In the current plate tectonic regime, thermal modeling, petrology, and seismology show that subsurface portions of cold slabs carry some of their volatiles into the deep upper mantle, mantle transition zone, and uppermost lower mantle avoiding the devolatilization occurring with normal arc and wedge subduction. Slab crustal remnants at these depths can melt by intersecting their carbonated solidus whereas slab mantle remnants can devolatilize by warming and metamorphosing to ‘dryer’ mineral assemblages. Since fluid release and earthquake production (“dehydration embrittlement”) operates down to ~300 km depths in all subduction zones, we propose, that deep-focus earthquakes trace the places of fluid release at deeper levels (350 to 750 km). Fluids in faults related to earthquake generation will become diamond-forming as they react with mantle rocks along the fault walls. Diamonds thus formed will record deformation produced by mantle convection and slab buckling during mantle storage. Lithospheric diamonds, stored in static ancient continental keels, lack the connection to this type of geodynamic regime that is evident for sublithospheric diamonds. However, a comparison between the two diamond types suggests a geologic model for lithospheric diamond formation in the ancient past.
Lithospheric diamonds and sublithospheric diamonds both contain evidence for the recycling of sediments or surficial rocks that have equilibrated at low temperatures with seawater. The known way to inject these materials into diamond-forming regions is slab subduction. Hence both diamond types may have formed by variants of this same process that differ in depth and style over geologic time.
Lithospheric diamonds are different from sublithospheric diamonds in critical ways: higher average N content, ages extending into the Paleoarchean, inclusion assemblages indicating formation at lower pressure, and lack of ubiquitous deformation features. Nitrogen content is the key to relating lithospheric diamonds to the subducting slab. Nitrogen occurs in clays and sediments at the slab surface or uppermost crust. Regardless of whether the slab is hot or cold during subduction, nitrogen will be removed into a mantle wedge if one exists. Additionally, diamonds will not survive in the melts/fluids generated in the wedge under oxidizing conditions. For sublithospheric diamonds, their low to non-existent nitrogen content occurs because they are derived from slab fluids/melts once nitrogen has been largely removed or from rocks deeper in the slab where nitrogen is scarce.
The much higher nitrogen in lithospheric diamonds suggests that they formed from fluids/melts derived near the slab surface that contained N. In the Archean, such slabs must have subducted close to the nascent mantle keel with no mantle wedge so the fluids could be directly reduced by the mantle keel. We propose a gradual temporal change from shallow, keel-adjacent, mantle-wedge-poor subduction that produced lithospheric diamonds starting in the Paleoarchean to wedge-avoiding, cold and deep subduction that produced sublithospheric diamonds in the Paleozoic. This temporal change is consistent with many geologic features: an early stagnant lid and a buoyant Archean oceanic lithosphere; the slab-imbrication, advective thickening, and diamond-richness of portions of mantle keels; and anomalously diamond-rich ancient eclogites.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on November 23, 2024
Sublithospheric diamond ages and the supercontinent cycle
Subduction related to the ancient supercontinent cycle is poorly constrained by mantle samples. Sublithospheric diamond crystallization records the release of melts from subducting oceanic lithosphere at 300–700 km depths1,2and is especially suited to tracking the timing and effects of deep mantle processes on supercontinents. Here we show that four isotope systems (Rb–Sr, Sm–Nd, U–Pb and Re–Os) applied to Fe-sulfide and CaSiO3inclusions within 13 sublithospheric diamonds from Juína (Brazil) and Kankan (Guinea) give broadly overlapping crystallization ages from around 450 to 650 million years ago. The intracratonic location of the diamond deposits on Gondwana and the ages, initial isotopic ratios, and trace element content of the inclusions indicate formation from a peri-Gondwanan subduction system. Preservation of these Neoproterozoic–Palaeozoic sublithospheric diamonds beneath Gondwana until its Cretaceous breakup, coupled with majorite geobarometry3,4, suggests that they accreted to and were retained in the lithospheric keel for more than 300 Myr during supercontinent migration. We propose that this process of lithosphere growth—with diamonds attached to the supercontinent keel by the diapiric uprise of depleted buoyant material and pieces of slab crust—could have enhanced supercontinent stability.
