Cited by 144Geological and Geochemical AnalysisGeochemistry and Elemental AnalysisGeological and Geophysical Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Mafic and Ultramafic Lavas of the Belingwe Greenstone Belt, Rhodesia

NISBET, E. G., BICKLE, M. J., MARTIN, A.·1977·Journal of Petrology

Abstract

The Belingwe Greenstone Belt (2.8 × 109 yrs old) contains a 7 km succession of mafic and ultramafic lavas and high-level intrusions which overlie a thin sedimentary formation, itself unconformable on a granitic basement. The lavas range in composition from andesites (4 per cent MgO) to peridotitic komatiites (32 per cent MgO). The mineralogy and textures of the most magnesian lavas demonstrate that they were extruded in a completely liquid state. If the source mantle had an MgO content around 40 per cent, then partial melts in the range 35 per cent to 55 per cent would be required to produce the most magnesian liquids observed. Chemical constraints on the petrogenesis of the ultramafic lavas allow estimates of source mantle composition. In particular, if the source had an MgO content around 40 per cent, then the overall source composition would be similar to that of garnet Iherzolite nodules in kimberlites. The calculated REE contents of the source are close to chondritic. If all the ultramafic lavas were derived from the same source then the variation in liquid composition may have been controlled by orthopyroxene as well as olivine during partial melting at depth. The evolution of the less magnesian komatiites, basalts, and andesites can be explained by lower degrees of partial melting of a common source, and by high-level fractionation of parent liquids similar to those extruded as ultramafic lavas. Physical constraints on the origin of the lavas imply derivation from a depth of 150 km or more, at temperatures of 1600–2000 °C.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/petrology/18.4.521

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–143 of 143

Metadata

Authors
NISBET, E. G., BICKLE, M. J., & MARTIN, A.
Venue
Journal of Petrology
Published
1977-11-01
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
521-566
ISSN
  • 0022-3530 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2415
OpenAlex
W2326334273
Cited by
144
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Petrology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Geological and Geochemical Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Geochemistry and Elemental Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geology › Geological and Geophysical Studies
Keywords
mafic lavas, komatiite, andesite, mantle petrogenesis, kimberlite, rare earth elements, partial melting, orthopyroxene, olivine, fractional crystallization, Archean magmatism

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