Rembrandt impact basin: Distinguishing between volcanic and impact-produced plains on Mercury

Whitten, J. L.; Head, J. W.

doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.06.022

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…State‐of‐the‐art surface analysis of inner Solar System planetary bodies has identified postimpact volcanism as a common process (e.g., Mercury [ Marchi et al ., ], Venus [ Herrick and Rumpf , ], Mars [ Edwards et al ., ], and the Moon [ Elkins‐Tanton et al ., ]). At the Rembrandt basin on Mercury, Whitten and Head [] found melt deposits related to the impact, as well as volcanically produced smooth plains younger than the impact. On the Moon, impact craters are typically flooded by younger mare basalts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, according to calculations by Ernst et al [], the impact that formed Mercury's large Caloris basin would have melted both the lower crust and upper mantle. The role of impact events for the evolution of Mercury's crust is much more significant than on the Moon [ Whitten and Head , , and references therein], but a global survey of the lunar surface nonetheless detected olivine‐rich deposits at the margins of impact basins, which might be related to excavation of the lunar upper mantle by impacts [ Yamamoto et al ., ]. Such olivine‐rich deposits appear to be unrelated to the younger mare basalts, which seem to have originated from partial melting underneath the basins from radioactive heat generation [e.g., Zhu et al ., ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On Mercury, for example, the first Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and Ranging flyby showed evidence for the important role of volcanism in impact craters [ Head et al ., ]. Subsequent studies have produced a variety of data supporting the link between impacts and volcanism [ Roberts and Barnouin , ; Whitten and Head , ] and indicating that crater‐related fractures may have controlled long‐lived explosive volcanism, whose products are largely contained in the impact structures [ Goudge et al ., ; Thomas et al ., , , ]. Explosive volcanism on Mercury, as well as explosive volcanism and mare basalt flows in lunar basins, are typically hundreds of millions of years younger than the impact structure in which they are contained [e.g., Hiesinger et al ., ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Protracted volcanism after large impacts: Evidence from the Sudbury impact basin

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphological studies of large impact structures on Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the Moon suggest that volcanism within impact craters may not be confined to the shock melting of target rocks. This possibility prompted reinvestigation of the 1.85 Ga subaqueous Sudbury impact structure, specifically its 1.5 km thick immediate basin fill (Onaping Formation). Historically, breccias of this formation were debated in the context of an endogenic versus an impact‐fallback origin. New field, petrographic, and in situ geochemical data document an array of igneous features, including vitric shards, bombs, sheet‐like intrusions, and peperites, preserved in exquisite textural detail. The geochemistry of vitric materials is affected by alteration, as expected for subaqueous magmatic products. Earlier studies proposed an overall andesitic chemistry for all magmatic products, sourced from the underlying impact melt sheet. The new data, however, suggest progressive involvement of an additional, more magnesian, and volatile‐rich magma source with time. We propose a new working model in which only the lower part of the Onaping Formation was derived by explosive “melt‐fuel‐coolant interaction” when seawater flooded onto the impact melt sheet in the basin floor. By contrast, we suggest that the upper 1000 m were deposited during protracted submarine volcanism and sedimentary reworking. Magma was initially sourced from the impact melt sheet and up stratigraphy, from reservoirs at greater depth. It follows that volcanic deposits in large impact basins may be related to magmatism caused by the impact but not directly associated with the impact‐generated melt sheet.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protracted volcanism after large impacts: Evidence from the Sudbury impact basin

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, the confirmation that such ejecta morphology occurs on Mercury (Figs. e and f) (Whitten and Head ) and on Vesta (Williams et al. ) has been made.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recently, the confirmation that such ejecta morphology occurs on Mercury (Figs. 8e and 8f) (Whitten and Head 2015) and on Vesta (Williams et al 2014) has been made. The simplest explanation for these commonalities is a common impact ejecta emplacement process on these bodies (Osinski et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “suevite” conundrum, Part 1: The Ries suevite and Sudbury Onaping Formation compared

Osinski

Grieve

Chanou

et al. 2016

Meteorit & Planetary Scien

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term “suevite” has been applied to various impact melt‐bearing breccias found in different stratigraphic settings within terrestrial impact craters. Suevite was coined initially for impact glass‐bearing breccias from the Ries impact structure, Germany, which is the type locality. Various working hypotheses have been proposed to account for the formation of the Ries suevite deposits over the past several decades, with the most recent being molten‐fuel‐coolant interaction (MFCI) between an impact melt pool and water. This mechanism is also the working hypothesis for the origin of the bulk of the Onaping Formation at the Sudbury impact structure, Canada. In this study, the key characteristics of the Ries suevite, the Onaping Formation and MFCI deposits from phreatomagmatic volcanic eruptions are compared. The conclusion is that there are clear and significant lithological, stratigraphic, and petrographic observational differences between the Onaping Formation and the Ries suevite. The Onaping Formation, however, shares many key similarities with MFCI deposits, including the presence of layering, their well‐sorted and fine‐grained nature, and the predominance of vitric particles with similar shapes and lacking included mineral and lithic clasts. These differences argue against the viability of MFCI as a working hypothesis for genesis of the Ries suevite and for a required alternative mechanism for its formation.

show abstract

Volcanism in the Solar System

Xiao,

Huang,

Xiao

et al. 2023

Sci. China Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rembrandt impact basin: Distinguishing between volcanic and impact-produced plains on Mercury

Cited by 16 publications

References 57 publications

Protracted volcanism after large impacts: Evidence from the Sudbury impact basin

Protracted volcanism after large impacts: Evidence from the Sudbury impact basin

The “suevite” conundrum, Part 1: The Ries suevite and Sudbury Onaping Formation compared

Volcanism in the Solar System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About