Geochemical characteristics of ophiolitic rocks from the southern margin of the Sivas basin and their implications for the Inner Tauride Ocean, Central-Eastern Turkey

Figures & data

Figure 1. U-Pb ages of Tethyan ophiolites in Turkey and surrounding areas. Data are from (1) Dilek and Thy (2006), (2) Dilek, Furnes, and Shallo (2008), (3) Liati, Gebauer, and Fanning (2004), (4) Mukasa and Ludden (1987), (5) Konstantinou, Wirth, and Vervoort (2007), (6) Dilek and Thy (2009), (7) Parlak, Karaoğlan, Rızaoğlu, Klötzli, et al. (2013), (8) Karaoğlan, Parlak, Klötzlı, Thönı, and Koller (2013), (9) Koglin (2008), (10) Koglin, Kostopoulos, and Reischmann (2009), (11) Topuz et al. (2012), (12) Sarıfakıoğlu, Dilek, and Uysal (2012), (13) Karaoğlan, Parlak, Klötzli, Thöni, and Koller (2012), (14) Robertson, Parlak, Ustaömer, et al. (2013), (15) Karaoğlan, Parlak, Klötzli, Koller, and Rızaoğlu (2013).

Abbreviations: LO: Lesvos Ophiolite, AO: Antalya Ophiolite, BHO: Beyşehir-Hoyran Ophiolite, ORO: Orhaneli Ophiolite, KO: Kınık Ophiolite, EO: Eldivan Ophiolite, MO: Mersin Ophiolite, PKO: Pozanti-Karsanti Ophiolite; OsO: Osmaniye Ophiolite, GO: Göksun Ophiolite, PO: Pinarbaşi Ophiolite, IO: Ispendere Ophiolite, DO: Divriği Ophiolite, KmO: Kömürhan Ophiolite, SO: Sevan Ophiolite; plg: plagiogranite, gb: gabbro, dk: dyke, tnl: tonalite, rhy: rhyolite [Map modified after Dilek and Flower (2003) and Çelik et al. (2011)].

Figure 2. 1/500.000 scale geological map of the Ulaş-Kangal-Divriği (Sivas) regions, showing the distribution of the Tauride platform, ophiolites, granitoids and cover sediments (from MTA, 2002).

Figure 3. Geological map of the southern margin of the Sivas basin in the Tecer area (Kavak, 2010) Source: Kaan Şevki Kavak.

Figure 4. The tectonostratigraphy of the units around the southern margin of the Sivas basin.

Figure 5. Field views of ophiolitic rocks from the study area. (a) Tectonic contact between the Tauride platform and the ophiolites, (b) radiolites and mafic rocks in the melange, (c) isolated dykes cutting the mantle tectonites, (d) serpentinized mantle harzburgite, (e) cumulate gabbros and (f) the contact between the ophiolite and the Tecer limestone Source: Osman Parlak.

Figure 6. Thin-section views of the ophiolitic rocks in the study area. (a) Serpentinite, (b) harzburgite, (c) pyroxenite dyke, (d) gabbro, (e) olivine gabbro and (f) diabase dyke.

Table 1. Major and trace element contents of the isolated dykes in the study area.

