slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
AGU Chapman Conference Ft. William, Scotland, 31/08/2005

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

AGU Chapman Conference Ft. William, Scotland, 31/08/2005 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 82 Views
  • Uploaded on

AGU Chapman Conference Ft. William, Scotland, 31/08/2005. CRUSTAL SEISMOLOGY HELPS CONSTRAIN THE NATURE OF MANTLE MELTING ANOMALIES: THE GALAPAGOS VOLCANIC PROVINCE. V. Sallarès (1), Ph. Charvis (1), E. Flueh (2), J. Bialas (2) (1) IRD-Géosciences Azur, Villefranche-sur-mer, France

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'AGU Chapman Conference Ft. William, Scotland, 31/08/2005' - kenton


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1
AGU Chapman Conference

Ft. William, Scotland, 31/08/2005

CRUSTAL SEISMOLOGY HELPS CONSTRAIN THE NATURE OF MANTLE MELTING ANOMALIES: THE GALAPAGOS VOLCANIC PROVINCE

V. Sallarès (1), Ph. Charvis (1), E. Flueh (2), J. Bialas (2)

(1) IRD-Géosciences Azur, Villefranche-sur-mer, France

(2) IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel, Germany

slide2
STUDY AREA

15 Ma

PAGANINI-1999

2O Ma

IFM-GEOMAR IRD-GéoAzur

12 Ma

G-PRIME-2000

0 Ma

WHOI U. Hawaii

SALIERI-2001

IRD-GéoAzur IFM-GEOMAR

Projects:

slide3
OBJECTIVES
  • Objectives
  • To determine the velocity structure and crustal thickness of the GVP-volcanic ridges & estimate their uncertainty  Joint refraction/reflection travel time tomography  Monte Carlo-type analysis
  • To determine upper mantle density structure based on velocity-derived models Gravity and topography analysis
  • To connect seismic parameters (H, Vp) with mantle melting parameters (e.g. Tp, damp melting, composition)  Mantle melting model
  • To contrast model predictions with other observations  Geochemistry, temperature, mantle tomography…
slide4
RESULTS

3-4 km

~19 km

Veloc. Grad.

~19 km

20 Ma

Cocos

Cocos

Carnegie

Carnegie

slide5
RESULTS

~18.5 km

15 Ma

Cocos

Carnegie

slide6
RESULTS

~16.5 km

h~6 km

^^

~7.10-7.15 km/s

G-PRIME-2000

~13 km

12 Ma

Cocos

Carnegie

slide7
RESULTS

Overall H-Vp anticorrelation

slide8
RESULTS

Cocos

Cocos

Carnegie

Carnegie

GHS

Mantle?Gravity and topography analysis

slide9
RESULTS

Cocos

Cocos

Carnegie

Carnegie

GHS

Mantle?Gravity and topography analysis

slide10
RESULTS

Cocos

Cocos

Carnegie

Carnegie

GHS

Airy+Pratt+Crustal dens. correction:

Mantle?Gravity and topography analysis

slide11
MANTLE MELTING MODEL

Crustal structure  Nature of the anomaly

Crustal thickness, Vp [Tp, active upwelling (x=w/u0), composition]

● 2-D steady-state model for mantle corner flow (Forsyth, 1993)

● Include deep damp melting (Braun et al., 2000)

● Active upwelling confined to beneath the dry solidus (Ito et al., 1999)

slide12
MANTLE MELTING MODEL

Connection H melting parameters

M Total volume of melt production . [*My-1*km-1] (melt fract./weight)

rm, rc mantle, crustal density

Pyrolite

Connection Vp melting parameters

F Mean fraction of melting

Z Mean depth (P) of melting

Korenaga et al., 2002

Vp (F,P)

Estimate H, Vp as a function of Tp, x, Mp,dz, a,composition, through P, F

slide13
NATURE OF THE GHS

MPd=15%/GPa, MPw=1%/GPa, a=1, dz=50 km

MPd=15%/GPa, MPw=2%/GPa, a=0.25, dz=50 km

MPd=20%/GPa, MPw=1%/GPa, a=0.25, dz=50 km

70% pyrolite + 30% MORB

Hotter

Active convection

Compositional anomaly?

H-Vp Diagrams

MPd=15%/GPa, MPw=1%/GPa, a=0.25, dz=50 km

slide14
SUMMARY
  • Summary
  • All GVP-aseismic ridges show a systematic, overall L3 velocity-thickness anti-correlation

This is contrary to the predictions of the thermal plume model  Need to consider a fertileanomaly, possibly a mixture of depleted pyrolitic mantle + recycled oceanic crust

  • Velocity-derived density models account for gravity and topography data without need for anomalous upper mantle density

Upper mantle density anomaly is undetectable at distances >500 km from GHS (or 10 My after emplacement)

slide15
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
  • Match with other observations?
  • Temperature
  •  GHS-lavas erupt 50-100ºK cooler than Hawaiian lavas  cooling during ascent through lithosphere (Geist & Harpp 2004)
  •  Excess temperature estimations: 215ºK (Schilling, 1991)  <200ºK (Ito & Lin 1995)  130ºK (Hooft et al., 2003)  30-50ºK (Canales, 2003)  <20ºK (Cushman et al., 2004)
  • Major element geochemistry
  • Fe8 > 13 for individual samples at Galapagos platform
  •  Fe8 higher than “global MORB array” at the edges of CNSC
  •  Positive Na8 – crustal thickness correlation along CNSC, associated to deep, hydrous melting (Cushman et al., 2004) smooth Fe8 signature along most of CNSC?
slide16
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
  • Isotopes geochemistry
  •  Sr-Pb-Nd isotope and trace element signatures consistent with derivation from recycled oceanic crust (e.g. Hauff et al., 2000; Hoernle et al., 2000; Schilling et al., 2003)
  •  Sm-Nd and U-Pb isotope systematics indicate that the age of recycled crust is 300-500 My only (Hauff et al., 2000), which seems to be too short for lower mantle recycling(?)
  • Mantle tomography
  •  P-wave tomography with temporary local network (Toomey et al., 2001)has resolution to 400 km only
  •  Receiver functions (Hooft et al., 2003) show thinner than normal transition zone
  •  P and Pp waves finite-frequency tomography (Montelli et al., 2004) show anomaly only at upper mantle (S-wave?)
slide17
OTHER OBSERVATIONS

P- and Pp- finite-frequency tomography

660 km-discontinuity?

slide19
ISSUES
  • Issues
  • If there is a regional chemical heterogeneity, why not upper mantle density anomaly?
  • Why is volcanism so focused while global tomography anomaly appears to be much broader? Why is melt not driven to CNSC?
  • How can the dense, fertile mantle rise to the surface in the absence of a significant thermal anomaly?
  • Where does recycled oceanic crust comes from?
  • Why is the GHS apparently a continuous, stable, long-lasting melting anomaly?
slide20
FUTURE WORK
  • Future work?
  • Seismological petrology + gravity & topography analysis
  •  Estimate seismic crustal and upper mantle structure with error bounds
  •  Compare H-Vp diagrams for other LIPs
  •  Determine Vp(P,F) for source compositions other than pyrolite
  • Increase geochemical data/melting experiments adequate to distinguish between thermal/hydrous/chemical origin
  • Test consistency of geochemical predictions with alternative models
  • Improve understanding of mantle dynamics
ad