Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70018059

Seismic anisotropy of the crystalline crust: What does it tell us?

Abstract

The study of the directional dependence of seismic velocities (seismic anisotropy) promises more refined insight into mineral composition and physical properties of the crystalline crust than conventional deep seismic refraction or reflection profiles providing average values of P-and S-wave velocities. The alignment of specific minerals by ductile rock deformation, for instance, causes specific types of seismic anisotropy which can be identified by appropriate field measurements. Vice versa , the determination of anisotropy can help to discriminate between different rock candidates in the deep crust. Seismic field measurements at the Continental Deep Drilling Site (KTB, S Germany) are shown as an example that anisotropy has to be considered in crustal studies. At the KTB, the dependence of seismic velocity on the direction of wave propagation in situ was found to be compatible with the texture, composition and fracture density of drilled crustal rocks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wolfgang Rabbel, Walter D. Mooney. 1996. Seismic anisotropy of the crystalline crust: What does it tell us?. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1996.tb00721.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Finding the hidden orogeny – The Proterozoic polymetamorphic history of northern New Mexico

Pressure–temperature–time-deformation histories provide key constraints on orogenic processes but can be affected by later overprinting. This is exemplified in the Proterozoic orogenic belts of southwestern Laurentia where competing tectonic models involve either a single progressive Mesoproterozoic event, the Picuris orogeny, or a polyorogenic history that also includes the ~1.65 Ga Mazatzal orogeny. We address this controversy with structural analysis and petrochronology in the type locality of the Picuris orogeny. Xenotime and monazite domains associated with the greenschist-facies axial planar fabric of early F 1 folds yield 1644 ± 11 Ma (xenotime) and 1641 ± 15 Ma (monazite) ages and 450°C–482°C temperatures recording metamorphism and shortening associated with the Mazatzal orogeny. This Palaeoproterozoic greenschist-facies assemblage was overprinted by higher grade, protracted (1470–1350 Ma) tectonism that included the Picuris orogeny. Our results document the complex polyphase crustal assembly of Laurentia and highlight how petrochronology can effectively see through higher grade overprints to identify a more complete orogenic evolution.

New Mexico↗

Lead isotopes constrain Precambrian crustal architecture, thermal history, and lithospheric foundering in Laurentia

Laurentia (ancestral North America) records nearly 4 billion years of crustal evolution. Here, a newly compiled continental-scale Pb isotopic database is used to evaluate the Precambrian crustal evolution of Laurentia. Pb model ages yield a 2.7 Ga peak, a 2.5–1.8 Ga minimum and 1.8–0.9 Ga continuum. Pb model ages yield thermochronometric data and track crustal growth via arc-related magmatism and accretionary orogenesis. Model 232 Th/ 204 Pb and 238 U/ 204 Pb broadly correlate with mapped crustal domains. More homogeneous and less radiogenic 238 U/ 204 Pb and 232 Th/ 238 U after 2.7 Ga suggests a shift to more juvenile sources, loss of early isotopic reservoirs and greater crustal reworking. U and Th are fractionated from Pb in Proterozoic orogens with abundant ferroan and anorthosite–mangerite–charnockite–granite(AMCG)-suite magmatism. This fractionation suggests the removal of Pb-rich lower crust, supporting petrogenetic models involving lithospheric foundering and magmatic underplating. Lithospheric thinning and associated magmatism may have contributed to high middle Proterozoic geothermal gradients.

Terra Nova↗

Caveats on tomographic images

Geological and geodynamic models of the mantle often rely on joint interpretations of published seismic tomography images and petrological/geochemical data. This approach tends to neglect the fundamental limitations of, and uncertainties in, seismic tomography results. These limitations and uncertainties involve theory, correcting for the crust, the lack of rays throughout much of the mantle, the difficulty in obtaining the true strength of anomalies, choice of what background model to subtract to reveal anomalies, and what cross-sections to select for publication. The aim of this review is to provide a relatively non-technical summary of the most important of these problems, collected together in a single paper, and presented in a form accessible to non-seismologists. Appreciation of these issues is essential if final geodynamic models are to be robust, and required by the scientific observations.

Terra Nova↗