Skip Navigation



Journal of Petrology Advance Access published online on January 4, 2006

Journal of Petrology, doi:10.1093/petrology/egi097
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
47/4/821    most recent
egi097v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HEAMAN, LARRY. M.
Right arrow Articles by CHACKO, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received August 1, 2004
Accepted December 5, 2005

Article

Multi-Stage Modification of the Northern Slave Mantle Lithosphere: Evidence from Zircon- and Diamond-Bearing Eclogite Xenoliths Entrained in Jericho Kimberlite, Canada

LARRY. M. HEAMAN 1 *, ROBERT. A. CREASER 1, HARRISON O. COOKENBOO 2, and TOM CHACKO 1

1 DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA, EDMONTON, ALTA., CANADA T6G 2E3
2 WATTS, GIFFIS, AND McQUAT, 620-475 HOWE STREET, VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6C 4B3

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
LARRY. M. HEAMAN, E-mail: larry.heaman{at}ualberta.ca


   Abstract

The Jericho kimberlites are part of a small Jurassic kimberlite cluster in the northern Slave craton, Canada. A variety of dating techniques were applied to constrain the nature and age of two Jericho kimberlites, JD-1 (170·2 ± 4·3 Ma Rb-Sr phlogopite megacrysts, 172·8 ± 0·7 Ma U-Pb eclogite rutile, 178 ± 5 Ma U-Pb eclogite zircon lower intercept) and JD-3 (173 ± 2 Ma Rb-Sr phlogopite megacryst; 176·6 ± 3·2 Ma U-Pb perovskite), and all yielded identical results within analytical uncertainty. As there is no discernible difference in the radiometric ages obtained for these two pipes, the composite Rb-Sr phlogopite megacryst date of 173·1 ± 1·3 Ma is interpreted as the best estimate for the emplacement age of both Jericho pipes. The initial Sr isotope composition of 0·7053 ± 0·0003 derived from phlogopite megacrysts overlaps the range (0·7043-0·7084) previously reported for Jericho whole-rocks. These strontium isotope data, combined with the radiogenic initial 206Pb/204Pb ratio of 18·99 ± 0·33 obtained in this study, indicate that the Jericho kimberlites are isotopically similar to Group 1 kimberlites as defined in southern Africa. The Jericho kimberlites are an important new source of mantle xenoliths that hold clues to the nature of the Slave craton subcontinental mantle. A high proportion (30%) of the Jericho mantle xenolith population consists of various eclogite types including a small number (2-3%) of apatite-, diamond-, kyanite- and zircon-bearing eclogites. The most striking aspect of the Jericho zircon-bearing eclogite xenoliths is their peculiar geochemistry. Reconstructed whole-rock compositions indicate that they were derived from protoliths with high FeO, Al2O3 and Na2O contents, reflected in the high-FeO (22·6-27·5 wt %) nature of garnet and the high-Na2O (8·47-9·44 wt %) and high-Al2O3 (13·12-14·33 wt %) character of the clinopyroxene. These eclogite whole-rock compositions are highly enriched in high field strength elements (HFSE) such as Nb (133-1134 ppm), Ta (5-28 ppm), Zr (1779-4934 ppm) and Hf (23-64 ppm). This HFSE enrichment is linked to growth of large (up to 2 mm) zircon and niobian rutile crystals (up to 3 modal %) near the time of eclogite metamorphism. The diamond-bearing eclogites on the other hand are characterized by high-MgO (19·6-21·3 wt %) garnet and ultralow-Na2O (0·44-1·50 wt %) clinopyroxene. Paleotemperature estimates indicate that both the zircon- and diamond-bearing eclogites have similar equilibration temperatures of 950-1020°C and 990-1030°C, respectively, corresponding to mantle depths of 150-180 km. Integration of petrographic, whole-rock and mineral geochemistry, geochronology and isotope tracer techniques indicates that the Jericho zircon-bearing eclogite xenoliths have had a complex history involving Paleoproterozoic metamorphism, thermal perturbations, and two or more episodes of Precambrian mantle metasomatism. The oldest metasomatic event (Type 1) occurred near the time of Paleoproterozoic metamorphism (~1·8 Ga) and is responsible for the extreme HFSE enrichment and growth of zircon and high-niobian rutile. A second thermal perturbation and concomitant carbonatite metasomatism (Type 2) is responsible for significant apatite growth in some xenoliths and profound light rare earth element enrichment. Type 2 metasomatism occurred in the period 1·0-1·3 Ga and is recorded by relatively consistent whole-rock eclogite model Nd ages and secondary U-Pb zircon upper intercept dates. These eclogite xenoliths were derived from a variety of protoliths, some of which could represent metasomatized pieces of oceanic crust, possibly linked to east-dipping subduction beneath the Slave craton during construction of the 1·88-1·84 Ga Great Bear continental arc. Others, including the diamond-bearing eclogites, could be cumulates from mafic or ultramafic sill complexes that intruded the Slave lithospheric mantle at depths of about 150-180 km.

Keywords: zircon- and diamond-bearing eclogites; Jericho kimberlite, geochronology; Precambrian metasomatism, northern Slave Craton.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J PetrologyHome page
S. Aulbach, N. J. Pearson, S. Y. O'Reilly, and B. J. Doyle
Origins of Xenolithic Eclogites and Pyroxenites from the Central Slave Craton, Canada
J. Petrology, October 1, 2007; 48(10): 1843 - 1873.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.