Advertisement

Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 284–298 | Cite as

Improved geophysical image of the Carpathian-Pannonian Basin region

  • M. BielikEmail author
  • Z. Alasonati-Tašárová
  • H. Zeyen
  • J. Dérerová
  • J. C. Afonso
  • K. Csicsay
Article

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 stripping 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ádám A 1978: Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 17, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ádám A 1996: Acta Geod. Geoph. Hung., 31, 191–216.Google Scholar
  3. Ádám A, Wesztergom V 2001: Acta Geol. Hung., 44, 167–192.Google Scholar
  4. Ádám A, Novák A, Szarka L 2005: Acta Geod. Geoph. Hung., 40, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Afonso J C, Fernandez M, Ranalli G, Griffin W, Connolly J 2008: Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q05008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alasonati Tašárová Z, Bielik M, Götze H-J 2008: Geologica Carpathica, 59, 199–209.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Balla Z 1994: Geologica Carpathica, 45, 271–281.Google Scholar
  11. Bielik M, Šefara J, Kováč M, Bezák V, Plašienka D 2004: Tectonophysics, 393, 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Christensen N I, Mooney W D 1995: J. Geophys. Res., 100(B7), 9761–9788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Csontos L 1995: Acta Vulcanol., 7, 1–13.Google Scholar
  16. Csontos L, Nagymarosy A, Horváth F, Kováč M 1992: Tectonophysics, 208, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dérerová J, Zeyen H, Bielik M, Salman K 2006: Tectonics, 25, (TC3009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gesch D B, Verdin K L, Greenlee S K 1999: Eos Trans. AGU, 80, 69–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordienko V V, Zavgorodnyaya O V 1996: Acta Geophys. Pol., 44, 173–180.Google Scholar
  20. Götze H-J, Lahmeyer B 1988: Geophysics, Vol. 53, No. 8, 1096–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Haas J ed. 2001: Geology of Hungary. Eötvös University Press, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  23. Hók J, Bielik M, Kováč P, Šujan M 2000: Mineralia Slovaca (in Slovakian), 32,5, 459–470.Google Scholar
  24. Horváth F 1993: Tectonophysics, 226, 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Kázmér M, Kovács S 1985: Acta Geol. Hung., 28(1–2), 71–84.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Kováč M 2000: Geodynamic, palaeographic and structural evolution of the Carpathian-Pannonian region in Miocene (in Slovakian). VEDA, Bratislava, Slovakia, 5–202.Google Scholar
  31. Král M 1995: In: Atlas of geothermal energy of Slovakia. O Franko, A Remšík, M Fendek eds, GéDŠ, Bratislava, SlovakiaGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Lenkey L 1999: Geothermics of the Pannonian Basin and its bearing on the tectonics of basin evolution. PhD thesis, Free University, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  35. Lexa J, Konečný V, Kalinčiak M, Hojstričová V 1993: In: Konf., Symp., Sem., GéDŠ, Bratislava, 57–69.Google Scholar
  36. Lillie R J, Bielik M, Babuška V, Plomerová J 1994: Tectonophyics, 231, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Majorowicz J A 2004: Geol. Quaternally, 48, 1–13.Google Scholar
  38. Malinowski M, Zelazniewicz A, Grad M, Guterch A, Janik T 2005: Tectonophysics, 401, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pollack H N, Hurter S J, Johnson J R 1993: Rev. Geophys., 31, 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Posgay K 1975: Geophysical Transactions, 23, 13–18.Google Scholar
  41. Ratschbacher L, Merle O, Davy P, Cobbold P 1991a: Tectonics, 10, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ratschbacher L, Frisch W, Linzer H G, Merle O 1991b: Tectonics, 10, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sandwell D T, Smith W H F 1997: J. Geophys. Res., 102,10, 039–10,054.Google Scholar
  44. áSchmidt S, Götze H-J 1999: Phys. Chem. Earth, (A) 24(3), 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Šefara J, Bielik M, Konečný P, Bezák V, Hurai V 1996: Geol. Carpathica, 47, 339–347.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Sobolev S V, Babeyko A Y 1994: Surveys Geophys., 15(5), 515–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Szabó C, Falus G, Zajacz Z, Kovács I, Bali E 2004: Tectonophysics, 393, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Wortel M J R, Spakman W 2000: Science, 290, 1910–1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zeyen H, Fernàndez M 1994: J. Geophys. Res., 99, 18089–18102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zeyen H, Dérerová J, Bielik M 2002: Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 134, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Bielik
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Z. Alasonati-Tašárová
    • 3
  • H. Zeyen
    • 4
  • J. Dérerová
    • 2
  • J. C. Afonso
    • 5
  • K. Csicsay
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Natural Sciences BratislavaComenius UniversitySlovakia
  2. 2.Geophysical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences BratislavaSlovakia
  3. 3.Institut für GeowissenschaftenChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielGermany
  4. 4.Département des Sciences de la TerreUniversité de Paris-SudOrsay CedexFrance
  5. 5.GEMOC ARC Key Centre, Department of Earth SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations