The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Constraints on the bulk composition and root foundering rates of continental arcs: A California arc perspective
Abstract
Garnet pyroxenites are the most common deep lithospheric xenolith assemblages found in Miocene volcanic rocks that erupted through the central part of the Sierra Nevada batholith. Elemental concentrations and isotope ratios are used to argue that the Sierra Nevada granitoids and the pyroxenite xenoliths are the melts and the residues/cumulates, respectively, resulting from partial melting/fractional crystallization at depths exceeding 35–40 km. The estimated major element chemistry of the protolith resembles a basaltic andesite. Effectively, at more than about 40 km depth, batholith residua are eclogite facies rocks. Radiogenic and oxygen isotope ratios measured on pyroxenites document unambiguously the involvement of Precambrian lithosphere and at least 20–30% (mass) of crustal components. The mass of the residual assemblage was significant, one to two times the mass of the granitic batholith. Dense garnet pyroxenites are prone to foundering in the underlying mantle. An average removal rate of 25–40 km 3/km Myr is estimated for this Cordilleran‐type arc, although root loss could have taken place at least in part after the cessation of arc magmatism. This rate is matched by the average subcrustal magmatic addition of the arc (∼23–30 km 3/km Myr), suggesting that the net crustal growth in this continental arc was close to zero. It is also suggested that in order to develop a convectively removable root, an arc must have a granitoid melt thickness of at least 20–25 km. Residues of thinner arcs should be mostly in the granulite facies; they are not gravitationally unstable with respect to the underlying mantle.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The chemical composition of subducting sediment and its consequences for the crust and mantle
Plank, T., & Langmuir, C. H. (1998) · Chemical Geology · doi:10.1016/s0009-2541(97)00150-2 · Cited by 3,499
RAPP, R. P., & WATSON, E. B. (1995) · Journal of Petrology · doi:10.1093/petrology/36.4.891 · Cited by 3,329
Cited by
Stern, R. J. (2002) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/2001rg000108 · Cited by 1,517
Bédard, J. H. (2006) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.008 · Cited by 887
Quantifying crustal thickness over time in magmatic arcs
Profeta, L., Ducea, M. N., Chapman, J. B., Paterson, S. R., Gonzales, S. M. H., Kirsch, M., Petrescu, L., & DeCelles, P. G. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep17786 · Cited by 552
Self-citationReconstructing crustal thickness evolution from europium anomalies in detrital zircons
Tang, M., Ji, W.-Q., Chu, X., Wu, A., & Chen, C. (2021) · Geology · doi:10.1130/g47745.1 · Cited by 355
Lee, C.-T. A., Morton, D. M., Kistler, R. W., & Baird, A. K. (2007) · Earth and Planetary Science Letters · doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.09.025 · Cited by 334
Metadata
- Authors
- Ducea, M. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2002-11
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- B11
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2170605098
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Constraints on the bulk composition and root foundering rates of continental arcs: A California arc perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2001jb000643
- The paper
- Ducea, M. N. (2002). Constraints on the bulk composition and root foundering rates of continental arcs: A California arc perspective. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jb000643
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.