
Investigating Segmentation in Cascadia: Anisotropic Crustal Structure and Mantle Wedge Serpentinization from Receiver Functions
Author(s) -
Krueger Hannah E.,
Wirth Erin A.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.928
H-Index - 136
ISSN - 1525-2027
DOI - 10.1002/2017gc007064
Subject(s) - geology , subduction , seismic anisotropy , seismology , crust , anisotropy , mantle (geology) , shear wave splitting , receiver function , mantle wedge , geophysics , terrane , petrology , lithosphere , tectonics , physics , quantum mechanics
The Cascadia subduction zone exhibits along‐strike segmentation in structure, processes, and seismogenic behavior. While characterization of seismic anisotropy can constrain deformation processes at depth, the character of seismic anisotropy in Cascadia remains poorly understood. This is primarily due to a lack of seismicity in the subducting Juan de Fuca slab, which limits shear wave splitting and other seismological analyses that interrogate the fine‐scale anisotropic structure of the crust and mantle wedge. We investigate lower crustal anisotropy and mantle wedge structure by computing P‐to‐S receiver functions at 12 broadband seismic stations along the Cascadia subduction zone. We observe P‐to‐SV converted energy consistent with previously estimated Moho depths. Several stations exhibit evidence of an “inverted Moho” (i.e., a downward velocity decrease across the crust‐mantle boundary), indicative of a serpentinized mantle wedge. Stations with an underlying hydrated mantle wedge appear prevalent from northern Washington to central Oregon, but sparse in southern Oregon and northern California. Transverse component receiver functions are complex, suggesting anisotropic and/or dipping crustal structure. To constrain the orientation of crustal anisotropy we compute synthetic receiver functions using manual forward modeling. We determine that the lower crust shows variable orientations of anisotropy along‐strike, with highly complex anisotropy in northern Cascadia, and generally NW‐SE and NE‐SW orientations of slow‐axis anisotropy in central and southern Cascadia, respectively. The orientations of anisotropy from this work generally agree with those inferred from shear wave splitting of tremor studies at similar locations, lending confidence to this relatively new method of inferring seismic anisotropy from slow earthquakes.