4.8 Article

Hidden hotspot track beneath the eastern United States

Journal

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
Volume 6, Issue 11, Pages 963-966

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1949

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [EAR-0810303, EAR-0855815, CMMI-1028978, EAR-1161046, EAR-1247022, EAR-1053064]
  2. Directorate For Geosciences
  3. Division Of Earth Sciences [1247022, 1053064, 1161046] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hotspot tracks are thought to be the surface expressions of tectonic plates moving over upwelling mantle plumes, and are characterized by volcanic activity that is age progressive(1). At present, most hotspot tracks are observed on oceanic or thin continental lithosphere. For old, thick continental lithosphere, such as the eastern United States, hotspot tracks are mainly inferred from sporadic diamondiferous kimberlites putatively sourced from the deep mantle(2,3). Here we use seismic waveforms initiated by the 2011 M-w 5.6 Virginia earthquake, recorded by the seismic observation network USArray, to analyse the structure of the continental lithosphere in the eastern United States. We identify an unexpected linear seismic anomaly in the lower lithosphere that has both a reduced P-wave velocity and high attenuation, and which we interpret as a hotspot track. The anomaly extends eastwards, from Missouri to Virginia, cross-cutting the New Madrid rift system, and then bends northwards. It has no clear relationship with the surface geology, but crosses a 75-million-year-old kimberlite in Kentucky. We use geodynamical modelling to show that an upwelling thermal mantle plume that interacts with the base of continental lithosphere can produce the observed seismic anomaly. We suggest that the hotspot track could be responsible for late Mesozoic reactivation of the New Madrid rift system and seismicity of the eastern United States.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available