Mantle flow geometry from ridge to trench beneath the Gorda–Juan de Fuca plate system

Journal name:
Nature Geoscience
Volume:
8,
Pages:
965–968
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/ngeo2569
Received
Accepted
Published online

Tectonic plates are underlain by a low-viscosity mantle layer, the asthenosphere. Asthenospheric flow may be induced by the overriding plate or by deeper mantle convection1. Shear strain due to this flow can be inferred using the directional dependence of seismic wave speeds—seismic anisotropy. However, isolation of asthenospheric signals is challenging; most seismometers are located on continents, whose complex structure influences the seismic waves en route to the surface. The Cascadia Initiative, an offshore seismometer deployment in the US Pacific Northwest, offers the opportunity to analyse seismic data recorded on simpler oceanic lithosphere2. Here we use measurements of seismic anisotropy across the Juan de Fuca and Gorda plates to reconstruct patterns of asthenospheric mantle shear flow from the Juan de Fuca mid-ocean ridge to the Cascadia subduction zone trench. We find that the direction of fastest seismic wave motion rotates with increasing distance from the mid-ocean ridge to become aligned with the direction of motion of the Juan de Fuca Plate, implying that this plate influences mantle flow. In contrast, asthenospheric mantle flow beneath the Gorda Plate does not align with Gorda Plate motion and instead aligns with the neighbouring Pacific Plate motion. These results show that asthenospheric flow beneath the small, slow-moving Gorda Plate is controlled largely by advection due to the much larger, faster-moving Pacific Plate.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Stacked splitting results determined by this study (red bars) and previous work (black bars; from refs ,).
    Figure 1: Stacked splitting results determined by this study (red bars) and previous work (black bars; from refs 4,28).

    The displayed tomography is a 100–400km vertical average through the DNA13 P-wave velocity model of ref. 29. This depth range corresponds to that part of the asthenosphere considered most likely to be the source of the observed anisotropy9. All splits are plotted at onshore seismometer/OBS locations. The splitting delay times are indicated by the length of the bars; example results with a delay time of 1.0s are shown in the legend (bottom left). Black lines indicate plate boundaries, and the red lines are slab depth contours spaced at 10km intervals30. Black arrows show the direction and magnitude of absolute plate motion (APM) in a hotspot reference frame23, and purple arrows show the subduction direction4. Inset maps show regions featuring a high concentration of splitting results.

  2. Two distinct patterns in the variation of FSDs with distance from the trench.
    Figure 2: Two distinct patterns in the variation of FSDs with distance from the trench.

    a, Results with latitudes between the MTJ and the southern tip of the Blanco Fracture Zone. b, Sites between latitudes of the southern and northern tips of the Juan de Fuca Ridge. In a, one population of FSDs lies west of the trench and is aligned with Pacific Plate motion, and another aligns with the subduction direction. Part b shows continuous variation in FSD with trench distance. Blue and red markers indicate offshore and onshore results, respectively. Error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval.

  3. Two-dimensional modelling to simulate mantle flow below the Gorda Plate as induced by motion of the Pacific Plate.
    Figure 3: Two-dimensional modelling to simulate mantle flow below the Gorda Plate as induced by motion of the Pacific Plate.

    The green plate is stationary while the red plate moves to the left at 60mmyr−1. This approximates the situation in profile perpendicular to the Gorda Ridge (see Methods for more detail). The set-up consists of an ‘asthenosphere’ from 50–150km and a ‘mesosphere’ below. a, In our preferred model, the viscosity of the mesosphere is 100 times that of the asthenosphere. b, Details of the model set-up, including the imposed periodic surface velocity field, region of interest and large-scale induced flow structure. The motion of the red plate is seen to generate flow beneath the adjacent stationary plate.

References

  1. Conrad, C., Behn, M. & Silver, P. Global mantle flow and the development of seismic anisotropy: Differences between the oceanic and continental upper mantle. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B07317 (2007).
  2. Toomey, D. et al. The Cascadia initiative: A sea change in seismological studies of subduction zones. Oceanography 27, 138150 (2014).
  3. Riddihough, R. Recent movements of the Juan de Fuca plate system. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 69806994 (1984).
  4. Eakin, C. et al. Seismic anisotropy beneath Cascadia and the Mendocino triple junction: Interaction of the subducting slab with mantle flow. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 297, 627632 (2010).
  5. Currie, C. et al. Shear wave anisotropy beneath the Cascadia subduction zone and western North American craton. Geophys. J. Int. 157, 341353 (2004).
  6. Long, M. & Silver, P. The subduction zone flow field from seismic anisotropy: A global view. Science 319, 315318 (2008).
  7. Silver, G. & Chan, W. Shear wave splitting and subcontinental mantle deformation. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 1642916454 (1991).
  8. Nicolas, A. & Christensen, N. in Composition, Structure and Dynamics of the Lithosphere-Asthenosphere System (eds Fuchs, K. & Froidevaux, C.) 111123 (Geodynamics Series 16, American Geophysical Union, 1987).
  9. Karato, S., Katayama, I. & Skemer, P. Geodynamic significance of seismic anisotropy of the upper mantle: New insights from laboratory studies. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 36, 5995 (2008).
  10. Song, T. & Kawakatsu, H. Subduction of oceanic asthenosphere: Evidence from sub-slab seismic anisotropy. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L17301 (2012).
  11. Heesemann, M. et al. Ocean Networks Canada: From geohazards research laboratories to Smart Ocean Systems. Oceanography 27, 151153 (2014).
  12. Bell, S., Forsyth, D. & Ruan, Y. Removing noise from the vertical component records of ocean-bottom seismometers: Results from year one of the Cascadia Initiative. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105, 300313 (2014).
  13. Webb, S. Broadband seismology and noise under the ocean. Rev. Geophys. 36, 105142 (1998).
  14. Lodewyk, J. & Sumy, D. Cascadia Amphibious Array Ocean Bottom Seismograph Horizontal Component Orientations (OBSIP Management Office, 2014); http://www.obsip.org/experiments/experiment-list/2011/cascadia.
  15. Wolfe, C. & Solomon, S. Shear-wave splitting and implications for mantle flow beneath the MELT region of the East Pacific Rise. Science 280, 12301232 (1998).
  16. Fontaine, F. et al. Upper-mantle flow beneath French Polynesia from shear wave splitting. Geophys. J. Int. 170, 12621288 (2007).
  17. Zandt, G. & Humphreys, E. Toroidal mantle flow through the western US slab window. Geology 36, 295298 (2008).
  18. Obrebski, M. et al. Slab-plume interaction beneath the Pacific Northwest. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L14305 (2010).
  19. Nishimura, C. & Forsyth, D. The anisotropic structure of the upper mantle in the Pacific. Geophys. J. Int. 96, 203229 (1989).
  20. Kendall, J. et al. Magma-assisted rifting in Ethiopia. Nature 433, 146148 (2005).
  21. Blackman, D. & Kendall, J. Sensitivity of teleseismic body waves to mineral texture and melt in the mantle beneath a mid-ocean ridge. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A. 355, 217231 (1997).
  22. Gripp, A. & Gordon, R. Young tracks of hotspots and current plate velocities. Geophys. J. Int. 150, 321361 (2002).
  23. Debayle, E. & Ricard, Y. Seismic observations of large-scale deformation at the bottom of fast-moving plates. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 376, 165177 (2013).
  24. Chaytor, J. et al. Active deformation of the Gorda plate: Constraining deformation models with new geophysical data. Geology 32, 353356 (2004).
  25. Hager, B. H. & O’Connell, R. J. A simple global model of plate dynamics and mantle convection. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 48434867 (1981).
  26. Fjeldskaar, W. Viscosity and thickness of the asthenosphere detected from the Fennoscandian uplift. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 126, 399410 (1994).
  27. Wessel, P. & Smith, W. New, improved version of Generic Mapping Tools released. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 79, 579 (1998).
  28. Wüstefeld, A. et al. Identifying global seismic anisotropy patterns by correlating shear-wave splitting and surface-wave data. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 176, 198212 (2009).
  29. Porritt, R., Allen, R. & Pollitz, F. Seismic imaging east of the Rocky Mountains with USArray. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 402, 1625 (2014).
  30. Hayes, G., Wald, D. & Johnson, R. Slab1.0: A three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B01302 (2012).
  31. Wüstefeld, A. et al. SplitLab: A shear-wave splitting environment in Matlab. Comp. Geosci. 34, 515528 (2008).
  32. Wüstefeld, A. et al. A strategy for automated analysis of passive microseismic data to image seismic anisotropy and fracture characteristics. Geophys. Prospect. 58, 755773 (2010).
  33. Bowman, J. & Ando, M. Shear-wave splitting in the upper-mantle wedge above the Tonga subduction zone. Geophys. J. Int. 88, 2541 (1987).
  34. Wüstefeld, A. & Bokelmann, G. Null detection in shear-wave splitting measurements. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 97, 12041211 (2007).
  35. Wolfe, C. & Silver, P. Seismic anisotropy of oceanic upper mantle: Shear wave splitting methodologies and observations. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 749771 (1998).
  36. Stachnik, J. et al. Determination of New Zealand ocean bottom seismometer orientation via Rayleigh-wave polarization. Seism. Res. Lett. 83, 704713 (2012).
  37. Tian, X. et al. SKS splitting measurements with horizontal component misalignment. Geophys. J. Int. 185, 329340 (2011).
  38. Richards, M. et al. Role of a low-viscosity zone in stabilizing plate tectonics: Implications for comparative terrestrial planetology. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2, 1026 (2001).
  39. Nettles, M. & Dziewński, A. Radially anisotropic shear velocity structure of the upper mantle globally and beneath North America. Geophys. J. Int. 113, B02303 (2008).
  40. Paulson, A. & Richards, M. On the resolution of radial viscosity structure in modeling long-wavelength postglacial rebound data. Geophys. J. Int. 179, 15161526 (2009).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. McCone Hall, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, UC Berkeley, California 94720, USA

    • Robert Martin-Short,
    • Richard M. Allen,
    • Eoghan Totten &
    • Mark A. Richards
  2. Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Royal School of Mines, Prince Consort Road, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BP, UK

    • Ian D. Bastow &
    • Eoghan Totten

Contributions

This study was carried out and written up by R.M.-S., under supervision of R.M.A. I.D.B. assisted with data analysis and helped write the paper. E.T. and M.A.R. provided advice and minor modifications to the text.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. Supplementary Information (10,762 KB)

    Supplementary Information

Additional data