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.

Oceanic and super-deep continental diamonds share a transition zone origin and mantle plume transportation

Abstract

Rare oceanic diamonds are believed to have a mantle transition zone origin like super-deep continental diamonds. However, oceanic diamonds have a homogeneous and organic-like light carbon isotope signature (δ13C − 28 to − 20‰) instead of the extremely variable organic to lithospheric mantle signature of super-deep continental diamonds (δ13C − 25‰ to + 3.5‰). Here, we show that with rare exceptions, oceanic diamonds and the isotopically lighter cores of super-deep continental diamonds share a common organic δ13C composition reflecting carbon brought down to the transition zone by subduction, whereas the rims of such super-deep continental diamonds have the same δ13C as peridotitic diamonds from the lithospheric mantle. Like lithospheric continental diamonds, almost all the known occurrences of oceanic diamonds are linked to plume-induced large igneous provinces or ocean islands, suggesting a common connection to mantle plumes. We argue that mantle plumes bring the transition zone diamonds to shallower levels, where only those emplaced at the base of the continental lithosphere might grow rims with lithospheric mantle carbon isotope signatures.

Introduction

The vast majority of diamonds have grown in the old continental lithospheric mantle between 150 and 300 km depths1 and are found in mantle xenoliths in kimberlites, lamproite, lamprophyres and related placer deposits. The positions of these deposits relative to plume magmatism and the large low sheared wave velocity province (LLSVP)2 suggest that they are related to mantle plume events2,3,4,5. A small fraction (1%) of the continental diamonds have mineral inclusions that suggest a deeper origin of between 300 and 1000 km depths6, and are known as super-deep or sub-lithospheric continental diamonds7. Super-deep continental diamonds have extremely variable carbon isotopic compositions (δ13C from − 25 to + 3.5‰)8,9,10,11, in contrast to a dominant mode of carbon isotope at around − 5‰ exhibited by lithospheric peridotitic and eclogitic diamonds12.

An even smaller fraction (<< 1%) of diamonds are found in the oceanic lithosphere sampled by mantle xenoliths or preserved in ophiolitic belts worldwide13,14,15,16,17 (Fig. 1). Such oceanic diamonds share morphological similarities with synthetic diamonds, e.g., they are euhedral to subhedral with cubo-octahedral shape and low nitrogen aggregation, which led some to question their natural origin18,19. However, oceanic diamonds display features, such as inclusions (e.g., coesite and feldspar), presence of moissanite (SiC), and a large continuous range of δ15N isotopic composition (− 5.6‰ to + 28.7‰), not found in synthetic diamonds20,21,22. In situ occurrence of such natural diamonds have also been demonstrated by thin-section in situ petrographic observations23,24. Some studies proposed that diamonds found in ophiolites could have resulted from serpentinisation processes22,25. However, the presence of ultra-high-pressure and highly reduced mineral phases in such diamonds suggests their formation at > 300 km depths26, which cannot be explained by serpentinization27. Moreover, although diamond nano-particles can form under thermodynamic instability and low pressure–temperature conditions28,29, this mechanism is incompatible with the nano- to micro-meter sizes of the oceanic diamonds30, and cannot reproduce fluid inclusions with complex compositions (in Na, Cl, K) similar to kimberlitic and ultra-high pressure (UHP) metamorphic diamonds31,32.

Figure 1
figure 1

Map showing oceanic diamond and oceanic mantle plume occurrences. The data are from Lian and Yang16 and Doucet et al.33. The world map is made using GPlate 2.2 open-source software (licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 https://www.gplates.org/) with open-source coastline data from Matthews et al.34 (licensed under Creative Common Attribution 4.0 International License https://www.earthbyte.org/category/resources/).

On the other hand, these oceanic diamonds share similar characteristics to super-deep continental diamonds in that they, in general, are microdiamonds (< 1 mm in size35, except for the exceptionally large CLIPPIR diamonds36) and are associated with a range of ultra-high-pressure and highly reduced mineral phases (e.g., coesite, kyanite, UHP nitride, SiC, Ni–Mn alloys, Fe–Si and Fe–C)12,15,16. It is thus believed that oceanic diamonds and super-deep continental diamonds formed in the volatile-rich regions of the mantle, most likely in the transition zone (410–660 km)12,16. It is widely accepted that such diamonds (and related ultra-high pressure and reduced mineral phases) formed from an oxidized, CO3-rich melt37,38,39,40,41 or reduced fluids produced when subducted slabs melted after entering the transition zone, where the pressure is 15–16 GPa, temperature ~ 1600 °C, and volatile contents 1–1.5 wt%36,42,43.

Despite their similarities, oceanic diamonds and super-deep continental diamonds do display significant differences. First, oceanic diamonds found in ophiolites occur as inclusions in podiform chromitites, which is different from the occurrence of superdeep continental diamonds. Second, oceanic diamonds show a homogeneous carbon isotopic composition (δ13C from − 28 to − 20‰)30,32,44 (Fig. 2c) whereas super-deep continental diamonds exhibit extreme isotopic variabilities (δ13C from − 25 to + 3.5‰)8,9,10,11 (Fig. 2b). Third, some superdeep diamonds from Juina have oxidized inclusions such as carbonate minerals (magnesite, eitelite, nyerereite and nahcolite)45,46,47, which are not found in oceanic diamonds. Hence, the relationship between super-deep continental diamonds and oceanic diamonds remains elusive, and it is unclear how the oceanic diamonds get incorporated into the oceanic upper mantle before being brought to the surface either as part of mantle xenoliths or part of ophiolites.

Figure 2
figure 2

Carbon isotope composition of diamonds (expressed as δ13C relative to Pee Dee Belemnite). (a) Worldwide lithospheric continental diamonds12 showing eclogitic (pink) and peridotitic diamonds (green). (b) Super-deep continental diamonds8,9,10,11 from Juina-5, Jagersfontein, Monastery, Sao Luis and Kankan. Also shown are the carbon isotope ranges for the cores and rims of the Sao-Luis8 and Juina-510 diamonds, and data reported for seven fragments of CLIPPIR diamonds36. (c) Oceanic diamonds from Mirdirta32, Pozanti-Karsanti44 and Ray-Iz30. The carbon isotope range for the mantle is from Deines48, the ranges for carbonates and organic matter are from studies of sedimentary rocks of the entire geological record49,50,51.

Two main mechanisms have been proposed to explain the transportation of oceanic diamonds from the transition zone to the upper mantle: (1) subduction return flow52,53, or (2) mantle upwelling15. In the first model, gravity causes the subducting slab to roll back, which triggers return flows that brings the diamonds and ultra-high-pressure minerals to the shallower levels within the subduction channel. In the second model, mantle upwellings, possibly induced by the pondering of plume heads on the transition zone, brings the diamonds and ultra-high-pressure minerals to the lithospheric mantle, fragments of which are later accreted onto the continental margin during subduction.

In this contribution, we aim to achieve a coherent mechanism for the origin of both the oceanic diamonds and the super-deep continental diamonds, including processes that brought them to the surface. We test the various models by investigating the oceanic diamond record together with a compilation of oceanic large igneous provinces (O-LIPs) and ocean island basalts (OIBs) database, or O-LIPdb33, which includes geological and geochemical evidence for plume-related materials in ophiolites54. We show that most oceanic diamonds found in ophiolite belts are not associated with classic ophiolitic sequences that represent the normal oceanic lithosphere formed at mid-ocean ridges; instead, they are associated with plume-modified O-LIP or OIB lithospheric fragments preserved in ophiolite belts.

Results

We observe a striking correlation between the occurrence of oceanic diamonds in either present-day oceanic rocks13,14 or ancient ophiolites15,16, and the oceanic mantle plume record33 (Fig. 1; Table 1). The correlation is most obvious when only considering the modern oceanic diamonds, as both the Hawaiian and Malaita islands examples (Fig. 1) are known to be of plume origin. Diamond inclusions are found in garnet-bearing xenoliths from the Malaita islands, the exhumed portion of the southwest Ontong Java oceanic plateau. Both seismic data and mantle xenolith studies there point to a mantle lithosphere thicker than 130–140 km55,56,57,58. Such a thickened oceanic lithosphere, together with the highly depleted nature of the mantle lithosphere in these two regions, is consistent with their plume origin59.

Table 1 Oceanic diamond occurrences and relationship with oceanic large igneous provinces and ocean islands.

From the ophiolite record (Table 1; Fig. 1), the Tibetan ophiolites from the Yarlung-Zhanbo belt, which are the remnants of the lithospheric mantle of Tethyan oceanic plateau(s)60,61 (Fig. 3), provide the most frequent occurrences of oceanic diamonds (Fig. 1). The Sartohay (part of the Darbut ophiolitic melange) and Hegenshan ophiolites are associated with accreted OIBs in the Central Asian Orogenic Belt (CAOB) in the West Jungaar suture zone62 and the Inner Mongolia-Daxinganling orogenic belt63, respectively, both exhibiting O-LIP characteristics33. The Pozanti-Karsanti (also known as Aladag) ophiolite in Turkey is part of the eastern Tauride belt, and is characterised as an accreted OIB or oceanic plateau64 similar to the Mirdita ophiolite nappe65. Although the original authors interpreted the Ray-Iz and Myitkynia ophiolites to be of suprasubduction origin without plume involvement, we found that the mafic and ultramafic rocks from these two ophiolites share similar geochemical features to the plume-modified oceanic lithosphere (Fig. 3 and Figures S3 and S4). Diamonds from these two ophiolites also share similar features as the O-LIP/OIB-related diamonds: the presence of ultra-high pressure minerals and highly-reduced phases, and very low δ13C (i.e. − 30 to − 20‰ for the Ray-Iz diamonds) (Fig. 2)27,66. We thus consider them to be plume-related diamond-bearing ophiolites as well.

Figure 3
figure 3

Geochemical characteristics of mafic and ultramafic rocks from diamond-bearing ophiolites plotted against fields of tectonic settings. (a) Nb/Yb versus TiO2/Yb in mafic rocks, (b) Al2O3 versus FeOt (in wt. %) in mantle rocks. See Supplementary Data Figure S2 for definition and sources of the tectonic setting discrimination fields. Also shown in (a) are the oceanic basalt (MORB) and ocean island basalt (OIB) discriminant fields (arrays) of Pearce67, and in (b) the experimental melting residue for polybaric fractional melting of fertile mantle68, with faded color shades showing data affected by subduction-related metasomatism69. Dotted ovals show fields of tectonic settings following the same color code as in (a).

In addition, the magmatic ages of diamond-bearing ophiolites (Table 1) also coincide with the peaks of oceanic mantle plume activities for the last 500 million years at 430, 395, 165, 125 and 95 million years ago (Fig. 4)33. These peaks reflect an increase in mantle plume activity with time, interpreted to be the result of global mantle dynamics driven by the supercontinent cycle70,71. This observation further reinforces a plume connection for oceanic diamonds. A similar general correlation between continental plume record and diamondiferous kimberlites suggest the same connection for continental diamonds72,73.

