Testing the limits of Ti-in-Quartz thermometry and diffusion modelling to determine the thermal history of the Fish Canyon Tuff

IF 3.5 2区 地球科学 Q1 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
Karoline Brückel, Craig Campbell Lundstrom, Michael Ackerson, Christopher Campe
{"title":"Testing the limits of Ti-in-Quartz thermometry and diffusion modelling to determine the thermal history of the Fish Canyon Tuff","authors":"Karoline Brückel, Craig Campbell Lundstrom, Michael Ackerson, Christopher Campe","doi":"10.1093/petrology/egad082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How silicic magmas are stored in the upper crust before they erupt to form 100-1000s km3 ash-sheets remains a fundamental, but unanswered question in volcanology. While some studies posit storage in an eruptible state at low viscosity (<50% crystals) and high temperatures (>760-740°C) (warm storage), others suggest storage in a rigid state (>50% crystals) at lower, near-solidus temperatures (cold storage). Storage temperature and time spent near the solidus are typically constrained by mineral thermometry and diffusional relaxation modelling (at a given temperature), respectively. Since quartz is abundant over a range of temperatures and compositions and can incorporate titanium (Ti) at magmatic temperatures, a Ti-in-Quartz thermometer has been calibrated and Ti diffusion coefficients (DTi) have been measured. However, simply applying this thermometer or diffusion coefficient to volcanic quartz is burdened by an ongoing debate regarding their experimental calibration. This debate centers around three recent Ti-in-Quartz thermometers by Huang & Audétat (2012), Zhang et al. (2020), Osborne et al. (2022) and three DTi by Cherniak et al. (2007), Jollands et al. (2020), Audétat et al. (2021), each of which when applied to igneous systems favors either warm or cold storage. To determine their applicability for estimating the pre-eruptive thermal history of silicic magmatic systems, we apply the different Ti-in-Quartz thermometers and DTi to quartz from the Fish Canyon Tuff (USA). This tuff is an optimal location for such a study because it is a prime example of cold storage with multiple previous studies providing constraints on its storage conditions. We find that a temperature of 737 ± 16°C using the Zhang et al. (2020) thermometer is the most consistent with other temperature estimates for the Fish Canyon Tuff. Temperatures calculated using Huang & Audétat (2012) are acceptable, while those using Osborne et al. (2022) are unrealistic. Applying each of the DTi to quartz in the Fish Canyon Tuff and comparing these timescales to timescales from Ba-in-Sanidine diffusion and the total storage time of the mush (derived from the range in zircon U-Pb ages and the local eruption history), three different scenarios for pre-eruptive storage are possible. At a temperature of 737°C, timescales using DTi by Audétat et al. (2021) exceed the total storage time of the Fish Canyon system by ~2 Myr. These DTi are only consistent if storage temperatures were significantly higher, implying warm storage. Such a scenario is inconsistent with cold storage of the Fish Canyon system. Timescales derived from DTi by Jollands et al. (2020) and Cherniak et al. (2007) are consistent with cold storage of the Fish Canyon system. While DTi by Jollands et al. (2020) suggest long-term storage near 737°C and an extended period of pre-eruptive reheating, DTi by Cherniak et al. (2007) suggests storage below 737°C and rapid reheating.","PeriodicalId":16751,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Petrology","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Petrology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/egad082","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How silicic magmas are stored in the upper crust before they erupt to form 100-1000s km3 ash-sheets remains a fundamental, but unanswered question in volcanology. While some studies posit storage in an eruptible state at low viscosity (<50% crystals) and high temperatures (>760-740°C) (warm storage), others suggest storage in a rigid state (>50% crystals) at lower, near-solidus temperatures (cold storage). Storage temperature and time spent near the solidus are typically constrained by mineral thermometry and diffusional relaxation modelling (at a given