Magmatic evolution of the material of the Earth’s lower mantle: Stishovite paradox and origin of superdeep diamonds (Experiments at 24–26 GPa)

The ultrabasic–basic magmatic evolution of the lower mantle material includes important physicochemical phenomena, such as the stishovite paradox and the genesis of superdeep diamonds. Stishovite SiO₂ and periclase–wüstite solid solutions, (MgO · FeO)_ss, associate paradoxically in primary inclusions of superdeep lower mantle diamonds. Under the conditions of the Earth’s crust and upper mantle, such oxide assemblages are chemically impossible (forbidden), because the oxides MgO and FeO and SiO₂ react to produce intermediate silicate compounds, enstatite and ferrosilite. Experimental and physicochemical investigations of melting phase relations in the MgO–FeO–SiO₂–CaSiO₃ system at 24 GPa revealed a peritectic mechanism of the stishovite paradox, (Mg, Fe)SiO₃ (bridgmanite) + L = SiO₂ + (Mg, Fe)O during the ultrabasic–basic magmatic evolution of the primitive oxide–silicate lower mantle material. Experiments at 26 GPa with oxide–silicate–carbonate–carbon melts, parental for diamonds and primary inclusions in them, demonstrated the equilibrium formation of superdeep diamonds in association with ultrabasic, (Mg, Fe)SiO₃ (bridgmanite) + (MgO · FeO)_ss (ferropericlase), and basic minerals, (FeO · MgO)_ss (magnesiowüstite) + SiO₂ (stishovite). This leads to the conclusion that a peritectic mechanism, similar to that responsible for the stishovite paradox in the pristine lower mantle material, operates also in the parental media of superdeep diamonds. Thus, this mechanism promotes both the ultrabasic–basic evolution of primitive oxide–silicate magmas in the lower mantle and oxide–silicate–carbonate melts parental for superdeep diamonds and their paradoxical primary inclusions.     

澳大利亚金刚石的成因类型及产地来源特征综述

对已经发表的数十篇关于澳大利亚金刚石的英文文献进行了梳理,从其金刚石的品质、颜色类型、形态及表面特征、生长结构及微量元素、包裹体、C同位素等方面探索了澳大利亚不同区域金刚石可能存在的产地来源特征.研究显示,澳大利亚金刚石可分为岩石圈地幔成因、超深地幔成因和俯冲环境来源等成因类型;大部分澳大利亚金刚石都因经历过强烈的晶格变形或熔蚀作用而晶体圆化,但不同产地来源的金刚石在颜色组合、橄榄岩型和榴辉岩型金刚石比例、C同位素组成特征等方面存在一定差异.上述结果表明,总体上,澳大利亚不同区域金刚石具有一定的产地来源个性,但无法简单确认澳大利亚金刚石“整体”的产地来源特征;只有结合成因来源进行分析,才能够较深入地理解不同区域金刚石的特征组合及其意义,从而为理解其产地来源的特殊性提供帮助.     

大洋地幔橄榄岩-铬铁矿中的金刚石和深地幔再循环

全球多地蛇绿岩型地幔橄榄岩和铬铁矿中发现微粒金刚石,并在中国西藏南部和俄罗斯乌拉尔北部的蛇绿岩铬铁矿中发现原位产出的金刚石,认为是地球上金刚石的一种新的产出类型,不同于金伯利岩型金刚石和超高压变质型金刚石。它们与呈斯石英假象的柯石英、高压相的铬铁矿和青松矿等高压矿物以及碳硅石和单质矿物等强还原矿物伴生,指示蛇绿岩中的这些矿物组合形成于深度150~300 km或者更深的地幔。金刚石具有很轻的C同位素组成（δ13C-18‰~-28‰）,并出现多种含Mn矿物和壳源成分包裹体。研究认为它们曾是早期深俯冲的地壳物质,达到>300 km深部地幔或地幔过渡带后,经历了熔融并产生新的流体,后者在上升过程中结晶成新的超高压、强还原矿物组合,通过地幔对流或地幔柱作用被带回到浅部地幔,由此建立了一个俯冲物质深地幔再循环的新模式。蛇绿岩型地幔橄榄岩和铬铁矿中发现金刚石等深部矿物,质疑了蛇绿岩铬铁矿形成于浅部地幔的已有认识,引发了一系列新的科学问题,提出了新的研究方向。      

Review on Lithospheric Diamonds and Their Mineral Inclusions

Diamonds and their mineral inclusions are valuable for studying the genesis of diamonds, the characteristics and processes of ancient lithospheric mantle and deeper mantle. This has been paid lots of attentions by geologists both at home and abroad. Most diamonds come from lithospheric mantle. According to their formation preceded, accompanied or followed crystallization of their host diamonds, mineral inclusions in diamonds are divided into three groups: protogenetic, syngenetic and epigenetic. To determine which group the mineral inclusions belong to is very important because it is vital for understanding the data’s meaning. According to the type of mantle source rocks, mineral inclusions in diamonds are usually divided into peridotitic (or ultramafic) suite and eclogitic suite. The mineral species of each suite are described and mineralogical characteristics of most common inclusions in diamonds, such as olivine, clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene, garnet, chromite and sulfide are reviewed in detail. In this paper, the main research fields and findings of diamonds and their inclusions were described: ①getting knowledge of mineralogical and petrologic characteristics of diamond source areas, characteristics of mantle fluids and mantle dynamics processes by studying the major element and trace element compositions of mineral inclusions; ②discussing deep carbon cycle by studying carbon isotopic composition of diamonds; ③determining forming temperature and pressure of diamonds by using appropriate assemblages of mineral inclusions or single mineral inclusion as geothermobarometry, by using the abundance and aggregation of nitrogen impurities in diamonds and by measuring the residual stress that an inclusion remains under within a diamond ; ④estimating the crystallization ages of diamonds by using the aggregation of nitrogen impurities in diamonds and by determine the radiometric ages of syngenetic mineral inclusions in diamonds. Genetic model of craton lithospheric diamonds and their mineral inclusion were also introduced. In the end, the research progress on diamonds and their inclusions in China and the gap between domestic and international research are discussed.     

Diamonds from Jagersfontein (South Africa): messengers from the sublithospheric mantle

The diamond population from the Jagersfontein kimberlite is characterized by a high abundance of eclogitic, besides peridotitic and a small group of websteritic diamonds. The majority of inclusions indicate that the diamonds are formed in the subcratonic lithospheric mantle. Inclusions of the eclogitic paragenesis, which generally have a wide compositional range, include two groups of eclogitic garnets (high and low Ca) which are also distinct in their rare earth element composition. Within the eclogitic and websteritic suite, diamonds with inclusions of majoritic garnets were found, which provide evidence for their formation within the asthenosphere and transition zone. Unlike the lithospheric garnets all majoritic garnet inclusions show negative Eu-anomalies. A narrow range of isotopically light carbon compositions (δ¹³C −17 to −24 ‰) of the host diamonds suggests that diamond formation in the sublithospheric mantle is principally different to that in the lithosphere. Direct conversion from graphite in a subducting slab appears to be the main mechanism responsible for diamond formation in this part of the Earth’s mantle beneath the Kaapvaal Craton. The peridotitic inclusion suite at Jagersfontein is similar to other diamond deposits on the Kaapvaal Craton and characterized by harzburgitic to low-Ca harzburgitic compositions.     

Archean diamonds from Wawa (Canada): samples from deep cratonic roots predating cratonization of the Superior Province

With an age of ca. 2.7 Ga, greenschist facies volcaniclastic rocks and lamprophyre dikes in the Wawa area (Superior Craton) host the only diamonds emplaced in the Archean available for study today. Nitrogen aggregation in Wawa diamonds ranges from Type IaA to IaB, suggesting mantle residence times of tens to hundreds of millions of years. The carbon isotopic composition (δ¹³C) of cube diamonds is similar to the accepted mantle value (− 5.0‰). Octahedral diamonds show a slight shift (by + 1.5‰) to isotopically less negative values suggesting a subduction-derived, isotopically heavy component in the diamond-forming fluids. Syngenetic inclusions in Wawa diamonds are exclusively peridotitic and, similar to many diamond occurrences worldwide, are dominated by the harzburgitic paragenesis. Compositionally they provide a perfect match to inclusions from diamonds with isotopically dated Paleo- to Mesoarchean crystallization ages. Several high-Cr harzburgitic garnet inclusions contain a small majorite component suggesting crystallization at depth of up to 300 km. Combining diamond and inclusion data indicates that Wawa diamonds formed and resided in a very thick package of chemically depleted lithospheric mantle that predates stabilization of the Superior Craton. If late granite blooms are interpreted as final stages of cratonization then a similar disconnect between Paleo- to Mesoarchean diamondiferous mantle lithosphere and Neoarchean cratonization is also apparent in other areas (e.g., the Lac de Gras area of the Slave Craton) and may suggest that early continental nuclei formed and retained their own diamondiferous roots.     

