Current plate velocities relative to the hotspots incorporating the NUVEL‐1 global plate motion model

Abstract

NUVEL‐1 is a new global model of current relative plate velocities [DeMets et al., 1990], which differ significantly from those of prior models. Here we incorporate NUVEL‐1 into HS2‐NUVEL1, a new global model of plate velocities relative to the hotspots. HS2‐NUVEL1 was determined from the hotspot data and errors used by Minster and Jordan [1978] to determine AM1‐2, which is their model of plate velocities relative to the hotspots. AM1‐2 is consistent with Minster and Jordan's relative plate velocity model RM2. Here we compare HS2‐NUVEL1 with AM1‐2 and examine how their differences relate to differences between NUVEL‐1 and RM2. HS2‐NUVEL1 plate velocities relative to the hotspots are mainly similar to those of AM1‐2. Minor differences between the two models include the following: (1) in HS2‐NUVEL1 the speed of the partly continental, apparently non‐subducting Indian plate is greater than that of the purely oceanic, subducting Nazca plate; (2) in places the direction of motion of the African, Antarctic, Arabian, Australian, Caribbean, Cocos, Eurasian, North American, and South American plates differs between models by more than 10°; (3) in places the speed of the Australian, Caribbean, Cocos, Indian, and Nazca plates differs between models by more than 8 mm/yr. Although 27 of the 30 RM2 Euler vectors differ with 95% confidence from those of NUVEL‐1, only the AM1‐2 Arabia‐hotspot and India‐hotspot Euler vectors differ with 95% confidence from those of HS2‐NUVEL1. Thus, substituting NUVEL‐1 for RM2 in the inversion for plate velocities relative to the hotspots changes few Euler vectors significantly, presumably because the uncertainty in the velocity of a plate relative to the hotspots is much greater than the uncertainty in its velocity relative to other plates.

Seismic and mechanical anisotropy and the past and present deformation of the Australian lithosphere

“…The di¡erence between plate motion directions in the HS and NNR reference frames [39,40] approaches 30 ‡ in Australia (see Fig. 4).…”

“…Motion vectors of the Indo-Australian plate and its surroundings based on the Nuvel-1 model. Current plate velocities are with respect to the hot spots [39] and expressed in a reference frame that yields no net rotation of the plates [40]. Moving at a speed of more than 8 cm/yr, the Indo-Australian plate is one of the fastest moving plates on the planet.…”

“…There, strain is usually derived from the direction of APM, but this depends on the frame of reference [38]. Plate motion expressed in a hot-spot reference frame (HS-APM) [39] will be a good proxy for the mantle strain if the hot spots are indeed stationary with respect to the upper mantle. A no-net-rotation plate motion model (NNR-APM) [40] may re£ect mantle strain if certain assumptions about the nature of lithospheric drag are met.…”

Patterns in Galápagos Magmatism Arising from the Upper Mantle Dynamics of Plume‐Ridge Interaction

“…The model boundary conditions simulate a realistic GSC spreading rate (28 km/Myr), absolute plate motion [Gripp and Gordon, 1990], and ridge geometry as it evolved in time since 6.3 Ma [Wilson and Hey, 1995]. Potential temperature is 0 °C at the surface and 1,300 °C at the base, except in a circular patch where the plume is imposed.…”

The Manihiki Plateau—a key to missing hotspot tracks?

“…The Society Islands, located in French Polynesia, are aligned along a volcanic chain parallel to the Pacific plate motion (Gripp & Gordon 1990;Gripp & Gordon 2002) and perpendicular to the East Pacific Rise (Duncan & McDougall 1976). The NW to SE striking archipelago comprises more than 14 islands along a 400-km-long volcanic track (Duncan & McDougall 1976;Binard et al 1991;Neall & Trewick 2008).…”