4.5 Article

Global mapping and analysis of lunar wrinkle ridges

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS
卷 120, 期 5, 页码 978-994

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014JE004777

关键词

wrinkle ridges; lunar surface; geologic process

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41490634, 41490635]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KGZD-EW-603]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lunar wrinkle ridges were globally mapped, and the morphological parameters, including length, width, elevation offset, and orientation, were also calculated. The results include the identification of 2839 segments with a total length of 25,560.69km, and the mean width, height, elevation offset, and orientation of all the wrinkle ridges are 3.70km, 0.31km, 46.37m, and -1.99 degrees, respectively, after weighted by the length. Based on their morphologies and distribution, lunar wrinkle ridges were classified into three categories: concentric, parallel, and isolated ridges, and most of the wrinkle ridges are distributed over basalts, although a few extend to nearby highlands. The relations between the morphological parameters were further quantitatively analyzed, and a similar linear correlation between the width and height was found in each class of lunar ridges, implying that small and large ridges were formed as a continuum and that the three classes of ridges were probably formed by some common processes. Finally, the relations between the lunar wrinkle ridges and other geomorphic phenomena were analyzed, indicating that purely volcanic origin or buried premare structures are difficult to reconcile with the investigation. In addition, the consistency between the occurrence of the lunar wrinkle ridges and the some thickness of lunar maria indicates that the formation of lunar wrinkle ridges is closely related to the lunar maria; however, the statistical NW or NE orientation of each class of lunar wrinkle ridges also suggests a suitable global stress field involved in their formation process.

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

4.5
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