4.8 Article

Limited latitudinal mantle plume motion for the Louisville hotspot

Journal

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
Volume 5, Issue 12, Pages 911-917

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1638

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF
  2. IODP-USSSP
  3. NERC [NE/I022205/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/I022205/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Division Of Ocean Sciences
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [1154675, 1154094] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24654169, 23540532] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hotspots that form above upwelling plumes of hot material from the deep mantle typically leave narrow trails of volcanic seamounts as a tectonic plate moves over their location. These seamount trails are excellent recorders of Earth's deep processes and allow us to untangle ancient mantle plume motions. During ascent it is likely that mantle plumes are pushed away from their vertical upwelling trajectories by mantle convection forces. It has been proposed that a large-scale lateral displacement, termed the mantle wind, existed in the Pacific between about 80 and 50 million years ago, and shifted the Hawaiian mantle plume southwards by about 15 degrees of latitude. Here we use 40Ar/39Ar age dating and palaeomagnetic inclination data from four seamounts associated with the Louisville hotspot in the South Pacific Ocean to show that this hotspot has been relatively stable in terms of its location. Specifically, the Louisville hotspot-the southern hemisphere counterpart of Hawai'i-has remained within 3-5 degrees of its present-day latitude of about 51 degrees S between 70 and 50 million years ago. Although we cannot exclude a more significant southward motion before that time, we suggest that the Louisville and Hawaiian hotspots are moving independently, and not as part of a large-scale mantle wind in the Pacific.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available