4.7 Article

Oxygen isotope evidence for the origin of chemical variations in lavas from Theistareykir volcano in Iceland's northern volcanic zone

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 184, 期 1, 页码 269-286

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00318-6

关键词

Iceland; Icelandic plume; lava; oxygen; isotope ratios; magma contamination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxygen isotope ratios in phenocrysts from recent Theistareykir lavas (Iceland) are consistently O-18-depleted relative to common terrestrial basalts (e.g. delta O-18 olivine = 4.7-4.1 parts per thousand) and correlate with geochemical indices of 'enrichment' (e.g. K2O/TiO2; La/Sm) and major element indices of differentiation (e.g. Mg#; CaO/Na2O). The sense of these correlations is that decreasing delta O-18 is accompanied by increasing 'enriched' geochemical signatures and an increasing extent of differentiation. These trends are similar to (although more subtle than) those defined by highly differentiated and contaminated Icelandic andesites, dacites and rhyolites. The trends we observe are consistent with models in which primary recent Theistareykir magmas are highly 'depleted' in their incompatible element geochemistry and similar in delta O-18 to common terrestrial basalts; differentiation of these magmas is accompanied by contamination by the low delta O-18, and on average more 'enriched' rocks of the Icelandic crust to produce the observed spectrum in delta O-18 and other geochemical indices. Our results suggest that geochemical variations among recent Theistareykir lavas are only indirect constraints on the composition and dynamics of the Iceland plume. Extrapolation of the geochemical trends we observe to oxygen isotope compositions within the range of common oceanic basalts suggests that primary recent Theistareykir magmas are exceptionally depleted (e.g. La/Sm = 0.2-0.5), indicating unusually high degrees and/or multiple stages of melting of their sources. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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