Paper No. 50-1
Presentation Time: 1:00 PM-1:15 PM
CONTROLS ON GNEISS DOME FORMATION: CHICKENS, EGGS AND RED HERRINGS
BROWN, Michael1, JOHNSON, Tim1, MARCHILDON, Nathalie1, and SOLAR, Gary S.2, (1) Laboratory for Crustal Petrology, Univ of Maryland, Department of Geology, College Park, MD 20742-4211, mbrown@geol.umd.edu, (2) Department of Earth Sciences, SUNY College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14222

We consider surficial, tectonic and petrologic controls on gneiss dome formation, using examples from Pacific (accretionary)-type (Cadomian, N. Brittany, France) and collisional-type (Acadian, NH-ME, USA; Variscan, S. Brittany, France) orogens. Controls may include: erosion; lithosphere thinning/delamination/slab breakoff; buoyancy (intracrustal diapirism/escape in subduction zone roll-back); and, melting (volatile phase present and dehydration melting, volume change, rheology, etc.).

Critical to answering the question "Why do gneiss domes form?" is isolating red herrings and distinguishing chickens from eggs. P-T paths are rarely diagnostic of process, although T-t paths may discriminate exhumation mechanisms. Most gneiss domes record evidence of clockwise P-T-t paths. In some examples an erosion-controlled P-T segment may be followed by a near-isothermal decompression segment. This suggests tectonic control, such as a change from contraction to extension, or intracrustal diapirism. Increased buoyancy during melting could initiate diapirism, but this may be a red herring if tectonic controls do not allow the potential of reduced buoyancy to be realized (i.e. effects due to buoyancy are a passive response). Decompression by solid-state diapirism across the Ms-dehydration melting field will involve increased buoyancy (commonly 10-30 vol. % melt), which will enhance diapiric ascent, but this is unlikely to be a trigger for exhumation if melt is retained in the diapir. However, without diapirism, decompression melting can only occur after thinning or exhumation has begun, thus it cannot be a trigger for exhumation. In the anatectic zone, decompression melting is limited because melt mode isopleths are nearly isothermal, except close to the solidus. Thus, decompression melting also may be a red herring. Which of melting or decompression is chicken or egg is a matter of prejudice and may even be moot if dome formation is controlled by other factors. Erosion and/or tectonics (extension or collapse) may be more likely triggers for dome formation, and may even be required. Further, a large contrast in rheology strongly partitions behavior between upper and middle-lower crust, promoting detachment faulting and core complex formation; exhumation may be facilitated by softening associated with melt.

2002 Denver Annual Meeting (October 27-30, 2002)
Session No. 50
Thermal and Mechanical Significance of Gneiss Domes in the Evolution of Orogens
Colorado Convention Center: C205
1:00 PM-3:45 PM, Sunday, October 27, 2002
 

© Copyright 2002 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.