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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Earth’s multi-scale topographic response to global mantle flow

Nature Geoscience volume 12, pages 845–850 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Earth’s surface topography is a direct physical expression of our planet’s dynamics. Most is isostatic, controlled by thickness and density variations within the crust and lithosphere, but a substantial proportion arises from forces exerted by underlying mantle convection. This dynamic topography directly connects the evolution of surface environments to Earth’s deep interior, but predictions from mantle flow simulations are often inconsistent with inferences from the geological record, with little consensus about its spatial pattern, wavelength and amplitude. Here, we demonstrate that previous comparisons between predictive models and observational constraints have been biased by subjective choices. Using measurements of residual topography beneath the oceans, and a hierarchical Bayesian approach to performing spherical harmonic analyses, we generate a robust estimate of Earth’s oceanic residual topography power spectrum. This indicates water-loaded power of 0.5 ± 0.35 km2 and peak amplitudes of up to ~0.8 ± 0.1 km at long wavelengths (~104 km), decreasing by roughly one order of magnitude at shorter wavelengths (~103 km). We show that geodynamical simulations can be reconciled with observational constraints only if they incorporate lithospheric structure and its impact on mantle flow. This demonstrates that both deep (long-wavelength) and shallow (shorter-wavelength) processes are crucial, and implies that dynamic topography is intimately connected to the structure and evolution of Earth’s lithosphere.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Predicted versus inferred topography.
Fig. 2: Power spectra obtained from simulated datasets and observational constraints using inversions regularized with ARD.
Fig. 3: Dynamic (flow-related) component of synthetic residual topography within the oceanic realm.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The compilation of observational constraints on residual topography used herein, which builds on the database and methodology of Hoggard et al.41, is available at https://github.com/drhodrid/Davies_etal_NGeo_2019_Datasets. Synthetic topography predictions from our geodynamical simulations are also included.

Code availability

Fluidity is available under the GNU Lesser General Public License. The source code and manual can be found at: http://fluidityproject.org. The optimal regularization routines utilized for our spherical harmonic analyses are available from: https://github.com/valentineap/optimal-regularisation.

References

  1. Davies, G. F. Dynamic Earth: Plates, Plumes and Mantle Convection (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).

  2. Pekeris, C. L. Thermal convection in the interior of the Earth. Geophys. J. 3, 343–367 (1935).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Parsons, B. & Daly, S. The relationship between surface topography, gravity anomalies, and temperature structure of convection. J. Geophys. Res. 88, 1129–1144 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Richards, M. A. & Hager, B. H. Geoid anomalies in a dynamic Earth. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 5987–6002 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hager, B. H. & Richards, A. M. Long–wavelength variations in Earth’s geoid: physical models and dynamical implications. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 328, 309–327 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cazenave, A., Souriau, A. & Dominh, K. Global coupling of Earth’s surface topography with hotspots, geoid and mantle heterogeneities. Nature 340, 54–57 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Braun, J. The many surface expressions of mantle dynamics. Nat. Geosci. 3, 826–833 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Flament, N., Gurnis, M. & Muller, R. D. A review of observations and models of dynamic topography. Lithosphere 5, 189–210 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoggard, M. J., White, N. & Al-Attar, D. Global dynamic topography observations reveal limited influence of large-scale mantle flow. Nat. Geosci. 9, 456–463 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. & Silver, P. G. Dynamic topography, plate driving forces and the African superswell. Nature 395, 269–272 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Colli, L., Ghelichkhan, S. & Bunge, H.-P. On the ratio of dynamic topography and gravity anomalies in a dynamic Earth. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 2510–2516 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burgess, P. M. & Gurnis, M. Mechanisms for the formation of cratonic stratigraphic sequences. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 136, 647–663 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Petersen, K. D., Nielsen, S., Clausen, O., Stephenson, R. & Gerya, T. Small-scale mantle convection produces stratigraphic sequences in sedimentary basins. Science 329, 827–830 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shephard, G. E., Muller, R. D., Liu, L. & Gurnis, M. Miocene drainage reversal of the Amazon River driven by plate–mantle interaction. Nat. Geosci. 3, 870–875 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roberts, G. G. & White, N. J. Estimating uplift rate histories from river profiles using African examples. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B02406 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Czarnota, K., Hoggard, M. J., White, N. & Winterbourne, J. Spatial and temporal patterns of Cenozoic dynamic topography around Australia. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 14, 634–658 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Czarnota, K., Roberts, G. G., White, N. J. & Fishwick, S. Spatial and temporal patterns of Australian dynamic topography from river profile modelling. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 1384–1419 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eakin, C., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. & Davila, F. M. Influence of Peruvian flat-subduction dynamics on the evolution of western Amazonia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 404, 250–260 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mitrovica, J. X., Beaumont, C. & Jarvis, G. T. Tilting of continental interiors by the dynamical effects of subduction. Tectonics 8, 1079–1094 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gurnis, M. Phanerozoic marine inundation of continents driven by dynamic topography above subducting slabs. Nature 364, 589–593 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moucha, R. et al. Dynamic topography and long-term sea-level variations: there is no such thing as a stable continental platform. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 271, 101–108 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Crameri, F. & Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. Abrupt upper-plate tilting during slab-transition-zone collision. Tectonophys 746, 199–211 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cao, W., Flament, N., Zahirovic, S., Williams, S. & Muller, R. D. The interplay of dynamic topography and eustasy on continental flooding in the late Paleozoic. Tectonophysics 761, 108–121 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Molnar, P. & England, P. Late Cenozoic uplift of mountain ranges and global climate change: chicken and egg? Nature 346, 29–34 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Crough, S. T. Hotspot swells. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 11, 165–193 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Panasyuk, S. V. & Hager, B. H. Models of isostatic and dynamic topography, geoid anomalies, and their uncertainties. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 28199–28209 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaban, M. K., Schwintzer, P., Artemieva, I. M. & Mooney, W. D. Density of the continental roots: compositional and thermal contributions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 209, 53–69 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Guerri, M., Cammarano, F. & Tackley, P. J. Modelling Earth’s surface topography: decomposition of the static and dynamic components. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 261, 172–186 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ricard, Y., Richards, M. A., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. & LeStunff, Y. A geodynamic model of mantle mass heterogeneities. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 21895–21909 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Steinberger, B. Effects of latent heat release at phase boundaries on the flow in the Earth’s mantle, phase boundary topography and the dynamic topography at the Earth’s surface. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 164, 2–20 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Conrad, C. & Husson, L. Influence of dynamic topography on sea level and its rate of change. Lithosphere 1, 110–120 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yang, T. & Gurnis, M. Dynamic topography, gravity and the role of lateral viscosity variations from inversion of global mantle flow. Geophys. J. Int. 207, 1186–1201 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rubey, M. et al. Global patterns in Earth’s dynamic topography since the Jurassic: the role of subducted slabs. Solid Earth 8, 899–919 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Colli, L., Ghelichkhan, S., Bunge, H.-P. & Oeser, J. Retrodictions of Mid Paleogene mantle flow and dynamic topography in the Atlantic region from compressible high resolution adjoint mantle convection models:sensitivity to deep mantle viscosity and tomographic input model. Gondwana Res. 53, 252–272 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Eakin, C. & Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. in Mountains, Climate and Biodiversity (eds Hoorn, C. et al.) Ch. 3 (Wiley, 2018).

  36. Molnar, P., England, P. C. & Jones, C. H. Mantle dynamics, isostasy, and the support of high terrain. J. Geophys. Res. 120, 1932–1957 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Crosby, A. G. & McKenzie, D. An analysis of young ocean depth, gravity and global residual topography. Geophys. J. Int. 178, 1198–1219 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hager, B. H. Subducted slabs and the geoid: constraints on mantle rheology and flow. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 6003–6015 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Steinberger, B. Topography caused by mantle density variations: observation-based estimates and models derived from tomography and lithosphere thickness. Geophys. J. Int. 205, 604–621 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Laske, G., Masters, G., Ma, Z. & Pasyanos, M. Update on CRUST1.0—a 1-degree global model of Earth’s crust. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 15, abst. EGU2013–2658 (2013).

