North Pole (∼25 km) [ Forsyth and Mair , ]. Hence, differences in crustal thickness do not explain the elevated bathymetry of the LR plateau relative to the central LR, whereas differences in crustal thickness may explain the difference in bathymetry relative to the Klenova Valley (crustal thickness around 14 km) [ Jackson et al ., 2010].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…They base their interpretation on seismic wide‐angle results (for location see Figure : LORITA profile). However, the crustal thickness of the LR plateau is 26–27 km [ Jackson et al ., 2010], which is roughly similar to the crustal thickness of the central LR near the North Pole (∼25 km) [ Forsyth and Mair , ]. Hence, differences in crustal thickness do not explain the elevated bathymetry of the LR plateau relative to the central LR, whereas differences in crustal thickness may explain the difference in bathymetry relative to the Klenova Valley (crustal thickness around 14 km) [ Jackson et al ., 2010].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Seismic surveys have also mapped the polar margin structure about 500 krn southwest of the study area and the Alpha and Lomonosov ridges near the North Pole (Forsyth and Mair 1984;Forsyth et al 1986, 19906;Jokat et al 1992). To the southeast, Niblett et al (1974) reported a conductivity anomaly coincident with the Lake Hazen Fold Belt and its projection offshore beneath the Lincoln Sea.…”
Section: Basic Magmatismmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The Lincoln Sea plateau may have resulted from the breakup of a mafic complex related to the Kap Washington volcanics and a region of short-wavelength magnetic anomalies to the east of the study area near the Morris Jesup Rise (Kovacs 1982). The velocity structure beneath the Lomonosov Ridge near the North Pole includes a 3 -5 km thick upper crustal unit with a velocity of 4.0-5.2 kmls, a lower crust with a velocity of 6.2-6.7 kmls, and an upper mantle velocity of 8.3 kmls (Jokat et al 1992;Forsyth and Mair 1984).…”
Section: Geological and Tectonic Setting Oceanic Elementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seismic refraction and gravity experiments show that the Lomonosov Ridge is the surface expression of a sliver of continental crust having a Moho at a depth of 25-28 km (Forsyth & Mair 1984;Weber & Sweeney 1985;Lebedeva-Ivanova et al 2006a). Although the Lomonosov Ridge is a prominent bathymetric feature adjacent to the Eurasia Basin, the continental crust on the Amerasia Basin side of the microcontinent extends beneath the lower-lying parts of the adjacent Podvodnikov Basin (Jokat 2005).…”
Section: Boundaries Of the Lomonosov Microcontinentmentioning
confidence: 98%