Figure 4
figure 4

Distribution of diamond occurrences through time. The occurrences of oceanic diamonds (dark blue diamonds)13,14,16 and super deep diamonds (blue diamonds with white rims)72,73 are plotted against the time distributions of diamondiferous kimberlites (dotted curve)73, and oceanic (light blue) and continental (orange) mantle plume occurrences for the last 1200 million years33 and the life cycles of supercontinents Pangea and Rodinia74. Note that the majority of the known superdeep diamonds were brought up to the surface by 110–90 Ma kimberlites. The “Cullinan” (CLIPPIR) diamonds are from the much older Premier kimberlite (1153 Ma)75.

Discussion

Super-deep continental diamonds and oceanic diamonds share some characteristics. However, the extremely variable carbon isotopic composition of super-deep continental diamonds (δ13C ranges from − 28 to 3‰, average of − 8 ± 9‰)8,10,12 from one locality to another (Fig. 2b) is in stark contrast to the relatively homogenous carbon isotopic composition of oceanic diamonds (δ13C range from − 28 to − 19‰, average of − 25 ± 4‰; Fig. 2c), leading previous researchers to believe that they are of distinct carbon sources and therefore geneses and origins. A detailed examination reveals that some individual diamonds from the Juina-510 and Sao Luis (Brazil)8 continental super-deep diamonds exhibit carbon isotopic zonation, featuring very light C isotope fractions in their cores (δ13C from − 28 to − 20‰) and heavier, mantle-like C isotope compositions in the rims (δ13C − 15‰ to − 5‰)8,10 (Fig. 2b). The Kankan diamonds represent a rare exception with dominantly >− 5‰ C isotope (Fig. 2b). This general trend of very light isotope in the cores and heavy isotope in the rims is generally coupled with distinct cathodoluminescence colours between the cores and rims, interpreted as indicating pulses of diamond growth10.

Previously proposed models to explain the variability of carbon isotopic composition in super-deep continental diamonds include (1) primordial isotopic variability inherited from Earth's accretion76, (2) distinct carbon sources for the cores and rims (organic and inorganic)49,50,51, and (3) isotopic fractionation of carbon in the mantle77,78.

The fact that (1) the highly negative carbon isotope values for the cores of the super-deep continental diamonds from Juina-5 and Sao Luis (δ13C − 24 ± 6‰), and the overall homogeneous negative values for the superdeep diamonds from Jagersfontein (δ13C up − 20 ± 4‰)11 and Monastery (δ13C up − 17 ± 1‰)11, are comparable to those of the relatively homogeneous carbon isotopic composition of oceanic diamonds (δ13C − 25 ± 4‰) (Fig. 2), and (2) they are believed to be of an organic origin from subducted slabs, can rule out the possibility of primordial origin and variability. The model involving fractionation processes during degassing of CO2 (enriched in 13C) and nitrogen is not supported either due to the lack of correlation between δ13C and nitrogen in various growth zones8. This leads us to hypothesize that the very light cores of Juina-5 and Sao Luis super-deep diamonds, and superdeep diamonds from Jagersfontein and Monastery, share a common origin with the oceanic diamonds, as reflected by their carbon isotope signatures (Fig. 2b,c). Furthermore, the organic matter-like (δ13C between − 30 and − 20‰49,50) very light isotopic composition of such diamonds (Fig. 2b,c) from the mantle transition zone argues for a common organic carbon origin. Most of the carbon (90%) in the oceanic lithosphere is stored in the altered crust, while organic matter represents only a small fraction (< 10%) of the available carbon79,80. In view of the distinct organic carbon signature exhibited by the transition zone diamonds, it appears that organic carbon might be the dominant carbon available in the transition zone, and the transition zone likely plays a critical role in carbon cycles81.

Some mantle plumes are rooted from the lower mantle, whereas others could have a root near the transition zone, possibly as secondary plumes82,83, all above the large low-shear-velocity provinces (LLSVPs) in the lower mantle82,84,85. We envisage that mantle upwellings, caused by plumes86,87, entrain microdiamonds formed in the transition zone and transport them (and other associated ultra-high pressure minerals) to shallower levels88,89,90,91,92,93. In contrast, mantle convection around normal mid-ocean ridges, away from mantle plumes, do not contain such diamonds and ultra high-pressure minerals (Fig. 5). The high degree of melt extraction induced by mantle plumes is responsible for the formation of thicker (100–140 km)55,56 and highly depleted (in iron and other incompatible elements) oceanic lithospheric mantle59. Buoyancy caused by such depletion, along with plume-induced thermal buoyancy and the abnormal thickness of such plume-modified oceanic lithosphere94, makes it more resistant to subduction95, leading to components of it being accreted onto arcs and preserved in orogenic belts96. Subduction fluids modify the original chemical signature of the lithospheric mantle by melt-rock interactions at shallow depth during both accretion/obduction and exhumation in the spinel stability field (< 80 km), leading to the formation of large podiform chromite bodies, typical of subduction zones16. During the accumulation processes of podiform chromite, oceanic diamonds are incorporated in newly formed high-Cr chromite97. Such a process is not only consistent with the deep and highly reduced origin of oceanic diamonds and associated ultra-high-pressure minerals and chromite, but also the subduction origin of the high-Cr podiform chromite.

Figure 5
figure 5

Model for the genesis of three types of diamonds. (A) Oceanic and super-deep continental diamonds (cores only) form in the mantle transition zone using subducted organic carbon, and are then brought to the lithospheric levels by mantle plumes. Continental diamonds grow or overgrow (as rims over the super-deep diamonds) in the continental lithosphere. (B) Oceanic diamond-bearing rocks are accreted onto continental margins as fragments of obducted oceanic plateaus or ocean islands.

