4.7 Article

GPS measurements from the Ladakh Himalaya, India: Preliminary tests of plate-like or continuous deformation in Tibet

期刊

GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA BULLETIN
卷 116, 期 11-12, 页码 1385-1391

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC
DOI: 10.1130/B25357.1

关键词

geodesy; geodynamics; Tibetan plateau; Himalaya; Karakorum; continuum mechanics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observations of relative motion in a geodetic network in Ladakh, India, and across southern Tibet indicate slow shear on the Karakorum fault, rapid east-west extension across the whole of southern Tibet, and constant are-normal convergence between India and southern Tibet along the Himalayan are. Measurements of ten campaign-style and six permanent sites with global positioning system (GPS) precise geodesy provide these bounds on the style and rates of the large-scale deformation in the Tibet-Himalaya region. Divergence between sites at Leh, Ladakh, India, and Shiquanhe, western Tibet, as well as slow relative motion among sites within the Ladakh network, limit right-lateral slip parallel to the Karakorum fault to only 3.4 +/- 5 mm/yr. This low rate concurs with a recent estimate of 3-4 mm/yr for Late Holocene time, but disagrees with the much higher rate of 30-35 mm/yr that has been used to argue for plate-like behavior of the Tibetan Plateau. Convergence between Ladakh and the Indian subcontinent at 18.8 +/- 3 mm/yr at 224degrees +/- 17degrees (1sigma) differs little from estimates of convergence across the central segment of the Himalaya. Finally, lengthening of the baseline between Leh, Ladakh, and Lhasa (in southeastern Tibet) at 17.8 +/- 1 mm/yr or between Leh and Bayi (farther to the southeast) at 18 +/- 3 mm/yr, is consistent with an extrapolation of rates of east-west extension of the Tibetan Plateau based both on shorter GPS baselines (e.g., Lhasa-Simikot) and on diverging slip vectors of earthquakes in the Himalaya. We interpret these results to indicate that Tibet behaves more like a fluid than like a plate.

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