Crustal Structure of the Earth

Toshiro Tanimoto

1. INTRODUCTION 2. OCEANIC CRUSTS

The boundary between the crust and the mantle was 2.1. Classic Subdivision and Mean Crustal Thickness
discoveredby Mohorovicic in 1909 under the European The oceaniccrust is classically divided into three layers
continent. Subsquentresearchin this century established [521; Layer 1 is the sedimentary layer, whose thickness
the major differencesbetween the continentaland oceanic varies widely according to sedimentsources,and Layer 2
crust; a typical thicknessfor the continentalcrust is 30-50 has a thicknessof 1S-2.0 km and P-wave velocity of 4.5
km while a typical thickness for me oceanic crusts is 6 5.6 km/s and Layer 3 has a thicknessof 4.5-5.0 km and P-
km. In terms of history the continental crust contains a wave velocity of 6.5-7.0 km/s. Combined thickness of
much longer history of 4 billion years, whereas the layer 2 and 3 is often referred to as the oceanic crustal
oceaniccrust containsat most 200 million yearsof history thickness and we adopt this convention. For the
becauseof recycling of oceanicplates. continental crust, we define the thicknessfrom the surface
Becauseof its long history, the continental crust has to the Mohorovicic discontinuity (Moho).
been subjected to various tectonic processes, such as The interpretation of oceanicvelocity structure is based
repeated episodes of partial melting, metamorphism, on two independent sources of information; one is by
intrusion, faulting and folding. It is thus easier to find comparison of seismic velocities in laboratory
systematic relationships between age and structure of measurementsof rocks from oceandrilling cores with the
oceaniccrusts. However, the existenceof hotspotsas well velocities measured in seismic refraction experiments.
as changing patterns of plate motion complicate oceanic The other is basedon analogy with structuresin ophiolite
crustal structure. In this section, we assemble crustal complexes. A commonly held view (e.g.,[65] ) is that
thicknessdata from various tectonic provincesand discuss Layer 2 starts with extrusive volcanic rocks at shallow
their implications. depths which grade downward from pillow basalts into
sheeted dikes. There is a transition zone at the top of
Layer 2 which shows inter-fingeringof extrusive basaltic
rocks and sheeted dikes. Layer 3 has properties
appropriate to the massive to cumulate gabbro layer seen
T. Tanimoto, Department of Geological Sciences, University in ophiolite complexes. The top of Layer 3 has a
of California. Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 transitional layer which shows interfingering of sheeted
dikes (at the bottom of Layer 2) and isotropic gabbro (at
Present Address: T. Tanimoto, Tokyo Institute of Technology,
Earth and Planetary Sciences, Ookayama 2-12-l Meguro-ku,
the top of Layer 3). The isotropic gabbro layer is
Tokyo 152, Japan
underlainby layeredgabbroand harzburgitesuccessively.
The traditional seismic modelling used a few
GlobalEarthPhysics homogeneouslayers, which has been replacedby layers
A Handbook of Physical Constants which contain velocity gradients in recent studies (e.g.,
AGU Reference Shelf 1 [66]). If the assumptionof a few stack of homogeneous
Copyright 1995 by the American Geophysical Union. 214
 TANIMOTO 215

fi

Raitt [52] Shor et al. 1591 Christensenand Salisbury[91 White et al.[70]

Thickness
Layer 2 1.750.8 1.51tl.O 1.4kO.S 2.1kO.6
Layer 3 4.9k1.4 4.6rt1.3 5.OU.3 5.tio.9

