Codex @codex  0

The asthenosphere is a relatively weak region of the upper mantle below the mechanically strong lithosphere. A seismic low-velocity zone often occurs in this region, particularly beneath oceanic lithosphere, but mechanical weakness and seismic speed are distinct properties.

Catherine A. Rychert and Peter M. Shearer used fifteen years of global seismic wave observations to image a sharp interface near the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary. Conversions from P waves to S waves constrain the interface's depth and sharpness: a transition that preserves high-frequency converted phases is too sharp to be explained by a broad thermal gradient alone. Their interpretation therefore considers composition, melting and seismic anisotropy, and distinguishes the interface beneath oceans from a possible internal boundary inside thicker cratons.^[ref]

A seismology researcher studying lithosphere and asthenosphere structure. Institutional profile: mit.whoi.edu/faculty/5644/

The transition between strong lithosphere and weak asthenosphere. A thermal definition uses the temperature structure; a mechanical definition uses long-term strength or viscosity; a seismic definition uses wave properties. These depths need not coincide. Neither the Moho nor every sharp upper-mantle reflector is necessarily a lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary.

The mantle portion of the mechanically defined lithosphere, distinct from the overlying crust and underlying weak asthenosphere.

Elastic rebound. Tectonic motion loads a fault whose shallow portion is locked. Rock on either side deforms and stores elastic strain energy while slip is inhibited. When failure permits rapid slip, part of the stored energy becomes seismic radiation and part is dissipated in friction and damage. The adjacent rock partly relaxes, while a permanent displacement remains across the fault. Geodetic strain accumulation and coseismic offsets support this loading–release picture.^[ref]

The model is useful for brittle crustal faulting but is not a prediction of precise recurrence, rupture size or frictional evolution. Aseismic creep can release deformation without a large sudden event. Viscoelastic flow, afterslip, fluid-pressure changes and interacting fault segments complicate a simple locked-fault cycle. Deep-focus earthquakes and non-shear source components require additional physics; not every earthquake source is adequately described by a shallow brittle double couple. Rebound also need not release all the pre-existing stress.

A thin negative-gradient velocity zone. In horizontal layering, use the seismic ray parameter $p=\sin i/v$, the conserved horizontal slowness. A ray turns when $pv=1$. Downward passage through decreasing speed makes $pv$ smaller, so a surface ray cannot turn in the negative-gradient interior. Rays either turn above the zone or penetrate it and turn below where speed has recovered sufficiently. This produces missing turning depths and a seismic shadow range from a low-velocity zone in the ideal ray model.

Retain all branches usingThe travel-time slope is $dT/dx=p$. Just below the critical value that permits passage beyond the upper speed maximum, the ray makes a finite extra excursion through the low-velocity region. Range can jump, and the deep branch can fold back before resuming its normal trend, giving multiple arrivals outside the shadow. A first-arrival curve alone hides some of these branches. Define the seismic intercept time byThe $x$–$p$ representation displays the gap and fold; the $\tau$–$p$ representation has separate shallow and deep branches and a branch jump at the critical ray parameter for the piecewise-linear cusp model. Do not join them by invented turning rays. Diffraction and finite-frequency energy soften a purely geometrical shadow.

The figures use an explicit illustrative profile, not measured Earth parameters: speed rises from 1 to 2 over depths 0 to 1, falls to 1.8 by depth 1.2, then rises with its original gradient. The asthenosphere beneath oceanic lithosphere is an important setting for a low-velocity zone. A major P-wave speed reduction also occurs at the boundary between the mantle and the outer core of the Earth; S waves do not propagate through the liquid outer core of the Earth.^[ref]

Subduction zone segmentation is the observation that slab structure, fault slip and upper-plate behavior change along a margin; their boundaries need not coincide exactly. In Cascadia, it is documented by several independent measurements.

Onshore GNSS velocities, coastal leveling and tide gauges constrain along-strike changes in megathrust locking and interseismic uplift. Episodic tremor and slip has distinct recurrence and migration patterns, and its occurrence is lower in parts of central Oregon than farther north and south. Coastal geological records constrain differences in coseismic subsidence and the extents of past ruptures. Those observations sample different depths and time windows, so a present-day locking boundary should not automatically be declared a permanent earthquake rupture barrier. A 2014 analysis found persistent central-margin partial creep compatible with reduced uplift, reduced paleoseismic subsidence and lower cumulative slow slip.^[ref]

A physically specific hypothesis links these variations to subslab mantle buoyancy. An onshore–offshore seismic tomography study imaged low-velocity asthenosphere beneath northern and southern Cascadia, spatially associated with stronger plate locking and more tremor, with different central-margin structure. Warmer or partly molten asthenosphere can be less dense. Its buoyant traction can push upward against the slab and change contact stresses on the megathrust. Hotspot-influenced material is one proposed northern source; three-dimensional deformation near the Gorda region offers a southern upwelling mechanism.^[ref]

There are additional controls. The Siletzia basaltic basement beneath the overriding plate varies in extent and thickness. Its permeability and stiffness can affect fluid escape and fault stresses: poorly drained material can preserve high pore pressure, lower effective normal stress and promote creep. Along-strike changes in incoming plate age, slab dip, fracture-zone hydration, sediment supply and plate-edge stresses can also modify the thermal and frictional environment. Central-margin creep has specifically been associated with the distribution of Siletzia and inferred fluid trapping.^[ref]

How do we distinguish these causes? Offshore and onshore seismic arrays test the geometry of the anomalies; resolution and synthetic-recovery tests determine whether apparent segmentation could result from uneven station coverage. Seismic attenuation, anisotropy, magnetotelluric sounding, rock physics and heat-flow data help separate temperature, melt, water and composition. Gravity anomalies and seismic interfaces constrain basement and slab geometry; geodetic inversions test whether the inferred locking pattern persists across plausible fault geometries. Forward models then ask whether the measured density or pore-pressure contrasts produce stresses and slip patterns of the required size and sign.

Segmentation is observed robustly; a unique cause is not established by spatial correlation alone. Seismic velocity is not a direct density measurement, central creep and deep tremor are not the same phenomenon, and multiple coupled structures can reinforce one another. The buoyant-mantle and upper-plate fluid hypotheses are testable explanations rather than mutually exclusive certainties.

Use a rock strength envelope: at each depth plot the smaller differential stress needed for frictional failure and for sustained ductile material creep at a specified strain rate. Shallow rock generally strengthens with depth because effective confining pressure increases; sufficiently deep hot rock weakens because thermally activated material creep becomes efficient.

At shallow depth, Byerlee's law or a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion gives a relation of the formwhere $C$ is cohesion, $\mu$ a coefficient of friction, ${\sigma }_n$ the compressive normal stress and $P_f$ the pore pressure. Increasing overburden generally increases effective stress, hence the frictional strength. Conversion from fault shear stress to differential stress depends on the stress regime and fault orientation; a sketch should not label a universal numerical slope. High pore pressure or weak fault gouge can lower the frictional strength substantially.

A simplified dislocation creep relation isHere $Q$ is activation energy, $V^{\ast }$ activation volume, $R$ the molar gas constant and $T$ absolute temperature; $A$ and $n$ depend on composition and deformation mechanism. At fixed strain rate, increasing temperature usually decreases the required stress strongly. The competing effects of pressure, water weakening of rocks, grain size and composition also matter. The intersection with frictional failure gives a brittle-ductile transition, not a change from solid to liquid.

For the Indian continental interior, a useful first sketch has an upper-crustal strength peak, a weaker lower continental crust, and renewed strength in lithospheric mantle beneath the Moho. Quartz-bearing rocks can undergo ductile material creep at conditions where colder, drier olivine-rich mantle retains appreciable strength. This creates a possible two-peak, or “jelly sandwich”, rock strength envelope. With further depth the mantle also weakens. A cold craton can retain strong lithospheric mantle to much greater depths than a tectonically heated continental region.

For the central Pacific, show thin mafic oceanic crust above a relatively thick layer of strong lithospheric mantle. There need not be a conspicuous weak lower-crustal layer. Much of the integrated strength can reside below the Moho, with a broad strength peak followed by ductile weakening towards the asthenosphere. Cooling and age control the thickness: young hot oceanic lithosphere would give a much shallower and weaker profile than an old central-Pacific plate.

The plotted Moho depths of about 38 km and 7 km, and all plotted stresses, are illustrative assumptions. “India” alone does not specify a unique geothermal gradient, water content or strain rate, and the Pacific includes plates of different ages. The robust comparison is the possible crust–mantle layering in a continent versus the thin oceanic crust and mantle-dominated strength of an old oceanic plate. The Moho is a compositional boundary; neither it nor the deepest small plotted strength is automatically the seismic lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary.

The asthenosphere exists because the mantle's ability to deform is strongly dependent on temperature, pressure, composition, water and deformation mechanism. Cooling from the surface creates a strong lithosphere. Beneath it, hotter mantle deforms by material creep at much lower stress on geological timescales. The asthenosphere is predominantly solid weak rock, not a global ocean of magma. On the much shorter timescale of a seismic wave, it still supports S waves.

The hot shallow mantle can be close to its solidus. Water weakening of rocks and, in some settings, a small connected melt fraction can further lower effective viscosity. At greater depths, changes in pressure, homologous temperature, mineral structure and water storage modify the deformation laws; increasing depth does not imply indefinitely decreasing viscosity. Explaining a weak upper-mantle interval does not require every location to contain the same amount of melt.

There are several physically distinct boundaries to test. The thermal lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary describes a thermal transition, the mechanical boundary a contrast in long-term strength or viscosity, and the seismic lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary a change in seismic velocity or other wave properties. They need not have identical depths. A smooth geothermal gradient can explain broad thermal weakening, but a very sharp decrease of seismic velocity may require changes in melt fraction, hydration, composition or seismic anisotropy. A sharp shallow reflector within a craton might instead be an internal lithospheric boundary.^[ref]

Begin with a thermal null model. A half-space cooling model givesIf a thermal boundary corresponds to a fixed temperature $T_{\ast }$, its depth isso it deepens as the square root of plate age. Test that prediction against independently determined seafloor ages, bathymetry and heat flux. An oceanic plate cooling model adds finite thickness and basal heat supply, allowing the old-age depth to approach a finite value. For continents, include radiogenic heating, crustal thickness, the history of continental rifting or tectonic thickening, and advective heating by magma or mantle flow. A cold, dry craton and a recently extended volcanic region should not share the same thermal profile.

Then calculate the observable consequences of competing mechanisms rather than merely assigning a boundary to a map:

Compare models against the observed boundary depth and its sharpness, including uncertainty and resolution. An age–depth trend with matching heat flux favours thermal control; a sharp discontinuity that fails the thermal prediction but coincides with an electrical anomaly can support a melt- or hydration-related transition. Neither observation alone proves a unique cause. The spatially varying boundary is best understood as the result of thermal evolution interacting with composition, fluids and deformation history.

Cooling makes the oceanic lithosphere denser and contracts it; isostatic adjustment therefore lowers the seafloor. The cooling layer includes substantial mantle, not just the approximately fixed-thickness igneous oceanic crust.

New plate near a spreading ridge is hot and relatively buoyant. As it moves away, conductive cooling penetrates more deeply, and material formerly in the hot asthenosphere becomes part of the colder thermal boundary layer. To first order,where $\alpha$ is the volumetric thermal expansion coefficient, ${\rho }_m$ a reference mantle density, $T_m$ the hot reference temperature, and $t$ plate age. A positive depth-integrated density anomaly makes the column negatively buoyant relative to the ridge column. Isostasy is restored by downward displacement and mantle redistribution; cold rock also occupies less volume.

At a fixed sufficiently deep datum, deepening the seafloor by $\Delta d$ removes an equivalent thickness of rock from the column and replaces it with less dense seawater. In the usual constant-property approximation this giveswhere ${\rho }_w$ is seawater density and $z_c$ lies below the relevant thermal anomaly. This explains why contraction alone and water-loaded seafloor subsidence are not identical numerical quantities.

For a half-space cooling model,so integration yieldsHere $\kappa$ is thermal diffusivity and $z$ is measured downward from the surface of the thermal model. The leading oceanic thermal subsidence is proportional to $\sqrt{t}$. A finite oceanic plate cooling model limits this growth at old ages. Sediment loading, dynamic topography, anomalous crust thickness and hydrothermal heat transport can produce departures from the simple relation.^[ref]

Choose a common horizontal compensation depth beneath the deepest cooling-induced density anomaly, within mantle that can relax pressure differences over the timescale considered. In a normal oceanic plate model, this means below the old plate's thermal lithosphere, not at the base of the approximately 7 km thick oceanic crust.

The reason is that cooling changes density through both crust and lithospheric mantle. A datum at the Mohorovičić discontinuity would omit most of the changing column mass. A different datum for each age would also compare unlike columns. Once the common datum is sufficiently deep, extending it farther into laterally uniform mantle adds the same mass per unit area to each column and does not change the predicted relative subsidence.

There is no unique number fixed by the question. For an illustrative oceanic plate cooling model with a thermal thickness about 100–125 km, a common datum beneath that layer, of order 150–200 km below sea level, is a defensible choice provided the model has no substantial lateral density anomaly there. These are model choices, not measured universal boundaries. In a half-space cooling model, use the oldest age $t_{\max }$ to choose a practical cutoff: $z_c\gtrsim 4\sqrt{\kappa t_{\max }}$ makes the remaining temperature anomaly less than about 0.5% of its surface contrast. For $\kappa =10^{-6}{\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $t_{\max }=100$ million years, this is about 225 km. A half-space model has no mathematically sharp finite thermal base.

Finally, equal column mass is the local, approximately constant-gravitational acceleration representation of equal pressure at the datum. A weak asthenosphere permits pressure relaxation through slow solid-state material creep; it need not be liquid. Short-wavelength loads, lithospheric flexure or dynamic topography can violate local column-by-column isostasy, requiring a more complete mechanical model.

I would not assign the lunar mare an automatic terrestrial 100–125 km compensation level. For present-day mare basins, a local equal-column-mass model may have no physically valid compensation depth; first test whether lithospheric flexure supports the load. For ancient thermally driven subsidence that did relax, choose a common datum beneath the cooling layer in deformable lunar mantle appropriate to that epoch.

The Moon is smaller than Earth and has lost a larger fraction of its original heat. Its cold, mechanically strong outer shell can be much thicker relative to its radius than the terrestrial oceanic lithosphere. Lunar mare basalts filled pre-existing impact basins: their loading, basin excavation, mantle uplift, cooling and the evolving strength of the lithosphere all matter. A thick elastic lithosphere can support lateral stress differences, so equal column mass need not hold even after a long time. The strong gravity anomalies of lunar mascons, measured by GRAIL, are evidence that the present mare-basin system is not everywhere locally compensated.^[ref]

For an explicitly assumed ancient relaxed thermal model, estimate its thermal penetration depth from thermal diffusivity and the elapsed cooling time, infer the contemporaneous mechanical lid from gravity-topography admittance or basin deformation, and place $z_c$ below that layer where lateral pressure anomalies relax. For example, a hypothetical several-hundred-kilometre-thick lid requires a deeper datum than that lid, not the shallow crust-mantle boundary. The paper supplies neither an epoch-specific thermal model nor a load wavelength, so a unique kilometre value is not determined. If the chosen datum is a substantial fraction of the lunar radius, spherical geometry and radial variation in gravity must replace the flat, constant-gravity column approximation.

Does the Moon have an asthenosphere? Not a demonstrated shallow, globally connected Earth-like layer underlying mobile plates; but “no weak or partially molten mantle anywhere, ever” is too strong. Apollo lunar seismology indicates a cold outer interior and more attenuating deep regions. Reanalyses support a deep low-velocity or partially molten region near the lunar core, while lunar laser ranging and tidal Love numbers constrain deep deformability and tidal dissipation. Such a deep weak region is sometimes called a lunar asthenosphere; it is not automatically the correct local compensation surface for a mare load.^[ref]

The inferred melt fraction and distribution remain model dependent: Dissipation at tidal and seismic frequencies in a melt-free Moon by Francis Nimmo and others demonstrates that much of the dissipation can also be explained by hot solid-state anelasticity, although its model does not reproduce every frequency-dependent constraint. The Moon was hotter during mare emplacement and could relax loads differently then. Choose the datum from the relevant thermal and mechanical history, or use a flexural model when local isostasy fails.