Do gravity data justify a rifted “Liguro-Provençal Basin”?

Frontiers in Earth Science, vol. 12

Abstract

The geodynamic evolution of the Liguro-Provençal Basin and its crust and upper mantle structure remain debated, especially regarding the role of rifting in continental break-up and seafloor spreading. Our study incorporates updated datasets, including new gravity maps from the AlpArray Gravity Working Group (complete Bouguer, free air, and isostatic anomalies) for 3D modeling and gravity field analysis, seismic data from Lobster offshore campaigns for direct comparison, and geodynamic models, supplemented by seismic profiles from previous French and Italian campaigns to constrain the interpretation. We used GFZ’s IGMAS + software for interactive 3D modeling, creating a density model extending to 300 km depth that includes crustal and upper mantle inhomogeneities based on prior geodynamic models. This hybrid approach, with polygonal structures for the crust and voxels for the upper mantle, clarifies individual contributions to the gravity field. Extending initial gravity modeling from the SPP MB4D project INTEGRATE, our work provides a consistent 3D density model for the Alps and Ligurian Basin. The constrained 3D modeling and numerical analyses (terracing, clustering, filtering, curvature), along with vertical stress and gravitational potential energy calculations, suggest that rifting has significantly influenced the basin’s geological evolution.

Authors 6

1. Hans‐Jürgen Götze

   Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Geosciences, Kiel University - Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany

2. Ronja Strehlau

   Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Geosciences, Kiel University - Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany

3. Anke Dannowski

   GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel

   Affiliation as printed

   GEOMAR - Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Dynamics of the Ocean Floor, Divison 4, Kiel, Germany

4. Denis Anikiev corresponding

   GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences

   Affiliation as printed

   Helmholtz Centre Potsdam – GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Section 4.5 – Subsurface Process Modelling, Potsdam, Germany

5. Ajay Kumar

   Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Pune · GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Earth and Climate Science, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune, India

   Helmholtz Centre Potsdam – GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Section 4.5 – Subsurface Process Modelling, Potsdam, Germany

6. Magdalena Scheck‐Wenderoth Aachen Faculty of Georesources and Material Engineering

   GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences · RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Faculty of Georesources and Material Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Helmholtz Centre Potsdam – GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Section 4.5 – Subsurface Process Modelling, Potsdam, Germany