more » « less- Award ID(s):
- 2025779
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10519435
- Author(s) / Creator(s):
- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more »
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Nature
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Nature
- Volume:
- 623
- Issue:
- 7988
- ISSN:
- 0028-0836
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 752 to 756
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Over the past decades, dating inclusions in lithospheric diamonds has advanced from analysing tens of pooled inclusions to single sulphide Re-Os analyses and single silicate Sm-Nd analyses, resulting in a fair global coverage of lithospheric diamond ages (Smit et al. 2022) and linking these to tectonomagmatic events. On the other hand, dating of inclusions in sublithospheric diamonds is incredibly limited, mainly due to the rarity of sulphide inclusions and complex retrogressed Ca-silicate phases in already scarce sublithospheric diamonds. Yet, sublithospheric diamonds are important from both a scientific and economic perspective, representing the deepest pristine samples of Earth’s mantle and some of the most valuable diamonds recovered. Understanding their chemical signatures in a broader geological context requires dating such samples. Here we will review the recent progress in dating inclusions in sublithospheric diamonds and discuss their link to the supercontinent cycle and emplacement history.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract The nature and cause of deep earthquakes remain enduring unknowns in the field of seismology. We present new models of thermal structures of subducted slabs traced to mantle transition zone depths that permit a detailed comparison between slab pressure/temperature (
P/T ) paths and hydrated/carbonated mineral phase relations. We find a remarkable correlation between slabs capable of transporting water to transition zone depths in dense hydrous magnesium silicates with slabs that produce seismicity below ∼300‐km depth, primarily between 500 and 700 km. This depth range also coincides with theP/T conditions at which oceanic crustal lithologies in cold slabs are predicted to intersect the carbonate‐bearing basalt solidus to produce carbonatitic melts. Both forms of fluid evolution are well represented by sublithospheric diamonds whose inclusions record the existence of melts, fluids, or supercritical liquids derived from hydrated or carbonate‐bearing slabs at depths (∼300–700 km) generally coincident with deep‐focus earthquakes. We propose that the hydrous and carbonated fluids released from subducted slabs at these depths lead to fluid‐triggered seismicity, fluid migration, diamond precipitation, and inclusion crystallization. Deep focus earthquake hypocenters could track the general region of deep fluid release, migration, and diamond formation in the mantle. The thermal modeling of slabs in the mantle and the correlation between sublithospheric diamonds, deep focus earthquakes, and slabs at depth demonstrate a deep subduction pathway to the mantle transition zone for carbon and volatiles that bypasses shallower decarbonation and dehydration processes. -
With the past decades of diamond inclusion research, it is now well established that the mantle-derived diamonds are originated either from the lithospheric mantle or sublithospheric mantle. The lithospheric diamonds can be further divided into mainly the peridotitic and eclogitic suites, which can be distinguished based on their inclusion chemistry, carbon, and nitrogen isotopic compositions (1, 2). The parental lithology of sublithospheric diamonds is less well established, partly due to their much lower occurrence relative to the lithospheric diamonds. But there has been growing isotopic evidence for the involvement of subducted materials in the source region of sublithospheric diamonds, such as carbon, boron, oxygen, and iron (3–6). Precipitation of diamonds in the Earth’s mantle has been thought to require the presence of a fluid phase. Being C-O-H, saline, carbonatitic, silicic, or metallic in composition, these fluids were released upon dehydration or partial melting of the parental lithology and migrate through the mantle until they reach diamond saturation point due to either the change in pressure-temperature, or redox conditions. Understanding the parental lithology and fluid composition of different diamonds has primarily relied on their carbon and nitrogen isotope compositions and major/trace element compositions of mineral/fluid inclusions. These tools have been shown to be powerful in many cases but each could have their own disadvantages. Nitrogen isotopes, for example, are less applicable to sublithospheric diamonds due to their low N concentration. Trace element compositions, on the other hand, can be easily manipulated by small mass fractions of low degree-melt that are enriched in incompatible elements. Understanding the diamond-forming fluids and their parental lithology require new tools that can provide a different perspective than the ones discussed above. In this presentation, we show recent developments in adapting Fe, Mg, and K isotope systems to diamond inclusion studies for a better understanding of their formation. These so-called “non-traditional” stable isotope systems were typically developed for large rocks that are not limited by sample amount. In order to adapt them to mineral inclusions tens to hundreds of micrometers in size, we’ve developed dedicated procedures to: 1) clean the diamond surface to remove contamination before extracting individual inclusions; 2) scale down the columns used for chemical purification to minimize blanks; and 3) improving sensitivity on the mass spectrometer to analyze small samples. With a Nu Plasma II at the Carnegie Institution for Science, we have shown to be able to analyze inclusion samples containing as little as 200 ng of Fe (6). With an upgraded Nu Plasma Sapphire at UCLA that is equipped with a collision cell, we are now able to analyze samples with >25 ng Fe. The same strategy has now been expanded to Mg and K isotope systems, for which a low sample limit of 25 ng and 300 ng has been achieved. With examples of Fe and Mg isotopic compositions of ferropericlase in sublithospheric diamond and K isotopic composition of fluid inclusions in fibrous diamonds, we show how isotopic compositions of major elements of mineral/fluid inclusions in diamond bring us new perspectives on their origin. Our tests show promising results to extend existing Mg and Fe protocols to silicate minerals and potentially applying similar strategies to silicon, calcium, and barium isotopes in the future.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Characterizing compositional heterogeneity in Earth’s lower mantle is critical to understanding its dynamics. Three low-nitrogen diamonds from Koffiefontein (South Africa), containing inclusion assemblages of ferropericlase ± orthopyroxene ± magnesite, constrain diamond formation in an Mg-rich lower-mantle environment. Ferropericlase inclusions have Mg# 82.7–88.5 and orthopyroxene inclusions (retrogressed bridgmanite) have Mg# 95.0–95.1 and mantle-like δ18O of +5.6‰ ± 0.2‰. Magnesite included in one diamond implicates carbonated fluids in diamond formation. High Mg# and low Ca, Al, and Na of the assemblage indicate a melt-depleted meta-harzburgitic environment, in contrast to more fertile compositions expected for primitive lower mantle. Extremely low Ca in orthopyroxene inclusions may reflect a combination of melt depletion and low equilibration temperatures at the time of trapping. Inclusion compositions implicate subducted oceanic slab meta-harzburgite as the host for diamond growth. Mantle-like δ18O of the orthopyroxene inclusions indicates unaltered oceanic lithosphere. Similar melt-depleted characteristics in lower-mantle inclusion assemblages worldwide support that meta-harzburgite is the dominant host of lower-mantle diamonds.
