The crustal structure of the Anatolian Plate from receiver functions and implications for the uplift of the central and eastern Anatolian plateaus

Abstract

Summary Understanding the crustal structure of the Anatolian Plate has important implications for its formation and evolution, including the extent to which its high elevation is maintained isostatically. However, the numerous teleseismic receiver function studies from which Anatolian Moho depths have been obtained return results that differ by ≤21 km at some seismograph stations. To address this issue, we determine Moho depth and bulk crustal VP/VS ratio (κ) at 582 broadband seismograph stations, including ∼100 for which H-κ results have not been reported previously. We use a modified H-κ stacking method in which a final solution is selected from a suite of up to 1000 repeat H-κ measurements, each calculated using randomly-selected receiver functions and H-κ input parameters. Ten quality control criteria that variously assess the final numerical result, the receiver function data set, and the extent to which the results are clustered tightly, are used to determine station quality. By refining Moho depth constraints, including identifying 182 stations, analysed previously, where H-κ stacking yields unreliable results (particularly in Eastern Anatolia and the rapidly-uplifting Taurides), our new crustal model (ANATOLIA-HK21) provides fresh insight into Anatolian crustal structure and topography. Changes in Moho depth within the Anatolian Plate occur on a shorter length-scale than has sometimes previously been assumed. For example, crustal thickness decreases abruptly from >40 km in the northern Kirsehir block to <32 km beneath the Central Anatolian Volcanic Province and Tuz Golu basin. Moho depth increases from 30-35 km on the Arabian Plate to 35-40 km across the East Anatolian Fault into Anatolia, in support of structural geological observations that Arabia-Anatolia crustal shortening was accommodated primarily on the Anatolian, not Arabian, Plate. However, there are no consistent changes in Moho depth across the North Anatolian Fault, whose development along the Intra-Pontide and İzmir-Ankara-Erzincan suture zones was more likely the result of contrasts in mantle lithospheric, not crustal, structure. While the crust thins from ∼45 km below the uplifted Eastern Anatolian Plateau to ∼25 km below lower-lying western Anatolia, Moho depth is generally correlated poorly with elevation. Residual topography calculations confirm the requirement for a mantle contribution to Anatolian Plateau uplift, with localised asthenospheric upwellings in response to slab break-off and/or lithospheric dripping/delamination example candidate driving mechanisms.

The Uplift of an Early Stage Collisional Plateau Unraveled by Fluvial Network Analysis and River Longitudinal Profile Inversion: The Case of the Eastern Anatolian Plateau

“…(2006), Vanacore et al. (2013), Ogden and Bastow (2022), Darin and Umhoefer (2022) for modern and past crustal thickness, on Angus et al. (2006), Nikogosian et al.…”

“…The thermal erosion of the lithosphere and the heating of the crust reduced the lithosphere strength and favored its deformation resulting in a further acceleration in surface uplift rate and a consequent generation of a third erosion wave (Trend 3; Figures5a, 7a-7c, and 10). The elaboration of the three cross sections is based onAngus et al (2006),Vanacore et al (2013),Ogden and Bastow (2022),Darin and Umhoefer (2022) for modern and past crustal thickness, onAngus et al (2006),Nikogosian et al (2018),Agostini et al (2021),Reid et al (2019),Rabayrol et al (2019) for modern and past magmatism and magma source, on Ismail-Zadeh et al (2020),Biryol et al (2011) for modern mantle structure.…”