Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Journal of the Geological Society   Email Content Delivery
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Journal of the Geological Society; January 2007; v. 164; no. 1; p. 19-30; DOI: 10.1144/0016-76492006-065
© 2007 Geological Society of London
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Groves, D. I.
Right arrow Articles by Bierlein, F. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Review Article

Geodynamic settings of mineral deposit systems

David I. Groves and Frank P. Bierlein

Centre for Exploration Targeting and Tectonics Special Research Centre, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, W.A. 6009, Australia (email: dgroves@cyllene.uwa.edu.au)

Mineral deposits represent extraordinary metal concentrations that form by magmatic, magmatic–hydrothermal or hydrothermal processes in geodynamic environments typified by anomalously high thermal and/or mechanical energy near plate boundaries. As they require the conjunction of specific environmental conditions to form, particular mineral deposit types tend to occupy specific geodynamic niches. The temporal distributions of mineral deposit types reflect both formational and preservational processes. In the Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic, these were linked because of preservation in continental crust connected to thick buoyant subcontinental lithospheric mantle (SCLM), but were decoupled by the Neoproterozoic and Phanerozoic as a result of evolution to thinner, increasingly dense SCLM. The transition marks a change from mantle plume-influenced plate tectonics to modern-style plate tectonics, with broadly coincident environmental changes and a major impact on the nature and abundance of preserved mineral deposit types. As mineral deposits represent an integral part of tectonic process, they are essential indicators of that process and geodynamic settings, and should be incorporated into any holistic tectonic terrane analysis. Their distribution also provides a particularly critical test on ancient continental reconstructions derived from palaeomagnetic data. Conversely, such reconstructions provide a first-order targeting tool for the conceptual exploration required to discover new mineral provinces and deposits under cover.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Geological Society, London, Special PublicationsHome page
P. A. Cawood, A. Kroner, W. J. Collins, T. M. Kusky, W. D. Mooney, and B. F. Windley
Accretionary orogens through Earth history
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2009; 318(1): 1 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Geological Society of London