IAT-type isolated dykes													Low-Ti isolated dykes
Sample	TO-1	TO-3	TO-5	TO-6	TO-12	TO-11	TO-14	TO-16	TO-19	TO-21	TO-23	TO-24	TO-22	TO-25	TO-26	TO-27	TO-28
SiO2	46.20	47.87	44.71	50.76	47.02	45.65	44.05	44.13	50.25	46.19	46.32	42.44	43.95	51.08	50.23	47.21	51.27
TiO2	1.47	1.05	1.23	1.11	.87	.94	1.31	1.03	.90	1.45	1.18	1.22	.42	.48	.37	.66	.36
Al2O3	15.46	15.77	17.97	14.86	15.14	14.95	16.76	15.87	16.02	16.00	15.67	16.88	16.57	15.87	13.04	16.93	14.53
FeO*	12.86	9.57	9.22	10.62	8.92	9.49	10.63	12.71	9.44	11.79	12.14	9.13	9.06	9.42	9.55	10.70	9.01
MgO	7.39	7.42	6.91	6.12	7.05	6.61	6.98	4.57	6.87	7.56	7.51	8.30	8.68	7.22	11.25	6.74	8.40
CaO	10.11	9.77	14.76	7.46	10.85	11.86	13.56	7.78	9.51	11.22	11.57	16.68	15.71	9.59	9.16	8.15	9.45
Na2O	2.99	4.47	1.11	4.52	4.22	4.62	.71	7.16	4.21	3.03	2.61	1.26	1.29	3.17	2.47	4.51	3.21
K2O	.39	.14	<.01	.07	.41	.47	.63	.24	.27	.23	.40	.16	.23	.98	.82	.15	.50
P2O5	.12	.08	.09	.06	.07	.09	.14	.10	.08	.14	.09	.13	.01	.02	.03	.05	.05
MnO	.22	.15	.12	.17	.14	.15	.13	.18	.15	.18	.18	.13	.14	.15	.15	.15	.14
Cr2O3	<.002	.03	.01	.01	.02	.02	.02	.00	.02	.02	.01	.02	.02	.01	.09	.01	.04
LOI	2.60	3.50	3.60	4.00	5.00	4.90	4.80	6.00	2.00	1.90	2.00	3.30	3.00	1.80	2.50	4.50	2.70
Sum	99.77	99.77	99.79	99.78	99.72	99.80	99.69	99.79	99.76	99.69	99.70	99.67	99.12	99.77	99.70	99.74	99.73
Ba	34	27	9	43	151	15	35	23	25	20	70	84	410	44	53	22	61
Co	37.9	41.3	51.8	54.4	44.9	38.2	55.3	47.9	45.1	73.7	54.7	53.2	57.1	48.2	54.6	50.6	47.4
Cs	3.2	.4	<.1	.2	7.2	2.2	1.5	.2	<.1	.7	.2	.1	.2	.4	.3	.9	.2
Ga	16.2	14	15.2	12.6	12.4	13.5	15.4	17.6	15.3	16.2	16.2	14.5	12.6	14.4	10.4	15.9	12.7
Hf	2	1.8	2	1.7	1.3	1.7	2.4	1.8	1.4	1.6	1.4	.9	.4	.6	.5	.7	.4
Nb	1.4	1.1	.9	.6	.8	.7	1.1	.8	.8	1.3	1	.9	.2	.5	.4	.6	.3
Rb	7	3	.5	1.4	7.7	18.9	9.7	3.6	2.9	1.7	3.8	2.2	1.9	12.2	9	2.1	5.8
Sr	116.1	282.6	266.1	281.5	400.7	107	607.9	102.2	130.8	206.2	375.6	754.8	5248.7	185	268	167.6	331.7
Ta	.2	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	.4	.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1
Th	<.2	.4	.5	<.2	.4	.2	.4	.4	.2	.4	.2	<.2	<.2	<.2	<.2	<.2	.2
U	<.1	<.1	.1	<.1	<.1	.1	.2	.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	.1	<.1
V	418	265	357	302	252	249	352	440	278	349	403	383	320	285	263	387	265
Zr	50.2	59.2	63.2	57.9	42.4	45.3	73.2	44.2	51.5	47.2	34.2	20.5	7.8	18.6	13	18.7	11.5
Y	30.2	21	25.1	23.2	19.2	21.2	30.3	24.6	22.1	31.8	25	30.5	13	13.1	10.2	14.1	10.9
Pb	.5	.3	.6	.3	.2	.4	<.1	.6	.2	.3	.5	.3	.2	.5	.4	.5	.4
Ni	12.7	30.4	14.3	20.4	30.6	25.4	19.2	18.2	30.1	28.2	62.7	43.2	28.3	17.6	46.9	25.8	55.6
Sc	38.00	37.00	41.00	36.00	37.00	36.00	40.00	41.00	37.00	45.00	45.00	47.00	47.00	40.00	43.00	43.00	41.00
Zr/Ti	.006	.009	.009	.009	.008	.008	.009	.007	.010	.005	.005	.003	.003	.006	.006	.005	.005
Nb/Y	.046	.052	.036	.026	.042	.033	.036	.033	.036	.041	.040	.030	.015	.038	.039	.043	.028
Ti/Y	291.810	299.750	293.779	286.830	271.648	265.816	259.190	251.010	244.140	273.357	282.964	239.800	193.685	219.664	217.466	280.617	198.000
Ce/Y	.225	.338	.287	.263	.281	.307	.290	.199	.299	.277	.292	.167	.108	.221	.157	.163	.147
Zr/Nb	35.857	53.818	70.222	96.500	53.000	64.714	66.545	55.250	64.375	36.308	34.200	22.778	39.000	37.200	32.500	31.167	38.333
Sm/Yb	.905	1.066	.882	.920	.874	.886	.930	.743	.884	.966	.903	.833	.586	.638	.569	.607	.438
Ce/Sm	2.290	2.922	2.927	2.531	3.121	3.218	3.014	2.487	3.204	2.794	3.147	1.932	1.573	2.843	2.424	2.323	2.857
Nb/Th	–	2.750	1.800	–	2.000	3.500	2.750	2.000	4.000	3.250	5.000	–	–	–	–	–	1.500

Note: Total Fe is expressed as FeO*; < means below detection limit.

Table 2. REE contents of the isolated dykes in the study area.

IAT-type isolated dykes													Low-Ti isolated dykes
Sample	TO-1	TO-3	TO-5	TO-6	TO-12	TO-11	TO-14	TO-16	TO-19	TO-21	TO-23	TO-24	TO-22	TO-25	TO-26	TO-27	TO-28
La	2	2.5	2.5	2	1.9	2.1	2.8	1.7	2.4	2.4	2.3	1.4	.4	1.1	.6	.9	.7
Ce	6.8	7.1	7.2	6.1	5.4	6.5	8.8	4.9	6.6	8.8	7.3	5.1	1.4	2.9	1.6	2.3	1.6
Pr	1.41	1.32	1.28	1.15	.96	1.11	1.53	.89	1.14	1.61	1.27	1.05	.29	.44	.27	.42	.24
Nd	7.5	7.7	6.9	6.9	5	6.4	9.6	5	6.5	9.4	8	5.9	1.7	2.5	1.7	2.4	1.3
Sm	2.97	2.43	2.46	2.41	1.73	2.02	2.92	1.97	2.06	3.15	2.32	2.64	.89	1.02	.66	.99	.56
Eu	1.12	.93	1	.89	.79	.83	1.34	.79	.84	1.17	.96	1.16	.33	.39	.3	.35	.27
Gd	4.27	3.23	3.6	3.38	2.6	2.83	4	2.87	3.02	4.35	3.42	3.85	1.4	1.54	1.08	1.59	1.11
Tb	.82	.61	.67	.64	.53	.61	.82	.62	.61	.86	.68	.81	.31	.32	.24	.33	.25
Dy	5.36	3.85	4.33	4.21	3.2	3.6	5.33	4.03	3.73	5.33	4.2	5.01	2.07	2.12	1.51	2.1	1.67
Ho	1.17	.85	.99	.9	.68	.78	1.06	.84	.77	1.14	.88	1.08	.47	.46	.34	.48	.41
Er	3.2	2.41	2.78	2.67	2.1	2.22	3.21	2.6	2.36	3.35	2.6	3.18	1.39	1.51	1.18	1.57	1.24
Tm	.5	.36	.43	.4	.32	.36	.5	.41	.37	.5	.4	.48	.21	.25	.16	.24	.19
Yb	3.28	2.28	2.79	2.62	1.98	2.28	3.14	2.65	2.33	3.26	2.57	3.17	1.52	1.6	1.16	1.63	1.28
Lu	.5	.35	.42	.39	.3	.34	.46	.42	.33	.45	.38	.43	.22	.22	.18	.24	.2

Table 3. Major, trace and rare earth element contents of the cumulate gabbros and pyroxenite dyke in the study area.

Cumulate gabbros					Pyroxenite dyke
Sample	TO-7	TO-8	TO-10	TO-18	TO-17
SiO2	41.62	45.07	46.48	46.43	49.97
TiO2	<.01	.10	.22	.12	.05
Al2O3	26.61	14.67	16.87	20.82	1.14
FeO*	2.48	5.38	7.08	8.77	3.98
MgO	9.38	15.84	10.83	9.46	20.37
CaO	13.79	14.01	15.95	12.59	20.04
Na2O	.66	.52	1.15	.57	.05
K2O	<.01	<.01	.04	.07	<.01
P2O5	<.01	<.01	<.01	.02	.03
MnO	.03	.09	.12	.15	.11
Cr2O3	.080	.185	.072	.011	.415
LOI	5.1	3.8	.9	.7	3.4
Sum	99.83	99.71	99.76	99.75	99.64
Ba	9	<1	5	2	6
Co	30.3	57.6	55.3	68.1	48.6
Cs	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1
Ga	9.0	6.9	10.6	12.1	1.5
Hf	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1
Nb	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1
Rb	.5	.3	.4	.8	<.1
Sr	130.7	56.0	80.7	97.1	5.2
Ta	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1
Th	<.2	<.2	<.2	<.2	<.2
U	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1	<.1
V	12	94	154	141	124
Zr	<.1	1.0	5.5	.4	.9
Y	.2	2.9	6.2	1.2	.8
Pb	.3	.1	.1	<.1	<.1
Ni	379.3	289.0	92.0	9.3	134.5
Sc	2	35	45	30	55
La	<.1	.1	.5	.3	.1
Ce	<.1	.3	.8	.2	.2
Pr	<.02	.06	.18	.03	.03
Nd	<.3	.5	1.2	<.3	<.3
Sm	<.05	.21	.50	<.05	<.05
Eu	.05	.14	.26	.09	.03
Gd	<.05	.38	.83	.10	.08
Tb	<.01	.08	.17	.03	.03
Dy	<.05	.52	1.09	.22	.19
Ho	<.02	.12	.23	.04	.03
Er	<.03	.33	.68	.14	.13
Tm	<.01	.05	.10	.02	.01
Yb	<.05	.27	.65	.19	.10
Lu	<.01	.05	.09	.02	.01

Note: Total Fe is expressed as FeO*; < means below detection limit.

Figure 7. (a) Ti/Y vs. Nb/Y (after Pearce, 1982) and (b) Zr/Ti vs. Nb/Y (after Pearce, 1996) diagrams for the isolated dykes from the study area and other Tauride ophiolites (Çelik, 2007, 2008; Çelik & Chiaradia, 2008; Çelik & Delaloye, 2003; Parlak et al., 1995, 2006; Parlak & Delaloye, 1996; Vergili & Parlak, 2005).

Figure 8. Variation of selected major and trace elements for the isolated dykes in the study area and other Tauride ophiolites. Data for the isolated dykes of the Tauride ophiolites are the same as in Figure 7.

Figure 9. (a) Degree of partial melting (Ce/Y vs. Zr/Nb) and (b) source characteristics (Ce/Sm vs. Sm/Yb) diagrams for the isolated dykes. Data for the isolated dykes of the Tauride ophiolites are the same as in Figure 7.

Figure 10. (a) Chondrite normalized REE and N-MORB normalized multi-element diagrams for the isolated diabase dykes, cumulate gabbro and pyroxenite dyke (Normalizing values are from Sun & McDonough, 1989). Data for the isolated dykes of the Tauride ophiolites are the same as in Figure 7.

Figure 11. Nb/Th vs. Y diagram (after Jenner et al., 1991) for the isolated diabase dykes. Data for the isolated dykes of the Tauride ophiolites are the same as in Figure 7.

Figure 12. V vs. Ti variations for the isolated dykes from the study area (after Shervais, 1982). Data for the isolated dykes of the Tauride ophiolites are the same as in Figure 7.

Figure 13. Plot of V vs. Yb for the isolated dykes (after Pearce & Parkinson, 1993, QFM = Quartz-Fayalite-Magnetite buffer).

Figure 14. AFM composition of the cumulate and non-cumulate mafic-ultramafic rocks from the study area. Fields of cumulate and non-cumulate rocks are from Beard (1986).

Dilek, Y., & Thy, P. (2006). Age and petrogenesis of plagiogranite intrusions in the Ankara melange, central Turkey. Island Arc, 15, 44–57.10.1111/iar.2006.15.issue-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dilek, Y., Furnes, H., & Shallo, M. (2008). Geochemistry of the Jurassic Mirdita Ophiolite (Albania) and the MORB to SSZ evolution of a marginal basin oceanic crust. Lithos, 100, 174–209.10.1016/j.lithos.2007.06.026

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liati, A., Gebauer, D., & Fanning, C. M. (2004). The age of ophiolitic rocks of the Hellenides (Vourinos, Pindos, Crete): First U-Pb ion microprobe (SHRIMP) zircon ages. Chemical Geology, 207, 171–188.10.1016/j.chemgeo.2004.02.010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mukasa, S. B., & Ludden, J. N. (1987). Uranium-lead isotopic ages of plagiogranites from the Troodos ophiolite, Cyprus, and their tectonic significance. Geology, 15, 825–828.10.1130/0091-7613(1987)15<825:UIAOPF>2.0.CO;2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Konstantinou, A., Wirth, K. R., & Vervoort, J. (2007). U-Pb isotopic dating of Troodos plagiogranite, Cyprus by LA-ICP-MS. GSA Annual Meeting, Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 39, 388.

 Google Scholar

Dilek, Y., & Thy, P. (2009). Island arc tholeiite to boninitic melt evolution of the Cretaceous Kizildag (Turkey) ophiolite: Model for multi-stage early arc–forearc magmatism in Tethyan subduction factories. Lithos, 113, 68–87.10.1016/j.lithos.2009.05.044

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parlak, O., Karaoğlan, F., Rızaoğlu, T., Klötzli, U., Koller, F., & Billor, Z. (2013). U-Pb and 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of the ophiolites and granitoids from the Tauride belt: İmplications for the evolution of the Inner Tauride suture. Journal of Geodynamics, 65, 22–37.10.1016/j.jog.2012.06.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karaoğlan, F., Parlak, O., Klötzlı, U., Thönı, M., & Koller, F. (2013). U-Pb and Sm-Nd geochronology of the Kızıldağ (Hatay, Turkey) ophiolite: İmplications for the timing and duration of suprasubduction zone type oceanic crust formation in the southern Neotethys. Geological Magazine, 150, 283–299.10.1017/S0016756812000477

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Koglin, N. (2008). Geochemistry, petrogenesis and tectonic setting of Ophiolites and mafic-ultramafic complexes in the Northeastern Aegean Region: New trace-element, isotopic and age constraints (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Mainz, Germany.

 Google Scholar

Koglin, N., Kostopoulos, D., & Reischmann, T. (2009). Geochemistry, petrogenesis and tectonic setting of the Samothraki mafic suite, NE Greece: Trace-element, isotopic and zircon age constraints. Tectonophysics, 473, 53–68.10.1016/j.tecto.2008.10.028

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Topuz, G., Göçmengil, G., Rolland, Y., Çelik, Ö. F., Zack, T., & Schmitt, A. K. (2012). Jurassic accretionary and ophiolite from northeast Turkey: No evidence for the Cimmerian continental ribbon. Geology, 41, 255–258.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sarıfakıoğlu, E., Dilek, Y., & Uysal, İ. (2012). The Petrogenesis and Geodynamic Significance of Bahçe (Osmaniye) Ophiolite. 5th Geochemistry Symposium (pp. 112–113). Denizli,Turkey,

 Google Scholar

Karaoğlan, F., Parlak, O., Klötzli, U., Thöni, M., & Koller, F. (2012). U-Pb and Sm–Nd geochronology of the ophiolites from the SE Turkey: İmplications for the Neotethyan evolution. Geodinamica Acta, 25, 146–161.10.1080/09853111.2013.858948

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O., Ustaömer, T., Taslı, K., İnan, N., Dumitrica, P., & Karaoğlan, F. (2013). Subduction, ophiolite genesis and collision history of Tethys adjacent to the Eurasian continental margin: New evidence from the Eastern Pontides, Turkey. Geodinamica Acta, 26, 230–293.10.1080/09853111.2013.877240

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karaoğlan, F., Parlak, O., Klötzli, U., Koller, F., & Rızaoğlu, T. (2013). Age and duration of intra-oceanic arc volcanism built on a suprasubduction zone type oceanic crust in southern Neotethys, SE Anatolia. Geoscience Frontiers, 4, 399–408.10.1016/j.gsf.2012.11.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dilek, Y., & Flower, M. F. J. (2003). Arc-trench rollback and forearc accretion: 2. A model template for Ophiolites in Albania, Cyprus, and Oman. In Y. Dilek, & P. T. Robinson (Eds.), Ophiolites in Earth history (Vol. 218, pp. 43–68). London: Geological Society, Special Publications.

 Google Scholar

Çelik, Ö. F., Marzoli, A., Marschik, R., Chiaradia, M., Neubauer, N., & Öz, İ. (2011). Early-middle Jurassic intraoceanic subduction in the İzmir-Ankara-Erzincan Ocean, northern Turkey. Tectonophysics, 509, 120–134.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MTA. (2002). 1:500.000 ölçekli Türkiye jeoloji haritası [Geological map of Turkey, 1:500.000]. Ankara: MadenTektik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü [General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration].

 Google Scholar

Kavak, K. Ş. (2010). Sivas havzası güney kenarının ASTER uydu görüntüleriyle incelenmesi ve spektral kütüphanesinin oluşturulması. Tübitak projesi, 107Y146, 128 pp

 Google Scholar

Pearce, J. A. (1982). Trace element characteristics of lavas from destructive plate boundaries. In R. S. Thorpe (Ed.), Andesites (pp. 525–548). New York, NY: Wiley.

 Google Scholar

Pearce, J. A. (1996). A users guide to basalt discrimination diagrams. In D. A. Wyman (Ed.), Trace element geochemistry of volcanic rocks: Applications for massive sulphide exploration (Vol. 12, pp. 79–113). St. John’s: Geochemistry, Geological Association of Canada, Short Course Notes.

 Google Scholar

Çelik, Ö. F., & Chiaradia, M. (2008). Geochemical and petrological aspects of dyke intrusions in the Lycian ophiolites (SW Turkey): A case study for the dyke emplacement along the Tauride Belt Ophiolites. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 97, 1151–1164.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Çelik, Ö. F., & Delaloye, M. (2003). Origin of metamorphic soles and their post-kinematic mafic dyke swarms in the Antalya and Lycian ophiolites, SW Turkey. Geological Journal, 38, 235–256.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parlak, O., & Delaloye, M. (1996). Geochemistry and timing of post-metamorphic dyke emplacement in the Mersin ophiolite (southern Turkey): New age constraints from 40Ar/39Ar geochronology. Terra Nova, 8, 585–592.10.1111/ter.1996.8.issue-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vergili, Ö., & Parlak, O. (2005). Geochemistry and tectonic setting of metamorphic sole rocks and mafic dykes from the Pınarbaşı (Kayseri) ophiolite, Central Anatolia. Ofioliti, 30, 37–52.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sun, S. S., & McDonough, W. F. (1989). Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts: Implications for mantle composition and proccesses. In A. D. Saunders, & M. J. Norry (Eds.), Magmatism in oceanic basins (Vol. 42, pp. 313–345). London: Geological Society, Special Publications.

 Google Scholar

Jenner, G. A., Dunning, G. R., Malpas, J., Brown, M., & Brace, T. (1991). Bay of Islands and Little Port complexes, revisited: Age, geochemical and isotopic evidence confirm suprasubduction-zone origin. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 28, 1635–1652.10.1139/e91-146

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shervais, J. W. (1982). Ti-V plots and the petrogenesis of modern ophiolitic lavas. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 59, 101–118.10.1016/0012-821X(82)90120-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pearce, J. A., & Parkinson, I. J. (1993). Trace element models of mantle melting: Application to volcanic arc petrogenesis. In H. M. Pichard, T. Alabaster, N. B. W. Harris, & C. R. Neary (Eds.), Magmatic processes and plate tectonics (Vol. 76, pp. 373–403). London: Geological Society, Special Publications.

 Google Scholar

Beard, J. S. (1986). Characteristic mineralogy of arc-related cumulate gabbros: Implications for the tectonic setting of gabbroic plutons and for andesite genesis. Geology, 14, 848–851.10.1130/0091-7613(1986)14<848:CMOACG>2.0.CO;2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar