Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Bifurcation of the Yellowstone plume driven by subduction-induced mantle flow

Abstract

The causes of volcanism in the northwestern United States over the past 20 million years are strongly contested1. Three drivers have been proposed: melting associated with plate subduction2,3; tectonic extension and magmatism resulting from rollback of a subducting slab4,5,6; or the Yellowstone mantle plume7,8,9. Observations of the opposing age progression of two neighbouring volcanic chains—the Snake River Plain and High Lava Plains—are often used to argue against a plume origin for the volcanism. Plumes are likely to occur near subduction zones10, yet the influence of subduction on the surface expression of mantle plumes is poorly understood. Here we use experiments with a laboratory model to show that the patterns of volcanism in the northwestern United States can be explained by a plume upwelling through mantle that circulates in the wedge beneath a subduction zone. We find that the buoyant plume may be stalled, deformed and partially torn apart by mantle flow induced by the subducting plate. Using plausible model parameters, bifurcation of the plume can reproduce the primary volcanic features observed in the northwestern United States, in particular the opposite progression of two volcanic chains. Our results support the presence of the Yellowstone plume in the northwestern United States, and also highlight the power of plume–subduction interactions to modify surface geology at convergent plate margins.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Pacific Northwest US convergence zone and laboratory model set-up.
Figure 2: Frames showing plume–subduction interaction in side-view and map-view orientations.
Figure 3: Surface temperature, melt distributions and slab/wedge thermal profiles of laboratory experiments.

References

  1. Hooper, P. R., Camp, V. E., Reidel, S. P. & Ross, M. E. The origin of the Columbia River flood basalt province: Plume versus nonplume models. GSA Spec. Pap. 430, 635–668 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Faccenna, C. et al. Subduction-triggered magmatic pulses: A new class of plumes? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 209, 54–68 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu, L. & Stegman, D. R. Columbia River flood basalt formation due to propagating rupture of the Farallon slab. Nature 482, 386–389 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carlson, R. W. Isotopic constraints on Columbia River flood basalt genesis and the nature of subcontinental mantle. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 48, 2357–2372 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlson, R. W. & Hart, W. K. Crustal genesis on the Oregon Plateau. J. Geophys. Res. 92, 6191–6206 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Christiansen, R. L., Foulger, G. R. & Evans, J. R. Upper-mantle origin of the Yellowstone hotspot. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 114, 1245–1256 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Morgan, W. J. Plate motions and deep convection. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 132, 7–22 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Smith, R. B. et al. Geodynamics of the Yellowstone hotspot and mantle plume: Seismic and GPS imaging, kinematics, and mantle flow. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 188, 26–56 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jordan, B. T., Grunder, A. L., Duncan, R. A. & Deino, A. L. Geochronology of age-progressive volcanism of the Oregon High Lava Plains: Implications for the plume interpretation of Yellowstone. J. Geophys. Res. 109, B10202 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weinstein, S. A. & Olson, P. L. The proximity of hotspots to convergent and divergent plate boundaries. Geophys. Res. Lett. 16, 433–436 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Draper, D. S. Late Cenozoic bimodal magmatism in the northern Basin and Range Province of southeastern Oregon. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 47, 299–328 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Humphreys, E. D., Deuker, K. G., Schutt, D. L. & Smith, R. B. Beneath Yellowstone: Evaluating plume and nonplume models using teleseismic images of the upper mantle. GSA Today 10, 1–7 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Richards, M. A., Duncan, R. A. & Courtillot, V. E. Flood Basalts and hot-spot tracks: Plume heads and tails. Science 246, 103–107 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Camp, V. E. & Ross, M. E. Mantle dynamics and genesis of mafic magmatism in the intermontane Pacific Northwest. J. Geophys. Res. 109, B08204 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Geist, D. & Richards, M. Origin of the Columbia Plateau and Snake River plain: Deflection of the Yellowstone plume. Geology 21, 789–792 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Long, M. D. et al. Mantle dynamics beneath the Pacific Northwest and the generation of voluminous back-arc volcanism. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13, Q0AN01 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kincaid, C. & Griffiths, R. W. Laboratory models of the thermal evolution of the mantle during rollback subduction. Nature 425, 58–62 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kincaid, C. & Griffiths, R. W. Variability in flow and temperatures within mantle subduction zones. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 5, Q06002 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Funiciello, F. et al. Mapping mantle flow during retreating subduction: Laboratory models analyzed by feature tracking. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B03402 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stegman, D. R., Freeman, J., Schellart, W. P., Moresi, L. & May, D. Influence of trench width on subduction hinge retreat rates in 3-D models of slab rollback. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 7, Q03012 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bryan, S. E. & Ernst, R. E. Revised definition of Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs). Earth-Sci. Rev. 86, 175–202 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Eaton, G. P. The Miocene Great Basin of western North America as an extending back-arc region. Tectonophysics 102, 275–295 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schutt, D. L. & Dueker, K. Temperature of the plume layer beneath the Yellowstone hotspot. Geology 36, 623–626 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schutt, D. L., Dueker, K. & Yuan, H. Crust and upper mantle velocity structure of the Yellowstone hot spot and surroundings. J. Geophys. Res. 113, B03310 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Waite, G. P., Smith, R. B. & Allen, R. M. VP and VS structure of the Yellowstone hot spot from teleseismic tomography: Evidence for an upper mantle plume. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B04303 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eagar, K., Fouch, M. J. & James, D. Receiver function imaging of upper mantle complexity beneath the Pacific Northwest, United States. Earth Plan. Sci. Lett. 297, 141–153 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. James, D. E., Fouch, M. J., Carlson, R. W. & Roth, J. B. Slab fragmentation, edge flow and the origin of the Yellowstone hotspot track. Earth Plan. Sci. Lett. 311, 124–135 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Camp, V. E. & Hanan, B. A plume-triggered delamination origin for the Columbia River Basalt Group. Geosphere 4, 480–495 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kincaid, C., Sparks, D. W. & Detrick, R. The relative importance of plate-driven and buoyancy-driven flow at mid-ocean ridges. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 16177–16193 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hall, P. & Kincaid, C. Melting, dehydration, and the geochemistry of off-axis plume-ridge interaction. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 5, Q12E18 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Experiments were conducted at the GFD Laboratory at the Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University. We thank T. Beasley for technical assistance and acknowledge support from National Science Foundation grants EAR-0652512 and EAR-0506857. We also thank HLP project participants for useful scientific discussions and H. Gao for assistance generating Fig. 1a.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

C.K. and R.W.G. designed and performed the laboratory modelling. C.K. and K.A.D. processed the output and data. All authors contributed to writing and the development of ideas for placing results within a larger Earth sciences context.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Kincaid.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 383 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kincaid, C., Druken, K., Griffiths, R. et al. Bifurcation of the Yellowstone plume driven by subduction-induced mantle flow. Nature Geosci 6, 395–399 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1774

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1774

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing