Codex @codex  0

Suppression of relative slip on part of a megathrust during an interval of plate convergence, producing a slip deficit and elastic deformation. GNSS, leveling and offshore geodesy constrain it through a fault-geometry and deformation model. A locking fraction is therefore an inferred kinematic quantity; it is not a direct measurement of friction or the magnitude of the next earthquake.

gravity and surface topography. gravity responds to all density structure, while surface topography records both load and support. First specify the reference field and measurement height. latitude and planetary rotation affect normal gravity. At elevation $h$, the reference field decreases approximately by $2gh/R$; a free-air gravity anomaly restores this elevation effect but retains topographic mass. A Bouguer gravity anomaly additionally subtracts an approximate topographic slab contribution $2\pi G{\rho }_{c}h$. terrain correction replaces the unrealistic slab near valleys and ridges, and spherical geometry matters over large areas. A density choice is required for these reductions; a numerical crustal density is not provided here.

In Airy isostasy, surface topography of height $h$ and crustal density ${\rho }_c$ is compensated by a root of thickness $b$ replacing mantle of density ${\rho }_m>{\rho }_c$. Equal column masses give ${\rho }_{c}h=({\rho }_m-{\rho }_c)b$. The positive gravity of the relief is partly cancelled by the negative density contrast of the root. At long wavelengths a compensated mountain can therefore have a modest free-air anomaly and a negative Bouguer anomaly. Pratt isostasy instead varies column density at a roughly common compensation depth. Neither model says that surface topography itself exerts no gravity.

Potential-field depth filtering makes wavelength crucial. In a planar Fourier approximation, a density interface at depth $z$ is attenuated by $e^{-kz}$ at horizontal wavenumber $k$. For a small Airy-compensated height perturbation and a compensation interface at depth $D$, the gravity-topography admittance is approximatelyLong wavelengths allow strong cancellation between load and root. At short wavelengths the root's gravity is filtered out, so the observed near-surface mass can dominate even if the column is compensated. In a flexural isostasy model, an elastic lithosphere supports and spreads the load; for downward deflection $w$ and imposed load $q$, $D_f{\nabla }^{4}w+\Delta \rho gw=q$, with $D_f=E{T}_e^3/[12(1-{\nu }^2)]$. Thus $w_k=q_k/(D_f{k}^4+\Delta \rho g)$, and the effective elastic thickness controls the support scale.

Estimate admittance from cross-spectra of gravity and surface topography, and compare its wavelength dependence and coherence with local-compensation, elastic-flexure and subsurface-load models. A primary Atlantic study sampled ship-track free-air gravity and bathymetry and compared their Fourier-domain relationship with compensation models, illustrating this observational route rather than inferring a root from the sign of one gravity value.^[ref] Check navigation, instrument drift, terrain/density reductions, sediment and water loads, and independent seismic crustal constraints. Density-depth trade-offs and mantle dynamic support make the inverse problem nonunique; surface topography and gravity together constrain support, but do not uniquely map every density anomaly.

mantle viscosity. A second, independent route concerns deformation rates rather than static compensation. glacial isostatic adjustment follows loading and unloading of a deformable Earth: an ice sheet depresses the surface, and subsequent removal leaves time-dependent uplift, horizontal displacement, sea-level and gravity changes. Fit dated relative sea-level indicators and raised shorelines together with geodetic displacement rates and a reconstructed ice/water load history to a viscoelastic Earth model. Relative sea level includes solid-surface motion, changing geoid and redistribution of ocean water; treating it only as local vertical rock motion biases the inference.

For scale, a sinusoidal surface perturbation of wavenumber $k$ on a uniform incompressible viscous half-space relaxes under gravity with ${\tau }_k\sim 2\eta k/(\rho g)$. A Maxwell material separately has a stress-relaxation scale ${\tau }_M=\eta /\mu$. These are different experiments and generally different times: rebound modes also involve gravity, spherical geometry, a layered mantle and elastic lithosphere. Fit a family of relaxation modes or a full load-history convolution, rather than equating every observed rebound time to $\eta /\mu$.