P-Wavevelocity
Layer 2 5.EO.6 5.2f0.6 5.0-10.7
Layer 3 6.7kO.3 6.8f0.2 6.7f0.2

layers are used in regions of steep velocity gradient, must be taken before interpreting this difference, since
estimatesof crustal thicknesscan be misleading. Table 1 there are a large number of seamountsin the old oceans
quotes the thicknessesof layer 2 and 3 from four studies which tend to biase the estimatetoward thicker crusts. In
during the last few decades. They are from P-wave that case, older oceans simply have anomalous crustal
velocity structure by refraction studies. Typically, thickness due to seamounts and may not have thicker
thickness of layer 2 is 1.5-2.0 km and that of layer 3 is crusts uniformly.
4.5-5.0 km. Table 2 shows a compilation of meancrustal
thickness,a sum of layer 2 and layer 3 thicknesses,which 2.3. Regions of Thin Crust
is almost uniformly 6 km. The most recent study [70] There are three regions where oceaniccrust is reported
claims a somewhat higher value of 7.1 km and attributes to be thin; they are (i) a slow spreadingrate (less than 2
this difference to underestimationof older studies. They cm/year) region, (ii) non-volcanic rifted margin which
claim that a travel time slope-intercept method of underwent extensional tectonics at some point in history
interpretation in previous studies may significantly and (iii) fracture zones(Table 4). The region (i) probably
underestimatethe true thickness becauseit usually does reflects the fact that an amount of partial melt is small
not take into account the velocity gradients. Synthetic under slow spreadingridges and thus crustal material is
seismogram technique alleviates this problem. Note, not transported from the mantle to shallow depths. Sleep
however, that the difference is relatively small, up to 1 [61] has shown that magma body under slow spreading
km, although it may be systematic. We thus summarize ridges (less than 1 cm/y) may not be stable due to lateral
that the oceaniccrustal thickness(excluding layer 1) is 6- conduction of heat. A seismic body wave study by
7km. Sheehanand Solomon [58] and a surface wave study by
Zhang and Tanimoto [74] also showed the evidencesfor
2.2 Age Dependence relatively fast seismic velocity under slow spreading
In general, age dependence of crustal thickness is ridges which indicatelack of or very little amount of melt
considered to be weak. In fact, constancy of crustal under ridge axes. The region (ii) correspondsto an area
thickness has been regardedas almost a fact. While it is where extreme extension had occurred in history. An
true that oceanic crust has fairly constant thickness example for this region is near the continental edge of
everywhere in the ocean, there exist a few studies which (Central) Atlantic Ocean where extension played the
claimed to have discoveredthe age dependence.Table 3 major part in the continentalbreak-up.The reasonfor thin
shows comparisonsfor crustal thickness between young crusts under fracture zones was recently shown to be
oceanic region (younger than 30 million years old) and causedby an extremely thin layer 3 or a lack of it under
old oceanic region (older than 30 my). There are fracture zones [68] at least on the slow-spreading,Mid-
differences of 0.3-0.6 km between these two regions. Atlantic Ridge. This supportsthe idea that accretion and
Physicalmechanismfor the age dependenceis not clear, upwelling at slow-spreadingridges are focused near the
however. It indicates somewhatthicker crustal generation center of segments rather than close to fracture zones.
in older oceansor gradual evolution of oceaniccrust, but Bouger gravity anomaly also shows the so-called Bull’s
detailedmechanismfor them are not available.Also, care eye (low) gravity anomaly near the center of segments
216 CRUSTALSTRUCTUREOFEARTH

TABLE 2. Mean Crustal Thickness

Thickness(km) Region
Raitt [521 6.6k1.6 Pacific
Shor et al. [591 6.1k1.6 Pacific
Houtz [241 5.621.3 Atlantic
McClain 1361 5.8kO.9 Pacific
McClain and Atallah [371 5.9f0.9 Pacific
Keen et al. [291 5.8tl.l Atlantic, Pacific
White et al. [70] 7.1kO.8 Atlandc,Indian,Pacifc

TABLE 3. Age dependenceof crustal thickness

youngerthan 30 my older than 30 my Region
McClain and Atallah [371 5.7M.9 6.M0.9 Pacific
White et al 1701 6.5ti.8 6.9f0.3 Pacific
White et aI I701 7.0&0.6 7.6f0.5 Atlantic

TABLE 4. Thin crust regions

OceanicCrustal Thickness(km)

Slow spreadingregion (less than 2 cm/y) 2.1f0.6a

Non-volcanic rifted margin 4.9+1.+

Fracture zones 4.&l .3c

Note: a. Jackson et al. 1261 c. Minshull et al. [40]
b. Ginzburg et al. [19] Whitmarsh et al. [7 l]
Horsefield et al. [23] Cormier et al. [ 111
Pinheiro et al. [4h] Sinha nd Louden [60]
White et al. [70] Potts et al. [48][47]
Louden et al. [33]
Detrick et al. [ 1.51

TABLE 5. Oceaniccrustal thicknessin plume affected regions

Region Thickness(km)

Madagascar 21.2 Sinhaet al. 1601

Kerguelen 18.5, 20.5 Recq et al. [531

S. Iceland 20.24 Bjamasonet al. [701a

Note: a. as referenced in White et al. [70]
 TANIMOTO 217

becauseof thicknessvariations of layer 3. from deep seismic soundingstudies [38]. They suggesta
lack of discontinuities in the lower crust. Thesefeatures
2.3. Regions of Thick Crust are usually interpretedas moderatelevel of differentiation
Thick oceaniccrusts are found where hotspots (plumes) in the lower crust.
were or are currently under the ridge axes (Table 5). A
typical crustal thickness reaches20 km in such regions. 3.3. Paleozoic and Mesozoic Regions
Increasedamount of partial melt due to high temperature This region typically has crustal thickness of about 30
in the hotspot regions must have been the reason. Some km (Table 7). The fourth layer in the classicaldivision (a
studies report a value of about 10 km, which is higher Iayer with P-wave velocity 7.1-7.6 km/s) is almost always
than the averagevalue of 6-7 km. This can be explained missing in this region. Consequently, P-wave velocity
that hotspots were not exactly under the ridge axes but makes a sharp velocity jump at the Moho. Wide angle
were only in the neighborhood. reflection from Moho (PmP) is often strong becauseof it.
Many oceanicplateaus,suchas the Ontong-Javaplateau, Also, the Conrad discontinuity is often found in this
also have thick crusts due to a large amount of melt by region. However, most data are biased to European
mantle plumes at the time of its generation. In this case, continents, thus requiring some care in generalizing its
ridges may not have existed close by but the plume could features.
have had a large flux andmelt.
3. CONTINENTAL CRUSTS 3.4. Mountain Belts in the Cenozoic Era
The Alpine-Himalaya erogenic belts and the Rocky
3.1. Classical Division mountainsare the typical regionsin this category. Crustal
Various tectonic activities have produced a wide range thickness in this region varies between 40 and 70 km
of continental crust during its long history. Structure (Table 8). Crustal roots which compensatehigh mountains
within a continental crust is complex both in P-wave are found quite often. A thick upper crust which is
velocity variations and rock types. There are, however, detachedfrom below, due to low-viscosity lower crust, is
approximately four layers within the crust and often suggested in understanding the tectonics of this
identification is often done with P-wavevelocity. The first region.
layer consists of sediment, characterized by P-wave
velocity lower than 5.7 km/s. The second layer has P-
3.5. Island Arcs
wave velocity of 5.7-6.4 km/s, the majority of which is
consideredto be granite and low-grade gneisses.The third The data is almost entirely biased to observation from
layer has P-wave veIocity of 6.4-7.1 km/s and the fourth Japan. Crustal thickness is about 20-30 km, which is
layer has 7.1-7.6 km/s. There are many candidatesfor the slightly smaller than the value for the Paleozoic and
compositions of layers 3 and 4. The P-wave velocity of Mesozoic regions. The region is underlain by a low
7.6 km/s is typically the lowest end of P-wave velocity velocity mantle with Pn velocity of about 7.5-7.8 km/s
expected at the uppermost mantle (Pn velocity). Thus a (Table 9), which indicates a higher temperature under
layer with P-wave velocity of 7.6 km/s or higher is islandarcs. A recent tomographicstudy (e.g., [75]) clearly
consideredto be in the mantle. Crustal thicknessor depth depicts slow velocity anomaliesunder volcanic chain in
to Moho is 39 km on average,but it has some variations the crust, thus thereare somethree-dimensionalvariations
according to its regions. Conrad discontinuity, which is being elucidatedwithin the crust in recent studies.
often found under continents in the mid-crust (about 15
km depth), is found betweenthe first and the secondlayer 3.6. Hotspots
in someregions, but it is not universal. Afar is one of the few regions studiedso far and shows a
thin crustal thickness, 15-20 km (Table 9). This is
3.2. Shields and Platforms relatively thin for a continental crust, but it is about the
Shields and platforms have generally thick crusts, same with the crusts under hotspots in the oceanic
typically exceeding 40 km. There are some variations regions. Sinceit is at the edgeof the continentalboundary
among different regions (Table 6) and among different where the break-up of the two oceans(the Red Sea and
age provinces within a shield. They have relatively thick the Gulf of Aden) are occuring, it may be natural to have
lower crust, which often lack clear signals in seismic the oceanic structure. Yellowstone hotspot has a normal
reflection data (with occasional exceptions). Also the crustal thickness,but it is substantiallysmaller than Afar
lower crust seems to have smooth velocity transitions hotspot. It is underlainby a thermal anomaly(e.g. [25]).
218 CRUSTALSTRUCTUREOFEARTH

