Fluid flow and water–rock interaction across the active Nankai Trough subduction zone forearc revealed by boron isotope geochemistry

2016 ◽  
Vol 193 ◽  
pp. 100-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Hüpers ◽  
Simone A. Kasemann ◽  
Achim J. Kopf ◽  
Anette Meixner ◽  
Tomohiro Toki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Flow ◽  
Subduction Zone ◽  
Nankai Trough ◽  
Isotope Geochemistry ◽  
Boron Isotope ◽  
Rock Interaction ◽  
Water Rock Interaction

Insights into fluid flow and water-rock interaction during deformation of carbonate sequences in the Mexican fold-thrust belt

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 1237-1253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisa Fitz-Diaz ◽  
Peter Hudleston ◽  
Luc Siebenaller ◽  
David Kirschner ◽  
Antoni Camprubí ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Flow ◽  
Thrust Belt ◽  
Rock Interaction ◽  
Water Rock Interaction

Mylonites of the South Armorican Shear Zone: Insights for crustal-scale fluid flow and water–rock interaction processes

2012 ◽  
Vol 56-57 ◽  
pp. 86-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romain Tartèse ◽  
Philippe Boulvais ◽  
Marc Poujol ◽  
Thomas Chevalier ◽  
Jean-Louis Paquette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Flow ◽  
Shear Zone ◽  
The South ◽  
Rock Interaction ◽  
Interaction Processes ◽  
Water Rock Interaction

On the fO2 of slab fluids in subduction zone systems

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timm John ◽  
Esther Schwarzenbach ◽  
Jay Ague ◽  
Jilei Li
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Flow ◽  
Subduction Zone ◽  
Melt Inclusions ◽  
Melt Inclusion ◽  
Volcanic Rocks ◽  
Ore Deposits ◽  
Molybdenum Isotope ◽  
Element Cycling ◽  
Plate Interface ◽  
Rock Interaction

<p>One of the most pressing riddles of the subduction cycle to be solved is linked to the fO<sub>2</sub> of the slab-released fluids. It is now well accepted that the fluids liberated during slab dehydration play a crucial role in subduction zone seismicity, element cycling, and arc magmatism. However, whether these slab fluids are oxidizing or reducing transport agents is poorly understood and thus, there is still a lot we need to understand. This is of particular importance for gaining a mechanistic view on the formation processes of economically important arc related ore deposits, which certainly require understanding of the behavior of redox sensitive mobilities of the relevant elements. In brief, while some field-based studies from the slab perspective are suggesting rather reduced conditions (e.g., based on sulfides and sulfur isotope work, ref. 1) others, mainly related to higher temperature systems (e.g., based on bulk-rock – rutile systems and molybdenum isotope work, ref. 2), are indicative of more oxidizing slab fluids. Especially for mélange-like structures developed at the plate interface, studies on sulfur-bearing minerals result in contrasting fO<sub>2</sub> of the related slab fluids (ref. 3 vs ref. 4). It appears that at least during retrogression along the plate interface the reactively flowing fluids tend to have a more oxidizing potential (ref. 5). Interestingly, the prime fluid source of subducting slabs, i.e. dehydrating slab mantle serpentinites, is thought to release reduced fluids (ref. 6) but melt inclusions in arc volcanic rocks are often oxidized. Recent studies suggest that this is likely linked to fluid-rock interaction at local scales (ref. 7) and/or possibly within the magma reservoirs that comprise rather low-melt-fraction mush (ref. 8). This in turn would suggest that the slab fluids might change their fO<sub>2</sub> during reactive intra-slab fluid flow, or would not need to be oxidized prior to melt inclusion entrapment and that the oxidizing potential of the fluids may be the result of magmatic processes during melt ascent in the arc. In this contribution we review the current state of knowledge, provide new ideas and models regarding channelized though reactive intra-slab fluid flow, and illustrate the next steps to unravel this exiting and thus far poorly understood topic of subduction zone element cycling.</p><p> </p><p>1]        Li, J.-L., et al. (2020). Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14110-4</p><p>2]        Chen, S., et al. (2019). Nature Communications. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12696-3</p><p>3]        Schwarzenbach, E.M., et al. (2018). Scientific Reports 8, 15517.</p><p>4]        Walters, J. B., et al. (2019). Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 286, 185–28. http://doi.org/10.1029/2019GC008374</p><p>5]        Li, J.-L., et al. (2016). Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 171:72. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-016-1284-2</p><p>6]        Piccoli, F., et al. (2019). Scientific Reports, 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55944-8</p><p>7]        Tollan, P. & Hermann, J. (2019). Nature Geoscience 12, 667–671.</p><p>8]        Jackson, M. D., et al. (2018). Nature, 564, 405–409. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0746-2</p><p> </p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document