Our model (Fig. 5) also provides a possible explanation for the extremely variable carbon isotopic composition of the super-deep continental diamonds (Fig. 2b) and the contrasting carbon isotope signatures of the three types of diamonds (Fig. 2). According to our model, mantle plumes bring the same super-deep microdiamonds, with homogeneous carbon isotopic composition, from the transition zone to the lithospheric levels of both the continental and oceanic realms (Fig. 5a) where they can potentially grow. Diamond growth is governed by conditions including the quantity of carbon available (CO, CO2, CH4), the pressure–temperature condition of the ambient environment (P > 130–150 km for T > 1000 °C), the redox condition (ΔlogfO2 (oxygen fugacity) <−2) which controls the speciation of carbon and its precipitation98, and the time available for the growth to occur. The P–T–fO2 of the lithospheric mantle beneath the oldest continents (aka cratons) is known to favor the growth of diamond99. Such lithosphere is typically thicker (up to 300 km), colder (< 900–1000 °C) and reduced (down to ΔlogfO2 <−4)100, contains sufficient amounts of carbon101, and is able to survive for a sufficiently long time. In such an environment, “purely” continental diamonds (white diamonds in Fig. 5) can grow to gemstone sizes with a homogeneous and predominantly lithospheric carbon isotope signature (δ13C − 5‰) (Fig. 2a). Super-deep continental diamonds carried up by plumes (Fig. 5) can also grow rims there that share the same lithospheric carbon isotope signature (δ13C − 10 to 0‰), yet their cores, of super-deep origin, retain their original lighter carbon isotopic signature which is the same as that of the oceanic diamonds (δ13C − 25 to − 20‰) (Fig. 2).

The P–T–fO2 and duration of the oceanic plateau and ocean island lithosphere, on the other hand, are rather different although some parameters are still poorly constrained (e.g., a total lack of data on the redox state). The lithospheric mantle of oceanic plateaus and ocean islands is believed to be thinner (< 140 km)55,58,102, hotter (1000–1200 °C)59, more oxidised (ΔlogfO2 from − 3 to − 1 according to limited data on mid-ocean ridge peridotites)103, with less carbon available79, and recycled quickly through Wilson cycles. Oceanic microdiamonds, once incorporated in the thickened oceanic lithosphere by plumes, are thus suppressed from growth, or even totally frozen in size, shape (cubo-octahedral) and low aggregation state (Type Ib), due to such unfavorable conditions (Fig. 5)30. They therefore still retain their original narrow range and homogeneous carbon isotopic composition (Fig. 2c).

Our model thus provides a processes for the formation and emplacement of three major types of diamonds. Our model differs from that of Yang’s group17 in that their model envisages widespread oceanic diamonds in the upper mantle, including in mid-ocean ridge environments, whereas in our model the occurrence of all three major types of diamonds are restricted to rocks linked to mantle plumes as our observations demonstrate (Fig. 1; Table 1). If correct, future work can use oceanic diamonds as a tracer for past oceanic mantle plume records in ophiolites formed through Earth’s history, and to test competing geodynamic models33,70. Further testing of our model requires an improved mantle oxidation dataset from oceanic plateaus and ocean islands, and more stable isotope ratio and age data for oceanic diamonds.

Methods

Data compilation

We compiled the known occurrences of both present-day oceanic diamonds and those found in ophiolite belts (Table 1)13,14,16. The location of each occurrence is presented in Fig. 1. Diamond-bearing mantle xenoliths in present-day oceans provide the most recent (34–0.44 million years old, m.y.) occurrence of oceanic diamonds (Table 1). These modern oceanic diamonds are found in garnet-bearing xenoliths in the Salt Lake crater (0.44 m.y.) near Honolulu, Hawaii14, and from the alnoite pipe in the Malaita Islands (34 m.y., Solomon Islands)13 (Fig. 1). Diamond-bearing ophiolites contain much older oceanic diamonds (420–95 m.y.) (Table 1)16 and include the Pozanti-Karsanti (also known as Aladag) ophiolite (ca. 95 m.y) in the eastern Tauride belt, Turkey; the Tibetan ophiolites (ca. 196–125 m.y.; the Luobusa, Dongqiao, Dangqiong, Xigaze, Dongbo, Zedang, and Purang ophiolites); the Mirdita ophiolite (c.a. 160 m.y.) in Albania; the Myitkynia ophiolite (ca. 170 m.y.) in Myanmar; the Hegenshan ophiolite (ca. 295 m.y.) in inner Mongolia, China; the Sartohay ophiolite (ca. 395 m.y.), part of the West Jungar belt, Xianjiang, China; and the Ray-Iz ophiolite (ca. 420 m.y.), in polar Ural, Russia.

Diamond-bearing ophiolites

A majority of diamond-bearing ophiolites are dismembered/mélange ophiolites60,104,105,106,107,108, with the exceptions of the Mirdita and Pozanti-Karsanti ophiolites which are often described as Penrose-type ophiolites107,109. We compiled the geological and geochemical information for the mafic and ultramafic rocks (when available) of these ophiolites (Fig. 3 and Table S1, Figures S3 and S4). The mafic rocks, representing the oceanic crust, and the ultramafic rocks, representing the oceanic lithospheric mantle, from all ophiolites share geochemical characteristics of deep melting products (Fig. 3). The mafic rocks are characterised by a garnet peridotitic source rock, illustrated by their high TiO2/Yb, Nb/Yb and Th/Yb (Fig. 3a and Figure S3), with major and trace element compositions similar to ocean island basalts and oceanic plateau basalts (Fig. 3a; Figures S2 and S3).

