Abstract
Subduction of hydrated oceanic lithosphere can carry water deep into the Earth, with consequences for a range of tectonic and magmatic processes. Most of the fluid is released in the forearc where it plays a critical role in controlling the mechanical properties and seismic behaviour of the subduction megathrust. Here we present results from three-dimensional inversions of data from nearly 400 long-period magnetotelluric sites, including 64 offshore, to provide insights into the distribution of fluids in the forearc of the Cascadia subduction zone. We constrain the geometry of the electrically resistive Siletz terrane, a thickened section of oceanic crust accreted to North America in the Eocene, and the conductive accretionary complex underthrust along the margin. We find that fluids accumulate over timescales exceeding 1 My above the plate in metasedimentary units, while the mafic rocks of Siletzia remain dry. Fluid concentrations tend to peak at slab depths of 17.5 and 30 km, suggesting control by metamorphic processes, but also concentrate around the edges of Siletzia, suggesting that this mafic block is impermeable, with dehydration fluids escaping up-dip along the megathrust. Our results demonstrate that the lithology of the overriding crust can play a critical role in controlling fluid transport in a subduction zone.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available online at http://ds.iris.edu/ds/products/emtf/. The electrical resistivity model file can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6303537Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
The 3D inversion code used for this study (ModEM) is freely available online at https://sites.google.com/site/modularem.
References
Wang, K. & Trehu, A. M. Invited review paper: some outstanding issues in the study of great megathrust earthquakes—the Cascadia example. J. Geodynam. 98, 1–18 (2016).
Wells, R. et al. Geologic history of Siletzia, a large igneous province in the Oregon and Washington coast range: correlation to the geomagnetic polarity time scale and implications for a long-lived Yellowstone hotspot. Geosphere 10, 692–719 (2014).
Irwin, W. P. Geologic Map of the Klamath Mountains, California and Oregon (US Geological Survey, 1994).
Greene, A. R. et al. The architecture of oceanic plateaus revealed by the volcanic stratigraphy of the accreted Wrangellia oceanic plateau. Geosphere 6, 47–73 (2010).
Trehu, A. et al. Crustal architecture of the Cascadia forearc. Science 266, 237–243 (1994).
Brandon, M. T. & Calderwood, A. R. High-pressure metamorphism and uplift of the Olympic subduction complex. Geology 18, 1252–1255 (1990).
Gomberg, J. et al. Slow-slip phenomena in Cascadia from 2007 and beyond: a review. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 122, 963–978 (2010)..
Rubinstein, J. L., La Rocca, M., Vidale, J. E., Creager, K. C. & Wech, A. G. Tidal modulation of nonvolcanic tremor. Science 319, 186–189 (2008).
Rubinstein, J. L. et al. Seismic wave triggering of nonvolcanic tremor, episodic tremor and slip, and earthquakes on Vancouver Island. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 114, B00A01 (2009).
Liu, Y. & Rice, J. R. Spontaneous and triggered aseismic deformation transients in a subduction fault model. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 112, B09404 (2007).
Peacock, S. M. Thermal and metamorphic environment of subduction zone episodic tremor and slip. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 114, B00A07 (2009).
Audet, P., Bostock, M. G., Christensen, N. I. & Peacock, S. M. Seismic evidence for overpressured subducted oceanic crust and megathrust fault sealing. Nature 457, 76–78 (2009).
Audet, P., Bostock, M. G., Boyarko, D. C., Brudzinski, M. R. & Allen, R. M. Slab morphology in the Cascadia fore arc and its relation to episodic tremor and slip. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 115, B00A16 (2010).
Hansen, R. T., Bostock, M. G. & Christensen, N. I. Nature of the low velocity zone in Cascadia from receiver function waveform inversion. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 337, 25–38 (2012).
Brudzinski, M. R. & Allen, R. M. Segmentation in episodic tremor and slip all along Cascadia. Geology 35, 907–910 (2007).
Bostock, M. G., Christensen, N. I. & Peacock, S. M. Seismicity in Cascadia. Lithos 332, 55–66 (2019).
Schmalzle, G. M., McCaffrey, R. & Creager, K. C. Central Cascadia subduction zone creep. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 15, 1515–1532 (2014).
