Upload
kermit-mcfadden
View
23
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Making the Earth’s crust - The generation and destruction of crustal masses through time. Mihai Ducea University of Arizona, Department of Geosciences Tucson, AZ, 85721. Outline. The paradox of continental formation Making basalts, the oceanic crust - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Making the Earth’s crust - The generation and destruction of crustal masses through time
Mihai Ducea
University of Arizona,
Department of Geosciences
Tucson, AZ, 85721
Outline
• The paradox of continental formation• Making basalts, the oceanic crust• Plate tectonics, now and in the geologic past;• Continental arcs- the possible solution• The need for a recycling mechanism• Future challenges
Continental crustal paradox
• Continental crust is being generated by several melting stages of the Earth;s mantle; it is essentially “distilled” from the mantle
• All mantle melts are basaltic
• Continents are granitic on average
• WE DON’T QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW CONTINENTS FORM(ED)
Granites, granodiorites, tonalites= continental crust
Basalt and gabbro density-3 g/cm3 Granite-2.7 g/cm3
Oceanic lithosphere- different from continental:Basaltic crust, relatively thin (5-7 km), leads to topographic lows
Heat engine- very efficientEarth differentiation- primarily by magmatism
Mantle convection-Mostly solid stateMelting shallow by adiabatic decompression
Lithosphere- the coldlid at the top
Chondrites- bulk Earth
Iron meteorites=core-like
Mantle xenoliths- PERIDOTITES
T - scale ~ plate motionsLength scales - appear much more complicated than the ridge-trench systems
CONVECTION
Convection cells penetrate to the core-mantle boundary
Making the oceanic crust
Young------- Old
The oceanic crust
• Young (< 200 Ma)
• Forms at mid-ocean ridges, the oceanic crust and lithosphere cools away from ridge
• Made entirely of basalt - which is what we expect to form by partial melting of the mantle
• All other solar system “crusts” are basaltic
In addition- experiments carried out under any possible conditions of mantle melting have demonstrated unambiguously that basaltic melts should be what we get out of the mantle.
Basaltic melts are ~ 50 SiO2, granites are 65% SiO2. If anything (e.g. higher degrees of melting) we’d expect lower than 50% SiO2 melts.
It is instructive to check if this applies to another product of mantle melting - “mantle plumes” or “hot spots” like Hawaii. The answer: YES, they’re also made of basalts.
What happens at subduction zones?
• Oceanic plates are young; older oceanic crust has been subducted
• Obviously it had to be recycled- otherwise the Earth should be increasing its volume
• At subduction zones, magmatism tends to follow the subduction margin - the resulting product is a magmatic “arc”
Island arcs - classic example- the Aleutians arc On average - the composition is also basaltic
But then there are the continents
• When did they form?• How did they form?• Answers: we think they form gradually over
the 4.5 Ga history of the Earth• We also think they form by remelting
basalts• That requires an additional “residual”
reservoir that we don’t see anywhere
Evidence for PT goes back to the Archean. Faster motions, more melt, smaller continents (the continental nuclei known as cratons or “croutons”)
Continents-succession of orogenic events
Ages of continental rocks
• Young ages are determined biostratigraphically
• Older rocks are being determined geochronologically
Zircons - as old as 40- 4.2 Ga; evidence for continental crust
Materials get accreted to the continental margin and become terranes, “exotic terranes”; I.e. blocks of unrelated origin that were once far apart but got assembled by accretion onto a continental margin
Adding mass to a continent
E.g. the Pacific
Classic example: the North American Cordillera
But a factory that transforms basalts into grantioids has to exist• The only reasonable place- the continental
arcs
• If not- we simply don’t have a good enough environment today (or in the recent geologic past) that makes continents
• The key place where all may can be explained: the Sierra Nevada of California
Coast batholith
Idaho batholith
Sierra Nevada
batholith
Peninsular Ranges
batholith
North American batholiths
5-10
km
Igneous Intrusions
????
100-1000000 km3
Typically shallow exposures and no deep “windows” into the arc
Partial melting
Melt
Residue
Melt
Cumulate
Fractionalcrystallization
Source region Magma chamber
melts
solids
cl
c0
=
1
D + F ( 1 − D )
1 part melt requires 1 to 2 parts residue
Sierra granitic thickness is 30-35 km, much larger than previously thought (8-10 km)
three deep crustal exposures (30-35 km)
BIG SUR (Santa Lucia Mts)
Granulites (feldspar +garnet +pyroxenes)
MiocenePliocene
Quaternary
CSNB-Central Sierra Nevada batholith
Xenoliths
Minerals:clinopyroxenegarnetorthopyroxeneamphibole rutile, apatite
Textures1. Large grain sizes2. Cumulate textures
=IGNEOUS textures
Gar
Cpx
Key new observations
• The arc is much thicker than thought
• Requires about 1:1 or 2;1 residue to melt ratio
• Much of the residue is not granulitic as all textbooks argue, but it is “ECLOGITIC”
Garnet- much denser than any other crustal mineral
ECLOGITE = garnet + pyroxene
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
650 850 1050 1250 1450
Temperature (C)
Density (g/cm3)5kbar
10kbar
15kbar
20kbar
25kbar
30kbar
Mantle density
Mafic lower crust
Arc root density vs. temperature
Magmatism intimately linked to thursting of the lithosphere: magmatic flare-ups follow thrusting after 15-25 my
Convective removal of roots
• Don’t see thick roots in N-American arcs. They ought to be removed somehow.
• Most likely process- foundering, or convective removal.
• Buoyancy-driven process that appears to be triggered only in continental arcs and only if the arc column is thick enough to generate eclogitic residues.
Tectonic MOHO
Arc keels- do they founder?Arc keels- do they founder?
? ?150km
100 km
50 km
0 km
foundering
upwelling
remnant crust
Moho
Granitoids
Eclogites
Peridotites
vp=6-6.3 km/s
vp=8.4 km/s
Granulites
Mixed zone
?
??
??
0 4 g/cm3
ρ=3.25-3.3 g/cm3
vp=7.7-7.9 km/s
ρ=2.6-2.7 g/cm3
ρ=3.5-3.6 g/cm3
Eclogite: convectively unstable, will founder? In which tectonic environments
Working hypothesis for convective removal of root
• Should take place in thick arcs (25-30 km thick batholiths) that leave behind an eclogite facies residue
• Should not take place when most residue is in granulite facies;
• Follows periods of flare-ups and might be triggered by extension
So what do we know?
• In the Sierras, we are confident that pre-existing crustal materials have been involved in a second stage melting process that made the granitic “batholith”
• We know now that some 35 km of the crust is granitic
• Since at least that much residue is required, and it had to be located at 35-70 (or more) km depth, much of it had to be dense “eclogitic” residue
• We see these eclogites in 12 Ma volcanic rocks (as xenoliths)- we have direct evidence that they existed!
• They are currently lacking beneath the Sierras; there is strong evidence that this root has foundered (sank!) in the less dense mantle
• If true, we had found an elegant mechanism to making continental crust
Key issues to remember
• Oceanic crust is mafic/basaltic and young - older oceanic materials are subducted
• Continental crust has the average of a granitoid, appears unsubductable
• Continental masses grow over time, some continents have older cratons in their cores separated by mobile belts
More
• Making continents is difficult to explain unless a “residual” mass equivalent to that of the continents is present under the continents;
• We think that these residues have detached and sank in the mantle