Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter September 14, 2017

Towards the Moho depth and Moho density contrast along with their uncertainties from seismic and satellite gravity observations

M. Abrehdary, L.E. Sjöberg, M. Bagherbandi and D. Sampietro


We present a combined method for estimating a new global Moho model named KTH15C, containing Moho depth and Moho density contrast (or shortly Moho parameters), from a combination of global models of gravity (GOCO05S), topography (DTM2006) and seismic information (CRUST1.0 and MDN07) to a resolution of 1° × 1° based on a solution of Vening Meinesz-Moritz’ inverse problem of isostasy. This paper also aims modelling of the observation standard errors propagated from the Vening Meinesz-Moritz and CRUST1.0 models in estimating the uncertainty of the final Moho model. The numerical results yield Moho depths ranging from 6.5 to 70.3 km, and the estimated Moho density contrasts ranging from 21 to 650 kg/m3, respectively. Moreover, test computations display that in most areas estimated uncertainties in the parameters are less than 3 km and 50 kg/m3, respectively, but they reach to more significant values under Gulf of Mexico, Chile, Eastern Mediterranean, Timor sea and parts of polar regions. Comparing the Moho depths estimated by KTH15C and those derived by KTH11C, GEMMA2012C, CRUST1.0, KTH14C, CRUST14 and GEMMA1.0 models shows that KTH15C agree fairly well with CRUST1.0 but rather poor with other models. The Moho density contrasts estimated by KTH15C and those of the KTH11C, KTH14C and VMM model agree to 112, 31 and 61 kg/m3 in RMS. The regional numerical studies show that the RMS differences between KTH15C and Moho depths from seismic information yields fits of 2 to 4 km in South and North America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia and Antarctica, respectively.

Funding source: Swedish National Space Board

Award Identifier / Grant number: 116/12

Funding statement: This study was supported by projects no. 116/12 of the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB).


The authors would like to appreciate this organization for financial support. Mr. Alexey Baranov from Russian Academy of Sciences is acknowledged for providing some regional Moho depth models.


[1] Abrehdary, M., Sjöberg, L.E., and Bagherbandi, M. 2015. Combined Moho parameters determination using CRUST1.0 and Vening Meinesz-Moritz model. Journal of Earth Science, 26(4), 607–616.10.1007/s12583-015-0571-6Search in Google Scholar

[2] Amante, C. and Eakins, B.W. 2009. ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute global relief model: Procedures, data sources and analysis – NOAA technical memorandum NESDIS NGDC-24.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Bagherbandi M. and Sjöberg L.E., 2012. Non-Isostatic Effects on Crustal Thickness: A Study Using CRUST2.0 in Fennoscandia. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 200–201, 37–44, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2012.04.001.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Bagherbandi, M., Tenzer, R., and Sjöberg, L.E. 2014. Moho depth uncertainties in the Vening-Meinesz Moritz inverse problem of isostasy. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 58(2), 227–248.10.1007/s11200-013-1258-zSearch in Google Scholar

[5] Bassin, C., Laske, G., and Masters, T.G. 2000. The current limits of resolution for surface wave tomography in North America. EOS Trans AGU, 81, F897.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Baranov, A. and Morelli, A, 2013. The Moho depth map of the Antarctica region. Tectonophysics, 609, 299–313.10.1016/j.tecto.2012.12.023Search in Google Scholar

[7] Baranov, A. and Morelli, A. 2014. The global Moho depth map for continental crust. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (Vol. 16, p. 16384).Search in Google Scholar

[8] Carlson, R.L. and Raskin, G.S. 1984. Density of the ocean crust. Nature, 311(5986), 555–558.10.1038/311555a0Search in Google Scholar

[9] Čadek, O. and Martinec, Z. 1991. Spherical harmonic expansion of the Earth’s crustal thickness up to degree and order 30. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 35(3), 151–165.10.1007/BF01614063Search in Google Scholar

[10] Christensen, N. and Mooney, W. 1995. Seismic velocity structure and composition of the continental crust: A global view. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 100, 9761–9788.10.1029/95JB00259Search in Google Scholar

