Improved geophysical image of the Carpathian-Pannonian Basin region
- 50 Downloads
Abstract
Our paper presents the general overview of the current geophysical results, which helps to improve the geophysical image and the lithospheric structure of the Carpathian-Pannonian Basin region. Two different geophysical methods have been applied for the study of the structure and composition of the lithosphere as well as for determination of the lithospheric thermal structure. Firstly, integrated 2D modeling of gravity, geoid, topography and surface heat flow data was performed. Secondly, based on the results of the CELEBRATION 2000 seismic experiment, a large-scale 3D lithospheric gravity model was developed. The resulting map of the lithospheric thickness shows important variations in lithospheric thickness across the chain as well as along strike of the Carpathian arc. The sediment stripped gravity map is characterized by minima in the Eastern Alps and Western Carpathians. The maxima are observed in the Pannonian Back-arc Basin system, Bohemian Massif, Fore-Sudetic Monocline, Bruno-Silesian unit (BSU), Lublin Trough and partly in the Holy Cross Mts. and Malopolska unit. The Western Carpathian gravity minimum is a result of the interference of two main gravity effects. The first one comes from the low-density sediments of the Outer Western Carpathians and Carpathian Foredeep. The second one is due to the thick low-density upper and middle crust, reaching up to 25 km. The sediment stripped anomaly in the Pannonian Back-arc Basin system is characterized by gravity high that is a result of the gravity effect of the anomalously shallow Moho. The most dominant feature of the complete stripped gravity map is the abrupt change of the positive anomalies along the Pieniny Klippen Belt zone. The complete residual anomaly of the Pannonian Back-arc Basin system and the Western Carpathian orogen is characterized by a long-wavelength gravity low. The lowest values are associated with the thick low-density upper and middle crust of the Inner Western Carpathians. The European Platform is characterized by significantly denser crust with respect to the less dense crust of the microplates ALCAPA and Tisza-Dacia. That is why we suggest that the European platform represents consolidated, while the Carpathian-Pannonian Basin region un-consolidated crust.
Keywords
Carpathian-Pannonian Basin region gravity lithosphere modeling strippingPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Ádám A 1978: Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 17, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ádám A 1996: Acta Geod. Geoph. Hung., 31, 191–216.Google Scholar
- Ádám A, Wesztergom V 2001: Acta Geol. Hung., 44, 167–192.Google Scholar
- Ádám A, Novák A, Szarka L 2005: Acta Geod. Geoph. Hung., 40, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Afonso J C 2006: Thermal, density, seismological, and rheological structure of the lithospheric-sublithospheric mantle from combined petrological-geophysical modeling: Insights on lithospheric stability and the initiation of subduction. PhD thesis, Carleton University, OttawaGoogle Scholar
- Afonso J C, Fernandez M, Ranalli G, Griffin W, Connolly J 2008: Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q05008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Alasonati Tašárová Z, Bielik M, Götze H-J 2008: Geologica Carpathica, 59, 199–209.Google Scholar
- Alasonati Tašárová Z, Afonso, J C, Bielik M, Götze H-J, Hók J 2009: The lithospheric structure of the Western Carpathian-Pannonian Basin region based on the CELEBRATION 2000 seismic experiment and gravity modeling. Tectonophysics, 475, 454–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Babuška V, Plomerová J, Pajdušák P 1988: In: 4th EGT Workshop: The Upper Mantle, Comm. of the Eur. Commun., Eur. Sci. Found., Utrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Balla Z 1994: Geologica Carpathica, 45, 271–281.Google Scholar
- Bielik M, Šefara J, Kováč M, Bezák V, Plašienka D 2004: Tectonophysics, 393, 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bielik M, Kloska K, Meurers B, Švancara J, Wybraniec S, CELEBRATION 2000 Potential Field Working Group 2006: Geologica Carpathica, 57, No. 3, 145–156.Google Scholar
- Čermák V, Král M, Kubík M, Šafanda J, Krešl J, Kuferová M, Jančí L, Lizoň J, Marušiak I, 1992: In: Geothermal Atlas of Europe, E Hurtig, V Čermák eds, 21–24.Google Scholar
- Christensen N I, Mooney W D 1995: J. Geophys. Res., 100(B7), 9761–9788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Csontos L 1995: Acta Vulcanol., 7, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Csontos L, Nagymarosy A, Horváth F, Kováč M 1992: Tectonophysics, 208, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dérerová J, Zeyen H, Bielik M, Salman K 2006: Tectonics, 25, (TC3009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gesch D B, Verdin K L, Greenlee S K 1999: Eos Trans. AGU, 80, 69–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gordienko V V, Zavgorodnyaya O V 1996: Acta Geophys. Pol., 44, 173–180.Google Scholar
- Götze H-J, Lahmeyer B 1988: Geophysics, Vol. 53, No. 8, 1096–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grad M, Guterch A, Keller G R, Janik T, Hegedüs E, Vozár J, Slaczka A, Tiira T, Yliniemi J 2006: J. Geophys. Res., 111, B03301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Haas J ed. 2001: Geology of Hungary. Eötvös University Press, BudapestGoogle Scholar
- Hók J, Bielik M, Kováč P, Šujan M 2000: Mineralia Slovaca (in Slovakian), 32,5, 459–470.Google Scholar
- Horváth F 1993: Tectonophysics, 226, 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Horváth F, Bada G, Szafian P, Tari G, Ádám A, Cloetingh S 2006: European Lithosphere Dinamics. In: G D Gee, R A Stephenson eds, Geological Society London, Memoirs 32, 191–206.Google Scholar
- Hrubcová P, Šroda P, Špičák A, Guterch A, Grad M, Keller G R, Brückl E, Thybo H 2005: J. Geophys. Res., 110, B11305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Janik T, Grad M, Guterch A, Dadlez R, Yliniemi J, Tiira T, Keller G R, Gaczynski E, CELEBRATION 2000 Working Group 2005: Tectonophysics, 411, 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kázmér M, Kovács S 1985: Acta Geol. Hung., 28(1–2), 71–84.Google Scholar
- Konečný V, Kováč M, Lexa J, Šefara J 2002: Neogene evolution of the Carpatho-Pannonian region: an interplay of subduction and back-arc diapiric uprise in the mantle. EGU Stephan Mueller Special Publication Series 1, 165–194.Google Scholar
- Kováč M 2000: Geodynamic, palaeographic and structural evolution of the Carpathian-Pannonian region in Miocene (in Slovakian). VEDA, Bratislava, Slovakia, 5–202.Google Scholar
- Král M 1995: In: Atlas of geothermal energy of Slovakia. O Franko, A Remšík, M Fendek eds, GéDŠ, Bratislava, SlovakiaGoogle Scholar
- Labák P, Brouček I 1996: Catalogue of macroseismically observed earthquakes on the territory of Slovakia (Version 1996). Manuscript, Geophys. Inst. Slov. Acad. Sci., BratislavaGoogle Scholar
- Lemoine F G, et al. 1998: The development of the Joint NASA GSFC and NIMA geopotential model EGM96. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.Google Scholar
- Lenkey L 1999: Geothermics of the Pannonian Basin and its bearing on the tectonics of basin evolution. PhD thesis, Free University, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Lexa J, Konečný V, Kalinčiak M, Hojstričová V 1993: In: Konf., Symp., Sem., GéDŠ, Bratislava, 57–69.Google Scholar
- Lillie R J, Bielik M, Babuška V, Plomerová J 1994: Tectonophyics, 231, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Majorowicz J A 2004: Geol. Quaternally, 48, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Malinowski M, Zelazniewicz A, Grad M, Guterch A, Janik T 2005: Tectonophysics, 401, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pollack H N, Hurter S J, Johnson J R 1993: Rev. Geophys., 31, 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Posgay K 1975: Geophysical Transactions, 23, 13–18.Google Scholar
- Ratschbacher L, Merle O, Davy P, Cobbold P 1991a: Tectonics, 10, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ratschbacher L, Frisch W, Linzer H G, Merle O 1991b: Tectonics, 10, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sandwell D T, Smith W H F 1997: J. Geophys. Res., 102,10, 039–10,054.Google Scholar
- áSchmidt S, Götze H-J 1999: Phys. Chem. Earth, (A) 24(3), 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Šefara J, Bielik M, Konečný P, Bezák V, Hurai V 1996: Geol. Carpathica, 47, 339–347.Google Scholar
- Semenov V Yu, Pek J, Ádám A, Józwiak W, Ladanyvskyy B, Logvinov I M, Pushkarev P, Vozár I 2008: Acta Geophysica, 56, 957–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sobolev S V, Babeyko A Y 1994: Surveys Geophys., 15(5), 515–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Środa P, Czuba W, Grad M, Guterch A, Tokarski A K, Janik T, Rauch M, Keller G R, Hegedüs E, Vozár J, Celebration 2000 Working Group 2006: Geoph. J. Int., 167, 737–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Szabó C, Falus G, Zajacz Z, Kovács I, Bali E 2004: Tectonophysics, 393, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tomek and PANCARDI Colleagues 1996: In: Origin and Evolution of Continents. D G Gee, H J Zeyen eds, EUROPROBE Secr., Uppsala, 15–23.Google Scholar
- Wortel M J R, Spakman W 2000: Science, 290, 1910–1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zeyen H, Fernàndez M 1994: J. Geophys. Res., 99, 18089–18102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zeyen H, Dérerová J, Bielik M 2002: Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 134, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar