4.3 Article

Major and trace element and Sr-Nd isotope signatures of lavas from the Central Lau Basin: Implications for the nature and influence of subduction components in the back-arc mantle

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2008.06.039

关键词

Central Lau Basin; back-arc basin; geochemistry; subduction; partial melting of the mantle

资金

  1. NSF [CCE 0453608]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New major and trace element and Sr-Nd isotope data are presented for basaltic glasses from active spreading centers (Central Lau Spreading Center (CLSC), Relay Zone (RZ) and Eastern Lau Spreading Center (ELSC)) in the Central Lau Basin, SW Pacific. Basaltic lavas from the Central Lau Basin are mainly tholeiitic and are broadly similar in composition to mid-ocean ridge basalts (MORB). Their generally high Sr-87/Sr-86 ratios, combined with relatively low Nd-143/Nd-144 ratios are more akin to MORB from the Indian rather than Pacific Ocean. In detail, the CLSC, RZ and ELSC lavas are generally more enriched in large ion lithophile elements (Rb, Ba, Sr, and K) than average normal-MORB, which suggests that the mantle beneath the Central Lau Basin was modified by subducted slab-derived components. Fluid mobile/immobile trace element and Sr - Nd isotope ratios suggest that the subduction components were essentially transferred into the mantle via hydrous fluids derived from the subducted oceanic crust; contributions coming from the subducted sediments are minor. Compared to CLSC lavas, ELSC and RZ lavas show greater enrichment in fluid mobile elements and depletion in high field strength elements, especially Nb. Thus, with increasing distance away from the arc, the influence of subduction components in the mantle source of Lau Basin lavas diminishes. The amount of hydrous fluids also influences the degree of partial melting of the mantle beneath the Central Lau Basin, and hence the degree of melting also decreases with increasing distance from the arc. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据