4.7 Article

Disturbances in the Sm-Nd isotope system of the Acasta Gneiss Complex-Implications for the Nd isotope record of the early Earth

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 530, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2019.115900

关键词

Acasta Gneiss Complex; apatite; Archean; LASS; Sm-Nd isotopes; titanite

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EAR-1321998, EAR-1321952]
  2. NSF-GRFP [2013147370]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The whole rock Nd-143 isotope record of the Acasta Gneiss Complex (AGC) has been used to argue for the development of both depleted mantle and enriched crustal reservoirs during the Hadean. The Sm-147-Nd-143 isotope compositions of rocks from AGC, however, fall on an array with an errorchron date of similar to 3.3 Ga, despite the majority of samples yielding substantially older zircon U-Pb ages. This has led to the suggestion of a major Sm-Nd resetting event at this time in the AGC. To better understand the Sm-Nd bulk-rock systematics of the AGC, we investigate the U-Pb age and Sm-Nd isotope compositions of apatite and titanite from the AGC, using the laser ablation split stream (LASS) method. Apatite from all samples yield broadly similar U-Pb dates of similar to 1.89 to 1.83 Ga, in agreement with resetting during the 1.9 Ga Wopmay orogen. The Sm-Nd isotope compositions of the apatite, however, lie off the WR errorchron and show a high degree of initial Nd isotope heterogeneity. Conversely, titanite Sm-Nd systematics are consistent with the similar to 3.3 Ga whole rock errorchron further supporting Sm-Nd modification at similar to 3.3 Ga. Taken together, these show that the oldest rocks in the AGC underwent at least two post-crystallization events (at 3.3 and 1.9 Ga) that modified the Sm-Nd isotope system. These results also demonstrate the relative mobility of the Sm-Nd isotope system during orogenic events, which may compromise the ability to determine robust bulk-rock Nd-143 isotope signatures. (C) 2019 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

4.7
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