[11] Chulick, G. and Mooney, W. 2002. Seismic structure of the crust and uppermost mantle of North America and adjacent ocean basins: A synthesis. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 92, 2478–2492.10.1785/0120010188Search in Google Scholar

[12] Chulick, G.S., Detweiler, S., and Mooney, W.D. 2013. Seismic structure of the crust and uppermost mantle of South America and surrounding oceanic basins. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 42, 260–276.10.1016/j.jsames.2012.06.002Search in Google Scholar

[13] Eshagh, M. 2015. On the relation between Moho and sub-crustal stress induced by mantle convection. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 12(1), 1.10.1088/1742-2132/12/1/1Search in Google Scholar

[14] Eshagh, M., Bagherbandi, M., and Sjöberg, L. 2011. A combined global Moho model based on seismic and gravimetric data. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica, 46(1), 25–38.10.1556/AGeod.46.2011.1.3Search in Google Scholar

[15] Grad, M. and Tiira, T. (2009). The Moho depth map of the European Plate. Geophysical Journal International, 176(1): 279–292.10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03919.xSearch in Google Scholar

[16] Hamayun, H. 2014. Global Earth Structure Recovery from State-of-the-art Models of the Earth’s Gravity Field and Additional Geophysical Information (Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology).Search in Google Scholar

[17] Hello, Y., Ogé, A., Sukhovich, A., and Nolet, G., 2011. Modern mermaids: New floats image the deep Earth. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(40), 337–338.10.1029/2011EO400001Search in Google Scholar

[18] Kennett, B.L.N., Salmon, M., and Saygin, E. 2011. AusMoho: the variation of Moho depth in Australia. Geophysical Journal International, 187(2): 946–958.10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05194.xSearch in Google Scholar

[19] Laske, G., Masters, G., Ma, Z. and Pasyanos, M.E., 2013. A New Global Crustal Model at 1×1 Degrees (CRUST1.0), ( in Google Scholar

[20] Laske, G. and Masters, G. 1997. A global digital map of sediment thickness. Eos Trans. AGU, 78(F483).10.1029/97EO00210Search in Google Scholar

[21] Lebedev, S., Adam, J.M.C., and Meier, T. 2013. Mapping the Moho with seismic surface waves: a review, resolution analysis, and recommended inversion strategies. Tectonophysics, 609, 377–394.10.1016/j.tecto.2012.12.030Search in Google Scholar

[22] Lloyd, S., van der Lee, S., Franca, G.S., Assumpcao, M., and Feng, M. 2010. Moho map of South America from receiver functions and surface waves. J. Geophys. Res., 115, B11315.10.1029/2009JB006829Search in Google Scholar

[23] Marone, F., Van Der Meijde, M., Van Der Lee, S., and Giardini, D. 2003. Joint inversion of local, regional and teleseismic data for crustal thickness in the Eurasia–Africa plate boundary region. Geophysical Journal International, 154(2), 499–514.10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01973.xSearch in Google Scholar

[24] Mayer-Gürr, T., et al. 2015. The combined satellite gravity field model GOCO05s. Presentation at EGU 2015, Vienna, April 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Meier, U., Curtis, A., and Trampert, J. 2007. Global crustal thickness from neural network inversion of surface wave data. Geophysical Journal International, 169(2): 706–722.10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03373.xSearch in Google Scholar

[26] Mooney, W.D. 2007. Crust and Lithospheric Structure – Global Crustal Structure. Treatise on Geophysics, vol. 1: Seismology and Structure of the Earth. (Eds. B. Romanowicz and A. Dziewonski). Elsevier, 361–417.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Pasyanos, M.E. and Nyblade, A.A. 2007. A top to bottom lithospheric study of Africa and Arabia. Tectonophysics. 444, 27–44.10.1016/j.tecto.2007.07.008Search in Google Scholar

[28] Reguzzoni, M. and Sampietro, D., 2015. GEMMA: An Earth crustal model based on GOCE satellite data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 35, 31–43.10.1016/j.jag.2014.04.002Search in Google Scholar

[29] Reguzzoni, M., Sampietro, D., and Sansò, F., 2013. Global Moho from the combination of the CRUST2. 0 model and GOCE data. Geophysical Journal International, ggt247.10.1093/gji/ggt247Search in Google Scholar

[30] Sampietro, D., Reguzzoni, M., and Negretti, M., 2013. The GEMMA Crustal Model: First Validation and Data Distribution. In ESA Special Publication (Vol. 722, p. 30).Search in Google Scholar

[31] Sjöberg, L.E., 2009. Solving Vening Meinesz-Moritz Inverse Problem in Isostasy. Geophys J. Int., 179(3), 1527–1536, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04397.x.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Sjöberg, L.E., 2013. On the isostatic gravity anomaly and disturbance and their applications to Vening Meinesz–Moritz gravimetric inverse problem. Geophysical Journal International, 193(3), 1277–1282.10.1093/gji/ggt008Search in Google Scholar

[33] Sjöberg, L.E. and Bagherbandi, M., 2011. A method of estimating the Moho density contrast with a tentative application of EGM08 and CRUST2.0. Acta Geophysica, 59(3), 502–525.10.2478/s11600-011-0004-6Search in Google Scholar

[34] Sjöberg, L.E., Bagherbandi, M., and Tenzer, R., 2015. On Gravity Inversion by No-Topography and Rigorous Isostatic Gravity Anomalies. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 1–12.10.1007/s00024-015-1032-ySearch in Google Scholar

[35] Shapiro, N.M. and Ritzwoller, M.H., 2002. Monte-Carlo inversion for a global shear-velocity model of the crust and upper mantle. Geophys. J. Int., 151, 88–105.10.1046/j.1365-246X.2002.01742.xSearch in Google Scholar

[36] Suleimanov, A.K., Berzin, R.G., Zamozhnyaya, N.G., and Lipilin, A.V., 2007. Results of integrated geological-geophysical studies in the East European Craton (1EV geophysical transect). In: Models of the Earth’s crust and upper mantle after deep seismic profiling. Proceedings of the international scientific-practical seminar. Rosnedra, VSEGEI, St. Petersburg, VSEGEI Press, 215–223 (in Russian).Search in Google Scholar

[37] Sutra, E. and Manatschal, G. 2012. How does the continental crust thin in a hyperextended rifted margin? Insights from the Iberia margin. Geology, 40, 139–142, doi: 10.1130/G32786.1.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Tenzer, R. and Bagherbandi, M. 2012. Reformulation of the Vening Meinesz-Moritz inverse problem of isostasy for isostatic gravity disturbances. International Journal of Geosciences, 2012(3), 918–929, doi:10.4236/ijg.2012.325094.Search in Google Scholar

[39] Tenzer, R. and Chen, W. 2014. Expressions for the global gravimetric Moho modeling in spectral domain. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 171(8), 1877–1896.10.1007/s00024-013-0740-4Search in Google Scholar

[40] Tenzer, R., Chen, W., Tsoulis, D., Bagherbandi, M., Sjöberg, L.E, Novák, P, and Jin, S. 2015a. Analysis of the refined CRUST1.0 crustal model and its gravity field. Surveys in Geophysics, 36(1), 139–165.10.1007/s10712-014-9299-6Search in Google Scholar

[41] Tenzer, R., Chen, W., and Jin, S., 2015b. Effect of Upper Mantle Density Structure on Moho Geometry. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172(6), 1563–1583.10.1007/s00024-014-0960-2Search in Google Scholar

[42] Zolotov, E.E., Kostyuchenko, S.L., and Rakitov, V.A., 1998. Tomographic lithosphere sections in the ICAM VI Proceedings 9 East European Platform. In: Seismological model of the North European lithosphere: Barents Region. (Eds. F.P. Mitrofanov, N.V. Sharov). Apatity: KSC RAS. P. 1, 71–79 (in Russian).Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-5-10
Accepted: 2017-7-24
Published Online: 2017-9-14
Published in Print: 2017-12-1

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston