Lithosphere thickness beneath the baltic shield

Sacks, I. Selwyn; Snoke, J. Arthur; Husebye, Eystein S.

doi:10.1016/0040-1951(79)90016-7

Cited by 65 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The thickness of this seismic lithosphere below Fennoscandia has been estimated by Sacks et al (1979), Husebye and Hovland (1982), Babuška et al (1988), Plomerová et al (2002), and Gregersen et al (2002), who analysed body-wave travel time residuals for teleseismic events, by Guggisberg and Berthelsen (1987), who analysed the data from the FENNOLORA seismic refraction profile, and by Calcagnile (1982Calcagnile ( , 1991, who analysed Rayleigh-wave dispersion data. These studies indicate that, down to depths of about 250-300 km, the central part of the Fennoscandian Shield is characterized by higher seismic velocities than the surrounding Caledonides and Barents Sea, where the thickness of seismic lithosphere is less than 100 km.…”

Section: Estimates Of Lithosphere Thicknessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inverting the Fennoscandian relaxation-time spectrum in terms of an axisymmetric viscosity distribution with a lithospheric root

Martinec

Wolf

2005

Journal of Geodynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Estimates Of Lithosphere Thicknessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inverting the Fennoscandian relaxation-time spectrum in terms of an axisymmetric viscosity distribution with a lithospheric root

Martinec

Wolf

2005

Journal of Geodynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since S waves are not first arrivals within this distance range, they typically arrive within the P-wave coda and interfere with other phases. Painstaking polarity analysis to distinguish the S-to-P converted waves from S waves has been used to identify the LAB Sacks et al 1979;Snoke et al 1977;Bock and Kind 1991). Farra and Vinnik (2000) were the first to propose the application of receiver-function analysis as a way to isolate S-to-P converted phases from the incident S waves.…”

Section: Mapping the Lab Using S-receiver Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The elusive lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary (LAB) beneath cratons

Eaton

Darbyshire

Evans

et al. 2009

Lithos

391

288

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) is a first-order structural discontinuity that accommodates differential motion between tectonic plates and the underlying mantle. Although it is the most extensive type of plate boundary on the planet, its definitive detection, especially beneath cratons, is proving elusive. Different proxies are used to demarcate the LAB, depending on the nature of the measurement. Here we compare interpretations of the LAB beneath three The seismic LAB beneath cratons is typically regarded as the base of a high-velocity mantle lid, although some workers infer its location based on a distinct change in seismic anisotropy.Surface-wave inversion studies provide depth-constrained velocity models, but are relatively insensitive to the sharpness of the LAB. The S-receiver function method is a promising new seismic technique with complementary characteristics to surface-wave studies, since it is 2 sensitive to sharpness of the LAB but requires independent velocity information for accurate depth estimation. Magnetotelluric (MT) observations have, for many decades, imaged an "electrical asthenosphere" layer at depths beneath the continents consistent with seismic lowvelocity zones. This feature is most easily explained by the presence of a small amount of water in the asthenosphere, possibly inducing partial melt. Depth estimates based on various proxies considered here are similar, lending confidence that existing geophysical tools are effective for mapping the LAB beneath cratons.

show abstract

“…7 of the paper by Sacks et al (1979) as a representative example of their data. Epicentral parameters of the event are listed in Table 2.…”

Section: Inversion Of N O R S a R Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Inversion of teleseismic S particle motion for azimuthal anisotropy in the upper mantle: a feasibility study

Farra

Vinnik

Romanowicz

et al. 1991

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have developed a technique for the inversion of teleseismic S-waveforms in terms of azimuthal anisotropy in the upper mantle. We test different models of the Earth upper mantle by transforming the observed horizontal components into a synthetic vertical component and comparing this with the observed vertical component. The optimum model is found by minimizing the difference between the synthetic vertical component and the observed one. Using this method, we explore the possibility of constraining the distribution of azimuthal anisotropy with depth.We present examples of seismic observations where the data are clearly in favour of an anisotropic model. These observations can be interpreted in terms of two anisotropic layers with different directions of fast velocity axes.

show abstract

Lithosphere thickness beneath the baltic shield

Cited by 65 publications

References 7 publications

Inverting the Fennoscandian relaxation-time spectrum in terms of an axisymmetric viscosity distribution with a lithospheric root

Inverting the Fennoscandian relaxation-time spectrum in terms of an axisymmetric viscosity distribution with a lithospheric root

The elusive lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary (LAB) beneath cratons

Inversion of teleseismic S particle motion for azimuthal anisotropy in the upper mantle: a feasibility study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About