Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e p s l

Moho geometry gravity inversion experiment (MoGGIE): A refined model of the

Australian Moho, and its tectonic and isostatic implications
Alan R.A. Aitken
School of Geosciences, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton Victoria 3800. Australia

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

Article history: At the continent-scale, models of Moho depth based on seismic estimates alone can be inadequate due to
Received 23 October 2009 irregular or sparse data. Gravity-based Moho modelling provides better coverage, however, the methods
Received in revised form 31 May 2010 used are typically hampered by an inability to explicitly honour seismic constraints and are also limited by
Accepted 5 June 2010
over simplistic model conditions, e.g. laterally-homogenous layering. I present a new method to generate a
Available online 1 July 2010
continent-scale Moho model, based on the constrained inversion of free-air gravity data. This method
Editor: R.D. van der Hilst explicitly honours seismic Moho estimates and accounts for a laterally heterogeneous crust and mantle.
Resolution and sensitivity testing shows that, for wavelengths greater than 200 km, crustal density and
Keywords: Moho depth are recovered with reasonable accuracy, ± 30 kg m− 3 and ± 3 km respectively. MoGGIE uses a
gravity inversion six layer model incorporating ocean, sedimentary basin, upper crust, lower/oceanic crust, eclogitised crust
Moho and mantle. Inversion variables were the density of the crustal layers, constrained by a standard density
Australia
model, and the depths to intra-crustal boundaries and the Moho, constrained by 230 seismic depth
isostasy
estimates. The results demonstrate that a balanced approach to seismically-constrained gravity inversion has
the capability to generate detailed and well-constrained models of the Moho and crustal density at the
continent-scale. For Australia, this is a clear improvement on the sparse and irregular resolution of the Moho
provided by seismic estimates of crustal thickness, which fail to resolve short-wavelength features. Newly
defined tectonic features include extensive magmatic underplates, crustal-scale shear zones, and the
boundaries between tectonic blocks. Isostatic analysis reveals that little of the continent is close to isostatic
equilibrium, with isostatic disequilibria preserved at multiple scales, from hundreds of kilometres to the
entire continent. These disequilibria are interpreted to indicate long-wavelength flexure of highly competent
continental lithosphere.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The crust–mantle boundary, or its near equivalent, the Moho, is
critical in defining the isostatic state of the crust, and tectonic suture
zones or crustal-scale shear zones, which can cause Moho offsets (e.g.
Aitken et al., 2009b; Grad et al., 2009). Accurate, high-resolution
models of the Moho are therefore important for our understanding of
the geodynamics and tectonic evolution of the continents.
The depth to the Moho is primarily recovered from crustal-scale
seismic refraction and wide-angle reflection surveys and receiver
function analysis of broadband seismograms, although crustal-scale
near-vertical reflection profiling has also proved useful (Grad et al.,
2009). Despite uncertainties relating to the transitional nature of the
crust–mantle boundary, assumptions with regard to the geometry of
crustal layers and an imperfect recovery of the crustal velocity
structure, Moho depth estimates returned by these methods are
generally considered to be reliable, with uncertainties of ±2–5 km
E-mail address: alan.aitken@sci.monash.edu.au.
(e.g. Collins, 1991; Collins et al., 2003; Grad et al., 2009). The biggest
drawback in using these methods to map the Moho across a continent
relates to the distribution of crustal-scale seismic profiles and
broadband seismic stations which can be irregular or sparse.
Consequently, seismically defined models of the Moho must be
smoothed to avoid spurious geometries (e.g. Collins, 1991; Clitheroe
et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2003). Short-wavelength features are
therefore not defined.
The crust–mantle boundary is also a major density boundary, and
gravity data can be used to model Moho geometry, with the key
advantage that gravity data are typically available at much higher
resolution and with more regular coverage than seismic data. Several
gravity-based techniques have been used to model the Moho, but at
the continent-scale, spectral analysis of gravity and topography has
been the most widely applied method (e.g. Von Frese, 1999; Braun
et al., 2007; Shin et al., 2009). The accuracy of these spectral gravity
methods is limited by an inability to explicitly constrain the Moho
with seismic estimates, and the need for a simple model, typically
defined by several laterally-homogenous layers that define crustal
boundaries and the Moho (e.g. Von Frese, 1999; Braun et al., 2007;

0012-821X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.004
72 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83

Shin et al., 2009). Moreover, these methods must use some method to
isolate “Moho” anomalies, most commonly, spectral correlation
between the free-air gravity field and topography (Von Frese, 1999;
Braun et al., 2007). This method implies an intimate link between the
topography of the Earth's surface and the Moho depth, which may be
valid in many cases, but is not necessarily the case, especially given
the topographically flat and mechanically strong regions which
characterise much of Australia.
This manuscript demonstrates a new method to generate a high-
resolution model of the Moho at the continent-scale. This method
involves 3D inversion of gravity data in the space domain, and thus
takes advantage of the high-resolution and regular coverage of gravity
data. Importantly, this method accounts for laterally heterogeneous
density within the crust and mantle, does not assume a link between
topography and Moho geometry, and explicitly honours seismic Moho
estimates.
The method is applied to the Australian continent because it is
geologically diverse but relatively well understood (Fig. 1), has good
gravity data coverage, and has a reasonably well distributed network
of seismic Moho depth estimates (Collins et al., 2003). In addition,
Australia has good coverage in auxiliary datasets, including maps of
sedimentary basin thickness (Frogtech pty ltd, 2005), high-resolution
topography and bathymetry grids (Webster and Petkovic, 2005), and
models of mantle temperature (Goes et al., 2005). The resulting model
of the Moho and crustal density, MoGGIE, is used to define the
isostatic state of the continent, and its major features are interpreted
in terms of the tectonic evolution of the continent.
2. Model setup
MoGGIE covers the Australian continent and the adjacent oceanic
regions, and is constructed in projected coordinates, using the
Geoscience Australia national-scale Lambert conic conformal projec-
tion. Across a model of this size, the curvature of the Earth's surface
becomes significant for gravity modelling, and because a flat-earth
approximation is used, for each data point, the gravitational attraction
of the most distant parts of the model may be underestimated by up to
10%. At each data point, the vast majority of the gravitational
attraction will be derived from local density contrasts, and the total
error resulting from this approximation is therefore small.
2.1. Definition of layer boundaries, and crustal density model
The model space, covering 4695 by 3825 km, is discretized into
15 km by 15 km square vertical prisms that extend from the Earth's
surface to 99 km depth. Each prism is subdivided into 6 layers,
representing the ocean, sedimentary basins, the upper crust, the
lower crust/oceanic crust, eclogitised crust and the mantle (Fig. 2). For
modelling simplicity, each lithological boundary extends across the
entire model, and where they “pinch out”, they are maintained as
zero-thickness layers, which have no influence on the gravity field.
The standard density model used in MoGGIE (Fig. 2) was targeted
towards a balanced evolution of density and geometry because they
allow a significant component of the gravity field to be derived from

Fig. 1. Generalised map of Australia's tectonic provinces. The western two-thirds of the continent is comprised of the Archaean to Paleoproterozoic North, South and West-Australian
cratons surrounded by Proterozoic orogens. The eastern third of the continent is characterised by a series of crustal blocks accreted to the continental margin during Gondwana
Assembly, ca. 450–350 Ma (Betts et al. 2002). Large intracontinental basins cover much of the surface and obscure the boundaries of many crustal blocks. West-Australian Craton:
PC—Pilbara Craton, YC—Yilgarn Craton, CO—Capricorn Orogen. South Australian Craton: CP—Curnamona Province, GC—Gawler Craton. North Australian Craton: AP—Arunta Province,
KC—Kimberley Craton, MI—Mt Isa Inlier, GI—Georgetown Inlier, MB—McArthur Basin. Proterozoic Orogens: AFP—Albany–Fraser Province MP—Musgrave Province. Phanerozoic
orogens: LO—Lachlan Orogen, NE—New England Orogen. Major Basins: EU—Eucla Basin, OB—Officer Basin, AB—Amadeus Basin, CB—Canning Basin, NB—Ngalia Basin, GB—Georgina
Basin, EB—Eromanga Basin.
 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the model, showing the 6 layers and their inter-
relations. Solid and dashed lines indicate constrained and unconstrained surfaces,
respectively. V symbols indicate the location of seismic estimates.
intra-layer density changes, but also preserve realistic density
contrasts at the major crustal boundaries.
Topography and bathymetry in the model were sampled from the
Australian bathymetry and topography grid (Webster and Petkovic,
2005). Initially at a resolution of 9 arcsec (∼250 m), this grid was
regridded at 1 km resolution, and smoothed using a 3 × 3 Hanning
Filter to reduce local anomalies from sampling at 15 km resolution
(Fig. 3a).
The thickness of sedimentary basins is accounted for using the
results of the SEEBASE™ compilation (Frogtech pty ltd, 2005). This
project integrated seismic, gravity and magnetic data to generate a
map of the depth to crystalline basement within Australia (Supp.
Fig 1b). The uncertainty in this surface is not quantified, although
moderate to high confidence is assigned to most onshore basins, and
low confidence is assigned to offshore basins, except along isolated
seismic profiles (Frogtech pty ltd, 2005).
Beneath these basins, the crust in the continental, transitional and
oceanic zones is structured differently: in the continental zone, the
upper crust occupies the lesser of half the crustal thickness or 20 km
(Fig. 2, Supp. Fig. 1c). The lower crust extends from this boundary to
the Moho, where shallower than 40 km, or to 40 km depth (Fig. 2,
Supp. Fig. 1d). Where the Moho is deeper than 40 km, an eclogite layer
occupies the remaining crustal thickness (Fig. 2). In the transitional
zone the crust is similarly structured, with the difference that the
thickness of the upper crust decreases linearly from half the crustal
thickness at the boundary with the continental zone, to zero-
thickness at the boundary with the oceanic zone. In the oceanic
zone, a single-layer crust is defined, extending from the base of the
sedimentary basins to the Moho (Fig. 2). The boundary of the
transitional zone with the continental zone is defined by the shelf
break, and its boundary with the oceanic zone is defined from the
Australian crustal element map (Shaw et al., 1995).
The initial Moho surface was generated by Delaunay triangulation
of 230 estimates of crustal thickness from seismic refraction and
reflection profiles and receiver function analyses (after Collins, 1991;
Clitheroe et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2003), supplemented by a number
of artificial control points that define the continental margin, and
provide reasonable Moho geometry for the oceanic regions, which are
constrained by few measurements. These supplementary control
points are at 11 km below sea level, except for those that surround the
Coral Sea and the Argo Abyssal Plain, where 15 km depth agrees better
with seismic estimates. In general, a flat-lying surface with low
curvature is defined (Fig. 3b), however in central Australia, a 20 km
offset was observed between two Moho estimates ∼ 80 km apart. This
gradient represents a short-wavelength Moho offset on the crustal-
scale Redbank Thrust Complex (Goleby et al., 1989). This feature
cannot be resolved at the scale of the seismic data network, and these
73
two data points are replaced by the mean of the two estimates
(Fig. 3b).
2.2. Gravity data
MoGGIE utilises a free-air gravity grid derived from onshore and
offshore components (Fig. 4a). In onshore regions, this grid is derived
from geoid-corrected free-air anomalies from the Geoscience
Australia database of gravity stations. Offshore, the grid is derived
from the gravity anomaly grid of the Australian region, which is based
on levelled offshore marine gravity traverses supplemented with
satellite data in areas of poor marine coverage (Murray, 2001). The
onshore and offshore grids were merged, then upward continued by
7500 m and regridded at 15 km cell size. Finally, the long-wavelength
gravity anomaly, calculated using the GGM03-S gravity model to
degree 10 (Tapley et al., 2007), was subtracted from the observed
free-air anomaly. This removes a strong north–south gravity gradient
that relates to density contrasts in the deep mantle, responsible also
for the geoid geometry (Sandiford and Quigley, 2009).
2.3. Derivation of in-situ mantle density
At the scale of the model, lithospheric-mantle density cannot be
considered as a constant. To account for this, the mantle density was
estimated according to the interpreted age of the lithosphere and the
seismological mantle temperature (Goes et al., 2005).
The density of lithospheric-mantle samples at room temperature is
dependent on age, with Archaean mantle (3310 kg m− 3), Proterozoic
mantle (3340 kg m− 3), Phanerozoic mantle (3350 kg m− 3), and
primitive mantle (3390 kg m− 3) each having characteristic densities
(Poudjom Djomani et al., 2001). In MoGGIE, the age of the
lithospheric-mantle beneath Australia is defined based on the age of
surficial rocks (Fig. 1), which define the core of the West-Australian
Craton as Archaean, the surrounding orogens and the middle third of
the continent as Proterozoic, and the eastern third of the continent as
Phanerozoic (Fig. 4b).
Superimposed on these compositional density differences are
those that result from temperature. The mantle temperature is
derived from a model of seismological mantle temperature (Goes
et al., 2005), in which temperature was estimated at a series of depths
from 80 km to 300 km on the basis of two tomographic models
(Simons et al., 1999; Yoshizawa and Kennett, 2004). To minimise
short-wavelength features, a Gaussian low-pass filter was applied at
1000 km wavelength. From these smoothed models, the mantle
temperature at 40 km depth was derived by linear extrapolation of
the geothermal gradient between the 140 km and 80 km models to
40 km depth. This process assumes that there is no heat production
between those depths. The mantle temperature models derived by
this method are consistent with a lower resolution model derived
from surface heat flow measurements (Artemieva, 2006) although the
range of temperature is greater.
For each of the temperature models, the temperature-related
density perturbation was calculated relative to room temperature
using a thermal expansion coefficient of 3.2 × 10− 5 K− 1 (after Parsons
and Sclater, 1977), and was superimposed on the compositional
density differences. The mantle density derived from the tomographic
model of Yoshizawa and Kennett (2004) was selected for use in
MoGGIE because it has gentler density gradients and a smaller overall
range of density (Fig. 4b).
3. Modelling procedure and resolution tests
3.1. Gravity inversion software
Three dimensional gravity inversions were undertaken using
VPmg™ software (Fullagar et al., 2008). This software has two main
74 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83

Fig. 3. a) Topography and bathymetry within the model area (Webster and Petkovic, 2005) b) initial Moho surface constructed from seismic estimates (black), and artificial control
points (white). The intra-crustal surfaces of this initial model are shown in Supplementary Figure 1b–1d.

gravity modelling modes that operate entirely independently: density
optimisation, where the density distribution within prisms is varied,
and geometry optimisation, where the geometry of the prisms is
varied. In each mode, the other parameter cannot change.
For under-determined problems, such as those presented here, the
algorithm solves for the model perturbation using singular value
decomposition followed by solution damping via ridge-regression,
with an initial objective of the smallest perturbation required to have
the chi-squared misfit (Fullagar, 1985, 2004). To optimise the fit to the
data, a DC-shift is applied to the calculated data, and edge effects are
mitigated by varying the density of the enclosing halfspace during
inversion.
As a result of the inherent ambiguity in gravity inversion (e.g. Parker,
1994) changes in density and structure must be controlled during
inversion to guide the inversion towards a realistic result. In density
optimisation mode, constraint on the resulting model is achieved by
imposing upper and lower bounds on the range of densities permissible
for each lithological unit. Similarly, in geometry optimisation mode, the
 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83 75

Fig. 4. a) Free-air gravity grid used in inversion b) mantle density model. Dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the Archaean, Proterozoic, Phanerozoic and Oceanic regions. The
gravity misfit of this initial model is shown in Supplementary Figure 1a.

boundaries between lithological units can be fixed. These constraints are
achieved by truncation of the model perturbation vector (Fullagar, 2004).
In MoGGIE, density limits were applied according to the standard
density model (Fig. 2). The geometry of the surfaces defining
topography, bathymetry and the base of the sedimentary basins
were completely fixed during modelling, as were the boundaries of
zero-thickness layers coincident with these surfaces (Fig. 2). The
boundaries between the upper crust, lower crust and eclogite layer
and the Moho were fixed within 50 km of the seismic estimates
(Fig. 2), excluding the artificial control points and the modified point
in central Australia.
Further model constraint was applied by limiting the maximum
change in density permitted per iteration and the maximum relative
change in interface depth per iteration. These constraints are achieved by
increasing the ridge-regression parameter, leading to increased damping
of the solution (Fullagar, 2004).
In applying these constraints, a balance must be struck between
permitted density and geometry changes.
76 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83
For this study, these parameters were selected to approximately
equalise the capability of crustal density changes and Moho geometry
changes to reduce the final model misfit. The sensitivity of the data to
crustal density is concentrated in the near-surface, and small
perturbations will significantly impact on the model misfit. In
contrast, the sensitivity of the data to Moho geometry is concentrated
deep in the model, and large perturbations are needed to significantly
impact on the model misfit. Furthermore, due to the sequencing of
density optimisation inversions before geometry optimisation inver-
sions, a bias is imposed towards crustal density changes. Due to these
influences, the maximum density change permitted per iteration was
relatively small (25 kg m− 3), and the maximum depth change
permitted per iteration was relatively large (50%).
3.2. Model resolution and sensitivity testing
The capability of the data resolution, model design and inversion
algorithm to resolve key features of the Moho and the crustal density
distribution was tested using a three layered model comprised of a
20 km thick upper crust, a 10–25 km thick lower crust, and the mantle.
The density distribution within the crustal layers and the relief of the
Moho are defined in a patchwork-quilt pattern with wavelength
content from 100 km to 2000 km (Fig. 5a). Upper-crustal density varies
between 0 and 150 kg m− 3, lower crustal density varies between 150
and 350 kg m− 3, and Moho depth varies between 30 and 45 km, with
an underlying mantle density of 600 kg m− 3. For simplicity, rather than
true density values, this model uses apparent density contrasts, with
zero approximately equivalent to 2650 kg m− 3.
In this model, the crustal density and Moho depth have the same
“gravity polarity”, which is appropriate for the most common scenario
encountered, where thin crust is relatively dense, and thick crust is
relatively light (e.g. Heiskanen and Vening Meinesz, 1958). Where
this common-polarity does not exist, or exists only weakly, seismic or
density constraints are required to accurately resolve the interdepen-
dence of density and geometry.
The calculated gravity anomaly at 15 km grid spacing and 7500 m
elevation (Fig. 5b) shows that although density contrasts at 100 km
wavelength are only weakly resolved, longer wavelength density
contrasts are resolved well. This grid is used as the input data set for
the test inversion, for which the initial model contains three laterally-
homogenous layers with densities of 63, 240 and 600 kg m− 3
separated by flat horizons at 20 km and 40 km depth. The 20 km
horizon and the model surface are constrained, but the 40 km horizon
Fig. 5. a) Input model to the model resolution and sensitivity test. Density values are wholly relative. UC - Upper Crust, LC - Lower crust b) Gravity response calculated at 7500 m.
(the Moho) is free to move. The inversion workflow involved a series
of four alternating density and geometry optimisation inversions,
each with 2 iterations.
This reduced the RMS gravity misfit from 141.66 mGal to
7.68 mGal (Fig. 6a), and resolved the major model features reasonably
well. For wavelengths longer than 100 km, the upper-crustal density
is typically recovered to within ± 15 kg m− 3 (Fig. 6b). For wave-
lengths longer than 200 km, recovered lower crust density contrasts
are typically within ±40 kg m− 3 of the input model, and the main
features are resolved faithfully but with underestimated density
contrast (Fig. 6c). At wavelengths longer than 200 km, the Moho
geometry recovered is also a reasonable fit to the input model
(Fig. 6d), although the depth to Moho is underestimated by
approximately 1 km in the shallower regions and is overestimated
by 4–5 km in the deeper regions.
Based on these results, MoGGIE can be expected to resolve Moho
geometry for wavelengths longer than 200 km within an accuracy
of ±3 km. Although the vertical density structure within the crust is
not well resolved, lateral variations in crustal density are likely to be
resolved within an accuracy of ±30 kg m− 3 (∼ 1% of overall crustal
density). Because vertical density structure is not well resolved,
discussion of the crustal density distribution is restricted to horizontal
variations. These are described by the percentage difference between
the vertical average of observed crustal density within a column, and
the vertical average of the standard density model within the same
column.
4. Models of the crustal density and Moho geometry of Australia
Gravity inversion models are inherently non-unique, however, by
defining sensible boundary conditions, the range of acceptable models
can be greatly reduced. The boundary conditions in MoGGIE include
invariant density in the mantle, ocean and eclogite layers, and
invariant geometry on the topography, bathymetry and basin depth
surfaces, as well as limits on the density distribution within the crust,
and the seismic constraints imposed on the geometry of the Moho and
overlying crustal boundaries.
4.1. End-member models
The end-member models within these boundary conditions
involve satisfying the gravity field by varying solely the model
geometry, and satisfying the gravity field by varying solely the crustal
 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83
Fig. 6. Sensitivity model results, a) the gravity misfit b) the upper crust density error) the lower crust density error and d) the Moho depth error.
density distribution. Geometry optimisation alone reduced the gravity
misfit from an initial RMS misfit of 80.89 mGal to 12.14 mGal after 20
iterations. The result is characterised by a poor gravity fit above the
seismic constraints, (Supp. Fig. 2a) and a Moho surface that, where
unconstrained, deviates from adjacent seismic constraints by 5–
10 km (Supp. Fig. 2d).
For density optimisation, the density constraints were relaxed to
2550 ±100 kg m− 3 in the sedimentary basins, 2725 ±150 kg m− 3 in
the upper crust, and 2900 ± 200 kg m− 3 in the lower crust. This
inversion reduced the gravity misfit to 17.81 mGal after 17 iterations.
Despite the broad density limits, significant gravity misfits are still
observed at the continental margins and beneath central and northern
Australia (Supp. Fig. 3a) and extensive areas are occupied by either the
maximum or minimum density permitted (Supp. Fig. 3b–3e).
4.2. Combination models
The poor results from these end-member models indicate that a
model combining variations in the crustal density distribution with
modifications to the Moho geometry is required. This combination was
achieved by running four alternating density optimisation and
geometry optimisation inversions, each restricted to just two iterations.
Density optimisation is undertaken first, due to the erroneous results
achieved by geometry optimisation with a standard crust.
77
After 8 iterations, this inversion yields a Moho geometry that
closely follows the seismic constraints except in localised areas, and a
credible density distribution (Supp. Fig. 4d,4e). The gravity fit is
reasonable for most areas, and yields a RMS misfit of 13.48 mGal. The
misfit is still large however at the continent's margins (Supp. Fig. 4a).
Because the majority of the gravity misfit is concentrated in
seismically-constrained regions, it is worthwhile to remove the
constraints provided by seismic data to test the capability of relatively
minor modifications to Moho geometry to fit the gravity data.
A further geometry optimisation with the seismic constraints on
Moho geometry removed, achieved a RMS misfit of 7.57 mGal after 26
iterations, and the subsequent density optimisation reduced the RMS
misfit to 6.96 mGal after 7 iterations. Although the gravity fit is
substantially improved (Fig. 7a), the resulting Moho geometry and
crustal density structure in the model (Fig. 7b, c) do not differ
markedly from the seismically-constrained model (Supp. Fig. 4b, 4e).
The gravity fit in the Bonaparte Gulf and parts of the Northwest Shelf
and southern margin (Fig. 7a) remain poor because the SEEBASE™
surface extends to the Moho, and the only variable is the tightly
constrained sedimentary layer density. This model satisfies the
gravity field without deviating markedly from the seismic Moho
constraints, and therefore it is considered to be the best representa-
tion of Australia's Moho and crustal density, and forms the basis of the
tectonic and isostatic analysis.
78 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83

5. Model results and discussion
5.1. Model limitations
As with many geophysical methods, gravity inversion generates
non-unique results. The primary limitation on this method is that
gravity data carry no inherent depth information. The test inversion
showed that, where the Moho geometry and crustal density have
the same “gravity polarity”, lateral changes in density distribution
and Moho geometry can be effectively resolved using alternating
density and geometry inversions. However, because the densities of
crustal layers evolve in parallel, i.e. within each crustal column, the
density of all layers are perturbed by a similar amount, the
capability to resolve the vertical distribution of density within the
crust is poor. This limits our discussion to the lateral distribution of
density anomalies.
Inaccuracies in the seismic constraints, the SEEBASE™ surface or
the mantle density may all result in errors. For the purposes of
modelling, seismic constraints were assumed to be error-free
however the accuracy of these Moho estimates can be poor, especially
where broad transition zones are observed (e.g. Collins et al., 2003;
Grad et al., 2009). In the model result, very deep seismic Moho
estimates beneath the North Australian Craton, beneath western
central Australia, and beneath the Lachlan orogen are maintained as
anomalous square-shaped deep zones within a surrounding Moho
that is significantly shallower (Fig. 7c). Most of these anomalous deep
zones correspond to seismic estimates with a broad transition zone
and thus, this discrepancy may reflect the policy of Collins (1991) and
subsequently Clitheroe et al. (2001) and Collins et al. (2003) to place
the Moho at the base of the transition zone. Sedimentary basin
thicknesses are also treated as being error-free, and any significant
errors will persist into the Moho model. Erroneous features in mantle
density may be of some significance, although the range of mantle
density in our model varies from 3220 kg m− 3 to 3300 kg m− 3, and
its influence on the gravity anomaly is small in comparison with the
Moho geometry and the crustal density variations.
Despite these limitations, MoGGIE generates a uniquely detailed
and well-constrained representation of the Moho and the crustal
density distribution. This demonstrates that a balanced modelling
approach which can explicitly incorporate seismic constraints and
permits constrained flexibility in crustal density is superior to more
simplistic gravity-based Moho modelling methods. In comparison
with previous seismic data only models of Australia's Moho (Collins,
1991; Clitheroe et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2003) the improvement in
resolution given by this model is critical for defining the geometry of
the continental margins, identifying major crustal-scale structures
that cause short-wavelength Moho offsets, and recognising regions of
anomalous crustal density, each of which carries tectonic and isostatic
implications for the Australian continent.
5.2. Magmatic underplating
The deep Moho (N40 km) beneath much of the North Australian
Craton (Fig. 7c), and the high crustal density required (+ 2%) to
balance it (Fig. 7b) are interpreted to indicate the extent of a
magmatic underplate beneath the North Australian Craton, a concept
that was initially proposed on the basis of seismic refraction models
that identify thick crust with a high-velocity lower crust and a broad
transition zone (Drummond and Collins, 1986). The boundary of this
feature is roughly coincident with the recognised boundaries of the
North Australian Craton, although it lies to the north of the Willowra
Lineament in the Mount Isa region, and it may also extend beneath the
Kimberley Craton and the Georgetown Inlier (Fig. 7b, c). Towards the
northern margin of Australia, although crustal density remains high,
the Moho depth shallows to 30–35 km across a relatively sharp
gradient at the boundary between the Palaeoproterozoic to Meso-
proterozoic McArthur Basin and the Neoproterozoic–Devonian Geor-
gina Basin. This high-density crust possibly represents an underplated
crust that has subsequently been exhumed.
Two other regions within Australia are characterised by a dense,
thick crust and these are also interpreted to be underplated (Fig. 7).
Central–western Australia contains a sub-circular region with Moho
depths of greater than 40 km and crustal density of +2%. This feature
is constrained by three seismic estimates and it is therefore unlikely
that this feature is an artefact of modelling. Broad crust–mantle
transition zones (Clitheroe et al., 2000) add further support for a mafic
underplate beneath this region, although they are also a source of
error in the Moho depth estimates. The centre of this density feature is
coincident with the centre of the ca. 1080 Ma Warakurna Large
Igneous Province, which is delineated by exposed mafic dykes and
plutons throughout Central and Western Australia (Wingate et al.,
2004). A magmatic underplate resulting from this plume-related
extensional event is a compelling explanation for thick and dense
crust, although further study is needed to verify the nature and origin
of this feature.
Fast seismic velocities in the lower crust (Finlayson et al., 1980) and
a broad crust–mantle transition (Clitheroe et al., 2000; Collins et al.,
2003) indicate that a mafic underplate underlies parts of the Lachlan
Orogen. Regions of high crustal density (+1.5 to +2%) and deep Moho
(40–50 km) within eastern Australia are interpreted to image this
underplate. These regions parallel the continental margin, and cut
across the recognised domains of the Lachlan Orogeny, and thus
support underplating during Gondwana breakup, possibly as a
continuation of the Jurassic Ferrar-Karoo Large Igneous Province
(Betts et al., 2002), or synchronous with Cretaceous rifting (Lister
et al., 1991) rather than underplating during the late Cambrian to
Ordovician Lachlan Orogeny (Collins and Vernon, 1994; Collins, 2002).
5.3. Short-wavelength Moho geometry
In MoGGIE, the Musgrave and Arunta Provinces in central Australia
are associated with very high crustal density (+3–4%) and Moho
geometry that is uplifted by 10–15 km relative to the adjacent regions
(Fig. 7). This is consistent with more detailed studies of these
provinces that have identified up to 25 km of Moho uplift beneath
these regions, most likely related to crustal uplift during the ca. 600–
500 Ma Petermann Orogeny and the ca. 450–350 Ma Alice Springs
Orogeny (Goleby et al., 1989; Lambeck and Burgess, 1992; Aitken
et al., 2009a,b). The gravity fit in these regions remains relatively poor
(Fig. 7a), indicating that the density structure of these ∼200 km
wavelength Moho offsets and the surrounding crustal depressions are
not completely recovered.
The north–south trending Lasseter Shear Zone extends from
Australia's southern margin to the Kimberley Craton and was initially
interpreted as a ca. 450 Ma sinistral strike-slip shear zone, showing
hundreds of kilometres of offset in southern Australia, but much less in

Fig. 7. Modelling results showing a) gravity misfit b) vertically averaged crustal density anomalies, defined relative to the vertically averaged crustal density of the standard density
model for the same column and c) Moho depth. Sun-shading in b) and c) is applied from the southeast with an inclination of 45º and with a vertical exaggeration of 2. Tectonic
features are delineated by solid lines, while dashed lines indicate the interpreted extent of the magmatic underplates. KC—Kimberley Craton, GI—Georgetown Inlier, WL—Willowra
Lineament, PC—Pilbara Craton, CO—Capricorn Orogen, SGT—Southwestern Gneiss Terrane, SCT—Southern Cross Terrane, EGT—Eastern Goldfields Terrane, LSZ—Lasseter Shear Zone,
MP—Musgrave Province, AP—Arunta Province, MB—McArthur Basin, GC—Gawler Craton, THZ—Torrens Hinge Zone, CP—Curnamona Province, DO—Delamerian Orogen, WLO—
Western Lachlan Orogen, WOMB—Wagga—Omeo Metamorphic Belt, MA—MacQuarie Arc, TB—Tamworth Belt, NE—New England Orogen, NAC—Narooma Accretionary Complex, EB/
WB—Eromanga/Warburton Basin, MI—Mount Isa, GB—Georgina Basin, OF—Olepoloko Fault, OB—Officer Basin, NB—Ngalia Basin, NWS—Northwest Shelf. Intra-crustal surfaces and
densities are imaged in supplementary Fig. 5.
A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83 79
80 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83

Fig. 8. Map of the isostatic state of Australia, indicating the key features discussed in the text: LSZ—Lasseter Shear Zone, 1—uplift following axis of Ordovician Larapinta Rift, 2—the
flexural depression inboard of the continental margin, 3—the central Australian gravity low, 4—the isostatic depression in the Great Australian Bight. Dashed lines indicate
uncertainty.

northern Australia (Braun et al., 1991). In MoGGIE, this shear zone is
defined by a north–south trending discontinuity that abuts the thick
crust of central Australia against the thinner crust to the west. The
∼10 km west-up offset on this shear zone is sharp in southern Australia,
and becomes more gradual in central Australia. Although less distinct,
this structure may also continue into northern Australia, and connect to
the eastern margin of the Kimberley Craton (Fig. 7c). This Moho
structuring supports the existence of the Lasseter Shear Zone, and
suggests that as well as strike-slip motion, its kinematics involved
significant dip–slip motion that was pronounced in southern Australia
and minimal in northern Australia. This crustal-scale discontinuity is
also an important isostatic discontinuity, separating the equilibrated or
slightly uplifted crust of Western Australia from the depressed crust of
central Australia (Fig. 8).
5.4. Tectonic boundaries
In the Western Australia Craton, the Pilbara Craton is defined by low-
density crust (−2%), and is underlain by a shallowly southeast dipping
Moho at 30–35 km depth. The Pilbara Craton is separated from the
Yilgarn Craton by the ca 1840–1800 Ma Capricorn Orogen, which is
characterised by low crustal density (Fig. 7b). The Moho beneath the
Capricorn Orogen is uplifted proximal to the Pilbara Craton and
depressed proximal to the Yilgarn Craton (Fig. 7c). This geometry is
consistent with more localised studies, which have suggested a crustal
root immediately north of the Yilgarn Craton, interpreted to represent
the southward subduction of the Pilbara Craton beneath the Yilgarn
Craton (Cawood and Tyler, 2004; Hackney, 2004). In the Yilgarn craton,
the Moho geometry and crustal density suggest three crustal domains:
Thick (40 km) and dense (+2.5%) crust correlates to the Southwestern
Gneiss Terrane; moving eastwards, the Southern Cross Terrane is
characterised by low-density crust (−1–2%) above a moderately deep
Moho (35 km). A more subtle density gradient demarcates the
boundary of the Southern Cross Terrane with the denser Eastern
Goldfields Terrane (0 to +1.5%).
Within the South Australian Craton, the Gawler Craton is
dominated by average density crust, with more dense regions in the
northwest and southeast, and low-density crust offshore. The low-
 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83
density Torrens Hinge Zone region separates the Gawler Craton from
the Curnamona Province, which is dominated by moderately high-
density crust (+1.5%). Moho depth does not relate to these geological
provinces, but instead parallels the continental margin, deepening
from ∼11 km at the continental margin to ∼ 40 km 500 km inboard,
before shallowing once more to ∼ 30 km beneath the Eromanga Basin.
The history of the Permian–Late Cretaceous Eromanga Basin (Mathur,
1983) and the underlying Cambrian–Ordovician Warburton Basin
(Gatehouse, 1986) indicates that crustal thinning is most likely to
have occurred during the Ordovician Larapinta rifting event and
during Gondwana breakup. The thin crust at the southern margin of
the South Australian Craton is almost certainly due to crustal thinning
during Gondwana breakup (Weissel and Karner, 1989).
The eastern third of Australia is comprised of a series of oceanic
crustal blocks and micro-continents that were added to the margin of
Proterozoic Australia during a series of orogenic events including the
ca. 520–490 Ma Delamerian Orogeny, the ca. 450–340 Ma Lachlan–
Thompson Orogeny and the ca. 320–300 Ma New England Orogeny
(Gray and Foster, 2004). MoGGIE resolves major boundaries in Moho
depth and crustal density that relate to the known boundaries of the
major crustal blocks, and defines their extent beneath regions of poor
exposure.
The Delamerian Orogen is defined by an arcuate northwest tending
region of moderately high crustal density (+1–2.5%), underlain by a
30–35 km deep Moho. Geological correlations suggest the continua-
tion of this terrane into north-western Tasmania, although the Moho
beneath northwest Tasmania is shallower, and the crustal density less.
Moving east, a broad, sigmoidal region of low crustal density (− 1–2%),
underlain by a relatively shallow Moho (∼30 km) extends from the
margin of the North Australian Craton to eastern Tasmania. This region
is interpreted to define the extent of the western Lachlan Orogen.
Continuing east, the Wagga–Omeo Metamorphic Belt is character-
ised by a region of slightly denser than average crust (+0.5%) and a
35–40 km deep Moho. This terrane abuts the Macquarie Arc, an
accreted Ordovician island arc (Gray and Foster, 2004), which is
characterised by an arcuate region of high crustal density underlain by
a deep (N40 km) Moho. The characteristic crustal density in this region
is +1% to + 1.5%, and thus can be distinguished from the higher crustal
densities (+2–2.5%) resulting from later magmatic underplating
(Fig. 7b). Completing the Lachlan Orogen, the Narooma Accretionary
Complex to the southeast of the Macquarie Arc is characterised by low
crustal density and shallow crust, and the Tamworth Belt is defined by
high-density crust of moderate thickness. The boundary of the
easternmost crustal block within continental Australia, the New
England Orogen, is demarcated by an abrupt change to low crustal
density (−1%), and a Moho at 25–35 km depth (Fig. 7c).
The crustal blocks that define the Lachlan Orogen are truncated
along a southeast trending lineament extending from the North
Australian Craton to the New England Orogen. This lineament lies well
to the north of the conventional boundary between the Lachlan and
Thompson Orogens, the Olepoloko Fault (Gray and Foster, 2004),
which is not delineated and may exist only in the upper crust.
Offshore, the model is poorly constrained, and only broader-scale
features of the continental margins and oceanic crust can be reliably
defined. Significant features include the very steep Moho gradient of
the south-eastern margin, which contrasts with the gentle to
moderate Moho gradients beneath the western, southern and
north-eastern margins. Very high crustal density and shallow Moho
along the southern transitional zone may define the extent of a zone
of serpentinised peridotite in the lower crust, typical of magma-poor
margins (Whitmarsh et al., 2001). Due to model-edge effects and a
complete lack of constraints, the Moho geometry and crustal density
of Australia's northern margin are probably not reliable.
The mean oceanic Moho depth is ∼14 km, and is accompanied by
low crustal density (− 1.5% to −3.5%). Although within inversion
error limits, these values are anomalous compared to typical values
81
(Carlson and Raskin, 1984; Mooney et al., 1998). This anomalous crust
is largely an artefact of the inversion algorithm, which cannot take
into account the greater geological uncertainty on the continental
side. Furthermore, our seismic estimates are concentrated on the
continental crust, which further biases the algorithm towards
modifying the oceanic crust.
The crust of the Coral Sea and Argo Abyssal Plain, characterised by
15–18 km Moho depth and crustal densities of 0% to −2%, are in
accordance with seismic estimates, and the crust here is interpreted to
be genuinely anomalous. Further anomalous oceanic lithosphere is
observed in the Great Australian Bight, where a distinct zone of
relatively high crustal density (∼ 0%) is necessary to balance
depressed bathymetry (Fig. 3a). In this region, the oceanic and
continental sectors of the continental margin are depressed relative to
their surrounds (Fig. 8). This isostatically depressed zone may be
caused by dense lithosphere, possibly resulting from the sampling of a
Mesozoic remnant slab and mantle wedge at the Australian–Antarctic
Discordance (Gurnis et al., 1998; Gurnis and Muller, 2003).
5.5. Isostatic analysis
A surface that represents local Airy isostatic equilibration at the base of
the crust was calculated using the topographic surface, and the crust and
mantle densities (Eq. 1). Bathymetry, T1, is zero on land, and topography,
T2, is zero over the oceans. The topography and Moho surfaces in this
calculation are defined relative to arbitrary baseline values, T0 and M0,
which define isostatic equilibrium. Because oceanic crust is most likely to
be in crustal isostatic equilibrium, these baseline values are assigned
typical values for the oceanic crust in this model; −5000 m for T0
and −14000 m for M0. The difference between the isostatically-
equilibrated Moho depth and the observed Moho depth yields a map of
the isostatic state of the crust (Fig. 8).
 
ρ −1000 ρc
M = M0 − c ðT −T Þ + * T ð1Þ
ρm −ρc * 1 0 ρm −ρc 2
By definition, most of the oceanic crust is close to crustal isostatic
equilibrium, which contrasts with the continental crust, little of which
is close to local isostatic equilibrium (Fig. 8). The compensation of
isostatic loads is achieved across a range of wavelengths. This includes
compensation at the continent-scale, indicated by a Moho that is too
deep in the continental interior, excepting Western Australia, and too
shallow at the continental margins (Fig. 8). Superimposed on this
continent-scale equilibration pattern is a southeast-trending,
1000 km wide region of isostatically uplifted crust that crosses the
continent from the Canning Basin to the Curnamona Province. This
feature echoes the proposed extent of the Larapinta Sea, defined by
Ordovician marine sedimentary rocks within the Canning, Amadeus,
and Warburton Basins (Forman and Wales, 1981; Gatehouse, 1986;
Shaw et al., 1991) and interpreted to represent a major rifting event
(Hand et al., 1999). These long-wavelength isostatic features are
interpreted to indicate that the Australian continental lithosphere is
relatively competent, and that the buoyancy of the depressed
continental interior supports the uplifted margins.
The uplift of the Australian Alps has long been understood to
represent rift-flank uplift as a consequence of the Gondwana breakup
(Weissel and Karner, 1989). This definition can be extended to the
entirety of the southern and eastern continental margins, which are
consistently uplifted by ∼5 km relative to the adjacent oceanic crust
(Fig 8). Furthermore, 500–1000 km inboard from the rift-flank-uplift,
the Moho is depressed by 2–5 km relative to isostasy. Although the
deepest parts of this depression may relate to magmatic underplating
(Fig. 7), the overall geometry of this margin is characteristic of the
dynamic topography that results from rift-flank-uplift (Heiskanen
and Vening Meinesz, 1958; Weissel and Karner, 1989).
82 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83
The Arunta and Musgrave Provinces of central Australia are
associated with moderate topographic highs, and yet they are
underlain by very dense crust and significant Moho uplifts (Fig. 7).
The adjacent basins are generally underlain by a very deep Moho,
which suggests that these isostatic loads at ∼ 200 km wavelength
may be equilibrated by crustal flexure at longer wavelength, causing
the collective depression of the Amadeus, Officer and Ngalia Basin
regions (Fig. 7c). These basins define the 800 km wide sub-circular
central Australian gravity low (Aitken et al., 2009b), within which
the mean isostatic disequilibrium of the Moho is close to zero
(− 350 m), suggesting that while dramatic isostatic disequilibria are
preserved within it, this region as a whole is close to crustal isostatic
equilibrium.
6. Conclusions
MoGGIE demonstrates that constrained gravity inversion has the
capability to generate a high-resolution, continent-scale model of the
Moho and crustal density. This model improves on the sparse and
irregular resolution of the Moho provided by seismic estimates of
crustal thickness, and by explicitly honouring seismic constraints,
and including heterogeneous density in the crust and mantle is
superior to more simplistic gravity modelling methods. Furthermore,
this method bridges the scale-gap between near-surface geological
and geophysical observations and seismic imaging of the Moho, and
creates a regional framework within which more detailed analyses
can be used to develop a better understanding of the structuring of
the continent.
These improvements mean that the tectonic and isostatic
implications of the Moho and crustal density can be analysed in
much greater detail than previously possible. Features defined include
short-wavelength Moho geometry relating to crustal-scale shear
zones, more accurate definition of continental margins, accurately
defined boundaries of major crustal blocks, and the extent of
magmatic underplates.
The isostatic analysis reveals that the Australian continental crust is
not in local crustal equilibrium, but is isostatically equilibrated by
lithospheric flexure at multiple scales. This includes the support of the
entire continent by competent lithosphere, the flexurally derived Moho
topography of the southern and eastern margins at ∼500 km wave-
length, and the collective equilibration of 100 km wide isostatic loads in
central Australia within the 800 km wide central Australian gravity low.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the Faculty of Science at Monash University for
providing a Postgraduate Publication Award to undertake this
research. I also wish to thank Clive Collins for providing the seismic
Moho depth estimates, and Saskia Goes for supplying the mantle
temperature models. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their
comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.004.
References
Aitken, A.R.A., Betts, P.G., Ailleres, L., 2009a. The architecture, kinematics, and
lithospheric processes of a compressional intraplate orogen occurring under
Gondwana assembly: the Petermann orogeny, central Australia. Lithosphere 1 (6),
343–357.
Aitken, A.R.A., Betts, P.G., Weinberg, R.F., Gray, D., 2009b. Constrained modeling of the
crustal architecture of the Musgrave Province in Central Australia: evidence for
lithospheric strengthening due to crust–mantle boundary uplift. J. Geophys. Res. B:
Solid Earth 114, B12405.
Artemieva, I.M., 2006. Global 1° × 1° thermal model TC1 for the continental lithosphere:
implications for lithosphere secular evolution. Tectonophysics 416 (1–2), 245–277.
Betts, P.G., Giles, D., Lister, G.S., Frick, L.R., 2002. Evolution of the Australian lithosphere.
Aust. J. Earth Sci. 49, 661–695.
Braun, J., McQueen, H.W.S., Etheridge, M.A., 1991. A fresh look at the late Palaeozoic
Tectonic History of Western-central Australia. Explor. Geophys. 22, 49–54.
Braun, A., Kim, H.R., Csatho, B., von Frese, R.R.B., 2007. Gravity-inferred crustal thickness
of Greenland. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 262 (1–2), 138–158.
Carlson, R.L., Raskin, G.S., 1984. Density of the ocean crust. Nature 311 (5986), 555–558.
Cawood, P.A., Tyler, I.M., 2004. Assembling and reactivating the Proterozoic Capricorn
Orogen: lithotectonic elements, orogenies, and significance. Precambrian Res. 128
(3–4), 201–218.
Clitheroe, G., Gudmundsson, O., Kennett, B.L.N., 2000. The crustal thickness of Australia.
J. Geophys. Res. 105 (6), 13697–13713.
Collins, C.D.N., 1991. The nature of the crust–mantle boundary under Australia from
seismic evidence. In: Crummond, B.J. (Ed.), The Australian Lithosphere: Geological
Society of Australia Special Publication, pp. 67–80.
Collins, W.J., 2002. Nature of extensional accretionary orogens. Tectonics 21 (4), 6-1.
Collins, W.J., Vernon, R.H., 1994. A rift–drift-delamination model of continental
evolution: palaeozoic tectonic development of eastern Australia. Tectonophysics
235 (3), 249–275.
Collins, C.D.N., Drummond, B.J., Nicoll, M.G., 2003. Crustal thickness patterns in the
Australian continent. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 372, 121–128.
Drummond, B.J., Collins, C.D.N., 1986. Seismic evidence for underplating of the lower
continental crust of Australia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 79 (3–4), 361–372.
Finlayson, D.M., Collins, C.D.N., Denham, D., 1980. Crustal structure under the Lachlan
Fold Belt, southeastern Australia. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 21 (4), 321–342.
Forman, D.J., Wales, D.W., 1981. Geological evolution of the Canning Basin, Western
Australia. Australian Bureau of Mineral Resources Geology & Geophysics: Bulletin,
210.
Frogtech pty ltd, 2005. OZ SEEBASE™ Study 2005, Public Domain Report to Shell
Development Australia by FrOG Tech Pty Ltd.
Fullagar, P.K., 1985. Spike recovery deconvolution. In: Fitch, A.A. (Ed.), Developments in
Geophysical Exploration Methods. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, p. 264.
Fullagar, P.K., 2004. VPmg User Documentation V 3.1. Fullagar Geophysics, Brisbane,
Australia.
Fullagar, P.K., Pears, G.A., McMonnies, B., 2008. Constrained inversion of geologic
surfaces — pushing the boundaries. Lead. Edge (Tulsa, OK) 27 (1), 98–105.
Gatehouse, C.G., 1986. The geology of the Warburton Basin in South Australia. Aust. J.
Earth Sci. 33 (2), 161–180.
Goes, S., Simons, F.J., Yoshizawa, K., 2005. Seismic constraints on temperature of the
Australian uppermost mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 236 (1–2), 227–237.
Goleby, B.R., Shaw, R.D., Wright, C., Kennett, B.L.N., Lambeck, K., 1989. Geophysical
evidence for “thick-skinned”crustal deformation in central Australia. Nature 337,
325–337.
Grad, M., Tiira, T., ESC Working Group, 2009. The Moho depth map of the European
Plate. Geophys. J. Int. 176 (1), 279–292.
Gray, D.R., Foster, D.A., 2004. Tectonic evolution of the Lachlan Orogen, southeast
Australia: historical review, data synthesis and modern perspectives. Aust. J. Earth
Sci. 51 (6), 773–817.
Gurnis, M., Muller, R.D., 2003. Origin of the Australian–Antarctic Discordance from an
ancient slab and mantle wedge. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 372, 417–429.
Gurnis, M., Muller, R.D., Moresi, L., 1998. Cretaceous vertical motion of Australia and the
Australian–Antarctic Discordance. Science 279 (5356), 1499–1504.
Hackney, R., 2004. Gravity anomalies, crustal structure and isostasy associated with the
Proterozoic Capricorn Orogen, Western Australia. Precambrian Res. 128 (3–4),
219–236.
Hand, M., Mawby, J., Kinny, P., Foden, J., 1999. U–Pb ages from the Harts Range, central
Australia: Evidence for early Ordovician extension and constraints on Carbonifer-
ous metamorphism. J. Geol. Soc. 156 (4), 715–730.
Heiskanen, W.A., Vening Meinesz, F.A., 1958. The Earth and its Gravity Field. McGraw-
Hill, New York. 472 pp.
Lambeck, K., Burgess, G., 1992. Deep crustal structure of the Musgrave Block, central
Australia: results from teleseismic travel time anomalies. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 39 (1), 1–19.
Lister, G.S., Etheridge, M.A., Symonds, P.A., 1991. Detachment models for the formation
of passive continental margins. Tectonics 10 (5), 1038–1064.
Mathur, S.P., 1983. Deep crustal reflection results from the central Eromanga Basin,
Australia. Tectonophysics 100 (1–3), 163–173.
Mooney, W.D., Laske, G., Masters, T.G., 1998. CRUST 5.1: A global crustal model at
5° × 5°. J.Geophys. Res. B: Solid Earth 103 (1), 727–747.
Murray, A., 2001. Gravity Anomaly Grid of the Australian Region. Geoscience Australia.
Parker, R.L., 1994. Geophysical Inverse Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton
N.J. 386 pp.
Parsons, B., Sclater, J.G., 1977. An analysis of the variation of ocean floor bathymetry and
heat flow with age. J. Geophys. Res. 82 (5), 803–827.
Poudjom Djomani, Y.H., O'Reilly, S.Y., Griffin, W.L., Morgan, P., 2001. The density
structure of subcontinental lithosphere through time. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 184
(3–4), 605–621.
Sandiford, M., Quigley, M., 2009. TOPO-OZ: Insights into the various modes of intraplate
deformation in the Australian continent. Tectonophysics 474 (1–2), 405–416.
Shaw, R.D., Etheridge, M.A., Lambeck, K., 1991. Development of the late Proterozoic to
mid-Paleozoic, intracratonic Amadeus Basin in central Australia: a key to
understanding tectonic forces in plate interiors. Tectonics 10 (4), 688–721.
Shaw, R.D., Wellman, P., Gunn, P., Whitaker, A.J., Tarlkowski, C., Morse, M., 1995.
“Australian crustal elements” map; a geophysical model for the tectonic framework
of the continent. AGSO Res. Newsl. 23, 1–3.
 A.R.A. Aitken / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297 (2010) 71–83
Shin, Y.H., Shum, C.K., Braitenberg, C., Lee, S.M., Xu, H., Choi, K.S., Baek, J.H., Park, J.U.,
2009. Three-dimensional fold structure of the Tibetan Moho from GRACE gravity
data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 (1).
Simons, F.J., Zielhuis, A., Van Der Hilst, R.D., 1999. The deep structure of the Australian
continent from surface wave tomography. Lithos 48 (1–4), 17–43.
Tapley, B., Ries, J., Bettadpur, D., Chambers, M., Cheng, M., Condi, F., Poole, S., 2007. The
GGM03 mean Earth gravity model from GRACE. EOS Trans. AGU 88 (52) Fall Meet.
Suppl. Abstract G42A-03.
Von Frese, R.R.B., 1999. Antarctic crustal modeling from the spectral correlation of free-
air gravity anomalies with the terrain. J. Geophys. Res. B: Solid Earth 104 (B11),
25275–25296.
Webster, M.A., Petkovic, P., 2005. Australian Bathymetry and Topography Grid, June
2005. Geoscience Australia.
83
Weissel, J.K., Karner, G.D., 1989. Flexural uplift of rift flanks due to mechanical
unloading of the lithosphere during extension. J. Geophys. Res. B: Solid Earth
Planets 94 (10).
Whitmarsh, R.B., Manatschal, G., Minshull, T.A., 2001. Evolution of magma-poor
continental margins from rifting to seafloor spreading. Nature 413 (6852),
150–154.
Wingate, M.T.D., Pirajno, F., Morris, P.A., 2004. Warakurna large igneous province: a
new Mesoproterozoic large igneous province in west-central Australia. Geology 32
(2), 105–108.
Yoshizawa, K., Kennett, B.L.N., 2004. Multimode surface wave tomography for the
Australian region using a three-stage approach incorporating finite frequency
effects. J. Geophys. Res. B: Solid Earth 109 (2) B02310 1B02310 19.