俯冲物质深地幔循环——地球动力学研究的一个新方向

地球上发生的各种地壳运动,大规模的火山喷发,不同深度不同规模的地震活动,规模宏大的山脉和高原的形成,以及地球历史上发生的大陆漂移运动,都被认为与板块构造活动密切相关。但这些运动的动力源究竟来自何方?如何去发现和证明它们的存在以及从理论上去认识和解释,是当今地球科学面临的巨大挑战,也是今后很长一段时间内地球科学的前沿和热点问题。近些年,人们通过各种方法,试图从更深部寻找板块作用动力学的证据。首先是地震层析研究取得了很大进展,获得了许多区域性和全球的高分辨率3-D地震地幔波速结构,使得我们得以认识地球深部的结构,探讨地幔的物质组成,流体的作用和动力学过程。证据显示,板块俯冲不仅可以到达地幔过渡带深度,而且可达到下地幔底部,堆积在核幔边界的上部,成为核幔边界产生的地幔柱的重要物质组成。其次是开展了大量的实验岩石学研究,模拟了一系列地球深部的高温高压矿物组合,被认为可能代表了地幔过渡带和下地幔的矿物组合,甚至核幔边界的含水矿物组合。另一方面,计算机模拟实验揭示了冷的大洋岩石圈发生深俯冲是可行的。尤为重要的是,许多来自地幔过渡带甚至下地幔深度的高压矿物已经在自然界陆续被发现,证明其中一些矿物是源...     

Origin of sub-lithospheric diamonds from the Juina-5 kimberlite (Brazil): constraints from carbon isotopes and inclusion compositions

Forty-one diamonds sourced from the Juina-5 kimberlite pipe in Southern Brazil, which contain optically identifiable inclusions, have been studied using an integrated approach. The diamonds contain <20 ppm nitrogen (N) that is fully aggregated as B centres. Internal structures in several diamonds revealed using cathodoluminescence (CL) are unlike those normally observed in lithospheric samples. The majority of the diamonds are composed of isotopically light carbon, and the collection has a unimodal distribution heavily skewed towards δ¹³C ~ ?25 ‰. Individual diamonds can display large carbon isotope heterogeneity of up to ~15 ‰ and predominantly have isotopically lighter cores displaying blue CL, and heavier rims with green CL. The light carbon isotopic compositions are interpreted as evidence of diamond growth from abiotic organic carbon added to the oceanic crust during hydrothermal alteration. The bulk isotopic composition of the oceanic crust, carbonates plus organics, is equal to the composition of mantle carbon (?5 ‰), and we suggest that recycling/mixing of subducted material will replenish this reservoir over geological time. Several exposed, syngenetic inclusions have bulk compositions consistent with former eclogitic magnesium silicate perovskite, calcium silicate perovskite and NAL or CF phases that have re-equilibrated during their exhumation to the surface. There are multiple occurrences of majoritic garnet with pyroxene exsolution, coesite with and without kyanite exsolution, clinopyroxene, Fe or Fe-carbide and sulphide minerals alongside single occurrences of olivine and ferropericlase. As a group, the inclusions have eclogitic affinity and provide evidence for diamond formation at pressures extending to Earth’s deep transition zone and possibly the lower mantle. It is observed that the major element composition of inclusions and isotopic compositions of host Juina-5 diamonds are not correlated. The diamond and inclusion compositions are intimately related to subducted material and record a polybaric growth history across a depth interval stretching from the lower mantle to the base of the lithosphere. It is suggested that the interaction of slab-derived melts and mantle material combined with subsequent upward transport in channelised networks or a buoyant diapir explains the formation of Juina-5 diamonds. We conclude that these samples, despite originating at great mantle depths, do not provide direct information about the ambient mantle, instead, providing a snapshot of the Earth’s deep carbon cycle.     

Surprises from the top of the mantle transition zone

Recent studies of chromite deposits from the mantle section of ophiolites have revealed a most unusual collection of minerals present as inclusions within the chromite. The initial discoveries were of diamonds from the Luobosa ophiolite in Tibet. Further work has shown that mantle chromitites from ophiolites in Tibet, the Russian Urals and Oman contain a range of crustal minerals including zircon, and a suite of highly reducing minerals including carbides, nitrides and metal alloys. Some of the minerals found represent very high pressure phases indicating that their likely minimum depth is close to the top of the mantle transition zone. These new results suggest that crustal materials may be subducted to mantle transition zone depths and subsequently exhumed during the initiation of new subduction zones—the most likely environment for the formation of their host ophiolites. The presence of highly reducing phases indicates that at mantle transition zone depths the Earth's mantle is ‘super’‐reducing.     

