Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Recent tectonic activity on Mercury revealed by small thrust fault scarps


Large tectonic landforms on the surface of Mercury, consistent with significant contraction of the planet, were revealed by the flybys of Mariner 10 in the mid-1970s1. The MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) mission confirmed that the planet’s past 4 billion years of tectonic history have been dominated by contraction expressed by lobate fault scarps that are hundreds of kilometres long2,3,4,5. Here we report the discovery of small thrust fault scarps in images from the low-altitude campaign at the end of the MESSENGER mission that are orders of magnitude smaller than the large-scale lobate scarps. These small scarps have tens of metres of relief, are only kilometres in length and are comparable in scale to small young scarps on the Moon6,7,8. Their small-scale, pristine appearance, crosscutting of impact craters and association with small graben all indicate an age of less than 50 Myr. We propose that these scarps are the smallest members of a continuum in scale of thrust fault scarps on Mercury. The young age of the small scarps, along with evidence for recent activity on large-scale scarps, suggests that Mercury is tectonically active today and implies a prolonged slow cooling of the planet’s interior.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Small lobate scarps on Mercury.
Figure 2: A small lobate scarp with back-scarp graben.
Figure 3: Map showing the locations of 39 small lobate scarps (<10 km in length) and scarp clusters (red dots) found thus far in the MESSENGER low-altitude campaign images, along with prominent large lobate scarps (black) and high-relief ridges (grey) (see ref. 5).
Figure 4: A large-scale lobate scarp and small-diameter craters.


  1. 1

    Watters, T. R., Robinson, M. S., Bina, C. R. & Spudis, P. D. Thrust faults and the global contraction of Mercury. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L04071 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Solomon, S. C. et al. Return to Mercury: a global perspective on MESSENGER’s first Mercury flyby. Science 321, 59–62 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Watters, T. R. et al. The tectonics of Mercury: the view after MESSENGER’s first flyby. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 285, 283–296 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Byrne, P. K. et al. Mercury: global tectonics on a contracting planet. Nat. Geosci. 7, 301–307 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Watters, T. R. et al. Distribution of large-scale contractional tectonic landforms on Mercury: implications for the origin of global stresses. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 3755–3763 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Watters, T. R. et al. Evidence of recent thrust faulting on the Moon revealed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera. Science 329, 936–220 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Banks, M. E. et al. Morphological analysis of lobate scarps on the Moon using data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. J. Geophys. Res. 117, E00H11 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Watters, T. R. et al. Global thrust faulting on the Moon and the influence of tidal stresses. Geology 43, 851–854 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Watters, T. R. & Johnson, C. L. in Planetary Tectonics (eds Watters, T. R. & Schultz, R. A.) 121–182 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Williams, N. R. et al. Fault dislocation modeled structure of lobate scarps from lunar reconnaissance orbiter camera digital terrain models. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 224–233 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Watters, T. R., Schultz, R. A., Robinson, M. S. & Cook, A. C. The mechanical and thermal structure of Mercury’s early lithosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 37-1–37-4 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Watters, T. R., Weber, R. C., Collins, G. C. & Johnson, C. L. The current stress state of the Moon: implications for lunar seismic activity. Lunar Planet. Sci. 47, 1642 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Head, J. W. et al. Flood volcanism in the northern high latitudes of Mercury revealed by MESSENGER. Science 333, 1853–1856 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Zuber, M. T. et al. Topography of the northern hemisphere of Mercury from MESSENGER laser altimetry. Science 336, 217–220 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Cowie, P. A. & Scholz, C. H. Displacement-length scaling relationship for faults: data synthesis and discussion. J. Struct. Geol. 14, 1149–1156 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Banks, M. E. et al. Displacement–length relationship of thrust faults associated with lobate scarps on the Moon. Lunar Planet. Sci. 44, 3042 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Watters, T. R. et al. Distribution of prominent lobate scarps on Mercury: contribution to global radial contraction. Lunar Planet. Sci. 44, 2213 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Banks, M. E. et al. Duration of activity on lobate-scarp thrust faults on Mercury. J. Geophys. Res. 120, 1751–1762 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Trask, N. J. Geologic comparison of mare materials in the lunar equatorial belt, including Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 landing sites. US Geol. Survey Prof. Pap. 750-D D138-D144 (1971).

  20. 20

    Moore, H. J., Boyce, J. M. & Hahn, D. A. Small impact craters in the lunar regolith—their morphologies relative ages and rates of formation. Moon Planets 23, 231–252 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Stöffler, D. & Ryder, G. Stratigraphy and isotope ages of lunar geologic units: chronological standard for the inner solar system. Space Sci. Rev. 96, 9–54 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Braden, S. E. & Robinson, M. S. Relative rates of optical maturation of regolith on Mercury and the Moon. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 1903–1914 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Banks, M. E. et al. Revised age constraints for Mercury’s Kuiperian and Mansurian systems. Lunar Planet. Sci. 47, 2943 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Watters, T. R. et al. Recent extensional tectonics on the Moon revealed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera. Nat. Geosci. 5, 181–185 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Arvidson, R., Drozd, R. J., Hohenberg, C. M., Morgan, C. J. & Poupeau, G. Horizontal transport of the regolith, modification of features, and erosion rates on the lunar surface. The Moon 13, 67–79 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Marchi, S. et al. Global resurfacing of Mercury 4.0–4.1 billion years ago by heavy bombardment and volcanism. Nature 499, 59–61 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Gault, D. E. Some comparisons of impact craters on Mercury and the Moon. J. Geophys. Res. 80, 2444–2460 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Cintala, M. J. Impact-induced thermal effects in the lunar and mercurian regoliths. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 947–973 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Le Feuvre, M. & Wieczorek, M. A. Nonuniform cratering of the Moon and a revised crater chronology of the inner Solar System. Icarus 214, 1–20 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Spudis, P. D. & Guest, J. E. in Mercury (eds Vilas, F., Chapman, C. R. & Matthews, M. S.) 118–164 (Arizona Univ. Press, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Tosi, N., Grott, M., Plesa, A.-C. & Breuer, D. Thermochemical evolution of Mercury’s interior. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 2474–2487 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Johnson, C. L. Low-altitude magnetic field measurements by MESSENGER reveal Mercury’s ancient crustal field. Science 348, 892–895 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank P. D. Spudis and A. Nahm for helpful comments and suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript. We also thank C. Johnson for valuable discussions. We are grateful to S. C. Solomon, the MDIS team, and the MESSENGER engineers, and technical support personnel at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. This work is also supported by NASA grant NNX07AR60G.

Author information




T.R.W. drafted the manuscript. K.D., M.E.B. and M.M.S. assisted with image processing and the identification of tectonic features. C.R.C., M.E.B. and C.M.E. contributed to the analysis of the age of the tectonic landforms. C.M.E. assisted with the processing and analysis of Mercury Laser Altimeter data. All of the authors contributed to interpretation and analysis of the data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas R. Watters.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 348 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Watters, T., Daud, K., Banks, M. et al. Recent tectonic activity on Mercury revealed by small thrust fault scarps. Nature Geosci 9, 743–747 (2016).

Download citation

Further reading


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