Pure Appl. Geophys.
Ó 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-020-02581-2
Thermal Correction for Moho Depth Estimations on West Philippine Basin: A Python Code
to Calculate the Gravitational Effects of Lithospheric Cooling Under Oceanic Crust
RENATA REGINA CONSTANTINO1,2
Abstract—The aim of this work is to present an easy-to-use
Python code to calculate the gravitational effect due to lateral
variations in the thermal structure of oceanic lithospheric plates,
necessary to appropriately isolate the contribution of the variations
in crustal thickness. The model is applied to calculate the Moho
depth in the West Philippine Basin, and the results are compared
with seismic data. The estimations of the Moho depth taking into
account the thermal correction presented a better fit with the seis-
mic data and smoother geographical variations than the model
without thermal correction.
Keywords: Lithospheric cooling, Thermal anomaly, Gravity.
1. Introduction
The Moho interface marks the transitional
boundary between the crust and mantle (Lewis 1983),
representing an important density transition in the
Earth’s interior. Mapping variations can be extremely
important for understanding the tectonic evolution of
a specific area. Although it is possible to accurately
map the Moho depth through seismic surveys, gravity
modeling can be considered a more practical and less
expensive approach (Bai et al. 2014).
To estimate variations in the Moho depth from
gravity inversion, the observed gravity field must be
free from certain major components such as
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-020-02581-2) contains sup-
plementary material, which is available to authorized users.
1
Institute of Astronomy, Geophysics and Atmospheric Sci-
ences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. E-mail:
constantino@ldeo.columbia.edu
2
Present Address: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of
Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA.
Pure and Applied Geophysics
and VICTOR SACEK1
anomalies due to lateral changes in bathymetry,
gravity effects of the sedimentary layers and the
density variations due to thermal anomalies in the
lithospheric plate (Kaban et al. 2002), thus isolating
the gravity anomaly caused only by the Moho
undulations. Neglecting one or more of those con-
tributions might influence the accuracy of the
estimated interface depth (Bai et al. 2014).
Many works that estimate the Moho depth over
oceanic areas through gravity modeling without tak-
ing into account the thermal correction can be found
in the literature (e.g. Tiberi et al. 2001; Tirel et al.
2004; Tenzer and Chen 2014). Thermal contributions
to the gravity anomaly gradually weaken with the age
of the oceanic lithosphere (e.g. Lambeck 1972; Jonas
et al. 1991; Kusznir et al. 2018). On the other hand,
areas related to new oceanic lithosphere might have a
significant thermal contribution to the gravity anom-
aly, which may reach up to 320 mGal (Chappel and
Kusznir 2008).
The thermal gravity anomaly in oceanic areas can
be determined, assuming that the thermal structure of
the lithosphere is essentially dependent on age, which
can be easily obtained from global or local crustal age
models (e.g. Muller et al. 2008; Pérez-Dı́as and
Eagles 2017).
In this work, we show how to build a time-de-
pendent thermal model for oceanic lithosphere taking
into account the age of the oceanic lithosphere, how
to convert it into a 3D density grid and, finally, how
to estimate the thermal correction due to this density
change using Parker (1972). As the main goal, we
intend to make available the Python codes for these
calculations, which might be applied for new studies
or to improve studies where thermal correction is
dismissed.
 R. R. Constantino and V. Sacek
2. Methodology
To calculate the gravity effect due to lithospheric
cooling, we initially need to estimate the thermal
structure, convert it into a 3D density grid and then
calculate the gravity effect using the estimated den-
sity distribution.
2.1. Thermal Structure and Density Distribution
The gravitational effects due to lithospheric cool-
ing are estimated from a thermal model assuming
vertical heat transfer in a layer of thickness L, which
represents the maximum lithospheric thickness. Addi-
tionally, maps of oceanic crust age, used to derive the
thermal structure during the evolution of the oceanic
lithosphere, are obtained from published data (e.g.
Muller et al. 2008; Pérez-Dı́asand Eagles 2017).
We assume the 1D conductive plate cooling
model from Turcotte and Schubert (2002) to estimate
changes in the temperature versus depth according to
the lithosphere age.
oT=ot ¼ jo2 T=oz2 ;
where T is temperature, t is time, z is depth and j
is the thermal diffusivity.
Temperature is set as T s at the surface and T p at
depth L. Initially, the temperature is assumed constant
T = Tp in all points of the domain except for the point at
the surface, with T = Ts. The analytical solution for this
problem is (Turcotte and Schubert 2002):
 
T ¼ Ts þ Tp  Ts
    
z 2 X1 1 jn2 p2 t npz
 þ exp  2
sin
L p n¼1 n L L
ð1Þ
Based on this model, the temperature variations
through time in the interior of the lithosphere are
more expressive in the first million years (e.g. Jonas
et al. 1991; Crosby et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2018).
The thermal structure is then converted into a 3D
density grid, from
Dq ¼ q0 aðT0  T Þ; ð2Þ
where q0 is the reference density, T 0 is the reference
temperature, and a is the thermal expansion
coefficient.
Pure Appl. Geophys.
In order to compute the gravity anomaly due to
density changes, we compute equidensity surfaces of
different Dq in depth (intervals shown in Fig. 5) and
apply the Parker algorithm (described next).
2.2. Gravity Effect
A fast Fourier transform (FFT) technique from
Parker (1972) is used to estimate the gravity effect
using the 3D density grid information. The expres-
sion for the gravity effect of an undulating boundary
is given by Parker (1972) as follows:
F ½Dgðx; yÞ
 !  ! n1
 kz z 0 X kz
1
¼ 2pGDqe F ½hn ðx; yÞ;
n¼1
n!
ð3Þ
where F is the Fourier transform, Dgðx; yÞ is the
calculated gravity field, Dq is the density contrast
(Eq. 2), kz is the wave number, being k2z ¼ k2x þ k2y ,
hðx; yÞ is the depth of the interface and z0 is the
average depth of the this interface. Note that for the
FFT, a mean depth has been removed, which means
that the calculated gravity field also had a mean
subtracted. If it is important to keep a known thick-
ness of material, the attraction from a uniform slab
(slab ¼ 2pGDqz0 ) can always be added to or sub-
tracted from Dg (Parker 1972).
2.3. Residual Gravity Anomalies for Moho Depth
Estimations
: To estimate the gravity anomaly due to lateral
changes in Moho depth over oceanic areas ðgm ), some
Table 1
Fixed parameters for the thermal correction
Parameter Assigned value
Ts 0 °C
Tp 1350 °C
T0 1350 °C
a 3.26 9 10–5 C-1
q0 3.4 9 103 kg/m3
 Thermal Correction for Moho Depth Estimations

Figure 1
Density contrast versus depth varying systematically according to the crustal age for three different values of maximum lithospheric thickness
(L). For the density contrast to be estimated, we assumed a mantle density of 3400 kg/m3. a L = 80 km. b L = 100 km. c L = 120 km

Figure 2
Bathymetry from ETOPO1. The polygon marked in white dashes shows the area where we present our results. The inferred positions of axial
segments of the extinct spreading center are shown by white arrows

major components must be subtracted from the free- (Bouguer correction, gb ), the gravity anomaly due to
air gravity anomaly (gfa Þ. These major components the sedimentary cover ðgs Þ and the lithosphere
can be defined as the lateral changes in bathymetry thermal gravity anomaly (thermal correction gl Þ
 R. R. Constantino and V. Sacek Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 3
Crustal age from Muller et al. (2008)

(Chappell and Kusznir 2008). Therefore, the residual
gravity anomaly for Moho depth estimations gm is
defined as
gm ¼ gfa  gb  gs  gl ð4Þ
With regard to the Bouguer correction and to the
gravity effect of the sediments, many available codes
can be found in the literature [e.g. grdfft and gravfft
of Generic Mapping Tools (Weissel and Smith 1991);
LithoFLEX (Braitenberg et al. 2007); FA2BOUG
(Fullea et al. 2008); 3DINVER (Gómez-Ortiz and
Argawal 2005); GTE (Sampietro et al. 2016; Paulatto
et al. 2014)]. In relation to the lithosphere thermal
gravity anomaly, although some papers have consid-
ered the anomaly in their calculations (Chappel and
Kusznir 2008; Bai et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2018), up
to the present time there were no open source codes
available.
The provided codes from the present work might
contribute even for new studies, where the gb and gs
components can be calculated from the cited sources,
or can be tested to complement previous studies
which have disregarded the lithosphere thermal
gravity anomaly (e.g. Braitenberg et al. 2006;
Welford and Hall, 2013; Kende et al. 2017; Con-
stantino et al. 2017).
3. Results
Oceanic lithosphere cooling causes the density of
lithospheric rock to increase with time (Turcotte and
 Thermal Correction for Moho Depth Estimations

Figure 4
Gravity anomaly due to thermal correction

Schubert, 2002). The relationship between density
and temperature is given in Eq. 2, and all the fixed
parameters for the thermal correction are listed in
Table 1. Assuming a maximum age for the oceanic
lithosphere of 180 Ma and the thermal conditions
described in the previous section, we have estimated
density versus depth profiles varying according to the
lithospheric age for three different maximum litho-
sphere thickness L (Fig. 1). Regardless of the value of
L, initially, the density depths increase rapidly.
However, for ages greater than about 50 Ma, the
density profiles vary more slowly in depth, presenting
a profile closer to the steady-state configuration (Stein
2018). In the present work we assumed L = 100 km
(Fig. 1a), compatible with previous estimations used
in the oceanic plate model (Jaupart et al. 2007), but
other values can be adopted by the user.
3.1. Example: West Philippine Basin
The systematic density distribution with depen-
dence on the age of the seafloor can be used to
calculate the thermal gravity anomaly in any oceanic
area where crustal age is available. The anomaly can
be calculated for specific depth intervals and their
respective density contrasts using the available codes.
As an example, we have chosen the West Philippine
Basin to apply the present numerical code. This basin
represents a possible extinct spreading center (e.g.
Jonas et al. 1991; Sasaki et al. 2014; MacLeod et al.
 R. R. Constantino and V. Sacek Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 5
Density contrasts (20 kg/m3, 40 kg/m3, 80 kg/m3, 100 kg/m3, 120 kg/m3 and 140 kg/m3) and their respective depths. Depths are negative
downwards

2017), which makes it an interesting area for
developing a better geophysical understanding.
The Western Philippine Sea consists of two
distinct regions, the northern Daito Ridge province
and the southern West Philippine Basin (WPB)
(Okino and Fujioka 2003). The WPB has an average
depth of 5500 m and is where the extinct spreading
center is located (Fig. 2). Interpretation and identifi-
cation of magnetic anomalies led most previous
studies to conclude that the WPB had evolved
symmetrically from the spreading center when it
was in activity (Okino and Fujioka 2003). Ages for
cessation are controversial and differs between
25 Ma (Shih 1980), 36 Ma (Sasaki et al. 2014),
37 Ma (Mrozowski et al. 1982) and 40 Ma (Hilde and
Lee 1984).
According to Sasaki et al. (2014), the West
Philippine Spreading Center (WPSC) was probably
active 28 Ma, with a half-spreading rate of 60 mm/
year; however, previous studies have reported slower
spreading rates of 18 mm/year (Lewis and Hayes,
1980; Hilde and Lee 1984; Jonas et al. 1991). Its
extinction is attributed to the change in direction of
the Pacific Plate, which stopped the active subduction
of the segment of the Kula-Pacific Plate boundary
(MacLeod et al. 2017), but could also be associated
with the initiation of a subduction zone to the east of
the West Philippine extinct ridge, when volcanic arcs
might have been formed in the central and eastern
portion of the basin (Uyeda and Miyashiro 1974).
Some previous studies of the crust under the
WPSC are found in the literature. Okino and Fujioka
(2003) defined the crust to be thinner beneath the
extinct spreading axis extremes and thicker beneath
its middle. Unfortunately, a map for Moho depth is
not presented by the authors. A crustal thickness of
the Philippine Sea Plate derived from gravity data is
present by Yen et al. (2015), but the thermal gravity
anomaly was disregarded.
3.2. Moho Depth Estimation
For the calculation of the Moho depth from the
gravity inversion, initially we need to calculate gm .
For this, we used the satellite-derived gravity of
Sandwell 23.1 (Sandwell et al. 2014), the bathymetric
data from ETOPO1 (Amante and Eakins, 2009) and
the sediment thickness model provided by NOAA
 Thermal Correction for Moho Depth Estimations

Figure 6
Bouguer anomaly

(Divins 2003). According to the sediment thickness
model and to previous works (Lewis and Hayes 1980;
Hilde and Lee 1984; Jonas et al. 1991), there is no
amount of sediments in most part of the studied area
and consequently, we assume that gs = 0, and so the
gm can be estimated only by subtracting the thermal
anomaly from the Bouguer anomaly. For areas where
sediment cover cannot be ignored, we suggest that the
gravity effect of the sediments be estimated by the
procedure adopted in previous studies (e.g. Braiten-
berg et al. 2006; Constantino et al. 2019).
We considered crustal ages from Muller et al.
(2008) (Fig. 3) to calculate the thermal correction
(Fig. 4) using our codes. We have estimated the
thermal correction using the following density
contrasts (20 kg/m3, 40 kg/m3, 80 kg/m3, 100 kg/
m3, 120 kg/m3 and 140 kg/m3) and their respective
depths (Fig. 5). The thermal correction is subtracted
from the Bouguer anomaly (Fig. 6), resulting in the
thermal corrected Bouguer anomaly (gm ) Fig. 7.
The gravity field gm is inverted by applying an
iterative constrained inverse modeling (Braitenberg
et al. 1997; Braitenberg and Zadro 1999) that
alternates the downward continuation with the direct
calculation of the gravity field (LithoFLEX software,
Braitenberg et al. 2007). For the procedure, a constant
density contrast across the interface and a reference
depth need to be set. These parameters are chosen by
inverting the residual field for different combinations
of reference depth (d) and density contrast (qint ) and
 R. R. Constantino and V. Sacek Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 7
Bouguer anomaly with the thermal correction. The field (gm ) is used for inversion of the Moho

calculating the root mean square (RMS) difference
with Moho depth values obtained independently. For
these, we used Moho depths from Nishizawa et al.
(2016), which investigated the variation in crustal
structure along the West Philippine Sea plate from
wide-angle seismic profiles. The best agreement
(1.0 km RMS) between our results and the seismi-
cally measured Moho depths from Nishizawa et al.
(2016) was used to determine the pair of values used
for the final results, found as qint = 450 kg/m3 and
d = 28 km. As the Moho contributes most to the
long-wavelength gravity signal, we used a cutoff
wavelength of 117 km, which was set from the decay
of the amplitude spectrum of the gravity field (Russo
and Speed 1994). The Moho depth is shown in Fig. 8.
Note that Moho depth information differs from
crustal thickness data. The crustal thickness can be
obtained by subtracting the seawater depth from the
Moho depth.
4. Discussion
Because of the ambiguity in gravity models, the
use of constrained data helps to minimize the error
and consequently decrease the ambiguity of the
solution. However, in some cases, where the con-
straints are scarce, a refine geological study needs to
 Thermal Correction for Moho Depth Estimations

Figure 8
Moho from gravity inversion of the thermal corrected Bouguer anomaly (gm ). The black dots represent the positions of the Moho depths from
Nishizawa et al. (2016), used to constrain the model

be done to control the reliability of the results. In our
study area, the only Moho depths obtained from other
sources (seismic surveys) are in the eastern portion,
as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. In both models (with and
without thermal corrections), although the Moho
depth maps are significantly different, a good fit is
obtained between the model and the seismic punctual
values. The RMS error between the model without
thermal correction (Fig. 9), using 450 kg/m3 as the
density contrast and 29.9 km as reference depth in the
inversion procedure, is 1.18 km, which is very simi-
lar to the one found for the model with thermal
correction (Fig. 8) of 1.0 km. This shows that con-
trolling the inversion for Moho depths with seismic
values alone is not enough to ensure a good model,
and also, disregarding the density variations due to
lithospheric cooling can lead to geologically incon-
sistent results. Nevertheless, if the seismic depths,
even ill-distributed, were available in an area more
affected by the thermal correction, we could expect a
more significant improvement with the correction
included. The difference between the two estimated
Moho interfaces shown in Figs. 8 and 9 is shown in
the supplementary material (Fig. S1).
However, the variation in Moho depths is much
more expressive in the case without thermal correc-
tion, ranging from 2 to 19 km. The model with
thermal correction oscillates between 8 and 19 km.
 R. R. Constantino and V. Sacek Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 9
Moho from gravity inversion without taking into account the thermal correction. The black dots represent the positions of the Moho depths
from Nishizawa et al. (2016), used to constrain the model

With the exception of the large thickness feature in
the SW of the region (purple region), the contrast
between the two models becomes even more
expressive: 2–17 km for the model without thermal
correction and 8–13 km for the model with thermal
correction.
Besides the differences in depth, the Moho con-
figuration is very different in both models: while
Moho uplift is show in the same axes of the extinct
spreading center (Fig. 2) for the model with thermal
correction (Fig. 8), a perpendicular uplift regarding
the spreading center is presented for the other model
(Fig. 9). A Moho configuration that mimics the
spreading axes suggests that the rate of melt pro-
duction beneath its axes occurred in the same
direction to the spreading axis and it was active
(Minshull and White 1996). The thinner crust might
be explained due to slow-spreading rates (e.g. Reid
and Jackson 1981; Chen 1992; Tucholke and Lin
1994).
Besides presenting the difference in the Moho
depth with and without thermal correction (Fig. S1)
as a means to check the effect of lithosphere density
changes due to thermal variation on the Moho depth
 Thermal Correction for Moho Depth Estimations
determination, we also tested the impact of the
maximum lithosphere thickness choice, assumed in
this paper as L = 100 km. For this, we have estimated
the Moho depths by considering different maximum
lithosphere thickness (L = 80 km and L = 120 km).
The standard deviation (SD) of the differences
between the Moho for L = 100 km and for
L = 80 km is * 0.58 km, and for L = 120 km is *
0.58 km. These differences are show in Figs. S2 and
S3 of the supplementary material.
5. Conclusion
We present a Python code to estimate the thermal
gravity anomaly in oceanic areas. The calculation is
possible only where crustal age data are available, as
the thermal conditions are dependent on the litho-
spheric cooling over time. The codes were tested for
the West Philippine Basin, and from that we have
shown that considering the thermal correction is
crucial for estimating the Moho depth as well as
achieving a coherent configuration. Generally, a good
Moho model is evaluated by comparing it to Moho
depths obtained from other sources, mainly seismic
refraction data. We show that even in the case where
the Moho depth from gravity inversion presents a
small RMS when compared to seismic depths, it does
not guarantee a good result. The ambiguity of the
results is not directly linked to whether the thermal
gravity anomaly is corrected, but the model with
thermal correction showed better agreement with the
geodynamics knowledge. In the absence of open
source codes for this purpose, the thermal gravity
anomaly has often been discarded, but with the code
we made available, applying the correction will be
simple and fast, and might even be used in future
studies or to improve previous models that did not
take into account the thermal correction.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
REFERENCES
Amante, C., & Eakins, B. W. (2009). ETOPO1 arc-minute global
relief model: procedures, data sources and analysis. https://www.
ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/global.html. Accessed 14 Oct 2018
Bai, Y., Williams, S. E., Müller, R. D., Liu, Z., & Hosseinpour, M.
(2014). Mapping crustal thickness using marine gravity data:
Methods and uncertainties. Geophysics, 79(2), G1–G10.
Braitenberg, C., & Zadro, M. (1999). Iterative 3D gravity inversion
with integration of seismologic data. Bollettino di Geofisica
Teorica e Applicata, 40(3), 4.
Braitenberg, C., Pettenati, F., & Zadro, M. (1997). Spectral and
classical methods in the evaluation of Moho undulations from
gravity data: The NE Italian Alps and isostasy. Journal of
Geodynamics, 23(1), 5–22.
Braitenberg, C., Wienecke, S., & Wang, Y. (2006). Basement
structures from satellite-derived gravity field: South China Sea
ridge. Journal of Geophysical Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2005JB003938.
Braitenberg, C., Wienecke, S., Ebbing, J., Born, W., & Redfield, T.
(2007). Joint gravity and isostatic analysis for basement studies–
a novel tool. In: EGM 2007 International Workshop.
Chappell, A. R., & Kusznir, N. J. (2008). Three-dimensional
