2012
DOI: 10.2465/jmps.111020c
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finding of prehnite-pumpellyite facies metabasites from the Kurosegawa belt in Yatsushiro area, Kyushu, Japan

Abstract: Common occurrence of prehnite and pumpellyite is newly identified from metabasites of Tobiishi sub -unit in the Kurosegawa belt, Yatsushiro area, Kyushu, where Ueta (1961) had mapped as a greenschist facies area. Prehnite and pumpellyite are closely associated with chlorite, calcite and quartz, and they mainly occur in white colored veins or in amygdules in metabasites of the relevant area, but actinolite and epidote are rare in them. Pumpellyite is characterized by iron -rich composition (7.2 -20.0 wt% as tot… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, we confirmed that the LBS reported by Ueta (1961) is extremely fresh and almost free from hydration reactions suffered during the exhumation stage, which are common in the Sanbagawa metamorphic rocks (e.g., Uno et al, 2014). Kamimura et al (2012) confirmed that LBS is predominant in the zone 1 of Ueta (1961), but prehnite and/or pumpellyite occur in metabasites in zone 2 of Ueta (1961) except for the Shimotake Formation, and then they proposed a new metamorphic zonal mapping, such as LBS zone mainly occurred in the Hakoishi sub-unit and PrP facies unit mainly developed in the Tobiishi subunit, corresponding with the eastern half of the Tobiishi Formation of Kanmera (1952). As metabasites of LBS and PrP facies rocks are generally lacking in the Sanbagawa belt, they considered that these metabasites belong to the Kurosegawa belt.…”
Section: Geologic and Metamorphic Background Of The Hakoishi And Tobisupporting
confidence: 68%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Recently, we confirmed that the LBS reported by Ueta (1961) is extremely fresh and almost free from hydration reactions suffered during the exhumation stage, which are common in the Sanbagawa metamorphic rocks (e.g., Uno et al, 2014). Kamimura et al (2012) confirmed that LBS is predominant in the zone 1 of Ueta (1961), but prehnite and/or pumpellyite occur in metabasites in zone 2 of Ueta (1961) except for the Shimotake Formation, and then they proposed a new metamorphic zonal mapping, such as LBS zone mainly occurred in the Hakoishi sub-unit and PrP facies unit mainly developed in the Tobiishi subunit, corresponding with the eastern half of the Tobiishi Formation of Kanmera (1952). As metabasites of LBS and PrP facies rocks are generally lacking in the Sanbagawa belt, they considered that these metabasites belong to the Kurosegawa belt.…”
Section: Geologic and Metamorphic Background Of The Hakoishi And Tobisupporting
confidence: 68%
“…2b of Kamimura et al (2012)], because this rock has many amygdules,~2.0-0.2 mm in diameter, including greenish-mica . Under the microscope, dendritic igneous clinopyroxene and plagioclase occupy the matrix of the rock.…”
Section: Tobiishi Sub-unitmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The formation of pumpellyite, irrespective of its chemistry, denotes the transition between the zeolite and greenschist facies (e.g. Kamimura et al 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subsequent work has shown that low‐grade minerals may form in a variety of other rock types and tectonic settings. Low‐grade minerals occur in subduction settings (Kamimura et al, 2012), at the ocean floor (Spooner & Fyfe, 1973), in island arcs (Miron et al, 2012), in gneiss terrains (Morad et al, 2011; Möller & Søderlund, 1997; Zeck, 1971), as veins in metadolerite (Sansone & Rizzo, 2012) and as veins in amphibolite facies basement gneisses (Weisenberg & Bucher, 2011). Already Eskola (1939) recognized that these minerals formed by hydrothermal processes and therefore questioned if the zeolite and prehnite‐pumpellyite facies should indeed be referred to as metamorphic facies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%