Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Hidden hotspot track beneath the eastern United States

Abstract

Hotspot tracks are thought to be the surface expressions of tectonic plates moving over upwelling mantle plumes, and are characterized by volcanic activity that is age progressive1. At present, most hotspot tracks are observed on oceanic or thin continental lithosphere. For old, thick continental lithosphere, such as the eastern United States, hotspot tracks are mainly inferred from sporadic diamondiferous kimberlites putatively sourced from the deep mantle2,3. Here we use seismic waveforms initiated by the 2011 Mw 5.6 Virginia earthquake, recorded by the seismic observation network USArray, to analyse the structure of the continental lithosphere in the eastern United States. We identify an unexpected linear seismic anomaly in the lower lithosphere that has both a reduced P-wave velocity and high attenuation, and which we interpret as a hotspot track. The anomaly extends eastwards, from Missouri to Virginia, cross-cutting the New Madrid rift system, and then bends northwards. It has no clear relationship with the surface geology, but crosses a 75-million-year-old kimberlite in Kentucky. We use geodynamical modelling to show that an upwelling thermal mantle plume that interacts with the base of continental lithosphere can produce the observed seismic anomaly. We suggest that the hotspot track could be responsible for late Mesozoic reactivation of the New Madrid rift system and seismicity of the eastern United States.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Summary of seismic observations of the Virginia earthquake (black beach ball) recorded by the Transportable Array stations (triangles).
Figure 2: Geodynamic model of the expected seismic signal for an evolving thermal mantle plume interacting with thermo-chemical lithosphere.
Figure 3: Relationship of lower lithosphere anomalies (rectangular boxes), motion path of North American plate relative to the asthenosphere (blue lines) and surface features.

References

  1. 1

    Courtillot, V., Davaille, A., Besse, J. & Stock, J. Three distinct types of hotspots in the Earth’s mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 205, 295–308 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Crough, S. T., Morgan, W. J. & Hargraves, R. B. Kimberlites: Their relation to mantle hotspots. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 50, 260–274 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Torsvik, T. H., Burke, K., Steinberger, B., Webb, S. J. & Ashwal, L. D. Diamonds sampled by plumes from the core-mantle boundary. Nature 466, 352–355 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Morgan, W. J. Hotspot tracks and the early rifting of the Atlantic. Tectonophysics 94, 123–139 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Wilson, J. T. A possible origin of the Hawaiian Islands. Can. J. Phys. 41, 863–870 (1963).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Smith, R. B. et al. Geodynamics of the Yellowstone hotspot and mantle plume: Seismic and GPS imaging, kinematics, and mantle flow. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 188, 26–56 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Sun, D., Helmberger, D. V. & Gurnis, M. A narrow, mid-mantle plume below southern Africa. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L09302 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Griffin, W. L. et al. Lithosphere mapping beneath the North American plate. Lithos 77, 873–922 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Fischer, K. M., Ford, H. A., Abt, D. L. & Rychert, C. A. The lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 38, 551–575 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Chu, R., Schmandt, B. & Helmberger, D. V. Upper mantle P velocity structure beneath the Midwestern United States derived from triplicated waveforms. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13, Q0AK04 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Yuan, H. & Romanowicz, B. Lithospheric layering in the North American continent. Nature 466, 1063–1069 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Leng, W. & Zhong, S. J. Surface subsidence by mantle plume and volcanic loading in large igneous provinces. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 291, 207–214 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Jordan, T. H. Structure and formation of the continental tectosphere. J. Petrol. 1, 11–37 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Lee, C-T. A., Luffi, P. & Chin, E. J. Building and destroying continental mantle. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 39, 59–90 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Hirth, G. & Kohlstedt, D. L. in The Subduction Factory (ed. Eiler, J.) (American Geophysical Union, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Pollack, H. N. Cratonization and thermal evolution of the mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 80, 175–182 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Jurine, D., Jaupart, C., Brandeis, G. & Tackley, P. J. Penetration of mantle plumes through depleted lithosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 110, B10104 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Sobolev, S. V. et al. Linking mantle plumes, large igneous provinces and environmental catastrophes. Nature 477, 312–316 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Karato, S-I. Importance of anelasticity in the interpretation of seismic tomography. Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 1923–1926 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Billen, M. I. & Gurnis, M. A low viscosity wedge in subduction zones. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 193, 227–236 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Agee, J. J., Garrison, J. R. & Taylor, L. A. Petrogenesis of oxide minerals in kimberlite, Elliott County, Kentucky. Am. Mineral. 67, 24–42 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Heaman, L. M., Kjarsgaard, B. A. & Creaser, R. A. The temporal evolution of North American kimberlites. Lithos 76, 377–397 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Seton, M. et al. Global continental and ocean basin reconstructions since 200 Ma. Earth Sci. Rev. 113, 212–270 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Grand, S. P. & Helmberger, D. V. Upper mantle shear structure beneath the northwest Atlantic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11465–11475 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Tan, Y. & Helmberger, D. V. Trans-Pacific upper mantle shear velocity structure. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B08301 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Ervin, C. P. & McGinnis, L. D. Reelfoot Rift: Reactivated Precursor to the Mississippi Embayment. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 86, 1287–1295 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Liu, L. & Zoback, M. D. Lithospheric strength and intraplate seismicity in the New Madrid seismic zone. Tectonics 16, 585–595 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Cox, R. T. & Van Arsdale, R. B. Hotspot origin of the Mississippi Embayment and its possible impact on contemporary seismicity. Eng. Geol. 46, 201–216 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Cox, R. T. & Van Arsdale, R. B. The Mississippi Embayment, North America: A first order continental structure generated by the Cretaceous superplume mantle event. J. Geodynam. 34, 163–176 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Blackburn, T. J., Stockli, D. F., Carlson, R. W. & Berendsen, P. (U–Th)/He dating of kimberlites—A case study from north-eastern Kansas. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 275, 111–120 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank R. Cox and B. Steinberger for suggestions and comments that made significant improvements to the manuscript. All seismic waveform data were downloaded from IRIS data management centre. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation through grant numbers EAR-0810303, EAR-0855815, CMMI-1028978, EAR-1161046, EAR-1247022 and EAR-1053064. This is contribution number 10074 of the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

R.C. and D.V.H. designed the seismic study and conducted the seismic data analysis. W.L. and M.G. designed the geodynamic models and W.L. carried out the modelling. R.C., D.V.H., W.L. and M.G. provided the joint seismic–geodynamic interpretation and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Risheng Chu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 6918 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chu, R., Leng, W., Helmberger, D. et al. Hidden hotspot track beneath the eastern United States. Nature Geosci 6, 963–966 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1949

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing