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:

Effects of glacial forcing on lithospheric motion and ridge spreading

Nature volume 641, pages 122–128 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Glacial cycles significantly influenced Earth’s surface processes throughout the Quaternary, impacting the climate, sea level, and seismic and magmatic activity1,2,3. However, the effects of glaciation and deglaciation (that is, glacial forcing) on lithospheric motion are unknown. To study these effects, we formulated high-resolution numerical models with realistic lithospheric structures, including weak plate margins, lithospheric thickness variations and crustal structure. Our results show that glacial forcing significantly altered lithospheric motion and the spreading rates of mid-ocean ridges situated near major ice sheets in the last glacial cycle. For example, deglaciation-induced motion in the North American plate had a rotational part that was up to around 25% of its tectonic plate motion over 10,000-year timescales. The deglaciation in Greenland and Fennoscandia caused up to 40% fluctuations in the spreading rates of the Iceland Ridge between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago, which may explain the Holocene volcanism in Iceland. Our modelling also indicates increased (decreased) rates of global sea-floor production during the deglaciation (glaciation) periods with implications for mantle degassing rates. These results underscore the critical dynamic interplay between glacial cycles, lithospheric motion, ridge spreading and climate during ice ages.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

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

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Horizontal crustal velocity and divergence for the Northern Hemisphere with major ice sheets for two cases.
Fig. 2: GIA-induced lithospheric motion of the North American plate.
Fig. 3: Horizontal crustal motion and divergence in the Southern Hemisphere for case 10.
Fig. 4: GIA-induced spreading rates for different MOR segments and for the global MOR network.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All of the materials for this study are available at Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14834933)55. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The GIA modelling code CitcomSVE-3.0, as an open-source code, is publicly available at GitHub (https://github.com/shjzhong/CitcomSVE). The GMT code used to make the figures is available at https://www.generic-mapping-tools.org/.

References

  1. Peltier, W. R. Postglacial variations in the level of the sea: implications for climate dynamics and solid-Earth geophysics. Rev. Geophys. 36, 603–689 (1998).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bürgmann, R., Chanard, K. & Fu, Y. in GNSS Monitoring of the Terrestrial Environment (eds Aoki, Y. & Kreemer, C.) Ch. 14 (Elsevier, 2024).

  3. Huybers, P. & Langmuir, C. Feedback between deglaciation, volcanism, and atmospheric CO2. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 286, 479–491 (2009).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hu, Y. & Freymueller, J. T. Geodetic observations of time-variable glacial isostatic adjustment in southeast Alaska and its implications for Earth rheology. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 124, 9870–9889 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wu, P. & Johnston, P. Can deglaciation trigger earthquakes in N. America? Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 1323–1326 (2000).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Maclennan, J., Jull, M., McKenzie, D., Slater, L. & Grönvold, K. The link between volcanism and deglaciation in Iceland. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 3, 1–25 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tolstoy, M. Mid-ocean ridge eruptions as a climate valve. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 1346–1351 (2015).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Crowley, J. W., Katz, R. F., Huybers, P., Langmuir, C. H. & Park, S.-H. Glacial cycles drive variations in the production of oceanic crust. Science 347, 1237–1240 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Milne, G. A. et al. Space-geodetic constraints on glacial isostatic adjustment in Fennoscandia. Science 291, 2381–2385 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Klemann, V., Martinec, Z. & Ivins, E. R. Glacial isostasy and plate motion. J. Geodyn. 46, 95–103 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kierulf, H. P. et al. A GPS velocity field for Fennoscandia and a consistent comparison to glacial isostatic adjustment models. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 119, 6613–6629 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Vardić, K., Clarke, P. J. & Whitehouse, P. L. A GNSS velocity field for crustal deformation studies: the influence of glacial isostatic adjustment on plate motion models. Geophys. J. Int. 231, 426–458 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mitrovica, J. X., Davis, J. L. & Shapiro, I. I. A spectral formalism for computing three-dimensional deformations due to surface loads: 2. Present-day glacial isostatic adjustment. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 99, 7075–7101 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sella, G. F. et al. Observation of glacial isostatic adjustment in “stable” North America with GPS. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L02306 (2007).

  15. Hermans, T. H. J., van der Wal, W. & Broerse, T. Reversal of the direction of horizontal velocities induced by GIA as a function of mantle viscosity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 9597–9604 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Latychev, K., Mitrovica, J. X., Tamisiea, M. E., Tromp, J. & Moucha, R. Influence of lithospheric thickness variations on 3-D crustal velocities due to glacial isostatic adjustment. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L01304 (2005).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Whitehouse, P., Latychev, K., Milne, G. A., Mitrovica, J. X. & Kendall, R. Impact of 3-D Earth structure on Fennoscandian glacial isostatic adjustment: implications for space-geodetic estimates of present-day crustal deformations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L13502 (2006).

  18. Yuan, T., Zhong, S. & A, G. CitcomSVE-3.0: a three-dimensional finite-element software package for modeling load-induced deformation and glacial isostatic adjustment for an Earth with a viscoelastic and compressible mantle. Geosci. Model Dev. 18, 1445–1461 (2025).

  19. Peltier, W. R., Argus, D. F. & Drummond, R. Space geodesy constrains ice age terminal deglaciation: the global ICE-6G_C (VM5a) model: global glacial isostatic adjustment. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 120, 450–487 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Peltier, W. R., Argus, D. F. & Drummond, R. Comment on “An assessment of the ICE-6G_C (VM5a) glacial isostatic adjustment model” by Purcell et al. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 123, 2019–2028 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lambeck, K. Glacial rebound of the British Isles-–II. A high-resolution, high-precision model. Geophys. J. Int. 115, 960–990 (1993).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lambeck, K., Smither, C. & Johnston, P. Sea-level change, glacial rebound and mantle viscosity for Northern Europe. Geophys. J. Int. 134, 102–144 (1998).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lambeck, K., Rouby, H., Purcell, A., Sun, Y. & Sambridge, M. Sea level and global ice volumes from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15296–15303 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lambeck, K., Purcell, A. & Zhao, S. The North American Late Wisconsin ice sheet and mantle viscosity from glacial rebound analyses. Quat. Sci. Rev. 158, 172–210 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Becker, T. W. Superweak asthenosphere in light of upper mantle seismic anisotropy. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 18, 1986–2003 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mao, W. & Zhong, S. Constraints on mantle viscosity from intermediate-wavelength geoid anomalies in mantle convection models with plate motion history. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 126, e2020JB021561 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Austermann, J., Chen, C. Y., Lau, H. C. P., Maloof, A. C. & Latychev, K. Constraints on mantle viscosity and Laurentide ice sheet evolution from pluvial paleolake shorelines in the western United States. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 532, 116006 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cathles, L. et al. Influence of the asthenosphere on Earth dynamics and evolution. Sci. Rep. 13, 13367 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhong, S. & Davies, G. F. Effects of plate and slab viscosities on the geoid. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 170, 487–496 (1999).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Snow, J. & Edmonds, H. Ultraslow-spreading ridges: rapid paradigm changes. Oceanography 20, 90–101 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sigmundsson, F. et al. Geodynamics of Iceland and the signatures of plate spreading. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 391, 106436 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Rowley, D. B. Rate of plate creation and destruction: 180 Ma to present. GSA Bull. 114, 927–933 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Weiss, T. L., Linsley, B. K., Gordon, A. L., Rosenthal, Y. & Dannenmann‐Di Palma, S. Constraints on Marine Isotope Stage 3 and 5 sea level from the flooding history of the Karimata Strait in Indonesia. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 37, e2021PA004361 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Whitehouse, P. L., Gomez, N., King, M. A. & Wiens, D. A. Solid Earth change and the evolution of the Antarctic ice sheet. Nat. Commun. 10, 503 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lund, D. C. & Asimow, P. D. Does sea level influence mid-ocean ridge magmatism on Milankovitch timescales? Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 12, Q12009 (2011).

  36. Li, M. et al. Quantifying melt production and degassing rate at mid‐ocean ridges from global mantle convection models with plate motion history. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 17, 2884–2904 (2016).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  37. Thorson, R. M. Glacial tectonics: a deeper perspective. Quat. Sci. Rev. 19, 1391–1398 (2000).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Jull, M. & McKenzie, D. The effect of deglaciation on mantle melting beneath Iceland. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 101, 21815–21828 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Norðdahl, H., Ingólfsson, Ó., Pétursson, H. G. & Hallsdóttir, M. Late Weichselian and Holocene environmental history of Iceland. Jökull 58, 343–364 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gudmundsson, A. Mechanical aspects of postglacial volcanism and tectonics of the Reykjanes Peninsula, southwest Iceland. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 91, 12711–12721 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cooper, C. L. et al. Is there a climatic control on Icelandic volcanism? Quat. Sci. Adv. 1, 100004 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Middleton, J. L., Langmuir, C. H., Mukhopadhyay, S., McManus, J. F. & Mitrovica, J. X. Hydrothermal iron flux variability following rapid sea level changes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 3848–3856 (2016).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. A, G., Wahr, J. & Zhong, S. Computations of the viscoelastic response of a 3-D compressible Earth to surface loading: an application to glacial isostatic adjustment in Antarctica and Canada. Geophys. J. Int. 192, 557–572 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhong, S., Kang, K., A, G. & Qin, C. CitcomSVE: a three‐dimensional finite element software package for modeling planetary mantle’s viscoelastic deformation in response to surface and tidal loads. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 23, e2022GC010359 (2022).

  45. Watts, A. B. Isostasy and Flexure of the Lithosphere (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).

  46. Zhong, S., Paulson, A. & Wahr, J. Three-dimensional finite-element modelling of Earth’s viscoelastic deformation: effects of lateral variations in lithospheric thickness. Geophys. J. Int. 155, 679–695 (2003).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. Dziewonski, A. M. & Anderson, D. L. Preliminary reference Earth model. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 25, 297–356 (1981).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. 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, EGU2013-2658 (2013).

  50. Le Voyer, M. et al. Carbon fluxes and primary magma CO2 contents along the global mid‐ocean ridge system. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20, 1387–1424 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  51. Trenberth, K. E. & Smith, L. The mass of the atmosphere: a constraint on global analyses. J. Clim. 18, 864–875 (2005).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. Kreemer, C., Hammond, W. C. & Blewitt, G. A robust estimation of the 3‐D intraplate deformation of the North American Plate from GPS. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 123, 4388–4412 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  53. Argus, D. F., Peltier, W. R., Blewitt, G. & Kreemer, C. The viscosity of the top third of the lower mantle estimated using GPS, GRACE, and relative sea level measurements of glacial isostatic adjustment. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 126, e2020JB021537 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  54. Peltier, W. R. & Drummond, R. Rheological stratification of the lithosphere: a direct inference based upon the geodetically observed pattern of the glacial isostatic adjustment of the North American continent. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L16314 (2008).

  55. Yuan, T. & Zhong, S. Effects of glacial forcing on lithospheric motion and ridge spreading. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14834933 (2025).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (grants NSF-EAR 2222115 and NSF-OPP 2333940). Our calculations were performed on parallel supercomputers operated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research under the CISL project (codes UCUD0006 and UCUD0007).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Tao Yuan & Shijie Zhong

Authors
  1. Tao Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shijie Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.Z. and T.Y. conceptualized the project, discussed the results and contributed to writing the final manuscript. T.Y. performed the numerical calculations and analysis.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tao Yuan or Shijie Zhong.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

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

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Viscosity Structure and plate margins.

a) 1D viscosity profiles VM5a and VM5a_AS (i.e., 1D_Astheno in Extended Data Table 1, the modified VM5a with an asthenosphere). b) Map of lithospheric thickness. c) Global network of plate boundaries (see Methods).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Maps of global crustal uplift rates at five different times (same as in Fig. 1) for cases 6 (a-e) and 10 (f-j).

The corresponding horizontal crustal motion and its divergence for regions near major ice sheets in the Northern hemisphere are in Fig. 1.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Maps of global crustal horizontal velocity and divergence for five different times (same as in Fig. 1) for cases 6 (a-e) and 10 (f-j).

The corresponding maps of global uplift rates are in Extended Data Fig. 2.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Rates of ice sheet height change at four different times from the ICE6G ice model (a-d) and Iceland ice volume versus time from both ICE6G and ANU ice models (e).

Note that in a)-d) the scale of color differs, and the ANU ice model is constructed mainly for the North American ice sheet, Fennoscandian ice sheet, and Antarctica ice sheet.

Extended Data Fig. 5 The second invariant of surface horizontal strain rates for cases 6 (a-e) and 10 (f-j).

