Tendencies of REE Distribution in the Kivakka Olivinite–Gabbronorite Layered Intrusion (Northern Karelia)

Bychkova, Ya. V.; Бычков, Д. А.; Minervina, E. A.; Ivlev, B. A.; Tskhovrebova, A. R.; Kas’yan, A. K.; Miklyaeva, E. P.

doi:10.1134/s0016702919020034

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…"Zrn" indicates zircon-bearing horizons of (ultra-) mafic rocks. The data are after Bychkova et al (2019aBychkova et al ( , 2019b. The main mechanism of zircon crystallization in (ultra-) mafic systems is residual intercumulus melt crystallization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…8). For example, according to the study of Bychkova et al (2019aBychkova et al ( , 2019b), closed-system fractional crystallization with convective mixing of magma in the chamber is capable of explaining zircon grains within the (ultra-)mafic layered series and the leucocratic granophyre rocks of the 1.8 Ga layered Kivakka intrusion (Karelia, Russia). We also note that zircon is present in the granophyric Sandwich horizon of 56 Ma Skaergaard intrusion of Eastern Greenland, as well as ultramafic pegmatitic segregations of its cumulus pile (Bindeman et al 2008;Wotzlaw et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interest in more mafic systems has been spurred by growing evidence for the presence of zircon grains in a wide range of terrestrial mafic and ultramafic rocks such as diorites, gabbros and gabbroids, peridotites, kimberlites, dunites, chromitites, garnet-pyroxenites, dolerites, and including spectacularly large grains of zircon in carbonatites (e.g., Bea et al 2001;Belousova et al 2002Belousova et al , 2015Kaczmarek et al 2008;Kostitsyn et al 2009Kostitsyn et al , 2012Kostitsyn et al , 2015González-Jiménez et al 2017;Bychkova et al 2019aBychkova et al , 2019bBea et al 2020 and references therein) as well as in basaltic meteorites (Ireland and Wlotzka 1992;Humayun et al 2013;Valley et al 2014b;Iizukaa et al 2015;Bellucci et al 2019). However, there is a current debate concerning the formation mechanisms of zircon in terrestrial mafic and ultramafic rocks that can reach 3.2 Ga in age.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Zircon survival in shallow asthenosphere and deep lithosphere

Borisova

Bindeman

Toplis

et al. 2020

American Mineralogist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zircon (ZrSiO4) is the most frequently used geochronometer of terrestrial and extraterrestrial processes. To shed light on question of zircon survival in the Earth's shallow asthenosphere, high-temperature experiments of zircon dissolution in natural mid-ocean ridge basaltic (MORB) and synthetic haplobasaltic melts have been performed at temperatures of 1250–1300 °C and pressures from 0.1 MPa to 0.7 GPa. Zirconium measurements were made in situ by electron probe microanalyses (EPMA) at high current. Taking into account secondary fluorescence effects in zircon-glass pairs during EPMA, a zirconium diffusion coefficient of 2.87E-08 cm2/s was determined at 1300 °C and 0.5 GPa. When applied to the question of zircon survival in asthenospheric melts of tholeiitic basalt composition, the data are used to infer that typical 100 mm zircon crystals dissolve rapidly (~10 h) and congruently upon reaction with basaltic melt at pressures of 0.2–0.7 GPa. We observed incongruent (to crystal ZrO2 and SiO2 in melt) dissolution of zircon in natural mid-ocean ridge the basaltic melt at low pressures <0.2 GPa and in the haplobasaltic melt at 0.7 GPa pressure. Our experimental data raise questions about the origin of zircon crystals in mafic and ultramafic rocks, in particular, in shallow oceanic asthenosphere and deep lithosphere, as well as the meaning of the zircon-based ages estimated from these minerals. The origin of zircon in shallow (ultra-) mafic chambers is likely related to the crystallization of intercumulus liquid. Large zircon megacrysts in kimberlites, peridotites, alkali basalts, and carbonatite magmas suggest fast transport and short interaction durations between zircon and melt. The origin of zircon megacrysts is likely related to metasomatic addition of Zr into the mantle as an episode of mantle melting should eliminate them on geologically short timescales.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Zircon survival in shallow asthenosphere and deep lithosphere

Borisova

Bindeman

Toplis

et al. 2020

American Mineralogist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Proterozoic Kivakka layered mafic-ultramafic intrusion, Northern Karelia, Russia: Implications for the origin of granophyres of the upper boundary group

Bychkova

Микляева

Koptev–Dvornikov

et al. 2019

Precambrian Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sumian Basalts and Basaltic Andesites of the Karelian Province of the Fennoscandian Shield: Geologic Position, Composition, and Formation Conditions

Arestova

Chekulaev

Egorova

et al. 2023

Russian Geology and Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

––We performed a petrochemical study and determined the Sm–Nd isotope composition of the Sumian (early Paleoproterozoic) mafic metavolcanic rocks in the Vodlozero domain (Semch’, Kumsa, and Kamennye Ozera structures) and the Central Karelian domain (Lake Vottomuks and Lake Kogu structures, the western flank of the Lekhta structure) of the Karelian province of the Fennoscandian Shield and compared them with the coeval volcanic rocks of the Kola–Norwegian province and the intrusive rocks of the Karelian and Belomorian provinces. The Sumian mafic rocks intruding the rocks of the Archean domains with different crust ages (>3.1 and 2.7–2.8 Ga) have similar geochemical characteristics (SiO2 = 44–55 wt.%, MgO = 5–14 wt.%; LREE enrichment, (La/Yb)N = 5–17) and similar values of εNd(T) (from –2.7 to –0.5) and TNd(DM) (from 3.0 to 2.7 Ga), which distinguishes them from their Archean analogues and indicates a single large magma source. The crustal contamination of the primary melts did not exceed 15% and could not determine the isotope-geochemical specifics of the Sumian mafic rocks. Their specific composition is better explained by the model of the formation of primary melts through the low-pressure (2.5–3.0 GPa) melting of the Neoarchean metasomatized zones of the subcontinental lithospheric mantle, with the addition of the primitive-mantle melts. In the period 2.41–2.45 Ga, the early Paleoproterozoic mafic rocks of the Fennoscandian Shield formed in the intracontinental magma generation setting.

show abstract

Tendencies of REE Distribution in the Kivakka Olivinite–Gabbronorite Layered Intrusion (Northern Karelia)

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Zircon survival in shallow asthenosphere and deep lithosphere

Zircon survival in shallow asthenosphere and deep lithosphere

Proterozoic Kivakka layered mafic-ultramafic intrusion, Northern Karelia, Russia: Implications for the origin of granophyres of the upper boundary group

Sumian Basalts and Basaltic Andesites of the Karelian Province of the Fennoscandian Shield: Geologic Position, Composition, and Formation Conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About