4.5 Article

Composition and structure of the central Aleutian island arc from arc-parallel wide-angle seismic data

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2004GC000715

关键词

continental crust; crustal geophysics; island arc; major element geochemistry; exploration geophysics : computational methods, potential fields; geochemistry : composition of the crust; marine geology and geophysics : marine seismics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] New results from wide-angle seismic data collected parallel to the central Aleutian island arc require an intermediate to mafic composition for the middle crust and a mafic to ultramafic composition for the lower crust and yield lateral velocity variations that correspond to arc segmentation and trends in major element geochemistry. The 3-D ray tracing/2.5-D inversion of this sparse wide-angle data set, which incorporates independent phase interpretations and new constraints on shallow velocity structure, produces a faster and smoother result than a previously published velocity model. Middle-crustal velocities of 6.5 - 7.3 km/s over depths of similar to 10 - 20 km indicate an andesitic to basaltic composition. High lower-crustal velocities of 7.3 - 7.7 km/s over depths of similar to 20 - 35 km are interpreted as ultramafic-mafic cumulates and/or garnet granulites. The total crustal thickness is 35 - 37 km. This result indicates that the Aleutian island arc has higher velocities, and thus more mafic compositions, than average continental crust, implying that significant modifications would be required for this arc to be a suitable building block for continental crust. Lateral variations in average crustal velocity ( below 10 km) roughly correspond to trends in major element geochemistry of primitive ( Mg # > 0.6) lavas. The highest lower-crustal velocities ( and presumably most mafic material) are detected in the center of an arc segment, between Unmak and Unalaska Islands, implying that arc segmentation exerts control over crustal composition.

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