Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T19:48:08.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Carbon in the Convecting Mantle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2019

Beth N. Orcutt
Affiliation:
Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, Maine
Isabelle Daniel
Affiliation:
Université Claude-Bernard Lyon I
Rajdeep Dasgupta
Affiliation:
Rice University, Houston

Summary

This chapter provides a summary of the flux of carbon through various oceanic volcanic centers such as mid-ocean ridges and intraplate settings, as well as what these fluxes indicate about the carbon content of the mantle. By reviewing methods used to measure the carbon geochemistry of basalts and then to estimate fluxes, the chapter provides insight into how mantle melting and melt extraction processes are estimated. The chapter discusses how the flux of carbon compares with other incompatible trace elements and gases. From there, the chapter discusses whether the budget of carbon in the ocean mantle can be explained by primordial carbon or whether carbon recycling is required to balance the budget.

Information

Figure 0

Figure 9.1 Illustration of carbon dioxide and nonvolatile trace element behavior in magmas at oceanic volcanoes. Each panel tracks the concentration of CO2 and a nonvolatile trace element during the ascent of magma for three hypothetical cases. (a) A CO2-undersaturated magma that begins with low volatile and trace element concentrations. In this case, the magma ascends and erupts on the seafloor without experiencing CO2 degassing, such that the starting CO2 concentration and that of a nonvolatile trace element remain roughly constant during ascent and eruption. (b) A magma that begins with higher volatile and trace element concentrations and experiences CO2 saturation during ascent to the seafloor. At conditions of saturation, bubbles form as the magma moves upwards to lower pressure, removing CO2 from the magma. The concentration of a nonvolatile trace element in this system, however, remains roughly constant. In the last stages prior to eruption, the magma may move faster than CO2 is able to diffuse toward bubbles, resulting in an erupted magma on the seafloor that contains more CO2 than would be present for equilibrium saturation (i.e. it is supersaturated). This is the most common condition for basalts erupted at mid-ocean ridges. (c) A volatile- and trace element-enriched magma that ascends beneath an oceanic island and experiences CO2 saturation at greater depth. Because of the lower eruption pressure above sea level, the magma loses virtually all of its CO2 to degassing, whereas the concentration of a nonvolatile trace element remains roughly constant. In all cases, olivine-hosted melt inclusions (see inset, sample NMNH 116111-5 melt inclusion is 100 µm in diameter) may trap melts during various stages of ascent. If trapped at pressures higher than the CO2 saturation curve, melt inclusions may preserve the undegassed magma composition even if the external magma has experienced degassing.

Figure 1

Figure 9.2(a) Arctic Ocean basin;

Figure 2

Figure 9.2(b) Pacific Ocean basin;

Figure 3

Figure 9.2(c) Atlantic Ocean basin;

Figure 4

Figure 9.2(d) Indian Ocean basin.

Figure 5

Figure 9.3 CO2–Nb data for (a) vapor-undersaturated sample suites of submarine glasses and melt inclusions and (b) individual MORBs, with undersaturated sample suites from (a) represented by average compositions (boxes). The CO2/Nb = 398 line represents the average of the individual average CO2/Nb ratio for each of the undersaturated samples suites. For any given sample, one can gain a sense of the extent of CO2 degassing by comparing the sample’s CO2/Nb ratio to the average CO2/Nb ratio of undegassed samples.

Figure 6

Figure 9.4 Probability distribution of the ratio of vapor bubble volume to total melt inclusion volume for vapor bubbles in melt inclusions from Hawaii61 and Iceland.64,65 Bubbles in Iceland melt inclusions strongly peak near 1.5 vol.%, whereas bubbles in Hawaiian melt inclusions are more variable and peak around 3 vol.%.

Figure 7

Figure 9.5 Pressure of MORB sample collection on the seafloor (Psample) versus pressure of vapor saturation (Psat) calculated from the CO2 and H2O contents of MORB samples using the vapor solubility model of Dixon et al.39 The 1:1 line (Psat = Psample) corresponds to equilibrium of CO2–H2O contents at seafloor pressures. The pink field encloses the Psat values calculated from the solubility model of Ghiorso and Gualda,71 which produces Psat estimates 20% lower than those of Dixon et al.;39 the green field encloses the Psat values calculated from the solubility model of Papale et al.,70 which are 60% lower than those of Dixon et al.39

Figure 8

Figure 9.6 Pearson correlation coefficients for 1/El versus CO2/El (where El is an incompatible trace element) for Siqueiros and Garrett melt inclusions (MIs) plotted against the bulk partition coefficients of the EI.80 Garrett MIs have been filtered for anomalously depleted MIs with high analytical uncertainties. Bulk partition coefficients are from Rosenthal et al.78 for C and Kelemen et al.173 for nonvolatile trace elements. Solid gray and black lines show correlation coefficients generated by the model of Matthews et al.79 conducted using the pHMELTS model174176 to generate near-fractional melts of the DDMM from Workman and Hart,177 which were then mixed using the model of Rudge et al.178 The black and gray lines are the undegassed and partially degassed models, respectively, both of which do not include the analytical uncertainties. The black and gray dots are mean and 2σ uncertainties of Pearson correlation coefficients generated by the undegassed and partially degassed models ran 1000 times, both of which include analytical uncertainties ranging from 6% to 32% (2σ) depending on the element. In the partial degassing model, partial degassing is done using the CO2 solubility model of Shishkina et al.179 at 7 km in the oceanic crust underneath 4 km of seawater.

Figure 9

Figure 9.7 Segment-averaged primary MORB compositions corrected for low-pressure fractionation to equilibrium with Fo90 olivine. CO2(Ba)90 versus (a) Th90 and (b) K2O90 from the study of Le Voyer et al.,47 who estimated primary magma CO2 contents from the average MORB CO2/Ba ratio (81.3) and segment-average Ba90 concentrations.

Figure 10

Figure 9.8 MORB segment-average CO2 flux normalized by ridge length (mol/yr/km) versus (a) crustal thickness and (b) primary CO2 concentration estimated from the average MORB CO2/Ba ratio (81.3) and segment-average Ba90 concentrations.47 Estimated CO2 fluxes are more strongly correlated with mantle composition than with crustal thickness.

Figure 11

Table 9.1 Melt inclusion-based estimates for primary magma CO2 (ppm) and CO2 fluxes from selected oceanic intraplate hot spots

Figure 12

Figure 9.9 Map of segment-average mantle source CO2 concentrations along the global mid-ocean ridge system. Mantle source CO2 concentrations were derived from segment-average primary CO2 abundances by estimating the degree of melting at each ridge segment and assuming batch melting (see Eqs. (9.1)–(9.3) in the text). High concentrations are observed near hot spots (yellow stars show approximate localities but are off-set so as to not obscure data), but also at isolated sections of ridge far from hot spots, particularly the Arctic ridges and the southern Indian Ocean ridges.

Figure 13

Figure 9.10 Extent of melting required to exhaust graphite from the mantle as a function of the fO2 and the C content of the mantle. The solubility of total C in graphite-saturated silicate melt was taken from experimental studies.145,153,154 At low mantle C contents, only small degrees of melting would be required to exhaust graphite, and C would behave similarly to highly incompatible elements (D ~0.02–0.04). At higher mantle C contents, C would appear only mildly incompatible (D ~0.1–0.2). For typical MORB melt fractions, we observe that C behaves as a highly incompatible element in vapor-undersaturated melt inclusions. This provides independent evidence that the MORB source is not graphite saturated; however, these curves could be relevant when considering more reduced planetary bodies, such as Mars.

Figure 14

Figure 9.11 Map of differences in segment-scale CO2 fluxes as estimated compared with fluxes calculated from the model of Keller et al.133 The main differences are that Keller et al.133 use a uniform mantle CO2 content of 100 ppm; while we183 estimate mantle CO2 contents by calculating primary magma CO2 and degree of melting at each segment, resulting in variations of mantle CO2 of more than three orders of magnitude (Figure 9.8).

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×