Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 1080–1088

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Gondwana Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / g r

Possible influence of subducting ridges on the Himalayan arc and on the ruptures of
great and major Himalayan earthquakes
V.K. Gahalaut ⁎, Bhaskar Kundu
National Geophysical Research Institute (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research), Uppal Road, Hyderabad, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Subduction of bathymetric features, such as ridges, seamounts, fractures etc., on the subducting plate
Received 2 May 2011 influences the arc morphology and earthquake ruptures. We analyse their effect on the development of the
Received in revised form 11 July 2011 arcuate shape of the Himalayan arc and on the ruptures of great and major Himalayan earthquakes. Besides
Accepted 15 July 2011
the two most prominent ridges in the Indian Ocean, namely the Chagos-Laccadive-Deccan ridge and the 90°E
Available online 4 August 2011
ridge, which are assumed to extend up to the Himalayan arc, at least three major subsurface ridges have been
Editor: R.D. Nance mapped on the underthrusting Indian plate under the Indo-Gangetic plains. It appears that the subduction of
the two most prominent ridges contributed to the development of the arcuate shape of the Himalayan arc. The
Keywords: interaction and subduction of the other subsurface ridges probably influenced the Himalayan arc morphology
Himalayan earthquakes by causing a localised cusp in the frontal topography. Also, these ridges probably acted as barriers to the
Ridge ruptures of the major and great Himalayan earthquakes.
Tectonics © 2011 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Himalayan arc
Sediments

1. Introduction decapitation (Cloos and Shreve, 1996). The Peru–Chile trench is

Subduction of bathymetric features, such as seamounts, aseismic
ridges, fractures, banks and rises, influences the location and
frequency of great earthquakes in subduction zones and transform
plate regions and changes the arc morphology both locally and at
regional scale (e.g., Rosenbaum and Mo, 2011). The 1986 Andreanof
Islands, Alaska earthquake (Mw 8.0) was probably the first for which a
correlation between the earthquake rupture and the subducted
topography was suggested (Das and Kostrov, 1990). Since then such
correlations have been established in almost all subduction zone great
earthquakes (Robinson et al., 2006; Bilek, 2007; Das and Watts, 2009;
Watts et al., 2010). A fractured buoyant aseismic ridge or fracture
zone can either be weakly coupled or strongly coupled to form an
asperity or barrier, respectively, for an incoming rupture front (Bilek,
2007; Das and Watts, 2009). However, it is intuitive that in both cases
it may slow down the rupture speed. A subducted seamount or barrier
may inhibit the rupture propagation or may slow it down. It may
either have high friction so that the rupture propagation will halt, or it
may have low friction so that the area will not store significant stress
during the interseismic period. Even in the later case it may not allow
the rupture to propagate due to lack of significant strain energy
(Watts et al., 2010). A lot depends upon whether the topography
still remains preserved during subduction or is smoothed out by
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 91 40 23434711; fax: + 91 40 23434651.
E-mail address: vkgahalaut@yahoo.com (V.K. Gahalaut).
probably the best example where the ruptures of great and major
earthquakes are considered to be affected by the ridges (Robinson
et al., 2006; Sparkes et al., 2010). Subduction or interaction of the
ridges and seamounts also leads to changes in arc curvature, locally as
well as at a regional scale. Locally, it generally makes the trench
concave outward, as is the case for subduction of the Juan Fernandez
ridge at the Chile trench, subduction of the Louisville ridge at the
Tonga Kermadec trench, and subduction of the Markus Nekker rise at
the Izu trench (Vogt et al., 1976; Nur and Ben-Avraham, 1982). At a
regional scale, the trench between two subducting ridges appears
convex outward, e.g., the Mariana trench (Miller et al., 2006), the
Ryukyu trench (Nur and Ben-Avraham, 1982), etc.
So far these concepts of ridge subduction have been applied to
subduction zones where at least one of the two plates (usually the
subducting plate) is oceanic (e.g., Zhang et al., 2010; Rosenbaum and
Mo, 2011). In this article, we apply these concepts to the Himalayan
region where both plates are of continental origin. Along the 2500 km
long Himalayan arc, which is convex towards central India (Fig. 1a),
earthquake occurrence has been explained using subduction tecton-
ics. Crustal deformation across the Himalaya reveals that about
2 cm/year of the India-Eurasia convergence (Molnar, 1990; Bilham
et al., 1997) is accommodated in the Himalaya through stick-slip
motion on a seismically active detachment under the Outer and Lesser
Himalaya (Seeber and Armbruster, 1981; Molnar, 1990). The detach-
ment further north under the Higher and Tethys Himalaya slips
aseismically. Thus the great and major earthquakes in the Himalaya
occur on the gently northward dipping seismically active detachment

1342-937X/$ – see front matter © 2011 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gr.2011.07.021
 V.K. Gahalaut, B. Kundu / Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 1080–1088 1081

Fig. 1. Seismicity of the Himalayan arc, general geology (Gansser, 1964), rifts in the Tibetan plateau (Armijo et al., 1986) and subsurface ridges in the Indo-Gangetic plains (Sastri
et al., 1971; Rao, 1973). (a) Earthquakes are from the ISC catalogue, which also includes smaller magnitude earthquakes (M b 3) from local networks run by the India Meteorological
Department (IMD), India and Department of Mines and Geology (DMG), Nepal. The ruptures of earthquakes of M N 7.2 over the past 200 years in the Himalayan arc are shown by
rounded red rectangles and ellipses. Ruptures of 1905 Kangra earthquake after Wallace et al. (2005), 1803 Garhwal after Rajendran and Rajendran (2005), 1833 Kathmandu and
1934 Nepal Bihar after Hough and Bilham (2008) and 1950 Assam earthquake after Molnar (1990). The 1897 Shillong Plateau (Bilham and England, 2001) and the 1505 Lo Mustang
(Ambraseys and Jackson, 2003) earthquakes are also shown for reference. The motion of the India plate in the global reference frame and with respect to Eurasia is shown by the
arrows. Inset shows a north-south vertical cross section across the Himalayan arc. (b) Variation of seismicity (M N 4.5) of the Himalayan Seismic Belt (HSB) in an overlapping and
sliding 50 km window. Here the seismicity of the HSB is defined as the seismicity within 150 km north of the Main Frontal Thrust (MFT). The mean and 1σ standard deviation of the
seismicity of the HSB are marked with a dashed line. Ruptures of great and major earthquakes (rounded red rectangles) and the subsurface ridges are also shown. DHR — Delhi
Hardwar ridge; FR — Faizabad ridge; MSR — Munger–Saharsa ridge; MFT — main frontal thrust, MBT — main boundary thrust; MCT — main central thrust.

under the Outer and Lesser Himalaya. The small and moderate
magnitude earthquakes occur close to the downdip edge of the
seismically active detachment (Seeber and Armbruster, 1981; Ni and
Barazangi, 1984; Molnar, 1990). We suggest that the mapped
subsurface ridges under the Indo-Gangetic plains (Fig. 1, Sastri et al.,
1971; Rao, 1973), which presumably extend under the Himalaya due
to the northeastward motion of the Indian plate and arc normal
convergence in the Himalaya, delimits the earthquake ruptures of
great and major Himalayan earthquakes. On a larger scale, we also
suggest that the subduction of the major Chagos-Laccadive-Deccan
ridge and the 90°E ridge may have contributed to the development of
the arcuate shape of the Himalayan arc.
