Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Structural Inheritance Control on Intraplate Present‐Day Deformation: GPS Strain Rate Variations in the Saint Lawrence Valley, Eastern Canada

Tarayoun, Alizia, Mazzotti, Stéphane, Craymer, Michael, Henton, Joseph·2018·Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

Abstract

Structural inheritance is one of the key factors commonly proposed to control the localization of strain and seismicity in continental intraplate regions, primarily on the basis of a first‐order spatial correlation between seismicity and inherited tectonic structures. In this paper, we present new GPS (Global Positioning System) velocity and strain rate analyses that provide strong constraints on the magnitude and style of present‐day strain localization associated with the inherited tectonic structures of the Saint Lawrence Valley, eastern Canada. We analyze 143 continuous and campaign GPS stations to calculate velocity and strain rate patterns, with specific emphases on the combination of continuous and campaign velocity uncertainties, and on the definition of robustness categories for the strain rate estimations. Within the structural inheritance area, strain rates are on average 2–11 times higher than surrounding regions and display strong lateral variations of the style of deformation. These GPS velocity and strain rate fields primarily reflect ongoing glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). Their comparison with GIA model predictions allows us to quantify the impact of the structural inheritance and the associated lithosphere rheology weakening. Outside of the major tectonic inheritance area, GPS and GIA model strain rates agree to first order, both in style and magnitude. In contrast, the Saint Lawrence Valley displays strong strain amplification with GPS strain rates 6–28 times higher than model‐predicted GIA strain rates. Our results provide the first quantitative constraints on the impact of lithospheric‐scale structural inheritance on strain localization in intraplate domains.

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 · 10.1029/2017jb015417

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?

  • Seismicity in the Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben is primarily focused in the northern side and in the graben structures itself, in which reactivation of inherited structures strongly controls the seismicity distribution.

    “Seismicity in the OBG is primarily focused in the northern side and in the graben structures itself, in which reactivation of inherited structures strongly controls the seismicity distribution (Tarayoun et al. 2018), with the NW-SE structures playing an imperative role in the recent seismicity distribution (Rimando andBenn 2005, Rimando andPeace 2021).”
  • The Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben is part of the Saint Lawrence failed rift segment with a complex tectonic history spanning several billion years.

    “The OBG is a part of the Saint Lawrence failed rift segment that has a complex tectonic history spanning several billion years (Lamontagne et al. 2003, Tremblay et al. 2003, Tarayoun et al. 2018).”

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: 62

  1. 10.1130/DNAG-CSMS-NEO.261 · DOI
  2. 10.1029/2011JB008930 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04275.x · DOI
  4. 10.1029/2005JB003629 · DOI
  5. 10.1038/nature04428 · DOI
  6. Coppersmith K. J. Johnston A. C. Metzger A. G. &Arabasz W. J.(1987).Methods for assessing maximum earthquakes in the central and eastern United States Electric Power Research Institute working report EPRI RP2556‐12 (pp. 312).
  7. 10.1002/2014JB011498 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s00190-008-0300-3 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/S1571-0866(04)80209-4 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/s001900050111 · DOI
  11. 10.1785/0120100219 · DOI
  12. 10.1146/annurev.earth.26.1.615 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.cageo.2015.05.007 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/s00024-016-1270-7 · DOI
  15. 10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0175:DDTISI>2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1016/j.tecto.2008.08.012 · DOI
  17. 10.1029/2010JB008142 · DOI
  18. 10.5194/nhess-9-1177-2009 · DOI
  19. Henton J. A., 2006, Crustal motion and deformation monitoring of the Canadian landmass, Geomatica, 60, 173
  20. 10.1016/S1464-1895(01)00103-X · DOI
  21. Herring T. A., 2015, Introduction to GAMIT/GLOBK, release 10.6
  22. 10.1126/science.252.5011.1409 · DOI
  23. 10.1007/978-94-009-2311-9_18 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/S0301-9268(01)00154-1 · DOI
  25. Kumarapeli P. S., 1985, Vestiges of Iapetan rifting in the craton west of the northern Appalachians, Geoscience Canada, 12, 54
  26. 10.1139/e66-045 · DOI
  27. 10.1029/00EO00213 · DOI
  28. 10.1017/CBO9781139628921.005 · DOI
  29. Lamothe P., 2010, A crustal deformation study of the Charlevoix Seismic Zone in Quebec, Geomatica, 64, 61
  30. 10.1029/2007JB005247 · DOI
  31. 10.1139/e02-046 · DOI
  32. 10.1130/L129.1 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/s10236-006-0086-x · DOI
  34. 10.1093/gji/ggs081 · DOI
  35. Malvern L. E., 1969, Introduction to the mechanics of a continuous media, 713
  36. 10.1029/1998JB900033 · DOI
  37. 10.1002/2014JB011842 · DOI
  38. 10.1130/2007.2425(02) · DOI
  39. 10.1029/2004JB003510 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.tecto.2017.12.014 · DOI
  41. 10.1029/2004JB003590 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1130/L65.1 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1029/96JB03737 · DOI
  44. 10.5194/se-7-1349-2016 · DOI
  45. 10.1007/1345_2015_212 · DOI
  46. 10.7202/032734ar · DOI
  47. 10.1002/2014JB011176 · DOI
  48. Rankin D. W., 1975, The continental margin of eastern North America in the southern Appalachians: The opening and closing of the Proto‐Atlantic Ocean, American Journal of Science, 275, 298
  49. 10.1139/e68-128 · DOI
  50. 10.1029/2010JB007701 · DOI
  51. 10.1029/2006GL027081 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1785/gssrl.80.4.551 · DOI
  53. Stein S., 2007, Continental intraplate earthquakes: Science, hazard, and policy issues, 10.1130/978-0-8137-2425-6 · DOI
  54. 10.1130/1052-5173(2006)016[4:TIAACM]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/S0040-1951(03)00227-0 · DOI · Paper page
  56. 10.1029/90JB01583 · DOI
  57. 10.1029/97JB01378 · DOI
  58. 10.1007/s00190-002-0283-4 · DOI
  59. 10.1029/2003JB002741 · DOI
  60. 10.1029/1999GL011070 · DOI
  61. 10.1130/2007.2425(09) · DOI
  62. 10.1016/j.asr.2017.05.002 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tarayoun, A., Mazzotti, S., Craymer, M., & Henton, J.
Affiliations
  • Géosciences Montpellier Université de Montpellier, CNRS Montpellier France
  • Geodetic Survey Division, Natural Resources Canada Ottawa Ontario Canada
  • Geodetic Survey Division, Natural Resources Canada Sidney British Columbia Canada
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Published
2018-08
Volume
123
Issue
8
Pages
7004-7020
ISSN
  • 2169-9313
  • 2169-9356
Cited by
28
References
0
Language
en
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR‐12‐CHEX‐0004‐01)

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