TABLE 6. Crustal Thickness in Shields and Platform

Shields and Platforms Thickness (km)
Baltic Shield 38,39,40,42 Hirschleher et al.[22]
45 Korhonen and Parkka [ 3 l]
41,45,47 Meissner [38]

North American Shield 41,45 Cohen and Meyer [lo]

50 Roller and Jackson [SS]
35,40,52 Steinhart and Meyer [67]
37,38,43,44 Berry and Fuchs[7]
42 Smith et al. [62]

Australian Shield 32,34,40,41 Hales and Rynn [2 I]

SO,55 Finlay son [ 171
38,44,,46 Mathur [3S]

Indian Shield 40 Hales and Ryml [2 l]

34,40,42 Kaila et al. [28]

Western Eurasia (except Baltic) 32 Alekseev et al. [l]

36,SO Jentsch [27]
39,46 Sollogub [64]
39,47 Kosminskaya and Pavlenkova[32]

TABLE 7. Paleozoic and Mesozoic areas

Paleozoic and Mesozoic areas Thickness (km)
Caledonian structure (Scotland and Norway)
28,32 Assumpcao and Mabform [4]
29,32,34 Bamford et al. [S]
28 Payo [44]
Spain 27 Dagniereo et al. [ 121
32 Banda et al. [63
28,29,32 Sapin and Him 1571
France 28 Ansorge et al. [3]
Germany 26,29 Grubbe [20]
23,24,25,20 Edel et al [16]
28 Deichmann and Ansorge [ 141
20,30 Angenheister and Poll1 [2]
30 Meissner at al [39]
 TANIMOTO 219

TABLE 8. CenozoicMountain Belts

CenozoicMountain Belts Thickness(km)
Alps 38,39 Will [72]
40,43,45,54 Gieseand Prodehl [181
Caucasus 42,43,44,55 Kondorskayaet al. [301
Himalaya 66
Mishra [411
60,64,70 Volvovsky et al. 1691
Rocky 47,51 Prodehland Pakiser[49]

3.7. Rifts known thin crust, a result of extensionaltectonics in this

Various kinds of rift areasshow somewhatthinner crust region.
of 20-38 km (Table 9). Recent three-dimensionalstudies For the United States, the map of Pn velocity has been
indicate existence of slow anomalies under some rifts, published(Figure 3)[8]. It is not as detailed as the crustal
such as East African rift and the Rio Grande rift, while thicknessmap becausethe work was done sometime ago,
lack of such an anomalywas confirmed under others such but the large scale features in the variations are reliable.
as the Rhine Graben (e.g.,[131). Fast Pn velocities are found in mid-continent where the
crusts are thick and slow velocities are found in the
3.8. Two Well-Studied Continents western United Stateswhere the crusts are relatively thin.
Detailed crustal thicknessvariationshavebeenpublished This of course appliesto a large scalefeature such as the
for Europe (Figure 1)[38] and for the United States Basin and Range and the Sierra Nevada mountains show
(Figure 2)[8]. Crustal thickness variation within Europe thick crusts due to isostaticcompensation.
shows thick crust under Scandinavia(the Baltic Shield),
thick crust under Alpine-Caucasuserogeniczone,average 4. SYNTHESIS
crustal thickness for Paleozoic and Mesozoic regions
(Spain, France and Germany) and relatively thin crust Synthesisof regional studiesto construct a global crustal
behind the subduction zone (West of Italy). Crustal thicnessvariation map hasbeen attemptedby Soller et al.
thicknessin the United Stateshas three major peaks;one [63]. Their map (Figure 4) hasbeenwidely usedby global
in the east in the Appalatian mountain region, one in the seismologists, because it has been the only one easily
mid-continent and also the one in the Sierra-Nevada accessible.This map, expandedin sphericalharmonicsup
region. There is also a hint of thick crust under the to degreeand order 20, shows the depth to Moho, whose
CanadianShield region, but this map shows only a small global averageis 24 km depth. The boundarybetweenthe
portion of it. The Basin and Rangeregion shows a well- white and dark regions correspondto this depth. Contours

Table 9: Stmdry Tectonically Active Regions

Region Thickness(km)
Japan(IslandArc) 24,33 ResearchGroup]541
30 Yamashina[73]
Afar(Hotspot) 14,15,22,23 Pilger and Rosler [4Sl
13,17,25 Ruegg [561
Baikal (Rift) 28 Puzyrevet al. [SO]
28 Puzyrevet al. [5 11
Red Sea(Rift) 32 Makris et al. [34]
220 CRUSTAL STRUCTURE OF EARTH

Fig. 1: Crustal thicknessvariations under Europe(after Meissner [38])

 TANIMOTO 221

4
900.

.A ,I,,., ,_,, _. _ STAL THICKNESS

’ (He, km)
300
1;

Kmobn
-
‘,‘I ‘, ;>\ kQ‘i --‘,
I / , \ I \ A h \
Fig. 2: Crustal thicknessvariationsunder the United States(after Braile et al. [8]
I + + $ \ .’ ‘0 ; \ \
---‘--- - -\. ..,
‘-,
L-c,. x \l”-

UPPER MANTLE SEISMIC

VELOClfY (Pn. kms)
A.

Fig. 3: Pn velocity variationsunder the United States (after Braile et al. [8])
 222 CRUSTALSTRUCTUREOFEARTH

60

-60

-90
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Longitude
Fig. 4: Global Moho depth variations. Contours are at 5 km interval. The boundary between dark (thicker)
regions and white regions is 24 km depth. Filled circles are locations of hotspots from the list of Morgan
[431.

are given every 5 km. The peak at Himalaya, for example, that have not been studied and the map contains some
corresponds to 65 km in depth. Some precaution in extrapolated results. Further work is clearly desired to
interpreting this map is required, since there are regions improve this situation.

REFERENCES
1. Alekseev, A. S., A. V. Belonosova,I. LISPB-V studies of crustal shear States and adjacent Canada, Mem.
A. Burmakov, G.V. Krasnopeterteva, waves, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Sot., Geol. Sot. Am., 172,655680, 1989.
N. N. Matveeva, N. I. Pavlenlcova, 54, 61-73, 1978. 9. Christensen, N. I., and M. H.
V. G. Romanov, and V. 2. Ryaboy, Bamford, D., K. Nunn, C. Prodehl, Salisbury, Structure and composition
Seismic studies of low-velocity and B. Jacob, LISPB-IV crustal of the lower oceanic crust, Rev.
layers and horizontal inhomo- structure of Northern Britain, Geo- Geophys., IS, 57-86, 1975.
geneities within the crust and upper phys. J. R. Astron. Sot., 54, 43-60, 10. Cohen, T., and R. Meyer, The Earth
mantle on the territory of the 1978. Beneath the Continents, vol. 10,
U.S.S.R., Tectonophysics, 20,47-56, Banda, E., E. Surinach, A. Aparicio, edited by J. Steinhart and T. Smith,
1973. J. Sierra, and E. Ruiz De La Parte, pp. 150-156, American Geophysical
2. Angenheister, G., and J. Pohl, in Crustal and upper mantle structure of Union, Washington D.C., 1966.
“Explosion Seismology in Central the central Iberian Meseta (Spain), 11. Cormier, M. H., R. S. Detrick, and
Europe”, edited by P. Giese, C. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Sot., 67,779- G. M. Purdy, Anomalously thin crust
Prodehl and A. Stein, pp. 290-302, 789,198l. in oceanic fracture zones: New
Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New Berry, M. J., and K. Fuchs, Crustal seismic constraints from the Kane
York, 1976. structure of the superior and Gren- fracture zone, J. Geophys. Res., 89,
3. Ansorge, J., D. Emter, K. Fuchs, J. ville Provences of the Northeastern 10,249-10,266, 1984.
Lauer, S. Mueller, and E. Peter- Canadian shield, Bull. Seism. Sot. 12. Daignieres, M., J. Gallert, E. Banda,
Schmitt, in “Graben Problems”, Am., 63,1393-1432, 1373. and A. Hirn, Implications of the
edited by H. Illies and S. Mueller, Braile, L. W., W. J. Hinze, R. R. B. seismic structure for the erogenic
pp. 190-197, Schweizerbart, Stutt- von Frese, and G. R. KelIer, Seismic evolution of the Pyrenean Range,
gart, 1970. properties of the crust and uppermost Earth Planet. Sci. L.ett.,.57, 88-100,
4. Assumpcao, M., and D. Bamford, mantle of the conterminous United 1982.
 TANIMOTO 223

13. Davis, P. M., S. Slack, H. A. R. S. White, and J. C. Sibuet, Crustal 320, 1979.
Dahlheim, W. V. Green, R. P. structure of the Goban Spur passive 33. Louden, K. E., R. S. White, C. G.
Meyer, U. Achaur, A. Glahu, and M. continental margin, North Atlantic - Potts, and D. W. Forsyth, Structure
Granet, Teleseismic tomography of Results of a detailed seismic re- and seismotectonics of the Verma
continental rift zones, in Seismic fraction survey, Geophys. J. Int., fracture zone, Atlantic 143,795-805,
Tomography: Theory and Practice, 1992, in press. 1986.
edited by H. M. Iyer, K. Hirahara, 24. Houts, R. E., Crustal structure of the 34. Makris, J., Z. Ben Abraham, A.
Chapman and Hall, 1993. North Atlantic on the basis of large Behle, A. Ginzberg, P. Giese, L.
14. Deichmann, N., and J. Ansorge, airgun-sonobuoy data, Geol. Sot. Am Steinmetz, R. B. Whitmarch, and S.
Evidence for lamination in the lower Bull., 91,406-413, 1980. Elefthesion, Seismic refraction pro-
Continental crust beneath the Black 25. Iyer. H. M., and P. B. Dawson, files between Cyprus and Israel and
Forest (Southwestern Germany), J. Imaging volcanoes using teleseismic their interpretation, Geophys. J. R.
Geophys., 52, 109-118, 1983. tomography, in Seismic Tomo- Astr. Sot., 75,575-591, 1983.
15. Detrick, R. S., M. H. Cormier, R. A. graphy: Theory and Practice, edited 35. Mathur, S. P., Crustal structure in
Prince, D. W. Forsyth, and E. L. by H. M. Iyer, K. Hirahara, Chapman Southwestern Australia from seismic
Ambos, Seismic constraints on the and Hall, 1993. and gravity data, Tectonophysics ,24,
crustal structure within the Verma 26. Jackson, H. R., I. Reid, and R. K. H. 151-182, 1974.
fracture zone, J. Geophys. Res., 87, Falconer, Crustal structure near the 36. McClain, J. S., On long-term
10,599-10,612, 1982. Arctic mid-ocean ridge, J. Geophys. thickening of the oceanic crust, Geo-
16. Edel, J., K. Fuchs, C. Gelbke, and C. Res., 87, 1773-1783, 1982. phys. Res. Len., 8, 1191-1194, 1981.
Prodehl, Deep structure of the 27. Jentsch, M., Reinterpretation of a 37. McClain, J. S., and C. A. Atallah,
Southern Rinegraben area from deep-seismic-sounding profile on the Thickening of the oceanic crust with
seismic refraction investigation, J. Ukrainian shield, J. Geophys, 45, age, Geology, 14,574-576, 1986.
Geophys., 41.333-356, 1975. 355-372, 1978-79. 38. Meissner, R. (Ed.), The Continental
17. Finlayson, D. M., Seismic crustal 28. Kaila, K. L., P. R. K. Murty, V. K. Crust, A Geophysical Approach,
structure of the Proterozoic North Rao, and G. E. Kharetchko, Crustal International Geophysics Series, vol.
Australian Craton between Tennant structure from deep seismic 34, Academic Press, 1986.
Creek and Mount Isa, J. Geophys. soundings along the Kayna II (Kelsi- 39. Meissner, R., H. Bartelsen, A.
Res., 87, 10569-10578, 1982. Loni) profile in the Deccan Trap Glocke, and W. Kaminski (Ed.),
18. Giese, P., and C. Prodehl, “Explosion area, India, Tectonophysics, 73,365 - “Explosion Seismology in Central
Seismology in Central Europe”, 384,198lb. Europe”, pp. 1245-251, Springer-
edited by P. Giese, C. Prodehl and A. 29. Keen, M. J., R. Courtney, J. Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1986.
Stein, pp. 347-376, Springer-Verlag, McClain, and G. M. Purdy, Ocean- 40. Minshull, T. A., R. S. White, J. C.
Berlin and New York, 1976. ridge crustal thickness correlated Mutter, P. Buhl, R. S. Detrick, C. A.
19. Ginzburg, A., R. B. Whitmarsh, D. with paleobathymetry, (abstract), Williams, and E. Morris, Crustal
G. Roberts, L. Montaderi, A. Camus, EOS Trans. AGU, 71,1573,1990. structure at the Blake Spur fracture
and F. Avedik, The deep seismic 30. Kondorskaya, N., L. Slavina, N. zone from expanding spread profiles,
structure of the northern continental Pivovarora, B. Baavadse, M. J.Geophys. Res., 96, 9955-9984,
margin of the Bay of Biscay, Ann Alexidse, S. Gotsadse, G. Marusidse, 1991.
Geophys., 3.499-510, 1985. D. Sicharaulidse, N. Pavienkova, E. 41. Mishra, D. C., Crustal structure and
20. Grubbe, K., edited by P. Giese, C. Khromatskaya, and G. Krasno- dynamics under Himalaya and Pamir
Prodehl and A. Stein, pp. 268-282, pertseva, Investigation of the Earth’s ranges, Earth Planet. Sci. kit., 57,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New crustal structure using earthquake 415-420, 1982.
York, 1970. and deep seismic sounding data 42. Mooney, W. D., and C. Prodehl,
21. Hales, A. L., and J. M. Rynn, A obtained for the Carapathians, Pure Crustal structure of the Rhenish
long-range, controlled source seismic Appl. Geophys., 119, 1157-1179, Massif and adjacent areas: a
profile in Northern Australia, 1981. reinterpretation of existing seismic-
Geophys. J. R. Astron. Sot., 5.5,633- 31. Korhonen, H., and M. T. Parkka, The refraction data, J. Geophys., 44, 573-
644, 1978. structure of the Baltic Shield Region 601, 1978.
22. Hirschleber, H., B. Lund, C. E. on the basis of DSS and earthquake 43. Morgan, W. J., Hotspot tracks and
Meissner, R. Vogel, and W. Wein- data, Pure Appl. Geophys., 119, the opening of the Atlantic pp. 443-
rebe, Seismic investigations along 1093-1099, 1981. 487, Wiley-Interscience, New York,
the Scandinavian “Blue Road” 32. Kosminskaya, I. P., and N. I. Paw- 1981.
traverse, J. Geophys., 41, 135-148, let&ova, Seismic models of inner 44. Payo, G., Crustal mantle velocities in
1975. parts of the Euro-Asian continent and the Iberian peninsula and tectonic
23. Horsefield, S. J., R. B. Whitmarsh, its margins, Tectonophysics, 59, 307. implications of the seismicity in this
224 CRUSTALSTRUCTUREOFEARTH