The ultramafic rocks consist of harzburgite and subordinate lherzolite and dunite. The lherzolites and dunites likely represent the products of post-melting metasomatism and melt-rock interaction, and are therefore not representative of the unaltered lithospheric mantle110. The harzburgites, representing the lithospheric mantle, are characterised by high Mg# ([Mg/(Mg + FeOt)at] > 0.91), low Al2O3 (1.5–0.2 wt%) and very minor SiO2 enrichments (Fig. 3b). Despite evidence for metasomatic enrichment in some harzburgites (e.g. enrichment of FeOt to > 9 wt%, Fig. 3b and S4), the least affected, and most refractory samples indicate an anhydrous melting origin by at least 30% of melt extraction at depths > 3 GPa (Fig. 3b)68. Such a deep melting origin is supported by the absence of silica enrichment111 (Figure S4), an indicator for SSZ peridotites (Figure S2). In addition, garnet-breakdown features (i.e., spinel symplectite texture) have been reported in ophiolites from the Yarlung Zhangbo belt112, indicative of deep melting.

Diamond classification

In this study we classify diamonds based on (1) nitrogen and boron contents as well as their configuration in the diamond lattice to define the “type” classification system113, and (2) their inclusions114,115 that defines their paragenesis3 and ultimately their lithospheric or sub-lithospheric provenances116,117.

Lithospheric diamonds are diamonds formed in the continental lithospheric mantle and have mineral inclusions of eclogite and peridotite typical of continental lithosphere mantle, including forsterite, pyrope, omphacite, diopside, enstatite, and sulfides. Lithospheric diamonds are commonly subdivided into “eclogitic” and “peridotitic”, depending on the association of inclusions. For example, diamonds with almandine and omphacite inclusions are classified as eclogitic while diamonds with forsterite and pyrope are classified as peridotitic.

Superdeep (or sub-lithospheric) diamonds have mineral inclusions typical of the upper mantle, including ferro-periclase, CaSiO3-walstromite, jeffbenite, majoritic garnet and retrogressed bridgmanite. Superdeep diamond inclusions also indicate the depth of the diamonds, for example, diamonds with majoritic inclusions are believed to have come from the transition zone while diamonds with retro-morphosed bridgmanite are interpreted to have come from the lower mantle (a much rarer occurrence).

Data availability

Data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are presented in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials.

References

  1. Richardson, S., Gurney, J., Erlank, A. & Harris, J. Origin of diamonds in old enriched mantle. Nature 310, 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/310198a0 (1984).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Torsvik, T. H., Burke, K., Steinberger, B., Webb, S. J. & Ashwal, L. D. Diamonds sampled by plumes from the core–mantle boundary. Nature 466, 352–355. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09216 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stachel, T. & Harris, J. The origin of cratonic diamonds—constraints from mineral inclusions. Ore Geol. Rev. 34, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.05.002 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burke, K., Steinberger, B., Torsvik, T. H. & Smethurst, M. A. Plume generation zones at the margins of large low shear velocity provinces on the core–mantle boundary. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 265, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2007.09.042 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Torsvik, T. H., Steinberger, B., Ashwal, L. D., Doubrovine, P. V. & Trønnes, R. G. Earth evolution and dynamics—a tribute to Kevin Burke. Can. J. Earth Sci. 53, 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjes-2015-0228 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nestola, F. et al. CaSiO3 perovskite in diamond indicates the recycling of oceanic crust into the lower mantle. Nature 555, 237. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25972 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaminsky, F. V. et al. Superdeep diamonds from the Juina area, Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 140, 734–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2009.03.036 (2001).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zedgenizov, D. A., Kagi, H., Shatsky, V. S. & Ragozin, A. L. Local variations of carbon isotope composition in diamonds from São-Luis (Brazil): Evidence for heterogenous carbon reservoir in sublithospheric mantle. Chem. Geol. 363, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2013.10.033 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Palot, M., Pearson, D., Stern, R., Stachel, T. & Harris, J. Isotopic constraints on the nature and circulation of deep mantle C–H–O–N fluids: Carbon and nitrogen systematics within ultra-deep diamonds from Kankan (Guinea). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 139, 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2014.04.027 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Thomson, A. et al. Origin of sub-lithospheric diamonds from the Juina-5 kimberlite (Brazil): Constraints from carbon isotopes and inclusion compositions. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 168, 1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-014-1081-8 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Palot, M. et al. The transition zone as a host for recycled volatiles: Evidence from nitrogen and carbon isotopes in ultra-deep diamonds from Monastery and Jagersfontein (South Africa). Chem. Geol. 466, 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2017.07.023 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cartigny, P., Palot, M., Thomassot, E. & Harris, J. W. Diamond formation: A stable isotope perspective. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 42, 699–732. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105259 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Collerson, K. D., Hapugoda, S., Kamber, B. S. & Williams, Q. Rocks from the mantle transition zone: Majorite-bearing xenoliths from Malaita, Southwest Pacific. Science 288, 1215–1223. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.288.5469.1215 (2000).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wirth, R. & Rocholl, A. Nanocrystalline diamond from the Earth’s mantle underneath Hawaii. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 211, 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00204-8 (2003).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yang, J., Robinson, P. T. & Dilek, Y. Diamond-bearing ophiolites and their geological occurrence. Episodes 38, 344–364 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lian, D. & Yang, J. Ophiolite-hosted diamond: A new window for probing carbon cycling in the deep mantle. Engineering https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.02.006 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang, J., Wu, W., Lian, D. & Rui, H. Peridotites, chromitites and diamonds in ophiolites. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-00138-4 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Litasov, K. D., Kagi, H., Bekker, T. B., Hirata, T. & Makino, Y. Cuboctahedral type Ib diamonds in ophiolitic chromitites and peridotites: The evidence for anthropogenic contamination. High Press. Res. 39, 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957959.2019.1616183 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Litasov, K. et al. Comparison of enigmatic diamonds from the Tolbachik arc volcano (Kamchatka) and Tibetan ophiolites: Assessing the role of contamination by synthetic materials. Gondwana Res. 75, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2019.04.007 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Howell, D. et al. Diamonds in ophiolites: Contamination or a new diamond growth environment?. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 430, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2015.08.023 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yang, J. et al. Comment on “Comparison of enigmatic diamonds from the Tolbachik arc volcano (Kamchatka) and Tibetan ophiolites: Assessing the role of contamination by synthetic materials” by Litasov et al. 2019. Gondwana Res. 79, 301–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2019.09.010 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Griffin, W. L., Toledo, V. & O’Reilly, S. Y. Discussion of" Enigmatic super-reduced phases in corundum from natural rocks: Possible contamination from artificial abrasive materials or metallurgical slags" by Litasov et al.(Lithos, 340-341, p. 181–190). Lithos 348, 105122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2019.06.024 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang, J.-S. et al. Diamond- and coesite-bearing chromitites from the Luobusa ophiolite, Tibet. Geology 35, 875–878. https://doi.org/10.1130/G23766A.1 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Das, S., Basu, A. & Mukherjee, B. In situ peridotitic diamond in Indus ophiolite sourced from hydrocarbon fluids in the mantle transition zone. Geology 45, 755–758. https://doi.org/10.1130/G39100.1 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pujol Solà, N., García Casco, A., González Jiménez, J. & Sánchez Navas, A. Diamond forms during low pressure serpentinisation of oceanic lithosphere. Geochem. Perspect. Lett. https://doi.org/10.7185/geochemlet.2029 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dobrzhinetskaya, L. F. et al. High-pressure highly reduced nitrides and oxides from chromitite of a Tibetan ophiolite. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 19233–19238. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905514106 (2009).

    ADS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Yang, J. et al. Diamonds, native elements and metal alloys from chromitites of the Ray-Iz ophiolite of the Polar Urals. Gondwana Res. 27, 459–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2014.07.004 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Simakov, S., Dubinchuk, V., Novikov, M. & Drozdova, I. In Doklady Earth Sciences. 835 (Springer Nature BV).

  29. Simakov, S. Metastable nanosized diamond formation from a C–H–O fluid system. J. Mater. Res. 25, 2336–2340. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2010.0303 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Xu, X. et al. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy data and carbon isotope characteristics of the ophiolite-hosted diamonds from the Luobusa ophiolite, Tibet, and Ray-Iz ophiolite, Polar Urals. Lithosphere 10, 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1130/L625.1 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dobrzhinetskaya, L. F. Microdiamonds—frontier of ultrahigh-pressure metamorphism: A review. Gondwana Res. 21, 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2011.07.014 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wu, W. et al. Carbon and nitrogen isotopes and mineral inclusions in diamonds from chromitites of the Mirdita ophiolite (Albania) demonstrate recycling of oceanic crust into the mantle. Am. Mineral. J. Earth Planet. Materials 104, 485–500. https://doi.org/10.2138/am-2019-6751 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Doucet, L. S. et al. Coupled supercontinent–mantle plume events evidenced by oceanic plume record. Geology 48(2), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1130/G46754.1 (2020).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Matthews, K. J. et al. Global plate boundary evolution and kinematics since the late Paleozoic. Glob. Planet. Change 146, 226–250 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haggerty, S. E. Micro-diamonds: Proposed origins, crystal growth laws, and the underlying principle governing resource predictions. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 266, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2019.03.036 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Smith, E. M. et al. Large gem diamonds from metallic liquid in Earth’s deep mantle. Science 354, 1403–1405. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1303 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Walter, M. J. et al. Primary carbonatite melt from deeply subducted oceanic crust. Nature 454, 622–625. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07132 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bulanova, G. P. et al. Mineral inclusions in sublithospheric diamonds from Collier 4 kimberlite pipe, Juina, Brazil: Subducted protoliths, carbonated melts and primary kimberlite magmatism. Contrib. Mineral Petrol 160, 489–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-010-0490-6 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Smart, K. A. et al. Diamond growth from oxidized carbon sources beneath the Northern Slave Craton, Canada: A δ13C–N study of eclogite-hosted diamonds from the Jericho kimberlite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 75, 6027–6047 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Thomson, A. R., Walter, M. J., Kohn, S. C. & Brooker, R. A. Slab melting as a barrier to deep carbon subduction. Nature 529, 76–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16174 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Thomson, A. et al. Trace element composition of silicate inclusions in sub-lithospheric diamonds from the Juina-5 kimberlite: Evidence for diamond growth from slab melts. Lithos 265, 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2016.08.035 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yang, J.-S., Robinson, P. T. & Dilek, Y. Diamonds in ophiolites. Elements 10, 127–130. https://doi.org/10.2113/gselements.10.2.127 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pearson, D. et al. Hydrous mantle transition zone indicated by ringwoodite included within diamond. Nature 507, 221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13080 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lian, D. et al. Carbon and nitrogen isotope, and mineral inclusion studies on the diamonds from the Pozanti-Karsanti chromitite, Turkey. Contrib. Mineral Petrol. 173, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-018-1499-5 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Brenker, F. E. et al. Carbonates from the lower part of transition zone or even the lower mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 260, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2007.02.038 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kaminsky, F., Wirth, R., Matsyuk, S., Schreiber, A. & Thomas, R. Nyerereite and nahcolite inclusions in diamond: Evidence for lower-mantle carbonatitic magmas. Mineral. Mag. 73, 797–816. https://doi.org/10.1180/minmag.2009.073.5.797 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kaminsky, F. V., Wirth, R. & Schreiber, A. Carbonatitic inclusions in deep mantle diamond from Juina, Brazil: New minerals in the carbonate-halide association. Can. Mineral. 51, 669–688. https://doi.org/10.3749/canmin.51.5.669 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Deines, P. The carbon isotope geochemistry of mantle xenoliths. Earth-Sci. Rev. 58, 247–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(02)00064-8 (2002).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Veizer, J. & Hoefs, J. The nature of O18/O16 and C13/C12 secular trends in sedimentary carbonate rocks. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 40, 1387–1395. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(76)90129-0 (1976).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Schidlowski, M. Carbon isotopes as biogeochemical recorders of life over 38 Ga of Earth history: Evolution of a concept. Precambrian Res. 106, 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-9268(00)00128-5 (2001).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Eigenbrode, J. L. & Freeman, K. H. Late Archean rise of aerobic microbial ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 15759–15764. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607540103 (2006).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Arai, S. Conversion of low-pressure chromitites to ultrahigh-pressure chromitites by deep recycling: A good inference. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 379, 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2013.08.006 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Griffin, W. L. et al. Mantle recycling: transition zone metamorphism of Tibetan ophiolitic peridotites and its tectonic implications. J. Petrol. 57, 655–684. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/egw011 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Dilek, Y. & Furnes, H. Ophiolite genesis and global tectonics: Geochemical and tectonic fingerprinting of ancient oceanic lithosphere. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 123, 387–411 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ishikawa, A., Maruyama, S. & Komiya, T. Layered lithospheric mantle beneath the Ontong Java Plateau: Implications from xenoliths in alnoite, malaita, Solomon Islands. J. Petrol. 45, 2011–2044. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/egh046 (2004).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tharimena, S., Rychert, C. A. & Harmon, N. Seismic imaging of a mid-lithospheric discontinuity beneath Ontong Java Plateau. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 450, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.06.026 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Neal, C. R., Haggerty, S. E. & Sautter, V. “Majorite” and “silicate perovskite” mineral compositions in xenoliths from Malaita. Science 292, 1015–1015. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.292.5519.1015a (2001).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Isse, T. et al. Seismic evidence for a thermochemical mantle plume underplating the lithosphere of the Ontong Java Plateau. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00169-9 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Simon, N. S. C. et al. Ultra-refractory domains in the oceanic mantle lithosphere sampled as mantle xenoliths at ocean islands. J. Petrol. 49, 1223–1251. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/egn023 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhang, K.-J. et al. Central Tibetan Meso-Tethyan oceanic plateau. Lithos 210–211, 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2014.09.004 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Yang, G. & Dilek, Y. OIB-and P-type ophiolites along the Yarlung-Zangbo Suture Zone (YZSZ), Southern Tibet: Poly-phase melt history and mantle sources of the Neotethyan oceanic lithosphere. Episodes 38, 250–265. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2015/v38i4/82420 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Yang, G., Li, Y., Xiao, W. & Tong, L. OIB-type rocks within West Junggar ophiolitic mélanges: Evidence for the accretion of seamounts. Earth Sci. Rev. 150, 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.09.002 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Miao, L. et al. Geochronology and geochemistry of the Hegenshan ophiolitic complex: Implications for late-stage tectonic evolution of the Inner Mongolia-Daxinganling Orogenic Belt, China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 32, 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2007.11.005 (2008).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Göncüoğlu, M. C. In Mineral Resources of Turkey Vol. 1 (eds F. Pirajno, T. Ünlü, C.M. Dönmez, & M. Bahamir Şahin) 19–72 (Springer, 2019).

  65. Gaggero, L., Marroni, M., Pandolfi, L. & Buzzi, L. Modelling of oceanic lithosphere obduction: Constraints from the metamorphic sole of Mirdita ophiolites (Northern Albania). Ofioliti 34, 17–42. https://doi.org/10.4454/ofioliti.v34i1.376 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Chen, Y., Yang, J., Xu, Z., Tian, Y. & Lai, S. Diamonds and other unusual minerals from peridotites of the Myitkyina ophiolite, Myanmar. J. Asian Earth Sci. 164, 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2018.06.018 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pearce, J. A. Geochemical fingerprinting of oceanic basalts with applications to ophiolite classification and the search for Archean oceanic crust. Lithos 100, 14–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2007.06.016 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Herzberg, C. Geodynamic information in peridotite petrology. J. Petrol 45, 2507–2530. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/egh039 (2004).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Malvoisin, B. Mass transfer in the oceanic lithosphere: Serpentinization is not isochemical. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 430, 75–85 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Li, Z.-X. & Zhong, S. Supercontinent–superplume coupling, true polar wander and plume mobility: Plate dominance in whole-mantle tectonics. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 176, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2009.05.004 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Gamal-El-Dien, H., Doucet, L. S., Li, Z.-X., Cox, M. C. & Mitchell, R. N. Global geochemical fingerprinting of plume intensity suggests coupling with the supercontinent cycle. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13300-4 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Gurney, J. J., Helmstaedt, H. H., Richardson, S. H. & Shirey, S. B. Diamonds through time. Econ. Geol. 105, 689–712. https://doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.105.3.689 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Tappe, S., Smart, K., Torsvik, T., Massuyeau, M. & de Wit, M. Geodynamics of kimberlites on a cooling Earth: Clues to plate tectonic evolution and deep volatile cycles. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 484, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.12.013 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Li, Z. X. et al. Decoding Earth’s rhythms: Modulation of supercontinent cycles by longer superocean episodes. Precambr. Res. 323, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2019.01.009 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Tappe, S., Dongre, A., Liu, C.-Z. & Wu, F.-Y. ‘Premier’evidence for prolonged kimberlite pipe formation and its influence on diamond transport from deep Earth. Geology 46, 843–846. https://doi.org/10.1130/G45097.1 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Palot, M., Cartigny, P., Harris, J., Kaminsky, F. & Stachel, T. Evidence for deep mantle convection and primordial heterogeneity from nitrogen and carbon stable isotopes in diamond. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 357, 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.09.015 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Cartigny, P., Harris, J. W., Phillips, D., Girard, M. & Javoy, M. Subduction-related diamonds? The evidence for a mantle-derived origin from coupled d13C–d15N determinations. Chem. Geol. 147, 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2541(97)00178-2 (1998).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Cartigny, P., Harris, J. W. & Javoy, M. Diamond genesis, mantle fractionations and mantle nitrogen content: A study of delta13C-N concentrations in diamonds. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 185, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00357-5 (2001).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Kelemen, P. B. & Manning, C. E. Reevaluating carbon fluxes in subduction zones, what goes down, mostly comes up. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, E3997–E4006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1507889112 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Li, K., Li, L., Pearson, D. G. & Stachel, T. Diamond isotope compositions indicate altered igneous oceanic crust dominates deep carbon recycling. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 516, 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.03.041 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Regier, M. et al. The lithospheric-to-lower-mantle carbon cycle recorded in superdeep diamonds. Nature 585, 234–238. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2676-z (2020).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Courtillot, V., Davaille, A., Besse, J. & Stock, J. Three distinct types of hotspots in the Earth’s mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 205, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(02)01048-8 (2003).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wang, X.-C. et al. Identification of an ancient mantle reservoir and young recycled materials in the source region of a young mantle plume: Implications for potential linkages between plume and plate tectonics. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 377–378, 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2013.07.003 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Koppers, A. A. Mantle plumes persevere. Nat. Geosci. 4, 816–817. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1334 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Garnero, E. J., McNamara, A. K. & Shim, S.-H. Continent-sized anomalous zones with low seismic velocity at the base of Earth’s mantle. Nat. Geosci. 9, 481. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2733 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Maclennan, J., McKenzie, D. & Gronvöld, K. Plume-driven upwelling under central Iceland. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 194, 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00553-2 (2001).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Sobolev, A. V., Hofmann, A. W., Jochum, K. P., Kuzmin, D. V. & Stoll, B. A young source for the Hawaiian plume. Nature 476, 434–437. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10321 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Griffin, W. L. et al. Layered mantle lithosphere in the Lac de Gras Area, Slave Craton: Composition, structure and origin. J. Petrol. 40, 705–727. https://doi.org/10.1093/petroj/40.5.705 (1999).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Davies, R. M., Griffin, W. L., O’Reilly, S. Y. & Doyle, B. J. Mineral inclusions and geochemical characteristics of microdiamonds from the DO27, A154, A21, A418, DO18, DD17 and Ranch Lake kimberlites at Lac de Gras, Slave Craton, Canada. Lithos 77, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2004.04.016 (2004).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Harte, B. & Cayzer, N. Decompression and unmixing of crystals included in diamonds from the mantle transition zone. Phys. Chem. Miner. 34, 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00269-007-0178-2 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Walter, M. et al. Deep mantle cycling of oceanic crust: Evidence from diamonds and their mineral inclusions. Science 334, 54–57. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1209300 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Tappe, S., Pearson, D. G., Kjarsgaard, B. A., Nowell, G. & Dowall, D. Mantle transition zone input to kimberlite magmatism near a subduction zone: Origin of anomalous Nd–Hf isotope systematics at Lac de Gras, Canada. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 371, 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2013.03.039 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Tappe, S., Budde, G., Stracke, A., Wilson, A. & Kleine, T. The tungsten-182 record of kimberlites above the African superplume: Exploring links to the core-mantle boundary. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 547, 116473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116473 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Kerr, A. C. In Treatise on Geochemistry (eds H. D. Holland & K. K. Turekian) 537–565 (Pergamon, 2003).