temperature), respectively. Since quartz is abundant over a range of temperatures and compositions and can incorporate titanium (Ti) at magmatic temperatures, a Ti-in-Quartz thermometer has been calibrated and Ti diffusion coefficients (DTi) have been measured. However, simply applying this thermometer or diffusion coefficient to volcanic quartz is burdened by an ongoing debate regarding their experimental calibration. This debate centers around three recent Ti-in-Quartz thermometers by Huang & Audétat (2012), Zhang et al. (2020), Osborne et al. (2022) and three DTi by Cherniak et al. (2007), Jollands et al. (2020), Audétat et al. (2021), each of which when applied to igneous systems favors either warm or cold storage. To determine their applicability for estimating the pre-eruptive thermal history of silicic magmatic systems, we apply the different Ti-in-Quartz thermometers and DTi to quartz from the Fish Canyon Tuff (USA). This tuff is an optimal location for such a study because it is a prime example of cold storage with multiple previous studies providing constraints on its storage conditions. We find that a temperature of 737 ± 16°C using the Zhang et al. (2020) thermometer is the most consistent with other temperature estimates for the Fish Canyon Tuff. Temperatures calculated using Huang & Audétat (2012) are acceptable, while those using Osborne et al. (2022) are unrealistic. Applying each of the DTi to quartz in the Fish Canyon Tuff and comparing these timescales to timescales from Ba-in-Sanidine diffusion and the total storage time of the mush (derived from the range in zircon U-Pb ages and the local eruption history), three different scenarios for pre-eruptive storage are possible. At a temperature of 737°C, timescales using DTi by Audétat et al. (2021) exceed the total storage time of the Fish Canyon system by ~2 Myr. These DTi are only consistent if storage temperatures were significantly higher, implying warm storage. Such a scenario is inconsistent with cold storage of the Fish Canyon system. Timescales derived from DTi by Jollands et al. (2020) and Cherniak et al. (2007) are consistent with cold storage of the Fish Canyon system. While DTi by Jollands et al. (2020) suggest long-term storage near 737°C and an extended period of pre-eruptive reheating, DTi by Cherniak et al. (2007) suggests storage below 737°C and rapid reheating.
测试钛石英测温和扩散模型的极限,以确定鱼峡谷凝灰岩的热历史
在火山学中,硅质岩浆在喷发形成100-1000立方千米的火山灰层之前是如何储存在地壳上层的,这仍然是一个基本的、但没有答案的问题。虽然一些研究认为在低粘度(50%晶体)和高温(>760-740°C)(温暖储存)下以可爆发状态储存,但其他研究建议在较低的接近固体温度(冷藏)下以刚性状态(>50%晶体)储存。在固体附近的储存温度和时间通常分别受到矿物测温和扩散松弛模型(在给定温度下)的限制。由于石英在一定的温度和成分范围内都很丰富,并且可以在岩浆温度下结合钛(Ti),因此校准了石英中钛温度计并测量了钛扩散系数(DTi)。然而,简单地将这种温度计或扩散系数应用于火山石英,就其实验校准存在持续的争论。这场争论集中在Huang &audsamat (2012), Zhang et al. (2020), Osborne et al.(2022)以及Cherniak et al. (2007), Jollands et al. (2020), audsamat et al.(2021)的三个DTi,当应用于火成系统时,每个DTi都有利于加热或冷藏。为了确定它们在估计硅质岩浆系统喷发前热史方面的适用性,我们将不同的ti -in-石英温度计和DTi应用于美国Fish Canyon凝灰岩中的石英。这种凝灰岩是进行此类研究的最佳地点,因为它是冷藏的主要例子,先前的多项研究对其储存条件提供了限制。我们发现,使用Zhang等人(2020)的温度计得出的737±16°C的温度与鱼峡谷凝灰岩的其他温度估计最一致。使用Huang &计算温度aud(2012)是可以接受的,而那些使用Osborne等人(2022)是不现实的。将每种DTi应用于鱼谷凝灰岩中的石英,并将这些时间尺度与Ba-in-Sanidine扩散的时间尺度和糊状的总储存时间(由锆石U-Pb年龄范围和当地喷发历史得出)进行比较,可以得出喷发前储存的三种不同情景。在737°C的温度下,audsamdat等人(2021)使用DTi的时间尺度超过了Fish Canyon系统的总储存时间约2 Myr。这些DTi只有在储存温度明显较高时才一致,这意味着温度较高。这种情况与鱼峡谷系统的冷库不一致。Jollands等人(2020)和Cherniak等人(2007)从DTi得到的时间尺度与Fish Canyon系统的冷库一致。Jollands等人(2020)的DTi建议在737°C附近长期储存并延长喷发前的再加热时间,而Cherniak等人(2007)的DTi建议在737°C以下储存并快速再加热。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Petrology
Journal of Petrology 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
117
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Petrology provides an international forum for the publication of high quality research in the broad field of igneous and metamorphic petrology and petrogenesis. Papers published cover a vast range of topics in areas such as major element, trace element and isotope geochemistry and geochronology applied to petrogenesis; experimental petrology; processes of magma generation, differentiation and emplacement; quantitative studies of rock-forming minerals and their paragenesis; regional studies of igneous and meta morphic rocks which contribute to the solution of fundamental petrological problems; theoretical modelling of petrogenetic processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信