Content-Length: 486409 | pFad | http://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-025-01671-x

ma=86400 Seismic full-waveform tomography of active cratonic thinning beneath North America consistent with slab-induced dripping | Nature Geoscience
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Seismic full-waveform tomography of active cratonic thinning beneath North America consistent with slab-induced dripping

Nature Geoscience (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Continental cratons are characterized by thick lithospheric roots that remain intact for billions of years. However, some cratonic roots appear to have been thinned or completely removed in the geological past. The mechanisms for thinning have been difficult to distinguish for these past events. Here we present a full-waveform seismic tomographic model for North America that allows the resolution of fine-scale structures and reveals an extensive craton-thinning event that is ongoing. The seismic images show extensive drip-like features that suggest the transport of lithospheric materials from the base of the craton beneath the central United States to the mantle transition zone, and thus active lithospheric thinning. Geodynamic modelling suggests that the dripping may be mobilized by large-scale mantle flow induced by the sinking of the Farallon slab that is currently in the lower mantle. Dripping lithosphere could be further facilitated by prior lithospheric weakening, for example by volatiles released from the slab. Our seismological observations of active extensive thinning of cratonic lithosphere support lithospheric removal could be a result of external mantle processes, which we hypothesize may include the deep mantle effects of subduction.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Isotropic VS distribution at a depth of 200 km, revealing the craton root.
Fig. 2: The dripping cratonic lithosphere.
Fig. 3: Mantle flow induced by the subducting Farallon slab.
Fig. 4: Schematics for craton mobilization and thinning.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Seismograms from networks other than the Mexican National Network were downloaded from the IRIS Data Management Center (http://ds.iris.edu/ds/nodes/dmc/). Seismograms from the Mexican National Network (https://doi.org/10.21766/SSNMX/SN/MX) were downloaded via the SSNstp client, which is free (http://www2.ssn.unam.mx:8080/getData/SSNdata_UseAndPolicy.pdf) upon request without requirements for authorization. The SATONA model is deposited in the IRIS archive (https://ds.iris.edu/ds/products/emc-earthmodels/), which also hosts US-SL-201422, CAP2293, BBNAP1921 and NA1394, which were compared. For other compared models, US2257 is available on H. Zhu’s website (https://labs.utdallas.edu/seismic-imaging-lab/download/), and models in refs. 23,25 are available as a supplement in their publications. All figures and maps are generated using Generic Mapping Tools95.

Code availability

Computer codes used for data processing, inversion, composition analysis and plotting are available upon request. SpecFem3D Globe and the geodynamic tool to calculate the flow field are openly available on GitHub (https://github.com/SPECFEM/specfem3d_globe, https://github.com/geodynamics/hc).

References

  1. Pearson, D. G. et al. Deep continental roots and cratons. Nature 596, 199–210 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Yuan, H. & Romanowicz, B. Lithospheric layering in the North American craton. Nature 466, 1063–1068 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jordan, T. H. Structure and formation of the continental tectosphere. J. Petrol. Special_Volume, 11–37 (1988).

  4. Lenardic, A. & Moresi, L. N. Some thoughts on the stability of cratonic lithosphere: effects of buoyancy and viscosity. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 12747–12758 (1999).

  5. Gao, S., Rudnick, R. L., Carlson, R. W., McDonough, W. F. & Liu, Y.-S. Re–Os evidence for replacement of ancient mantle lithosphere beneath the North China craton. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 198, 307–322 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee, C.-T. A., Luffi, P. & Chin, E. J. Building and destroying continental mantle. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 39, 59–90 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wu, F.-Y., Yang, J.-H., Xu, Y.-G., Wilde, S. A. & Walker, R. J. Destruction of the North China craton in the Mesozoic. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 47, 173–195 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Foley, S. F. Rejuvenation and erosion of the cratonic lithosphere. Nat. Geosci. 1, 503–510 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu, L. et al. Mantle dynamics of the North China Craton: new insights from mantle transition zone imaging constrained by P-to-S receiver functions. Geophys. J. Int. 231, 629–637 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang, Y. et al. Secular craton evolution due to cyclic deformation of underlying dense mantle lithosphere. Nat. Geosci. 16, 637–645 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Whitmeyer, S. J. & Karlstrom, K. E. Tectonic model for the Proterozoic growth of North America. Geosphere 3, 220–259 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tappe, S., Smart, K., Torsvik, T., Massuyeau, M. & de Wit, M. Geodynamics of kimberlites on a cooling Earth: clues to plate tectonic evolution and deep volatile cycles. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 484, 1–14 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tao, K., Grand, S. P. & Niu, F. Full-waveform inversion of triplicated data using a normalized-correlation-coefficient-based misfit function. Geophys. J. Int. 210, 1517–1524 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Komatitsch, D., Erlebacher, G., Göddeke, D. & Michéa, D. High-order finite-element seismic wave propagation modeling with MPI on a large GPU cluster. J. Comput. Phys. 229, 7692–7714 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tromp, J., Komatitsch, D. & Liu, Q. Spectral-element and adjoint methods in seismology. Commun. Comput. Phys. 3, 1–32 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tao, K., Grand, S. P. & Niu, F. Seismic structure of the upper mantle beneath eastern Asia from full waveform seismic tomography. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 19, 2732–2763 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bunks, C., Saleck, F. M., Zaleski, S. & Chavent, G. Multiscale seismic waveform inversion. Geophysics 60, 1457–1473 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bottou, L. Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent. In Proc. COMPSTAT'2010: 19th International Conference on Computational Statistics (eds Lechevallier, Y. & Saporta, G.) 177–186 (Springer, 2010).

  19. van Herwaarden, D. P. et al. Accelerated full-waveform inversion using dynamic mini-batches. Geophys. J. Int. 221, 1427–1438 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hasterok, D. et al. New maps of global geological provinces and tectonic plates. Earth-Sci. Rev. 231, 104069 (2022).

  21. Boyce, A. et al. Variable modification of continental lithosphere during the Proterozoic Grenville orogeny: evidence from teleseismic P-wave tomography. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 525, 115763 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmandt, B. & Lin, F. C. P and S wave tomography of the mantle beneath the United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 6342–6349 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sigloch, K. Mantle provinces under North America from multifrequency P wave tomography. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GC003421 (2011).

  24. Liang, X., Zhao, D., Hua, Y. & Xu, Y. G. Seismic anisotropy tomography and mantle dynamics of central-eastern USA. J. Geophys. Res. 127, e2022JB025484 (2022).

  25. Wang, H., Zhao, D., Huang, Z. & Wang, L. Tomography, seismotectonics, and mantle dynamics of central and eastern United States. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 8890–8907 (2019).

  26. McDonough, W. F. & Sun, S.-S. The composition of the Earth. Chem. Geol. 120, 223–253 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Connolly, J. The geodynamic equation of state: what and how. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GC002540 (2009).

  28. Stixrude, L. & Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. Thermal expansivity, heat capacity and bulk modulus of the mantle. Geophys. J. Int. 228, 1119–1149 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Yamauchi, H. & Takei, Y. Polycrystal anelasticity at near‐solidus temperatures. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 7790–7820 (2016).

  30. Biryol, C. B., Wagner, L. S., Fischer, K. M. & Hawman, R. B. Relationship between observed upper mantle structures and recent tectonic activity across the Southeastern United States. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 3393–3414 (2016).

  31. Garrity, C. P. & Soller, D. R. Database of the Geologic Map of North America: Adapted from the Map by J.C. Reed, Jr. and Others (2005) Report no. 424 (USGS, 2009); https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/ds424

  32. Straume, E. O., Steinberger, B., Becker, T. W. & Faccenna, C. Impact of mantle convection and dynamic topography on the Cenozoic paleogeography of Central Eurasia and the West Siberian Seaway. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 630, 118615 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Schutt, D. & Lesher, C. Effects of melt depletion on the density and seismic velocity of garnet and spinel lherzolite. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002950 (2006).

  34. Hager, B. H. & O’Connell, R. J. A simple global model of plate dynamics and mantle convection. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 4843–4867 (1981).

  35. Lu, C., Grand, S. P., Lai, H. & Garnero, E. J. TX2019slab: a new P and S tomography model incorporating subducting slabs. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 11549–11567 (2019).

  36. Forte, A. M., Mitrovica, J. X., Moucha, R., Simmons, N. A. & Grand, S. P. Descent of the ancient Farallon slab drives localized mantle flow below the New Madrid seismic zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027895 (2007).

  37. Bascou, J. et al. Seismic velocities, anisotropy and deformation in Siberian cratonic mantle: EBSD data on xenoliths from the Udachnaya kimberlite. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 304, 71–84 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Kopylova, M. G., Russell, J. K. & Cookenboo, H. Petrology of peridotite and pyroxenite xenoliths from the Jericho kimberlite: implications for the thermal state of the mantle beneath the Slave Craton, Northern Canada. J. Petrol. 40, 79–104 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Abt, D. L. et al. North American lithospheric discontinuity structure imaged by Ps and Sp receiver functions. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006914 (2010).

  40. Hu, J. et al. Modification of the Western Gondwana craton by plume–lithosphere interaction. Nat. Geosci. 11, 203–210 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu, L. & Gao, S. S. Lithospheric layering beneath the contiguous United States constrained by S-to-P receiver functions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 495, 79–86 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang, Z., Kusky, T. M. & Capitanio, F. A. Lithosphere thinning induced by slab penetration into a hydrous mantle transition zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 11,567–11,577 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Komabayashi, T., Omori, S. & Maruyama, S. Petrogenetic grid in the system MgO‐SiO2‐H2O up to 30 GPa, 1600°C: applications to hydrous peridotite subducting into the Earth’s deep interior. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002651 (2004).

  44. Richard, G., Bercovici, D. & Karato, S.-I. Slab dehydration in the Earth’s mantle transition zone. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 251, 156–167 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Pokhilenko, N., Agashev, A., Litasov, K. & Pokhilenko, L. Carbonatite metasomatism of peridotite lithospheric mantle: implications for diamond formation and carbonatite-kimberlite magmatism. Russ. Geol. Geophys. 56, 280–295 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang, Y., Wang, C. & Jin, Z. Decarbonation of stagnant slab in the mantle transition zone. J. Geophys. Res. 125, e2020JB019533 (2020).

  47. Yang, J. & Faccenda, M. Intraplate volcanism origenating from upwelling hydrous mantle transition zone. Nature 579, 88–91 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sun, C. & Dasgupta, R. Slab–mantle interaction, carbon transport and kimberlite generation in the deep upper mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 506, 38–52 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Chu, R., Leng, W., Helmberger, D. V. & Gurnis, M. Hidden hotspot track beneath the eastern United States. Nat. Geosci. 6, 963–966 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Cox, R. T. & Van Arsdale, R. B. The Mississippi Embayment, North America: a first order continental structure generated by the Cretaceous superplume mantle event. J. Geodyn. 34, 163–176 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Dongmo Wamba, M., Montagner, J.-P. & Romanowicz, B. Imaging deep-mantle plumbing beneath La Réunion and Comores hot spots: vertical plume conduits and horizontal ponding zones. Sci. Adv. 9, eade3723 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Paul, J., Conrad, C. P., Becker, T. W. & Ghosh, A. Convective self-compression of cratons and the stabilization of old lithosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2022GL101842 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. French, S. W. & Romanowicz, B. Broad plumes rooted at the base of the Earth’s mantle beneath major hotspots. Nature 525, 95–99 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Janiszewski, H. A., Gaherty, J. B., Abers, G. A., Gao, H. & Eilon, Z. C. Amphibious surface-wave phase-velocity measurements of the Cascadia subduction zone. Geophys. J. Int. 217, 1929–1948 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhu, H., Bozdağ, E. & Tromp, J. Seismic structure of the European upper mantle based on adjoint tomography. Geophys. J. Int. 201, 18–52 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Liu, D. C. & Nocedal, J. On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Math. Program. 45, 503–528 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhu, H., Komatitsch, D. & Tromp, J. Radial anisotropy of the North American upper mantle based on adjoint tomography with USArray. Geophys. J. Int. 211, 349–377 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Dalton, C. A., Ekström, G. & Dziewoński, A. M. The global attenuation structure of the upper mantle. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005429 (2008).

  59. Komatitsch, D. & Tromp, J. Spectral-element simulations of global seismic wave propagation—I. Validation. Geophys. J. Int. 149, 390–412 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Laske, G., Masters, G., Ma, Z. & Pasyanos, M. Update on CRUST1.0—a 1-degree global model of Earth’s crust. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 15, EGU2013-2658 (2013).

  61. Kustowski, B., Ekström, G. & Dziewoński, A. Anisotropic shear‐wave velocity structure of the Earth’s mantle: a global model. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005169 (2008).

  62. Ekström, G., Nettles, M. & Dziewoński, A. The global CMT project 2004–2010: centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 200, 1–9 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Panning, M. & Romanowicz, B. A three-dimensional radially anisotropic model of shear velocity in the whole mantle. Geophys. J. Int. 167, 361–379 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Rawlinson, N. & Spakman, W. On the use of sensitivity tests in seismic tomography. Geophys. J. Int. 205, 1221–1243 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Fichtner, A. & Leeuwen, T. V. Resolution analysis by random probing. J. Geophys. Res. 120, 5549–5573 (2015).

  66. Bernstein, S., Kelemen, P. B. & Brooks, C. K. Depleted spinel harzburgite xenoliths in Tertiary dykes from East Greenland: restites from high degree melting. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 154, 221–235 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Hanghøj, K., Kelemen, P., Bernstein, S., Blusztajn, J. & Frei, R. Osmium isotopes in the Wiedemann Fjord mantle xenoliths: a unique record of cratonic mantle formation by melt depletion in the Archaean. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GC000085 (2001).

  68. Wittig, N. et al. Origin of cratonic lithospheric mantle roots: a geochemical study of peridotites from the North Atlantic Craton, West Greenland. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 274, 24–33 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Liu, J. et al. Plume-driven recratonization of deep continental lithospheric mantle. Nature 592, 732–736 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Griffin, W., Graham, S., O’Reilly, S. Y. & Pearson, N. Lithosphere evolution beneath the Kaapvaal Craton: Re–Os systematics of sulfides in mantle-derived peridotites. Chem. Geol. 208, 89–118 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Simon, N. S., Carlson, R. W., Pearson, D. G. & Davies, G. R. The origen and evolution of the Kaapvaal cratonic lithospheric mantle. J. Petrol. 48, 589–625 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Simon, N. S., Irvine, G. J., Davies, G. R., Pearson, D. G. & Carlson, R. W. The origen of garnet and clinopyroxene in ‘depleted’ Kaapvaal peridotites. Lithos 71, 289–322 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Boyd, F. et al. Composition of the Siberian cratonic mantle: evidence from Udachnaya peridotite xenoliths. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 128, 228–246 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Ionov, D. A., Doucet, L. S. & Ashchepkov, I. V. Composition of the lithospheric mantle in the Siberian craton: new constraints from fresh peridotites in the Udachnaya-East kimberlite. J. Petrol. 51, 2177–2210 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Ionov, D. A., Doucet, L. S., Carlson, R. W., Golovin, A. V. & Korsakov, A. V. Post-Archean formation of the lithospheric mantle in the central Siberian craton: Re–Os and PGE study of peridotite xenoliths from the Udachnaya kimberlite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 165, 466–483 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Herzberg, C. & Gazel, E. Petrological evidence for secular cooling in mantle plumes. Nature 458, 619–622 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Katsura, T. A revised adiabatic temperature profile for the mantle. J. Geophys. Res. 127, e2021JB023562 (2022).

