Hypervelocity Impacts and Exposed Lithospheric Mantle: A Way to Recognize Large Terrestrial Impact Basins?
Peter Olds
Journal of Earth Science ›› 2019, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (3) : 451 -459.
On the Moon and Mars olivine of probable mantle origin is detected at rims of large Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) age impact basins for which excavation depth estimates exceed crustal thickness estimates. But lunar Crisium size impact basins are not recognized on Earth nor expected in the Phanerozoic from conventional interpretations of crater size frequency distributions. In this study several large circular to elliptical basin structures on Earth, for which hypothesized impact excavation depth would greatly exceed crustal thickness, are examined for the presence of exposed lithospheric mantle, expressed as ophiolite, at the rims. Three Phanerozoic impact basins, modified by plate tectonics and tentatively correlated with “ophiolite obduction” plus global extinction events, are proposed here. These tentatively suggested Phanerozoic impact basins are: (1) Yucatan Basin/Puerto Rico Trench with a Greater Antilles ophiolite rim. Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary global extinction may correlate with Maastrichtian ophiolite obduction in Southeast Cuba. (2) Loyalty Basin with a New Caledonia ophiolite plus d’Entrecasteaux Ridge rim. Late Eocene global extinction may correlate with obduction of the New Caledonia Peridotite Nappe. (3) Sulu Sea Basin with a Palawan, Sabah etc. ophiolite rim. The Middle Miocene Disruption Event may correlate with ophiolite obduction plus ophiolitic mélange emplacement in Sabah and in Palawan. These originally circular to elliptical belts of exposed lithospheric mantle may serve as strain markers for relative plate motions in the vicinity of plate boundaries during post-impact geologic times. It is further speculated that plate boundaries may be initiated and/or modified by such impacts.
olivine / mantle / impact basin / ophiolite obduction / mass extinction
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
Geophysical Research Letters, 2010, 37 2 |
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
Geologica Acta, 2006, 4 1/2 |
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
Journal of Geophysical Research, 2008, 113 E5 |
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
Geochemistry, 2009, 10 8 |
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
Journal of Geophysical Research, 2004, 109 E8 |
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |