Advertisement

Marine Geophysical Research

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 55–68 | Cite as

Characteristics of a ridge-transform inside corner intersection and associated mafic-hosted seafloor hydrothermal field (14.0°S, Mid-Atlantic Ridge)

  • Bing Li
  • Yaomin Yang
  • Xuefa Shi
  • Jun Ye
  • Jingjing Gao
  • Aimei Zhu
  • Mingjuan Shao
Original Research Paper

Abstract

Morphotectonic analysis of the inside corner intersection (14.0°S) between the southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Cardno fracture zone indicate a young rough massif emerging after the termination of a previous oceanic core complex. The massif, which hosts an off-axis hydrothermal field, is characterized by a magmatic inactive volcanic structure, based on geologic mapping and sample studies. Mineralogical analyses show that the prominent hydrothermal deposit was characterized by massive pyrite-marcasite breccias with silica-rich gangue minerals. Geochemical analyses of the sulfide breccias indicate two element groups: the Fe-rich ore mineral group and silica-rich gangue mineral group. Rare earth element distribution patterns showing coexistence of positive Eu anomalies and negative Ce anomalies suggest that sulfides were precipitated from diffused discharge resulted from mixing between seawater and vent fluids. Different from several low temperature hydrothermal systems occurring on other intersection dome-like massifs that are recognized as detachment fault surfaces associated with variably metamorphosed ultramafic rocks, the 14.0°S field, hosted in gabbroic-basaltic substrate, is inferred to be of a high temperature system and likely to be driven by deep high temperature gabbroic intrusions. Additionally, the subsurface fossil detachment fault is also likely to play an important role in focusing hydrothermal fluids.

Keywords

Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge Inside corner hydrothermal activity Massive sulfide deposit Gabbroic intrusion Oceanic core complex 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out with the support of National public welfare projects for international seabed resources development (201005003), Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC40776034), China Ocean Mineral Resources Research and Development Association Research Program (DY125-12-R-01), besides, we thank all the crews and scientists of RV “Dayang Yihao” Cruises 21 and 22; the cruises were all organized by the second institute of oceanography, SOA.

References

  1. Allen DE, Seyfried WE Jr (2004) Serpentinization and heat generation: constraints from lost city and rainbow hydrothermal systems. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 68:1347–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augustin N, Lackschewitz K, Kuhn T et al (2008) Mineralogical and chemical mass changes in mafic and ultramafic rocks from the logatchev hydrothermal field (MAR 15 N). Mar Geol 256:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cann J, Blackman D, Smith D et al (1997) Corrugated slip surfaces formed at ridge-transform intersections on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Nature 385:329–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charlou J, Donval J, Douville E et al (1997) High methane flux between 15° N and the Azores Triple Junction, Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Hydrothermal and serpentinization processes. American Geophysical Union, Fall meeting: 831Google Scholar
  5. Chen YJ, Lin J (1999) Mechanisms for the formation of ridge-axis topography at slow-spreading ridges: a lithospheric-plate flexural model. Geophys J Int 136:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dekov V, Boycheva T, Hålenius U et al (2011) Mineralogical and geochemical evidence for hydrothermal activity at the west wall of 12° 50′ N core complex (Mid-Atlantic Ridge): A new ultramafic-hosted seafloor hydrothermal deposit? Marine Geology 90–102Google Scholar
  7. Dias S, Früh-Green G, Bernasconi S et al (2011) Geochemistry and stable isotope constraints on high-temperature activity from sediment cores of the Saldanha hydrothermal field. Mar Geol 279:128–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dick HJB (1989) Abyssal peridotites, very slow spreading ridges and ocean ridge magmatism. Geol Soc Lond Special Publ 42:71–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dick HJB, Natland JH, Ildefonse B (2006) Deep drilling in the oceanic crustand mantle. Oceanography 19:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubinin A (2004) Geochemistry of rare earth elements in the ocean. Lithol Min Resour 39:289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Escartin J, Smith DK, Cann J et al (2008) Central role of detachment faults in accretion of slow-spreading oceanic lithosphere. Nature 455:790–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fouquet Y, Cambon P, Etoubleau J et al (2010) Geodiversity of hydrothermal processes along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and ultramafic-hosted mineralization: a new type of oceanic Cu–Zn–Co–Au volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit. Geophys Monogr Ser 188:321–367Google Scholar
  13. Früh-Green GL, Kelley DS, Bernasconi SM et al (2003) 30,000 years of hydrothermal activity at the lost city vent field. Science 301:495–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. German C, Klinkhammer G, Edmond J et al (1990) Hydrothermal scavenging of rare-earth elements in the ocean. Nature 345:516–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hannington M, Alan GG, Herzig P Peter M et al (1998) Comparation of the TAG mound and stockwork complex with cyprus-type. Proc Ocean Drill Prog Sci Results 158:389–415Google Scholar
  16. Hannington M, Ronde C and Petersen S (2005) Seafloor tectonics and submarine hydrothermal systems. Economic Geology, Economic Geology 100th Anniversary Volume: 111–141Google Scholar
  17. Humphris SE, Herzig P, Miller D et al (1995) The internal structure of an active sea-floor massive sulfide deposit. Nature 377:713–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ildefonse B, Blackman D, John B et al (2007) Oceanic core complexes and crustal accretion at slow-spreading ridges. Geology 35:623–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelley DS, Karson JA (2001) An off-axis hydrothermal vent field near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at 30 N. Nature 412:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowell RP (2010) Hydrothermal circulation at slow spreading ridges: analysis of heat sources and heat transfer processes. Geophys Monogr Ser 188:11–26Google Scholar
  21. Ludwig KA, Kelley DS, Butterfield DA et al (2006) Formation and evolution of carbonate chimneys at the lost city hydrothermal field. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 70:3625–3645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macdonald KC, Fox PJ (1990) The mid-ocean ridge. Sci Am 262:72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macleod CJ, Escartin J, Banerji D et al (2002) Direct geological evidence for oceanic detachment faulting: the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 15 45′ N. Geology 30:879–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mccaig AM, Cliff RA, Escartin J et al (2007) Oceanic detachment faults focus very large volumes of black smoker fluids. Geology 35:935–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mccaig AM, Delacour A, Fallick AE et al (2010) Detachment fault control on hydrothermal circulation systems: interpreting the subsurface beneath the TAG hydrothermal field using the isotopic and geological evolution of oceanic core complexes in the Atlantic. Diversity of hydrothermal systems on slow spreading ocean ridges. Geophys Monogr Ser 188:207–240Google Scholar
  26. Mccollom TM, Bach W (2009) Thermodynamic constraints on hydrogen generation during serpentinization of ultramafic rocks. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 73:856–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melchert B, Devey CW, German C et al (2008) First evidence for high-temperature off-axis venting of deep crustal/mantle heat: the Nibelungen hydrothermal field, southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Earth Planet Sci Lett 275:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mills RA, Wells DM, Roberts S (2001) Genesis of ferromanganese crusts from the TAG hydrothermal field. Chem Geol 176:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgan JW, Wandless GA (1980) Rare earth element distribution in some hydrothermal minerals: evidence for crystallographic control. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 44:973–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norman HS et al (2002) Local lithospheric relief associated with fracture zones and ponded plume material. Geochem Geophys Geosys 3:1–17Google Scholar
  31. Olivarez AM, Owen RM (1989) REE/Fe variations in hydrothermal sediments: implications for the REE content of seawater. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 53:757–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Severinghaus JP, Macdonald KC (1988) High inside corners at ridge-transform intersections. Marine Geophys Res 9:353–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith WHF, Sandwell DT (1997) Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings. Science 277:1956–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tao et al (2011) Two hydrothermal fields found on the Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Sci China Earth Ser (D) 41:887–889Google Scholar
  35. Tivey MK (2007) Generation of seafloor hydrothermal vent fluids and associated mineral deposits. Oceanography 20:50–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tucholke BE, Lin J (1994) A geological model for the structure of ridge segments in slow spreading ocean crust. J Geophys Res 99:11937–11958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tucholke BE, Lin J, Kleinrock MC (1998) Megamullions and mullion structure defining oceanic metamorphic core complexes on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. J Geophys Res 103:9857–9866 (1978–2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tucholke BE et al (2001) Submersible study of an oceanic megamullion in the central North Atlantic. J Geophys Res 106:16145–16161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tucholke BE, Behn MD, Buck WR et al (2008) Role of melt supply in oceanic detachment faulting and formation of megamullions. Geology 36:455–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Von Damm KL (2001) Lost city found. Nature 412:127–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilcock WSD, Delaney JR (1996) Mid-ocean ridge sulfide deposits: evidence for heat extraction from magma chambers or cracking fronts? Earth Planet Sci Lett 145:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bing Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yaomin Yang
    • 2
    • 4
  • Xuefa Shi
    • 2
  • Jun Ye
    • 2
  • Jingjing Gao
    • 2
  • Aimei Zhu
    • 2
  • Mingjuan Shao
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of OceanologyChinese Academy of SciencesQingdaoChina
  2. 2.First Institute of OceanographyState Oceanic AdministrationQingdaoChina
  3. 3.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.National Deep Sea CenterState Oceanic AdministrationQingdaoChina
  5. 5.China University of GeosciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations