4.7 Article

Lower crustal assimilation in oceanic arcs: Insights from an osmium isotopic study of the Lesser Antilles

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 330-344

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2014.11.009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Durham and Macquarie University [2012060]
  2. NERC [NE/K004328/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present whole rock Os-187/Os-188 data for the most mafic lavas along the Lesser Antilles arc (MgO = 5-17 wt.%) and for the subducting basalt and sediments. Os-187/Os-188 ratios vary from 0.127 to 0.202 in the arc lavas. Inverse correlations between Os-187/Os-188 and Os concentrations and between Os-187/Os-188 and indices of differentiation such as MgO suggests that assimilation, rather than source variation, is responsible for the range of Os isotopic variation observed. Sr-87/Sr-86, La/Sm and Sr/Th are also modified by assimilation since they all correlate with Os-187/Os-188. The assimilant is inferred to have a MORB-like Sr-87/Sr-86 with high Sr (>700 ppm), low light on middle and heavy rare earth elements (L/M-HREE; La/Sm similar to 2.5) and Os-187/Os-188 > 0.2. Such compositional features are likely to correspond to a plagioclase-rich early-arc cumulate. Given that assimilation affects lavas that were last stored at more than 5 kbar, assimilation must occur in the middle-lower crust. Only a high MgO picrite from Grenada escaped obvious assimilation (MgO = 17% wt.%) and could reflect mantle source composition. It has a very radiogenic Sr-87/Sr-86 (0.705) but a Os-187/Os-188 ratio that overlaps the mantle range (0.127). Os-187/Os-188 and Sr-87/Sr-88 ratios of the sediments and an altered basalt from the subducting slab vary from 0.18 to 3.52 and 0.708 to 0.714. We therefore suggest that, unlike Sr, no Os from the slab was transferred to the parental magmas. Os may be either retained in the mantle wedge or even returned to the deep mantle in the subducting slab. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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