4.7 Article

Antarctic crustal thickness from satellite gravity: Implications for the Transantarctic and Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains

Journal

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 288, Issue 1-2, Pages 194-203

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.09.022

Keywords

Antarctica; crustal thickness model; Moho; Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains; Transantarctic Mountains; GRACE

Funding

  1. US National Science Foundation's Office of Polar Programs [0338278]
  2. NSF Graduate
  3. LDEO [7304]
  4. Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [0338278] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Crustal thickness models are fundamental to understand the tectonic evolution of continents and constrain geodynamic models of their physiographic features. Of particular interest in Antarctica are the crustal thickness variations under the Transantarctic Mountains and Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains, whose formation mechanisms are still debated. We have used a mean, global gravity field from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) to estimate the depth to the Moho in East and West Antarctica through gravity inversion. We then combined the depth to Moho and known topography to estimate the total crustal thickness. Thick crust is resolved along the full length of the Transantarctic Mountains with a maximum crustal thickness of 46 km predicted near the pole and thinner (similar to 40 km) crust in both northern Victoria Land and under the Pensacola Mountains. Within East Antarctica, the model predicts crust over 40 km thick below the Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains, which may be the result of a Neoproterozoic suture zone underlying the ice sheet. In addition to addressing long-standing questions about the nature of East Antarctica's major mountain ranges, an improved estimate of crustal thickness variability may improve long-wavelength geodynamic and glaciological models of the continent. (C) 2009 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