Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Observation of glacial isostatic adjustment in “stable” North America with GPS

Sella, Giovanni F., Stein, Seth, Dixon, Timothy H., Craymer, Michael, James, Thomas S., Mazzotti, Stephane, Dokka, Roy K.·2007·Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract

Motions of three hundred and sixty Global Positioning System (GPS) sites in Canada and the United States yield a detailed image of the vertical and horizontal velocity fields within the nominally stable interior of the North American plate. By far the strongest signal is the effect of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) due to ice mass unloading during deglaciation. Vertical velocities show present‐day uplift (∼10 mm/yr) near Hudson Bay, the site of thickest ice at the last glacial maximum. The uplift rates generally decrease with distance from Hudson Bay and change to subsidence (1–2 mm/yr) south of the Great Lakes. The “hinge line” separating uplift from subsidence is consistent with data from water level gauges along the Great Lakes, showing uplift along the northern shores and subsidence along the southern ones. Horizontal motions show outward motion from Hudson Bay with complex local variations especially in the far field. Although the vertical motions are generally consistent with the predictions of GIA models, the horizontal data illustrate the need and opportunity to improve the models via more accurate descriptions of the ice load and laterally variable mantle viscosity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2006gl027081

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Argus D. F., 1999, Glacial isostatic adjustment observed using very long baseline interferometry and satellite laser ranging geodesy, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 29,077, 10.1029/1999JB000237 · DOI
  2. 10.1029/2005JB004253 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/S0277-3791(01)00070-1 · DOI
  4. Craymer M. R., 2006, The Evolution of NAD83 in Canada, Geomatica, 60, 151
  5. Crone A. J. andR. L.Wheeler(2000) Data for Quaternary faults liquefaction features and possible tectonic features in the central and eastern United States east of the Rocky Mountain Front U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep. 00‐0260 342 pp. · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.epsl.2004.03.022 · DOI
  7. 10.1029/1998TC001088 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/S0277-3791(01)00095-6 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1029/2000JB000049 · DOI
  10. 10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0175:DDTISI>2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Henton J. A., 2006, Crustal motion and deformation monitoring of the Canadian landmass, Geomatica, 60, 173
  12. 10.1029/94GL01854 · DOI
  13. 10.1029/93GL00865 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1996.tb01539.x · DOI
  15. 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1996.tb00003.x · DOI
  16. 10.1029/2000GL012611 · DOI
  17. 10.1029/2000GL011946 · DOI
  18. 10.1029/2004GL021454 · DOI
  19. 10.1130/B25392.1 · DOI
  20. 10.1029/1998JB900033 · DOI
  21. 10.1029/2004JB003510 · DOI
  22. 10.1029/2004JB003590 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1046/j.1365-246x.1999.00971.x · DOI
  24. 10.1126/science.1057022 · DOI
  25. 10.1029/93GL02043 · DOI
  26. 10.1029/2001JB001676 · DOI
  27. 10.1029/2001GL013782 · DOI
  28. 10.1126/science.265.5169.195 · DOI
  29. 10.1029/98RG02638 · DOI
  30. 10.1029/98GL00182 · DOI
  31. 10.1002/jqs.713 · DOI
  32. 10.1146/annurev.earth.32.082503.144359 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/s10291-004-0110-x · DOI
  34. G. Schubert D. Turcotte P. Olson 2001 Cambridge Univ. Press New York
  35. 10.1029/2000JB000033 · DOI
  36. Sella G., 2004, GPS observation of glacial isostatic adjustment in North America, Cah. Cent. Eur. Geod. Seismol., 23, 105
  37. 10.1190/1.1442837 · DOI
  38. 10.1029/GL006i007p00537 · DOI
  39. 10.1007/978-94-009-2311-9_14 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2003.08.004 · DOI
  41. 10.1029/90JB01583 · DOI
  42. 10.1029/98EO00426 · DOI
  43. 10.1029/1999GL011070 · DOI
  44. Wu P. andS.Mazzotti(2006) Effects of a lithospheric weak zone on postglacial seismotectonics in eastern Canada and northeastern USA inContinental Intraplate Earthquakes: Science Hazard and Policy Issues edited byS.Stein andS.Mazzotti Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. in press. · DOI
  45. 10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00199-7 · DOI
  46. 10.1029/96JB03860 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sella, G. F., Stein, S., Dixon, T. H., Craymer, M., James, T. S., Mazzotti, S., & Dokka, R. K.
Affiliations
  • National Geodetic Survey NOAA Silver Spring Maryland USA
  • Department of Geological Sciences Northwestern University Evanston Illinois USA
  • Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences University of Miami Miami Florida USA
  • Geodetic Survey Division Natural Resources Canada Ottawa, Ontario Canada
  • Geological Survey of Canada Natural Resources Canada Sidney, British Columbia Canada
  • Center for GeoInformatics and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Louisiana State University Baton Rouge Louisiana USA
Venue
Geophysical Research Letters
Published
2007-01
Volume
34
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0094-8276
  • 1944-8007
Cited by
312
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review