4.7 Article

Seismicity trends and detachment fault structure at 13°N, Mid-Atlantic Ridge

期刊

GEOLOGY
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 320-324

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC
DOI: 10.1130/G48420.1

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. UK Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) [NE/J02029X/1, NE/J022551/1, NE/J021741/1]
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation [OCE-1458084, OCE-1839727]
  3. NERC [NE/J022551/1, NE/J02029X/1, NE/J021741/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

At slow-spreading ridges, plate separation is partly accommodated by long-lived detachment faults, with two adjacent faults mechanically decoupled and showing high seismicity levels. Linear seismic activity bands indicate magmatism and suggest previously unobserved stress accumulation and release cycles in oceanic detachments.
At slow-spreading ridges, plate separation is commonly partly accommodated by slip on long-lived detachment faults, exposing upper mantle and lower crustal rocks on the seafloor. However, the mechanics of this process, the subsurface structure, and the interaction of these faults remain largely unknown. We report the results of a network of 56 ocean-bottom seismographs (OBSs), deployed in 2016 at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge near 13 degrees N, that provided dense spatial coverage of two adjacent detachment faults and the intervening ridge axis. Although both detachments exhibited high levels of seismicity, they are separated by an -8-km-wide aseismic zone, indicating that they are mechanically decoupled. A linear band of seismic activity, possibly indicating magmatism, crosscuts the 13 degrees 30'N domed detachment surface, confirming previous evidence for fault abandonment. Farther south, where the 2016 OBS network spatially overlapped with a similar survey done in 2014, significant changes in the patterns of seismicity between these surveys are observed. These changes suggest that oceanic detachments undergo previously unobserved cycles of stress accumulation and release as plate spreading is accommodated.

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

4.7
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