4.7 Article

Tracking slabs beneath northwestern Pacific subduction zones

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 331, 期 -, 页码 269-280

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2012.03.023

关键词

Highly reflective zone; SS precursor; Northwestern Pacific; Stagnant slab; Mantle transition zone; Slab penetration

资金

  1. National Science and Engineering Council (NSERC)
  2. University of Alberta

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study uses the amplitudes of bottom-side reflected shear waves to constrain the morphology and dynamics of subducted oceanic lithosphere beneath northwestern Pacific subduction zones. Across Honshu arc, the 410- and 660-km seismic discontinuities are detected at the respective depths of 395 +/- 5 and 685 +/- 5 km within the Wadati-Benioff zone. Their topographies are negatively correlated along slab dip, showing the dominant effect of temperature on the olivine phase changes within the upper mantle transition zone. The base of the upper mantle shows broad depressions as well as localized zones of shallow/average depths beneath Korea and northeast China. The 15 + km peak-to-peak topography west of the Wadati-Benioff zones suggests that the stagnant part of the subducted Pacific plate is not as flat as previously suggested. Eastward slab 'pile-up' is also possible at the base of the upper mantle. Across southern Kuril arc, the shear wave reflection coefficients of major olivine phase boundaries fall below 5% within the Wadati-Benioff zone. The apparent reflection gaps and the spatial connection between a strong reflector at similar to 900 km depth may imply 1) possible compositional variations at the top and bottom of the transition zone and 2) substantial mass/heat flux across the 660-km seismic discontinuity. We also identify strong reflectors within the subducted oceanic lithosphere at mid transition zone depths. The depths and strengths of these reflectors are highly variable between Honshu and southern Kuril islands. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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