2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2005.02.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The seismological signature of temperature and grain size variations in the upper mantle

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

26
523
3
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 467 publications
(556 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
26
523
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Mckenzie, 1967;Parker and Oldenburg, 1973;Parsons and Sclater, 1977;Stein and Stein, 1992). The increase in shear velocity of the uppermost mantle with increasing age observed with surface wave dispersion is also well described by these simple thermal models that predict deepening of isotherms in proportion to the square root of age in young seafloor (Faul and Jackson, 2005;Forsyth, 1975;Kausel et al, 1974;Maggi et al, 2006;Nishimura and Forsyth, 1988;Ritzwoller et al, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 58%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Mckenzie, 1967;Parker and Oldenburg, 1973;Parsons and Sclater, 1977;Stein and Stein, 1992). The increase in shear velocity of the uppermost mantle with increasing age observed with surface wave dispersion is also well described by these simple thermal models that predict deepening of isotherms in proportion to the square root of age in young seafloor (Faul and Jackson, 2005;Forsyth, 1975;Kausel et al, 1974;Maggi et al, 2006;Nishimura and Forsyth, 1988;Ritzwoller et al, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…As pointed out by many of these authors and others, the presence of water and/or melt in the asthenosphere and a dehydrated lithosphere following extraction of melt are probably necessary to explain the pattern of velocity and conductivity anomalies. Nevertheless, some recent studies have suggested that neither the effects of melt nor water are required to explain the seismological observations if the non-linear, anelastic effects of attenuation due to changes in temperature or grain size on velocity are considered within the context of cooling plate or cooling half-space models (Faul and Jackson, 2005;Priestley and McKenzie, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[7] The importance of the physical properties on the seismic attenuation parameters have been demonstrated in experimental studies applied to environmental and petrological conditions of the upper mantle [e.g., Jackson et al, [Jackson et al, 2002;Faul and Jackson, 2005], partial melting and the water content [Aizawa et al, 2008] play a crucial role in the attenuation of the seismic waves propagating in the upper mantle. The Q P M calculated in the frequency range between 0.25 and 8 Hz and the Q S M values for frequencies from 0.25 to 2 Hz (Figure 3) are low (Q P M = 74 and Q S M = 96 at 1 Hz), similar to the quality factors measured in high attenuation crustal domains.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[45] In the upper mantle, temperature is the primary cause of perturbations in wave speed at a fixed depth; variability in rock and mineral composition has a smaller effect [e.g., Lee, 2003;Shapiro and Ritzwoller, 2004;Faul and Jackson, 2005]. Recent seismic images of the upper mantle across northwestern Canada have been obtained from teleseismic body waves [e.g., Mercier et al, 2008Mercier et al, , 2009] and surface waves [Frederiksen et al, 2001; van der Lee and Frederiksen, 2005;Nettles and Dziewonski, 2008].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%