Search for: All records

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. 

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.

 

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 depths^1,2and 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 geobarometry^3,4, 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.

 

Abstract Goldschmidtite is a new perovskite-group mineral (IMA No. 2018-034) with the ideal formula (K,REE,Sr)(Nb,Cr)O3. A single grain of goldschmidtite with a maximum dimension of ∼100 μm was found as an inclusion in a diamond from the Koffiefontein pipe in South Africa. In addition to the dark green and opaque goldschmidtite, the diamond contained a Cr-rich augite (websteritic paragenesis) and an intergrowth of chromite, Mg-silicate, and unidentified K-Sr-REE-Nb-oxide. Geothermobarometry of the augite indicates that the depth of formation was ∼170 km. The chemical composition of gold-schmidtite determined by electron microprobe analysis (n = 11, WDS, wt%) is: Nb2O5 44.82, TiO2 0.44, ThO2 0.10, Al2O3 0.35, Cr2O3 7.07, La2O3 11.85, Ce2O3 6.18, Fe2O3 1.96, MgO 0.70, CaO 0.04, SrO 6.67, BaO 6.82, K2O 11.53, total 98.53. The empirical formula (expressed to two decimal places) is (K0.50La0.15Sr0.13Ba0.09Ce0.08)Σ0.95(Nb0.70Cr0.19Fe0.05Al0.01Mg0.04Ti0.01)Σ1.00O3. Goldschmidtite is cubic, space group Pm3m, with unit-cell parameters: a = 3.9876(1) Å, V = 63.404(6) Å3, Z = 1, resulting in a calculated density of 5.32(3) g/cm3. Goldschmidtite is the K-analog of isolueshite, (Na,La)NbO3. Raman spectra of goldschmidtite exhibit many second-order broad bands at 100 to 700 cm–1 as well as a pronounced peak at 815 cm–1, which is possibly a result of local ordering of Nb and Cr at the B site. The name goldschmidtite is in honor of the eminent geochemist Victor Moritz Goldschmidt (1888–1947), who formalized perovskite crystal chemistry and identified KNbO3 as a perovskite-structured compound.