In this study we combine seismological and petrological models with satellite gravity gradient data to obtain the thermal and compositional structure of the Antarctic lithosphere. Our results indicate that Antarctica is largely in isostatic equilibrium, although notable anomalies exist. A new Antarctic Moho depth map is derived that fits the satellite gravity gradient anomaly field and is in good agreement with independent seismic estimates. It exhibits detailed crustal thickness variations also in areas of East Antarctica that are poorly explored due to sparse seismic station coverage. The thickness of the lithosphere in our model is in general agreement with seismological estimates, confirming the marked contrast between West Antarctica (<100 km) and East Antarctica (up to 260 km). Finally, we assess the implications of the temperature distribution in our model for mantle viscosities and glacial isostatic adjustment. The upper mantle temperatures we model are lower than obtained from previous seismic velocity studies. This results in higher estimated viscosities underneath West Antarctica. When combined with present-day uplift rates from GPS, a bulk dry upper mantle rheology appears permissible.

@en

In the ESA Support to Science Element GOCE+Antarctica, we study the influence of the lithospheric structure on estimates of GIA. From recent geophysical, especially seismological, studies new insights on the deep structure of the Antarctic continents are available. However, the seismological models differ in resolution and do not provide a consistent image of the lithosphere. This is critical in analysing the feedback between the lithosphere and glacial loading or unloading. To reduce such ambiguities, we combine the latest seismological models with gravity gradient data derived from the GOCE satellite mission. The gradients are in particular sensitive to the geometry and density variations of the main lithospheric layers, i.e. ice and sediment thickness, the Moho depth and the temperature and composition of the upper mantle. Initial results indicate that differences exist in the mode of compensation for West and East Antarctica related to different mantle properties. The impact of an improved lithospheric model on GIA modelling is estimated by testing the sensitivity to the new temperature and density distribution and by comparing 1D and 3D viscosity models, especially in areas of low viscosity as in the Amundsen Sea sector. @en

Lithospheric density structure can be constructed from seismic tomography, gravity modelling, or using both data sets. The different approaches have their own uncertainties and limitations. This study aims to characterize and quantify some of the uncertainties in gravity modelling of lithosphere densities. To evaluate the gravity modelling we compare gravity-based and seismic velocity-based approaches to estimating lithosphere densities. In this study, we use a crustal model together with lithospheric isostasy and gravity field observations to estimate lithosphere densities. To quantify the effect of uncertainty in the crustal model, three models are implemented in this study: CRUST1.0, EuCrust-07 and a high-resolution P-wave velocity model of the British Isles and surrounding areas. Different P-wave velocity-to-density conversions are used to study the uncertainty in these conversion methods. The crustal density models are forward modelled into gravity field quantities using a method that is able to produce spherical harmonic coefficients. Deep mantle signal is assumed to be removed by removing spherical harmonic coefficients of degree 0–10 in the observed gravity field. The uncertainty in the resulting lithosphere densities due to the different crustal models is ±110 kg m−3, which is the largest uncertainty in gravity modelling. Other sources of uncertainty, such as the VP to density conversion (±10 kg m−3), long-wavelength truncation (±5 kg m−3), choice of reference model (<±20 kg m−3) and Lithosphere Asthenosphere Boundary uncertainty (±30 kg m−3), proved to be of lesser importance. The resulting lithosphere density solutions are compared to density models based on a shear wave velocity model. The comparison shows that the gravity-based models have an increased lateral resolution compared to the tomographic solutions. However, the density anomalies of the gravity-based models are three times higher. This is mainly due to the high resolution in the gravity field. To account for this, the gravity-based density models are filtered with a spatial Gaussian filter with 200 km half-width, which results in similar density estimates (±35 kg m−3) with the tomographic approach. Lastly, the gravity-based density is used to estimate laterally varying conversion factors, which correlate with major tectonic regions. The independent gravity-based solutions could help in identifying different compositional domains in the lithosphere, when compared to the tomographic solutions.@en

The mass sources that are responsible for the longwavelength gravity field of the Earth are not yet fully understood. The biggest candidate to describe these anomalies is mantle convection, yet models that can explain the mantle convection and the gravity field are not available. Another candidate is the core-mantle boundary with a density contrast of 4500 kg/m3 between the ferrous core and the silicate mantle. Due to the high density contrast variations in the core-mantle boundary can have a great impact on the gravity field. Also, density anomalies above the core-mantle boundary are large enough to be seen in the gravity field. The geometry of these anomalies amount to hundreds of km’s with density contrast up to 100 kg/m3. Sensitivity tests using similar dimensions and density contrasts show that gravity anomalies of 10-100 mGal can be computed, which is in the same as the longwavelength part of the gravity field. We argue that the gravity signal from structures at the deepest part of the lower mantle should be part of any global analysis. During the 3D Earth project, we will use seismic models of the core-mantle region to simulate more realistic geometries and density anomalies to study their effect on the global gravity field. This presentation is part of the ESA Support To Science Element - 3D Earth – which is presented by Jörg Ebbing @en