Wells, R. E., Blakely, R. J., Wech, A. G., McCrory, P. A. & Michael, A. Cascadia subduction tremor muted by crustal faults. Geology 45, 515–518 (2017).
Horning, G. et al. A 2-D tomographic model of the Juan de Fuca plate from accretion at axial seamount to subduction at the Cascadia margin from an active source ocean bottom seismometer survey. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121, 5859–5879 (2016).
Canales, J. P., Carbotte, S. M., Nedimovic´, M. & Carton, H. Dry Juan de Fuca slab revealed by quantification of water entering Cascadia subduction zone. Nat. Geosci. 10, 864–870 (2017).
Han, S., Bangs, N. L., Carbotte, S. M., Saffer, D. M. & Gibson, J. C. Links between sediment consolidation and Cascadia megathrust slip behaviour. Nat. Geosci. 10, 954–959 (2017).
Han, S., Carbotte, S. M., Canales, J. P., Nedimovic, M. R. & Carton, H. Along-trench structural variations of the subducting Juan de Fuca plate from multichannel seismic reflection imaging. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 123, 3122–3146 (2018).
Abers, G. A. et al. Imaging the source region of Cascadia tremor and intermediate-depth earthquakes. Geology 37, 1119–1122 (2009).
Calvert, A. J., Preston, L. A. & Farahbod, A. M. Sedimentary underplating at the Cascadia mantle-wedge corner revealed by seismic imaging. Nat. Geosci. 4, 545–548 (2011).
Delph, J. R., Levander, A. & Niu, F. Fluid controls on the heterogeneous seismic characteristics of the Cascadia margin. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 11–21 (2018).
Hyndman, R. D. & Peacock, S. M. Serpentinization of the forearc mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 212, 417–432 (2003).
Saffer, D. M. & Tobin, H. J. Hydrogeology and mechanics of subduction zone forearcs: fluid flow and pore pressure. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 39, 157–186 (2011).
Peterson, D. & Keranen, K. A high wave speed basal sedimentary layer identified from seismic imaging of the plate boundary in central Cascadia. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 124, 6832–6847 (2019).
Peacock, S. M., Christensen, N. I., Bostock, M. G. & Audet, P. High pore pressures and porosity at 35 km depth in the Cascadia subduction zone. Geology 39, 471–474 (2011).
Audet, P. & Kim, Y. Teleseismic constraints on the geological environment of deep episodic slow earthquakes in subduction zone forearcs: a review. Tectonophysics 670, 1–15 (2016).
Wannamaker, P. E. et al. Resistivity cross section through the Juan de Fuca subduction system and its tectonic implications. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 94, 14127–14144 (1989).
Wannamaker, P. E. et al. Segmentation of plate coupling, fate of subduction fluids, and modes of arc magmatism in Cascadia, inferred from magnetotelluric resistivity. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 15, 4230–4253 (2014).
Evans, R. L., Wannamaker, P. E., McGary, R. S. & Elsenbeck, J. Electrical structure of the central Cascadia subduction zone: the EMSLAB Lincoln Line revisited. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 402, 265–274 (2014).
McGary, R. S., Evans, R. L., Wannamaker, P. E., Elsenbeck, J. & Rondenay, S. Pathway from subducting slab to surface for melt and fluids beneath Mount Rainier. Nature 511, 338–340 (2014).
Schultz, A. EMScope: a continental scale magnetotelluric observatory and data discovery resource. Data Sci. J. 8, IGY6–IGY20 (2010).
Wells, R. E., Weaver, C. S. & Blakely, R. J. Fore-arc migration in Cascadia and its neotectonic significance. Geology 26, 759–762 (1998).
Tabor, R. W. & Cady, W. M. Geologic Map of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. USGS Publications Warehouse (1978).
Worzewski, T., Jegen, M., Kopp, H., Brasse, H. & Castillo, W. T. Magnetotelluric image of the fluid cycle in the Costa Rican subduction zone. Nat. Geosci. 4, 108–111 (2011).
Duncan, R. A. A captured island chain in the coast range of Oregon and Washington. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 87, 10827–10837 (1982).
Wells, R., Engebretson, D., Snavely, P. Jr & Coe, R. Cenozoic plate motions and the volcanotectonic evolution of western Oregon and Washington. Tectonics 3, 275–294 (1984).
Bedrosian, P. A., Peacock, J. R., Bowles-Martinez, E., Schultz, A. & Hill, G. J. Crustal inheritance and a top-down control on arc magmatism at Mount St Helens. Nat. Geosci. 11, 865–870 (2018).
Peacock, S. M. Numerical simulation of metamorphic pressure-temperature-time paths and fluid production in subducting slabs. Tectonics 9, 1197–1211 (1990).
Hacker, B. R. H2O subduction beyond arcs. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9, Q03001 (2008).
Peacock, S. M., Wang, K. & McMahon, A. M. The Cascadia Subduction Zone and related subduction systems: Seismic structure, intraslab earthquakes and processes, and earthquake hazards. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-328 2, 123–126 (2002).
Fagereng, Å. & Diener, J. F. Non-volcanic tremor and discontinuous slab dehydration. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L15302 (2011).
Brandon, M. T., Roden-Tice, M. K. & Garver, J. I. Late Cenozoic exhumation of the Cascadia accretionary wedge in the Olympic mountains, northwest Washington state. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 110, 985–1009 (1998).
McNeill, L. C., Goldfinger, C., Kulm, L. D. & Yeats, R. S. Tectonics of the Neogene Cascadia forearc basin: investigations of a deformed late Miocene unconformity. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 112, 1209–1224 (2000).
Moore, J. C. & Vrolijk, P. Fluids in accretionary prisms. Rev. Geophys. 30, 113–135 (1992).
Hyndman, R. D., McCrory, P. A., Wech, A., Kao, H. & Ague, J. Cascadia subducting plate fluids channelled to fore-arc mantle corner: ETS and silica deposition. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 120, 4344–4358 (2015).
Audet, P. & Schaeffer, A. J. Fluid pressure and shear zone development over the locked to slow slip region in Cascadia. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar2982 (2018).
Bostock, M. The moho in subduction zones. Tectonophysics 609, 547–557 (2013).
Nedimovic´, M. R., Hyndman, R. D., Ramachandran, K. & Spence, G. D. Reflection signature of seismic and aseismic slip on the northern Cascadia subduction interface. Nature 424, 416–420 (2003).
Calvert, A. J., Bostock, M. G., Savard, G. & Unsworth, M. J. Cascadia low frequency earthquakes at the base of an overpressured subduction shear zone. Nat. Commun. 11, 3874:1–10 (2020).
Clowes, R. et al. LITHOPROBE—southern Vancouver Island: Cenozoic subduction complex imaged by deep seismic reflections. Can. J. Earth Sci. 24, 31–51 (1987).
Kurtz, R., DeLaurier, J. & Gupta, J. A magnetotelluric sounding across Vancouver Island detects the subducting Juan de Fuca plate. Nature 321, 596–599 (1986).
Bu¨rgmann, R. The geophysics, geology and mechanics of slow fault slip. Earth Planetary Sci. Lett. 495, 112–134 (2018).
Audet, P. & Bu¨rgmann, R. Possible control of subduction zone slow-earthquake periodicity by silica enrichment. Nature 510, 389–392 (2014).
Fagereng, Å., Diener, J. F., Meneghini, F., Harris, C. & Kvadsheim, A. Quartz vein formation by local dehydration embrittlement along the deep, tremorgenic subduction thrust interface. Geology 46, 67–70 (2018).
Luo, Y. & Liu, Z. Rate-and-state model casts new insight into episodic tremor and slow-slip variability in Cascadia. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 6352–6362 (2019).
Liu, L. & Hasterok, D. High-resolution lithosphere viscosity and dynamics revealed by magnetotelluric imaging. Science 353, 1515–1519 (2016).
McCrory, P. A., Blair, J. L., Waldhauser, F. & Oppenheimer, D. H. Juan de Fuca slab geometry and its relation to Wadati-Benioff zone seismicity. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 117, B09306 (2012).
Ewert, J. W., Diefenbach, A. K. & Ramsey, D. W. 2018 Update to the U.S. Geological Survey National Volcanic Threat Assessment Scientific Report No. 2018-5140 (US Geological Survey, 2018).
Wech, A. G. Interactive tremor monitoring. Seismol. Res. Lett. 81, 664–669 (2010).
Bedrosian, P. A. & Box, S. Subsurface geometry of the Siletz-Klamath suture in southwest Oregon from magnetotelluric imaging. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting 39, 47 (2007).
Aprea, C., Unsworth, M. & Booker, J. Resistivity structure of the Olympic mountains and Puget lowlands. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 109–112 (1998).
Soyer, W. & Unsworth, M. Deep electrical structure of the northern Cascadia (British Columbia, Canada) subduction zone: implications for the distribution of fluids. Geology 34, 53–56 (2006).
Egbert, G. D. & Booker, J. R. Robust estimation of geomagnetic transfer functions. Geophys. J. Int. 87, 173–194 (1986).
Egbert, G. D. Robust multiple-station magnetotelluric data processing. Geophys. J. Int. 130, 475–496 (1997).
Kelbert, A., Meqbel, N., Egbert, G. D. & Tandon, K. ModEM: a modular system for inversion of electromagnetic geophysical data. Comput. Geosci. 66, 40–53 (2014).
Booker, J. R., Favetto, A. & Pomposiello, M. C. Low electrical resistivity associated with plunging of the Nazca flat slab beneath Argentina. Nature 429, 399–403 (2004).
Straume, E. O. et al. GlobSed: updated total sediment thickness in the world’s oceans. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20, 1756–1772 (2019).
Cox, C., Constable, S., Chave, A. & Webb, S. Controlled-source electromagnetic sounding of the oceanic lithosphere. Nature 320, 52–54 (1986).
Schmandt, B. & Humphreys, E. Complex subduction and small-scale convection revealed by body-wave tomography of the western United States upper mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 297, 435–445 (2010).
Naif, S., Key, K., Constable, S. & Evans, R. Melt-rich channel observed at the lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary. Nature 495, 356–359 (2013).
Brace, W., Orange, A. & Madden, T. The effect of pressure on the electrical resistivity of water-saturated crystalline rocks. J. Geophys. Res. 70, 5669–5678 (1965).
Nesbitt, B. E. Electrical resistivities of crustal fluids. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 98, 4301–4310 (1993).
Grove, T. L., Chatterjee, N., Parman, S. W. & Me´dard, E. The influence of H2O on mantle wedge melting. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 249, 74–89 (2006).
Bostock, M., Hyndman, R., Rondenay, S. & Peacock, S. An inverted continental moho and serpentinization of the forearc mantle. Nature 417, 536–538 (2002).
Blakely, R. J., Brocher, T. M. & Wells, R. E. Subduction-zone magnetic anomalies and implications for hydrated forearc mantle. Geology 33, 445–448 (2005).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by NSF grant numbers EAR1053632 and EAR1460437 (G.D.E. and A.S.), EAR1053207 and EAR1459067 (K.K.) and EAR1053202 and EAR140552 (D.W.L.), NSFC grant number 41774079 and National Key R&D Program of China 2018YFC0603604 (B.Y.). We thank R. Blakely, J. Delph and G. Schmalzle for providing data and models for comparison studies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
D.W.L., K.K., A.S. and P.A.B. collected the MOCHA magnetotelluric data. A.K. processed the land data and K.K. the marine data. B.Y. and B.P. ran the 3D inversions. G.D.E., B.Y. and P.A.B. developed the interpretation and wrote the manuscript with input from D.W.L. and K.K.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Geoscience thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Rebecca Neely and James Super, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Graphical summary of prior model.
(a) E-W cross-section, showing deep layered structure. (b) 3D geometry of resistive (1000 Ohm-m) subducting plate. Data from refs. 61,73. (c) surface layer of prior model, showing top layer of ocean and actual grid resolution (11 × 9.5 km (N-S × E-W). (d) Thickness of ocean sediment layers. Data from ref. 71.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Observed (columns 1 and 3) and computed (columns 2 and 4) apparent resistivities for 4 representative periods.
Left two columns are for the nominal TE mode, with current flow parallel to the coastline. Right columns are for nominal TM mode, with current flow perpendicular to coast. Plotted values are interpolated from values at sites using natural neighbor scheme.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Observed (columns 1 and 3) and computed (columns 2 and 4) phases for 4 representative periods.
Left two columns are for the nominal TE mode, with current flow parallel to the coastline. Right columns are for nominal TM mode, with current flow perpendicular to coast. Plotted values are interpolated from values at sites using natural neighbor scheme.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Normalized root-mean-square (nRMS) misfit for each site.
(a) total; (b) impedance components only; (c) VTF (Vertical magnetic Transfer Function) only; (d-f) nRMS for individual impedance and VTF components for coast parallel electric mode (nominal TE); (g-i) nRMS for individual components for coast perpendicular electric mode (nominal TM). In all cases nRMS is summed over period.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Curved sections of the 3D resistivity model just above the upper interface of the subducting slab from various inversion runs.
(a) run#36. (b) run#44. (c) run#45. Panel (d) shows a 3D view of the result shown in panel (c). For run#36 & run#44, the conductive ocean was allowed to vary during inversion, while for run#45 it was frozen. Note that run#44 & run#45 have more sites in Southwestern Oregon.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Comparison between Vp from seismic tomography24 (a) and (b) and resistivity from the MT (c) and (d), along two profiles in Western Washington.
Top panels: an east-west profile across the Olympic Mountains; lower panels, the CAFE profile (MT sites along this profile34 are shown in Fig. 1). Note that for the Vp plots cool colors are low velocities (a-b), and are interpreted as subducted sediments and metasediments. These should have low resistivities (hot colors in (c-d). There is a very good agreement between geometries imaged by the two geophysical methods.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Comparison of resistive bodies to other geophysical data.
(a) Pseudo-gravity derived from magnetics79 with contours (20 and 30 km) for depth to bottom of resistive body from Fig. 3a overlain. There is a good correlation between the 3D geometry of the core of Siletzia inferred from MT, and magnetic anomalies converted to pseudo-gravity. There is no clear correlation with resistive block ‘e’ but this body is under the thick (8 km) sedimentary Seattle basin, and is also outside our area of good data coverage. Deeply extending resistive bodies ‘g’ and ‘f’, also do not exhibit strong magnetic anomalies but these are likely not part of Siletzia per se, and may have different composition. (b) Crustal seismicity (M > 2, 1990–2020) from ANSS catalogue with the same resistivity contours overlain. Resistive blocks in the core of Siletzia are mostly aseismic, while block ‘e’ has little seismicity below the level of the Seattle basin. As is well known, there is almost no crustal seismicity in central-southern Oregon. This seismic gap includes the main thick block of Siletzia, but extends further south to the California border.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Shear wave velocity averaged over 10 km thick layer above plate interface25.
Contours (20 and 30 km) of depth to bottom of resistor, and block labels from Fig. 3a are overlain. Updip of the FMC, where the 10 km thick layer is in the overriding crust, deep resistors inferred from the MT are generally seismically fast.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Conductance (\({{{\mathrm{C}}}} = {\upsigma}_{bulk}H\)) of a fluid layer, as a function of porosity (ϕ) and layer thickness (H).
We assume a fluid of conductivity \({\upsigma}_{fluid} = 30\;S/m\) (salinity of seawater at ambient temperatures76) and compute bulk resistivity using Archie’s law (\({\upsigma}_{bulk} = \sigma _{fluid}\phi ^m\)) for \({{{\mathrm{m}}}} = 1.5,1.75,2\) for the three panels (a, b and c). Colormap for conductance is identical to that used for Fig. 3b. Even with an Archie’s law exponent of \({{{\mathrm{m}}}} = 2\) (panel c) conductance exceeds \(\sim 300\;{{{\mathrm{S}}}}\) for layer thickness51 and porosities29 previously postulated. The MT conductance maps (Fig. 3b) show that such a layer is not present everywhere, but a thinner layer, or one with lower \({\upsigma}_{fluid}\) could be. Note also that conductance of observed anomalies integrated over a 10 km layer, exceed peak values shown here, requiring either higher \({\upsigma}_{fluid}\), lower values of m or some combination.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and references.
Source data
Source Data Fig. 3
Plot source data.
Source Data Fig. 4
Plot source data.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Egbert, G.D., Yang, B., Bedrosian, P.A. et al. Fluid transport and storage in the Cascadia forearc influenced by overriding plate lithology. Nat. Geosci. 15, 677–682 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00981-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00981-8
This article is cited by
-
Forearc seismogenesis in a weakly coupled subduction zone influenced by slab mantle fluids
Nature Geoscience (2023)
-
Orogenic gold: is a genetic association with magmatism realistic?
Mineralium Deposita (2023)