![]() |
||||||||||||||
|
Australia: The Land Where Time Began |
||||||||||||||
|
Large
Igneous Provinces – Intraplate Tectonic Setting In the original definition (Coffin & Eldholm, 1992;
1993a, 1994) an integral part was that the processes involved in the
formation of LIPs are not characteristic of modern plate boundaries,
i.e. mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones. This independence was also
emphasised (Halls et al.,
2008) in which LIPs were considered to result from large-scale transient
magmatic processes that were rooted in the mantle and they are not
predicted by plate tectonic theory. Therefore, LIP events show the
hallmarks of intraplate magmatism, though they involve extremely high
volumes and extend over large areas. In the tectonic and petrological and geochemical
sense, the term “intraplate” has been used widely (Bryan & Ernst, 2008).
The term “intraplate magmatism” generally implies that the generation of
magma is so remote from the existing plate boundaries that it is not
possible to associate it with the release of energy and tectonic
processes that are located at mid-ocean ridges, subduction zones, and
leaky transform boundaries, though the latter is less common (Johnson &
Taylor, 1989; Neuendorf et al.,
2005). An intraplate tectonic setting for most LIP events
has been demonstrated in the reconstructions of plates from the
Mesozoic-Cainozoic that the initial emplacement of many continental LIPs
was in the interiors of tectonic plates, as well as on or along the
current edges of Archaean cratons in areas where incipient rifting was
taking place. This also applies to dyke swarms which radiate into the
interiors of plates from areas that eventually become the margins of
continents following the associated rifting and breakup. Also, it is
typical to find that these dyke swarms are linked to associated breakup
events that resulted in the formation of the margins of new continents
(e.g. Courtillot et al.,
1999; Ernest & Bleeker, 2010), though at the time of the initial
emplacement of the LIP (the initial pulse) it was at an intraplate
location. According to Ernst there can be a second pulse of
magmatism by LIPs that is linked to continental breakup and ocean
opening (e.g. NAIP and Kerguelen Bunbury-Comei LIP). It is, however,
important to recognise that in such cases intraplate settings, that were
in existence before the onset of rifting and opening of an ocean, were
the sites of the initial pulse of the LIP. Also, complete rifting and
ocean basin formation, does not accompany all LIPs. As exemplified by
the Emeishan, Siberian Trap, and Columbia River flood-basalt provinces,
which have provided the most recent examples, with an older example of
this type of setting being provided by the Keweenawan LIP. Most continental LIPs were emplaced into stable
regions of continents with a long history, commonly of hundreds of
millions of years, during which there was no prior magmatism or
deformation by contraction. As a consequence, the abrupt emplacement of
voluminous magmas in regions of stable continental regions is what makes
LIP events so distinctive and anomalous, underlining the intraplate
character of these events. It is also apparent that oceanic plateaus and
flood-basalts in ocean basins have been emplaced in interoceanic
(intraplate) settings, and many of these LIPs have remained undeformed,
apart from edges that have subsequently entered subduction zones (Mann &
Taira, 2004; Petterson, 2004). It appears the Shatsky Rise is anomalous
as it was sited along an active ridge triple junction, being emplaced
into a region of oceanic crust that was affected by multiple spreading
ridge jumps (Nakanishi et al.,
1999; Sager, 2005), though importantly, subsequent to ridge migrations
it is now in a mid-plate setting. Many oceanic LIPs share the same relationships
between breakup and magmatism timing that has been observed in
multi-pulse continental LIPs. Though the initial pulse of an oceanic LIP
may be intraplate, subsequent pulses of such LIPs can be associated with
new spreading centres, such as the Ontong Java-Manihiki-Hikurangi
oceanic plateaus (Taylor, 2006); Kerguelen-Broken Ridge plateaus (Frey
et al., 2003); Agulhas-Maud
Rise plateaus (Jokat et al.,
2004; Gohl et al., 2011). In
cases where the development of a new mid-ocean ridge system is predated
by the initiation of such LIPs, or where it post-dates the cessation of
seafloor spreading (e.g. flood basalts in ocean basins), these LIP
events can therefore be classified as “intraplate” in a tectonic sense. It is less applicable to characterise those LIP
events that initiate close to active plate boundaries, such as the
Columbia River and Shatsky Rise LIPS, as intraplate in the tectonic
sense. For LIP events that occur in regions that are tectonically
active, such as mobile belts between cratons or along continental
margins where an ocean is closing as continents approach a collision
(e.g. Circum-Superior LIP at about 1,800 Ma; Heaman et
al., 2009; Ernst & Bell,
2010; Minifie et al., 2013)
an intraplate setting may be less evident. For the Cainozoic LIPs of North America that were
emplaced along the margin of the continent, that had a history of
magmatism and deformation related to subduction immediately before and
after the LIP events, an intraplate tectonic setting is particularly
problematic. Specifically, geographically, the Columbia River
flood-basalt province and the Sierra Madre Occidental SLIP overlap with
earlier magmatism related with subduction. It has been argued, given
this regional setting, that the Columbia River LIP may result from
back-arc spreading (e.g. Carlson & Hart, 1088; Smith, 1992). LIP events at plate margins are, however,
distinctive from magmatism that is spatially associated and synchronous
with plate margins in terms of their extent (both in terms of total area
and extent inboard from the margin of the plate), volume, eruption
rapidity and rates of melt production, association with extension, and
composition. The largest and earliest to be emplaced flood-basalt
formations of the Columbia River LIP have geochemical similarities with
oceanic island tholeiites, as well as other intraplate compositions of
magma and therefore display a stark contrast to neighbouring magmatism
that is related to subduction (e.g. Hooper, 1997; Hooper et
al., 1997). According to
Ernst the intraplate characteristics of the LIP event in these cases are
based more on petrological and geochemical features, and other features
such as the production rates of melts if they these are well
constrained, where the LIP has distinctly different compositions from
those that have formed at mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones. For
continental LIPs, however, the frequent addition to flood basalts and
rhyolites of lithospheric geochemical signatures makes it difficult to
recognise an intraplate signature. In the case of SLIPs such as the
Sierra Madre Occidental, in which both rhyolites and basalts have
geochemical signatures that are transitional between within-plate
convergent margin fields on trace-element discrimination diagrams
(Bryan, 2007). Finally, even LIPs spatially associated with plate
boundaries can have an “intraplate setting” in the following sense.
Ernst suggests that it is reasonable that ascending plumes will not have
a preference for a particular tectonic setting in the upper mantle if it
is accepted that LIPs represent magmatism that is derived from deep
plumes that are ascending (see Section 14.3 in Arndt et
al., 2008). Therefore a
percentage of mantle plumes that are deep-sourced will ascend into an
existing plate boundary setting in the upper mantle in spite of not
having a tectonic link with such a setting. Ernst suggests another
plausible scenario in which a plume ascends beneath a craton that has a
thick lithospheric root in which case it slides sideways and upwards
along the craton root towards thin spots in the interior or along an
edge (or edges) of the craton (e.g. Thompson & Gibson, 1991; Sleep,
2003; Begg et al., 2010;
Bright et al., 2014), and
such a scenario can potentially be applied to the Circum-Superior LIP
(e.g. Ernst & Bell, 2010). The petrological, geochemical, and isotopic
characteristics are important indications of an intraplate setting,
which can be used to discriminate between tholeiites related to a LIP
within a plate and magmatism at the margins of a plate (mid-ocean ridge
basalt (MORB) and basalts that are related to subduction. Also
distinctive are the volume and magma generation rate in LIP events, and
when combined with geochemical LIP characteristics have led many workers
to regard these features as being related to hot mantle upwellings with
magmas that have been sourced from the asthenospheric mantle or plume,
lithospheric mantle below continents, and the depleted asthenospheric
mantle (Carlson, 1991; Turner & Hawkesworth, 1995; Hofmann, 1997;
Condie, 2003; Ewart et al.,
2004a). Major causes of inter- and intra-LIP variation are crustal
contamination and heterogeneity of the source, which can in some cases,
lead to signatures in flood basalts and rhyolites that indicate they are
apparently related to subduction. The least contaminated basalts and
picrites in many continental LIPs have isotope and geochemical
compositions that are similar to basalts from island arcs, i.e. magma
suites that are high in Ti, that reinforce the intraplate
characteristics of LIP magmatism. The intraplate criterion in the LIP definition
after Bryan and Ernst (2008) includes any of these: Magmatism that is remote from any plate boundaries
that are concurrently active; Magmatism that occurs in stable crustal regions
that have long histories that don’t include prior magmatism or
constructional deformation;
Magmatism that occurs in the interiors of plates
that are undergoing extension; Magmatism that has been initiated in an intraplate
setting (as defined in the first 2 points), but where there may be
subsequent pulses of the LIP in association with ocean-ridge spreading
systems that are newly forming; Characteristics of composition (“intraplate” or
“within-plate”) that are distinct from magmatism related to plate
boundaries; Magmatism that is linked to a mantle plume that
originated from the deep mantle and which ascends randomly into tectonic
settings of the upper mantle.
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Author: M.H.Monroe Email: admin@austhrutime.com Sources & Further reading | ||||||||||||||