Some remarks on the earthquakes of Fennoscandia: A conceptual seismological model drawn from the perspective of hyperextension

Abstract

To a first order, patterns of Fennoscandia's seismicity reflect the benchmark domain boundaries of its Mesozoic rifted margin. Three distinct belts of earthquakes strike sub-parallel to the generalized line of breakup. The outermost seismic belt (SB1) marks the Taper Break (TB), or the zone of flexural coupling/decoupling between the distal (seaward) and proximal/necking (landward) domains. A coastal belt (SB2) follows the Innermost Limit of Extension, defined as the onset of 39 km-thick crystalline continental crust. An interior belt (SB3) follows the Hinterland Break in Slope, or the landward limit of the Scandinavian rifted margin. Between each belt, large portions of the necking, proximal, and hinterland domains are seismically quiescent. Evaluation of the 'Cumulative Seismic Moment' (CSM w ) per unit area indicates that the release of seismic energy is asymmetric. Although some of Fennoscandia's largest seismic events occur in the dominantly Proterozoic to Archean lithosphere of the eastern craton, 80% of Fennoscandian CSM w maps to the domain boundaries of the western rifted margin. CSM w energy tends to be highest at the TB and decreases system atically towards the continental interior.As proposed by many previous studies, a first-order spatial correlation between Scandinavia's offshore earthquake belt and voluminous, geo logically rapid, sedimentary loading during the Neogene period is evident. However, the presence of thinned, faulted crystalline basement is also a very important factor behind Scandinavia's offshore seismicity. Where the Neogene deposits are at their thickest the underlying crust is dominantly oceanic; CSM w is lower per unit area there than where lesser Plio-Pleistocene loading impacts continental crust that was fully prepared by Mesozoic necking and hyperextension. CSM w data suggest that the 'strength' of the TB and the continental margin's distal domain is significantly less than that of relatively young (ca. 54 Ma) oceanic lithosphere. Our data imply that ridge push does not contribute significantly to Fennoscandia's seismicity. Rather, we find that thin-plate bending stresses stemming from offshore depositional loading conspire with unbuttressed Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE), onshore erosion, and post-glacial isostatic rebound to generate Fennoscandia's earthquakes.We present a conceptual seismological model for Fennoscadia that is consistent with modern hypotheses of extended margin evolution, including post-breakup reactivation by footwall uplift in regions adjacent to sharp crustal taper. Illustrated by simple concepts of elastic thin-plate theory, the model honors our conclusion that Fennoscandian seismicity is principally the product of locally derived stress fields and that far field stress from the oceanic domain is unlikely to penetrate deeply into a hyperextended continental margin. It predicts the locations of the observed seismic belts and seismic gaps with the mathematics of thin-plate bending. It describes how the outer seismic belt will remain localized in the...

Contrasting Mesozoic evolution across the boundary between on and off craton regions of the South African plateau inferred from apatite fission track and (U‐Th‐Sm)/He thermochronology

“…Changes in the deep Earth structure and/or composition may induce edge-driven convection or focus upwellings in the mantle around the craton [Guillou-Frottier et al, 2012] or may well result in the off-craton and oncraton regions responding differently to unloading and stress [Gilchrist and Summerfield, 1990;Pérez-Gussinyé and Watts, 2005]. Moreover, additional contrasting geophysical characteristics at craton margins such as lateral variations in lithospheric strength, rheology, heat flow, and the presence of pre-existing weak zones have been shown to cause intraplate stresses to build up at the craton margins [Redfield and Osmundsen, 2014;Gueydan et al, 2014;Lenardic et al, 2003;Baptiste et al, 2012;Wang et al, 2014;Calignano et al, 2015;Janney et al, 2010].…”

Gravitational slope deformation, not neotectonics: Revisiting the Nordmannvikdalen feature of northern Norway

“…ent-day seismicity (e.g., Ahjos & Uski, 1992;Bungum et al, 2005;Redfield & Osmundsen, 2015) -it is a bit problematic to be removing neotectonic faults from the national map instead of adding them. Yet honest words best pierce the ear of grief.…”

“…Although the impact upon fracturing in the uppermost levels depends on a variety of conditions, it is generally accepted that rapid deglaciation can drive seismicity (e.g., Arvidsson, 1996;Wu & Hasagawa, 1996). This hypothesis is commonly applied to Fennoscandia, either in full (e.g., Gudmundsson, 1999) or in part (e.g., Muir Wood, 2000; Bungum et al, 2010;Keiding et al, 2015;Redfield & Osmundsen, 2015). The downward tapering fissure could plausibly have opened during or immediately after deglaciation.…”

Relation between seismicity and tectonic structures offshore and onshore Nordland, northern Norway

“…As earthquakes generally occur along pre-existing zones of weakness and result from a buildup of stress and/or reduced effective shear strength along favourably oriented faults (e.g., Davis & Reynolds, 1996), all the factors mentioned above could influence the stress field and may have an effect on the tectonic structures, which are abundant in the Nordland area. In spite of many efforts (e.g., Muir-Wood, 2000;Fejerskov & Lindholm, 2000;Redfield & Osmundsen, 2015;Fjeldskaar et al, 2000), the relative contribution of the different stress components to the overall stress field in the area is not yet fully resolved. The NEONOR2 project (Neotectonics in Nordland -Implications for petroleum exploration; https://www.ngu.no/en/neonor2) in 2013-2017 aimed to improve the understanding of regionalscale stress and strain dynamics in the Nordland area through a detailed monitoring of seismicity, geodetic movements and the state of in situ stress.…”