USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · pp1523

Chemistry of the subalkalic silicic obsidians

Abstract

Nonhydrated obsidians are quenched magmatic liquids that record in their chemical compositions details of the tectonic environment of formation and of the differentiation mechanisms that affected their subsequent evolution. This study attempts to analyze, in terms of geologic processes, the compositional variations in the subalkalic silicic obsidians (Si0 2 ≥70 percent by weight, molecular (Na 2 O+K 2 0)>Al 2 O 3 ). New major- and trace-element determinations of 241 samples and a compilation of 130 published major-element analyses are reported and interpreted. Obsidians from five different tectonic settings are recognized: (1) primitive island arcs, (2) mature island arcs, (3) continental margins, (4) continental interiors, and (5) oceanic extensional zones. Tectonomagmatic discrimination between these groups is successfully made on Nb-Ta, Nb-FeO t and Th-Hf-Ta plots, and compositional ranges and averages for each group are presented. The chemical differences between groups are related to the type of crust in which magmas were generated. With increasingly sialic (continental type) crust, the obsidians show overall enrichment in F, Be, Li, Mo, Nb, Rb, Sn, Ta, U, W, Zn, and the rare-earth elements, and depletion in Mg, Ca, Ba, Co, Sc, Sr, and Zr. They become more potassic, have higher Fe/Mg and F/Cl ratios, and lower Zr/Hf, Nb/Ta, and Th/U ratios. Higher values of total rare-earth elements are accompanied by light rare-earth-element enrichment and pronounced negative Eu anomalies. An attempt is made to link obsidian chemistry to genetic mechanlism. Two broad groups of rocks are distinguished: one generated where crystal-liquid processes dominated (CLPD types), which are the products of crustal anatexis, possibly under conditions of low halogen fugacity, ± crystal fractionation ± magma mixing; and a second group represented by rocks formed in the upper parts of large magma chambers by interplays of crystal fractionation, volatile transfer, magma mixing, and possibly various liquid-state differentiation mechanisms, or in other words a complex interaction of petrogenetic processes (CIPP types). Such rocks may also form by volatile-fluxed partial melting of the wallrocks, and subsequent mixing into the magma reservoir. Compositional ranges and averages for CLPD and CIPP obsidians are given. It is shown by analogy with well-documented, zoned ash-flow ruffs that obsidians fractionated by CIPP have very low Mg, P, Ba, and Sr contents, flat rare-earth-element patterns with extensive Eu anomalies, low K/Rb and Zr/Nb ratios, and relatively high Na 2 O/K 2 O ratios. There is, however, considerable compositional overlap between CLPD and CIPP obsidians. The effects of magma mixing, assimilation, and vapor-phase transport in producing compositional variations in the obsidians are briefly assessed. The geochemistry of the subalkalic silicic obsidians is described on an element-by-element basis, in order to provide a database for silicic magma compositions that will hopefully contribute to studies of granitic rocks. Attempts are also made to isolate the geochemical effects of tectonic environment and genetic mechanism for each element, by comparison with data from crystal-liquid equilibria-controlled systems, from ash-flow sheets zoned by CIPP, and from mixed-magma series. A final tabulation relates the complexities of obsidian geochemistry to all the tectonic and genetic variables.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ray MacDonald, Robert L. Smith, John E. Thomas. 1992. Chemistry of the subalkalic silicic obsidians. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1523

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