Skip to content

References

Below is a list of references (sorted by date, newest first) used in the IGMAS+ documentation, tutorial, examples, as well as in the IGMAS+ software itself.
The list also includes publications with IGMAS+ applications and some additional references that are not directly used in the documentation, but are relevant to the topics covered.

  1. L. Baron, M. Scarponi, D. Anikiev, E. Barbély, J. Benedek, H.-J. Götze, M. Ismaiel, G. Papp, S. Schmidt, R. Tondi, and G. Hetényi. Participative gravity-modelling of the Balmuccia peridotite body: progress report. In EGU2025 Abstracts. Copernicus GmbH, apr 2025. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-17417. ↩

  2. D. Godová, C. Sippl, and A. Tassara. Building a 3d gravity-based model of the north chilean subduction zone constrained by recent seismic results. In EGU2025 Abstracts. Copernicus GmbH, apr 2025. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-8366. ↩

  3. H.-J. Götze, D. Anikiev, C. Plonka, S. Schmidt, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. Advancements in 3D potential field modeling: enhancing lithospheric insights with IGMAS+. In EGU2025 Abstracts. Copernicus GmbH, apr 2025. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-3292. ↩

  4. K. Liao, N. Qiu, Q. Feng, C. Zhu, and Q. Jiang. Crustal structure and deep geotherm of the Pearl River Delta in South China: Insights from gravity and thermal modeling. Geothermics, 127:103245, March 2025. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.103245. ↩

  5. J. Pánisová, M. Bielik, M. Huraiová, D. Godová, V. Bezák, P. Konečný, and V. Hurai. Insight into the continental lithosphere using 3D geophysical and petrological modelling: An example from the Novohrad-Gemer region (Pannonian Basin, Slovakia-Hungary). Global and Planetary Change, 247:104735, April 2025. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2025.104735. ↩

  6. D. Anikiev, M. Cacace, U. b. Waheed, K. Ayranci, and C. Plonka. Enhancing geoscience research software utilization with Large Language Models. In AGU Annual Meeting 2024. AGU, 2024. ↩

  7. D. Anikiev, H.-J. Götze, C. Plonka, and S. Schmidt. Subsurface space warping driven by gravity data. In Alpine-Carpathian Gravimetry Workshop. Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, 2024. ↩

  8. S. Choi, S.-W. Kim, Y. Shin, and E.-K. Choi. Meteorite Impact Origin of Yangju Circular Structure in the Middle Part of the Korean Peninsula Estimated by Gravity Field Interpretation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2024. doi:10.1007/1345_2024_278. ↩

  9. D. Godová and C. Sippl. Towards a 3D integrated geophysical model of Northern Chile. In EGU2024 Abstracts. Copernicus GmbH, apr 2024. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-8006. ↩

  10. H.-J. Götze, R. Strehlau, A. Dannowski, D. Anikiev, A. Kumar, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. Do gravity data justify a rifted “Liguro-Provençal Basin”? Frontiers in Earth Science, October 2024. doi:10.3389/feart.2024.1475025. ↩

  11. H.-J. Götze, R. Strehlau, A. Dannowski, D. Anikiev, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. Harnessing modern 3D gravity analysis techniques: a study of the Ligurian offshore area. In EGU2024 Abstracts. Copernicus GmbH, apr 2024. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-6228. ↩

  12. H.-J. Götze, R. Strehlau, Dannowski, A., S. Schmidt, C. Plonka, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, and D. Anikiev. Do gravity data justify a rifted “Liguro-Provençal Basin”? - A few thoughts on gravity data analysis. In Alpine-Carpathian Gravimetry Workshop. Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, 2024. ↩

  13. A. Guy, C. Tiberi, and S. Mijiddorj. Crustal structures from receiver functions and gravity modeling in Central Mongolia. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, January 2024. doi:10.1029/2023jb027614. ↩

  14. P. Haas, M. F. H. Thomas, C. Heine, J. Ebbing, A. Seregin, and J. van Itterbeeck. Increased metamorphic conditions in the lower crust during oceanic transform fault evolution. Solid Earth, 15(12):1419–1443, December 2024. doi:10.5194/se-15-1419-2024. ↩

  15. T. A. Jordan and T. R. Riley. Reinvestigating the Dufek Intrusion, through joint gravity and magnetic models. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 356:107268, November 2024. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2024.107268. ↩

  16. V. Oliveira, A. C. Dutra, and O. H. D. J. Das Flores. Geophysical characterization and tectonic insights of the Western Meridional Borborema Province in the Northeastern Region of Brazil. Earth Sciences Research Journal, 28(3):239–254, November 2024. doi:10.15446/esrj.v28n3.113767. ↩

  17. L. Seib, M. Frey, C. Bossennec, M. Krusemark, T. Burschil, H. Buness, L. Weydt, and I. Sass. Assessment of a medium-deep borehole thermal energy storage site in the crystalline basement: A case study of the demo site Lichtwiese Campus, Darmstadt. Geothermics, 119:102933, May 2024. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.102933. ↩

  18. M. R. Alvers, H.-J. Götze, D. Anikiev, and C. Plonka. Inversion of potential fields by interactive optimization of 3D subsurface models using a spring-based space warping and evolution strategy. GEOPHYSICS, 88(3):G79–G93, apr 2023. doi:10.1190/geo2022-0222.1. ↩

  19. D. Anikiev, H.-J. Götze, C. Plonka, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, and S. Schmidt. Igmas+: interactive gravity and magnetic application system. 2023. doi:10.5880/GFZ.4.5.IGMAS.V.1.4. ↩

  20. D. Anikiev, H.-J. Götze, C. Plonka, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, and S. Schmidt. Igmas+: interactive gravity and magnetic application system. 2023. doi:10.5880/GFZ.4.5.IGMAS. ↩

  21. D. Anikiev, H.-J. Götze, C. Plonka, S. Schmidt, J. Bott, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. Interactive optimisation of 3-D subsurface models using potential fields. In EGU2023 Abstracts. Copernicus GmbH, feb 2023. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-1860. ↩

  22. M. E. Benítez, C. Prezzi, C. A. Ballivián Justiniano, S. O. Verdecchia, F. J. De Martino, M. Carlini, and M. E. Lanfranchini. Ground magnetic survey and 3D geophysical model of ultrabasic rocks from the Martín García Complex (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 121:104117, January 2023. doi:10.1016/j.jsames.2022.104117. ↩

  23. M. L. Gomez Dacal, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, J. I. Faleide, J. Bott, M. Abdelmalak, and D. Anikiev. The role of the Iceland plume in the NE Atlantic continental breakup derived from a data-integrative 3D model. In The 28th IUGG General Assembly, IUGG23–2778. GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, 2023. doi:10.57757/IUGG23-2778. ↩

  24. M. Frey, C. Bossennec, and I. Sass. Mapping buried fault zones in a granitic pluton using aeromagnetic data. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 180(6):2241–2255, March 2023. doi:10.1007/s00024-023-03258-2. ↩

  25. M. L. Gómez Dacal, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, J. I. Faleide, M. M. Abdelmalak, J. Bott, and D. Anikiev. Tracing the Iceland plume and North East Atlantic breakup in the lithosphere. Communications Earth & Environment, December 2023. doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01120-w. ↩

  26. H.-J. Götze, D. Anikiev, S. Schmidt, C. Plonka, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, and J. Bott. Is forward modeling still up to date? Reflections on the 40 years of modeling gravity and magnetic fields. In The 28th IUGG General Assembly, IUGG23–0291. GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, 2023. doi:10.57757/IUGG23-0291. ↩

  27. J. Heinicke, H. Woith, C. Alexandrakis-Zieger, S. Buske, R. Käppler, O. Krentz, and P. Menzel. Neogene and Quaternary dikes and related joints as conduits for recent juvenile degassing: case studies from the seismically active region of NW-Bohemia, Czech Republic. Bulletin of Volcanology, May 2023. doi:10.1007/s00445-023-01650-3. ↩

  28. R. Issachar, A. M. Gómez-Garc\'ıa, and J. Ebbing. Lithospheric structure of the Red Sea based on 3d density modeling: a contrasting rift architecture. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, may 2023. doi:10.1029/2022jb025458. ↩

  29. Y. Li, S. Liu, P. Tan, J. Bott, D. Anikiev, A. Kumar, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. The lithospheric structure of the south china sea indicated by 3d gravity modelling. In The 28th IUGG General Assembly, IUGG23–4237. GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, 2023. doi:10.57757/IUGG23-4237. ↩

  30. J. Pánisová, F. Greco, D. Carbone, S. F. Branca, and P. Vajda. New insights into geological setting of the summit area of mount Etna volcano (Italy) inferred from 2D gravity data modelling. Frontiers in Earth Science, May 2023. doi:10.3389/feart.2023.1171884. ↩

  31. D. Anikiev, H.-J. Götze, J. Bott, C. Meeßen, C. Plonka, S. Schmidt, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. IGMAS$\mathplus $: a success story of a 3-d potential field modelling software. In EGU2022 Abstracts. Copernicus GmbH, mar 2022. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-9388. ↩

  32. H.-J. Götze, J. Bott, B. Kaus, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, and C. Schuler. New insights in the lithospheric configuration of the ligurian-proven&amp$\mathsemicolon \(\#231\)\mathsemicolon $al basin derived from gravity field interpretation. In EGU2022 Abstracts. Copernicus GmbH, mar 2022. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-2908. ↩

  33. A. Guy, C. Tiberi, and S. Mijiddorj. Crustal structures from receiver functions and gravity analysis in central mongolia. In EGU2022 Abstracts. Copernicus GmbH, mar 2022. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-1673. ↩

  34. E. S. Ince, C. Förste, O. Abrykosov, and F. Flechtner. Topographic Gravity Field Modelling for Improving High-Resolution Global Gravity Field Models, pages 203–212. Springer International Publishing, 2022. doi:10.1007/1345_2022_154. ↩

  35. A. Kumar, M. Cacace, M. Scheck‐Wenderoth, H.‐J. Götze, and B. J. P. Kaus. Present‐day upper‐mantle architecture of the alps: insights from data‐driven dynamic modeling. Geophysical Research Letters, September 2022. doi:10.1029/2022GL099476. ↩

  36. I. Ognev, J. Ebbing, and P. Haas. Crustal structure of the Volgo-Uralian subcraton revealed by inverse and forward gravity modelling. Solid Earth, 13(2):431–448, March 2022. doi:10.5194/se-13-431-2022. ↩

  37. R. Pašteka, P. Zahorec, J. Papčo, J. Mrlina, H.-J. Götze, and S. Schmidt. The discovery of the \textquotedblleft muons-chamber\textquotedblright in the great pyramid$\mathsemicolon $ could high-precision microgravimetry also map the chamber? Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 43:103464, jun 2022. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103464. ↩

  38. D. Anikiev, H.-J. Götze, J. Bott, À. Gómez-Garc\'ıa, M. L. Gomez Dacal, C. Meeßen, C. Spooner, C. Rodriguez Piceda, C. Plonka, S. Schmidt, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. Interdisciplinary data-constrained 3-d potential field modelling with IGMAS+. In EGU General Assembly 2021, EGU21–2964. mar 2021. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-2964. ↩

  39. A. M. Gómez-Garcia, E. Le Breton, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, G. Monsalve, and D. Anikiev. The preserved plume of the caribbean large igneous plateau revealed by 3d data-integrative models. Solid Earth, 12(1):275–298, jan 2021. doi:10.5194/se-12-275-2021. ↩

  40. H.-J. Götze, J. Bott, M. L. Gómez Dacal, A. M. Gomez Garcia, C. Rodriguez Piceda, C. Meeßen, C. Plonka, C. Spooner, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, S. Schmidt, and D. Anikiev. Interdisciplinary 3D potential field modelling of complex lithospheric structures by IGMAS+. In DGG 81. Jahrestagung 2021 Proceedings. FID GEO, 2021. doi:10.23689/FIDGEO-3938. ↩

  41. H.-J. Götze and F. Wellmann. Uncertainties in Geomodelling Related to Geophysical Inversion. In Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics, pages 1885–1892. Springer International Publishing, 2021. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58631-7_241. ↩

  42. C. O. Mueller, J. Wächter, Jahnke C., E. L. Pueyo Morer, Riefstahl F., and Malz A. Integrated geological and gravity modelling to improve 3-d model harmonization—methods and benefits for the saxony-anhalt/brandenburg cross-border region (north german basin). Geophysical Journal International, 227(2):1295–1321, jul 2021. doi:10.1093/gji/ggab256. ↩

  43. P. Zahorec, J. Papčo, R. Pašteka, M. Bielik, S. Bonvalot, C. Braitenberg, J. Ebbing, G. Gabriel, A. Gosar, A. Grand, H.-J. Götze, G. Hetényi, N. Holzrichter, E. Kissling, U. Marti, B. Meurers, J. Mrlina, E. Nogová, A. Pastorutti, C. Salaun, M. Scarponi, J. Sebera, L. Seoane, P. Skiba, E. Szűcs, and M. Varga. The first pan-Alpine surface-gravity database, a modern compilation that crosses frontiers. Earth System Science Data, 13(5):2165–2209, may 2021. doi:10.5194/essd-13-2165-2021. ↩

  44. D. Anikiev, H.-J. Götze, C. Meeßen, C. Plonka, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, and S. Schmidt. Igmas+: interactive gravity and magnetic application system. 2020. doi:10.5880/GFZ.4.5.IGMAS.V.1.3. ↩

  45. T. Dahm, M. Stiller, J. Mechie, S. Heimann, M. Hensch, H. Woith, B. Schmidt, G. Gabriel, and M. Weber. Seismological and geophysical signatures of the deep crustal magma systems of the cenozoic volcanic fields beneath the Eifel, Germany. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, August 2020. doi:10.1029/2020gc009062. ↩

  46. S. E. Vazquez Lucero, C. Prezzi, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, J. Bott, M. L. Gomez Dacal, F. I. Balestrini, and H. Vizán. 3d gravity modelling of colorado and claromecó basins: new evidences for the evolution of the southwestern margin of gondwana. International Journal of Earth Sciences, nov 2020. doi:10.1007/s00531-020-01944-3. ↩

  47. C. Rodriguez Piceda, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, M. L. Gómez Dacal, J. Bott, C. B. Prezzi, and M. R. Strecker. Lithospheric density structure of the southern central andes and their forelands constrained by 3d gravity modelling. In EGU General Assembly 2020, EGU2020–3313. mar 2020. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-3313. ↩

  48. C. Rodriguez Piceda, M. Scheck Wenderoth, M. L. Gomez Dacal, J. Bott, C. B. Prezzi, and M. R. Strecker. Lithospheric density structure of the southern central andes constrained by 3d data-integrative gravity modelling. International Journal of Earth Sciences, dec 2020. doi:10.1007/s00531-020-01962-1. ↩

  49. S. Schmidt, D. Anikiev, H.-J. Götze, À. Gomez Garcia, M. L. Gomez Dacal, C. Meeßen, C. Plonka, C. Rodriguez Piceda, C. Spooner, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. Igmas+ – a tool for interdisciplinary 3d potential field modelling of complex geological structures. In EGU General Assembly 2020, EGU2020–8383. 2020. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-8383. ↩

  50. C. Spooner, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, M. Cacace, H.-J. Götze, and E. Luijendijk. The 3d thermal field across the alpine orogen and its forelands and the relation to seismicity. Global and Planetary Change, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2020.103288. ↩

  51. D. Anikiev, A. Lechel, M. L. Gomez Dacal, J. Bott, M. Cacace, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. A three-dimensional lithospheric-scale thermal model of germany. Advances in Geosciences, 49:225–234, 2019. doi:10.5194/adgeo-49-225-2019. ↩

  52. E. Gholamrezaie, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, J. Bott, O. Heidbach, and M. R. Strecker. 3-d crustal density model of the sea of marmara. Solid Earth, 10(3):785–807, jun 2019. doi:10.5194/se-10-785-2019. ↩

  53. F. Ibarra, S. Liu, C. Meeßen, C. B. Prezzi, J. Bott, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, S. Sobolev, and M. R. Strecker. 3d data-derived lithospheric structure of the central andes and its implications for deformation: insights from gravity and geodynamic modelling. Tectonophysics, 766:453–468, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2019.06.025. ↩

  54. E. S. Ince, F. Barthelmes, S. Reißland, K. Elger, C. Förste, F. Flechtner, and H. Schuh. ICGEM – 15 years of successful collection and distribution of global gravitational models, associated services, and future plans. Earth System Science Data, 11(2):647–674, may 2019. doi:10.5194/essd-11-647-2019. ↩

  55. C. Meeßen. The thermal and rheological state of the Northern Argentinian foreland basins. Thesis, Universität Potsdam, 2019. ↩

  56. R. Pašteka, D. Kušnirák, D. Wilken, R. Putiška, J. Papčo, D. Godová, I. Zvara, E. Nogová, and L. Ondrášová. Effective combination of microgravimetry and geoelectrical methods in the detection of subsurface cavities in archaeological prospection – selected case-studies from slovakia. Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy, 49(4):479–496, 2019. doi:10.2478/congeo-2019-0025. ↩

  57. M. Sobh. Processing and interpretation of satellite and terrestrial gravity data for the lithospheric structure of Egypt and the Saharan Metacraton. Thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, 2019. ↩

  58. C. Spooner, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, H.-J. Götze, J. Ebbing, and G. Hetényi. Density distribution across the alpine lithosphere constrained by 3-d gravity modelling and relation to seismicity and deformation. Solid Earth, 10(6):2073–2088, 2019. doi:10.5194/se-10-2073-2019. ↩

  59. H.-J. Götze and R. Pail. Insights from recent gravity satellite missions in the density structure of continental margins – with focus on the passive margins of the south atlantic. Gondwana Research, 53:285–308, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.gr.2017.04.015. ↩

  60. Z. Pastore. Geophysical mapping of the mafic and ultramafic rocks of the Seiland Igneous Province from the kilometer to the micrometer scale. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2018. ↩

  61. S. Schmidt, H.-J. Götze, and P. Menzel. Towards an integrative interpretation of potential fields and corresponding gradients by the aid of three-dimensional modelling and visualization, tipot3d. Report DGMK-Projekt 771, DGMK, 2018. URL: https://dgmk.de/publikationen/towards-an-integrative-interpretation-of-potential-fields-and-corresponding-gradients-by-the-aid-of-three-dimensional-modelling-and-visualization-tipot3d/. ↩

  62. J. Freymark, J. Sippel, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, K. Bär, M. Stiller, J.-G. Fritsche, and M. Kracht. The deep thermal field of the Upper Rhine Graben. Tectonophysics, 694:114–129, jan 2017. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2016.11.013. ↩

  63. M. L. Gómez Dacal, C. Tocho, E. Aragon, J. Sippel, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, and A. Ponce. Lithospheric 3d gravity modelling using upper-mantle density constraints: towards a characterization of the crustal configuration in the north patagonian massif area, argentina. Tectonophysics, 700:150–161, mar 2017. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2017.02.011. ↩

  64. H.-J. Götze, S. Schmidt, and P. Menzel. Integrative interpretation of potential field data by 3d-modelling and visualization. OIL GAS European Magazine, 43(4):202–208, 2017. doi:10.19225/171206. ↩

  65. J. Pánisová, A. Balázs, Z. Zalai, M. Bielik, F. Horváth, S. Harangi, S. Schmidt, and H.-J. Götze. Intraplate volcanism in the danube basin of nw hungary: 3d geophysical modelling of the late miocene pásztori volcano. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 107(5):1713–1730, 2017. doi:10.1007/s00531-017-1567-5. ↩

  66. J. Šefara, M. Bielik, J. Vozár, M. Katona, V. Szalaiová, A. Vozárová, B. Šimonová, J. Pánisová, S. Schmidt, and H.-J. Götze. 3d density modelling of gemeric granites of the western carpathians. Geologica Carpathica, 68(3):177–192, 2017. doi:10.1515/geoca-2017-0014. ↩

  67. J. Sippel, C. Meeßen, M. Cacace, J. Mechie, S. Fishwick, C. Heine, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, and M. R. Strecker. The kenya rift revisited: insights into lithospheric strength through data-driven 3-d gravity and thermal modelling. Solid Earth, 8(1):45–81, 2017. doi:10.5194/se-8-45-2017. ↩

  68. P. Menzel. Neue numerische Methoden zur Bearbeitung und 3D Interpretation von Geodaten und -modellen in interdisziplinärer Forschung. Thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, 2016. URL: https://macau.uni-kiel.de/receive/diss_mods_00021287. ↩

  69. Z. Pastore, C. Fichler, and S. A. McEnroe. The deep crustal structure of the mafic–ultramafic Seiland Igneous Province of Norway from 3-D gravity modelling and geological implications. Geophysical Journal International, 207(3):1653–1666, September 2016. doi:10.1093/gji/ggw362. ↩

  70. M. R. Alvers, L. Barrio-Alvers, C. Bodor, H.-J. Götze, B. Lahmeyer, C. Plonka, and S. Schmidt. Quo vadis inversión? First break, 2015. doi:10.3997/1365-2397.33.4.79746. ↩

  71. H.-J. Götze, M. R. Alvers, L. Barrio-Alvers, B. Lahmeyer, C. Plonka, and S. Schmidt. Advanced interactive 3D potential field modelling. In H. Schaeben, R. Tolosana Delgado, K. G. van den Boogaart, and R. van den Boogaart, editors, The 17th annual conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geosciences. 2015. ↩

