Petrology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 34–54 | Cite as

Kimberlites and lamproites: Criteria for similarity and differences

  • V. A. Kononova
  • O. A. Bogatikov
  • I. A. Kondrashov
Article

Abstract

Based on original data on the East European and Siberian platforms and materials on the best studied foreign objects, a comparative analysis of kimberlites and lamproites was conducted and the criteria of their differences were formulated. Among most significant differences are the following: (1) the high-Mg potassic rocks (kimberlites and lamproites) show major-component variations, which are significantly wider in lamproites as compared to kimberlites. Kimberlites differ from lamproites not only in the content of SiO2, but also in alkalis, volatiles, and some trace elements. Kimberlites are characterized by CO2-dominated regime, whereas formation of lamproites was assisted by essentially H2O fluid; (2) Kimberlites are localized within ancient cratons, while within-plate lamproites are restricted to adjacent Proterozoic belts. Kimberlites are produced in the low-heat flow regions, whereas lamproites occur in the high-heat flow regions; (3) Kimberlites and lamproites were formed in different time; in particular, most productive kimberlitic magmatism was observed in the EEP and SP in the Devonian; (4) Kimberlite and lamproite bodies have different morphology: lamproites compose small subvolcanic bodies with lava flows, while kimberlites form volcanic pipes with no lavas; (5) Kimberlites contain highly silica-undersaturated minerals, while ultrabasic lamproites—silica-undersaturated ones; priderite and wadeite, the characteristic accessory minerals of lamproites, are not observed in kimberlites; (6) The primary melts of kimberlites and lamproites were derived from different types of mantle. The moderate and low-Ti kimberlites were generated from BSE or EMI type mantle. Precisely these types of kimberlites host diamond deposits, including economic grade objects in EEP. The lamproite sources were localized only in the enriched mantle (EMI and EMII). At the same time, these rocks share some similarities, primarily, with respect to their genesis and classification. Diamonds are common accessory minerals of kimberlites (low-Ti and some other types), but are observed only in only lamproite variety—olivine lamproites.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Artemieva, I.M. and Mooney, W.D., Thermal Thickness and Evolution of Precambrian Lithosphere: a Global Study, J. Geophys. Res., 2001, vol. 106(B8), pp. 16387–16414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belyatskii, B.V., Nikitina, L.P., Savva, E.V., et al., Isotopic Signatures of Lamproite Dikes on the Eastern Baltic Shield, Geokhimiya, 1997, no. 6, pp. 658–662 [Geochem. Int. (Engl. Transl.), vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 575–579].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bogatikov, O.A., Kononova, V.A., Nosova, A.A., and Kargin, A.V., Polygenetic Sources of Kimberlites, Magma Composition, and Diamond Potential Exemplified by the East European and Siberian Cratons, Petrologiya, 2009, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 651–671 [Petrology (Engl. Transl.), vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 606–625].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bogatikov, O.A., Kononova, V.A., Nosova, A.A., and Kondrashov, I.A., Kimberlites and Lamproites of the East European Platform: Petrology and Geochemistry, Petrologiya, 2007, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 339–360 [Petrology (Engl. Transl.), vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 315–334].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogatikov, O.A., Kononova, V.A., Pervov, V.A., and Zhuravlev, D.Z., Sources, Geodynamic Setting of Formation, and Diamond-Bearing Potential of Kimberlites from the Northern Margin of the Russian Plate: A Sr-Nd Isotopic and ICP-MS Geochemical Study, Petrologiya, 2001, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 227–241 [Petrology (Engl. Transl.), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 191–203].