No abstract

No abstract

[1] The electrical conductivity of mantle minerals is highly sensitive to parameters that characterize the structure and state of the lithosphere and sublithospheric mantle, and mapping its lateral and vertical variations gives insights into formation and deformation processes. We review state-of-the-art conductivity models based on laboratory studies for the most relevant upper mantle minerals and define a bulk conductivity model for the upper mantle that accounts for temperature, pressure, and compositional variations. The bulk electrical conductivity model has been integrated into the software package LitMod, which allows for petrological and geophysical modeling of the lithosphere and sublithospheric upper mantle within an internally consistent thermodynamic-geophysical framework. We apply our methodology to model the upper mantle thermal structure and hydrous state of the western block of the Archean Kaapvaal Craton and the Proterozoic Rehoboth Terrane, in southern Africa, integrating different geophysical and petrological observables: namely, elevation, surface heat flow, and magnetotelluric and xenolith data. We find that to fit the measured magnetotelluric responses in both the Kaapvaal and Rehoboth terranes, the uppermost depleted part of the lithosphere has to be wetter than the lowermost melt-metasomatized and refertilized lithospheric mantle. We estimate present-day thermal lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) depths of 230-260 and 150 ± 10 km for the western block of the Kaapvaal and Rehoboth terranes, respectively. For the Kaapvaal, the depth of the present-day thermal LAB differs significantly from the chemical LAB, as defined by the base of a depleted mantle, which might represent an upper level of melt percolation and accumulation within the lower lithosphere.

[1] Measurements of electrical conductivity of "slightly damp" mantle minerals from different laboratories are inconsistent, requiring geophysicists to make choices between them when interpreting their electrical observations. These choices lead to dramatically different conclusions about the amount of water in the mantle, resulting in conflicting conclusions regarding rheological conditions; this impacts on our understanding of mantle convection, among other processes. To attempt to reconcile these differences, we test the laboratory-derived proton conduction models by choosing the simplest petrological scenario possiblecratonic lithosphere -from two locations in southern Africa where we have the most complete knowledge. We compare and contrast the models with field observations of electrical conductivity and of the amount of water in olivine and show that none of the models for proton conduction in olivine proposed by three laboratories are consistent with the field observations. We derive statistically model parameters of the general proton conduction equation that satisfy the observations. The pre-exponent dry proton conduction term (s 0 ) and the activation enthalpy (DH wet ) are derived with tight bounds, and are both within the broader 2s errors of the different laboratory measurements. The two other terms used by the experimentalists, one to describe proton hopping (exponent r on pre-exponent water content C w ) and the other to describe H 2 O concentration-dependent activation enthalpy (term aC w 1/3 added to the activation energy), are less well defined and further field geophysical and petrological observations are required, especially in regions of higher temperature and higher water content. Calibrating laboratory-determined models of electrical conductivity of mantle minerals using geophysical and petrological observations, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 13, Q06010,