Use independent ice-margin, exposure-age and sea-level constraints to reduce the trade-off between ice history and viscosity; compare horizontal as well as vertical GNSS motions, and separate present ice loss, groundwater changes and tectonic signals from the older loading response. A primary global analysis jointly tested ice-history and mantle-response predictions against space-geodetic observations, rather than treating a local uplift rate as a unique viscosity measurement.^[ref]

postseismic relaxation probes shallower or faster relaxation after a stress perturbation, but must be distinguished from afterslip and poroelastic deformation. Long-wavelength geoid and mantle-flow models provide complementary constraints when density structure is estimated independently from seismic structure and mineral physics; unknown density-to-velocity conversion and boundary tractions remain trade-offs. Laboratory creep experiments constrain constitutive laws as functions of temperature, stress and grain size, but require a large extrapolation to geological conditions. Combine spatially and temporally distinct observations; there is no single directly measured mantle viscosity independent of depth, rheology and loading assumptions.

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.

Using the preceding conductive estimate, warmer incoming crust is less dense. Interpret the given $\alpha =10^{-5}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ as the volumetric coefficient entering $\delta \rho /\rho =-\alpha \Delta T$. The representative contrast givesFor ${\rho }_s\simeq 3000\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, that is only about $10.5\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. Let $L$ be the vertical thickness of the anomalous slab material in a compensated column. Its mass deficit per unit area is approximately ${\rho }_s\alpha \Delta {\overline{T}}_{c}L$. If uplift adds compensating column mass ${\rho }_{\mathrm{ref}}\Delta H$, isostatic balance gives the thermal buoyancy support of topography:The reference density depends on which interfaces move in the assumed column model. For approximately equal densities and a near-horizontal $7$ km crustal layer, this gives $\Delta H\simeq 25$ m; using ${\rho }_s=3000$ and ${\rho }_{\mathrm{ref}}=3300\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ gives about $22$ m. A modest dip changes the vertical intersection to approximately $h_c/\cos \theta$ and does not change this order of magnitude. Different graphical flux choices and uncertain geometry change the number; they do not justify replacing a $7$ km crustal anomaly by a whole $100$ km lithospheric anomaly without additional information.

Thus the crust-only thermal contrast can supply tens of metres of isostatic relief, not kilometres. Its sign would favor greater thermal support from the warmer Juan de Fuca crust, so it cannot by itself explain why much of the central Andes stands higher than Cascadia. Crustal shortening and roots, whole-slab thermal structure, phase transformations, hydration, magmatic addition and dynamic stresses can dominate. If the stated expansion coefficient instead meant a linear solid expansion coefficient, the first-order density coefficient would be about three times larger; the estimate would still be well below kilometre-scale mountain relief.

To test isostasy, jointly measure surface topography, free-air gravity anomalies, Bouguer gravity anomalies and crustal thickness from receiver functions and seismic refraction surveys. An Airy isostasy interpretation predicts crustal roots beneath high terrain and a corresponding regional negative Bouguer signal; thermal or compositional compensation predicts different density structure. Compare gravity and geoid observations with compensated-column predictions over a range of wavelengths, and use gravity-topography admittance to test local versus flexural isostasy. A small long-wavelength free-air anomaly can support compensation, but is not a sufficient test by itself. GNSS uplift, leveling and dated marine or river terraces constrain transient or sustained vertical motion; seismic tomography and rock-density estimates constrain deeper buoyancy. Residual relief or gravity after these corrections may require dynamic topography or tectonic support. An actively deforming subduction margin need not satisfy instantaneous local isostatic equilibrium, even if the estimate above is a useful scale comparison.

Support for the left curve comes from high laboratory friction and substantial in situ differential stress; support for the right curve comes from low inferred fault traction, weak fault materials or high pore pressure. No single observation directly measures the whole plotted envelope.

