Mathematics – Logic
Scientific paper
Apr 2003
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2003eaeja....12711o&link_type=abstract
EGS - AGU - EUG Joint Assembly, Abstracts from the meeting held in Nice, France, 6 - 11 April 2003, abstract #12711
Mathematics
Logic
Scientific paper
As yet, there is no generally accepted hypothesis that explains the Neogene uplift phase of the Scandinavian mountains. Gravity data provide means to study the mechanism of exhumation of these mountainous areas. Assuming that the region is close to isostatic equilibrium, these uplifted mountainous areas must be supported at depth by substantial volumes of low-density material within the crust or the mantle, or at the crust/mantle or lithosphere/asthenosphere interfaces. The former models represent a Pratt type isostacy model, while the two latter are consistent with an Airy-Heiskanen type model. The observed Bouguer gravity field has been compared with gravity responses from Airy roots at various depths below the Scandinavia mountains. The calculated gravity is most similar to the observed gravity field for low-density rocks at a shallow depth in northern Norway. The calculated RMS (root mean square) is lowest (25.0 mGal) for the 10 km Airy root model. This differs significantly from the southern mountains where the RMS is lowest (17.6 mGal) for the 45 km Airy root model. The latter must be partly supported by low-density rocks below the Moho. The Neogene uplift of southern Norway may therefore originate from low-density mantle rocks possibly linked to the Iceland hotspot. The Pratt type of isostasy is consequently deduced to be important for the isostatic compensation of the Scandinavian mountains. The results are in agreement with the conclusions of Riis (1996) and Lidmar-Bergström (1999) that the southern Norwegian plateau was partly uplifted in the Neogene, while the northern Scandinavian mountains originated mainly as a rift-shoulder in late Cretaceous to early Tertiary times. Hendriks &Andriessen (2002) reported that analyses of observed apatite fission track data along a profile from Lofoten into Sweden fits best with those expected from a retreating scarp model. References Hendriks, B.W.H. &Andriessen, P.A.M. 2002: Vertical movements on the Norwegian Atlantic margin. Abstract. European Geophysical Society XXVII General Assembly, Nice, 22-26 April. Lidmar-Bergström, K. 1999: Uplift histories revealed by landforms of the Scandinavian domes. In Smith, B.J., Whalley, W.B. &Warke, P.A. (eds.): Uplift, erosion and stability: Perspectives on long-term landscape development. Geological Society, London. Special Publications 162, 85-91. Riis, F. 1996: Quantification of Cenozoic vertical movements of Scandinavia by correlation of morphological surfaces with offshore data. Global and Planetary Change 12, 331-357.
Olesen Odleiv
Skilbrei J. R.
No associations
LandOfFree
Isostatic compensation of the Scandinavian mountains does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Isostatic compensation of the Scandinavian mountains, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Isostatic compensation of the Scandinavian mountains will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-845598