the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Numerical modelling of stresses and deformation in Zagros-Iranian plateau region
Srishti Singh
Abstract. Zagros orogeny System resulted due to the collision of the Arabian plate with the Eurasian plate. The region has ocean-continent subduction and continent-continent collision, and subsequently, the convergence velocity varies from east to west. Therefore, this region shows the complex regime of tectonic stresses and a wide range of diffused or localized deformations. The in-situ stress and GPS data are very limited and sparsely distributed in this region; hence, we performed a numerical simulation of the stresses causing deformation in the Zagros-Iran region. The deviatoric stresses resulting from the variations in lithospheric density and thickness; and those from shear tractions at the base of the lithosphere due to mantle convection were computed using thin-sheet approximation. Stresses associated with both sources can explain various surface observations of strain rates, SHmax, and plate velocities; thus, suggesting a good coupling between lithosphere and mantle in most parts of Zagros and Iran. As the magnitude of stresses due to shear tractions from density-driven mantle convection is higher than those from lithospheric density and topography variations in the Zagros-Iranian plateau region, mantle convection appears to be the dominant driver of deformation in this area. However, the deformation in the east of Iran is caused primarily by lithospheric stresses. The plate velocity of the Arabian plate is found to vary along the Zagros belt from north-northeast in the southeast of Zagros to the northwest in northwestern Zagros, similar to observed GPS velocity vectors. The output of this study can be used in seismic hazard estimations.
Srishti Singh and Radheshyam Yadav
Status: open (until 04 Apr 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-250', Frédéric Mouthereau, 17 Mar 2023
reply
In this study, the authors test different tomographic models to calculate the impacts of different convection patterns in combination with the GPE arising from different crustal architectures to derive the stresses (SHmax, deviatoric stress orientation, and magnitude) and velocity field across the Zagros-Iran Plateau. They take the same approach as Ghosh et al. (2013). While the approach may seem valid and has never been attempted in the region, the manuscript and science need to be rewritten and rethought in a more meaningful way. My main scientific concern is with the choice of parameters tested. The authors use different tomographic models that are globally consistent and different crustal models that also show little variations. Thus, as expected, the differences between the models tested are only subtle and thus do not provide much information about the dynamics of the region. The varying thickness of the crust is expected to have a much smaller effect on the calculation of tractions than the thickness, density, and viscosity of the lithosphere. However, the authors prescribe a constant lithosphere thickness of 100 km. This essential parameter must be taken into account in the modeling, as well as the lateral variations in density and viscosity between the Arabian Shield and the Zagros, below which several authors have suggested very different lithosphere thicknesses, up to 200 km. This is also true for the Iranian plateau, which is much thinner. In practice, the authors present a short sentence indicating that they use the viscosities of Ghosh et al. 2013, but without further explanation or justification. Variations in LAB need to be tested.
But the main problem is probably the text itself. The introduction is terrible and demonstrates the poor knowledge of the geology of the region. It should be completely reworked. The study should be better justified. What is the key issue addressed? In my opinion, the implementation of lithospheric structures in the model and in the question would be very useful for the readership. The paper is far too short and lacks an explanation for readers to understand what is strong and weak in the previous works and the added value of the present study. Currently, it reads as a copy and paste of the Ghosh et al. 2013 approach applied to the Zagros, but without a minimum explanation and without a full study of the critical parameters. I attach my comments in a pdf file.F. Mouthereau
Srishti Singh and Radheshyam Yadav
Srishti Singh and Radheshyam Yadav
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
95 | 0 | 0 | 95 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 95
- PDF: 0
- XML: 0
- Total: 95
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1