Search for a command to run...
Research Article| March 01, 1987 Is the continental Moho the crust-mantle boundary? W. L. Griffin; W. L. Griffin 1Mineralogisk-Geologisk Museum, Sars Gate 1, 0562 Oslo 5, Norway Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Suzanne Y. O'Reilly Suzanne Y. O'Reilly 2School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, New South Wales 2109, Australia Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Geology (1987) 15 (3): 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1987)15<241:ITCMTC>2.0.CO;2 Article history first online: 02 Jun 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation W. L. Griffin, Suzanne Y. O'Reilly; Is the continental Moho the crust-mantle boundary?. Geology 1987;; 15 (3): 241–244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1987)15<241:ITCMTC>2.0.CO;2 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGeology Search Advanced Search Abstract Studies of high-pressure xenoliths suggest that mafic rocks are dominant in the lower crust and abundant in the uppermost mantle, beneath most continental areas. Xenolith data allow construction of geotherms and stratigraphic profiles and provide lithological constraints and physical parameters for realistic interpretations of geophysical data. In continental regions of high heat flow, the Moho, as defined by seismic refraction data, may lie deeper than the crust/mantle boundary. The seismic differences recorded for cratonic vs. "hot" lower crust/upper mantle sections may be explained by temperature variations alone and do not require large lithological differences. First Page Preview Close Modal You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
Published in: Geology
Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 241-241