area, Geophys. .I. R. Astron. Sot. ,30, 55. Roller, J., and W. Jackson, In “The Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 20,
85-99, 1972. Earth Beneath the Continents”, vol. 329-364, 1992.
45. Pilger, A., and A. Rosler (Ed.), “Afar 10, edited by J. S. Steinhart and T. J. 66. Spudich, P., and J. Orcutt, A new
Depression of Ethiopia”, Schweizer- Smith, pp. 270-275, American Geo- look at the seismic velocity structure
hart, Stuttgart, 1975. physical Union, Washington, D.C., of the oceanic crust, Rev. Geophys.,
46. Pinheiro, L. M., R. B. Whitmarsh, 1966. 18, 627-645, 1980.
and P. R. Miles, The ocean continent 56. Ruegg, J. C., In “Afar Depression in 67. Steinhart, J., and R. Meyer, “Explo-
boundary off the western continental Ethiopia”, edited by A. Pilger and A. sion Studies of Continental Struct-
margin of Iberia, part II, Crustal Roesler, pp. 120-134, Schweizerbarf ure”, Publication 622, Carnegie
structure in the Tagus Abyssal Plain, Stuttgart, 1975b. Institute, Washington, DC., 1961.
109, 106-124, 1992. 57. Sapin, M., and A. Him, Results of 68. Tolstoy, M., A. J. Harding, and J.A.
47. Potts, C. G., A. J. Calvert, and R. S. explosion seismology in the Southern Grcutt, Crustal thickness on the Mid-
White, Crustal structure of Atlantic Rhone Valley, Ann. Geophys., 30, Atlantic Ridge: Bulls-eye gravity
fracture zones, III, The Tydeman 181-202, 1974. anomalies and focused accretion,
fracture zone, Geophys. J. R. Astron. 58. Sheehan, A. F., and S. C. Solomon, Science, 262,726-729, 1993.
Sot., 86,909-942, 1986b. Joint inversion of shear wave travel 69. Volvovsky, B. S., I. S. Volvovsky,
48. Potts, C. G., R. S. White, and K. E. time residuals and geoid and depth and N. S. Kombarov, Geodynamics
Louden, Crustal structure of the anomalies for long-wavelength varia- and seismicity of the Pamir-
Atlantic fracture zones, II, The Vema tions in upper mantle temperature Himalayas region, Phys. Earth
fracture zone and transverse ridge, J. and composition along the Mid- Planet. Inter., 31,307-312, 1983.
R. Astron. Sot., 86,491-513, 1986a. Atlantic Ridge, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 70. White, R. S., S. D. McKenzie, and R.
49. Prodehl, C., and L. C. Pakiser, 19981-20009, 1991. K. O’Nions, Oceanic Crustal thick-
Crustal structure of the Southern 59. Shor, G. G., Jr., H. W. Menard, and ness from Seismic Measurements
Rocky Mountains from seismic R. S. Raitt, Structure of the Pacific and Rare Earth Element Inversions,
measurements, Geo. Sot. Am. Bull. , Basin, in The Sea, vol. 4, edited by J. Geophys. Res., 97, 19683-19715,
91, 147-155, 1980. A. E. Maxwell, pp. 3-27, Wiley- 1992.
50. Puzyrev, N. N., M. Mandelbaum, S. Interscience, New York, 1970. 71. Whitmarsh, R. B., and A. J. Calve&
Krylov, B. Mishenkin, G. Krup- 60. Sinha, M. C., and K. E. Louden, The Crustal Structure of Atlantic Fracture
skaya, and G. Petrik, Deep seismic Oceanographer Fracture Zone, I, Zones, I. the Charlie Gibbs F.Z.,
investigations in the Baikal Rift Crustal Structure from seismic re- Geophys. J. R. Astr. Sot., 85, 107-
Zone, Tectonophysics, 20, 85-95, fraction studies, Geophys. J. R. 138,1986.
1973. Astron. Sot., 75, 713-736, 1983. 72. Will, M., in “Explosion Seismology
51. Puzyrev, N. N., M. Mandelbaum, S. 61. Sleep, N. H., Formation of oceanic in Central Europe”, edited by P.
Krylov, B. Mishenkin, and G. Pet& crust: Some thermal constraint, J. Giese, C. Prodehl and A. Stein, pp.
Deep structure of the Baikal and Geophys. Res., 80,4037-4042,1975. 168-177, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and
other Continental Rift Zones from 62. Smith, T., J. Steinhart, and L. New York, 1976.
seismic data, Tectonophysics, 45, 15 Aldrich, “The Earth Beneath the 73. Yamashina, K., Induced earthquakes
22, 1978. Continents”, in Geophysics Mono- in the Izu Peninsula by the Izu-
52. Raitt, R. W., The crustal rocks, in graph Series, Series 10, edited by J. Hanto-Oki earthquake of 1974,
The Sea, vol. 3, edited by M. N. Hill, S. Steinhart and T. J. Smith, pp. 181- Japan, Tectonophysics, 51, 139-154,
pp. 85-102, Wiley-Interscience, New 197, American Geophysical Union, 1978.
York, 1963. Washington, D.C., 1966. 74. Zhang, Y. S., and T. Tanimoto,
53. Recq, M., D. Brefort, J. Malod, and 63. Soller, D. R., R. D. Ray, and R. D. Global love wave phase velocity
J. L. Veinaute, The Kerguelan Isles Brown, A New Global Crustal variation and its significance to plate
(Souxheru Indian Ocean): New Thickness Map, in Tectonics, vol. 1, tectonics, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter,
results on deep structure from re- pp. 125-149, 1982. 66, 160-202, 1991.
fraction profiles, Tectonophysics, 64. Sollogub, V. B., In “The Earth’s 75. Zhao, D., A. Hasegawa and S.
182,227-248, 1990. Crust and Upper Mantle”, edited by Horiuchi, Tomographic Imaging of P
54. Research Group for Explosion P. J. Hart, pp. 189-194, Geophysics and S wave Velocity Structure
Seismology, “The Earth Beneath the Monograph Series 13, American beneath Northeastern Japan, J.
Continents”, vol. 10, pp. 334-348, Geophysical Union, Washington, Geophys. Res., 97, 19908-19928,
Geophysics Monograph, American D.C., 1969. 1992.
Geophysical Union, Washington, 65. Solomon, S. C., and D. R. Toomey,
DC., 1966. The structure of mid-ocean ridges,