4.7 Article

Basalt weathering rates on Earth and the duration of liquid water on the plains of Gusev Crater, Mars

Journal

GEOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 67-70

Publisher

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC
DOI: 10.1130/G24238A.1

Keywords

Mars; basalt; weathering; reactive transport modeling; weathering rind; pH

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Where Martian rocks have been exposed to liquid water, chemistry versus depth profiles could elucidate both Martian climate history and potential for life. The persistence of primary minerals in weathered profiles constrains the exposure time to liquid water: on Earth, mineral persistence times range from similar to 10 k.y. (olivine) to similar to 250 k.y. (glass) to similar to 1 m.y. (pyroxene) to similar to 5 m.y. (plagiociase). Such persistence times suggest mineral persistence minima on Mars. However, Martian solutions may have been more acidic than on Earth. Relative mineral weathering rates observed for basalt in Svalbard (Norway) and Costa Rica demonstrate that laboratory pH trends can be used to estimate exposure to liquid water both qualitatively (mineral absence or presence) and quantitatively (using reactive transport models). Qualitatively, if the Martian solution pH >similar to 2, glass should persist longer than olivine; therefore, persistence of glass may be a pH indicator. With evidence for the pH of weathering, the reactive transport code CrunchFlow can quantitatively calculate the minimum duration of exposure to liquid water consistent with a chemical profile. For the profile measured on the surface of the exposed Martian rock known as Humphrey in Gusev Crater, the calculated exposure time is 22 k.y., which is a minimum due to physical erosion. If correct, this estimate is consistent with short-term, episodic alteration accompanied by ongoing surface erosion. More of these depth profiles should be measured to illuminate the weathering history of Mars.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available