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bogatikov, O.A., Kovalenko, V.I., and Sharkov, E.V., Magmatizm, tektonika, geodinamika Zemli: svyaz’ vo vremeni i v prostranstve (Magmatism, Tectonics, and Geodynamics of the Earth: Spatiotemporal Relation), Moscow: Nauka, 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bogatikov, O.A., Ryabchikov, I.D., Kononova, V.A., et al., Lamproity (Lamproites), Moscow: Nauka, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bozhko, N.A., Postnikov, A.V., and Shchipanskii, A.A., Formation of the East European Platform Basement: A Geodynamic Model, Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 2002, vol. 386, no. 5, pp. 651–655 [Dokl. Earth Sci. (Engl. Transl.), vol. 386, no. 5, pp. 875–878].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chesler, R.F., Geochemistry of the West Australian, West Kimberley Province Lamproits, Extended Abstracts of 9th International Kimberlite Congress, 2008, A-00086.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clement, C.R., A Comparative Geological Study of Some Major Kimberlite Pipes in the Northern Cape and Orange Free State, Ph. D. Thesis, Cape Town: Univ. Cape Town, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davies G., Stolz J., Mahotkin, I., et al., Trace Element and Sr-Nd-Pb-Hf Isotope Evidence for Ancient Fluid-Related Enrichment in the Source Region of Aldan Shield Lamproites, Extended Abstracts of 8th International geological Congress, 2003, FLA-0256.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fokin, P.A. and Nikishin, A.M., Tectonic Evolution of the East European platform in the Devonian and the Beginning of Carboniferous, Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 4: Geol., 1999, no. 6, pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fraser, K.J., Hawkeswoorth, C.J., Erlank, F.J., et al., Sr, Nd, and Pb Isotope and Minor Element Geochemistry of Lamproites and Kimberlites, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 1985, vol. 76, pp. 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Griffin, W.L., Ryan, C.G., Kaminsky, F.V., et al., The Siberian Lithosphere Traverse: Mantle Terranes and Assembly of the Siberian Cratons, Tectonophysics, 1999, vol. 310, pp. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta, M.L., Thermal Regime of the Indian Shield, Terrestrial Heat Flow and Geothermal Energy in Asia, Gupta M.L. and Makato, Y., Eds., Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hawkesworth, C.J., Gallagher, K., Hergt, J.M., and McDermoff, F., Mantle and Slab Contributions in Arc Magmas, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 1993, vol. 21, pp. 175–204.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heaman, L.M., Kjarsgaard, D.F., and Greaser, R.A. The Temporal Evolution of North American Kimberlites. Lithos, 2004, vol. 76, pp. 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helmstaedt, H.H. and Gurney, J.J., Geotectonic Controls of Primary Diamond Deposits: Implications for Area Selection, J. Geochem. Explor., 1995, vol. 53, pp. 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ilupin, I.V. and Roshchina, I.A., Petrochemistry and Geochemistry of Kimberlites from Different Provinces of the World, Russ. J. Earth Sci., 2002, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jaques, A.L. and Mlligan, P.R., Paterns and Controls on the Distribution of Diamond Pipes in Australia, Extended Abstracts of 8th International Kimberlite Conference, Victoria, 2003, FLA-0132.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaques, A.L., Sun, S.S., and Chappell, B.W., Geochemistry of the Argyle (AK1) Lamproite Pipe, Western Australia, Proceedings of the 4th International Kimberlite Conference, Pert, 1986, pp. 170–185.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karaev, N.A., Biezais, Ya.Ya., Boris, E.I., and Maksimkina, L.V., Transcrustal Seismological Model of the Nakyn Kimberlite Field of the Yakutian Kimberlite Province, Problemy prognozirovaniya, poiskov i izucheniya mestorozhdenii poleznykh iskopaemykh na poroge 21th veka (Problems of Predicting, Prospecting, and Studying the Mineral Deposits at the Turn of 21th Century), Voronezh: Voronezh. Gos. Univ., 2003, pp. 293–296.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kononova, V.A., Kargin, A.V., Nosova, A.A., et al., Geochemical Comparison of Kimberlites from the Siberian and East European Platforms: Problems of Genesis and Spatial Zoning, Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 2009, vol. 428, no. 2, pp. 233–239 [Dokl. Earth Sci. (Engl. Transl.), vol. 428, no. 2, pp. 1156–1161].Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kononova, V.A., Levskii, L.K., Pervov, V.A., et al., Pb-Sr-Nd Isotopic Systematics of Mantle Sources of Potassic Ultramafic and Mafic Rocks in the North of the East European Platform, Petrologiya, 2002, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 493–509 [Petrology (Engl. Transl.), vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 433–447].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lepekhina, E., Presnyakov, S., Matukov, D. et al., Single Grain U-Pb Zircon Dating (SHRIM-II) from Grib Kimberlite Pipe (Zimnii Bereg, Archangelsk region, Russia), Extended Abstracts of 32nd International Geological Congress, Florence, 2004, G.10.05.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luguer, A., Pearson, D.G., Jaques, A.L., et al., Age Constraints on the Lithosphere beneath the Halls Creek Mobile Belt and Implications for Diamonds of the Argyle Lamproite Deposit, Extended Abstracts of 9th International Kimberlite Conference, Frankfurt, 2008, A-00263.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Masun, K., Krishna, C., Pande, L., et al. Exploration History and Geology of the Saptararshi Lamproites, Madhya Pradesh, India, Extended Abstracts of 9th International Kimberlite Conference, Frankfurt, 2008, A-00198.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitchell, R.H. and Bergman S.C., Petrology of Lamproites, New York: Plenum, 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mitchell, R.H., Kimberlites, Orangeites, and Related Rocks, New York: Plenum, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mitchell, R.H., Kimberlites: Their Mineralogy, Geochemistry and Petrology, New York: Plenum, 1986.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nikitina, L.P., Levskii, L.K., Lokhov, K.I., et al., Proterozoic AlkalineUltramafic Magmatism in the Eastern Part of the Baltic Shield, Petrologiya, 1999, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 252–275 [Petrology (Engl. Transl.), vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 246–266].Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nowell, G.M., Pearson, D.G., Bell, D.R. et al., Hf Isotope Systematics of Kimberlites and their Megacrysts: New Constraints on their Source Regions, J. Petrol., 2004, vol. 45, pp. 1583–1612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Bien, H., Lehtonen, M., Spencer, R., and Birnie, A. Lithospheric Mantle in Eastern Finland: a 250 rm 3D Transect, Extended Abstracts of 8th International Kimberlite Conference Congress, Victoria 2003, FLA 0261.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pearce, J.A., Role of the Sub-Continental Lithosphere in Magma Genesis at Active Continental Margins, in Continental Basalts and Mantle Xenoliths, Hawkesworth, C.J. and Norry M.J., Eds., Natwich: Shive Publ., 1983, pp. 230–249.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pokhilenko, I.P., Sobolev, N.V., and Pokhilenko, L.N., Kimberlites, Lamproites, and Other Diamondiferous Magmatic Rocks. Important Characteristics and Genetic Problems, in Effektivnost’ prognozirovaniya i poiskov mestorozhdenii almazov: proshloe, nastoyashchee i budushchee (almazy 50) (Efficiency of Predicting and Prospecting the Diamond Deposits: Past, Present, and Future (Diamonds-50)), St. Petersburg: VSEGEI, 2004, pp. 270–272.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Prelevic, D. and Foley, S.F., The Origin of Lamproites Revisited: Mediterranean Perspective, Extended Abstract of 9th International Kimberlite Congress, Frankfurt, 2008, A-002360.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ringwood, F.E., Kesson, S.E., Hibberson, W., and Ware, N., Origin of Kimberlites and Related Magmas, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 1992, vol. 113, pp. 521–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosen, O.M., Serenko, V.P., Spetsius, Z.V., et al., Tectonics of the Yakutian Kimberlite Province: Compositional Peculiarities of Crust and Lithospheric Mantle, and Problems of Evolution, in Problemy prognozirovaniya, poiskov i izucheniya mestorozhdenii poleznykh iskopaemykh na poroge XXI veka (Problems of Predicting, Prospecting, and Studying the Mineral Deposits on the Turn of 21th Century), Voronezh: Voronezh. Gos. Univ., 2003, pp. 332–338.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Roy, S., Sundar, A., and Roa, R.U.M., Heat Flow Studies over the Deccan Volcanic Province, Gondawana Gelo. Mag., 1996, vol. 2, pp. 475–482.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ryabchikov, I.D., Fluid Regime of Mantle Plumes, in Mantle Plumes and Metallogeny, Petrazovodsk-Moscow: Probel, 2002, pp. 194–195.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Samsonov, A.V., Larionova, Yu.O., and Nosova, A.A., Experience of Volumetric Geochemical and Isotopic (Sr-Nd) Studying of the Early Precambrian Crust of the Arkhangel’sk Diamondiferous Province: the Rule of “Arkhons” or their Sutures?, in Izotopnoe datirovanie protsessov rudoobrazovaniya, magmatizma, osadkonakopleniya i metamorfizma (Isotopic Dating the Ore Formation, Magmatism, Sedimentation, and Metamorphism), Moscow: GEOS, 2006, vol. 2, pp. 222–228.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smedley, P.L., Trace Element and Isotopic Variation in Scottish and Irish Dinantian Volcanism: Evidence for an OIB-Like Mantle Source, J. Petrol., 1988, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 413–443.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Smith, C.B., Gurney, J.J., Skinner, E.M.W. et al., Geochemical Character of Southern Africa Kimberlites, Trans. Geol. Soc. S. Afr., 1985, vol. 88, pp. 267–280.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sun, S.-S. and McDonough, W.F., Chemical and Isotope Systematics of Oceanic Basalts: Implications for Mantle Compositions and Processes, Magmatism in the Ocean Basins, Saunders, A.D. and Norry, M.J., Eds., Oxford: Blackwell, 1989, pp. 313–345.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Taylor, L.A., Spetsius, Z.V., Wiesli, R. et al., The Origin of Mantle Peridotites: Crustal Signatures from Yakutian Kimberlites, Long Abstracts of 8th International Kimberlite Conference, Victoria, 2003, FLA-0077.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Taylor, W.R., Tompkins, L.A., and Haggerty, S.E., Comparative Geochemistry of West African Kimberlites: Evidence for a Micaceous Kimberlite End Member of Sublithospheric Origin, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 1994, vol. 58, no. 19, pp. 4017–4037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vaganov, V.I., Almaznye mestorozhdeniya Rossii i Mira (Diamondiferous Deposits of Russia and World), Moscow: ZAO Geoinformmark, 2000.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vasilenko, V.B., Zinchuk, N.N., Kuznetsova, L.G., et al., Trace Elements and Other Minor and Volatiles Elements in the Light of Structural Features of Kimberlites and their Diamond Potential: Evidence from the Aikhal Pipe, in Geologiya almazov — nastoyashchee i budushchee (Geology of Diamonds: Present and Future), Voronezh: Voronezh. Gos. Univ., 2005, pp. 773–785.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Verma, S.K., Geology, Geophysics and Geodynamics of Extensive Kcr Volcanism during Proterozoic Time in India, Long Abstracts of 8th International Kimberlite Conference, Victoria, 2003, FLA-0217.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vladykin, N.V. and Lelyukh, M.I., Lamproites of Siberia: Chemistry and Systematics, in Problemy prognozirovaniya, poiskov i izucheniya mestorozhdenii poleznykh iskopaemykh na poroge XXI veka (Problems of Predicting, Prospecting, and Studying Mineral Deposits on the Turn of 21th Century), Voronezh: Voronezh. Gos. Univ., 2003, pp. 365–370.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yutkina, E.V., Kononova, V.A., Tsymbal, S.N., et al., Isotopic-Geochemical Specialization of Mantle Source of Kimberlites from the Kirovograd Complex, Ukrainian Shield, Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 2005, vol. 402, no. 1, pp. 87–91 [Dokl. Earth Sci. (Engl. Transl.), vol. 402, no. 1, pp. 551–555].Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zinchuk, N.N., Savko, A.D., and Shevyrev, L.T., Istoricheskaya minerageniya podvizhnykh superpoyasov (Historical Metallogeny of Mobile Superbelts), Voronezh: Voronezh. Gos. Univ., 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. A. Kononova
    • 1
  • O. A. Bogatikov
    • 1
  • I. A. Kondrashov
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits, Petrography, Mineralogy, and GeochemistryRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations