4.3 Article

Upper mantle viscosity and lithospheric thickness under Iceland

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEODYNAMICS
卷 52, 期 3-4, 页码 260-270

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jog.2011.01.002

关键词

Rheology; Deformation mechanism; Creep; Water content; Melt content; Mid-ocean ridge; Plume

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)
  2. TOPO-Europe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deglaciation during the Holocene on Iceland caused uplift due to glacial isostatic adjustment. Relatively low estimates for the upper mantle viscosity and lithospheric thickness result in rapid uplift responses to the deglaciation cycles on Iceland. The relatively high temperatures of the upper mantle under the newly formed mid-ocean ridge under Iceland are responsible for the low upper mantle viscosity values. In this study, estimates for lithospheric thickness and upper mantle viscosity under Iceland from glacial isostatic adjustment studies are complemented by a microphysical modelling approach using the theoretical temperature distribution under mid-ocean ridges combined with olivine diffusion and dislocation creep flow laws. The lithospheric thickness (27-40 km) and upper mantle viscosity (2 x 10(18)-10(19) Pa s) outcomes for the upper mantle recent glaciation under the Vatnajokull glacier are consistent with previous reports of viscosity and lithospheric thickness from glacial isostatic adjustment studies. A combination of a 40 km thick elastic lithosphere and an average upper mantle viscosity of 5 x 10(18) Pa s would suggest that the upper mantle under Iceland is most likely dry. The earlier and larger Weichselian glaciation event (similar to 10,000 BP) on Iceland is predicted to have had a slightly larger upper mantle viscosity similar to 10(19) Pa s and a lithospheric thickness of 100 km. Large lateral variations in upper mantle viscosity and especially lithospheric thickness are expected for Iceland perpendicular to the ridge axis. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据