4.7 Article

Contrasts in lithospheric structure within the Australian Craton - insights from surface wave tomography

Journal

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 231, Issue 3-4, Pages 163-176

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2005.01.009

Keywords

lithosphere; archaean; proterozoic; Australia; surface wave tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Contrasts in the seismic structure of the lithosphere within and between elements of the Australian Craton are imaged using surface wave tomography. New data from the WACRATON and TIGGER experiments are integrated with re-processed data from previous temporary deployments of broad-band seismometers and permanent seismic stations. The much improved path coverage in critical regions allows an interpretation of structures in the west of Australia, and a detailed comparison between different cratonic regions. Improvements to the waveform inversion procedure and a new multi-scale tomographic method increase the reliability of the tomographic images. In the shallowest part of the model (75 km) a region of lowered velocity is imaged beneath central Australia, and confirmed by the delayed arrival times of body waves for short paths. Within the cratonic lithosphere there is clearly structure at scale lengths of a few hundred kilometres; resolution tests indicate that path coverage within the continent is sufficient to reveal features of this size in the upper part of our model. In Western Australia, differences are seen beneath and within the Archaean cratons: at depths greater than 150 km faster velocities are imaged beneath the Yilgarn Craton than beneath the Pilbara Craton. In the complex North Australian Craton a fast wavespeed anomaly continuing to at least 250 km is observed below parts of the craton, suggesting the possibility of Archaean lithosphere underlying areas of dominantly Proterozoic surface geology. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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