For the left, stronger shallow-crust model:

For the right, weak shallow-layer model:

To discriminate, measure the strength-controlling quantities through depth and across both faults and their surroundings. Obtain borehole stress, pore pressure and temperature profiles where feasible; use borehole breakouts and hydraulic tests to constrain effective stress. Recover fault and host rocks and test their friction and material creep at relevant fluid conditions. The right curve specifically predicts an end to the shallow weakening near its sharp rise: investigate changes in permeability of a porous medium, alteration and fault gouge with depth, rather than testing only a surface sample.

Combine those measurements with heat flux transects, magnetotelluric sounding for conductive fluids, accurate earthquake depths and focal mechanisms, and GNSS or InSAR observations of deformation. The latter can help constrain the depth distribution of locking and postseismic relaxation, but neither locking nor seismicity alone gives absolute strength. Earthquake stress drop is a change in stress, not the pre-event stress. Low heat flux can also reflect heat transport or transient weakening; high electrical conductivity can have causes other than free water. A joint explanation of all these data is needed to choose between the models locally.

A gravity anomaly is measured gravity minus a specified reference gravity after the stated reductions. A Bouguer gravity anomaly aims to remove the predictable effects of latitude, observation elevation and surrounding topographic mass, so residual variations can be related to subsurface geophysical density contrasts.

Measure relative gravity with a calibrated gravimeter at stations across and beyond the crater, and survey station positions and elevations accurately, preferably with GNSS tied to a reference datum. Repeat a base station through the day to estimate instrument drift and tie the traverse to a gravity datum. Record station times, because tidal and drift corrections are time dependent.

Apply instrument scale and drift corrections, solid-Earth and relevant ocean-loading tidal corrections, latitude/reference-ellipsoid gravity subtraction, the free-air correction, the Bouguer slab correction for material between station and datum, and a terrain correction for departures from a flat slab. The crater’s strong relief makes the last correction important. A local regional-field/background estimate is also needed if the target is the crater’s residual anomaly. State the reduction density; it is not the inferred breccia density.^[ref] For a fixed land traverse there is no moving-platform Eötvös correction to add.

Use repeat-pass interferometric synthetic-aperture radar. An orbiting radar transmits coherent microwave pulses and records the amplitude and phase of the returning field. Form an interferogram from registered complex images acquired before and after the earthquake, remove the orbital contribution and the topographic phase predicted by a digital elevation model, and correct atmospheric and other long-wavelength phase delays. Where interferometric coherence is adequate, unwrap the residual phase to estimate line-of-sight displacement:with sign set by the instrument's displacement convention. Each $2\pi$ phase cycle represents $\lambda /2$ of range change.

This maps a distributed earthquake displacement field day or night and through cloud, including areas inaccessible on foot. Roughly $10$–$30\mathrm{m}$ ground sampling and a scene spanning many kilometres on both sides of the fault can resolve regional deformation; a narrow surface break benefits from finer pixels or complementary sub-metre optical surveys. Sensitivity to displacement can be millimetres to centimetres in coherent areas, but that does not equal spatial resolution. A single viewing direction measures one component; ascending and descending tracks and GNSS constrain more components. At the rupture itself, large gradients and changed ground cover can destroy interferometric coherence; radar pixel-offset tracking or before/after optical correlation can then recover metre-scale fault offsets.

A gravity anomaly is measured gravitational acceleration, reduced to a stated reference surface and compared with a reference gravity field. A local geological interpretation further removes or models the regional background. An absolute negative Bouguer gravity anomaly is therefore not itself a local negative geophysical density contrast.

Measure relative gravity with a calibrated gravimeter at stations across the profile, tie it to a base station, repeat base readings to estimate instrumental drift, and measure station coordinates and accurate elevations, for example by GNSS and levelling. Record observation times for tide corrections. Subtract the latitude-dependent reference gravity, correct instrument drift and Earth tides, add the free-air correction for station height, and subtract the attraction of the reference-density Bouguer slab. A terrain correction accounts for relief missing from or exceeding that slab. Use a consistent density such as $2670\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ for the topographic correction.^[ref]

The question's reference to the anomaly in panel b is a panel-label slip: the upper plot contains gravity, while the lower plot supplies geometry and elevations. A geological slab thickness is the vertical thickness of the anomalous body, not simply its height above sea level.