Diamonds: time capsules from the Siberian Mantle

Diamonds are thought to be “time capsules” from the Earth's mantle. However, by themselves, consisting of nearly pure carbon, diamonds provide little geochemical information about their conditions of formation and the nature of their mantle hosts. This obstacle to studying the origin of diamonds and their hosts can be overcome by using two main approaches that focus on studying: (1) the rocks that contain diamonds, i.e., diamondiferous xenoliths; and (2) mineral inclusions within the diamonds, the time capsule's little treasures, if you will. Diamondiferous xenoliths, their diamonds, and mineral inclusions within the diamonds are the subject of this review, focusing on studies of samples from the Yakutian kimberlites in the Siberian Platform.Studies of diamondiferous eclogite xenoliths significantly enhance our understanding of the complex petrogenesis of this important group of rocks and their diamonds. Such studies involve various geochemical and petrological investigations of these eclogites, including major and trace-element, radiogenic as well as stable isotopic analyses of whole rocks and minerals. The results from these studies have clearly established that the Group A-C eclogites originate from subduction of ancient oceanic crust. This theory is probably applicable worldwide.Within the last several years, our research group at Tennessee has undertaken the systematic dissection (pull apart) of diamondiferous eclogites from Siberia, consisting of the following steps: (1) high-resolution computed X-ray tomography of the xenoliths to produce 3D images that relate the minerals of the xenoliths to their diamonds; (2) detailed dissection of the entire xenolith to reveal the diamonds inside, followed by characterization of the setting of the diamonds within their enclosing minerals; and (3) extraction of diamonds from the xenolith for further investigation of the diamonds and their inclusions. In this last step, it is important that the nature and relative positions of the diamond inclusions are carefully noted in order to maximize the number of inclusions that can be exposed simultaneously on one polished surface. In this modus operandi, cathodoluminescence imaging, plus FTIR/N aggregation and C/N isotopic analyses are performed on polished diamond surfaces to reveal their internal growth zones and the spatial relationship of the mineral inclusions to these zones.Knowledge gained by such detailed, albeit work-intensive, studies continues to add immensely to the constantly evolving models of the origin of diamonds and their host rocks in the Earth's mantle, as well as to lithospheric stability models in cratonic areas. Multiple lines of evidence indicate the ultimate crustal origin for the majority of mantle eclogites. Similar pieces of evidence, particularly from δ¹³C in P-type diamonds and δ¹⁸O in peridotitic garnets lead to the suggestion that at least some of the mantle peridotites, including diamondiferous ones, as well as inclusions in P-type diamonds, may have had a crustal protolith as well.     

Microdiamonds — Frontier of ultrahigh-pressure metamorphism: A review

This is a comprehensive review paper devoted to microdiamonds from ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic (UHPM) terranes incorporated in orogenic belts formed at convergent plate boundaries in Paleozoic-Mesozoic-Alpine time. When in 1980 the first small diamonds were discovered within “amphibolite-granulate facies” metamorphic rocks, it came as a great surprise that buoyant continental crust could be subducted to depths of hundreds of kilometers and then subsequently exhumed. Since then, much progress has been made in understanding the mechanism of these diamonds' formation, and the number of new diamond-bearing UHPM terranes was significantly increased, especially within European orogenes. Moreover, new variations in tectonic settings in which UHP rocks can be formed and exhumed came to the attention of geologists simply due to the finding of diamonds in places previously “forbidden” for their formation—e.g., oceanic islands, ophiolites, and forearc environments. Over the past decade, the rapidly moving technological advancement has made it possible to examine microdiamonds in detail and to learn that part of them has a polycrystalline nature; that they contain nanometric, multiphase inclusions of crystalline and fluid phases; and that they keep a “crustal” signature of carbon isotopes. Scanning and transmission electron microscopy, focused-ion-beam techniques, synchrotron infrared spectroscopy, micro X-ray diffraction, and nano-secondary ion mass spectrometry studies of these diamonds provide evidence that they keep traces of fluid originated from both crustal and mantle reservoirs, and that they probably interacted with deep mantle plumes. Hypotheses proposed for diamond formation in subduction zones founded on both analytical and experimental studies are discussed. The paper also emphasizes that the discovery of these microdiamonds (as well as coesite) triggered a major revision in the understanding of deep subduction processes, leading to a clear realization of how continental materials can be recycled into the Earth's mantle and geochemically rejuvenate it.     

Peridotitic diamonds from the Slave and the Kaapvaal cratons—similarities and differences based on a preliminary data set

A comparison of the diamond productions from Panda (Ekati Mine) and Snap Lake with those from southern Africa shows significant differences: diamonds from the Slave typically are un-resorbed octahedrals or macles, often with opaque coats, and yellow colours are very rare. Diamonds from the Kaapvaal are dominated by resorbed, dodecahedral shapes, coats are absent and yellow colours are common. The first two features suggest exposure to oxidizing fluids/melts during mantle storage and/or transport to the Earth's surface, for the Kaapvaal diamond population.

Comparing peridotitic inclusions in diamonds from the central and southern Slave (Panda, DO27 and Snap Lake kimberlites) and the Kaapvaal indicates that the diamondiferous mantle lithosphere beneath the Slave is chemically less depleted. Most notable are the almost complete absence of garnet inclusions derived from low-Ca harzburgites and a generally lower Mg-number of Slave inclusions.

Geothermobarometric calculations suggest that Slave diamonds originally formed at very similar thermal conditions as observed beneath the Kaapvaal (geothermal gradients corresponding to 40–42 mW/m² surface heat flow), but the diamond source regions subsequently cooled by about 100–150 °C to fall on a 37–38 mW/m² (surface heat flow) conductive geotherm, as is evidenced from touching (re-equilibrated) inclusions in diamonds, and from xenocrysts and xenoliths. In the Kaapvaal, a similar thermal evolution has previously been recognized for diamonds from the De Beers Pool kimberlites. In part very low aggregation levels of nitrogen impurities in Slave diamonds imply that cooling occurred soon after diamond formation. This may relate elevated temperatures during diamond formation to short-lived magmatic perturbations.

Generally high Cr-contents of pyrope garnets (inside and outside of diamonds) indicate that the mantle lithosphere beneath the Slave originally formed as a residue of melt extraction at relatively low pressures (within the stability field of spinelperidotites), possibly during the extraction of oceanic crust. After emplacement of this depleted, oceanic mantle lithosphere into the Slave lithosphere during a subduction event, secondary metasomatic enrichment occurred leading to strong re-enrichment of the deeper (>140 km) lithosphere. Because of the extent of this event and the occurrence of lower mantle diamonds, this may be related to an upwelling plume, but it may equally just reflect a long term evolution with lower mantle diamonds being transported upwards in the course of “normal” mantle convection.     

Micro- and nano-inclusions in a superdeep diamond from São Luiz,Brazil

We report cloudy micro- and nano-inclusions in a superdeep diamond from São-Luiz, Brazil which contains inclusions of ferropericlase (Mg, Fe)O and former bridgmanite (Mg, Fe)SiO₃ and ringwoodite (Mg, Fe)₂SiO₄. Field emission-SEM and TEM observations showed that the cloudy inclusions were composed of euhedral micro-inclusions with grain sizes ranging from tens nanometers to submicrometers. Infrared absorption spectra of the cloudy inclusions showed that water, carbonate, and silicates were not major components of these micro- and nano-inclusions and suggested that the main constituent of the inclusions was infrared-inactive. Some inclusions were suggested to contain material with lower atomic numbers than that of carbon. Mineral phase of nano- and micro-inclusions is unclear at present. Microbeam X-ray fluorescence analysis clarified that the micro-inclusions contained transition metals (Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn) possibly as metallic or sulfide phases. The cloudy inclusions provide an important information on the growth environment of superdeep diamonds in the transition zone or the lower mantle.     

Diamond in Oceanic Peridotites and Chromitites: Evidence for Deep Recycled Mantle in the Global Ophiolite Record

Diamonds have been discovered in mantle peridotites and chromitites of six ophiolitic massifs along the 1300 km‐long Yarlung‐Zangbo suture (Bai et al., 1993; Yang et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2015), and in the Dongqiao and Dingqing mantle peridotites of the Bangong‐Nujiang suture in the eastern Tethyan zone (Robinson et al., 2004; Xiong et al., 2018). Recently, in‐situ diamond, coesite and other UHP mineral have also been reported in the Nidar ophiolite of the western Yarlung‐Zangbo suture (Das et al., 2015, 2017). The above‐mentioned diamond‐bearing ophiolites represent remnants of the eastern Mesozoic Tethyan oceanic lithosphere. New publications show that diamonds also occur in chromitites in the Pozanti‐Karsanti ophiolite of Turkey, and in the Mirdita ophiolite of Albania in the western Tethyan zone (Lian et al., 2017; Xiong et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2018). Similar diamonds and associated minerals have also reported from Paleozoic ophiolitic chromitites of Central Asian Orogenic Belt of China and the Ray‐Iz ophiolite in the Polar Urals, Russia (Yang et al., 2015a, b; Tian et al., 2015; Huang et al, 2015). Importantly, in‐situ diamonds have been recovered in chromitites of both the Luobusa ophiolite in Tbet and the Ray‐Iz ophiolite in Russia (Yang et al., 2014, 2015a). The extensive occurrences of such ultra‐high pressure (UHP) minerals in many ophiolites suggest formation by similar geological events in different oceans and orogenic belts of different ages. Compared to diamonds from kimberlites and UHP metamorphic belts, micro‐diamonds from ophiolites present a new occurrence of diamond that requires significantly different physical and chemical conditions of formation in Earth's mantle. The forms of chromite and qingsongites (BN) indicate that ophiolitic chromitite may form at depths of >150‐380 km or even deeper in the mantle (Yang et al., 2007; Dobrthinetskaya et al., 2009). The very light C isotope composition (δ13C ‐18 to ‐28‰) of these ophiolitic diamonds and their Mn‐bearing mineral inclusions, as well as coesite and clinopyroxene lamallae in chromite grains all indicate recycling of ancient continental or oceanic crustal materials into the deep mantle (>300 km) or down to the mantle transition zone via subduction (Yang et al., 2014, 2015a; Robinson et al., 2015; Moe et al., 2018). These new observations and new data strongly suggest that micro‐diamonds and their host podiform chromitite may have formed near the transition zone in the deep mantle, and that they were then transported upward into shallow mantle depths by convection processes. The in‐situ occurrence of micro‐diamonds has been well‐demonstrated by different groups of international researchers, along with other UHP minerals in podiform chromitites and ophiolitic peridotites clearly indicate their deep mantle origin and effectively address questions of possible contamination during sample processing and analytical work. The widespread occurrence of ophiolite‐hosted diamonds and associated UHP mineral groups suggests that they may be a common feature of in‐situ oceanic mantle. The fundamental scientific question to address here is how and where these micro‐diamonds and UHP minerals first crystallized, how they were incorporated into ophiolitic chromitites and peridotites and how they were preserved during transport to the surface. Thus, diamonds and UHP minerals in ophiolites have raised new scientific problems and opened a new window for geologists to study recycling from crust to deep mantle and back to the surface.     

Metasomatic Eclogitic Diamond Growth: Evidence from Multiple Diamond Inclusions

Diamond formation from metasomatic fluids, rather than from igneous melts, remains controversial but is paramount to our understanding of diamonds' mantle origin(s). Physical and chemical properties of diamonds, their inclusions, and host eclogites from the Mir kimberlite, Yakutia, Russia form the basis for our evaluation of diamond origin. Mir eclogitic diamonds and their multiple inclusions show a definite break in time and temperature between the formation of the core zones and the rims of the diamonds. Extreme changes in chemistry for multiple diamond inclusions (DIs) between the cores and the rims cannot be accounted for by magmatic fractional crystallization. Evidence also exists for large temperature decreases (40° to 140°C) from the cores to the rims of some diamonds. The distinct changes in nitrogen contents and aggregation states from cores to rims of diamonds would appear to reflect different residence times for these portions of the diamonds in the mantle- i.e., formation of cores and rims at vastly different times (e.g., 2 Gy). Many of the mineral-chemical characteristics, including C and N isotopes and N aggregation states of the diamond, can best be explained by crystallization of the diamonds after formation of the eclogite host. This suggests that the formation of the eclogite and the nucleation and growth of some diamonds are not coeval and possibly not cogenetic.

Most diamondiferous eclogite xenoliths probably have never experienced a major magmatic episode (i.e., complete melt stage) after subduction of their crustal protoliths into the mantle. Carbon isotopes in diamond, sulfur isotopes from sulfide DIs, and oxygen isotopes from eclogite minerals all point to crustal protoliths for many eclogites.

All of the factors above, taken as a whole, indicate that many eclogitic diamonds are the result of petrogenesis by metasomatism over a prolonged period of time. Introduction of metasomatic fluids facilitates the precipitation of the diamonds, either in tolo or as rims on previously formed diamonds. Inasmuch as some eclogites are considered to be igneous in origine.g., Group-A eclogites of Taylor and Neal (1989)-it is entirely possible that these eclogites may contain truly igneous diamonds. However, even some of these diamonds may have later metasomatic overgrowths.     

Regional patterns in the paragenesis and age of inclusions in diamond, diamond composition, and the lithospheric seismic structure of Southern Africa

The Archean lithospheric mantle beneath the Kaapvaal–Zimbabwe craton of Southern Africa shows ±1% variations in seismic P-wave velocity at depths within the diamond stability field (150–250 km) that correlate regionally with differences in the composition of diamonds and their syngenetic inclusions. Seismically slower mantle trends from the mantle below Swaziland to that below southeastern Botswana, roughly following the surface outcrop pattern of the Bushveld-Molopo Farms Complex. Seismically slower mantle also is evident under the southwestern side of the Zimbabwe craton below crust metamorphosed around 2 Ga. Individual eclogitic sulfide inclusions in diamonds from the Kimberley area kimberlites, Koffiefontein, Orapa, and Jwaneng have Re–Os isotopic ages that range from circa 2.9 Ga to the Proterozoic and show little correspondence with these lithospheric variations. However, silicate inclusions in diamonds and their host diamond compositions for the above kimberlites, Finsch, Jagersfontein, Roberts Victor, Premier, Venetia, and Letlhakane do show some regional relationship to the seismic velocity of the lithosphere. Mantle lithosphere with slower P-wave velocity correlates with a greater proportion of eclogitic versus peridotitic silicate inclusions in diamond, a greater incidence of younger Sm–Nd ages of silicate inclusions, a greater proportion of diamonds with lighter C isotopic composition, and a lower percentage of low-N diamonds whereas the converse is true for diamonds from higher velocity mantle. The oldest formation ages of diamonds indicate that the mantle keels which became continental nuclei were created by middle Archean (3.2–3.3 Ga) mantle depletion events with high degrees of melting and early harzburgite formation. The predominance of sulfide inclusions that are eclogitic in the 2.9 Ga age population links late Archean (2.9 Ga) subduction-accretion events involving an oceanic lithosphere component to craton stabilization. These events resulted in a widely distributed younger Archean generation of eclogitic diamonds in the lithospheric mantle. Subsequent Proterozoic tectonic and magmatic events altered the composition of the continental lithosphere and added new lherzolitic and eclogitic diamonds to the already extensive Archean diamond suite.     

Diamondiferous lithospheric roots along the western margin of the Kalahari Craton—the peridotitic inclusion suite in diamonds from Orapa and Jwaneng

The Orapa and Jwaneng kimberlites are located along the western margin of the Kalahari Craton and the prevalence of eclogitic over peridotitic diamonds in both mines has recently been linked to lower P-wave velocities in the deep mantle lithosphere (relative to the bulk of the craton) to suggest a diamond formation event prompted by mid-Proterozoic growth and modification of preexisting Archean lithosphere (Shirey et al. 2002). Here we study peridotitic diamonds from both mines, with an emphasis on the style of metasomatic source enrichment, to evaluate their relationship with this major eclogitic diamond formation event. In their major element chemistry, the peridotitic inclusions compare well with a world-wide database but reveal differences to diamond sources located in the interior of the Western Terrane of the Kaapvaal block, where the classical mines in the Kimberley region are located. The most striking difference is the relative paucity of low-Ca (<2 wt% CaO in garnet) harzburgites and a low ratio of harzburgitic to lherzolitic garnets (2:1). This suggests that lithospheric mantle accreted to the rim of the Zimbabwe and Kaapvaal blocks was overall chemically less depleted. Alternatively, this more fertile signature may be assigned to stronger metasomatic re-enrichment but the trace element signature of garnet inclusions is not in favor of strong enrichment in major elements. For both mines the majority of lherzolitic and harzburgitic garnet inclusions are characterized by moderately sinusoidal REE_N patterns and low Ti, Zr and Y contents, indicative of a metasomatic agent with very high LREE/HREE and low HFSE. This is consistent with metasomatism by a CHO-fluid or, as modeled by Burgess and Harte (2003), a highly fractionated, low-volume silicate melt from the MORB-source. In both cases, changes in the major element chemistry of the affected rocks will be limited. In a few garnets from Orapa preferential MREE enrichment is observed, suggesting that the percolating fluid/melt fractionated a LREE-phyllic phase (such as crichtonite). The overall moderate degree of metasomatism reflected by the inclusion chemistry is in stark contrast to lithospheric sections for Orapa and Jwaneng based on mantle xenocrysts and xenoliths, revealing extensive mantle metasomatism (Griffin et al. 2003). This suggests that the formation of peridotitic diamonds predates the intensive modification of the subcratonic lithosphere during Proterozoic rifting and compression, implying that diamonds may survive major tectonothermal events.Editorial responsibility: J. Hoefs     

Superdeep diamonds from the Juina area, Mato Grosso State, Brazil

Alluvial diamonds from the Juina area in Mato Grosso, Brazil, have been characterized in terms of their morphology, syngenetic mineral inclusions, carbon isotopes and nitrogen contents. Morphologically, they are similar to other Brazilian diamonds, showing a strong predominance of rounded dodecahedral crystals. However, other characteristics of the Juina diamonds make them unique. The inclusion parageneses of Juina diamonds are dominated by ultra-high-pressure ("superdeep") phases that differ both from "traditional" syngenetic minerals associated with diamonds and, in detail, from most other superdeep assemblages. Ferropericlase is the dominant inclusion in the Juina diamonds. It coexists with ilmenite, Cr-Ti spinel, a phase with the major-element composition of olivine, and SiO₂. CaSi-perovskite inclusions coexist with titanite (sphene), "olivine" and native Ni. MgSi-perovskite coexists with TAPP (tetragonal almandine-pyrope phase). Majoritic garnet occurs in one diamond, associated with CaTi-perovskite, Mn-ilmenite and an unidentified Si-Mg phase. Neither Cr-pyrope nor Mg-chromite was found as inclusions. The spinel inclusions are low in Cr and Mg, and high in Ti (Cr₂O₃<36.5 wt%, and TiO₂>10 wt%). Most ilmenite inclusions have low MgO contents, and some have very high (up to 11.5 wt%) MnO contents. The rare "olivine" inclusions coexisting with ferropericlase have low Mg# (87-89), and higher Ca, Cr and Zn contents than typical diamond-inclusion olivines. They are interpreted as inverted from spinel-structured (Mg, Fe)₂Si₂O₄. This suite of inclusions is consistent with derivation of most of the diamonds from depths near 670 km, and adds ilmenite and relatively low-Cr, high-Ti spinel to the known phases of the superdeep paragenesis. Diamonds from the Juina area are characterized by a narrow range of carbon isotopic composition ('¹³C=-7.8 to -2.5‰), except for the one majorite-bearing diamond ('¹³C=-11.4‰). There are high proportions of nitrogen-free and low-nitrogen diamonds, and the aggregated B center is predominant in nitrogen-containing diamonds. These observations have practical consequences for diamond exploration: Low-Mg olivine, low-Mg and high-Mn ilmenite, and low-Cr spinel should be included in the list of diamond indicator minerals, and the role of high-Cr, low-Ti spinel as the only spinel associated with diamond, and hence as a criterion of diamond grade in kimberlites, should be reconsidered.     

大陆深俯冲后效作用的地球化学记录——华北中生代岩石圈地幔源区特征变异的讨论

早中生代扬子板块与华北板块之间的俯冲及其后两陆块间的碰撞为大陆深俯冲后效作用研究提供了一个少见的实例。本文在系统论述华北中生代深部年代学记录、深源岩类源区地球化学特征的时空变化规律,普遍的 Sr 同位素高度富集现象及其空间变化指向、高场强元素强烈分馏以及时间制约分析基础上,提出了导致这些源区特征变化最可能的机制为扬子板片深俯冲中析出的熔体/流体交代并改造了华北大陆岩石圈地幔。而其后中生代全球事件引发的中国东部广泛而强烈白垩纪构造-岩浆幕则提供了侵位于地壳层位深源岩类的成岩条件。本文强调指出对华北岩石圈地幔这种大尺度实体上的改造,应被视为扬子板片深俯冲后效作用中最具深远意义的一种表现,并对中生代华北岩石圈整体转型产生了重要影响。     

Mantle processes in an Archean orogen: Evidence from 2.67 Ga diamond-bearing lamprophyres and xenoliths

The world's oldest diamond deposits occur in 2.67 Ga dikes and heterolithic breccias emplaced into greenstone belts of the Wawa and Abitibi Subprovinces, southern Superior Province, Canada. Thousands of white to yellow microdiamonds and macrodiamonds to 5 mm in width have been recovered by non-contaminating fusion techniques. The host rocks exhibit petrographic and compositional features that are characteristic of post-Archean minettes and spessartites of the calc-alkaline or shoshonitic lamprophyre clan. Based on chemical trends and petrographic evidence, host rocks that contain more than 16 wt.% MgO represent lamprophyre magmas that entrained cumulate olivine, probably at the base of the crust. Breccia bodies that are tens of metres wide at the two localities are somewhat atypical of late Archean lamprophyre occurrences in the Superior Province and owe their size to optimum conditions for magma ascent that were required to preserve the diamonds. Abundant altered ultramafic xenoliths occur in the host rocks. The majority of xenoliths studied (10 of 14) display uniform major element compositions similar to websterite cumulate suites derived from crystal fractionation processes at the base of post-Archean volcanic arcs. The xenoliths display highly variable trace element abundances that are characteristic of cryptic metasomatism associated with the flux of an oxidised fluid above a subduction zone.

The tectonic setting of the deposits and the nature of the host rocks indicate that the diamonds may be derived from the asthenospheric wedge and subducted slab at shallow depths (100 to 160 km) rather than the deep keels of Archean cratons associated with traditional diamond deposit types. Models of low-temperature Phanerozoic diamond formation in active subduction zones, or rapid uplift and emplacement of peridotite massif occurrences, can be adapted to the Archean deposits. The stability field of diamonds in most Phanerozoic subduction scenarios, however, may be too deep to be accessed by the lamprophyric magmas. In contrast, shallow subduction, as invoked for the distinctive occurrence of adakitic (slab-melt) type rocks in the southern Superior Province, could generate two different diamond stability windows at sufficiently shallow depths to account for their presence in lamprophyric magmas.

The multiple requirements imposed on Archean tectonic models by occurrences of diamonds in hydrous shoshonitic rock types (spessartite and minette lamprophyres), along with distinctively metasomatised xenoliths, strongly favour plate tectonic subduction models of orogeny. Evidence of slightly earlier mantle plumes, such as 2.7 Ga komatiites, only strengthens the need for a subduction-driven low-temperature thermal anomaly in the Archean mantle prior to lamprophyric magmatism.