4.7 Article

How fast is the middle-lower crust flowing in eastern Tibet? A constraint from geodetic observations

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
Volume 121, Issue 9, Pages 6903-6915

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2016JB013151

Keywords

eastern Tibet; deep crust flow; convective removal; GRACE; GPS; Moho interface

Funding

  1. NSFC [41331066, 41474059]
  2. CAS program [QYZDY-SSW-SYS003]
  3. CAS/CAFEA [KZZD-EW-TZ-19]
  4. National Science Foundation (USA) [EAR-0911677]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Various geophysical observations, including seismological and magnetotelluric imaging, have implied that the deep crust beneath eastern Tibet may be partially melted and flowing faster than the brittle upper crust. However, it is still unclear how much faster the deep crust is flowing. Geodetic observations, which are more sensitive to dynamic changes, provide constraints on the flow rate of the middle and lower crust (MLC). Three-dimensional GPS velocities show that deformation within the brittle upper crust contributes little (0.020.02mm/yr) to the overall surface uplift (2.70.3mm/yr). Therefore, two plausible models for the surface uplift are discussed, which are consistent with the geodetic constraints. In the deep crustal flow model, crustal thickening requires the horizontal flow rate of the MLC to be 330%-710% of the rate of motion of the upper crust, and the deepening of the Moho is only up to 35% of that required to maintain isostatic balance; isostasy may not be maintained over the geodetic timescale. In the hybrid model of deep crustal flow and convective lithospheric detachment, the Moho is uprising, and only weak or moderate (130%-250%) deep crustal flow is required, which results in moderate present-day crustal thickening beneath eastern Tibet. This result improves our understanding of the plateau construction and dynamics and also offers advice for numerical simulations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available