The corresponding maps of global uplift rates and horizontal motions are in Extended Data Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 3.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Horizontal and vertical motions of the upper mantle for case 10 at 6, 9, and 14 ka BP from the top to bottom rows, respectively.

a) horizontal and vertical motions at the surface of the northern hemisphere are represented by vectors and color, respectively. The curve from positions A to B represents a great circle profile along which the mantle and lithospheric motions are displayed. The tick spacing on the curve is 10 degrees. b) The lithosphere and upper mantle motions along the A-B profile, where the horizontal axis is the distance from position A along the profile. The background color represents the velocity perpendicular to the plane (positive for flow into the plane), while the vectors are for in-plane velocities. Note that different scales are used for horizontal and vertical velocities to highlight horizontal motion. The red line represents the lithospheric thickness and blue dash line is the base of asthenosphere. The light blue regions above the surface represent the ice sheet height along this profile. The two dots near the surface show the position of weak plate boundaries, where the left one (in blue) is for the San Andreas fault and the right one (in red) is Iceland. c) A zoom-in view for the region including Greenland and Iceland marked by the rectangular in b). Note the light blue region shown in c) indicates the Greenland ice sheet. Panels d-f and g-i are similar to panels a-c but for 9 ka BP and 14 ka BP, respectively, as mentioned above. Note that the vector scales vary among panels. Four general results stand out: 1) GIA-induced motions are highly three dimensional; 2) Significant relative motions exist between the lithosphere and upper mantle; 3) The upper mantle converges horizontally and moves up towards the deglaciation center; 4) At Iceland, the vertical velocity at 14 ka BP reaches ~10 cm/year due to the local deglaciation. At 9 ka BP, the surface horizontal motions caused by deglaciation of Greenland promote the tectonic spreading, and the shallow upper mantle shows upwelling motion towards the Iceland Ridge, consistent with divergence fields in Extended Data Fig. 8a and c. At 6 ka BP, the surface horizontal motions converge towards Iceland, causing downwelling motion in the shallow mantle below Iceland, consistent with divergence fields discussed in Extended Data Fig. 8b and d for a similar time.

Extended Data Fig. 7 GIA-induced spreading rates quantified using “velocity method” and “divergence method” for three different MOR segments from case 10 (See Methods).

MOR segments include a) Southwest Indian Ridge, b) Knipovich Ridge, and c) East Pacific Rise. Note that these two methods produce nearly identical results. The GIA-induced spreading rates of Knipovich Ridge are similar to that of Iceland, because both of them are in the proximity of Greenland ice sheet and former Fennoscandian ice sheet and are directly affected by the glaciation and deglaciation of those two ice sheets. EPR represents East Pacific Rise.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Horizontal (a, b), radial (c, d) and full (e, f) divergence rates at the surface at 9 ka (a, c, and e) and 4 ka (b, d, and f).

Along mid-ocean ridges (MORs), the radial divergence rate has the opposite sign of the horizontal divergence rate, meaning that a MOR with horizontally extensional deformation (i.e., positive horizontal divergence as in panel a) has an upward material motion relative to the surface (i.e., negative radial divergence as in panel c), i.e., an enhanced upwelling rate of the mantle at the MOR. The full divergence rate (the sum of horizontal and radial divergence rates) has a much smaller magnitude in MORs compared to either horizontal or radial divergence rate (e.g., Iceland in e and mid-Atlantic MORs in f), but is non-zero, indicating the mantle compressibility. g) shows the variation of both horizontal and radial divergence rates averaged over Iceland in the last 20 ka, where the radial divergence rate is negative (i.e., GIA-induced upward motion relative to surface) between 10 and 7 ka and is positive (i.e., GIA-induced downward motion relative to surface) for the last 7 ka.

Extended Data Fig. 9 GIA-induced lithospheric motion of the North American plate for ANU cases 1 (dash line) and 2 (solid line).

See Fig. 2 for descriptions of each panel. The results using the ANU ice model are qualitatively the same as in Fig. 2 for cases 6 and 10 using ICE6G.

Extended Data Fig. 10 GIA-induced spreading rates for different MOR segments and for the global MOR network for ANU case 2.

Same as Fig. 4 but for ANU case 2.

Extended Data Fig. 11 Comparisons between results from case 10 and case 14.

This figure is the same as Fig. 4, except the two cases shown here as case 10 and case 14, the latter is same as case 10 except having a higher resolution.

Extended Data Fig. 12 GIA-induced rotational motion for North American plate for cases 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10.

(Extended Data Table 1). Cases 2, 3 and 5 do not have a weak asthenosphere. Cases 2 and 7 have lithospheric thickness variation but no explicit weak plate margins, whereas cases 3 and 8 have weak plate margins but no lithospheric thickness variation elsewhere. Note that although cases 2 and 7 do not have weak plate margins, the lithospheric thickness variation model used in these two cases has thin lithospheric thickness of ~10 km at MOR.

Extended Data Table 1 Model description and results
Full size table

Supplementary information

Source data

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuan, T., Zhong, S. Effects of glacial forcing on lithospheric motion and ridge spreading. Nature 641, 122–128 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08846-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08846-x

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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