Open AccessNature of the seismic lithosphere‐asthenosphere boundary within normal oceanic mantle from high‐resolution receiver functions
Author(s) -
Olugboji Tolulope Morayo,
Park Jeffrey,
Karato Shunichiro,
Shinohara Masanao
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.928
H-Index - 136
ISSN - 1525-2027
DOI - 10.1002/2015gc006214
Subject(s) - geology , receiver function , oceanic crust , asthenosphere , lithosphere , seafloor spreading , crust , mantle (geology) , geophysics , low velocity zone , seismology , oceanic basin , convergent boundary , anisotropy , petrology , subduction , tectonics , physics , quantum mechanics
Receiver function observations in the oceanic upper mantle can test causal mechanisms for the depth, sharpness, and age dependence of the seismic wave speed decrease thought to mark the lithosphere‐asthenosphere boundary (LAB). We use a combination of frequency‐dependent harmonic decomposition of receiver functions and synthetic forward modeling to provide new seismological constraints on this “seismic LAB” from 17 ocean‐bottom stations and 2 borehole stations in the Philippine Sea and northwest Pacific Ocean. Underneath young oceanic crust, the seismic LAB depth follows the ∼1300 K isotherm but a lower isotherm (∼1000 K) is suggested in the Daito ridge, the Izu‐Bonin‐Mariana trench, and the northern Shikoku basin. Underneath old oceanic crust, the seismic LAB lies at a constant depth ∼70 km. The age dependence of the seismic LAB depth is consistent with either a transition to partial‐melt conditions or a subsolidus rheological change as the causative factor. The age dependence of interface sharpness provides critical information to distinguish these two models. Underneath young oceanic crust, the velocity gradient is gradational, while for old oceanic crust, a sharper velocity gradient is suggested by the receiver functions. This behavior is consistent with the prediction of the subsolidus model invoking anelastic relaxation mediated by temperature and water content, but is not readily explained by a partial‐melt model. The Ps conversions display negligible two‐lobed or four‐lobed back azimuth dependence in harmonic stacks, suggesting that a sharp change in azimuthal anisotropy with depth is not responsible for them. We conclude that these ocean‐bottom observations indicate a subsolidus elastically accommodated grain‐boundary sliding (EAGBS) model for the seismic LAB. Because EAGBS does not facilitate long‐term ductile deformation, the seismic LAB may not coincide with the conventional transition from lithosphere to asthenosphere corresponding to a change in the long‐term rheological properties.