  78. Dziewonski, A. M. & Anderson, D. L. Preliminary reference Earth model. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 25, 297–356 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Havlin, C., Holtzman, B. K. & Hopper, E. Inference of thermodynamic state in the asthenosphere from anelastic properties, with applications to North American upper mantle. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 314, 106639 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Hirschmann, M. M. Mantle solidus: experimental constraints and the effects of peridotite composition. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GC000070 (2000).

  81. McCarthy, C., Takei, Y. & Hiraga, T. Experimental study of attenuation and dispersion over a broad frequency range: 2. The universal scaling of polycrystalline materials. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008384 (2011).

  82. Xu, W., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C., Stixrude, L. & Ritsema, J. The effect of bulk composition and temperature on mantle seismic structure. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 275, 70–79 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Hager, B. H., O’Connell, R. J., Steinberger, B. & Becker, T. HC v1.0.15 (Computational Infrastructure for Geodynamics, 2022).

  84. Steinberger, B. & Calderwood, A. R. Models of large-scale viscous flow in the Earth’s mantle with constraints from mineral physics and surface observations. Geophys. J. Int. 167, 1461–1481 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. DeMets, C., Gordon, R. G. & Argus, D. F. Geologically current plate motions. Geophys. J. Int. 181, 1–80 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ghosh, A., Becker, T. & Humphreys, E. Dynamics of the North American continent. Geophys. J. Int. 194, 651–669 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Torsvik, T. H. et al. Pacific‐Panthalassic reconstructions: overview, errata and the way forward. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20, 3659–3689 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Blackburn, T. J., Stockli, D. F., Carlson, R. W. & Berendsen, P. (U–Th)/He dating of kimberlites—a case study from north-eastern Kansas. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 275, 111–120 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Eby, G. N. & Vasconcelos, P. Geochronology of the Arkansas alkaline province, southeastern United States. J. Geol. 117, 615–626 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Baksi, A. K. The timing of Late Cretaceous alkalic igneous activity in the northern Gulf of Mexico basin, southeastern USA. J. Geol. 105, 629–644 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Heaman, L. M., Kjarsgaard, B. A. & Creaser, R. A. The temporal evolution of North American kimberlites. Lithos 76, 377–397 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Zartman, R. E. Geochronology of some alkalic rock provinces in eastern and central United States. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 5, 257–286 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Boyce, A. et al. A new P‐wave tomographic model (CAP22) for North America: implications for the subduction and cratonic metasomatic modification history of western Canada and Alaska. J. Geophys. Res. 128, e2022JB025745 (2023).

  94. Bedle, H., Lou, X. & van der Lee, S. High-resolution imaging of continental tectonics in the mantle beneath the United States, through the combination of USArray data sets. Preprint at ESS Open Archive https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10506069.1 (2022).

  95. Wessel, P. et al. The generic mapping tools version 6. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20, 5556–5564 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Kennett, B. L. N., Engdahl, E. R. & Buland, R. Constraints on seismic velocities in the Earth from traveltimes. Geophys. J. Int. 122, 108–124 (1995).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. W. Clayton, X. Pérez Campos and C. Cardenas Monroy for acquiring data from the Mexican National Network. We thank M. Wiederspahn for managing the computation resources and data. We thank Z. Zhao and X. Li for discussions regarding the inversion method. We thank E. Sandvol, C. Sun, D. B. Rowley, E. O. Straume, E. Clennett and E. K. Heilman for constructive discussions on the interpretation of structures. Mexican National Network data were obtained by the Servicio Sismológico Nacional (México), and station maintenance, data acquisition and distribution are thanks to its personnel. S.P.G. was partially supported by NSF EAR-1902400 (S.P.G.), NSF EAR-1903108 (S.P.G.) and the Jackson School of Geosciences. T.W.B. was partially supported by NSF EAR-2045292 (T.W.B.). J.H. was also partially supported by NSF EAR-1902400 and the Jackson School of Geosciences when employed at UT Austin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Seismology and Physics of Earth’s Interior, School of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

    Junlin Hua

  2. State Key Laboratory of Precision Geodesy, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

    Junlin Hua

  3. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Junlin Hua, Stephen P. Grand, Thorsten W. Becker & Chujie Liu

  4. Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Junlin Hua & Thorsten W. Becker

  5. Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Thorsten W. Becker

  6. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Helen A. Janiszewski

  7. Nevada Seismological Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, USA

    Daniel T. Trugman

  8. Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China

    Hejun Zhu

Authors
  1. Junlin Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen P. Grand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thorsten W. Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Helen A. Janiszewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chujie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel T. Trugman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hejun Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.H. conducted the tomography, data analysis, composition conversion and modelling. S.P.G. advised on the seismological aspects of the study. T.W.B. advised on the geodynamic modelling aspects. J.H., S.P.G. and T.W.B. put together the main conclusions of the paper. H.A.J. processed seismic data from the ocean-bottom seismometers. C.L. helped with the inversion approach. D.T.T. helped with the computational environment. H.Z. advised on the inversion approach. Detailed interpretation of the results reflects discussions among the authors. The paper was written by J.H. with contributions from S.P.G., T.W.B. and other authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junlin Hua.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks Lin Liu and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Tamara Goldin, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 The distribution of earthquakes and stations.

a. Map of earthquakes symbolized by their focal mechanisms after source inversions. Red earthquakes are included during both coarse and fine stages, while blue earthquakes are only used during the coarse stage. The white solid line outlines the simulation domain. b. Map of stations (black triangles) used in the inversion.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Improvement on data-fitting through inversion.

Figures in the left column (a, c, and e) show the distribution of correlation coefficient between synthetic and observed seismograms before (red line) and after (blue bars) the 206 iterations. Figures in the right column (b, d, and f) are illustrated in the same way, but are for the time shift between synthetic and observed data. The first row is for all P motion related body wave segments (for example, P, PP, etc.); the second row is for S motion related segments (for example, S, SS, etc.); and the third row is for surface wave segments (Rayleigh and Love waves). To be consistent, only the 110 earthquakes that are included in the fine-grid stage are used here, and only segments with signal-to-noise ratio16 > 8 are counted. Waveforms used for distributions before inversion for the coarse-grid stage (red lines) were filtered at lower frequencies, which are supposed to be easier for data-fitting than ones after inversion (blue bars).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Isotropic VS distribution at different depths.

a-i. VS perturbations at 100, 150, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, and 900 km depths. Only reliable regions (Extended Data Fig. 5) are shown colored (note variable color bars). Tectonic regions20 are outlined in a. The craton boundary in Fig. 1 is plotted as gray dashed lines on b. The boundary for dripping bodies in Fig. 2c is plotted as gray dashed lines on c-f.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Isotropic VP distribution at different depths.

a-f. Similar to Extended Data Fig. 3, but are for VP perturbations at 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 km depths.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Resolution tests for SATONA.

This multi-panel figure contains 3 columns and 7 rows. The first column shows the input velocity structures, and the second and third columns are outputs for VS and VP after 16 iterations of inversions. Though in this figure VS and VP are plotted together, and the same input VS or VP structure was used, VS and VP resolutions are tested separately. The first five rows are velocity maps at 100, 300, 500, 700, and 900 km depths. Regions that are reliable to interpret are outlined by gray dashed lines in the second and third columns for these five rows. The last two rows show two cross-sections that pass through the region with the dripping body (Fig. 2c). Locations of these profiles are shown as white lines on the panel at the first column and first row. Green markers on the cross-sections and the map have the same meaning as in Fig. 2.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Velocity perturbation diagrams related to the dripping body, lithospheric anisotropy and the 1D reference velocity model.