  72. T. Schaller, J. Andersen, H.-J. Götze, N. Koproch, S. Schmidt, M. Sobiesiak, and S. Splettstößer. Segmentation of the andean margin by isostatic models and gradients. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 59:69–85, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.jsames.2015.01.008. ↩

  73. M. R. Alvers, H.-J. Götze, L. Barrio-Alvers, S. Schmidt, B. Lahmeyer, and C. Plonka. A novel warped-space concept for interactive 3D-geometry-inversion to improve seismic imaging. First Break, 2014. doi:10.3997/1365-2397.32.4.74375. ↩

  74. C. P. Dubey, H.-J. Götze, S. Schmidt, and V. M. Tiwari. A 3d model of the wathlingen salt dome in the northwest german basin from joint modeling of gravity, gravity gradient, and curvature. Interpretation, 2(4):SJ103–SJ115, 2014. doi:10.1190/int-2014-0012.1. ↩

  75. H.‐J. Götze. Potential Methods and Geoinformation Systems. Handbook of Geomathematics. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2014. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27793-1_52-2. ↩

  76. H.-J. Götze, M. Afanasjew, M. R. Alvers, L. Barrio-Alvers, R.-U. Börner, C. Brandes, R. Eröss, P. Menzel, U. Meyer, and M. Scheunert. Towards an Integrative Inversion and Interpretation of Airborne and Terrestrial Data, pages 21–41. Springer International Publishing, 2014. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04205-3_2. ↩

  77. C. Haase. On the inversion of potential field data: Physical property estimations and model geometry changes. Thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, 2014. URL: https://macau.uni-kiel.de/receive/diss_mods_00015379. ↩

  78. A. M. Przybycin, M. Scheck-Wenderoth, and M. Schneider. Assessment of the isostatic state and the load distribution of the European Molasse basin by means of lithospheric-scale 3D structural and 3D gravity modelling. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 104(5):1405–1424, December 2014. doi:10.1007/s00531-014-1132-4. ↩

  79. M. R. Alvers, H.-J. Götze, B. Lahmeyer, C. Plonka, and S. Schmidt. Advances in 3d potential field modeling. In London 2013, 75th eage conference en exhibition incorporating SPE Europec. EAGE Publications BV, 2013. doi:10.3997/2214-4609.20130125. ↩

  80. M. R. Alvers, C. Plonka, S. Schmidt, and L. Barrio-Alvers. Semi-automated geometry optimization of voxelized triangle models by means of Covariance-Matrix-Adoption Evolution-Strategies and user interaction. In 73 Jahrestagung der Deutschen Geophysikalischen Gesellschaft, 289. DGG, 2013. URL: https://dgg-online.de/WordPress_01/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/DGG-2013-komprimiert.pdf. ↩

  81. F. Barthelmes. Definition of functionals of the geopotential and their calculation from spherical harmonic models. Scientific Technical Report; 09/02; ISSN 1610-0956, 2013. doi:10.2312/GFZ.B103-0902-26. ↩

  82. S. Choi, C.-W. Oh, and H.-J. Götze. Three-dimensional density modeling of the egm2008 gravity field over the mount paekdu volcanic area. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 118(7):3820–3836, 2013. doi:10.1002/jgrb.50266. ↩

  83. l. Klinge. Analyse des Schwere- und Spannungsfeldes an passiven Kontinentalrändern. Thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, 2013. ↩

  84. F. Hese. 3D Modellierungen und Visualisierung von Untergrundstrukturen für die Nutzung des unterirdischen Raumes in Schleswig-Holstein. Thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, 2012. ↩

  85. C. O. Müller. Joint Interpretation of seismic and potential field modelling to improve imaging of salt structures in the south-western Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea. Thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel and Norges geologiske undersøkelse Department of Continental shelf geophysics, Trondheim, Norway, 2012. ↩

  86. S. Choi, H.-J. Götze, and U. Meyer. 3-d density modelling of underground structures and spatial distribution of salt diapirism in the dead sea basin. Geophysical Journal International, 184(3):1131–1146, 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.04939.x. ↩

  87. S. Schmidt, C. Plonka, H.-J. Götze, and B. Lahmeyer. Hybrid modelling of gravity, gravity gradients and magnetic fields. Geophysical Prospecting, 59(6):1046–1051, 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00999.x. ↩

  88. H.-J. Götze and R. Mahatsente. Goce gravity gradiometry: examples of gravity field interpretation from the south-central american active continental margins. In R. J. L. Lane, editor, Airborne Gravity 2010, 87–90. ASEG-PESA, 2010. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265164440_GOCE_gravity_gradiometry_Examples_of_gravity_field_interpretation_from_the_South-Central_American_active_continental_margins. ↩

  89. B. Lahmeyer, H.-J. Götze, S. Schmidt, M. R. Alvers, C. Plonka, and C. Fichler. Interactive 3d gravity modelling in igmas+ and the integration in the depth imaging workflow. In 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010, cp–161–00158. EAGE, 2010. doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201400750. ↩

  90. S. Schmidt, H.-J. Götze, C. Fichler, and M. R. Alvers. Igmas+ a new 3d gravity, ftg and magnetic modeling software. In Geoinformatik, 57–63. 2010. ↩

  91. T. Damm and H.‐J. Götze. Modern geodata management: application of interdisciplinary interpretation and visualization in central america. International Journal of Geophysics, 2009:1–13, 2009. doi:10.1155/2009/878324. ↩

  92. C. Haase. Inversion of gravity, gravity gradient, and magnetic data with application to subsalt imaging. Thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, 2008. ↩

  93. H.-J. Götze, R. El-Kelani, S. Schmidt, M. Rybakov, M. Hassouneh, H. J. Förster, and J. Ebbing. Integrated 3d density modelling and segmentation of the dead sea transform. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 96(2):303–303, 2006. doi:10.1007/s00531-006-0108-4. ↩

  94. G. Woldetinsae and H.-J. Götze. Gravity field and isostatic state of ethiopia and adjacent areas. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 41(1-2):103–117, 2005. doi:10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2005.02.004. ↩

  95. J. Ebbing. 3D-Dichteverteilung und isostatisches Verhalten der Lithosphäre in den Ostalpen. Thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, 2002. ↩

  96. X. Li and H.-J. Götze. Ellipsoid, geoid, gravity, geodesy, and geophysics. GEOPHYSICS, 66(6):1660–1668, nov 2001. doi:10.1190/1.1487109. ↩

  97. M. R. Alvers. Zur Anwendung von Optimierungsstrategien auf Potentialfeldmodelle. Thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, 1998. ↩

  98. H.‐J. Götze and R. T. Williams. Digitization of maps and associated geoscience data: guidelines for Global Geoscience Tsransects. Inter-Union Commission on the Lithosphere and American Geophysical Union, 1993. ↩

  99. L. B. Pedersen and T. M. Rasmussen. The gradient tensor of potential field anomalies: some implications on data collection and data processing of maps. GEOPHYSICS, 55(12):1558–1566, December 1990. doi:10.1190/1.1442807. ↩

  100. B. Lahmeyer. Anwendung der schnellen Fouriertransformation und der quadratischen Programmierung bei der Interpretation von Schwerefeldern. Thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, 1989. ↩

  101. H.‐J. Götze and B. Lahmeyer. Application of three‐dimensional interactive modeling in gravity and magnetics. Geophysics, 53(8):1096–1108, 1988. doi:10.1190/1.1442546. ↩

  102. S. Schmidt. Untersuchungen zum regionalen Verlauf des Vertikalgradienten der Schwere im Hochgebirge. Thesis, TU Clausthal, 1985. ↩

  103. H.-J. Götze. Über den einsatz interaktiver computergraphik im rahmen 3-dimensionaler interpretationstechniken in gravimetrie und magnetik. Unpublished Work, 1984. ↩

  104. R. J. Renka. Algorithm 624: Triangulation and Interpolation at Arbitrarily Distributed Points in the Plane. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 10(4):440–442, December 1984. doi:10.1145/2701.356108. ↩

  105. H.‐J. Götze. Ein numerisches Verfahren zur Berechnung der gravimetrischen und magnetischen Feldgrößen für dreidimensionale Modellkörper. Archiv für Meteorologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie Serie A, 27(2):195–215, June 1978. doi:10.1007/BF02246695. ↩

  106. H.‐J. Götze. Ein numerisches Verfahren zur Berechnung der gravimetrischen und magnetischen Feldgrößen für dreidimensionale Modellkörper. Thesis, TU Clausthal, 1976. ↩

  107. E Mundry. Zur automatischen Herstellung von Isolinienplänen. BEIH. GEOL. JB., pages 77–93, 1970. ↩