Item

Abstract

The isostatic modeling represents one of the most useful ‘‘geological’’ reduction methods of the gravity field. With the isostatic correction, it is possible to remove a significant part of the effect of deep density heterogeneity, which dominates in the Bouguer gravity anomalies. Although there exist several isostatic compensation schemes, it is usually supposed that a choice of the model is not an important factor to first order, since the total weight of compensating masses remains the same. We compare two alternative models for the Arabian plate and surrounding area. The Airy model gives very significant regional isostatic anomalies, which cannot be explained by the upper crust structure or disturbances of the isostatic equilibrium. Also, the predicted ‘‘isostatic’’ Moho is very different from existing seismic observations. The second isostatic model includes the Moho, which is based on seismic determinations. Additional compensation is provided by density variations within the lithosphere (chiefly in the upper mantle). According to this model, the upper mantle under the Arabian Shield is less dense than under the Platform. In the Arabian platform, the maximum density coincides with the Rub’ al Khali, one of the richest oil basin in the world. This finding agrees with previous studies, showing that such basins are often underlain by dense mantle, possibly related to an eclogite layer that has caused their subsidence. The mantle density variations might be also a result of variations of the lithosphere thickness. With the combined isostatic model, it is possible to minimize regional anomalies over the Arabian plate. The residual local anomalies correspond well to tectonic structure of the plate. Still very significant anomalies, showing isostatic disturbances of the lithosphere, are associated with the Zagros fold belt, the collision zone of the Arabian and Eurasian plates.