  41. Hoggard, M. J., Winterbourne, J., Czarnota, K. & White, N. Oceanic residual depth measurements, the plate cooling model, and global dynamic topography. J. Geophys. Res. 122, 2328–2372 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Watkins, C. E. & Conrad, C. P. Constraints on dynamic topography from asymmetric subsidence of the mid-ocean ridges. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 484, 264–275 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Arnould, M., Coltice, N., Flament, N., Seigneour, V. & Muller, R. D. On the scales of dynamic topography in whole-mantle convection models. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 19, 3140–3163 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Steinberger, B., Conrad, C. P., Osei Tutu, A. & Hoggard, M. J. On the amplitude of dynamic topography at spherical harmonic degree two. Tectonophysics 760, 221–228 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang, T., Moresi, L., Muller, R. D. & Gurnis, M. Oceanic residual topography agrees with mantle flow predictions at long wavelengths. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 10896–10906 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Valentine, A. P. & Sambridge, M. Optimal regularisation for a class of linear inverse problem. Geophys. J. Int. 215, 1003–1021 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tarantola, A. & Valette, B. Generalised non-linear inverse problems solved using the least squares criterion. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 20, 219–232 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. MacKay, D. Bayesian interpolation. Neural Comput. 4, 415–447 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Spasojevic, S. & Gurnis, M. Sea level and vertical motion of continents from dynamic Earth models since the Late Cretaceous. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 10, 2037–2064 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Afonso, J. C., Salajegheh, F., Szwillus, W., Ebbing, J. & Gaina, C. A global reference model of the lithosphere and upper mantle from joint inversion and analysis of multiple data sets. Geophys. J. Int. 217, 1602–1628 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Davies, D. R., Wilson, C. R. & Kramer, S. C. Fluidity: a fully unstructured anisotropic adaptive mesh computational modelling framework for geodynamics. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 120, Q06001 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kramer, S. C., Wilson, C. R. & Davies, D. R. An implicit free-surface algorithm for geodynamical simulations. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 194, 25–37 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Davies, D. R. & Rawlinson, N. On the origin of recent intra-plate volcanism in Australia. Geology 42, 1031–1034 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Davies, D. R., Le Voci, G., Goes, S., Kramer, S. C. & Wilson, C. R. The mantle wedge’s transient 3-D flow regime and thermal structure. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 17, 78–100 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhong, S., McNamara, A., Tan, E., Moresi, L. & Gurnis, M. A benchmark study on mantle convection in a 3-D spherical shell using CitcomS. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 9, Q10017 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tackley, P. J. Modelling compressible mantle convection with large viscosity contrasts in a three-dimensional spherical shell using the Yin-Yang grid. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 171, 7–18 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Davies, D. R. et al. A hierarchical mesh refinement technique for global 3D spherical mantle convection modelling. Geosci. Mod. Dev. 6, 1095–1107 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ritsema, J., van Heijst, H. J., Deuss, A. & Woodhouse, J. H. S40RTS: a degree-40 shear-velocity model for the mantle from new Rayleigh wave dispersion, teleseismic traveltime, and normal-mode splitting function measurements. Geophys. J. Int. 184, 1223–1236 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Richards, F. D., Hoggard, M. J., Cowton, L. R. & White, N. J. Reassessing the thermal structure of oceanic lithosphere with revised global inventories of basement depths and heat flow measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 123, 9136–9161 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Davies, D. R., Rawlinson, N., Iaffaldano, G. & Campbell, I. H. Lithospheric controls on magma composition along Earth’s longest continental hotspot track. Nature 525, 511–514 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Schaeffer, A. J. & Lebedev, S. Global shear speed structure of the upper mantle and transition zone. Geophys. J. Int. 194, 417–449 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Steinberger, B. & Becker, T. W. A comparison of lithospheric thickness models. Tectonophysics 746, 325–338 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kaban, M. K., Tesauro, M., Mooney, W. D. & Cloetingh, S. A. P. L. Density, temperature, and composition of the North American lithosphere—new insights from a joint analysis of seismic, gravity, and mineral physics data: 1. Density structure of the crust and upper mantle. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 15, 4781–4807 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jordan, T. H. Composition and development of the continental tectosphere. Nature 274, 544–548 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Griffin, W. L., O’Reilly, S. Y., Afonso, J. C. & Begg, G. C. The composition and evolution of lithospheric mantle: a re-evaluation and its tectonic implications. J. Petrol. 50, 1185–1204 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Becker, T. W. On the effect of temperature and strain-rate dependent viscosity on global mantle flow, net rotation and plate-driving forces. Geophys. J. Int. 167, 943–957 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Osei Tutu, A., Steinberger, B., Sobolev, S. V., Rogozhina, I. & Popov, A. A. Effects of upper mantle heterogeneities on the lithospheric stress field and dynamic topography. Solid Earth 9, 649–668 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Müller, R. D. et al. Ocean basin evolution and global-scale plate reorganization events since Pangea breakup. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 44, 107–138 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rudolph, M. L., Lekik, V. & Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. Viscosity jump in Earth’s mid-mantle. Science 350, 1349–1352 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Marquardt, H. & Miyagi, L. Slab stagnation in the shallow lower mantle linked to an increase in mantle viscosity. Nat. Geosci. 8, 311–314 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lau, H. C. P. et al. Tital tomography constrains Earth’s deep-mantle buoyancy. Nature 551, 321–326 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ballmer, M. D., Houser, C., Hernlund, J. W., Wentzcovitch, R. & Hirose, K. Persistence of strong silica-enriched domains in the Earth’s lower mantle. Nat. Geo. 10, 236–241 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Lekic, V., Cottaar, S., Dziewonski, A. & Romanowicz, B. Cluster analysis of global lower mantle tomography: a new class of structure and implications for chemical heterogeneity. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 357, 68–77 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Cammarano, F., Goes, S., Vacher, P. & Giardini, D. Inferring upper-mantle temperatures from seismic velocities. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 138, 197–222 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Goes, S., Cammarano, F. & Hansen, U. Synthetic seismic signature of thermal mantle plumes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 218, 403–419 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Stixrude, L. & Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. Thermodynamics of mantle minerals—I. Physical properties. Geophys. J. Int. 162, 610–632 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Stixrude, L. & Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. Thermodynamics of mantle minerals—II. Phase equilibria. Geophys. J. Int. 184, 1180–1213 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Styles, E., Davies, D. R. & Goes, S. Mapping spherical seismic into physical structure: biases from 3-D phase-transition and thermal boundary-layer heterogeneity. Geophys. J. Int. 184, 1371–1378 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Davies, D. R. et al. Reconciling dynamic and seismic models of Earth’s lower mantle: the dominant role of thermal heterogeneity. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 353–354, 253–269 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Dahlen, F. A. & Tromp, J. Theoretical Global Seismology. (Princeton Univ. Press, 1998).

  81. Trampert, J. & Snieder, R. Model estimations biased by truncated expansions: possible artifacts in seismic tomography. Science 271, 1257–1260 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council, under grant numbers FT140101262, DP170100058 (both D.R.D.) and DE180100040 (A.P.V.). M.J.H. acknowledges support from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration grant number NNX17AE17G. Numerical simulations were undertaken on the NCI National Facility in Canberra, Australia, which is supported by the Australian Commonwealth Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    D. R. Davies, A. P. Valentine & C. M. Eakin

  2. Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

    S. C. Kramer

  3. Department of Earth Sciences-Bullard Labs, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    N. Rawlinson

  4. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    M. J. Hoggard

  5. Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC, USA

    C. R. Wilson

Authors
  1. D. R. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. P. Valentine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. C. Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Rawlinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. J. Hoggard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. M. Eakin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. R. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.R.D. conceived this study, designed, set up and processed the geodynamical simulations and integrated all interdisciplinary components. A.P.V. developed the tools utilized for spherical harmonic analyses and provided support with their application and interpretation. S.C.K., C.R.W. and D.R.D. led the development and validation of Fluidity. N.R. produced the lithospheric thickness model, M.J.H. provided the observational constraints on residual topography, and C.M.E. provided insight on dynamic topography implications and comparisons across various datasets and models. D.R.D. and A.P.V. wrote the paper, following discussion with, and contributions from, all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. R. Davies.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–9 and text.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davies, D.R., Valentine, A.P., Kramer, S.C. et al. Earth’s multi-scale topographic response to global mantle flow. Nat. Geosci. 12, 845–850 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0441-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0441-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced 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