Test environment running 7.6.3
 

Separating intrinsic and apparent anisotropy

dc.contributor.authorFichtner, Andreasen
dc.contributor.authorKennett, Brian L.N.en
dc.contributor.authorTrampert, Jeannoten
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-17T02:30:59Z
dc.date.available2025-03-17T02:30:59Z
dc.date.issued2013en
dc.description.abstractSeismic anisotropy plays a key role in studies of the Earth's rheology and deformation because of its relation to flow-induced lattice-preferred orientation (LPO) of intrinsically anisotropic minerals. In addition to LPO, small-scale heterogeneity produces apparent anisotropy that need not be related to deformation in the same way as intrinsic anisotropy. Quantitative interpretations of observed anisotropy therefore require the separation of its intrinsic and apparent components.We analyse the possibility to separate intrinsic and apparent anisotropy in media with hexagonal symmetry - typically used in surface wave tomography and SKS splitting studies. Our analysis is on the level of the wave equation, which makes it general and independent of specific data types or tomographic techniques.We find that observed anisotropy can be explained by isotropic heterogeneity when elastic parameters take specific combinations of values. In practice, the uncertainties of inferred anisotropy are large enough to ensure that such a combination is always within the error bars. It follows that commonly observed anisotropy can always be explained completely by a purely isotropic laminated medium unless all anisotropic parameters are known with unrealistic accuracy. Most importantly, minute changes in the poorly constrained P wave anisotropy and the parameter η can switch between the possible or impossible existence of an isotropic equivalent.Important implications of our study include: (1) Intrinsic anisotropy over tomographically resolved length scales is never strictly required when reasonable error bars for anisotropic parameters are taken into account. (2) Currently available seismic observables provide weak constraints on the relative contributions of intrinsic and apparent anisotropy. (3) Therefore, seismic observables alone are not sufficient to constrain the magnitude of mantle flow. (4) Quantitative interpretations of anisotropy in terms of mantle flow require combined seismic/geodynamic inversions, as well as the incorporation of additional data such as topography, gravity and scattered waves.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThis manuscript has gone through many hands, and it would not have taken shape without the contribution and inspiration from many colleagues. In particular we would like to thank Moritz Bernauer, Yann Capdeville, Lorenzo Colli, Paul Cupillard, Jean-Paul Montagner and Nian Wang. The constructive comments of the editor George Helffrich and two anonymous reviewers helped to improve the manuscript. Andreas Fichtner was funded by The Netherlands Research Center for Integrated Solid Earth Sciences under project number ISES-MD.5.en
dc.description.statustrueen
dc.format.extent10en
dc.identifier.otherresearchoutputwizard:f5625xPUB3433en
dc.identifier.otherScopus:84878191748en
dc.identifier.otherWOS:320825700002en
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace-test.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/733720040
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878191748&partnerID=8YFLogxKen
dc.language.isoEnglishen
dc.sourcePhysics of the Earth and Planetary Interiorsen
dc.subjectApparent anisotropyen
dc.subjectIntrinsic anisotropyen
dc.subjectLattice-preferred orientationen
dc.subjectMantle convectionen
dc.subjectSeismic anisotropyen
dc.subjectSeismic tomographyen
dc.titleSeparating intrinsic and apparent anisotropyen
dc.typeArticleen
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage20en
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage11en
local.contributor.affiliationFichtner, Andreas; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurichen
local.contributor.affiliationKennett, Brian L.N.; RSES Salaries, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU College of Science and Medicine, The Australian National Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationTrampert, Jeannot; Utrecht Universityen
local.identifier.citationvolume219en
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.pepi.2013.03.006en
local.identifier.pure57a31a17-e130-4f9f-8568-bcecccfc7173en
local.type.statusPublisheden

Downloads