Crustal thickness of Antarctica estimated using data from gravimetric satellites
Computing a better crustal thickness model is still a necessary improvement in Antarctica. In this remote continent where almost all the bedrock is covered by the ice sheet, seismic investigations do not reach a sufficient spatial resolution for geological and geophysical purposes. Here, we present...
| Published in: | Solid Earth |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5194/se-9-457-2018 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00006778 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00006735/se-9-457-2018.pdf https://se.copernicus.org/articles/9/457/2018/se-9-457-2018.pdf |
| Summary: | Computing a better crustal thickness model is still a necessary improvement in Antarctica. In this remote continent where almost all the bedrock is covered by the ice sheet, seismic investigations do not reach a sufficient spatial resolution for geological and geophysical purposes. Here, we present a global map of Antarctic crustal thickness computed from space gravity observations. The DIR5 gravity field model, built from GOCE and GRACE gravimetric data, is inverted with the Parker–Oldenburg iterative algorithm. The BEDMAP products are used to estimate the gravity effect of the ice and the rocky surface. Our result is compared to crustal thickness calculated from seismological studies and the CRUST1.0 and AN1 models. Although the CRUST1.0 model shows a very good agreement with ours, its spatial resolution is larger than the one we obtain with gravimetric data. Finally, we compute a model in which the crust–mantle density contrast is adjusted to fit the Moho depth from the CRUST1.0 model. In East Antarctica, the resulting density contrast clearly shows higher values than in West Antarctica. |
|---|