Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
MANTLE FRAME
513 kimberlites
16 LIPs (100-200 Ma)
60°N
Perm
30°N
Jason
Jason
Tuzo
30°S
60°S
MANTLE FRAME
47 kimberlites
5 LIPs (200-300 Ma)
SBT
60°N
Perm
30°N
CAMP
SCLIP
Jason
EFB
Jason
Tuzo
30°S
PT
60°S
5
3
1
0
Cluster analysis (1000-2800 km)
1% slow contour SMEAN (2800 km)
Figure 3.4 Comparison of reconstructed LIPs and kimberlites erupted between
100 and 200 Ma and in the 200
300 Ma range. The pattern is identical, with LIPs
and kimberlites sourced by plumes from the edges of Tuzo and Jason, but the total
numbers of LIPs and kimberlites differs. The reconstructed LIPs and kimberlites
are superimposed on seismic voting-map contours as in
Figure 3.2b
and the 1%
slow SMEAN contour in the lowermost mantle. CAMP, Central Atlantic Mag-
matic Province (251 Ma); SBT, Siberian Traps (251 Ma); SCLIP, Skagerrak-
centred LIP (297 Ma). PT, Panjal Traps (285 Ma); EFB, Emeishan Flood Basalts
(258 Ma). Mollweide projection.
-
close to vertically above the sources of deep mantle plumes. These plumes
originated either in the PGZs bounding on the CMB, one or other of the two large
LLSVPs of the deep mantle, or above PGZs on the CMB bounding similar but
smaller LSVPs.
