1 / 42

Paradigms versus paradoxes: Developing a new paradigm for the mantle

Paradigms versus paradoxes: Developing a new paradigm for the mantle. Attreyee Ghosh, Ricardo Arevalo Jr., Ved Lekic, and Victor Tsai with Adam Dziewonski, Barbara Romanowicz, Louise Kellogg, and Wendy Panero. (names arranged in alphabetical order by first name).

rendor
Download Presentation

Paradigms versus paradoxes: Developing a new paradigm for the mantle

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Paradigms versus paradoxes: Developing a new paradigm for the mantle Attreyee Ghosh, Ricardo Arevalo Jr., Ved Lekic, and Victor Tsai with Adam Dziewonski, Barbara Romanowicz, Louise Kellogg, and Wendy Panero (names arranged in alphabetical order by first name)

  2. Geochemistry likes a layered mantle • DMM cannot account for the planet’s budget of: • Incompatible elements • UDMM + UCC≠ UBSE • Radiogenic heat production • HDMM + HCC≠ HBSE • Noble gas abundances • 40ArDMM + 40ArCC + 40Aratm ≠ 40ArBSE

  3. Seismology finds a variety of behaviors for slabs in the transition zone • Tomographic images illustrate mass flux across the 660 km discontinuity Li et al. (2008) Van der Hilst et al. (1998) Li et al. (2008)

  4. Geodynamics like well-mixed mantle reservoirs • Mantle layering difficult to maintain for multiple Ga without significant mixing Naliboff and Kellogg (2007)

  5. 1 layer  whole- mantle convection 2 layers  traditional limited exchange Hybrid  limited exchange 2 layers  isolated upper and lower mantle reservoirs Hofmann (1997)

  6. “Marble-cake mantle” Sobolev et al. (2005)

  7. Morgan & Morgan (1999) “Plum-pudding mantle”

  8. Becker et al. (1999) “Blob mantle”

  9. Several geochemical studies have called upon an early, differentiated reservoir that has remained “hidden” at the core-mantle boundary What about this ‘D”’? Boyet and Carlson (2006)

  10. What about this ‘D”’? • Seismology and mineral physics observations indicate a heterogeneous layer at the core-mantle boundary Power Spectra

  11. Temperature oC 1000 1500 2500 3000 2000 5 150 km 10 Zone of neutrally or negatively buoyant melt Pressure (GPa) 410’ 15 20 660’ 25 Lee and Luffi Lee et al., (2007) Transition Zone

  12. Tolstikhin and Hofmann (2005)

  13. What about the role of thermochemical piles/superplumes? • Increasing the volume of a deep mantle reservoir (e.g., including superplumes) dilutes the required incompatible/ radioactive element budget of this reservoir

  14. 2800 km depth seismic profiles Kustowski (2006)

  15. Romanowicz and Gung (2002) Upper mantle:Q - lower mantle: Vsh Degree 2 only

  16. Romanowicz and Gung (2002)

  17. Defining the volume of a superplume superplumes in S362ANI (1% slow anomaly)

  18. Area (sq km) Area (sq km) Depth (km) Depth (km) S362ANI (0.6% contours) SAW24B16 (1% contours) Defining the volume of a superplume

  19. Defining the volume of a superplume Conservative estimates  only consider depths >1000 km

  20. Geochemical implications • If we know the composition of the Continental Crust (CC; e.g., Rudnick and Gao, 2003), the Depleted MORB Mantle (DMM; e.g., Su, 2002) and the Bulk Silicate Earth (BSE; McDonough and Sun, 1995)… • The size of the DMM dictates the required composition of a deep, Enriched Mantle Reservoir (EMR)

  21. Geochemical implications *Concentration range calculated from uncertainties in compositional models of CC and DMM

  22. Thermal implications

  23. Thermal implications

  24. Solve: Maintaining neutral buoyancy • Assume: • Fe is most important chemical variant • Fe has no effect on modulus or thermal expansion • Thermal and chemical effects are linear wrt velocity • Fe partitioning between mw and pv • Fe has a linear effect on density:

  25. Stixrude & Lithgow- Bertelloni, 2005

  26. What does this mean? • Uncertainty in partitioning behavior has a first order effect • Velocity drop at base of the mantle is >2.5% • Additional 1.5% Fe (reasonable) • Excess temperature of 450-700 K • Velocity drop in mid-mantle is ~1% • Additional 0.5% Fe • Excess temperature of 180-275 K • Super piles are neither on constant adiabat or isochemical if they are neutrally buoyant

  27. Future questions to address • How stationary are these superplumes? • Do surface tectonics dictate the large scale flow in the mantle, or vice-versa? • Slab reconstructions (over the last 200 Ma) and degree-2 signals are well correlated (Upper mantle comparison) Vs model S362ANI Slab model of L-B & R (1998)

  28. (Mid-mantle depths) Slab model of Lithgow- Bertelloni & Richards (1998) Vs model S362ANI

  29. Slab model of Lithgow-Bertelloni & Richards (1998) Vs model S362ANI (Comparison at CMB) The degree-2 velocity anomalies at the CMB are extremely well correlated with the integrated slab signal: the sum of all the slabs deposited during the last 200 Ma.

  30. Future questions to address • How long could such a thermochemical reservoir be dynamically stable for? • “Bottom-up” dynamical test • Starting conditions: 2 rigid conical masses attached to the CMB - representative size of superplumes • The transition zone must be able to arrest, at least temporarily, sinking subducted materials • The convection experiments, spanning a sufficiently large parameter space would give us insight into lower mantle mixing and return flow

  31. H=150 km B=2 Some typical snapshots at t ~ 4.55Ga H=500 km B=0.7 H=1000 km B=1 H=1600 km B=0.7 Kellogg and Ferrachat Dynamic criteria: stability over several Ga, topography of the interface, net density, and magnetic field

  32. Future work/questions • What is the mass flux of material into the lower mantle? Reaching D”? • How much becomes incorporated in our deep reservoir? Fukao et al. (2001)

  33. A new paradigm • We propose that the lowermost mantle pattern of the two chemically and thermally distinct super-plumes dictates the planform of mantle dynamics for at least the last 200 Ma. • The superplumes may have stable locations for at long periods of time, anchoring mantle plumes and influencing the paths of Wilson cycles. • The transition zone plays an important role in the interaction between subducted slabs and the superplumes

  34. A new paradigm • Transition zone may be a “leaky” boundary layer • Subducted slabs pond in the transition zone, with sufficient residence time for some oceanic crust to be re-circulated in the upper mantle • Ponded material breaks through the 660 km discontinuity in avalanche-like events and is deposited around the upwellings giving rise to the ring of fast velocities girdling the Pacific • Low-pass filter removes high wavenumber features from slab signal • Temperature contrast sufficient to produce plumes at the 660 km discontinuity

  35. Hawaii Generic Questions?

  36. 72 km 362 km 652 km 942 km 1377 km 2102 km 2827 km Slab integration model of Lithgow-Bertelloni and Richards (1998)

  37. Further Required Assumptions • Fe partitioning between MgO and MgSiO3 Andrault, 2001

  38. Assume D=5

  39. Andrault D

  40. Badro D (HS->LS)

  41. EMR = Enriched Mantle Reservoir CC = Continental Crust • 40Ar produced by decay of 40K (t1/2 = 11.93 Gyr) • Too heavy to be lost from atm • >99.9% Ar is 40Ar • We know: • 280 ppm K in equals >150 Eg (1018 g) of 40Ar produced over 4.5 Ga • 66 Eg in atm, 10-20 Eg may be in crust, the rest must reside in the mantle • 40ArBSE = 40Aratm + 40ArCC + 40ArDMM +40ArEMR – 40Ardegassed

More Related