Retrograde processes in migmatites and granulites revisited

Abstract

Many migmatites and granulites preserve evidence of a clockwise P–T evolution involving decompression (decrease in P) while close to the thermal peak. The extent of post‐thermal peak reaction is influenced by several factors, including: (1) the P–T path in relation to invariants in the system and the Clapeyron slopes of the equilibria; (2) the rate of cooling; and (3) the availability of fluid (H 2 O‐rich volatile phase or melt) for fluid‐consuming reactions. Reaction may occur between products of a prograde (increasing T) fluid‐generating reaction as the same equilibrium is re‐crossed in the retrograde (decreasing T) sense. In general, reaction reversal or ‘back reaction’ requires the P–T path to approximate isobaric heating and cooling, without significant decompression, and evolved fluid to remain within the equilibration volume. The larger the decompression segment in the P–T evolution, the more chance there is of crossing different reactions along the retrograde segment from those crossed along the prograde segment. For common pelite compositions, we may generalize by considering three pressure regimes separated by the [Spl, Ms, H 2 O] invariant in KFMASH (approximately 9 kbar) and the intersection of muscovite breakdown with the H 2 O‐rich volatile phase‐saturated solidus (approximately 4 kbar). Reaction reversal cannot occur along P–T paths that traverse around one of these points, but may occur along P–T paths confined to one of the three regimes in between. Additionally, above the solidus, melt segregation and loss potentially change the composition of the equilibration volume; and, the size of the equilibration volume shrinks with decreasing T. Since the proportion of melt to residue in the equilibration volume may change with decreasing size, the composition of the equilibration volume may change throughout the supra‐solidus part of the retrograde segment of the P–T evolution. If melt has been lost from the equilibration volume, reaction reversal may not be possible or may be only partial; indeed, the common preservation of close‐to‐peak mineral assemblages in migmatite and granulite demonstrates that extensive reaction with melt is uncommon, which implies melt isolation or loss prior to crossing potential melt‐consuming reactions. Water dissolved in melt is transported through the crust to be exsolved on crystallization at the solidus appropriate to the intrinsic a(H 2 O). This recycled water causes retrogression at subsolidus conditions. Consideration of the evidence for supra‐solidus decompression‐dehydration reactions, and review of microstructures that have proven controversial, such as corona and related microstructures, selvage microstructures and ‘late’ muscovite, leads to the conclusion that there is more than one way for these microstructures to form and reminds us that we should always consider multiple working hypotheses!