Models for the Resurfacing of Venus

Amelia Lindsay-Kaufman

Many hypotheses have been presented to explain the anomalous low density of craters on the
surface of Venus. The first models proposed were the catastrophic resurfacing model and the
equilibrium resurfacing model, and later models have largely been variations of these two. This
paper aims to summarize several of the existing hypotheses and cover the factors which support
each hypothesis and the factors which make them unlikely.
 Introduction

Venus is among the most poorly understood bodies in our solar system. Despite its

relative proximity to Earth, its thick, opaque atmosphere prevented observation of its surface

until recently. Even now many basic facts about Venus, for instance its moment of inertia factor

and, by extension, its internal structure, are still unknown. Soviet landers have determined that

the surface rock composition is roughly basaltic and that the crust is fully dehydrated, and recent

studies have indicated that Venus likely has a thick lithosphere currently but had a thin

lithosphere in its past (Mackwell et al. 1998). However few other details about the structure and

composition of Venus are known definitively. An understanding of Venus is necessary because

Venus is comparable to Earth in terms of mass and composition. As Venus has a surface

temperature of around 460 C and a pressure of 93 bars, it is obvious that Venus has followed a

somewhat different evolutionary path than the Earth. Understanding the factors that drove Venus

to its current state is crucial not only for understanding the formation of the Earth, but also in

looking for Earth-sized exoplanets whose evolution could be influenced by the same factors

which influenced Venus’. A crucial characteristic with regards to which Venus differs from

Earth is that of how heat is released from the interior. While Earth vents heat to space through

plate tectonics, Venus, lacking the water necessary for subduction, loses its heat via a different

mechanism. Though many hypotheses concerning that mechanism exist, it is still unknown how

Venus loses its internal heat.

Few robotic missions have been sent to Venus due to its extreme conditions and low

likelihood of hosting earth-like life. Notably the Soviet Union sent a series of probes to Venus

between 1961 and 1984, which collected the first atmospheric measurements, radar images, and

photographs of the surface. The American Magellan orbiter produced a full radar map of the
planet and planetary gravitational data in 1989, and from 1978 to 1992 the American Pioneer

Venus Orbiter collected various data from orbit including radar, atmospheric composition,

magnetic field data, and cloud distribution. One of the most surprising observations recorded by

these missions was the density and distribution of craters on Venus’ surface. Radar maps of the

surface revealed what seemed to be a completely uniformly random, sparse distribution of

medium and large craters, almost all of which showed no signs of tectonic alteration or volcanic

embayment (Schaber, 1992). The crater density was anomalously low even considering that

small meteorites, which would create the majority of craters on a planet’s surface, were filtered

out by Venus’ thick atmosphere. As crater density correlates with age, the low density of craters

suggested that the surface is young, and the random distribution of craters suggested that the

entire surface is approximately the same age. It was proposed by Schaber et al (1992) that 300-

800 million years ago Venus may have undergone a rapid, catastrophic resurfacing event

wherein all existing craters on the surface were destroyed, effectively resetting the age of the

entire surface. Since then this idea has been widely accepted and is assumed in many current

studies of conditions on Venus. However several alternative models have been proposed to

explain the uniform crater sparsity and several of these alternative explanations have been

recognized in the last decade as more realistic than the catastrophic resurfacing model. The

mechanism by which Venus’ original craters were destroyed is still unknown and has been the

subject of extensive debate. The real explanation is almost certainly more complex than the

original catastrophic resurfacing model, but whether global resurfacing occurred at all has yet to

be determined.
 Fig 1) (a) Pair-correlation technique applied to 923 craters. F(r/a) represents the

probability distribution function for distances between craters. (b) Pair-correlation technique

applied to 923 points randomly distributed on a sphere. For both cases the data are compared to a

prediction for random data distribution. For the Venus craters r 2 = 0.9996 and for the random

points r 2 = 0.9994, showing that the distribution of Venus’ distribution of craters can be

described as random. (Ivanov, 2015)

Models

The following are some of the models which have been proposed as explanations for

Venus’ unusual crater distribution:

Catastrophic resurfacing wherein the upper crust sinks and re-solidifies, thus destroying

all existing craters as well as the entire crust through melting.

Catastrophic resurfacing wherein flood volcanism covers the entire surface, thus

destroying all existing craters through burial.

Equilibrium resurfacing wherein small areas of the surface experience local volcanism

over a long period of time, thus destroying craters through burial with the number of craters
destroyed being in equilibrium with the number of craters being created. Several variations of

this model exist with differing parameters for size of the buried areas and burial rates.

A combination of the two models where craters were destroyed under a catastrophic

regime which at some point transitioned into an equilibrium regime.

The Global Stratigraphy hypothesis, wherein the original craters were destroyed by the

tectonic processes which produced the surface features called tesserae.

The SPITTER hypothesis (Spatially Isolated Time-Transgressive Equilibrium

Resurfacing) wherein, during the thin lithosphere regime, craters were destroyed by the creation

of crustal plateaus. The creation of plateaus, and thus crater destruction, ceased after the

transition to a thick lithosphere.

Catastrophic resurfacing

Only 4% of Venus’ craters show signs of volcanic embayment, which is evidence for a

rapid mechanism of crater destruction which leaves craters either completely destroyed or

completely intact (Schaber et al. 1992). Catastrophic global resurfacing where the entire surface

of Venus is buried or destroyed would allow for complete crater destruction as well as

accounting for the uniformly young surface. In this model, approximately 500 million years ago

the surface of Venus was entirely destroyed, obliterating all craters produced up to that point.

The resurfacing lasted on the order of 10-100 million years, after which the surface re-solidifed

and crater production resumed until the present, with modern volcanism creating the few

embayed craters. This resurfacing, which has been proposed to be episodic, could provide a

mechanism for Venus’ heat loss (Turcotte et al. 1999). Noack et al. (2012) also proposed that

interactions between volcanism and the Venusian atmosphere could create a positive-feedback

cycle of increased temperature; surface heat raises the mantle temperature which results in
volcanic outgassing, the increased concentration of volcanogenic greenhouse gasses in the

atmosphere results in increased surface temperature. There are two variations of the catastrophic

resurfacing hypothesis; one in which the surface is regenerated through global subduction, the

other in which the surface is buried by extensive volcanism.

Global subduction

In the model proposed by Parmentier and Hess (1992) the resurfacing is caused by a

buoyant, depleted layer of the mantle which accumulates below the lithosphere due to the

absence of the mantle flow associated with plate tectonics, which do not occur on Venus. Partial

melting to generate the Venusian crust results in the creation of a buoyant, residual mantle layer

depleted in mafic elements and dense minerals like garnet. This layer accumulates at the top of

the mantle and thickens over time, causing the melting temperature at the top of the underlying

mantle to increase and the degree of partial melting of mantle added to the layer to decrease. The

layer becomes increasingly less buoyant over time and eventually sinks into the convecting

interior. The top of the convecting mantle moves to a shallower depth and a new depleted layer

forms. In this model the cycle repeats over Venus’ history every 300-500 Myr. Parmentier and

Hess suggest that this cycling could cause episodic resurfacing through destabilization of the

lithosphere during the sinking of the depleted mantle layer.

Turcotte et al. (1999) proposed a model in which heat accumulation in the mantle leads to

a decrease in mantle viscosity which leads to lithosphere instability and global subduction.

Through addition of cold lithosphere to the mantle as well as heat vented from the surface of the

mantle before a new lithosphere is formed, Turcotte et al. (1999) found that this episodic

subduction could account for the release of 75% of Venus’ internal heat. The heat generation in

Venus was calculated assuming that Venus has comparable amounts of radiogenic isotope
elements in its interior to Earth. They propose that the remainder is released through tectonics

and volcanism after the resurfacing event but before the lithosphere has restabilized.

Other mechanisms for global subduction have also been proposed, including one from

Fowler and O’Brien (1996) in which thickening of the lithosphere leads to plastic failure in the

upper lithosphere. The plastic, unstable zone thickens over time and eventually reaches the base

of the lithosphere at which point the effective viscosity of the lithosphere is reduced and global

subduction can occur. Steinback et al (1993) also proposed a model in which a transition from

layered mantle convection to whole mantle convection could cause global subduction. One

advantage the global subduction hypothesis has over global volcanic resurfacing is that the rim-

terrains of large (>100km diameter) craters on Venus can reach over 600m in elevation and

presumably ancient craters could have had rim-terrains reaching up to 1km in elevation. Any

volcanic flows would need to be deeper than approximately 1 km to cover all crater rims

completely, while global subduction can indiscriminately obliterate craters of any height.

However, global subduction would need to somehow leave some areas of Venus’ surface

relatively intact to account for the presence of features such as tesserae, which are accepted as

being older than the rest of Venus’ surface on the basis of tectonic deformation.

Flood volcanism

Strom et al. (1994) proposed that flood volcanism, much like a more extensive version of

flood basalt volcanism on Earth or mare basalts on the moon, could be responsible for the

destruction of Venus’ craters. The flood volcanism can also be evoked as a mechanism for

Venus’ dehydration, as global volcanism would have caused extensive outgassing of volatiles

(notably water and sulfur compounds) the lighter of which would eventually be lost to space

(Bullock and Grinspoon 2001). The cause of the flood volcanism could be similar to the causes
of flood volcanism on Earth, which are poorly understood but likely involve decompression

melting of mantle plumes. A sudden change in mantle dynamics of Venus could result in

increased plume activity which could cause global resurfacing through flood volcanism. Flood

volcanism would provide a way for Venus to vent its internal heat and would explain the

globally young surface as well as the paucity of embayed craters. The resurfacing likely occurred

quickly (<100Myr) as there are few craters which can be interpreted as having formed during the

resurfacing event. This is plausible, as flood volcanism caused by the terrestrial “cretaceous

superplume” lasted approximately 40 million years, although the planetwide volcanism on Venus

would likely have a longer duration (Strom et al. 1994). Volcanic resurfacing also allows for the

existence of older terrains (tesserae) if the lava flows left some small areas of the surface with

higher topographic elevation intact. A problem with the flood volcanism model is that lava flows

would need to be at least one kilometer high in order to completely cover all traces of the

previous craters, while reconstructions of the original valley floors using the slopes of extruding

plateaus show that the low lying plains are covered with much shallower lava flows (Hansen and

Young 2007).

The catastrophic resurfacing hypothesis is founded upon the assumption that the surface

of Venus is uniformly equally old, with the exception of tesserae which have somehow survived

resurfacing. This assumption has recently been called into question with new data showing

regions of Venus’ surface with differentiated ages based on factors other than crater count, such

as crater morphology and stratigraphy of surface features (Hansen and Young 2007). If these

data are correct and Venus does have regions of older and younger surface then the catastrophic

resurfacing model as it was originally formulated cannot explain the formation of Venus’

surface.
 Equilibrium resurfacing

The equilibrium resurfacing hypothesis proposed by Phillips (1992) involves gradual

burial of craters through volcanic activity, where the rate of crater formation is in equilibrium

with the rate of crater destruction. This can be modeled with varying sizes of affected areas,

varying burial rates, and varying durations for resurfacing. In the case of equilibrium resurfacing

that does not continue to the present, this model relies on the assumption that volcanic activity

was greater in Venus’ past. The main constraint on this model is the size of resurfacing areas; in

order to volcanically embay only up to 4% of Venus’ craters, the areas experiencing volcanism

must be small (less than approximately 420 km in diameter) or very large, which would be

functionally equivalent to the catastrophic resurfacing hypothesis.

Fig 2) The two options for sizes of resurfacing areas which satisfy the condition that

craters must be randomly distributed. (a) Small resurfacing areas (<420 km) are close to the

average distance between craters and therefore can destroy craters without affecting their spatial

distribution. (b) A small number of large (>7500 km) areas can erase the previous crater
population, leaving a new population with random distribution. This case is functionally

equivalent to the catastrophic resurfacing model. (Ivanov, 2015)

Strom et al. (1994) published studies with Monte Carlo simulations showing that

equilibrium resurfacing could not explain the dearth of embayed craters. However Hansen et al.

ran experiments considering burial areas not previously considered. They constructed three suits

of Monte Carlo experiments which varied the duration of resurfacing to the crater formation time

(1:1, 5:6, and 2:3) and varied resurfacing area (5%, 1%, 0.7%, and 0.1% of the total surface

area). Several of these experiments were found to result in the observed random distribution of

craters with few embayed craters; equilibrium resurfacing was viable for ratios of 1:1 at 1% area,

5:6 at 0.1% area, and 2:3 at 0.7 and 0.1% surface area.

Equilibrium resurfacing can also account for the existence of differently aged regions on

Venus’ surface, which have been shown to exist based on crater morphology (Hansen et al.

2007). The interiors of older craters progressively become radar-smooth, probably due to the

interiors of the craters being filled with lava. Additionally crater haloes are lost over time due to

weathering, therefore older surfaces should have a higher percentage of craters without haloes

while young, volcanically renewed surfaces should have relatively fewer craters but more haloed

craters than the old terrain. Based on this principle it is possible to define three age provinces: A

young region with low crater density (<1.5 craters/106 km2) in terms of both haloed craters and

craters without haloes, an intermediate region with an intermediate number of craters largely

without haloes, and an old region with a relatively high number of craters (>2.35 craters/106

km2) and very few craters with haloes.

 Fig 3) Projection of Magellan Venus altimetry showing average model surface age

provinces and major geologic features, including crustal plateaus (pA—Alpha; pF—Fortuna;

pO—Ovda; pP—Phoebe; pTe—Tellus; pTh—Thetis) and volcanic rises (rA—Atla; rB—Beta;

rBl—Bell; rD—Dione; rEc—central Eistla; rEe—eastern Eistla; rEw—western Eistla; rI—Imdr;

rT— Themis). Changes in crater morphology are illustrated in the cartoon showing youngest

craters (t1) to oldest (t5) based on loss of crater halo and progressively radar-smooth interiors.

(Hansen et al. 2007)

Catastrophic resurfacing cannot account for the existence of regions of different ages

while equilibrium resurfacing predicts that regions of the surface will be destroyed before others.
One problem with equilibrium resurfacing is that it, like catastrophic resurfacing necessitates

deep lava flows to completely cover large craters and only shallow flows have been observed.

The Global Stratigraphy Hypothesis

The global stratigraphy hypothesis, proposed by Basilevsky and Head (1997)

incorporates catastrophic resurfacing, but only involves the burial of 80% of Venus’ surface. In

this hypothesis the craters are destroyed by the tectonic mechanism which produced the tesserae.

Tesserae are highly deformed surface features on Venus characterized by high topography and

radar backscatter. Many models have been proposed to explain the formation of tesserae,

including mantle downwelling to cause crustal compression, convection in a lava pond from a

bolide impact, and compression of low-density crust which survived global subduction events

(Hansen et al. 2007). It is generally agreed that tesserae represent the oldest regions on Venus’

surface. In the global stratigraphy model, a tectonic event deforms most of Venus’ crust,

producing widespread tessera formations and obliterating all previous craters. Further crustal

tectonic deformation results in the creation of isolated crustal plateaus surrounded by extensive

low lying plains. The plains are filled with lavas in a global volcanic event, leaving tessera

terrain unaltered on top of crustal plateaus.

Fig 4) Cartoon showing temporal evolution of Venus’ surface within the context of the global

stratigraphy hypothesis. (t1) The planet surface accumulates craters. (t2) Intense tectonic

deformation results in the creation of globally extensive tessera terrain. All previously existing

craters are destroyed by the formation of tesserae. (t3) The surface continues to accumulate

craters. (t4) Local uplift forms crustal plateaus. (t5) Global, catastrophic lava flows flood the

lowlands to a depth of 1-3 km, destroying lowland craters but preserving plateau craters and

tessera terrain occurring on plateaus. (t5) Crater accumulation is resumed. (Hansen et al. 2007)

Notably the global stratigraphy hypothesis not only allows for the existence of different-

age provinces, it makes specific predictions about their associations with topographic features.

This model predicts that the plateaus, which represent pre-flooding terrain, should be the oldest

features and that low lying plains, which were filled in with lava, should represent the youngest.
However some areas in the low lying plains are older than the plateaus as determined by crater

morphology Hansen et al. (2007). The global stratigraphy hypothesis is also subject to the same

flaw as the catastrophic model in that it requires deep lava flows when only shallow flows have

been observed, and furthermore shallow flows have been observed on tessera terrain even though

those terrains are supposedly pre-flood surfaces.

Two-Stage models

Solomon (1993) proposed a hybrid model in which the change from thin to thick

lithosphere on Venus affected the preservation of craters. In this hypothesis on early Venus, due

to the thin lithosphere, the surface was too ductile to preserve craters and the change to a thick

lithosphere later resulted in the retention of craters. The work by Mackwell et al. (1998)

challenged this hypothesis by showing that the crust of Venus was likely too strong even at high

temperatures for crater destruction through surface relaxation. The hypothesis could only work if

Venus’ ancient crust contained much more water, which would have a weakening effect on the

crustal rocks.

Ivanov (2015) also proposed a model in which Venus experienced a change of crater-

destruction regimes. They showed that, while only a few percent of craters are volcanically

embayed in the regional plains (extensive, low lying, radar-smooth regions), approximately 50%

of craters are embayed in the lobate plains (less extensive regions with numerous overlapping

radar bright and radar dark areas thought to consist of overlapping lava flows). The implication is

that the regional plains formed first in a near-global catastrophic resurfacing event which

occurred rapidly enough to leave few craters embayed, while the lobate plains formed later in an

equilibrium resurfacing regime which allowed for the embayment of many craters. Therefore this

hypothesis entails a shift from one resurfacing system to another. Equilibrium resurfacing
continuing to the present is supported by evidence for recent (<20Mya) volcanism on Venus’

surface (Ivanov, 2015).

Fig 5) Image showing possible locations of craters including regional plains (A), lobate

plains (B), and on the boundary between units (C and D). D represents a crater on regional plains

terrain is embayed by lobate plains material. (Ivanov, 2015)

The SPITTER hypothesis

The SPITTER hypothesis (Spatially Isolated Time-Transgressive Equilibrium

Resurfacing) proposed by Hansen et al. (2007) relies on the assumption that Venus in its history

transitioned from a thin lithosphere regime to a thick lithosphere regime. This assumption is

supported by the work of Mackwell et al. (1998) involving deformation of dehydrated diabase to

simulate the Venusian crust. Mackwell et al. (1998) proposed that early in Venus’ history the

lithosphere was thin and had a high thermal gradient. Tesserae can form under those conditions

but modern surface features such as volcanic rises, coronae, and rifts could only have formed

with a thick lithosphere. A thick lithosphere with enhanced strength due to the absence of water
can support the current topographic features on Venus even though they are not isostatically

compensated (Mackwell et al. 1998). In the SPITTER hypothesis the craters are destroyed by the

mechanism which created the crustal plateaus. The mechanism by which the plateaus are created

is not specified, but it is not important to the theory because all mechanisms which have been

proposed as responsible for the formation of the plateaus (the same mechanisms for the

formation of tesserae) would result in crater destruction. Seven plateaus are present on Venus:

Fortuna, Tellus, western Ovda, eastern Ovda, Thetis, Phoebe, and Alpha. These plateaus host the

tessera terrain. Tessera terrain is also found on arc-shaped inliers in the lowlands which are

accepted as being the remnants of plateaus. According to this hypothesis the formation of

plateaus can only occur while Venus hosts a thin lithosphere (mantle downwelling, lava pool

from a bolide impact, mantle plume, and other mechanisms for the formation of plateaus do not

influence the surface enough to form plateaus and tesserae when the lithosphere is thick) and

with a thin lithosphere the plateaus would also be subject to collapse, explaining the presence of

collapsed plateaus in the plains. While Venus maintained its thin lithosphere, an equilibrium

resurfacing regime would dominate; crater production would be in equilibrium with crater

destruction through plateau formation. When the lithosphere thickened, the formation of plateaus

ceased and crater production continued unchecked. Mantle plumes, which may have caused

plateaus and tessera terrain under a thin lithosphere, would only create uplift in the form of

volcanic rises when the lithosphere is thick. Therefore with this model volcanic rises are

expected to be seen in terrain of all ages as they are formed from mantle plumes under

potentially any area.

Fig 6) Cartoon showing temporal evolution of Venus’ surface within the context of the SPITTER

hypothesis. (t1) The surface accumulates craters. (t2) Crustal plateaus form, destroying craters

within the plateau area. (t3) Tessera terrain fabrics form on the plateau, which continues to

accumulate craters. (t4) Plateaus continue to form, destroying craters occupying the area of the

plateaus. (t5) Possible collapse of the first plateau leaving some tesserae subject to burial by thin

volcanic flows. The craters are deep enough to withstand burial by shallow flows. (t6 and t7) The

equilibrium removal of craters through plateau formation continues, up until the global

lithosphere thickens. (t8). Plateau formation ceases and is replaced by the formation of volcanic

rises (dashed circles). Volcanic rises do not destroy craters. (t9) The entire surface accumulates

craters, which are preserved under the new regime except in cases of local volcanism. (Hansen et

al. 2007)

The SPITTER model seems to account for all observations of Venus’ surface with the

data that exists at present.

Conclusion

The reason for Venus’ suspicious sparsity of craters is still a controversial topic among

planetary scientists. Many hypotheses have been put forward, most of them variations on either

the catastrophic model or the equilibrium model. The catastrophic resurfacing model was a

popular explanation recently after Magellan’s radar data had been interpreted when little was

known about Venus’ surface, and it has become widely accepted; most introductory texts and

websites dealing with the geology of Venus reference catastrophic resurfacing. Since then more

opposition to the catastrophic model has emerged as it has become clear that the catastrophic

resurfacing model cannot explain many of the surface features on Venus. Many recent studies

support hybrid models or variations of the equilibrium model. However not enough information

is known about Venus to ascertain its evolutionary history definitively, and it is unlikely that the

true explanation will make itself clear until additional probes are sent to Venus to collect more

data. In particular future missions to Venus should further investigate tessera terrain; if tesserae

really are the remnants of Venus’ original surface they may hold clues to how the resurfacing

occurred or if it occurred at all. They should also look for more signs of contemporary volcanism

to judge the likelihood of modern equilibrium resurfacing. Until that future mission the

resurfacing of Venus will certainly continue to be a widely debated topic with no unambiguous

answer.
 Citations:

Basilevsky, A. T., Head, J. W., Schaber, G. G., & Strom, R. G. (1997). The resurfacing history of Venus.

In Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind Environment (p. 1047).

Bullock, M. A., & Grinspoon, D. H. (2001). The recent evolution of climate on Venus. Icarus, 150(1), 19-

37.

Fowler, A. C., & O'Brien, S. B. G. (1996). A mechanism for episodic subduction on Venus. Journal of

geophysical research, 101, 4755-4763.

Hansen, V. L., & Young, D. A. (2007). Venus's evolution: A synthesis. Geological Society of America

Special Papers, 419, 255-273.

Hansen, V. L., Bjonnes, E. E., James, B., & Swenson, J. B. Equilibrium resurfacing of Venus is possible:

Results from new Monte Carlo modeling and implications for Venus surface histories.

Ivanov, M. A. (2015). The change of resurfacing regimes on Venus. Solar System Research, 49(1), 12-

23.

Mackwell, S. J., Zimmerman, M. E., & Kohlstedt, D. L. (1998). High‐temperature deformation of dry

diabase with application to tectonics on Venus. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid

Earth, 103(B1), 975-984.

Noack, L., Breuer, D., & Spohn, T. (2012). Coupling the atmosphere with interior dynamics: Implications

for the resurfacing of Venus. Icarus, 217(2), 484-498.

Parmentier, E. M., & Hess, P. C. (1992). Chemical dieferentiation of a convecting planetary interior:

Consequences for a one plate planet such as Venus. Geophysical Research Letters, 19(20),

2015-2018.

Phillips, R. J., Raubertas, R. F., Arvidson, R. E., Sarkar, I. C., Herrick, R. R., Izenberg, N., & Grimm, R. E.

(1992). Impact craters and Venus resurfacing history. Journal of Geophysical Research:

Planets, 97(E10), 15923-15948.

Schaber, G. G., Strom, R. G., Moore, H. J., Soderblom, L. A., Kirk, R. L., Chadwick, D. J., ... & Russell, J.

(1992). Geology and distribution of impact craters on Venus: What are they telling us?. Journal of

Geophysical Research: Planets, 97(E8), 13257-13301.

Solomon, S. C. (1993, March). A tectonic resurfacing model for Venus. In Lunar and Planetary Science

Conference (Vol. 24).

Strom, R. G., Schaber, G. G., & Dawson, D. D. (1994). The global resurfacing of Venus. Journal of

Geophysical Research: Planets, 99(E5), 10899-10926.

Turcotte, D. L., Morein, G., Roberts, D., & Malamud, B. D. (1999). Catastrophic resurfacing and episodic

subduction on Venus. Icarus, 139(1), 49-54.

Turcotte, D. L. (1993). An episodic hypothesis for Venusian tectonics. Journal of Geophysical Research:

Planets, 98(E9), 17061-17068.