Letter | Published:

Mega-impact formation of the Mars hemispheric dichotomy

Nature volume 453, pages 12161219 (26 June 2008) | Download Citation


The Mars hemispheric dichotomy is expressed as a dramatic difference in elevation, crustal thickness and crater density between the southern highlands and northern lowlands (which cover 42% of the surface)1,2. Despite the prominence of the dichotomy, its origin has remained enigmatic and models for its formation largely untested3,4,5. Endogenic degree-1 convection models with north–south asymmetry are incomplete in that they are restricted to simulating only mantle dynamics and they neglect crustal evolution, whereas exogenic multiple impact events are statistically unlikely to concentrate in one hemisphere6. A single mega-impact of the requisite size has not previously been modelled. However, it has been hypothesized that such an event could obliterate the evidence of its occurrence by completely covering the surface with melt7 or catastrophically disrupting the planet3,8. Here we present a set of single-impact initial conditions by which a large impactor can produce features consistent with the observed dichotomy’s crustal structure and persistence. Using three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations, large variations are predicted in post-impact states depending on impact energy, velocity and, importantly, impact angle, with trends more pronounced or unseen in commonly studied smaller impacts9. For impact energies of (3–6) × 1029 J, at low impact velocities (6–10 km s-1) and oblique impact angles (30–60°), the resulting crustal removal boundary is similar in size and ellipticity to the observed characteristics of the lowlands basin. Under these conditions, the melt distribution is largely contained within the area of impact and thus does not erase the evidence of the impact’s occurrence. The antiquity of the dichotomy10 is consistent with the contemporaneous presence of impactors of diameter 1,600–2,700 km in Mars-crossing orbits3, and the impact angle is consistent with the expected distribution11.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    The crust and mantle of Mars. Nature 412, 220–227 (2001)

  2. 2.

    , & The Borealis basin and the origin of the martian crustal dichotomy. Nature 10.1038/nature07011 (this issue)

  3. 3.

    & The martian hemispheric dichotomy may be due to a giant impact. Nature 309, 138–140 (1984)

  4. 4.

    & Degree-1 mantle convection and the crustal dichotomy on Mars. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 189, 75–84 (2001)

  5. 5.

    & Large impact basins and the mega-impact origin for the crustal dichotomy on Mars. Geophys. Res. Lett. 15, 229–232 (1988)

  6. 6.

    & Origin of the martian crustal dichotomy – evaluating hypotheses. Icarus 93, 386–393 (1991)

  7. 7.

    , , & Probing the giant impact hypothesis of the martian crustal dichotomy. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Mars abstr. 3332. (2007)

  8. 8.

    & Early crustal evolution of Mars. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 33, 133–161 (2005)

  9. 9.

    Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1989)

  10. 10.

    et al. New perspectives on ancient Mars. Science 307, 1214–1220 (2005)

  11. 11.

    in Physics and Astronomy of the Moon (ed. Kopal, Z.) 283–359 (Academic Press, New York, 1962)

  12. 12.

    et al. The global topography of Mars and implications for surface evolution. Science 284, 1495–1503 (1999)

  13. 13.

    , & Statistics of Mars’ topography from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter: slopes, correlations, and physical models. J. Geophys. Res. 106 (E10). 23723–23735 (2001)

  14. 14.

    et al. Ancient lowlands on Mars. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 10.1029/2001GL013832 (2002)

  15. 15.

    & Experimental impact craters formed in water – gravity scaling realized. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 59, 1121 (1978)

  16. 16.

    in Proc. NATO Adv. Res. Worksh. Numer. Modell. Nonlin. Stellar Puls. (ed. Buchler, J. R.) 1–54 (Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1990)

  17. 17.

    , & The origin of the Moon and the single-impact hypothesis. 1. Icarus 66, 515–535 (1986)

  18. 18.

    & Origin of the Moon in a giant impact near the end of the Earth’s formation. Nature 412, 708–712 (2001)

  19. 19.

    Metallic Equations of State for Hypervelocity Impact. Report No. GA-3216, July 18 (General Atomic, San Diego, California, 1962)

  20. 20.

    Magmatism and the evolution of the Earth's interior, in Goldschmidt Conference Abstracts, A40 〈〉 (2007)

  21. 21.

    & Scaling impact melting and crater dimensions: implications for the lunar cratering record. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 33, 889–912 (1998)

  22. 22.

    The Moon’s face, a study of the origin of its features. Bull. Phil. Soc. Wash. 12, 241–292 (1893)

  23. 23.

    & in Origin of the Earth and Moon (eds. Canup, R. M. & Righter, K.) 113–129 (Univ. Arizona Press, Tuscon, Arizona, 2000)

  24. 24.

    , & A simple chondritic model of Mars. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 112, 43–54 (1999)

  25. 25.

    The Manual of Mineral Science 22nd edn, 491–495 (Wiley, New York, 2002)

  26. 26.

    & in Mineral Physics and Crystallography: A Handbook of Physical Constants (ed. Ahrens, T. J.) 64–97 (American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 1995)

  27. 27.

    Evaporation metamorphism in the early solar nebula – evaporation experiments on the melt FeO-MgO-SiO2-CaO-Al2O3 and chemical fractionations of primitive materials. Geochem. J. 17, 111–145 (1983)

  28. 28.

    & Thermal and crustal evolution of Mars. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (E7). 10.1029/2001JE001801 (2002)

  29. 29.

    et al. Fluid core size of Mars from detection of the solar tide. Science 300, 299–303 (2003)

  30. 30.

    & Density profile of an SNC model martian interior and the moment-of-inertia factor of Mars. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 157, 79–88 (1998)

Download references


We thank F. Nimmo, M. Zuber, J. Andrews-Hanna and R. Canup for discussions, J. Melosh for comments, and S. Squyres for suggesting the problem and the approach more than a decade ago. This work was supported by the Henshaw Fellowship, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Space Agency.

Author information


  1. California Institute of Technology, Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, MC 150-21, Pasadena, California 91125, USA

    • Margarita M. Marinova
    •  & Oded Aharonson
  2. Earth Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA

    • Erik Asphaug


  1. Search for Margarita M. Marinova in:

  2. Search for Oded Aharonson in:

  3. Search for Erik Asphaug in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margarita M. Marinova.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Figures

    The file contains Supplementary Figures 1-2 with Legends.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.