Current plate velocities relative to hotspots: implications for hotspot motion, mantle viscosity and global reference frame
Introduction
Plate motion relative to the deep mantle is usually referred to as absolute motion to distinguish it from relative motion between plates. Based on the hypothesis that hotspots are fixed in the deep mantle and stationary with respect to each other [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], hotspots are commonly used as a reference frame for defining the absolute plate motion, and a number of absolute velocity models [6], [7], [8], [9] incorporating current plate motions have been determined consequently by inversion of observed hotspot data. The results of these models, conversely, provide a direct test to assumed hotspot fixity, since the current relative motion between plates is well known. In fact, these models have been widely accepted as evidences to support the fixed hotspot hypothesis, because they provide a good fit to the adopted hotspot data. However, the test of these models on the hypothesis is not sufficient. Models AM1 [6] and P073 [7] are constrained by observed trends of hotspot traces only. Therefore, it is impossible to distinguish whether the hotspots are stationary or they are moving in a direction opposite to the plate motion owing to a return flow in the lower mantle [10]. In models AM1-2 [8] and HS2-NUVEL1 [9], although five observed rates of hotspot volcanic migrations are used as constraints together with nine hotspot trends, all the data are sampled from hotspots distributed in the Pacific region. We think additional data from other geographical regions need to be incorporated.
Section snippets
Models and results
If hotspots are indeed stationary with respect to each other, all the observed hotspot trends and rates should be satisfied by a single model. Here we shall compare the HS2-NUVEL1 model [9], which is presently being used, with the hotspot data used by the AM1 model [6]. Among the 20 trend data from the AM1 data set, with the exception of six that have already been used by the HS2-NUVEL1 model and a questionable one [6] from the Iceland hotspot under the Eurasian plate, the remaining 13 trends
Discussion
Our preferred T22A model is determined completely based on the NUVEL-1A model [13] and the 22 hotspot trend data. The NUVEL-1A model can be considered as a reliable model for current relative motions between plates, not only because it provides a good fit to globally sampled spreading rates, transform fault azimuths and earthquake slip vectors, but also because its predictions on plate motions are well consistent with the space-based geodetic observations [14]. As the relative motions between
Acknowledgements
First of all, I thank my coauthor and former supervisor, Prof. Ren Wang, who passed away during the revision of this contribution, for his support, encouragement and enthusiasm. I will miss him.
We thank Yinting Li and Xunying Sun for helpful discussion, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments. This research was supported by the NSF of China.[SK]
References (36)
Plate kinematics: The Americas, East Africa, and the rest of the world
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
(1978)- et al.
Linear volcanism in French Polynesia
J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.
(1976) - et al.
Are the Pacific and Indo–Atlantic hotspots fixed? Testing the plate circuit through Antarctica
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
(1999) - et al.
Paleomagnetic evidence for motion of the Hawaiian hotspot during formation of the Emperor seamounts
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
(1997) - et al.
Mantle dynamics, postglacial rebound and the radial viscosity profile
Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.
(2000) Evidence from islands on the spreading of the ocean floor
Nature
(1963)Evidence from ocean island suggesting movement in the Earth
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A
(1965)- et al.
Reconstruction of Pangaea: Breakup and dispersion of continents, Permian to present
J. Geophys. Res.
(1970) Convection plumes in the lower mantle
Nature
(1971)Deep mantle convection plumes and plate motions
Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull.
(1972)
Numerical modelling of instantaneous plate tectonics
Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc.
Present-day plate motions
J. Geophys. Res.
Current plate velocities relative to the hotspots incorporating the NUVEL-1 global plate motion model
Geophys. Res. Lett.
Drifting mantle hotspots
Nature
Current plate motions
Geophys. J. Int.
No-net-rotation model of current plate velocities incorporating plate motion model NUVEL-1
Geophys. Res. Lett.
Effect of recent revisions to the geomagnetic reveral time scale on estimates of current plate motions
Geophys. Res. Lett.
Cited by (37)
The trials and tribulations of the Hawaii hot spot model
2021, Earth-Science ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Matthews et al. (2016) used the plate chain through Antarctica but with relative plate motions in Zealandia as additional constraints, and in this way, they predict the Hawaii-Emperor bend much better than for a plate chain through Antarctica without this additional constraint (Torsvik et al., 2019). Wang and Liu (2006) suggested that the motion of hot spots may be systematically opposite to the direction of plate motions, and moving hot spots still form a useful global reference frame for defining absolute plate motion and mantle convection (Wang and Wang, 2001). Hence, Doubrovine et al. (2012) defined a new moving hot spot reference frame that reconciles plate tectonic and plume motions in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans back to Early Cretaceous time.
Absolute plate motions relative to deep mantle plumes
2018, Earth and Planetary Science LettersCitation Excerpt :Such a mechanism deserves further research. An alternative explanation for the systematic discrepancy between hotspot rates and plate velocities is inter-hotspot motions, as suggested by Steinberger and O'Connell (1998), Steinberger (2000), Wang and Wang (2001), and Wang and Liu (2006). If the hotspot rates are reliable, the difference velocity obtained by subtracting a hotspot migration velocity from the T25M plate velocity will represent the hotspot motion relative to the T25M reference frame which is determined by hotspot trends.
Tectonically asymmetric Earth: From net rotation to polarized westward drift of the lithosphere
2015, Geoscience FrontiersCitation Excerpt :Nonetheless, the hotspot reference frame continues to be a convenient – and easy to visualize – framework in which to study plate kinematics and dynamics. Many absolute present-day plate kinematic models have been proposed incorporating plate motions from magnetic anomalies (O'Connell et al., 1991; Wang and Wang, 2001; Gripp and Gordon, 2002; Cuffaro and Doglioni, 2007) and geodetic data (Crespi et al., 2007) into the hotspot frame. In other models, plate motions and plate reconstructions were attempted for the past (Gordon and Jurdy, 1986; Müller et al., 1993; Steinberger et al., 2004; O'Neill et al., 2005; Torsvik et al., 2010).
Hotspots, Large Igneous Provinces, and Melting Anomalies
2015, Treatise on Geophysics: Second EditionPlate tectonics and net lithosphere rotation over the past 150 My
2010, Earth and Planetary Science Letters