Cited by 210High-pressure geophysics and materialsGeological and Geochemical Analysisearthquake and tectonic studies

A new analysis of experimental data on olivine rheology

Korenaga, Jun, Karato, Shun‐Ichiro·2008·Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

Abstract

We present a new statistical framework to analyze rock deformation data and determine a corresponding flow law and its uncertainty. All experimental uncertainties, including inter‐run bias, are taken into account in the new formalism. Our approach is based on Bayesian statistics and is implemented by a Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We apply this approach to published data on the subsolidus deformation of synthetic olivine aggregates and try to establish experimental constraints on the rheology of Earth's upper mantle. Deformation data are interpreted on the basis of a composite flow law, which includes diffusion and dislocation creep mechanisms under both dry and wet conditions. We show that olivine rheology under wet conditions suffers major uncertainties suggesting the influence of poorly characterized parameters such as water content during deformation. Also, the pressure dependence of creep is still poorly constrained because of the lack of high‐quality data under high pressures. However, our statistical analysis provides a solid framework to obtain a permissible range of flow laws constrained by the existing data, which will help geodynamic modeling with well‐defined statistical bounds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2007jb005100

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Activation volumes for mantle rheology are still poorly known even for upper mantle minerals.

    “activation volumes for mantle rheology are still poorly known even237 for upper mantle minerals”

    From Scaling of plate-tectonic convection with pseudoplastic rheology (2010) · cites this paper as Korenaga and Karato, 2008

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 73 · Cited by 210

Authors
Korenaga, J., & Karato, S.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Published
2008-02
Volume
113
Issue
B2
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080519657
Cited by
210
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 12
FWCI
12.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › High-pressure geophysics and materials
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Geological and Geochemical Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › earthquake and tectonic studies
Keywords
olivine rheology, flow law, upper mantle, diffusion creep, dislocation creep, moisture content, Bayesian analysis, Markov chain Monte Carlo, uncertainty quantification, geodynamic modeling

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