Sensitivity of elastic thickness to water in the Martian lithosphere

Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

Table 2 Local variation in crustal structure and results of calculated elastic thickness

Area	Age	Crust thickness (km)	Curvature (10^–7)	Th (ppm)	K (ppm)	Elastic thickness (km) dry model	Elastic thickness (km) wet model	Elastic thickness (km) wet clay model
Olympus Mons	Amazonian	55	1.6	3390	0.63	129–155	22–30	17–23
Ascraeus Mons	Amazonian	70	0.7	3220	0.67	120–153	22–30	18–23
Pavonis Mons	Amazonian	75	1.0	3540	0.68	94–125	20–25	15–19
Arsia Mons	Amazonian	85	13.0	3630	0.63	27–45	9–11	6–8
Alba Patera	Amazonian-Hesperian	65	1.2	3070	0.51	60–81	16–19	12–15
Elysium rise	Amazonian-Hesperian	45	6.1	2900	0.53	61–74	12–15	9–11
Solis Planum	Hesperian	70	−4.7	2540	0.42	33–40	11–12	6–8
Hellas S rim	Hesperian-Noachian	55	−3.4	2850	0.36	43–60	13–15	7–9
Hellas W rim	Hesperian-Noachian	55	3.9	3750	0.77	23–29	8–11	5–7
Hellas Basin	Noachian	15	7.6	3030	0.36	51–59	34–39	25–30
NE Arabia Terra	Noachian	50	2.4	3640	0.79	25–30	9–12	6–7
Noachis Terra	Noachian	65	3.1	3850	0.75	18–22	7–10	4–5
Terra Cimmeria	Noachian	60	4.2	4830	0.97	15–18	6–9	4–5

Age boundary from Hartmann and Neukum (2001), crust thickness from Neumann et al. (2004), curvature from Ruiz et al. (2006), and heat production elements from Taylor et al. (2006)
Negative curvature indicates the compressional field. Lower value calculated elastic thickness for strain-rate of 10⁻¹⁹ (s⁻¹), and higher for 10⁻¹⁶ (s⁻¹)