Interpretation-A Journal of Subsurface Characterization JCR分区-刊鹿论文编译

Crustal architecture of the northwestern and central Gulf of Mexico from integrated geophysical analysis

Abstract:

The tectonic history of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) is a subject for ongoing debate. The nature of the crust in the northwestern and central parts of the basin remains poorly understood. Joined interpretation of two 2D seismic cross sections — GUMBO1 and GUMBO2 — with potential fields (gravity and magnetics) constrained with available well data allows testing various hypotheses about the subsurface structures and crustal architecture in the study area. In the northwestern GOM, two contradicting hypotheses about the nature of the crust were tested — exhumed mantle versus a thinned and intruded continental crust resulted from magma-rich rifting. The nature of the crust was also investigated in the central GOM, where the disagreement in the location of the ocean-continent boundary (OCB) from various published tectonic models reaches 140 km (87 mi). The results suggest that the crust in the study area is stretched continental with multiple magmatic additions represented by dense and highly magnetic bodies with fast seismic velocities, presumably introduced during the magma-assisted rifting of the GOM. The contact between oceanic and continental domains, i.e., the OCB, is interpreted to be near the Sigsbee Escarpment for both modeled lines. The analysis does not support the presence of thick presalt sediments in the study area. This result questions the currently accepted tectonic reconstructions of the GOM as thick presalt deposits are imaged confidently by various seismic surveys along the western Yucatan margin, which is believed to be a conjugate for the study area. This apparent mismatch in distribution of the presalt sediments requires further investigation. Introduction Many tectonic models have been developed that describe the opening of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) basin, e.g., Pindell and Kennan (2001), Bird et al. (2005), Mickus et al. (2009), Kneller and Johnson (2011), Hudec et al. (2013), Van Avendonk et al. (2015), Nguyen and Mann (2016), and Lundin (2017). The present-day consensus implies that the GOM initiated as a continental rift in the Triassic, followed by a Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous seafloor spreading event, during which the Yucatan crustal block moved away in a counterclockwise manner from North America. This study focuses on the northwestern and central parts of the GOM (Figure 1), where two seismic refraction lines — GUMBO1 (Van Avendonk et al., 2015) and GUMBO2 (Eddy et al., 2018) — revealed the complexity and heterogeneity of the crust (Figure 2). The first of two models presented here follows profile GUMBO1 in the northwestern GOM; it crosses the region where two opposing models for the nature of the crust were proposed. The analysis of Mickus et al. (2009) was based on a potential field model constrained by a few old refraction data (Ewing et al., 1960; Hales et al., 1970) and concluded the necessity of extensive volcanism associated with the rifting stage based on the highly variable observed magnetic field. In contrast, the model of Van Avendonk et al. (2015) was based on the new refraction profile denoted as GUMBO1 (Figure 2a). The study concluded that the rifting resulted in mantle exhumation (Figure 2b); the presence of significant magnetic anomalies was explained by preexisting crustal fabric. This study addresses the obvious contradiction between these two end-member models via integrative geophysical analysis. Both hypotheses were modeled to test how they correspond or oppose the available geologic and geophysical data. The second model presented here is aligned with the line GUMBO 2 in the central GOM; it crosses the region where the published ocean-continent boundaries (OCBs) differ the most — up to 140 km (87 mi) as shown in Figure 1. The integrative approach allowed testing two different OCB locations to see which one correlates better with the multitude of geophysical data sets used for the study. The following data sets from the public domain were used for the analysis: (1) seismic data (Radovich et al., The University of Nebraska, The Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. E-mail: ifilina2@unl.edu (correspond-

Author Listing： Irina Filina

Volume： 7

Pages： None

DOI： 10.1190/INT-2018-0258.1

Language： English

Journal： Interpretation

Interpretation-A Journal of Subsurface Characterization

INTERPRETATION-J SUB

影响因子：1.1

是否综述期刊：否

是否OA：否

是否预警：不在预警名单内

发行时间：-

ISSN：2324-8858

发刊频率：-

收录数据库：SCIE/Scopus收录

出版国家/地区：UNITED STATES

出版社：Society of Exploration Geophysicists

期刊介绍

***Jointly published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG)***Interpretation is a new, peer-reviewed journal for advancing the practice of subsurface interpretation.

*** 由美国石油地质学家协会（AAPG）和勘探地球物理学家协会（SEG）联合出版 ***《解释》是一本新的同行评审期刊，旨在促进地下解释实践。

年发文量	81
国人发稿量	50
国人发文占比	61.73%
自引率	9.1%
平均录取率	-
平均审稿周期	-
版面费	-
偏重研究方向	GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS-
期刊官网	-
投稿链接	-

质量指标占比

研究类文章占比	OA被引用占比	撤稿占比	出版后修正文章占比
98.77%	2.37%	0.00%	0.98%

预警情况查看说明

时间	预警情况
2024年02月发布的2024版	不在预警名单中
2023年01月发布的2023版	不在预警名单中
2021年12月发布的2021版	不在预警名单中
2020年12月发布的2020版	不在预警名单中

JCR分区 WOS分区等级：Q3区

版本	按学科	分区
WOS期刊SCI分区 WOS期刊SCI分区是指SCI官方（Web of Science）为每个学科内的期刊按照IF数值排序，将期刊按照四等分的方法划分的Q1-Q4等级，Q1代表质量最高，即常说的1区期刊。（2021-2022年最新版）
	GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS	Q3

关于2019年中科院分区升级版（试行）

分区表升级版（试行）旨在解决期刊学科体系划分与学科发展以及融合趋势的不相容问题。由于学科交叉在当代科研活动的趋势愈发显著，学科体系构建容易引发争议。为了打破学科体系给期刊评价带来的桎梏，“升级版方案”首先构建了论文层级的主题体系，然后分别计算每篇论文在所属主题的影响力，最后汇总各期刊每篇论文分值，得到“期刊超越指数”，作为分区依据。

分区表升级版（试行）的优势：一是论文层级的主题体系既能体现学科交叉特点，又可以精准揭示期刊载文的多学科性；二是采用“期刊超越指数”替代影响因子指标，解决了影响因子数学性质缺陷对评价结果的干扰。整体而言，分区表升级版（试行）突破了期刊评价中学科体系构建、评价指标选择等瓶颈问题，能够更为全面地揭示学术期刊的影响力，为科研评价“去四唯”提供解决思路。相关研究成果经过国际同行的认可，已经发表在科学计量学领域国际重要期刊。

《2019年中国科学院文献情报中心期刊分区表升级版（试行）》首次将社会科学引文数据库（SSCI）期刊纳入到分区评估中。升级版分区表（试行）设置了包括自然科学和社会科学在内的18个大类学科。基础版和升级版（试行）将过渡共存三年时间，推测在此期间各大高校和科研院所仍可能会以基础版为考核参考标准。提示：中科院分区官方微信公众号“fenqubiao”仅提供基础版数据查询，暂无升级版数据，请注意区分。

中科院分区查看说明

版本	大类学科	小类学科	Top期刊	综述期刊
	地球科学 4区	GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS 地球化学与地球物理 4区	否	否
2021年12月基础版	地学 4区	GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS 地球化学与地球物理 4区	否	否
2021年12月升级版	地球科学 4区	GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS 地球化学与地球物理 4区	否	否
2020年12月旧的升级版	地球科学 4区	GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS 地球化学与地球物理 4区	否	否
2022年12月最新升级版	地球科学 4区	GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS 地球化学与地球物理 4区	否	否