Can a narrow, melt-rich, low-velocity zone of mantle upwelling be hidden beneath the East Pacific Rise? Limits from waveform modeling and the MELT Experiment

Citation
Sh. Hung et al., Can a narrow, melt-rich, low-velocity zone of mantle upwelling be hidden beneath the East Pacific Rise? Limits from waveform modeling and the MELT Experiment, J GEO R-SOL, 105(B4), 2000, pp. 7945-7960
Citations number
29
Categorie Soggetti
Earth Sciences
Journal title
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
ISSN journal
21699313 → ACNP
Volume
105
Issue
B4
Year of publication
2000
Pages
7945 - 7960
Database
ISI
SICI code
0148-0227(20000410)105:B4<7945:CANMLZ>2.0.ZU;2-2
Abstract
One of the goals of the Mantle Electromagnetic and Tomography (MELT) Experi ment is to determine whether a narrow zone of enhanced melt concentration c onsistent; with focused upwelling exists beneath the East Pacific Rise. Usi ng SKKS, sScS, and S phases from two intermediate-depth earthquakes in the Banda Sea and the Tonga-Kermadec region, we demonstrate that there is no po sitive evidence for the existence of such a zone and that travel time delay s for shear waves traveling through it must be <0.5 s. To test whether diff raction and wave front healing could obscure evidence for its existence, we employ a pseudospectral method to simulate finite frequency teleseismic wa ves propagating through narrow, vertical low-velocity zones. A rich set of reflected, diffracted, and guided waves is generated when S waves encounter such a low-velocity channel, particularly at high frequencies. Limiting th e frequency content to the lower-frequency bands with good signal-to-noise ratios in the observed phases obscures these waveform complexities. The tra vel time anomaly is broadened and reduced in amplitude but remains detectab le unless the low-velocity zone is very narrow or has only modest velocity contrast. The lower limit of detectability corresponds to a 5-km-wide chann el of partial melt extending from 10 to 60 km below the seafloor at the rid ge axis with a shear velocity contrast of 0.5 km/s. Although these limits a re severe, 3 to 4% melt retention might cause a large enough viscosity redu ction and anomalous buoyancy to dynamically focus upwelling into a 5-km-wid e channel that falls within the limits. Strongly focused, dynamic upwelling beneath the ridge, however, is probably not compatible with the existence of a broad region of very low shear velocities in the surrounding mantle.