2. Himalayan earthquakes and ridges under the
Indo-Gangetic plains
2.1. Ruptures of great and major Himalayan earthquakes of the past two
hundred years
Several lines of paleoseismological and historical evidence have
been cited in support of major and great Himalayan earthquakes
occurring over the past one thousand years (Iyengar and Sharma,
1999; Bilham, 2004; Lavé et al., 2005; Kumar et al., 2006). However,
the ruptures of earthquakes that occurred before the nineteenth
century are not constrained, and hence it is not possible to use this
information for the present analysis. Here, we use ruptures of great
and major Himalayan earthquakes that have occurred in the past two
hundred years. The most notable of these are the September 1, 1803
Garhwal; August 26, 1833 Kathmandu; April 4, 1905 Kangra; August
28, 1916 western Nepal; January 15, 1934 Nepal–Bihar; July 29, 1947
Assam and August 15, 1950 Assam earthquakes (Fig. 1) (Seeber and
Armbruster, 1981; Ni and Barazangi, 1984; Molnar, 1990). Although
no instrumental data exist to conclusively constrain the ruptures of
these earthquakes, the macroseismic data, damage patterns, limited
geodetic data documenting coseismic changes, and some recent
studies based on crustal deformation, have provided some constraints
on their rupture extents. These earthquakes caused extensive to
moderate damage in the adjoining Indo-Gangetic plains. We have
excluded the June 12, 1897 Shillong Plateau earthquake (Mw 8.1)
since its rupture was confined under the Shillong Plateau, south of the
Himalayan arc. The October 8, 2005 Kashmir earthquake (Mw 7.4) is
also excluded from the analysis since its rupture characteristics are
different from the Himalayan earthquakes (Gahalaut, 2009) and it
may not be considered a Himalayan earthquake.
The 1803 Garhwal earthquake occurred in the Garhwal–Kumaun
region of the Central Himalaya. Besides damage in the towns of
1082 V.K. Gahalaut, B. Kundu / Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 1080–1088
Uttarkashi and Srinagar, it caused extensive damage in the Indo-
Gangetic plains and the Delhi region. Rajendran and Rajendran (2005)
analysed the damage reports for this earthquake and estimated a
magnitude of 7.7 with its rupture under the Lesser Himalaya. Hough
and Bilham (2008) suggested a magnitude of about 7.3 based on
intensity analysis. The 1916 western Nepal earthquake also caused
damage in Dharchula and Uttaranchal, India. Ambraseys and Douglas
(2004) revised its magnitude from 7.5 to 7.3. The 1833 earthquake in
the Nepal Himalaya has been critically analysed by Bilham (1995),
Hough and Bilham (2008) and Szeliga et al. (2010). From the damage
pattern they derived an isoseismal map for the earthquake and
concluded that it had a magnitude of about 7.3 and occurred near
Kathmandu. The length of 1905 Kangra earthquake rupture has been a
topic of debate. On the basis of macroseismic and coseismic elevation
change data along a levelling line, Molnar (1990), and Gahalaut and
Chander (1992) suggested a rupture length of about 250–300 km and
put it in the category of the great Himalayan earthquakes. However,
Bilham (2001) argued that the levelling data of coseismic changes
were erroneous and that the damage in the Dehradun region (about
250 southeast of the epicentre) does not necessarily require the
rupture to extend to Dehradun. Wallace et al. (2005) re-measured the
historic triangulation points in the earthquake affected region using
GPS and concluded that it was a major earthquake with magnitude of
only 7.8 and with a rupture length and width of ~ 200 and 55 km,
respectively. Thus the rupture of the earthquake extended to about
Simla, which is ~ 150 km southeast of Kangra. The January 15, 1934
Nepal–Bihar earthquake rupture location is based on the damage
report and some limited levelling data (Hough and Bilham, 2008). The
rupture of the earthquake had a length of about 150 ± 25 km and
about a 85 ± 10 km width with its western edge near Kathmandu
(Hough and Bilham, 2008). The previous estimate of the rupture
length was about 200 km with the rupture extending east of
Kathmandu (Pandey and Molnar, 1988 and Molnar and Pandey,
1989). The 1947 Assam earthquake occurred in the Himalayan region
of the Arunachal Pradesh, close to the India–China border. Not much
information is available for this earthquake. The rupture parameters
of the August 15, 1950 Assam earthquake, also in the Arunachal
Pradesh at the India–China border, are poorly constrained, although it
is the latest earthquake in the sequence of great earthquakes in the
Himalaya. This is partly because of the inaccessibility of the region.
From the seismic moment and aftershock distribution, Molnar and
Pandey (1989) estimated the rupture length to be 250 ± 50 km.
2.2. Subsurface ridges under the Indo-Gangetic plains
Although topography of the Indo-Gangetic plains is very smooth
due to the presence of sediments up to 6 km thick, three subsurface
ridges (Fig. 1) have been mapped under the sediments from
aeromagnetic, gravity, magnetic and seismic surveys, which were
Fig. 2. Subsurface structures showing the three ridges under the Indo-Gangetic plains (unpublished data from ONGC). Vertical lines show various deep wells in the region. PC —
Precambrian; UV — Upper Vindhyan; LS — Lower Siwalik; MS — Middle Siwalik; US — Upper Siwalik; A — Alluvium. The cross section is about 100–150 km south of the MFT in the
Indo-Gangetic plains.
initiated in the 1960's by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC)
Limited, an Indian oil exploration company (Sastri et al., 1971; Rao,
1973). Their continuation further north beneath the Himalaya is not
known due to the lack of deep seismic data. However, considering the
northeastward motion of the India plate and the convergence across
the Himalaya, it is logical to assume that they extend northward
beneath the Himalayan wedge (Valdiya, 1976). From east to west, the
three ridges are:
• Monghyr (or Munger) Saharsa ridge
• Faizabad ridge
• Delhi Hardwar ridge
The Munger–Saharsa ridge is composed of a rock complex of the
Satpura fold belt of Chhota-Nagpur. The sedimentary thickness over
the ridge is about 2–3 km (Fig. 2). The Faizabad ridge is the subsurface
extension of the Bundelkhand massif and separates the Sarda
depression in the west from the Gandak depression in the east. The
Delhi–Hardwar ridge represents the extension of the Delhi Aravali
fold belt. This ridge and its extension under the Himalayan arc have
also been mapped as a domal electrical conducting structure (Lilley et
al., 1981; Arora et al., 1982 and Arora and Mahashabde, 1987). All
three ridges are considered to be high topographic features that are
seated on the Indian shield or basement rocks.
Several other features, like the Sarda and Gandak depressions and
other smaller ridges that could be the minor offshoots of the main
ridges, have also been identified (Raiverman et al., 1983). However,
for the broader seismotectonic implications only the three major
ridges are important. The other features may also influence the
seismotectonics of the Himalaya, but probably at a very local level.
Another prominent ridge, the northwest-southeast trending Delhi-
Sargodha-Lahore ridge appears to subduct beneath the Sulaiman-
Kirthar ranges in Pakistan, but is not discussed here.
2.3. Ridges as barriers to the Himalayan earthquake ruptures
As discussed above, seismicity and ruptures of great and major
earthquakes at subduction zones are influenced by ridge interaction.
Here we examine such interaction in the Himalaya. The Delhi–
Hardwar ridge appears to be associated with seismicity of low
magnitude. But this could be due to the fact that a local network has
been installed in this region, as a result of which small magnitude
earthquakes are recorded in the region nearby. As seismicity
monitoring is poor in the regions of the other two ridges, the
association of low magnitude seismicity with these ridges as well
cannot be ruled out. So it is not clear whether ridge subduction under
the Himalaya influences low magnitude seismicity. Seismicity
monitoring in the Himalaya is not uniform and hence the seismicity
level in the various Himalayan segments cannot be directly compared
because of different magnitude cut-off levels. We analyse earthquakes
 V.K. Gahalaut, B. Kundu / Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 1080–1088
of M N 4.5 for which the global earthquake catalogues are presumably
complete. Their spatial distribution appears to be affected by ridge
subduction (Fig. 1b), although not very conclusively. It is possible that
the occurrence of low magnitude earthquakes is more strongly
influenced by ridge subduction.
The ruptures of major and great Himalayan earthquakes for past
two hundred years appear to correlate with the regions of ridge
subduction. But it should be noted that an error of about 50 km could
exist in the estimation of the rupture extent and rupture dimensions,
and in the northward extrapolation of the ridges under the Himalayan
region. The eastern edge of the 1905 Kangra earthquake rupture
appears to abut the Delhi-Hardwar ridge (Fig. 1). The western edge of
the 1803 rupture, though not well constrained, abuts the Delhi–
Hardwar ridge. The 1934 Nepal Bihar earthquake rupture did not
extend sufficiently far west to abut the eastern flank of the Faizabad
ridge, but the eastern edge of the rupture approximately abuts the
Munger–Saharsa ridge (Fig. 1). The 1833 earthquake rupture does not
appear to correlate with any of the identified ridges but remains east
of the Faizabad ridge. For the 1950 Assam earthquake rupture, non-
availability of information about the subsurface ridges beneath the
Brahmaputra plains, precludes any comment on a possible correla-
tion. However, exposed high topography of the Shillong Plateau,
which is assumed to extend northward under the Himalayan region
beyond the Brahmaputra sediments (Valdiya, 1976), may influence
earthquake ruptures and seismicity in the adjoining Himalayan
segment. In such a scenario, the western edge of the 1950 Assam
earthquake rupture approximately abuts the eastern edge of the
extrapolated Shillong Plateau beneath the Himalaya (Fig. 1). In fact,
the low seismicity in the Himalayan segments immediately north of
the Shillong Plateau could be due to the presence of a ridge-like
structure formed as the result of the subduction of the high
topography of the Shillong plateau. Bilham and England (2001)
attributed this high topography to uplift along the Dauki fault in the
south and the Oldham fault in the north, which they considered to be
the focus of the great 1897 Shillong Plateau earthquake. However,
unlike the Dauki fault, the Oldham fault does not appear to mark the
topographic front and the high topography of the Shillong Plateau
continues to the north of it, and possibly also beneath the
Brahmaputra sediments and under the Himalaya (Valdiya, 1976).
Recent stress modelling of the region (Islam et al., 2011) also suggests
that the effect of the Oldham fault on the seismicity and deformation
of the region may be insignificant. Thus, it appears that not all the
uplift of the Shillong Plateau can be attributed to activity along the
Oldham fault.
Another feature that is commonly observed at the interaction of
ridges with the subduction arc is the formation of a ‘dent’ in the
frontal arc, a local cusp that is concave outward. In the Himalayan
region, there is some apparent correlation but it is not conclusive. In
case of the Delhi–Haridwar ridge, while its interaction with the
Himalayan arc does not make a cusp along the strike of the of the Main
Frontal Thrust (MFT), which is the southernmost thrust in the
Himalayan arc, there does appear to be a northward shift of about
30 km in the second major topographic front (Fig. 1), which is marked
by the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). However, the Faizabad ridge
clearly makes a local cusp in the MFT at its interaction with the
Himalayan arc (Bollinger et al., 2004). The Munger-Saharsa ridge does
not appear to affect the MFT in the region where it interacts with the
Himalayan arc. But just east of it, the MFT appears to form a cusp. This
cusp could have formed during an earlier episode of subduction when
the ridge was subducting at that location about 10 million years ago. It
should be noted, however, that the assumption of a linear extension in
the trend of these ridges below the Himalaya is uncertain and that the
ridges may in fact deviate from their extrapolated linear trend. The
sediment thickness over the ridge or the depth of the ridge may also
vary along strike, which could cause variation in the geometry of the
cusp in the Himalayan arc.
1083
The above discussion leads us to conclude that the ruptures of the
great and major Himalayan earthquakes of the past 200 years were
probably influenced by the ridges, which acted as a barrier to the
incoming rupture front so that the earthquake ruptures were stalled.
Earlier studies by Valdiya (1976), Khattri and Tyagi (1983), Khattri
(1987) and Raval (1993) also correlated the earthquakes and the
subsurface ridges, but owing to the lack of sufficient information
about the earthquake ruptures at that time, they suggested that these
ridges acted as asperities and that many of the earthquakes nucleated
here. In our opinion, it is inappropriate to correlate the small and
moderate magnitude earthquakes with the ridges in order to arrive at
the conclusion that the ridges acted as asperities. Only those
earthquakes whose rupture length (along the strike of the Himalaya)
is more or less comparable to the Himalayan arc width should be
analysed and correlated with the ridges. With this in mind, we have
analysed only the great and major earthquakes.
3. Development of Himalayan arc curvature
With the advent of improved seafloor mapping facilities during the
1960s and 1970s, Vogt et al. (1976) identified a spatial association of
arcuate active subduction margins with localized collisions of buoyant
features on subducting oceanic crust. Subduction of such topographic
features has been studied extensively worldwide because of its close
association with seismicity, back arc volcanism, arc curvature,
subducted slab geometry, fore arc rotation, slab tearing and several
other complex processes (Mogi, 1969; Kelleher and McCann 1976;
Vogt et al., 1976; Cloos 1992; Cloos and Shreve 1996; Scholz and Small
1997; Bilek et al., 2003; Collot et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2006; Wallace
et al., 2009a, 2009b; Gahalaut et al., 2010; Mahadevan et al., 2010). On
the basis of the observational and model-derived results, it has been
suggested that the shallow crustal forces produced by the entry of
buoyant features into subduction zones are a fundamental mecha-
nism for the generation of fore-arc block rotations, plate boundary
curvature, back-arc rift evolution, and tectonic escape in subduction
systems (Wallace et al., 2009a, 2009b). One of the most conspicuous
features of ridge interaction with the subduction arc is the formation
of an arcuate shaped arc (Vogt, 1973), which can be seen in the
Himalayan arc between the two cusps at eastern and western
Himalayan syntaxes (Fig. 3). The geometry of the arc, its stability,
radius and integrity have been discussed earlier (Seeber and
Armbruster, 1981; Bendick and Bilham 2001). However, no literature
is available in which the evolution of the shape of the Himalayan arc
has been addressed. Although, there could be many processes
responsible for the arcuate shape of the Himalayan arc (Fig. 3), here
we suggest that it is due to the interaction of aseismic ridges (Vogt,
1973). It is debatable whether the Himalayan arc retained its original
geometry that it had during the subduction in the late Tertiary (Hall,
1997, 2002). If we extrapolate the two most prominent north-south
trending aseismic ridges, namely, the Chagos–Laccadive–Deccan ridge
and the 90ºE ridge in the Indian Ocean, further north, they appear to
enter into the two major cusps of the Himalayan plate boundary (i.e.
the western and the eastern Himalayan syntaxes, Fig. 3), which were
probably formed as a result of the subduction of these ridges. We
assume that the direction of motion between the Eurasia and India
plates did not change significantly during the period of formation of
the two hotspot traces, which is evident from the linearity of their
traces. Recent geochemical and chronological studies further support
the above extrapolation for both syntaxes. Geochemical evidence
from melt inclusions and Cr-rich spinels in the Tianba Formation
(sequence in the Nieru Valley, eastern Tethys Himalaya) suggests that
the source of the Cr-rich spinels was hotspot basalt (i.e., a plume type
mantle source) (Zhu et al., 2005). Based on plate reconstruction, fossil
bearing strata of mid-Cretaceous age, and the chemical composition of
the melt inclusions and Cr-rich spinels, the volcanics of the Sylhet and
Rajmahal traps (the latter is about 500 km west of the former) are
1084 V.K. Gahalaut, B. Kundu / Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 1080–1088

Fig. 3. Evolution of the Himalayan and Mariana arc curvature. (a) Formation of Himalayan curvature along with two cusps on either side in response to the subduction of the aseismic
Chagos–Deccan and 90°E ridges. Extrapolated trend of the ridges and the Indo-Australian plate motion with respect to the Eurasian plate are marked by dashed white lines and
red arrow respectively. Numbers on stars represent the age of the hotspot track. Location of the hotspots and Indian plate at about 117 Ma is also shown (Vogt, 1973; Muller et al.,
1993; Mahoney et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2005; Ghatak and Basu, 2011). (b) Paleogeographic reconstruction of the Izu–Bonin–Mariana arc system (8 Ma-0 Ma, Miller et al., 2006).
Red arrow represents the motion of Pacific plate with respect to the Philippine plate. DT — Deccan Trap; PA — Pacific Plate, PH — Philippine Plate, RM — Rajmahal Trap, TF — Tinba
Formation.

inferred to be associated both spatially and temporally with 4. Discussion

Kerguelen hotspot activity on India at about 117 Ma (Zhu et al.,
2005; Ghatak and Basu, 2011). For the western syntax, the location,
chronology and geochemistry of marine volcanic rocks preserved in
the South Tethys suture zone of Pakistan suggest that the Réunion
hotspot was probably active off northwestern Greater India well
before the emplacement of the Deccan flood basalt (65–66 Ma) and
was associated with the hotspot trace (Fig. 1 of Mahoney et al., 2002).
Thus it appears that the two well preserved hotspot traces (i.e., the
Kerguelen and Réunion) extend up to the two cusps of the Himalayan
plate boundary (Fig. 3a). The slight apparent divergence to the north
in the traces of the two hotspots may be due to the variation in their
widths due to side arms, as reflected in the Sylhet and Rajmahal traps
where the hotspot trace appears to be wider than it is in the south. We
propose that the development of the Himalayan arc curvature is a
consequence of the subduction of aseismic ridges, just as the
development of the Mariana arc curvature (Fig. 3b) has occurred by
progressive interaction of two aseismic ridges (the Ogasawara and
Caroline Island Plateau) with the trench, one on either side (Miller
et al., 2006).
4.1. Lack of data in support of the presence of ridges under the
Himalayan arc
The presence of subducted ridges or seamounts along subduction
zones has been directly verified from high resolution deep seismic
surveys (e.g., Mochizuki et al., 2008; Nishizawa et al., 2009; Singh
et al., 2011). However, along the Himalayan arc such surveys have not
been done and, hence, there is no direct evidence for the presence of
ridges under the Himalayan arc. Here, we infer them from their
extrapolated trends and from the ages determined for the traps and
volcanic rocks. GPS measurements along subduction zones have also
provided indirect evidence for the presence of such subducted
features, since their presence influences the coupling between the
subducting and overriding plates (e.g., Wallace et al., 2009a, 2009b),
thereby affecting the displacement field over and around such
features. However, in the Himalayan region, GPS measurements are
still sparse and do not have sufficient resolution to infer subducted
features. Because of this, most investigators prefer even now to
 V.K. Gahalaut, B. Kundu / Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 1080–1088
interpret the results of GPS measurements along a profile and assume
a simple model with uniform and perfect coupling (e.g., Bilham et al.,
1997; Banerjee and Burgmann, 2002; Avouac, 2003; Banerjee et al.,
2008). With the increase in the spatial resolution and accuracy of GPS
measurements in the Himalayan arc in the future, it is hoped that the
presence of these postulated ridges will be verified. Presently, the lack
of data to support their presence should not be considered as evidence
for their absence.
4.2. Very large ruptures inferred from paleoseismological studies and
their association with ridges
In some cases the barriers formed due to the subduction of ridges
have been breached by incoming large earthquake ruptures. In most
of these cases, low slip occurred on that part of the rupture over the
ridges. In the Himalaya, no earthquake appears to have breached the
ridges in past 200 years. However, some paleoseismological in-
vestigations of past earthquakes (Kumar et al., 2001; Lavé et al.,
2005) and historical data on theoccurrence of great earthquakes in the
Himalaya suggest that the exceptionally large ruptures of some of
these great earthquakes could have breached the barriers. One such
case would be the great 6 June 1505 Lo Mustang earthquake. It
probably occurred in either SW Tibet or in the Himalayan region
between longitudes 80° and 85°E (Ambraseys and Jackson, 2003 and
Bilham and Ambraseys, 2005). The epicentral location of the
earthquake is shown in Fig. 1. On the basis of the felt reports,
Ambraseys and Jackson (2003) assigned the earthquake a magnitude
of 8.2, whereas Bilham and Ambraseys (2005) assigned it a magnitude
of 8.7 with a rupture length of about 600 km and a slip of 7–15 m.
Based on the location proposed by Bilham and Ambraseys (2005), the
rupture probably breached the Faizabad ridge. There could be two
explanations. First, the earthquake rupture was indeed large and
actually breached the Faizabad ridge. It is possible that the slip on the
rupture over the Faizabad ridge was low, however, in the absence of
any quantitative measurements, this is difficult to evaluate. Second, it
is possible that the earthquake size was similar to the 1934 Bihar
Nepal earthquake (M 8.2) and was either confined to the Himalayan
region between the Faizabad ridge and the western limit of the 1934
Bihar Nepal earthquake, with the rupture length of about 200 km, or it
occurred in the Tibet region, immediately north of the Himalaya. The
earthquake must have been immediately followed by several large
aftershocks in the Himalayan region further west of the rupture,
which could have led to the overestimation of its rupture size.
The occurrence of earthquakes close in space and time (Kagan,
1997; Mukhopadhyay et al., 2004; Ambikapathy and Gahalaut, 2011)
may lead to an overestimation of the size of the rupture in
paleoseismological investigations and it may appear as if a single
giant earthquake occurred whose rupture breached all the barriers.
Hence, we suggest that it is not necessary for some of the great
Himalayan earthquakes, particularly those whose ruptures are not
well constrained (e.g., the 1505 earthquake), to have actually
breached the barrier. At least the earthquakes of past 200 years, for
which ruptures are well constrained, do not appear to have done so.
4.3. Rifts in the Tibet region and earthquake ruptures
Several north–south rifts have been mapped on the Tibetan
plateau (Fig. 1) that extend from the Tibetan plateau to the Higher
Himalaya (Armijo et al., 1986). Although their extension further south
has not been established, segmentation of the overriding Himalayan
wedge due to these rifts, if extrapolated southward, may also control
the rupture extent of great and major earthquakes of the Himalaya in
cases where these rifts extend up to the detachment level. The Kaurik
Chango rift, if extrapolated southward along its trend, may coincide
with the eastern limit of the 1905 Kangra earthquake rupture.
Similarly, the Thakola and Yadong rifts, if extrapolated southward
1085
may coincide with the western and eastern edges of the 1934 Nepal-
Bihar earthquake, respectively. In fact, these rifts appear to align with
the three identified major ridges under the Indo-Gangetic plains.
Chandra (1978) noted that the activity along the Kaurik Chango rift
may be influenced by the subducting Delhi-Hardwar ridge. Valdiya
(1976) and Khattri and Tyagi (1983) inferred a number of transverse
structures in the Himalaya that could be correlated with the
subducting ridges and the rifts in the overlying Himalayan wedge.
But with the limited available information, it is difficult to assess such
a correlation in detail.
4.4. Variation in the structure, rheology, convergence rate and thermal
regime
A strong control that may cause variation in seismicity along the
Himalayan arc and may delimit the ruptures of great and major
earthquakes is variation in rheology and subsurface structure.
Moderate and small magnitude earthquakes along the arc are
postulated to occur on the ramp that joins the seismically active
detachment in the up-dip direction under the Lesser and Outer
Himalaya to the aseismically slipping detachment beneath the Higher
Himalaya and southern Tibet. The presence of a ramp at a depth of 15–
20 km is mainly based on geologically balanced cross sections (Yin,
2006) and earthquake data (Pandey et al., 1999). The presence (or
absence) of a ramp, its geometry (Yin, 2006) and that of the subducted
slab (Zhao et al., 2010) along the Himalayan arc may influence the
seismicity and earthquake ruptures. Rupture extents may also be
influenced by a change in rheology, since the geology and lithology in
the Himalayan region may change along strike. But this can partially
be ascribed to the presence of the ridges under the Himalayan region
as well. Variation in the topography of the ridge, its rheology and the
convergence rate along the Himalayan arc may also contribute to
seismicity variation. Another factor that may strongly influence the
seismicity and rupture extents of great and major earthquakes is the
heat production heterogeneity (Kumar et al., 2009) observed in the
subducting Indian shield rocks.
4.5. Influence of sediment subduction on earthquake ruptures
Another feature that appears to affect rupture characteristics is the
presence of sediments on the subducting plate. Again, there are two
contrasting views. Ruff (1989) suggested that, at elevated tempera-
ture and pressure, the subducted sediments form a homogenous and
strong contact zone between the two plates, thereby providing
excellent coupling. On the other hand, Polet and Kanamori (2000)
suggested that the subduction of unconsolidated, inelastic and
hydrated sediments should provide a weak coupling between the
subducting and overriding plates. For the Himalayan arc earthquakes,
Gahalaut (2010) suggested that the presence of sediments on the
Indo-Gangetic plains probably made the ruptures of great and major
Himalayan earthquakes blind. Although the sediment thickness in the
Indo-Gangetic plains may vary, the presence of ridges reduces the
sediment thickness, and so may cause variation in the coupling and,
hence, the seismicity of Himalayan earthquakes, and may also
influence the ruptures. At present it is not possible to choose between
the two competing hypotheses (Ruff, 1989; Polet and Kanamori,
2000) as to whether the presence of thick subducted sediments in the
Himalaya increases or decreases the seismic coupling.
4.6. Stress transfer and its influence on seismicity
Stress changes caused by great earthquakes and nearby active rifts
in the Higher and Tethys Himalaya may also lead to variation in
seismicity and may additionally control rupture extents. The stress
shadow caused by the 1897 Shillong Plateau earthquake has been
proposed as the cause of the low seismicity in the Bhutan Himalaya
1086 V.K. Gahalaut, B. Kundu / Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 1080–1088
(Gahalaut et al., 2011). The stress shadow may have also caused the
rupture termination of the 1934 Nepal Bihar and 1950 Assam
earthquakes along their eastern and western rupture edges, respec-
tively. The continuous occurrence of earthquakes with normal motion
along the north-south fault planes in the Kaurik-Chango rift produces
a stress shadow in the Simla region (Gahalaut and Arora, submitted to
publication), where the eastern limit of the 1905 Kangra earthquake is
located. Hence the rift keeps this part of the Himalayan seismic belt in
a dilated (or low stress) state so that earthquake ruptures do not
extend through it. In a similar way, other active rifts may also
influence both ruptures and seismicity.
4.7. Arcuate shape of the Himalayan arc
The occurrence of strongly curved subduction-collision boundaries
(e.g., the Alpine-Himalayan orogenic belt) and island arc systems
(e.g., the southwestern Pacific, Caribbean Sea, Mediterian Sea and
Scotia Sea) have kept the world's geoscientists puzzled for decades
(Carey, 1955; Frank, 1968; Vogt et al., 1976; McCabe, 1984; Hsui and
Youngquist, 1985). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain
arc curvature. Frank (1968) was probably one of the first to propose
that the curvature of arcs can be commonly attributed to the Earth's
sphericity. This hypothesis uses an analogy between the Earth and a
ping-pong ball, viz., the elastic sphere indentation model in which
subduction zones are considered to be similar to dents on an elastic
sphere, which intersect the sphere along small circles. Stein and Stein
(1992) proposed that variation in the age of subducting lithosphere
may also produce a curved trench shape. Morra et al. (2006)
suggested that a weaker subducting slab will show a greater curvature
since a slab with higher viscosity exerts a stronger resistance to
bending. Schellart et al. (2007) simulated the shapes of arcs of varying
length. They estimated that for a length range of more than 2000 km,
the shape is generally rectilinear. In a recent development based on a
three-dimensional fluid dynamic model, Schellart (2010) suggested
that trench velocities and the slab to upper mantle viscosity ratio are
the factors responsible for the development of arc curvature. In a
schematic diagram, DeCelles et al. (2002) suggested that the arcuate
shape of the Himalayan arc developed as the result of continental
collision. Similar conclusions were made by Schellart and Lister
(2005) using analogue models. Although there may be several other
factors that contribute to the arcuate shape of the Himalayan arc, the
influence of ridge interaction on the subduction arc, as seen in almost
all subduction zones of the world (Vogt et al., 1976; Wallace et al.,
2009a), appears to be a prominent one.
5. Conclusion
Our analysis of ridge interaction with the Himalayan arc leads to
the following two major conclusions:
1. It appears that there are various reasons for seismicity variation in
the Himalayan region and for the rupture extents of great and
major Himalayan earthquakes (e.g., variation in the convergence
rate, rheology, stress interaction, subducted sediment thickness,
etc.). However, the subsurface ridges under the Indo-Gangetic
plains, which presumably extend under the Himalaya, appear to
delimit the ruptures of great and major Himalayan earthquakes.
These ridges may also control the rupture extent and, hence, the
magnitude of future earthquakes in the Himalaya. It is conse-
quently imperative to study these ridges using deep seismic data
and to quantitatively analyse the earthquakes and their relation-
ship to the ridges.
2. The arcuate shape of the Himalayan arc, along with the two
prominent cusps in the form of the eastern and western Himalayan
syntaxes, appear to have evolved as a result of the interaction of the
two most prominent ridges or hotspot traces, namely, the Chagos-
Laccadive-Deccan ridge and the 90°E ridge.
Acknowledgements
We thank B.R. Arora, D.N. Avasthi, U. Raval, V.K. Rao, V. Raiverman,
C. Subrahmanyam and two anonymous reviewers for very stimulating
discussions and comments, and for updating our knowledge about the
ridges under the Indo-Gangetic plains. R. Damian Nance, Associate
Editor offered several suggestions which led to the overall improve-
ment in the manuscript.
References
Ambikapathy, A., Gahalaut, V.K., 2011. Time clustering of earthquakes in the Sumatra–
Andaman and Himalayan regions. Current Science 100, 1068–1071.
Ambraseys, N.N., Douglas, J., 2004. Magnitude calibration of north Indian earthquakes.
Geophysical Journal International 158, 1–42.
Ambraseys, N., Jackson, D., 2003. A note on early earthquakes in northern India and
southern Tibet. Current Science 84, 570–582.
Armijo, R., Tapponnier, P., Mercier, J.L., Tong-Lin, H., 1986. Quaternary extension in
south Tibet: field observations and Tectonic implications. Journal of Geophysical
Research 91, 13803–13872.
Arora, B.R., Mahashabde, M.V., 1987. A transverse conductive structure in the
northwest Himalaya. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 45, 119–127.
Arora, B.R., Lilley, F.E.M., Sloane, M.N., Singh, B.P., Srivastava, B.J., Prasad, S.N., 1982.
Geomagnetic induction and conductive structures in northwest India. Geophysical
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 69, 459–475.
Avouac, J.-P., 2003. Mountain Building, erosion and the seismic cycle in the Nepal
Himalaya. Advances in Geophysics 46, 1–80.
Banerjee, P., Burgmann, R., 2002. Convergence across the northwest Himalaya from GPS
measurement. Geophysical Research Letters 29 (30) 1–30.4.
Banerjee, P., Burgmann, R., Nagarajan, B., Apel, E., 2008. Intraplate deformation of the
Indian subcontinent. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L18301. doi:10.1029/
2008GL035468.
Bendick, R., Bilham, R., 2001. How perfect is the Himalayan arc? Geology 29, 791–794.
Bilek, S.L., 2007. Influence of subducting topography on earthquake rupture. In: Dixon,
T., Moore, C. (Eds.), The Seismogenic Zone of Subduction Thrust Faults. Columbia
University Press, pp. 123–146.
Bilek, S.L., Schwartz, S.Y., DeShon, H.R., 2003. Control of seafloor roughness on
earthquake rupture behavior. Geology 31, 455–458.
Bilham, R., 1995. Location and magnitude of the 1833 Nepal earthquake and its relation
to the rupture zones of contiguous great Himalayan earthquakes. Current Science
69, 101–128.
Bilham, R., 2001. Slow tilt reversal of the Lesser Himalaya between 1862 and 1992 at
78°E, and bounds to the southeast rupture of the 1905 Kangra earthquake.
Geophysical Journal International 144, 713–728.
Bilham, R., 2004. Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history.
Annals of Geophysics 47, 839–858.
Bilham, R., Ambraseys, N., 2005. Apparent Himalayan slip deficit from the summation of
seismic moments for Himalayan earthquakes, 1500–2000. Current Science 88,
1658–1663.
Bilham, R., England, P., 2001. Plateau pop-up in the 1897 Assam earthquake. Nature
410, 806–809.
Bilham, R., Larson, K., Freymueller, J., 1997. Project Idylhim members. Nature 386,
61–64.
Bollinger, L., Avouac, J.-P., Beyssac, O., Catlos, E.J., Harrison, T.M., Grove, M., Goffe, B.,
Sapkota, S., 2004. Thermal structure and exhumation history of the Lesser Himalaya
in Central Nepal. Tectonics 23. doi:10.1029/2003TC001564.
Carey, S.W., 1955. The orocline concept in geotectonics. Papers and Proceedings. Royal
Society of Tasmania 89, 255–289.
Chandra, Umesh, 1978. Seismicity, earthquake mechanisms and tectonics along the
Himalayan mountain range and vicinity. Physics of the Earth and Planetary
Interiors 16, 109–131.
Cloos, M., 1992. Thrust-type subduction zone earthquakes and seamount asperities: a
physical model for seismic rupture. Geology 20, 601–604.
Cloos, M., Shreve, R.L., 1996. Shear zone thickness and the seismicity of Chilean- and
Marianas-type subduction zones. Geology 24, 100–107.
Collot, J.-Y., et al., 2004. Are rupture zone limits of great subduction earthquakes
controlled by upper plate structures? Evidence from multichannel seismic
reflection data acquired across the northern Ecuador–southwest Colombia margin.
Journal of Geophysical Research 109, B11103. doi:10.1029/2004JB003060.
Das, S., Kostrov, B.V., 1990. Inversion for seismic slip rate and distribution with
stabilising constraints: application to the 1986 Andreanof Islands earthquake.
Journal of Geophysical Research 95, 6899–6913.
Das, S., Watts, A.B., 2009. Effect of Subducting Seafloor Topography on the Rupture
Characteristics of Great Subduction Zone Earthquakes. In: Lallemand, S., Funiciello,
F. (Eds.), Subduction Zone Geodynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp.
103–118. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87974-9.
DeCelles, P.G., Robinson, D.M., Zandt, G., 2002. Implications of shortening in the
Himalayan fold-thrust belt for uplift of the Tibetan Plateau. Tectonics 21 (6), 1062.
doi:10.1029/2001TC001322.
 V.K. Gahalaut, B. Kundu / Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 1080–1088
Frank, F.C., 1968. Curvature of island arcs. Nature 220, 363. doi:10.1038/220363a0.
Gahalaut, V.K., 2009. Coulomb stress changes due to 2005 Kashmir earthquake
and its implications on future seismic hazard, In: Special issue on “2005
Muzaffarabad earthquake. Journal of Seismology 13, 379–386. doi:10.1007/
s10950-008-9092-4.
Gahalaut, V.K., 2010. Probable role of sediments in blinding the rupture, lesson from the
2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake and implication for the Himalayan earth-
quakes. Current Science 98 (11), 1518–1520.
Gahalaut, V.K.; Arora, B.R., Segmentation of Seismicity along the Himalayan Arc: Role of
Structural Complexity, Submitted to Tectonophysics.
Gahalaut, V.K., Chander, R., 1992. On the active tectonics of the Dehra Dun region from
observations of ground elevation changes. Journal of Geological Society of India 39,
61–68.
Gahalaut, V.K., Subrahmanyam, C., Kundu, B., Catherine, J.K., Ambikapathy, A., 2010.
Slow rupture in Andaman during 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake: a possible
consequence of subduction of 90° E ridge. Geophysical Journal International 180,
1181–1186.
Gahalaut, V.K., Rajput, Shikha, Kundu, B., 2011. Low seismicity in Bhutan Himalaya and
the 1897 Shillong Plateau earthquake. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
186, 97–102.
Gansser, A., 1964. Geology of the Himalaya. Interscience, New York, N.Y., p. 298.
Ghatak, Arundhuti, Basu, Asish R., 2011. Vestiges of the Kerguelen plume in the Sylhet
Traps, northeastern India. Earth and Planetary Sciences 308, 52–64.
Hall, R., 1997. Cenozoic plate tectonic reconstructions of SE Asia, Petroleum Geology of
Southeast Asia. Geological Society of London Special Publication 126, 11–23.
Hall, R., 2002. Cenozoic geological and plate tectonic evolution of SE Asia and the SW
pacific: computer-based reconstructions, model and animations. Journal of Asian
Earth Sciences 20 (4), 353–431.
Hough, S., Bilham, R., 2008. Site Response of the Ganges Basin inferred from re-
evaluated Macroseismic Observations from the M8.1 Shillong 1897, M7.8 Kangra
1905 and 1934 Nepal M8.1 earthquakes. Journal of Earth System Science 117 (S2),
773–782.
Hsui, A.T., Youngquist, S., 1985. A dynamic model of the curvature of the Mariana
Trench. Nature 318, 455–457. doi:10.1038/318455a0.
Islam, Md.S., Shinjo, R., Kayal, J.R., 2011. Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in
northeastern India: insight from numerical simulations. Gondwana Research 20,
395–404.
Iyengar, R.N., Sharma, D., 1999. Some earthquakes of the Himalayan region from
historical sources. Himalayan Geology 20, 81–85.
Kagan, Y.Y., 1997. Are earthquake predictable. Geophysical Journal International 131,
505–525.
Kelleher, J., McCann, W., 1976. Buoyant zones, great earthquakes, and unstable
boundaries of subduction. Journal of Geophysical Research 81, 4885–4896.
Khattri, K.N., 1987. Great earthquakes, seismicity gaps and potential for earthquake
disaster along the Himalayan plate boundary. Tectonophysics 138, 79–92.
Khattri, K.N., Tyagi, A.K., 1983. The transverse tectonic features in the Himalaya.
Tectonophysics 96, 19–29.
Kumar, S., Wesnousky, Steven G., Rockwell, Thomas K., Ragona, Daniel, Thakur, Vikram
C., Seitz, Gordon G., 2328–2331, 2001. Earthquake recurrence and rupture
dynamics of Himalayan Frontal Thrust, India. Science 294, 2328–2331.
Kumar, S., Wesnousky, S.G., Rockwell, T.K., Briggs, R.W., Thakur, V.C., Jayangondaper-
umal, R., 2006. Paleoseismic evidence of great surface rupture earthquakes along
the Indian Himalaya. Journal of Geophysical Research 111. doi:10.1029/
2004JB003309.
Kumar, P.S., Menon, R., Reddy, G.K., 2009. Heat production heterogeneity of the Indian
crust beneath the Himalaya: Insights from the northern Indian Shield. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 283, 190–196.
Lavé, J., Yule, D., Sapkota, S., Basenta, K., Madden, C., Attal, M., Pandey, R., 2005. Evidence
for a Great Medieval Earthquake (~A.D. 1100) in Central Himalaya, Nepal. Science
307, 1302–1305.
Lilley, F.E.M., Singh, B.P., Arora, B.R., Srivastava, B.J., Prasad, S.N., Sloane, M.N., 1981. A
magnetometer array study in northwest India. Physics of the Earth and Planetary
Interiors 25, 232–240.
Mahadevan, L., Bendick, R., Liang, H., 2010. Why subduction zones are curved. Tectonics
29, TC6002. doi:10.1029/2010TC002720.
Mahoney, J.J., Duncan, R.A., Khan, W., Gnos, E., McCormick, G.R., 2002. Cretaceous
volcanic rocks of the South Tethyan suture zone, Pakistan: implications for the
Réunion hotspot and Deccan Traps. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 203,
295–310.
McCabe, R., 1984. Implications of paleomagnetic data on the collision related bending of
island arcs. Tectonics 3 (4), 409–428. doi:10.1029/TC003i004p00409.
Miller, M.S., Kennett, B.L.N., Toy, V.G., 2006. Spatial and temporal evolution of the
subducting Pacific plate structure along the western Pacific margin. Journal of
Geophysical Research 111, B02401. doi:10.1029/2005JB003705.
Mochizuki, K., Yamada, T., Shinohara, M., Yamanaka, Y., Kanazawa, T., 2008. Weak
interplate coupling by seamounts and repeating M 7 earthquakes. Science 321,
1194–1197.
Mogi, K., 1969. Relationship between the occurrence of great earthquakes and tectonic
structures. Bulletin. Earthquake Research Institute 47, 429–451.
Molnar, P., 1990. A review of the seismicity and the rates of active underthrusting and
deformation at the Himalaya. Journal of Himalayan Geology 1, 131–154.
Molnar, P., Pandey, M.R., 1989. Rupture zones of great earthquakes in the Himalaya
region. Proceedings of Indian Academy of Science (Earth Planetary Science) 98,
61–70.
Morra, G., Regenauer-Lieb, Giardini, D., 2006. Curvature of oceanic arcs. Geology 34,
877–880.
1087
Mukhopadhyay, B., Dasgupta, S., Dasgupta, S., 2004. Clustering of earthquake events in
the Himalaya - its relevance to regional tectonic set-up. Gondwana Research 7,
1242–1247.
Muller, R.D., Royer, J.-Y., Lawver, L.A., 1993. Revised plate motions relative to the
hotspots from combined Atlantic and Indian Ocean hotspot tracks. Geology 21,
275–278.
Ni, J., Barazangi, M., 1984. Seismotectonics of the Himalayan collision zone: Geometry
of the underthrusting Indian plate beneath the Himalaya. Journal of Geophysical
Research 89, 1147–1163.
Nishizawa, A., Kaneda, K., Watanabe, N., Oikawa, M., 2009. Seismic structure of the subducting
seamounts on the trench axis: Erimo Seamount and Diichi-Kashima Seamount, northern
and southern ends of the Japan Trench. Earth Planets Space 61, e5–e8.
Nur, A., Ben-Avraham, Z., 1982. Oceanic plateaus, the fragmentation of continents, and
mountain building. Journal of Geophysical Research 87, 3644–3661.
Pandey, M.R., Molnar, P., 1988. The distribution of intensity of the Bihar-Nepal
earthquake of 15 january 1934 and bounds on the extent of the rupture zone.
Journal Nepal Geological Society 5, 22–44.
Pandey, M.R., Tandukar, R.P., Avouac, J.P., Vergne, J., Heritier, Th., 1999. Seismotectonics
of the Nepal Himalaya from a local seismic Network. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences
17, 703–712.
Polet, J., Kanamori, H., 2000. Shallow subduction zone earthquakes and their
tsunamigenic potential. Geophysical Journal International 142, 684–702.
Raiverman, V., Kunte, S.V., Mukherjea, A., 1983. Basin geometry Cenozoic sedimenta-
tion and hydrocarbon prospects in northwestern Himalaya and Indo-Gangetic
plains. Petroleum Asia Journal 6, 67–92.
Rajendran, C.P., Rajendran, K., 2005. The status of central seismic gap: A perspective
based on the spatial and temporal aspects of the large Himalayan earthquakes.
Tectonophysics 395, 19–39.
Rao, M.B. Ramachandra, 1973. The subsurface geology of the Indo-Gangetic plains.
Journal Geological Society of India 14, 217–242.
Raval, U., 1993. Collision boundary, stress build-up and role of basement heterogene-
ities: a peg effect. Indian Geophysical Union 129–139.
Robinson, D.P., Das, S., Watts, A.B., 2006. Earthquake rupture stalled by a subducting
fracture zone. Science 321, 1203.
Rosenbaum, G., Mo, W., 2011. Tectonic and magmatic responses to the subduction of
high bathymetric relief. Gondwana Research 19, 571–582.
Ruff, L.J., 1989. Do trench sediments affect great earthquake occurrence in subduction
zones? Pure and Applied Geophysics 129, 263–282.
Sastri, V.V., Bhandari, L.L., Raju, A.T.R., Dattta, A.K., 1971. Tectonics framework and
subsurface stratigraphy of the Ganga basin. Journal Geological Society of India 12,
232–233.
Schellart, W.P., 2010. Evolution of subduction zone curvature and its dependence on the
trench velocity and the slap to upper mantle viscosity ratio. Journal of Geophysical
Research 115, B11406 doi:1029/2009JB006643.
Schellart, W.P., Lister, G.S., 2005. The role of the East Asian active margin in widespread
extensional and strike-slip deformation in East Asia. Journal of the Geological
Society of London 162, 959–972.
Schellart, W.P., Freeman, J., Stegman, D.R., Moresi, L., May, D., 2007. Evolution and
diversity of subduction zones controlled by slab width. Nature 446, 308–311.
doi:10.1038/nature05615.
Scholz, C.H., Small, C., 1997. The effect of seamount subduction on seismic coupling.
Geology 25, 487–490.
Seeber, L., Armbruster, J., 1981. Great detachment earthquakes along the Himalayan Arc
and long-term forecasting. In: Simpson, D.W., Richards, P.G. (Eds.), Earthquake
Prediction: An International Review, Maurice Ewing Series, Vol. 4. American
Geophysical Union, pp. 259–277.
Singh, S.C., Hananto, Nugroho, Mukti, Maruf, Robinson, David P., Das, Shamita, Chauhan,
Ajay, Carton, Helene, Gratacos, Bruno, Midnet, Stephan, Djajadihardja, Yusuf,
Harjono, Heri, 2011. Aseismic zone and earthquake segmentation associated with a
deep subducted seamount in Sumatra. Nature Geoscience 4, 308–311.
Sparkes, R., Tilmann, Frederik, Hovius, Niels, Hillier, John, 2010. Subducted seafloor
relief stops rupture in South American great earthquakes:Implications for rupture
behaviour in the 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake. Earth and Planetary Science Letters
298, 89–94.
Stein, C.A., Stein, S., 1992. A model for the global variation in oceanic depth and heat-
flow with lithospheric age. Nature 123–129.
Szeliga, W., Hough, S., Martin, S., Bilham, R., 2010. Intensity, magnitude, location and
attenuation in India for felt earthquakes since 1762. Bulletin. Seismological Society
of America 100 (2), 570–584.
Valdiya, K.S., 1976. Himalayan transverse faults and folds and their parallelism with
subsurface structures of north Indian planes. Tectonophysics 32, 353–386.
Vogt, P.R., 1973. Subduction and aseismic ridges. Nature 241, 189–191.
Vogt, P.R., Lowrie, A., Bracey, D.R., Hey, R.N., 1976. Subduction of aseismic oceanic
ridges: Effects on shape, seismicity, and other characteristics of consuming plate
boundaries. Special Paper. Geological Society of America 172, 59.
Wallace, K., Bilham, R., Blume, F., Gaur, V.K., Gahalaut, V., 2005. Geodetic constraint of
the 1905 Kangra earthquake and interseismic deformation 1846–2001. Geophys-
ical Research Letters 32, L15307. doi:10.1029/2005GL022906.
Wallace, L.M., Ellis, S., Mann, P., 2009a. Collisional model for rapid fore-arc block
rotations, arc curvature, and episodic back-arc rifting in subduction settings.
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 10, Q05001. doi:10.1029/2008GC002220.
Wallace, L.M., Ellis, S., Miyao, K., Miura, S., Beavan, J., Goto, J., 2009b. Enigmatic, high
active left-lateral shear zone in southwest Japan explained by aseismic ridge
collision. Geology 37, 143–146.
Watts, A.B., Koppers, A.A.P., Robinson, D., 2010. Seamount subduction and earthquakes.
Oceanography 23, 166–173.
1088 V.K. Gahalaut, B. Kundu / Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 1080–1088

Yin, A., 2006. Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by
along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland
sedimentation. Earth-Science Reviews 76, 1–131.
Zhang, Z., Zhao, G., Santosh, M., Wang, J., Dong, X., Shen, K., 2010. Late Cretaceous
charnockite with adakitic affinities from the Gangdese batholith, southeastern
Tibet: Evidence for Neo-Tethyan mid-oceanic ridge subduction? Gondwana
Research 17, 615–631.
Zhao, et al., 2010. The boundary between the Indian and Asian tectonic plates below
Tibet. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences 107, 11229–11233.
Zhu, B., Delano, J.W., Kidd, W.S.K., 2005. Magmatic composition and source terranes
estimated from melt inclusions in detrital Cr-rich spinel: An example from mid-
Cretaceous sandstones in the eastern Tethys Himalaya. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 233, 295–309.