2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2018.03.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic evidence for depth-dependent metasomatism in cratons

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
74
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
(132 reference statements)
4
74
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Considering the sum of our results, we suggest that a combination of ≤20 vol.% eclogite with~2 vol.% diamond is the most consistent solution arising from all constraints described here. It has been suggested elsewhere that cratonic V s may be matched by highly depleted peridotites (e.g., harzburgites or dunites: Afonso et al, 2008;Eeken et al, 2018); though these bulk compositions yield faster V s than compositionally average cratonic peridotites, our calculations show that they do not achieve the seismically observed craton average V s . Further, even if forward-modeled V s for such highly depleted peridotites were to match the craton average V s , it would require that cratonic lithosphere was composed solely of the end-member, most-depleted lithologies, in contrast to the compositional diversity observed in cratonic xenolith suites (e.g., Griffin et al, 2002).…”
Section: 1029/2018gc007534contrasting
confidence: 70%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Considering the sum of our results, we suggest that a combination of ≤20 vol.% eclogite with~2 vol.% diamond is the most consistent solution arising from all constraints described here. It has been suggested elsewhere that cratonic V s may be matched by highly depleted peridotites (e.g., harzburgites or dunites: Afonso et al, 2008;Eeken et al, 2018); though these bulk compositions yield faster V s than compositionally average cratonic peridotites, our calculations show that they do not achieve the seismically observed craton average V s . Further, even if forward-modeled V s for such highly depleted peridotites were to match the craton average V s , it would require that cratonic lithosphere was composed solely of the end-member, most-depleted lithologies, in contrast to the compositional diversity observed in cratonic xenolith suites (e.g., Griffin et al, 2002).…”
Section: 1029/2018gc007534contrasting
confidence: 70%
“…Many studies have modeled geophysical observations of cratons to understand their compositional and thermal structure (e.g., Afonso et al, 2008;Dalton et al, 2017;Eeken et al, 2018;Hieronymus & Goes, 2010;Hirsch et al, 2015;Jones et al, 2017). These studies reveal disagreement as to how fast cratonic shear-wave velocities are in the depth range~100-170 km, and whether they can be matched by known cratonic peridotite compositions.…”
Section: Statement Of the Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…At very low frequencies (very long periods, hundreds of seconds for the specified conditions), steady state creep further significantly increases attenuation and decreases the Figure 4, from the five surface wave models (Pollitz & Mooney, 2016;Porter et al, 2016;Schmandt et al, 2015;Shen & Ritzwoller, 2016;Wagner et al, 2018) and the electrical resistivity inverse solutions. Some work has taken anelasticity into account when determining seismic constraints on temperature (e.g., Armitage et al, 2015;Eeken et al, 2018;Goes et al, 2005;Yang & Forsyth, 2008). Note that there is considerable variability between models.…”
Section: Anelasticity Grain Size and Seismic Velocitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Though much of the current research on anelasticity has been specifically targeted at understanding the cause of midlithospheric discontinuities (MLDs; e.g., Karato et al, 2015;Selway et al, 2015) and at characterizing the nature of the LAB (e.g., Olugboji et al, 2013;Olugboji et al, 2016), the proposed models of anelastic controls on seismic observables can, and indeed should, be applied more broadly when formulating geodynamic interpretations of observed seismic anomalies. Some work has taken anelasticity into account when determining seismic constraints on temperature (e.g., Armitage et al, 2015;Eeken et al, 2018;Goes et al, 2005;Yang & Forsyth, 2008). However, all too frequently seismic velocity anomalies, expressed as percent deviations from an assumed reference model, are only qualitatively interpreted in terms of relative temperatures, with slow (fast) anomalies being translated directly into hot (cold) lithosphere or even asthenosphere.…”
Section: 1029/2019gc008279mentioning
confidence: 99%