gravity inversion for Moho depth at rifted continental margins
incorporating a lithosphere thermal gravity anomaly correction.
Geophysical Journal International, 174(1), 1–13.
Chen, Y. J. (1992). Oceanic crustal thickness versus spreading rate.
Geophysical Research Letters, 19(8), 753–756.
Constantino, R. R., Hackspacher, P. C., de Souza, I. A., & Costa, I.
S. L. (2017). Basement structures over Rio Grande Rise from
gravity inversion. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 75,
85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2017.02.005.
Constantino, R. R., Hackspacher, P. C., Costa, I. S. L., Molina, E.
C., & De Souza, I. A. (2019). Gravity anomalies over extinct
spreading centres: A new evidence of an aborted ridge in the
South Atlantic Ocean. Geophysical Journal International,
217(1), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggz019.
Crosby, A. G., McKenzie, D., & Sclater, J. G. (2006). The rela-
tionship between depth, age and gravity in the oceans.
Geophysical Journal International, 166(2), 553–573.
Divins, D. L. (2003). Total sediment thickness of the World’s
Oceans and Marginal Seas. Boulder: NOAA National Geo-
physical Data Center.
Fullea, J., Fernandez, M., & Zeyen, H. (2008). FA2BOUG - A
FORTRAN 90 code to compute Bouguer gravity anomalies from
gridded free-air anomalies: Application to the Atlantic-Mediter-
ranean transition zone. Computers and Geosciences, 34(12),
1665–1681.
Gómez-Ortiz, D., & Agarwal, B. N. (2005). 3DINVER. M: A
MATLAB program to invert the gravity anomaly over a 3D
horizontal density interface by Parker–Oldenburg’s algorithm.
Computers and Geosciences, 31(4), 513–520.
Hilde, T. W., & Chao-Shing, L. (1984). Origin and evolution of the
West Philippine Basin: A new interpretation. Tectonophysics,
102(1–4), 85–104.
Jaupart, C., Mareschal, J. C., & Watts, A. B. (2007). Heat flow and
thermal structure of the lithosphere. Treatise on Geophysics, 6,
217–252.
 R. R. Constantino and V. Sacek
Jonas, J., Hall, S., & Casey, J. F. (1991). Gravity anomalies over
extinct spreading centers: A test of gravity models of active
centers. Journal of Geophysical Research, 96(B7), 11759–11777.
Kaban, M. K., Schwintzer, P., Artemieva, I. M., & Mooney, W. D.
(2002). Density of the continental roots: Compositional and
thermal contributions. Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
209(1–2), 53–69.
Kende, J., Henry, P., Bayrakci, G., Özeren, M. S., & Grall, C.
(2017). Moho depth and crustal thinning in the Marmara Sea
region from gravity data inversion. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 122(2), 1381–1401.
Kusznir, N. J., Roberts, A. M., & Alvey, A. D. (2018). Crustal
structure of the conjugate Equatorial Atlantic Margins, derived
by gravity anomaly inversion. London: Geological Society
London, Special Publications.
Lambeck, K. (1972). Gravity anomalies over ocean ridges. Geo-
physical Journal International, 30(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365246X.1972.tb06178.x.
Lewis, B. T. (1983). The process of formation of ocean crust.
Science, 220(4593), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
220.4593.151.
Lewis, S. D., & Hayes, D. E. (1980). The structure and evolution of
the central basin fault, West Philippine Basin. The tectonic and
geologic evolution of southeast asian seas and islands (pp.
77–88). Washington: American Geophysical Union.
MacLeod, S. J., Williams, S. E., Matthews, K. J., Müller, R. D., &
Qin, X. (2017). A global review and digital database of large-
scale extinct spreading centers. Geosphere, 13(3), 911–949.
Minshull, T. A., & White, R. S. (1996). Thin crust on the flanks of
the slow-spreading Southwest Indian Ridge. Geophysical Jour-
nal International, 125(1), 139–148.
Mrozowski, C. L., Lewis, S. D., & Hayes, D. E. (1982). Com-
plexities in the tectonic evolution of the West Philippine Basin.
Tectonophysics, 82(1–2), 1–24.
Müller, R. D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C., & Roest, W. R. (2008). Age,
spreading rates, and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean
crust. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2007GC001743.
Nishizawa, A., Kaneda, K., & Oikawa, M. (2016). Crust and upper-
most mantle structure of the Kyushu-Palau Ridge, remnant arc on
