Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tectonophysics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tecto

Review Article

Models of crustal thickness for South America from seismic refraction,

receiver functions and surface wave tomography
Marcelo Assumpção a,⁎, Mei Feng b, Andrés Tassara c, Jordi Julià d
a
Institute of Astronomy, Geophysics and Atmospheric Sciences, University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão 1226, 05508-090, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
b
Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing, 100081, China
c
Department of Earth Sciences, Universidad de Concepción, Victor Lamas 1290, Concepción, Chile
d
Departamento de Geofísica and Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geodinâmica e Geofísica, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, 59078-970 RN, Brazil

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

Article history: An extensive compilation of crustal thicknesses is used to develop crustal models in continental South
Received 22 April 2012 America. We consider point crustal thicknesses from seismic refraction experiments, receiver function anal-
Received in revised form 5 November 2012 yses, and surface-wave dispersion. Estimates of crustal thickness derived from gravity anomalies were only
Accepted 15 November 2012
included along the continental shelf and in some areas of the Andes to fill large gaps in seismic coverage.
Available online 28 November 2012
Two crustal models were developed: A) by simple interpolation of the point estimates, and B) our preferred
Keywords:
model, based on the same point estimates, interpolated with surface-wave tomography. Despite gaps in con-
Crust tinental coverage, both models reveal interesting crustal thickness variations. In the Andean range, the crust
Moho reaches 75 km in Southern Peru and the Bolivian Altiplano, while crustal thicknesses seem to be close to the
Andes global continental average (~ 40 km) in Ecuador and southern Colombia (despite high elevations), and along
Tomography the southern Andes of Chile–Argentina (elevation lower than 2000 m). In the stable continental platform the
average thickness is 38 ± 5 km (1-st. deviation) and no systematic differences are observed among Archean–
Paleoproterozoic cratons, NeoProterozoic fold belts, and low-altitude intracratonic sedimentary basins. An
exception is the Borborema Province (NE Brazil) with crust ~30–35 km thick. Narrow belts surrounding
the cratons are suggested in central Brazil, parallel to the eastern and southern border of the Amazon craton,
and possibly along the TransBrasiliano Lineament continuing into the Chaco basin, where crust thinner than
35 km is observed. In the sub-Andean region, between the mid-plate cratons and the Andean cordillera, the
crust tends to be thinner (~35 km) than the average crust in the stable platform, a feature possibly inherited
from the old pre-Cambrian history of the continent. We expect that these crustal models will be useful for
studies of isostasy, dynamic topography, and crustal evolution of the continent.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2. Compilation of published crustal thickness data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3. Assessing gravity-based and surface-wave based models of crustal thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4. Crustal model A — point constraints and gravity-based studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.1. Data and method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.2. Model results and data misfit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5. Crustal model B — point constraints and surface-wave tomography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.1. Data and method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.2. Model results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.3. Data misfit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.1. Stable continental interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.2. Andean range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.3. Sub-Andean and Chaco basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marcelo@iag.usp.br (M. Assumpção), mei_feng_cn@yahoo.com.cn (M. Feng), andrestassara@udec.cl (A. Tassara), jordi@geofisica.ufrn.br (J. Julià).

0040-1951/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.11.014
 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
Mapping variations of crustal thickness in the continents have many
important applications for the study of the continental crust and litho-
sphere. Besides giving information on the crustal evolution, degree of
isostatic compensation (e.g., Sacek and Ussami, 2009), and intraplate
stress patterns (e.g., Lithgow-Bertelloni and Guynn, 2004), crustal
thickness estimates are essential for modeling wave-propagation in
global and regional seismic studies (e.g., Hjörleifsdóttir and Ekstrom,
2010; Lebedev and van der Hilst, 2008), monitoring regional-scale
seismicity (e.g. Ferreira et al., 2008), and for source discrimination in
the framework of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty
(e.g. Cormier and Anderson, 2004; Fan and Lay, 1998). In addition,
models of crustal thickness variation can serve for developing sur-
face corrections to investigate upper mantle structure through ei-
ther body-wave or surface-wave tomography studies (e.g. Bastow
et al., 2008; Park et al., 2008) and/or through the study of the
Earth's normal-modes of vibration (e.g., Justowski et al., 2007; Mooney
and Kaban, 2010). Also, the increasing use of shorter wavelengths in
global seismic modeling requires correspondingly more accurate
models of crustal thickness variation (e.g., Fichtner and Igel,
2008; Fichtner et al., 2009).
In spite of its importance, crustal thickness is still among the least
known crustal properties of South America. Large areas of the conti-
nent, such as the Amazon craton and the Chaco basin in NE Argentina,
are sparsely sampled and detailed information on crustal structure is
lacking (e.g. van der Lee et al., 2001). The best known area is the
Andean region, for which a number of passive and active seismic ex-
periments have been carried out (e.g. ANCORP, 2003; Gans et al.,
2011; McGlashan et al., 2008; Yuan et al., 2002) and detailed models
of crustal structure have been developed by combining seismic data
and gravity modeling in Venezuela (Niu et al., 2007) and South and
Central Andes (Tassara and Echaurren, 2012). In addition, several
temporary seismic experiments in NW Argentina and Chile have
also mapped crustal structure over the region of flat-slab subduction
(e.g. Calkins et al., 2006; Gans et al., 2011) and the Bolivian altiplano
(e.g. Beck and Zandt, 2002; Beck et al., 1996; Swenson et al., 2000). In
the tectonically stable part of the continent, the most comprehensive
crustal thickness maps were produced by Feng et al. (2007) and Lloyd
et al. (2010), through constrained tomographic inversion of surface-
wave data. Those studies used both average epicenter-station 1D
models and group velocities and incorporated local constraints on
crustal thickness from independent receiver function studies and seis-
mic refraction profiles. Some additional information based on isostatic
assumptions was also included. Nonetheless, in spite of fitting seismic
point constraints with a root mean square (RMS) deviation of about
3–4 km, these crustal thickness models still had errors around 10 km
in areas without point constraints.
We have built on a previous compilation of seismic point
constraints for crustal thickness in the Brazilian shield and adjacent
regions (Assumpção et al., in press) to produce an enlarged compila-
tion of 920 point constraints, 730 onshore and 190 offshore, for the
whole of South America. To our knowledge, this is the most compre-
hensive compilation of seismic point constraints on crustal thick-
nesses for the continent. Previous continental-scale compilations of
crustal thickness were performed during the development of global
crustal thickness models, such as CRUST2.0 (Bassin et al., 2000),
CRUST5.1 (Mooney et al., 1998), or the global compilation of Soller
et al. (1982), but those studies had very sparse coverage in South
83
93
93
93
America and/or focused on a single data type. Models CRUST5.1 and
CRUST2.0, for instance, were based entirely on crustal thickness esti-
mates from active-source profiling and ignored constraints on crustal
thickness from passive-source studies. Soller et al. (1982) used both
active-source profiling and surface-wave studies, but included just a
few studies in the Andean region for South America leaving crustal
thickness estimates for the majority of the continent as mere extrap-
olations (Tanimoto, 1995). Our dataset largely improves and updates
the constraints provided in those earlier compilations.
Comparing the newly compiled set of seismic crustal thickness
with the Bouguer Anomaly we derived an empirical relationship
that is then used for predicting crustal thickness in areas where no
seismic data is available (such as parts of the northern Andes and
the continental shelf). We developed two types of models of crustal
thickness variation for South America. The first type consists of an
interpolation of the seismically-constrained and gravity-predicted
crustal thicknesses, while the second type consists of an interpolation
based on surface-wave studies. As expected, the addition of new
point constraints improves the resolution of crustal thickness esti-
mates in previously unsampled areas of the continent, such as North-
ern Andes (Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela) and Northeastern
Brazil (Borborema Province and northern part of the São Francisco
craton) and the southern part of the Paraná basin. However, large
portions of stable South America remain poorly sampled and predic-
tions from our models within those regions could have significant er-
rors (around 5–10 km). We hope that this study will motivate the
deployment of temporary broadband experiments to fill in the gaps
in our knowledge. Despite the largely unsampled areas, we show
that derived maps of crustal thickness correlate with first order tec-
tonic features of the continent and give new insights into the old geo-
logical control on the present-day crustal structure.
Finally, the point constraints compiled in this study have been uti-
lized in the validation of an independent model of crustal thickness
variation for South America based on satellite gravity (van der
Meijde et al., 2013–submitted for publication).
2. Compilation of published crustal thickness data
We expanded the recent compilation of seismic crustal thicknesses for
the Brazilian shield and adjacent regions (Assumpção et al., in press),
which included 229 previous point constraints from Feng et al. (2007),
244 from Lloyd et al. (2010), 183 from Tassara and Echaurren (2012),
and 200 from Pavão et al. (2012), to a total of 920 point constraints. Addi-
tional point constraints were incorporated for Venezuela (Niu et al., 2007;
Schmitz et al., 2005), Central and Northern Andes (Dorbath et al., 1993;
Robalino, 1977 (apud Feininger and Seguin, 1983; Ocola et al., 1975);
Pacific offshore margin (Agudelo et al., 2009; Hussong et al., 1976;
Meyer et al., 1976); Western Argentina (Gans et al., 2011), NE Argentina
(Rosa et al., 2010), South Central Peru (Phillips et al., 2012), southern
Puna (Bianchi et al., 2013), and Patagonia (Lawrence and Wiens, 2004).
Point constraints developed in Assumpção et al. (in press) from receiver
functions for 19 newly installed seismic stations in Brazil were also
included.
The point constraints come from two different seismic data types:
active source experiments (deep seismic refraction lines, or deep seis-
mic reflection surveys) and receiver functions (see Fig. 1). Logically,
point constraints from active-source profiling required sampling the
seismic line at regular intervals. For 2D seismic refraction models,
points were selected at every 50 km, on average; for old, 1D models,
84 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96

only a few points were selected with larger spacing. Receiver func-
tions, on the other hand, are sensitive to the structure around the re-
cording station and naturally provide point constraints (e.g. Ammon,
1991). Also, in the offshore areas, the seismic constraints were
complemented with published crustal thickness estimates based on
Bouguer gravity anomalies constrained by seismic data, such as
Mohriak et al. (2000) and Zalán et al. (2011) for the Atlantic margin
and Schmitz et al. (2005) for Venezuela. More details of the compila-
tion can be found in Assumpção et al. (in press).
Our compilation also includes uncertainties for each point con-
straint. If uncertainties were not provided by the source, a rough esti-
mate was obtained based on the quality of the processed data. For
example, for recent seismic refraction experiments interpreted with
ray tracing techniques in 2D models (such as Schmitz et al., 2005;
Soares et al., 2006), we assigned an uncertainty of 2 km for crustal
thicknesses. For old, unreversed seismic experiments interpreted with
1D models, such as the Nariño Project in the Ecuadorean/Colombian
Andes (Mooney et al., 1979; Ocola et al., 1975), the assigned uncertainty
could reach 10 km. For receiver function point constraints based on the
hk-stacking technique of Zhu and Kanamori (2000), uncertainties in
crustal thickness were generally reported during the analysis; for re-
ceiver function point constraints involving modeling of the waveforms,
confidence bounds equal to ±one layer thickness were assigned to the
estimates (usually ±2 km).
It is important to realize that, for the same point, several estimates
of crustal thickness might be available. For instance, analysis of re-
ceiver functions at some stations was performed by several authors
utilizing different techniques or, sometimes, even the same tech-
nique. Not surprisingly, a range of estimates for crustal thickness is
available at those stations and the estimates vary with the choice of
filter bandwidth, event selection, and assumed parameters during
the data processing. Assumpção et al. (in press) compiled all available
estimates of crustal thickness for the Brazilian shield and adjacent
areas and calculated the standard deviations (σH) of the mean crustal

Fig. 1. Distribution of data points from seismic refraction/reflection profiles and stations with Receiver Function. Color scale indicates crustal thickness (from surface to Moho). Major geo-
logical provinces are indicated as follows: GS and CBS=Guyana and Central Brazil shields of the Amazon craton; SFC=São Francisco craton; BB, TT and MQ are the Borborema, Tocantins
and Mantiqueira NeoProterozoic foldbelt provinces, respectively; intracratonic basins: Am=Solimões and Amazon, Pn=Parnaíba, Pc=Parecis, Pt=Pantanal, Pr=Paraná, Ch=Chaco;
Or=Oriente Basin; PTG=Patagonia province (northern limit from Ramos, 2004). Blue solid line is the 3000 m altitude.
 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96
thickness (H) taking into account the uncertainties of each individual
measurement. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of the standard deviations
(σH) of the crustal thickness (H). Most measurements agree to within
± 2 km, and scatter (σH) less than 1 km is rare. In the final dataset, a
minimum uncertainty of 1 km was assigned to all stations with only
one reported value.
It has been argued that refraction data and receiver functions may
not sample exactly the same Moho depth (e.g., Stratford et al., 2009).
The high frequency (5 to 10 Hz) Pn head-waves, used in seismic re-
fraction studies, sample the topmost upper mantle. Lower frequency
receiver functions (around ~ 1 Hz), in areas of gradational Moho,
may sample roughly the middle of the Moho transition zone, thereby
giving slightly lower values for the crustal thickness. However, within
the uncertainties of our compiled data (roughly 2 to 3 km for both re-
ceiver functions and seismic refraction) the two types of data should
be consistent. In addition, most of the onshore seismic refraction lines
are close to seismic stations with receiver function data; the 1 degree
spatial resolution of our model smears out possible systematic differ-
ences between the two types of data.
All compiled point constraints in South America with crustal thick-
nesses derived from seismic methods (both deep seismic refraction/
reflection experiments and receiver functions) are shown in the
map of Fig. 1, and a histogram of crustal thicknesses for the complete
dataset is shown in Fig. 3. Thicknesses less than 20 km are mostly
from seismic refraction lines in oceanic areas and have smaller uncer-
tainties. Thicknesses larger than 55 km refer to the Andean range. The
mean crustal thickness in the stable part of the continent for the com-
piled data is 38 km with a standard deviation of 4.8 km (Assumpção
et al., in press). We should note that this is not the mean thickness of
the stable continent because the sampling is not geographically uniform
throughout the continental interior.
3. Assessing gravity-based and surface-wave based models of
crustal thickness
To construct models of crustal thickness for South America using
the point constraints displayed in Fig. 1, we need to interpolate the
dataset within poorly sampled areas of the continent. To accomplish
this goal we explore two possibilities: 1) using crustal models derived
from gravity anomalies, and 2) using surface wave tomography. Both
approaches, however, have advantages and disadvantages. Many
30
25
20
15
10
5 rms residual of 10.5 km. In the stable part of the continent, Fig. 4
0 the compiled data for crustal thickness had an average value of
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
st.dev.(km)
Fig. 2. Distribution of standard deviations of crustal thickness for all stations with three
or more different estimates (i.e., different authors or different techniques).
From Assumpção et al. (in press)
85
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Crustal thickness (km)
Fig. 3. Distribution of the 920 compiled crustal thicknesses for the whole area
(RF + refraction/reflection data), in both continental and oceanic areas. Dark shade
shows data with uncertainty ≤3 km; light shade denotes data with larger uncer-
tainties. The three groups reflect the preferential distribution of the experiments in
the compiled literature.
gravity-derived crustal models, for instance, assume that the anoma-
lies are due mainly to Moho topography with a constant density
contrast between lower crust and upper mantle, which may not be
accurate enough, especially in the stable part of the continent.
Surface-wave tomography, on the other hand, does not depend on as-
sumptions about isostatic mechanisms, but is affected by uneven dis-
tribution of epicenter-station paths. In addition, there is a trade-off
between crustal thickness and upper mantle velocity, which usually
prevents a resolution better than about 5 km or so when inverting
for crustal thickness. Before interpolating our point constraints,
therefore, we first make an assessment of previously gravity-based
and dispersion velocity-based models of crustal thickness for South
America.
We start by assessing the accuracy of two previous surface-wave
based crustal thickness maps for South America (Feng et al., 2007;
Lloyd et al., 2010). Both maps were obtained by joint inversion of
surface-wave group velocities, waveform modeling and sparse point
constraints on crustal thickness. Both models fit the crustal thickness
data used in their joint inversion with an rms misfit of about 3 km. To
assess the real accuracy of those models, we use 56 of our newly
compiled point estimates of crustal thicknesses (not utilized in their
surface-wave studies) as test points for the surface-wave based
models. Fig. 4 shows the two models and the 56 test points, all located
more than 100 km away from any of the point constraints of their
joint inversion. In the Andean region, Fig. 4 shows that the model of
Feng et al. (2007) fits 17 test points with an rms residual of 9.4 km,
while the model of Lloyd et al. (2010) fits the test points with an
shows that 39 test points have an rms misfit of 4.7 and 5.8 km, re-
spectively. Recall that for the stable part of the continent (Fig. 1),
8
~ 38 km and a standard deviation of 4.9 km. This means that neither
Feng et al. (2007) nor Lloyd et al. (2010) predict Moho depths in
the unsampled regions much better than the expected variability.
That is, a model with a constant thickness of 38 km in the unsampled
areas would fit the data almost as well as the models obtained with
86 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96

A B

Fig. 4. (A,B) Misfits of previous models of Moho depth (top: Feng et al., 2007; bottom: Lloyd et al., 2010) to 56 new point constraints far from the ones used to derive the models.
Red circles mean the new measurements indicate a Moho 4 km or more deeper than the model; blue circles indicate the Moho is more than 4 km shallower than the model.

the tomographic inversions. This clearly shows the need for an im-
provement in the model derived from the surface wave tomography.
Next, we assess the performance of a gravity-based model for the
Andean region. Tassara and Echaurren (2012) developed a detailed 3D
model of Central and Southern Andes by forward modeling of gravity
data constrained by 183 seismically derived Moho estimates (from re-
ceiver functions and active experiments) and other seismic and thermal
information to fix the subducted slab and lithosphere–astenosphere
boundary. Their model fits these 183 points with an rms misfit of
5.8 km. This misfit is due to scatter in the compiled point constraints
(uncertainties in crustal thickness estimates from receiver functions)
but also due to smoothing of the model in regions with strong lateral var-
iations. Fig. 5 shows 44 newly compiled points, which were not used in
their gravity modeling. These points have an rms misfit of 5.9 km, very
similar to the misfit of the actual data. With exception of the northeastern
area (Western Amazon, Brazil, Fig. 5) the model of Tassara and Echaurren
(2012) seems to make a useful prediction of Moho depths for the
sub-Andean area, with an expected error of about 6 km.
Given the result of the assessments, we have opted for developing
two crustal models, both including gravity-derived estimates in the
Central and Southern Andes (model of Tassara and Echaurren, 2012)
and in northern Andes (empirically estimated from Bouguer anomalies)
to fill large gaps in seismic data: model A — using the seismic point
constraints shown in Fig. 1, with simple interpolation in the stable part
of the continent, and model B — using seismic point constraints, and
surface-wave tomography.
4. Crustal model A — point constraints and gravity-based studies
model of Tassara and Echaurren (2012) for Central and Southern
Andes to guide the development of our crustal thicknesses in areas
of poor seismic coverage, such as the sub-Andean region. This gravity
model has errors larger than ±8 km near the Amazon, far from the
Andean seismic constraints (see Fig. 5). For this reason, points in
the Amazon too far from the Andes were excluded from our model A.
In the northern Andes, where not much data was found in the liter-
ature, we use point constraints derived from the following relationship
HðkmÞ ¼ 32:96 − 0:1090  Boug þ 5:00e−5  Bougˆ2 þ 2:90e−7
 Bougˆ3; ð1Þ
which was developed by fitting those point constraints from our compi-
lation (Fig. 1) that are located in the Andes and the adjacent Pacific mar-
gin to Bouguer anomalies taken from the continental-scale map of Sá
(2004) (see Fig. 6). The relationship fits the point constraints with an
rms residual of 7.4 km. This means that crustal thicknesses estimated
from gravity data should have an expected standard error of about
7 km. This is less than the rms misfit of the tomographic models of
Feng et al. (2007) and Lloyd et al.(2010) in the Andes (9.4 and
10.5 km, respectively, as seen in Fig. 4). Given that crustal thicknesses
across the Pacific margin and the Andean cordillera vary widely (from
10 to 20 km in the ocean, to more than 60 km in the high Andean
range, and back to ~35–45 km in the sub-Andean basins), we think
that this empirical relation is useful to fill large gaps in seismic data cov-
erage, as in the Northern Andes. For the Atlantic margin, Assumpção et
al. (in press) derived the following quadratical empirical relation using
only data in the oceanic areas:

4.1. Data and method HðkmÞ ¼ 31:85 − 0:1291  Boug þ 0:0002098  Bougˆ2: ð2Þ

In this model, we used the crustal thicknesses from the 762 seis- The rms residual of 3.1 km is similar to the uncertainties assigned
mic constraints (Fig. 1) complemented with the gravity-based crustal to the compiled thickness data in the Atlantic margin. This relation
 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96 87

80° 75° 70° 65° 60° −85°−80° −75°−70°−65° −60°−55° −50°−45°−40° −35°
5° 5°

10°

5°
10° 10°
0°

−5°

15° 15° −10°

−15°

−20°
20° 20°
−25°

−30°

25° 25° −35°

80 −40°
70
30° 30° Pacific Margin + Andes
moho, km

60
50 80
40
30 70
Crustal thickness, km

35° 20 35° 60
10

50

40

40° 40°
30

20

10

45° 45° −400 −200 0 200

80° 75° 70° 65° 60°
Fig. 5. Moho depths from gravity model of Tassara and Echaurren (2012). Open circles
are the seismic constraints used in the gravity modeling. Larger circles are new seismic
points not used in the gravity modeling. Grey circles denote misfits less than ±4 km;
red circles denote observations are 4–8 km deeper than the model; blue circles denote
Moho depths 4–8 km shallower than the model; larger circles denote misfits larger
than ±8 km, such as in the northern area. The data used in the modeling (open circles)
have an rms misfit of 5.8 km. The rms misfit of the 49 new data points is also 5.8 km.
Bouguer, mGal
Fig. 6. Relationship between crustal thickness and Bouguer anomaly in the Pacific mar-
gin and Andean region. Red circles denote points used to establish a 3rd order
polinomial (blue line in the bottom plot). Blue crosses in the top show the points
with estimated crustal thicknesses used to complement the seismic data of Fig. 1 and
make the contour map of crustal thicknesses.

continent is not very useful and we preferred to interpolate

was also used here to fill data gaps in the oceanic areas of the Atlantic
margin.
For the stable continental interior (onshore, East of the Andes),
Assumpção et al. (in press) showed that the correlation between
elevation and crustal thickness is poor (only 0.20). The correlation
between crustal thickness and Bouguer anomalies is slightly better
(correlation coefficient of − 0.38). However, the regression of
crustal thicknesses and Bouguer anomalies has an rms misfit of
4.4 km (Assumpção et al., in press). The 260 crustal thicknesses
compiled for the stable part of the continent have a mean value
of 37.7 km and a standard deviation of 4.8 km. For this reason,
using gravity to fill large data gaps in the stable part of the
between widely spaced data points (as done by Assumpção et al., in
press) rather than introduce bias from Bouguer anomalies in the con-
tinental interior.
4.2. Model results and data misfit
Fig. 7 shows the crustal model constructed by interpolating seismic
point constraints (receiver functions and active seismics) complemented
with thicknesses estimated from seismically-constrained gravity model-
ing in the Andes (Tassara and Echaurren, 2012), and gravity-predicted
estimates in the northern Andes and oceanic areas (one point every
2.5°). We interpolated the data with the minimum curvature technique
88 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96

(Smith and Wessel, 1990; Wessel and Smith, 1998) after getting weight-
ed mean values every 0.5°. A surface tension factor of 0.5 was used to
avoid large maxima and minima outside the data range. The rms fit to
the 920 seismic points is 3.5 km. The rms fit to the 260 seismic points
within the stable continental area is 1.6 km, close to the average accura-
cy of the seismic data (Fig. 2).
Along the Andean chain, crust thicker than 60 km is seen from
central Peru (8°S) to the Puna plateau (30°S). In central Ecuador
and northern Peru (3°S to 7°S) the crust does not seem to be
more than 50 km thick, although no direct seismic data is avail-
able in this region. In the stable continental interior, two main
areas of thick crust (40 km or more) can be seen, one in the
Amazon craton and the other in the São Francisco and Paraná
basin. The northern part of the intracratonic Paraná basin shows
the thickest crust, reaching more than 45 km. In the southern
part of the continent, east of the Andes, the crust is generally thin-
ner than 40 km. A belt of thin crust (reaching 35 km or less) is
seen along the sub-Andean basins, especially in Southern Colom-
bia, Peru and Bolivia. This is based mainly on gravity data, but
the few available seismic points seem to be consistent with this
feature.
5. Crustal model B — point constraints and surface-wave tomography
5.1. Data and method
Here we use the tomographic inversion method of Feng et al.
(2007) to derive a crustal model based on joint inversion of different
kinds of data: waveform modeling, group velocity dispersion, and
seismic point constraints. The waveform data was the same as used
by Feng et al. (2007): 1537 regional wave trains analyzed with the
partitioned waveform inversion (PWI) method of van der Lee and
Nolet (1997) and van der Lee et al. (2001). Each waveform modeling
(S+ Rayleigh waves) produces an average 1D model for the epicenter-
station path. To the 5700 group velocity measurements of Feng et al.
(2004, 2007), we added 1031 new measurements (Collaço et al.,
2012; Rosa et al., 2012) including inter-station paths using ambient
noise cross-correlation in the Paraná and Chaco basins (Fig. 8). The
same seismic point constraints used in model A were also used here,
with large weighting, to constrain model B. Additionally, point con-
straints from the gravity model of Tassara and Echaurren (2012), and
from the empirical Bouguer relations for unsampled areas in the North-
ern Andes and oceans, were also used, but with lower weights.

20
10°
40

5°

30
50

40

0°
20

−5°
40
70
30
−10°
60

−15° 50

40
−20°

30
−25°
40

20

−30° 10
30

−35°

−40°

−45°
−80° −75° −70° −65° −60° −55° −50° −45° −40° −35°

Fig. 7. Contour map of crustal thickness of MODEL A (contour interval 5 km). Red dots show seismic data (RF and active seismics). Crosses in the oceanic areas denote thicknesses
inferred from Bouguer anomalies. White dots denote thickness data given by seismically-constrained gravity modeling of Tassara and Echaurren (2012). Green lines are boundaries
of the main geological provinces (see Fig. 1 for legend). Values of crustal thickness in the ocean include the water layer.
 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96 89

First, a 2D group velocity tomography is carried out on a 1° by 1° geo-
graphical grid, for each period, with the ~(5700 +1031) paths using the
ray-theory tomography method of Feng et al. (2004). Ray-theory to-
mography can offer nearly identical result as finite-frequency tomogra-
phy (Ritzwoller et al., 2002; Sieminski et al., 2004) in continental-scale
studies if appropriate smoothing is applied and the path distribution is
good. The regionalized dispersion curves are then combined with the
1D path-averaged models (obtained from the PWI inversions) to obtain
perturbations of a 3D initial S-velocity structure. The initial reference 3D
model, called SA40, is the IASP91 upper mantle model with a 40 km
crust in the stable part of South America and 45 to 70 km in the Andes
(van der Lee et al., 2001). The two data sets are then jointly inverted
with the following set of equations (Feng et al., 2007; Lloyd et al., 2010):
0 1 0 1
Hw qw
B λd Hd C B λd qd C
B C B C
@ λRF HRF Am ¼ @ λRF qRF A
λI 0 lantic shield, the thick crust (> 40 km) spans a larger area, especially
where Hw, Hd and HRF are the sensitivity matrix for the waveform, group
velocity data and seismic point constraints, respectively; m is the model
parameters, i.e., 3D S-wave velocity perturbations (Δβ) and Moho depth
perturbations (ΔH) from the reference model SA40; qw is the data vector
related to the PWI data; qd is the data vector of group velocity difference
between the regionalized and predicted group velocities (ΔU); qRF is the
vector with crustal thickness data; λ is a damping factor, and λd and λRF
control the relative weights between waveform, group velocity and
crustal thickness data. In addition, we weight all the data by their re-
spective inverse estimated uncertainty.
5.2. Model results
We present three versions of model B, obtained with different combi-
nations of seismic data types, to investigate their contribution to the final
model: model B1 — based on waveform modeling and Rayleigh-wave
group dispersion; model B2 — where the point constraints compiled in
this study were added, including those derived from the empirical rela-
tionships (Eqs. (1) and (2)); and model B3 – where gravity constraints
for the Andean region from Tassara and Echaurren (2012) were added.
Fig. 9 shows the resulting model based only on waveform modeling
and Rayleigh-wave group velocity measurements (model B1). Thick
crust can be seen in Southern Peru, Southern Bolivia and Northern
Chile. Interestingly, the thick crust in the Bolivian Altiplano (between
15oS and 20oS) is not retrieved by the surface-wave data only. This is
probably due to irregular distribution of ray paths and few ray crossings
over the Bolivian Altiplano. Similarly, in the Ecuadorian/N.Peruvian area,
the surface-wave data does not indicate a thick crust. In the stable part of
the continent, the surface-wave data indicate thicker crust (>40 km) in
the Amazon and thinner in the Atlantic shield.
Adding the seismic depth constraints we get model B2 (Fig. 10). In
this model extra points were also used in the ocean away from the
seismically determined point constraints (based on the empirical re-
lationship with Bouguer anomaly, Eqs. (1) and (2)), as well as in
the northern Andes. The thick crust of the Bolivian altiplano is now
ð3Þ
better defined with the inclusion of receiver function data. In the At-
in the Paraná Basin and near the São Francisco craton. A large region
of thin crust (b35 km) is seen in the Chaco Basin.
Fig. 11A shows our preferred and final tomographic model (B3)
where, in addition to the data used in model B2, we added the
gravity-derived crustal thicknesses of Tassara and Echaurren (2012),
which had been tightly constrained by seismic observations. Model
B3 fits the 730 on-shore seismic point constraints with an rms misfit
of 4.7 km (Fig. 11B. For the stable continental interior (260 points
onshore), the misfit is only 1.7 km. The misfit in the Andes (Fig. 11B)
is larger partly because of smoothing of the model in the inversion pro-
cess and partly because of larger variability of the compiled data. The
weights in the tomographic inversion were chosen so that the seismic
point constraints have relatively more influence than waveform or dis-
persion data. Model B3 improves the definition of the thick Andean
crust. However, in the region of Southern Ecuador and Northern Peru
(where no seismic data have been compiled), the crust remains rela-
tively thin, about 40 km or less.
The map of Fig. 12 shows the S-wave velocity anomalies at 100 km
depth, which is not the main topic of this work but is briefly described
here as an interesting by-product of the tomographic inversion. The

BRASIS+4BRZ evts LPA ANT

−90° −80° −70° −60° −50° −40° −30° −20° −90° −80° −70° −60° −50° −40° −30° −20° −90° −80° −70° −60° −50° −40° −30° −20°
20° 20° 20°

10° 10° 10°

0° 0° 0°

−10° −10° −10°

−20° −20° −20°

−30° −30° −30°

−40° −40° −40°

−50° −50° −50°

−60° −60° −60°

−90° −80° −70° −60° −50° −40° −30° −20° −90° −80° −70° −60° −50° −40° −30° −20° −90° −80° −70° −60° −50° −40° −30° −20°

Fig. 8. Additional 1031 paths with group velocity measurements used to complement the ~5700 paths previously used by Feng et al. (2004, 2007). Left) Earthquake data from re-
cently installed Brazilian stations and some GSN stations between 2009 and 2011. Center) Paths measured at LPA station (University of La Plata; María Laura Rosa 2012). Right)
Interstation paths measured with ambient noise cross-correlation (Bruno Collaço, USP, 2012).
90 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96

Fig. 9. Model of Moho depths (tomographic inversion method of Feng et al., 2007) using only waveform modeling and group velocity dispersion (Model_B1_WF + DSP). Same
waveform data as in the 2007 model; dispersion data from 2007 with additional paths from Fig. 8. Blue line denotes 3000 m elevation of the Andean plateau. Note generally
thick crust in the Andes, except at the Southern Bolivia plateau (near 18°S), probably due to insufficient ray-crossings in that area. No deep crust is suggested in the Ecuadorean/
N. Peru area (0° to 5°S). Deep crust in the northern and southern Paraná basin is suggested, but not near the São Francisco craton.

results are very similar to those of Feng et al. (2007) except in the
southern part of the Paraná Basin where higher velocities are found.
The inclusion of more dispersion paths (Fig. 8) improved the veloci-
ties of the lithospheric lid in Eastern Argentina. The region of the
Chaco Basin is characterized by low velocities in the upper-mantle,
which correlate with the generally thin crust (Fig. 11A), as discussed
below. In the Andes, the velocities at 100 km depth are generally low
reflecting the shallow asthenosphere, except for the high velocities
in the two areas of flat subduction of the Nazca slab: in southern
Ecuador/northern Peru near 5°S, and in central Chile/Argentina near
30°S.
the model inverted with only the specific data. Interestingly, the WF
data improves the group velocity fit, relative to the initial model
(Fig. 13B), but using only the DSP data one cannot improve the wave-
form fit of the seismograms (Fig. 13D). The amplitude and phase in-
formation contained in the PWI modeling are very important to better
constrain the final model.
6. Discussion
6.1. Stable continental interior

Both models A and B3 show that the average crustal thickness in

5.3. Data misfit
Examples of fitting of the surface-wave data for the final model B3
are shown in Fig. 13, compared with the initial reference model SA40.
Models inverted with only one type of data (DSP = group velocities
only, or WF = PWI waveform data only) are also shown for compari-
son. The joint model B3 fits the DSP and the WF data almost as well as
the stable part of the continent is about 40 km. Two regions with
crust generally thicker than 40 km can be seen in the Amazon and
in the Atlantic shield. This is seen both in model A (Fig. 7, based on
seismic constraints only) and model B3 (Fig. 11A) including
surface-wave tomography. The more detailed features in the final
model B3 indicate that the thick crust in the Amazon correlates
roughly with the oldest Archean provinces as defined by Tassinari
 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96 91

Fig. 10. Model B2 of Moho depths (tomographic method of Feng et al., 2007) using waveform modeling and group velocity dispersion (same data as in Fig. 9) plus 762 seismic point
constraints. In the oceans and Northern Andes, gravity-derived additional points were used to fill large gaps, based on Eqs. (1) and (2) (shown in Fig. 7).

and Macambira (1999). In the Atlantic shield (i.e., SE of the
TransBrasilian Lineament, Fig. 11A) there is evidence of thick crust
associated with the São Francisco craton but the deepest Moho
(reaching more than 45 km) is found in the intracratonic Paraná
Basin based mainly on receiver functions (Assumpção et al., 2002;
Julià et al., 2008). The basin has generally lower elevations than the
surrounding areas, which led Assumpção et al. (2002) to propose
that the deep crust in this basin could be compensated by high densi-
ties in the lithospheric lid. This hypothesis remains consistent with
high S-wave velocities at 100 km depth shown in Fig. 12.
A SW–NE continental-scale lineament, the TransBrasiliano Linea-
ment (“TBL” in Fig. 11A), is believed to indicate a major Neo-
Proterozoic suture between the Amazon craton and the other provinces
to the SE (São Francisco craton and other old crustal units). In model B3,
the TBL seems to be characterized by relatively thin crust, especially be-
neath the Parnaiba basin. Another pronounced belt of thin crust is seen
in model B3 along the eastern and southern borders of the Amazon cra-
ton. This feature could indicate an extension of a narrow belt of thin
crust found by Assumpção et al. (2004a, 2004b) in the Tocantins prov-
ince of central Brazil roughly coincident with the Neo-Proterozoic
Goiás magmatic arc.
Crustal thicknesses of the Rio de la Plata craton of eastern Argen-
tina also seem to be larger than 40 km The crust in the Patagonian
province, in the southern part of the continent, appears thinner
than 40 km, but the coverage of our data set is poor in the southern
tip of South America and model B3 has poor resolution in this area.
6.2. Andean range
The Moho beneath the Andes can reach more than 70 km depth in
the eastern cordillera of Bolivia, and is generally deeper than 50 km in
areas with elevations higher than 3000 m. A notable exception to this
is observed below the northern Puna at 25°S where the crust is thinner
than 55 km for elevations higher than 4000 m. This result reinforce the
hypothesis as to that a recent (b 4 Ma) event of lithospheric delamina-
tion has affected this region and removed part of the dense lower
crust (Kay and Kay, 1993; Whitman et al., 1996). Interestingly, and
not noted by previous models (Feng et al., 2007; Lloyd et al., 2010;
Tassara et al., 2006), this region of thin crust seems to be oriented in a
ENE direction that could be continued eastward into the TransBrasiliano
Lineament. The SW limit of the TBL is presently characterized by a me-
chanically weak (Pérez-Gussinyé et al., 2007), thinned lithosphere
92 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96

A Feng2012SET_Moho_3 B Feng2012SET_Moho_3
Caribbean gravity
10˚ 10˚
40 empirical
Tassara
5˚ 5˚

40 40
0˚ 0˚

L
TB
Or
−5˚ −5˚
40 40
40
40

40
−10˚ −10˚

−15˚ −15˚

70
30 40 30
−20˚ 60 −20˚
M depth, km

60 30 30
50
−25˚ −25˚
40

30 40 40
−30˚ −30˚ residual, km
(seismic)
40

20

10 > +4
−35˚ −35˚
−4 to +4
< −4
−40˚ −40˚
−80˚ −75˚ −70˚ −65˚ −60˚ −55˚ −50˚ −45˚ −40˚ −35˚ −80˚ −75˚ −70˚ −65˚ −60˚ −55˚ −50˚ −45˚ −40˚ −35˚

Fig. 11. A) Model B3 of Moho depths using waveform modeling, group velocity dispersion, all point constraints as model B2 with additional depths from the model of
Tassara and Echaurren (2012). Control points are shown in panel B. Contour interval 5 km. Blue solid line denotes the 3000 m altitude in the Andes. Dark green lines
are boundaries of major geological provinces. Gray solid lines are the limits of the South American plate. Red line in the Amazon is the oldest Archean geochronological
province (Tassinari and Macambira, 1999). TBL = TransBrasiliano Lineament; Ch = Chaco Basin, Or = Oriente basin. Note better definition of the Andean thick crust. Note
that in South Ecuador and Northern Peru (~ 3°S), the crust is still thin. B) Fit to MODEL B3. Crustal thickness contours with all point-constraints used in the continent:
colored circles are the seismic constraints; rms misfit to all 728 continental data points = 4.7 km; fit to 259 points in stable continent = 1.7 km). Small open circles denote
control points from Tassara and Echaurren (2012) gravity-derived model; crosses show locations of thicknesses derived from the empirical relationship with Bouguer
anomaly (Eq. (1), Fig. 6).

(Assumpção et al. (2004b) as suggested by the low S-wave veloc-
ities in Fig. 12). Although highly speculative, this hypothesis
could suggest that delamination below the Puna occurred along
a pre-weakened, thinned lithospheric zone inherited since the
Neo-Proterozoic.
In southern Ecuador and northern Peru (around 3°S), at the limit
between central and northern Andes, another region of relatively
high elevation (near 3000 m) is underlain by a Moho that seems to
be only about 40 km or less. In this area there are no direct seismic
constraints and the thin crust is controlled by the surface wave data
and some gravity-predicted estimates of crustal thickness (Fig. 11B).
Geoid anomalies are mainly positive and higher than 20 m along
the whole Andean chain, reaching more than 40 m in the Altiplano.
However, in the south Ecuatorian Andes this anomaly almost van-
ishes and geoid heights are less than 10 m (Blitzkov et al., 2009;
King, 2002). Although long wavelength geoid anomalies are mainly
controlled by deeper structures (subducted plates and density varia-
tions at the mid-lower mantle), the lack of a short wavelength positive
geoid anomaly can be connected to the lack of a deep crustal root in this
region. In this case, thin cordilleran crust can be the consequences of a
regional, flexural-controlled compensation of surface topography in
contrast to the local, Airy-type compensation that seems to dominate
along the rest of the Andean cordillera as suggested by the correlation
between topography and crustal thickness. Moreover, estimates of the
elastic thickness that parametrizes the flexural rigidity of the lithosphere
(Pérez-Gussinyé et al., 2008; Tassara et al., 2007) are anomalously high
(>40 km) for the Ecuador–Peru border region compared to the rest of
the Andes (b20 km).
6.3. Sub-Andean and Chaco basins
Another interesting feature of the Moho models is a large region of
thin crust (shallower than b 35 km) between the Andean range and
the cratonic areas. In some areas of the Chaco basin, model B3
suggests a Moho depth even shallower than 30 km (Fig. 11A).
Although the Moho model in the sub-Andean region (Fig. 11A is
mainly controlled by the surface-wave data, the few direct seismic
measurements in these areas (Fig. 7) and the relatively high gravity
anomalies (Tassara and Echaurren, 2012; Tassara et al., 2006) confirm
the generally thin crust east of the Altiplano–Puna plateau of the
central Andes. Interestingly, this feature has been independently
found from the inversion of satellite gravity data (van der Meijde
et al., 2013–submitted for publication).
Using surface-wave data to invert for both crustal thickness and
S-wave velocity of the lithospheric lid can be a difficult problem be-
cause of the trade-off between these two parameters. A solution
with a thin crust could be compensated by lower velocities in the
upper mantle and produce similar dispersion curves. Snoke and
James (1997) analyzed phase and group velocity data in the Chaco
basin and showed that this region has very low S-wave velocities in
the upper mantle, which was later confirmed by Feng et al. (2007).
In addition, checker board resolution tests by Feng et al. (2007)
 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96
Fig. 12. S-wave velocity anomalies at 100 km depth from the tomography model B3.
Red line in the Amazon denotes the oldest geochronological province of Tassinari
and Macambira (1999). TBL is the TransBrasiliano Lineament.
showed that the low mantle velocities in the Chaco basin are well de-
termined. This means that this feature is robust and should not cause
an artificially thin crust in our tomographic inversion.
We do not have a definitive explanation for the origin of this zone
of thin crust along the sub-Andean belt, but some points are worth
discussing. Flexural uplift in the sub-Andean crust caused by Andean
load can only account for a few meters, even when 3D amplification
effects due to the bend of the Andean chain are taken into account
(Sacek and Ussami, 2009). Dynamic topography of other possible
origin (subducted slabs, lower crustal flow, etc.) normally accounts
for at most a couple of kilometers (Clark et al., 2005; Dávila et al.,
2010; Pérez-Gussinyé et al., 2008) and also seems unlikely to explain
a shallowing of the Moho by 5–10 km in a large area as observed for
the Chaco basin here. We note that crust of 30–35 km thickness is
also observed in our models A and B3 along the eastern passive mar-
gin of the continent where it is of course a consequence of the crustal
extension and thinning accompanying the rifting of Gondwana. The
area of thin crust bordering the Amazon and Rio de la Plata craton
in the west, e.g. lying to the east of the Andes, coincides with what
has been proposed as the main arm of the intracontinental rift zone
that separated Laurasia from proto-Gondwana during the disaggrega-
tion of the supercontinent Rodinia and the aperture of the Iapetus Ocean
at the Neo-Proterozoic (Cawood, 2005; Cordani et al., 2009; Rapela et
al., 2007). The region of anomalously thin crust (b30 km) below the
Chaco basin occurs at the intersection of this old rifted margin
and the TransBrasiliano Lineament, which also coincide with the
suture left after the closure during the Cambrian of the Clymene
Ocean that separated Amazonia from Sao Francisco and Rio de la
Plata cratons (Escayola et al., 2011; Tohver et al., 2012). Thus, it
seems very likely that the present-day crustal thickness configura-
tion at the interior of the South American continent reflects an old
inheritance left after previous steps of the Wilson cycle.
93
7. Conclusions
A new model of Moho depth was derived for continental South
America based on an increased data set of more than 900 crustal
thickness constraints from receiver functions and active seismic
experiments. The surface-wave data originally used by Feng et al.
(2007) was increased by ~ 1000 paths with new group velocity mea-
surements improving the coverage in the Paraná and Chaco basins. A
joint inversion of all these data sets, including extra (weak) con-
straints from gravity-derived depths in poorly covered areas, pro-
duced a model (model B3, Fig. 11A) fitting all used data reasonably
well, i.e. within their uncertainties.
The preferred model shows two main regions of thick crust in the
stable continental interior, one in the Amazon craton (mainly in the
oldest geochronological province) and the other in the Atlantic shield
(including the São Francisco craton and the Paraná intracratonic
basin) separated by a zone of thin crust which could be correlated
with the Transbrasilian Lineament.
The Moho in the Andean chain is usually deeper than 50 km in areas
with elevations higher than 3000 m, reaching more than 70 km in the
Bolivian Eastern Cordillera.
A shallowing of the Andean Moho seems to occur below the Puna of
north-western Argentina and in the border region between Ecuador
and Peru. Causes for the lack of a deep crustal root compensating high
elevations for these regions vary from a possible delamination event
and then a thermal compensation for the Puna, while for the southern
Ecuatorian Andes it seems likely that compensation is dominated by
the flexural support of a rigid lithosphere.
A belt of thin crust (b35 km thick) that is seen below most of the
sub-Andean zone between the Andean orogeny and the stable craton-
ic shield, especially beneath the Chaco basin, is probably an old
inherited feature left after the rifting and drifting episodes related
to the separation of Rodinia during the Neo-Proterozoic and subse-
quent closure of ocean basins connected to the first orogenic cycles
that formed the Phanerozoic Gondwana continent and then the mod-
ern South America.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by CNPq grant 309724/2009-0 (MA), NSFC
grant 41174039 (MF) and Fondecyt project 1101034 (AT). Part of the
data used in this paper was collected in the BRASIS project (IAG-USP)
supported by “Rede de Estudos Geotectônicos” of Petrobras. We thank
María Laura Rosa (UNLP), Bruno Collaço (IAG-USP) and Gerardo Sánchez
(INPRES) for dispersion data from their stations. We also thank Eric
Sandvol (Missouri Univ.) for providing unpublished crustal thicknesses
from the Southern Puna experiment, Kristin Phillips (Caltech) for
unpublished data from the Southern Peru experiment, and Stéphane
Drouet (ON-Brazil) for unpublished data from RSIS network.
References
Agudelo, W.A., Ribodetti, J.-Y., Collot, S. Operto, 2009. Joint inversion of multichannel
seismic reflection and wide-angle seismic data: improved imaging and refined ve-
locity model of the crustal structure of the north Ecuador–South Colombia conver-
gent margin. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, B02306 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2008JB005690.
Ammon, C.J., 1991. The isolation of receiver effects from teleseismic P waveforms. Bul-
letin of the Seismological Society of America 81 (6), 2504–2510.
ANCORP Working Group, 2003. Seismic imaging of a convergent continental margin
and plateau in the central Andes (Andean Continental Research Project 1996
(ANCORP'96)). Journal of Geophysical Research 108 (B7), 2328 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2002JB001771.
Assumpção, M., James, D., Snoke, A., 2002. Crustal thicknesses in SE Brazilian shield
by receiver function analysis: implications for isostatic compensation. Journal
of Geophysical Research 107 (B1) http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000422
(ESE2-1—ESE2-14, 2006).
Assumpção, M., An, M., Bianchi, M., França, G.S.L., Rocha, M., Barbosa, J.R., Berrocal, J.,
2004b. Seismic studies of the Brasília Fold Belt at the western border of the São
94 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96

Group velocity (km/s) Group velocity (km/s)

4.0 1 2

3.5

3.0
4
2 1
2.5 3

4.0 3 4

3.5

3.0

2.5
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Period (s) Period (s)
B
RMS Misfit of Group Velocity (km/s)

0.20

0.16

0.12

0.08
SA40
DSP
0.04 WF
JOINT
0.00
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Period (s)

C
27.0 7
Epicenter distance (degrees)

2001/03/15 dep=37km mb=6.1

25.1 3 6
7
6

24.1 24 5 5

20.8 4

1
20.8 3

Obs. 2
19.2
SA40

8.4 JOINT 1

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Time (s)

D
200 1.629 (a) 200 1.632 (b)
SA40 DSP
Number

0 0
0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4

0.929 (c) 1.046 (d)

WF JOINT
Number

200
200

0 0
0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4
RMS Misfit RMS Misfit
 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96
Francisco craton, central Brazil, using receiver function, surface wave dispersion,
and teleseismic tomography. Tectonophysics 388, 173–185.
Assumpção, M., Schimmel, M., Escalante, C., Rocha, M., Barbosa, J.R., Barros, L.V., 2004a.
Intraplate seismicity in SE Brazil: stress concentration in lithospheric thin spots.
Geophysical Journal International 159, 390–399.
Assumpção, M., Bianchi, M.B., Julià, J., Dias, F.L., França, G.S., Nascimento, R.M., Drouet, S.,
Pavão, C.G., Albuquerque, D.F., Lopes, A.E.V., in press. Crustal thickness map of Brazil:
data compilation and main features. Journal of South American Earth Sciences.
Bassin, C., Laske, G., Masters, G., 2000. The current limits of resolution for surface wave
tomography in North America. EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical
Union 81, F897.
Bastow, I.D., Nyblade, A.A., Stuart, G.W., Rooney, T.O., Benoit, M.H., 2008. Upper mantle
seismic structure beneath the Ethiopian hot spot: rifting at the edge of the African
low-velocity anomaly. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 9, Q12022 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GC002107.
Beck, S.L., Zandt, G., 2002. The nature of orogenic crust in the central Andes. Journal of
Geophysical Research 107, 2230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JB000124.
Beck, S.L., Zandt, G., Myers, S.C., Wallace, T.C., Silver, P.G., Drake, L., 1996. Crustal-thickness
variations in the central Andes. Geology 24, 407–410.
Bianchi, M., Heit, B., Jakovlev, A., Yuan, A., Kay, S.M., Sandvol, E., Alonso, R.N., Coira, B.,
Brown, L., Kind, R., Comte, D., 2013. Teleseismic tomography of the southern Puna
plateau in Argentina and adjacent regions. Tectonophysics 586, 65–83.
Blitzkov, D., Matos, A.C.O.C., Lobianco, M.C.B., Campos, I.O., 2009. The progress of the
geoid in South America under GRACE and EGM08 models. IAG Assembly, Buenos
Aires, 2009 (Abstracts).
Calkins, J.A., Zandt, G., Gilbert, H.J., Beck, S., 2006. Crustal images from San Juan, Argentina,
obtained using high frequency local event receiver functions. Geophysical Research
Letters 33, L07309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025516.
Cawood, P.A., 2005. Terra Australis Orogen: Rodinia breakup and development of
the Pacific and Iapetus margins of Gondwana during the Neoproterozoic and Pa-
leozoic. Earth-Science Reviews 69 (3–4), 249–279 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.earscirev.2004.09.001.
Clark, M.K., Bush, J.W.M., Royden, L.H., 2005. Dynamic topography produced by lower
crustal flow against rheological strength heterogeneities bordering the Tibetan
Plateau. Geophysical Journal International 162, 575–590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-246X.2005.02580.x.
Collaço, B., Sánchez, G., Rosa, M.].L., Assumpção, M., Sabbione, N., Araujo, M., Rocha, M.P.,
2012. Crustal structure of the Paraná Basin from ambient noise tomography. XVI
Congr. Geological Soc. of Peru, Lima, 23–26 September 2012, extended abstract.
Cordani, U.G., Teixeira, W., D'Agrella-Filho, M.S., Trindade, R.I., 2009. The position of the
Amazonian Craton in supercontinents. Gondwana Research 15 (3–4), 396–407
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2008.12.005.
Cormier, V.F., Anderson, T.S., 2004. Efficiency of Lg propagation from SmS dynamic ray
tracing in three-dimensionally varying crustal waveguides. Pure and Applied Geo-
physics 8, 1613–1633.
Dávila, F.M., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C., Giménez, M., 2010. Tectonic and dynamic controls
on the topography and subsidence of the Argentine Pampas: the role of the flat
slab. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 295 (1–2), 187–194 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.epsl.2010.03.039.
Dorbath, C., Granet, M., Poupinet, G., Martinez, C., 1993. A teleseismic study of the
Altiplano and Eastern Cordillera in Northern Bolivia: new constraints on a litho-
spheric model. Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (B6), 9825–9844.
Escayola, M.P., van Staal, Cees R., Davis, William J., 2011. The age and tectonic setting of
the Puncoviscana Formation in northwestern Argentina: an accretionary complex
related to Early Cambrian closure of the Puncoviscana Ocean and accretion of the
Arequipa–Antofalla block. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 32 (4),
438–459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2011.04.013.
Fan, G.W., Lay, T., 1998. Statistical analysis of irregular wave-guide influences on re-
gional seismic discriminants in China. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 88, 74–88.
Feininger, T., Seguin, M.K., 1983. Simple Bouguer gravity anomaly field and the inferred
crustal structure of continental Ecuador. Geology 11, 40–44 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1130/0091-7613(1983) 11b40:SBGAFA>2.0.CO;2.
Feng, M., Assumpção, M., Van der Lee, S., 2004. Group-velocity tomography and litho-
spheric S-velocity structure of the South American continent. Physics of the Earth
and Planetary Interiors 147, 315–331.
Feng, M., Van der Lee, S., Assumpção, M., 2007. Upper mantle structure of South Amer-
ica from joint inversion of waveforms and fundamental-mode group velocities of
Rayleigh waves. Journal of Geophysical Research 112, B04312 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2006JB004449.
Ferreira, J.M., França, G.S., Vilar, C.S., do Nascimento, A.F., Bezerra, F.H.R., Assumpção,
M., 2008. Induced seismicity in the Castanhão reservoir, NE Brazil — preliminary
results. Tectonophysics 456, 103–110.
Fichtner, A., Igel, H., 2008. Efficient numerical surface wave propagation through the
optimization of discrete crustal models—a technique based on non-linear disper-
sion curve matching (DCM). Geophysical Journal International 173, 519–533
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03746.x.
Fig. 13. Data misfit. A) Example of group velocity misfit for one event in the Atlantic. Dotted line is the curve for the SA40 initial model. Solid curve is the prediction with the model
B3 (joint inversion). B) Average misfit of the up to 7000 measurements. SA40 is misfit to the initial reference model; DSP and WF are misfits to models inverted with group velocity
or waveform data only, respectively; JOINT is misfit using all data including seismic constraints. JOINT is similar to DSP, and is better than SA40 and WF. C) Example of waveform fit
for the S and Rayleigh waves of an event in Central Chile. Solid line is the observed vertical component, dotted line is the calculated trace for the SA40 initial model, and dashed line
is the calculated trace for the final joint model B3. Note better fit for the shorter periods at the end of the Rayleigh wave train. D) Distribution of all waveform fits (normalized rms fit
to the traces) for the initial reference model (SA40), model obtained with group velocity only (DSP), model obtained with waveform only (WF), and final model B3 with joint in-
version of all data sets (JOINT). Number at the top of each plot is the average misfit. JOINT fits are close to WF, and are better than DSP and the initial model SA40. The misfit for the
example in (C) is 1.91 and 0.64 for the SA40 and JOINT model, respectively.
95
Fichtner, A., Kennett, B.L.N., Igel, H., Bunge, H.-P., 2009. Full seismic waveform tomog-
raphy for upper-mantle structure in the Australasian region using adjoint
methods. Geophysical Journal International 179, 1703–1725 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04368.x.
Gans, C.R., Beck, S.L., Zandt, G., Gilbert, H., Alvarado, P., Anderson, M., Linkimer, L.,
2011. Continental and oceanic crustal structure of the Pampean flat slab
region, western Argentina, using receiver function analysis: new high-resolution
results. Geophysical Journal International 186, 45–58 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-246X.2011.05023.x.
Hjörleifsdóttir, V., Ekstrom, G., 2010. Effects of three-dimensional Earth structure on
CMT earthquake parameters. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 179,
178–190 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2009.11.003.
Hussong, D.M., Edwards, P.B., Johnson, S.H., Campbell, J.F., Sutton, G.H., 1976. Crustal
structure of the Peru–Chile trench: 8°–12°S latitude. The geophysics of the Pacific
Ocean Basin and its margins. AGU Geophysical Monograph 19, 71–85.
Julià, J., Assumpção, M., Rocha, M.P., 2008. Deep crustal structure of the Paraná Basin
from receiver functions and Rayleigh-wave dispersion: evidence for a fragmented
cratonic root. Journal of Geophysical Research 113, B08318 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2007JB005374.
Justowski, B., Dziewonski, A.M., Ekstrom, G., 2007. Nonlinear crustal corrections for
normal-mode seismograms. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97,
1756–1762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0120070041.
Kay, R.W., Kay, S.M., 1993. Delamination and delamination magmatism. Tectonophysics 219
(1–3), 177–189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(93)90295-U.
King, S.D., 2002. Geoid and topography over subduction zones: the effect of phase
transformations. Journal of Geophysical Research 107 (B1), 2013 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2000JB000141.
Lawrence, J.F., Wiens, D.A., 2004. Combined receiver-function and surface wave phase-
velocity inversion using a Niching Genetic Algorithm: application to Patagonia.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 94 (3), 977–987.
Lebedev, S., Van Der Hilst, Rob D., 2008. Global upper-mantle tomography with the au-
tomated multimode inversion of surface and S-wave forms. Geophysical Journal
International 173, 505–518 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03721.x.
Lithgow-Bertelloni, C., Guynn, J.H., 2004. Origin of the lithospheric stress field. Journal
of Geophysical Research 109, B01408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002467.
Lloyd, S., van der Lee, S., França, G.S., Assumpção, M., Feng, M., 2010. Moho map of
South America from receiver functions and surface waves. Journal of Geophysical
Research 115, B11315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006829.
McGlashan, N., Brown, L., Kay, S., 2008. Crustal thickness in the central Andes from
teleseismically recorded depth phase precursors. Geophysical Journal International
175, 1013–1022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03897.x.
Meyer, R.P., Mooney, W.D., Hales, A.L., Helsey, C.E., Woollard, G.P., Hussong, D.M.,
Kroenke, L.W., Ramirez, J.E., 1976. Project Nariño III: refraction observation across
a leading edge, Malpelo Island to the Colombian Cordillera Occidental. The geo-
physics of the Pacific Ocean basin and its margins. AGU Geophysical Monograph
19, 105–132.
Mohriak, W.U., Mello, M.R., Bassetto, M., Vieira, I.S., Koutsoukos, E.A.M., 2000. In: Mello,
M.R., Katz, B.J. (Eds.), Crustal architecture, sedimentation, and petroleum systems
in the Sergipe–Alagoas Basin, northeastern Brazil: Petroleum Systems of South
Atlantic Margins: AAPG Memoir, 73, pp. 273–300.
Mooney, W.D., Kaban, M.K., 2010. The North American upper mantle: density,
composition, and evolution. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, B12424 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JB000866.
Mooney, W.D., Meyer, R.P., Laurence, J.P., Meyer, H., Ramírez, J.E., 1979. Seismic refraction
studies of the western cordillera, Colombia. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 69, 1745–1761.
Mooney, W.D., Laske, G., Masters, T.G., 1998. CRUST 5.1: a global crustal model at 5°x5°.
Journal of Geophysical Research 103 (B1), 727–747.
Niu, F., Bravo, T., Pavlis, G., Vernon, F., Rendon, H., Bezada, M., Levander, A., 2007. Re-
ceiver function study of the crustal structure of the southeastern Caribbean plate
boundary and Venezuela. Journal of Geophysical Research 112, B11308 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004802.
Ocola, L.C., Aldrich, L.T., Gettrust, J.F., Meyer, R.P., Ramírez, J.E., 1975. Project Nariño
I: crustal structure under southern Colombian–northern Ecuador Andes from
seismic refraction data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 65,
1681–1695.
Park, Y., Nyblade, A.A., Rodgers, A.J., Al-Amri, A., 2008. S wave velocity structure of
the Arabian Shield upper mantle from Rayleigh wave tomography. Geochemistry,
Geophysics, Geosystems 9, Q07020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001895.
Pavão, C.G., França, G.S., Marotta, G.S., Menezes, P.H.B.J., Neto, G.B.S., Roig, H.L.,
2012. Spatial interpolation applied to crustal thickness in Brazil. Journal of
Geographic Information System 4 (2), 142–152 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/
jgis.2012.42019.
Pérez-Gussinyé, M., Lowry, A.R., Watts, A.B., 2007. Effective elastic thickness of
South America and its implications for intra-continental deformation. Geo-
chemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 8, Q05009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2006GC001511.
96 M. Assumpção et al. / Tectonophysics 609 (2013) 82–96
Pérez-Gussinyé, M., Lowry, A.R., Phipps Morgan, J., Tassara, A., 2008. Effective elastic
thickness variations along the Andean margin and their relationship to subduction
geometry. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 9, Q02003 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2007GC001786.
Phillips, K., Clayton, R.W., Davis, P., Tavera, H., Guy, R., Skinner, S., Stubailo, I., Audin, L.,
Aguilar, V., 2012. Structure of the subduction system in southern Peru from seismic
array data. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, B11306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2012JB009540.
Ramos, V.A., 2004. La plataforma patagónica y sus relaciones con la plataforma
brasilera. In: Matess-Neto, V., et al. (Ed.), Geologia do Continente Sul-Americano:
Evolução e Obra de Fernando Flávio Marques de Almeida. Editora Beca, São
Paulo, Brazil, pp. 371–381.
Rapela, C.W., Pankhurst, R.J., Casquet, C., Fanning, C.M., Baldo, E.G., González-Casado,
J.M., Galindo, C., Dahlquist, J., 2007. The Río de la Plata craton and the assembly
of SW Gondwana. Earth-Science Reviews 83 (1–2), 49–82 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.03.004.
Ritzwoller, M.H., Shapiro, N.M., Barmin, M.P., Levshin, A.L., 2002. Global surface wave
diffraction tomography. Journal of Geophysical Research 107 (B12), 2335 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JB001777.
Robalino, F., 1977. Espesor de la corteza en Quito mediante al análisis del espectro de
las ondas P de periodo largo. XI Asamblea General, Instituto Panamericano de
Geografia e Historia, Quito (Abstract).
Rosa, M.L., Assumpção, M., Sabbione, N., 2010. Crustal structure in the eastern margin
of Argentina with receiver functions at LPA and TRQA: evidence for crustal thin-
ning near Río de La Plata. AGU Meeting of the Americas, Brazil. Abstract.
Rosa, M.L., Collaço, B., Sánchez, G., Assumpção, M., Sabbione, N., Araujo, M., 2012. Crust-
al thickness beneath the Chaco–Paraná Basin. NE Argentina. Using surface-waves
and ambient noise tomography. XVI Congr. Geological Soc. of Peru, Lima, 23–26
September 2012, extended abstract.
Sá, N.C., 2004. O campo de gravidade, o geóide e a estrutura crustal na Amé́rica do Sul:
Novas estratégias de representação. Tese de Livre-Docência, Universidade de São
Paulo. 121pp.
Sacek, V., Ussami, N., 2009. Reappraisal of the effective elastic thickness for the sub-
Andes using 3-D finite element flexural modelling, gravity and geological con-
straints. Geophysical Journal International 179, 778–786 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04334.x.
Schmitz, M., Martins, A., Izarra, C., Jácome, M.I., Sánchez, J., Rocabado, V., 2005. The major
features of the crustal structure in north-eastern Venezuela from deep wide-angle
seismic observations and gravity modelling. Tectonophysics 399, 109–124.
Sieminski, A., Lévêque, J.-J., Debayle, E., 2004. Can finite-frequency effects be accounted
for in ray theory surface wave tomography? Geophysical Research Letters 31,
L24614 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021402.
Smith, W.H.F., Wessel, P., 1990. Gridding with continuous curvature splines in tension.
Geophysics 55 (3), 293–305.
Snoke, J.A., James, D.E., 1997. Lithospheric structure of the Chaco and Paraná Basins of
South America from surface-wave inversion. Journal of Geophysical Research 102,
2939–2951.
Soller, D.R., Ray, R.D., Brown, R.D., 1982. A new global crustal thickness map. Tectonics
1 (2), 125–149.
Soares, J.E., Berrocal, J., Fuck, R.A., Mooney, W.D., Ventura, D.B.R., 2006. Seismic
characteristics of central Brazil crust and upper mantle: a deep seismic refraction
study. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, B12302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2005JB003769.
Stratford, W., Thybo, H., Faleide, J.I., Olesen, O., Tryggvason, A., 2009. New Moho map
for onshore southern Norway. Geophysical Journal International 178, 1755–1765
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04240.x.
Swenson, J.L., Beck, S.L., Zandt, G., 2000. Crustal structure of the Altiplano from broad-
band regional waveform modeling: implications for the composition of thick con-
tinental crust. Journal of Geophysical Research 105, 607–621.
Tanimoto, T., 1995. Crustal structure of the Earth. Global Earth Physics, A Handbook of
Physical Constants. In: Ahrens, T.J. (Ed.), AGU reference shelf Series, vol 1. American
Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 214–224 (ISBN 0-87590-851-9).
Tassara, A., Echaurren, A., 2012. Anatomy of the Andean subduction zone: three-
dimensional density model upgraded and compared against global-scale models.
Geophysical Journal International 189 (1), 161–168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-246X.2012.05397.x.
Tassara, A., Götze, H.-J., Schmidt, S., Hackney, R., 2006. Three-dimensional density
model of the Nazca plate and the Andean continental margin. Journal of Geophys-
ical Research 111, B09404 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JB003976.
Tassara, A., Swain, C., Hackney, R., Kirby, J., 2007. Elastic thickness structure of South
America estimated using wavelets and satellite-derived gravity data. Earth and Plan-
etary Science Letters 253 (1–2), 17–36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.10.008.
Tassinari, C.C.G., Macambira, M.J.B., 1999. Geochronological provinces of the Amazo-
nian craton. Episodes 22 (3), 174–182.
Tohver, E., Cawood, P.A., Rossello, E.A., Jourdan, F., 2012. Closure of the Clymene Ocean
and formation of West Gondwana in the Cambrian: evidence from the Sierras
Australes of the southernmost Rio de la Plata craton, Argentina. Gondwana
Research 21 (2–3), 394–405 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2011.04.001.
van der Lee, S., Nolet, G., 1997. Upper mantle S velocity structure of North America.
Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 22,815–22,838.
van der Lee, S., James, D., Silver, P., 2001. Upper mantle S velocity structure of
central and western South America. Journal of Geophysical Research 106,
30821–30834.
van der Meijde, M., Julià, J., Assumpção, M., 2013. Gravity derived Moho for South
America. Tectonophysics, Special issue 609, 456–467 (submitted for publication).
Wessel, P., Smith, W.H.F., 1998. New, improved version of Generic Mapping Tools re-
leased. EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 79 (47), 579.
Whitman, D., Isacks, B.L., Mahlburg Kay, S., 1996. Lithospheric structure and along-
strike segmentation of the Central Andean Plateau: seismic Q, magmatism, flexure,
topography and tectonics. Tectonophysics 259 (1–3), 29–40 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0040-1951(95)00130-1.
Yuan, X., Sobolev, S.V., Kind, R., 2002. Moho topography in the central Andes and its
geodynamic implications. Earth Planetary Science Letters 199, 389–402 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(02)00589-7.
Zalán, P.V., Severino, M.C.G., Rigoti, C.A., Magnavita, L.P., Oliveira, J.A.B., Vianna, A.R.,
2011. An entirely new 3D-view of the crustal and mantle structure of a South
Atlantic passive margin — Santos, Campos and Espírito Santo Basins, Brazil. AAPG
Annual Convention, Houston TX, 2011, Extended Abstracts, Search and Discovery
article #30177 (2011).
Zhu, L., Kanamori, H., 2000. Moho depth variation in southern California from teleseismic
receiver functions. Journal of Geophysical Research 105 (B2), 2969–2980.