The Pacific megagash: A future plate boundary?

Montagner, Jean‐Paul; Anderson, Don L.

doi:10.1130/2015.2514(10)

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their APM Euler poles are nearly identical, and both are close to the one based on Schaeffer and Lebedev [] (Table and Figure ). Inspecting the geographical distribution of the misfit between azimuthal anisotropy and the corresponding best fit APM model (Figure S2), we find that the northern and southern parts of the Pacific plate are relatively less well matched compared to an equatorial band of near‐perfect alignment, similar to what was discussed by Montagner and Anderson []. This pattern is less clear when considering the model of Debayle and Ricard [] (Figure S3) but confirmed for anisotropy from Yuan and Beghein [] (Figure S4).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Kreemer [] used this argument to invert S K S splitting orientations for a best fitting APM reference frame and discussed this model in light of hot spot motions, with an update and expanded error analysis provided by Zheng et al []. A fit of azimuthal anisotropy to an APM model was also used by Montagner and Anderson [] to infer plate motions for the Pacific, suggesting that the geographic distribution of misfits that can be derived from surface wave anisotropy might indicate the formation of a new plate boundary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward a generalized plate motion reference frame

Becker

Schaeffer

Lebedev

et al. 2015

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An absolute plate motion (APM) model is required to address issues such as the thermochemical evolution of Earth's mantle. All APM models have to rely on indirect inferences, including those based on hot spots and seismic anisotropy, each with their own set of uncertainties. Here, we explore a seafloor spreading‐aligned reference frame. We show that this reference frame fits azimuthal seismic anisotropy in the uppermost mantle very well. The corresponding Euler pole is close to those of hot spot reference frames, ridge motion minimizing models, and geodynamic estimates of net rotation and predicts clear trench motion patterns. We conclude that a net rotation pole guided by the spreading‐aligned model (at 64°E, 61°S, with moderate rotation of ∼ 0.2 … 0.3°/Myr) could indeed represent a standard, comprehensive reference frame for present‐day plate motions with respect to the deep mantle.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a generalized plate motion reference frame

Becker

Schaeffer

Lebedev

et al. 2015

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that seismic anisotropy due to LPO is formed under the shear that corresponds to the motion of the surface relative to the stagnant lower mantle, one may thus postulate that the best APM is that which minimizes the misfit to anisotropy. This was addressed by Kreemer [2009] based on SKS splitting and explored by Montagner and Anderson [2015] for surface waves and individual plate motions with focus on the Pacific. The spreading-aligned reference of Figure 4b naturally minimizes the misfit with a number of surface-wave based estimates of azimuthal anisotropy and their individual best-fit poles are very similar.…”

Section: Examples Of Inferences That Extend Beyond the Reference Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of the lithosphere and upper mantle in light of seismic anisotropy

Becker¹,

Lebedev²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic anisotropy records continental dynamics in the crust andconvective deformation in the mantle. Deciphering this archive holdshuge promise for our understanding of the thermo-chemical evolution ofour planet, but doing so is complicated by incomplete imaging andnon-unique interpretations. Here, we focus on the upper mantle andreview seismological and laboratory constraints as well as geodynamicmodels of anisotropy within a dynamic framework. Mantle circulationmodels are able to explain the character and pattern of azimuthalanisotropy within and below oceanic plates at the largestscales. Using inferences based on such models provides key constraintson convection, including plate-mantle force transmission, theviscosity of the asthenosphere, absolute plate motion referenceframes, and net rotation of the lithosphere. Regionally, anisotropycan help further resolve smaller-scale convection, e.g.\ due to slabsand plumes in active tectonic settings. However, the story is morecomplex particularly for continental lithosphere, and many systematicrelationships remain to be established more firmly. More integratedapproaches based on new laboratory experiments, consideration of awide range of geological and geophysical constraints, as well ashypothesis-driven seismological inversions are required to advance tothe next level.

show abstract

Dynamics of the Upper Mantle in Light of Seismic Anisotropy

Becker

Lebedev

2021

Geophysical Monograph Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Pacific megagash: A future plate boundary?

Cited by 4 publications

References 35 publications

Toward a generalized plate motion reference frame

Toward a generalized plate motion reference frame

Dynamics of the lithosphere and upper mantle in light of seismic anisotropy

Dynamics of the Upper Mantle in Light of Seismic Anisotropy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About