the Philippine Sea plate. Earth, Planets and Space, 68(1), 30.
Okino, K., & Fujioka, K. (2003). The central basin spreading center
in the Philippine Sea: Structure of an extinct spreading center and
implications for marginal basin formation. Journal of Geophys-
ical Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB001095.
Parker, R. L. (1972). The rapid calculation of potential anomalies.
Geophysical Journal International, 31(4), 447–455.
Paulatto, M., Watts, A. B., & Peirce, C. (2014). Potential field and
bathymetric investigation of the Monowai volcanic centre, Ker-
madec Arc: Implications for caldera formation and volcanic
evolution. Geophysical journal international, 197(3), 1484–1499.
Perez-Dı́az, L., & Eagles, G. (2017). A new high-resolution sea-
floor age grid for the South Atlantic. Geochemistry Geophysics
Geosystems, 181, 457–470.
Reid, I., & Jackson, H. R. (1981). Oceanic spreading rate and
crustal thickness. Marine Geophysical Researches, 5, 165.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00163477.
(Received March 4, 2020, revised July 11, 2020, accepted August 26, 2020)
Pure Appl. Geophys.
Russo, R. M., & Speed, E. R. (1994). Spectral analysis of gravity
anomalies and the architecture of tectonic wedging, NE Vene-
zuela and Trinidad. Tectonics, 13(3), 613–622. https://doi.org/10.
1029/94TC00052.
Sampietro, D., Capponi, M., Triglione, D., Mansi, A. H., Marchetti,
P., & Sansò, F. (2016). GTE: A new software for gravitational
terrain effect computation: Theory and performances. Pure and
Applied Geophysics, 173(7), 2435–2453.
Sandwell, D. T., Müller, R. D., Smith, W. H., Garcia, E., & Francis,
R. (2014). New global marine gravity model from CryoSat-2 and
Jason-1 reveals buried tectonic structure. Science, 346(6205),
65–67. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258213.
Sasaki, T., Yamazaki, T., & Ishizuka, O. (2014). A revised
spreading model of the West Philippine Basin. Earth, Planets
and Space, 66(1), 83.
Shih, T. C. (1980). Marine magnetic anomalies from the western
Philippine Sea: Implications for the evolution of marginal basins.
GMS, 23, 49–75.
Stein, C. A. (2018). Geophysical heat flow. Reference Module in
Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. https://doi.org/10.
1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.11293-X.
Tenzer, R., & Chen, W. (2014). Regional gravity inversion of
crustal thickness beneath the Tibetan plateau. Earth Science
Informatics, 7(4), 265–276.
Tiberi, C., Diament, M., Lyon Caen, H., & King, T. (2001). Moho
topography beneath the Corinth Rift area (Greece) from inver-
sion of gravity data. Geophysical Journal International, 145(3),
797–808.
Tirel, C., Gueydan, F., Tiberi, C., & Burn, J. P. (2004). Aegean
crustal thickness inferred from gravity inversion. Geodynamical
implications. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 228(3–4),
267–280.
Tucholke, B. E., & Lin, J. (1994). A geological model for the
structure of ridge segments in slow spreading ocean crust.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 99(B6),
11937–11958.
Turcotte, D. L., & Schubert, G. (2002). Geodynamics (2nd edition)
(p. 472). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uyeda, S., & Miyashiro, A. (1974). Plate tectonics and the Japa-
nese Islands: A synthesis. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 85(7), 1159–1170.
Welford, J. K., & Hall, J. (2013). Lithospheric structure of the
Labrador Sea from 855 constrained 3-D gravity inversion.
Geophysical Journal International, 195(2), 767–784.
Wessel, P., & Smith, W. H. (1991). Free software helps map and
display data. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union,
72(41), 441–446.
Yen, H. Y., Lo, Y. T., Yeh, Y. L., Hsieh, H. H., Chang, W. Y.,
Chen, C. H., et al. (2015). The crustal thickness of the philippine
sea plate derived from gravity data. Terrestrial, Atmospheric and
Oceanic Sciences, 26(3), 253.
Zhang, F., Lin, J., Zhang, X., Ding, W., Wang, T., & Zhu, J.
(2018). Asymmetry in oceanic crustal structure of the South
China Sea basin and its implications on mantle geodynamics.
International Geology Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00206814.2018.1425922.