2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0012-821x(02)00824-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact induced melting and the development of large igneous provinces

Abstract: We use hydrodynamic modelling combined with known data on mantle melting behaviour to examine the potential for decompression melting of lithosphere beneath a large terrestrial impact crater. This mechanism may generate sufficient quantity of melt to auto-obliterate the crater. Melting would initiate almost instantaneously, but the effects of such massive mantle melting may trigger long-lived mantle up-welling that could potentially resemble a mantle hotspot. Decompression melting is well understood; it is the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
51
0
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 125 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
(42 reference statements)
1
51
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…And there are a number of reasonably large and welldated craters that correspond to no extinction or other geologically recorded bio-event. A recent paper by Jones et al [89] proposes a model of impact-induced decompression melting as a possible mechanism for CFB generation. Based on hydrodynamic modeling, the authors propose instantaneous melting followed by long-lived mantle upwelling, and suggest that the endPermian Siberian traps should be reconsidered as the result of a major impact.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…And there are a number of reasonably large and welldated craters that correspond to no extinction or other geologically recorded bio-event. A recent paper by Jones et al [89] proposes a model of impact-induced decompression melting as a possible mechanism for CFB generation. Based on hydrodynamic modeling, the authors propose instantaneous melting followed by long-lived mantle upwelling, and suggest that the endPermian Siberian traps should be reconsidered as the result of a major impact.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The paper unfortunately fails to quote a wealth of field, geochronologic, paleomagnetic and other published evidence on (i) the duration of LIP volcanism, (ii) the detailed dating of the Siberian traps and Meishan sections, (iii) the fact that the K/T Ir level is within the reversed chron 29R in the Deccan, hundreds of thousands of years after the onset of volcanism, (iv) the fact that field evidence for an impact at P/T time has been at best equivocal, attempts to replicate the results being unsuccessful... The discussion and conclusion of Jones et al [89] are largely unsubstantiated, as can readily be seen from the data and observations recalled in the present review.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rogers 1982;Jones et al 2002;Ingle & Coffin 2004), but there is no evidence in the Aptian sedimentary record for an impact of the required magnitude. Furthermore, the impact would normally be expected to produce magma with the chemical and isotopic characteristics of N-MORB as it is the upper mantle that would be melted.…”
Section: A Mantle Plume Origin For Ojp Magmatism?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two varieties of the impact model can be discussed in relation to the Siberian Traps FBP; the impact site was somewhere within the Siberian Traps FBP (Jones et al, 2002) and the impact site was antipodal to the Siberian Traps FBP (Hagstrum, 2005). The former model has related Cu-NiPt mineralization in the Siberian Traps and impactor material.…”
Section: Impact Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%