4.5 Article

Sub-Volcanic Structure Beneath Marius Hills, Moon, Inferred From Vent Distribution

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2021JE006960

关键词

-

资金

  1. CONACyT [A1-S-23107]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The surface distribution of volcanic vents in the lunar region of Marius Hills provides important information about the magmatic structure beneath. The results confirm the presence of magma accumulation zones and reveal the detailed structure of the plumbing system. The joint interpretation of gravity, topography, and vent distribution analysis suggests similarities to other terrestrial large shields.
The lunar region of Marius Hills has been interpreted as either a shield volcano or a volcanic complex lacking a central zone of magma accumulation at depth. The magmatic structure beneath Marius Hills inferred from gravity anomalies suggests the presence of dyke groups within the upper 20 km of lunar crust. However, the difference in character between the north and south free-air anomalies remains enigmatic. In this work, we study the surface distribution of volcanic vents as an alternative method to obtain information concerning the magmatic structure beneath Marius Hills. A robust identification of independent groups of vents is made using several clustering methods, therefore avoiding possible biases associated with the particular form of analysis. The obtained results confirm the presence of the zones of magma accumulation inferred from gravity analysis but also serve to delineate in more detail the structure of the underlying plumbing system. Furthermore, the joint interpretation of the gravity, topography, and vent distribution analysis indicates that although Marius Hills should not be considered as a fully developed shield volcano as Mauna Kea on Earth, it shares some aspects of other terrestrial large shields where crustal differences (in thickness, lithology, presence of faults, etc.) exert a strong influence on the distribution of vents at the surface.

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