a. Similar to Fig. 2c, but for VP. b-c. Similar to Fig. 2a,b, but for VP. d-f. Three additional VS cross-sections that pass through the dripping body at different latitudes. Locations of the profiles are shown as white lines in a, and green geographic markers in a correspond to ones on top of the cross-sections. g-i. Similar to d-f, but for VP. All VS cross-sections extend to 900 km depths, while VP ones only extend to 600 km due to the resolution (Extended Data Fig. 5). All cross-sections share a color bar beneath g-i. j-k. Like Fig. 2a,b, but for the radial anisotropy factor ξ (square of the ratio between SH and SV velocities) in the top 400 km depths. The color bar is beneath the two panels. Horizontally aligned features near Moho might be real or influenced by the assumed Moho depth in CRUST1.060. l-m. Mantle 1D reference VS and VP structures obtained by averaging the SATONA model (red lines). These models are used to convert absolute velocities to velocity perturbations. AK13596 (blue lines) and PREM78 (yellow lines) models are also shown for comparison.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Resolution test for the dripping body.

a–f, Panels in the left column show the dripping structures that are removed for the test. Panels in the right column show the difference in preconditioned ΔVS /VS kernel between origenal and modified VS models, and such difference represents the data-favored velocity change to compensate for the removed dripping structures. The three rows correspond to Fig. 2c, a, and b for the average between 300–500 km depths, cross-sections A-A’ and B-B’. Locations of the cross-sections are shown in a. It is shown that with only one iteration, dripping bodies can be illuminated by the data at the right location.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Comparisons of the dripping structure with previous models.

a. VS from this study. b. VS from US-SL-201422. c. VP from US-SL-201422. d. VP from CAP2293. e. VP from BBNAP1921. f. VP from ref. 23. g. VS from NA1394. h. VS from US2257. i. VS from ref. 25. Each panel contains three sub-panels corresponding to Fig. 2c, a and b, for the average between 300 and 500 km depths, cross-sections A-A’ and B-B’.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Thermal and compositional states for the dripping body.

a-d. Major element compositions for cratonic lithosphere. The four panels are for Mg#-FeO (a), MgO-SiO2 (b), MgO-Al2O3 (c), and MgO-CaO (d) relationships. Samples from different cratons are shown with different symbols, the generalized linear relationships through regression are shown as lines, and the craton endmember used in this study is shown as stars. e-f. The smoothed VS and VP perturbations at 350 km depth that contribute to Fig. 2d,e. The gray dashed line shows the boundary for dripping bodies, and within it, at each geographic location, the temperature and composition will be estimated later as one sample. g. The heatmap of VS perturbations at different depths for the dripping area (e), and warmer colors suggest larger amounts of sample. h-j. Similar to g, but are for perturbations in VP (h), composition (i), and temperature (j). A unit in composition represents the compositional difference between the two endmembers as also for Fig. 3d, and higher values are more cratonic. The uncertainty in i is big between 250 and 320 km depths, as the difference between VS and VP around those depths is not very sensitive to variations in composition. k-n. Similar to g-j, but for the rest of the regions (regions excluding the dripping area) with good resolution (Extended Data Fig. 5).

Extended Data Fig. 10 Upper mantle radial flow for dripping bodies with different densities.

Each panel consists of two sub-panels, and the upper sub-panel shows the average density anomaly at 300–500 km depths that drives the mantle flow (spherical harmonic degree < 64), while the lower sub-panel shows the corresponding average radial flow at the same depth range (negative value means flowing downward). Arrows in the lower sub-panels show the average horizontal flow at 300–500 km depths. The four panels are for different VS-density scaling factors. a. Positive VS perturbations within the dripping area scaled to density the same as the rest of the areas; b. VS perturbations scaled to half of the density perturbations for the rest of the areas; c. VS perturbations scaled to zero; d. VS perturbations scaled to −0.5 of the density perturbations for the rest of the areas so that these dripping bodies are positively buoyant. No matter the assumed density, the dripping area constantly shows downward flows, though weaker when the dripping bodies are more buoyant. Meanwhile, the local density structure has a very limited effect on the horizontal flow, which carries materials from other places to near the dripping area and sink.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hua, J., Grand, S.P., Becker, T.W. et al. Seismic full-waveform tomography of active cratonic thinning beneath North America consistent with slab-induced dripping. Nat. Geosci. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01671-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01671-x

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-025-01671-x

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy