Advertisement

Marine Geophysical Research

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 223–227 | Cite as

Radially symmetric coherence between satellite gravity and multibeam bathymetry grids

  • K. M. Marks
  • W. H. F. Smith
Original Research Paper

Abstract

We compute the radially symmetric coherence between multibeam bathymetry and satellite gravity grids in 25 areas distributed around the world. In contrast to previous studies employing one-dimensional analysis of data along profiles, our results cannot be biased by unseen off-track topography. The mean coherence averaged over the 20–160 km waveband, and the shortest wavelength at which coherence is above 0.5, vary with tectonic setting. Seamounts and slow spreading ridges have high (>0.7) mean coherence down to ~20 km wavelength, other spreading ridges and trenches have intermediate (0.5–0.7) coherence down to ~20–30 km wavelength, and continental shelves have low (<0.5) coherence at all wavelengths. In the areas with highest mean coherence, the shortest wavelength at which coherence is above 0.5 decreases as mean depth decreases. The filter employed in the bathymetric prediction method of Smith and Sandwell (J Geophys Res 99(B11):21803–21824, 1994) selects the most coherent parts of the bathymetry and gravity spectrum.

Keywords

Coherence Satellite gravity Multibeam Bathymetry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The comments of two anonymous reviewers improved this manuscript. We thank Dave McAdoo for helpful comments. GMT software (Wessel and Smith 1998) was used to make figures and perform computations. The views, opinions, and findings contained in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or U.S. Government position, policy, or decision.

References

  1. Bendat JS, Piersol AG (1986) Random data: analysis and measurement procedures, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. MacDonald KC (1982) Mid-ocean ridges: fine scale tectonic, volcanic and hydrothermal processes within the plate boundary zone. Ann Rev Earth Planet Sci 10:155–190. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ea.10.050182.001103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Marks KM, Smith WHF (2007) Some remarks on resolving seamounts in satellite gravity. Geophys Res Lett 34:L03307. doi: 10.1029/2006GL028857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Marks KM, Smith WHF (2009) An uncertainty model for deep ocean single beam and multibeam echo sounder data. Mar Geophys Res 29:239–250. doi: 10.1007/s11001-008-9060-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Parker RL (1973) The rapid calculation of potential anomalies. Geophys J Roy Astron Soc 31:447–455. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1973.tb06513.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sandwell DT, McAdoo DC (1990) High-accuracy, high-resolution gravity profiles from 2 years of the Geosat exact repeat mission. J Geophys Res 95:3049–3060. doi: 10.1029/JC095ic03p03049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sandwell DT, Smith WHF (1997) Marine gravity anomaly from Geosat and ERS 1 satellite altimetry. J Geophys Res 102:10039–10054. doi: 10.1029/96JB03223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sandwell DT, Smith WHF (2009) Global marine gravity from retracked Geosat and ERS-1 altimetry: ridge segmentation versus spreading rate. J Geophys Res 114:B01411. doi: 10.1029/2008JB006008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Smith WHF, Sandwell DT (1994) Bathymetric prediction from dense satellite altimetry and sparse shipboard bathymetry. J Geophys Res 99(B11):21803–21824. doi: 10.1029/94JB00988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. von Frese RRB, Jones MB, Kim JW, Kim J-H (1997) Analysis of anomaly correlations. Geophysics 62(1):342–351. doi: 10.1190/1.1444136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wessel P, Smith WHF (1998) New, improved version of generic mapping tools released. EOS Trans AGU 79:579. doi: 10.1029/98EO00426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NOAA Laboratory for Satellite AltimetrySilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations