Lyell Collection

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kriegsman, L. M.
Right arrow Articles by Nyström, A. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2003; v. 220; p. 203-212;
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2003.220.01.12
© 2003 Geological Society of London

Understanding Transport Processes in Rocks

Melt segregation rates in migmatites: review and critique of common approaches

Leo M. Kriegsman1 & Annika I. Nyström2

1 National Museum of Natural History/Naturalis, PO Box 9517, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands kriegsman{at}naturalis.nnm.nl
2 Department of Geology, University of Turku, FIN-20014 Turun Yliopisto, Finland annika.nystrom{at}utu.fi

The rate of melt segregation in regional migmatite terrains can be estimated by various lines of research. Firstly, the segregation rate of a melt batch, with a volume below the melt percolation threshold, cannot exceed the melt production rate and is therefore limited by the heating rate derived from geothermometry and geochronology (method A). Other estimates come from physical models for melt percolation (method B) and from the degree of (dis)equilibrium reached between melt and source rocks (method C). The first method is restricted by the current time resolution of isotopic techniques. Results from the second and third approaches depend heavily on assumed values of melt viscosity and other parameters (B); on the correct recognition of (dis)equilibrium trace element distributions (C); and on the migmatization model used (B and C).

The validity of method C is undermined by the mathematical equivalence of trace element models for five different scenarios: (1) disequilibrium melting (with or without melt escape) followed by in situ crystallization of non-segregated melt; (2) equilibrium melting, followed by equilibrium crystallization and major melt escape; (3) disequilibrium melting, followed by equilibrium crystallization and minor melt escape; (4) pervasive retrograde re-equilibration; and (5) subsolidus differentiation. Hence, trace element data in support of model 1 (implying fast melt segregation rates) are equally consistent with models 2 to 4 (implying slow melt segregation rates), and even with melt-absent model 5. The level of trace element saturation reached during accessory phase dissolution into melt may not provide better answers, as it is largely controlled by textural constraints, e.g. shielding of accessories by porphyroblasts.

We conclude that the way forward is to directly couple microtextural and microgeochemical information with time constraints. This requires high-resolution (space and time) geochronology, possibly with more advanced methods than presently available.





This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Geological Society, London, Special PublicationsHome page
A. I. Nystrom and L. M. Kriegsman
Prograde and retrograde reactions, garnet zoning patterns, and accessory phase behaviour in SW Finland migmatites, with implications for geochronology
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 2003; 220: 213 - 230.
[Abstract] [PDF]