NSFWkshp9 Park et al KamchatkaNeoTect

Slide1: 

Many Collaborators: Vadim Levin (Rutgers) Nikolai Shapiro (Univ Colorado) Michael Ritzwoller (Univ Colorado) Evgenii Gordeev (EMSD, Petropavlovsk) Jonathan Lees (Univ N. Carolina) Valerie Peyton (USGS, Albuquerque) Mark Brandon (Yale) Alexei Ozerov (IOV, Petropavlovsk)

Slide9: 

Thing to remember: Role of slab detachment in the terrane accretion process Next: why are there two volcanic arcs in Kamchatka??

Slide14: 

So there are testable hypotheses for the late Cenozoic plate tectonic history of Kamchatka: Former ideas e.g. step-back of subduction Triple-junction migration hypothesis Data needed -- volcanic history of Kamchatka volcanics, focussed on igneous rocks since 30 Ma Subduction step-back would imply a synchronous change in volcanism in Sredinny range. Triple junction migration predict an age progression as the coastal volcanoes strart, and Sredinny volcanoes lose steam

Seismological evidence for mantle strain around KamchatkaMethod 1: SKS splitting: 

Seismological evidence for mantle strain around Kamchatka Method 1: SKS splitting

SKS splitting results: 

SKS splitting results

Interpretation, together with SKS results: 

Interpretation, together with SKS results Extra evidence for a change in fabric north of PPK (see clear qLove from the north) Weak (if any) anisotropic gradient seaward of the trench (no qLove from NE and SW)

Summary: mantle flow beneath the subducting slab (SKS and qLove): 

Summary: mantle flow beneath the subducting slab (SKS and qLove) SKS and qLove data constrain deeper levels of fabric, present evidence for sub-slab trench-parallel flow of mantle material, and for a rapid reorientation of this flow at the northern edge of the Pacific plate.

Method 3: local S wave splitting: 

Method 3: local S wave splitting

Local S waves : 

Local S waves Shear waves from events within the slab recorded by a variety of seismic stations in Kamchatka between 1996 and 2001. Events selected on the basis of the catalog compiled by the KEMSD. Selection criteria: relation of depth and distance from the station - incoming ray steeper then 35° from vertical; the quality of the hypocentral location - formal errors < 10 km for both depth and horizontal position. Final selection via visual inspection. Our final dataset includes ~700 S phases.

Result of S wave splitting measurements: 

Result of S wave splitting measurements Observations are plotted at horizontal positions of mid-points along rays connecting sources and receivers, and color-coded by depth: <30 km; 30 - 100 km; > 100 km.

Result of S wave splitting measurements – averaged: 

Result of S wave splitting measurements – averaged Rapid reorientation of fast direction with distance from volcanic front; Fast directions near the northern edge of the Pacific slab trend neither towards the trench nor parallel to it, rather – towards the “open” side edge of the subduction zone.

Local S and SKS waves have different splitting patterns: 

Local S and SKS waves have different splitting patterns

Method 4: Receiver Functions: 

Method 4: Receiver Functions

Receiver functions example: Esso: 

Receiver functions example: Esso Need 2 anisotropic layers to fit T component data blue, synthetic red

Results: Map of fast anisotropic direction for the uppermost mantle: 

Results: Map of fast anisotropic direction for the uppermost mantle Evidence of anisotropy at crust-mantle transition throughout the peninsula; Evidence for multiple layers of anisotropy Caveat: use of “fast” axes rather then “slow” in forward modeling is a choice not constrained by observations.

Comparison of RF, local S and SKS results: 

Comparison of RF, local S and SKS results

Summary: mantle wedge above the subducting slab (local S and RF): 

Summary: mantle wedge above the subducting slab (local S and RF) Highly complex laterally Some regions display corner flow-like regime (in terms of anisotropic indicators) Others do not, especially the northern edge of the Pacific slab

Final word: 

Final word By using multiple lines of evidence we stand a good chance of constraining anisotropic properties at depth. We can still be wrong, of course…..

Evening rush hour, Central Kamchatka: 

Evening rush hour, Central Kamchatka

Method 2: quasi-Love waves: 

Method 2: quasi-Love waves

Observations and non-observations of quasi-Love waves : 

Observations and non-observations of quasi-Love waves Quasi-Love wave is found conclusively only for a northern approach to the GSN station PET (path 3). Modest time separation between the parent Love wave and the daughter qLove wave imply the region of conversion within 1000 km from the station. PET

Examples of observed S waves: 

Examples of observed S waves Range of shear-wave splitting delays from 0 to 1 s was found in data from both broad-band and short-period stations “NULLS”