Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorParnell-Turner, Ross  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorMittelstaedt, Eric  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorKurz, Mark D.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorJones, Meghan R.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorSoule, Samuel A.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorKlein, Frieder  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorWanless, V. Dorsey  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorFornari, Daniel J.  Concept link
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-15T16:33:49Z
dc.date.available2019-03-14T09:00:38Z
dc.date.issued2018-09-14
dc.identifier.citationGeochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 19 (2018): 3115-3127en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1912/10708
dc.descriptionAuthor Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2018. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 19 (2018): 3115-3127, doi:10.1029/2018GC007536.en_US
dc.description.abstractWhile processes associated with initiation and maintenance of oceanic detachment faults are becoming better constrained, much less is known about the tectonic and magmatic conditions that lead to fault abandonment. Here we present results from near‐bottom investigations using the submersible Alvin and autonomous underwater vehicle Sentry at a recently extinct detachment fault near 13°48′N, Mid‐Atlantic Ridge, that allow documentation of the final stages of fault activity and magmatism. Seafloor imagery, sampling, and near‐bottom magnetic data show that the detachment footwall is intersected by an ~850 m‐wide volcanic outcrop including pillow lavas. Saturation pressures in these vesicular basalts, based on dissolved H2O and CO2, are less than their collection pressures, which could be explained by eruption at a shallower level than their present depth. Sub‐bottom profiles reveal that sediment thickness, a loose proxy for seafloor age, is ~2 m greater on top of the volcanic terrain than on the footwall adjacent to the hanging‐wall cutoff. This difference could be explained by current‐driven erosion in the axial valley or by continued slip after volcanic emplacement, on either a newly formed or pre‐existing fault. Since current speeds near the footwall are unlikely to be sufficient to cause significant erosion, we favor the hypothesis that detachment slip continued after the episode of magmatism, consistent with growing evidence that oceanic detachments can continue to slip despite hosting magmatic intrusions.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Science Foundation (NSF) Grant Numbers: OCE‐1259218, OCE‐1260578, OCE‐1736547en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sonsen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1029/2018GC007536
dc.subjectMid‐ocean ridgeen_US
dc.subjectOceanic detachment faulten_US
dc.subjectNear‐bottom geophysicsen_US
dc.subjectVolatile geochemistryen_US
dc.titleThe final stages of slip and volcanism on an oceanic detachment fault at 13°48′N, Mid‐Atlantic Ridgeen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.embargo2019-03-14en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1029/2018GC007536


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record