Global Moho from the combination of the CRUST2.0 model and GOCE data

Reguzzoni, Mirko; Sampietro, Daniele; Sansò, F.

doi:10.1093/gji/ggt247

Cited by 102 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, we compared the Moho depth with the CRUST1.0, KTH1.0, GSMM, M13 and GEMMA [45] models (see Figure 8 and statistics in Table 4). The Moho density contrast differences are plotted in Figure 9 and their statistical summary is given in Table 5.…”

Section: Validation Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moho Density Contrast in Central Eurasia from GOCE Gravity Gradients

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic data are primarily used in studies of the Earth's inner structure. Since large parts of the world are not yet sufficiently covered by seismic surveys, products from the Earth's satellite observation systems have more often been used for this purpose in recent years. In this study we use the gravity-gradient data derived from the Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE), the elevation data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) and other global datasets to determine the Moho density contrast at the study area which comprises most of the Eurasian plate (including parts of surrounding continental and oceanic tectonic plates). A regional Moho recovery is realized by solving the Vening Meinesz-Moritz's (VMM) inverse problem of isostasy and a seismic crustal model is applied to constrain the gravimetric solution. Our results reveal that the Moho density contrast reaches minima along the mid-oceanic rift zones and maxima under the continental crust. This spatial pattern closely agrees with that seen in the CRUST1.0 seismic crustal model as well as in the KTH1.0 gravimetric-seismic Moho model. However, these results differ considerably from some previously published gravimetric studies. In particular, we demonstrate that there is no significant spatial correlation between the Moho density contrast and Moho deepening under major orogens of Himalaya and Tibet. In fact, the Moho density contrast under most of the continental crustal structure is typically much more uniform.

show abstract

Section: Validation Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moho Density Contrast in Central Eurasia from GOCE Gravity Gradients

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be noted that the model has a poor resolution and there are few data used for generating the model in the area under study, i.e the model is an interpolation of data available in surrounding areas. This model was chosen to make the comparison because is one of the most well-known and spread model inside the geoscience community in spite of its low resolution and it was used as the mean Moho depth for the derivation of the GEMMA Model (Reguzzoni et al 2013). -The Moho depth for Model B in the study zone is between 36 and 45 km and it is surrounded on the North, East and North-West boundaries by a thinner crust, on its West boundary by a thicker crust and on the South boundary there is an area with no model coverage.…”

Section: Description Of Models Of Mohorovicic Discontinuitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mohorovicic Discontinuity Depth Analysis Beneath North Patagonian Massif

Dacal

Tocho

Aragón

2015

International Association of Geodesy Symposia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Mohorovicic discontinuity (Moho) is the surface that limits the Earth's crust and mantle. It is of paramount importance in understanding and investigating the dynamics of the Earth's interior. The GEMMA project (GOCE Exploitation for Moho Modeling and Applications), funded by the European Space Agency and Politecnico di Milano, has provided a high resolution map of the Moho surface (GEMMA Model), based on the inversion of homogeneous, well-distributed gravimetric data measured by the SteadyState Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE), which ensures a global coverage using gravity field. In the current paper, this Moho depth estimation (Riccardo Barzaghi, personal communication, April 20, 2012) is compared with other models based on both seismic and gravity observations, under the North Patagonian Massif (NPM). Said massif is an Argentinean plateau that stands out 500 to 700 m higher in altitude than the surrounding topography and was created by a sudden uplift without noticeable internal deformation (Aragón et al. (2011b) Upper mantle geodynamic constrains beneath the north patagonian massif, Argentina). The features described led us to analyze the crustal thickness in the area. The work describes different Moho models available in the area under study and their comparison with the GEMMA Model. The aim is to validate this well distributed, homogeneous data model in this area with sparse seismic data and check its usefulness to get more information about the Moho. According to comparisons with the different models, the crustal thickness in the study area varies between 36 and 46 km. The good agreement between the GEMMA Model and some of the other Moho models may account for the use of such model to study this little known area.

show abstract

“…It is of the order of 100 km thick and comprises the crust and the uppermost solid mantle [1]. Understanding the structure of the Earth's lithosphere is particularly useful because it provides a key to understanding a broad range of applications including improving whole-mantle tomography, defining and understanding crust-mantle interaction, monitoring seismicity at regional or global scales, and understanding the linkage and interaction between the atmosphere and the Earth's deep interior [2][3][4][5]. Over the years, a number of global models with various levels of detail, such as 3SMAC [6], CRUST 5.1 [2], CRUST 2.0 [7], CRUST 1.0 [8], and LITHO1.0 [5,9], have been presented to depict structural features and property parameters of all or part of the Earth's lithosphere.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visualizing the Structure of the Earth’s Lithosphere on the Google Earth Virtual-Globe Platform

Zhu

Kan

Zhang

et al. 2016

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While many of the current methods for representing the existing global lithospheric models are suitable for academic investigators to conduct professional geological and geophysical research, they are not suited to visualize and disseminate the lithospheric information to non-geological users (such as atmospheric scientists, educators, policy-makers, and even the general public) as they rely on dedicated computer programs or systems to read and work with the models. This shortcoming has become more obvious as more and more people from both academic and non-academic institutions struggle to understand the structure and composition of the Earth's lithosphere. Google Earth and the concomitant Keyhole Markup Language (KML) provide a universal and user-friendly platform to represent, disseminate, and visualize the existing lithospheric models. We present a systematic framework to visualize and disseminate the structure of the Earth's lithosphere on Google Earth. A KML generator is developed to convert lithospheric information derived from the global lithospheric model LITHO1.0 into KML-formatted models, and a web application is deployed to disseminate and visualize those models on the Internet. The presented framework and associated implementations can be easily exported for application to support interactively integrating and visualizing the internal structure of the Earth with a global perspective.

show abstract

Global Moho from the combination of the CRUST2.0 model and GOCE data

Cited by 102 publications

References 30 publications

Moho Density Contrast in Central Eurasia from GOCE Gravity Gradients

Moho Density Contrast in Central Eurasia from GOCE Gravity Gradients

Mohorovicic Discontinuity Depth Analysis Beneath North Patagonian Massif

Visualizing the Structure of the Earth’s Lithosphere on the Google Earth Virtual-Globe Platform

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About