  95. Cloos, M. Lithospheric buoyancy and collisional orogenesis: Subduction of oceanic plateaus, continental margins, island arcs, spreading ridges, and seamounts. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 105, 715–737. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1993)105%3c0715:LBACOS%3e2.3.CO;2 (1993).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Coffin, M. F. & Eldholm, O. Large igneous provinces: Progenitors of some ophiolites?. Mantle Plumes Identif. Time 352, 59. https://doi.org/10.1130/0-8137-2352-3.59 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Shi, R. et al. Multiple events in the Neo-Tethyan oceanic upper mantle: Evidence from Ru-Os-Ir alloys in the Luobusa and Dongqiao ophiolitic podiform chromitites, Tibet. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 261, 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2007.05.044 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Jablon, B. M. & Navon, O. Most diamonds were created equal. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 443, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.03.013 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Howell, D. et al. Deep carbon through time: Earth’s diamond record and its implications for carbon cycling and fluid speciation in the mantle. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 275, 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2020.02.011 (2020).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Goncharov, A. G., Ionov, D. A., Doucet, L. S. & Pokhilenko, L. N. Thermal state, oxygen fugacity and C–O–H fluid speciation in cratonic lithospheric mantle: New data on peridotite xenoliths from the Udachnaya kimberlite, Siberia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 357–358, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.09.016 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Dasgupta, R. & Hirschmann, M. M. The deep carbon cycle and melting in Earth’s interior. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 298, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.039 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Priestley, K. & Tilmann, F. Shear-wave structure of the lithosphere above the Hawaiian hot spot from two-station Rayleigh wave phase velocity measurements. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 1493–1496. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL900299 (1999).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Bryndzia, T. L., Wood, B. J. & Dick, H. J. B. The oxidation state of the earth’s sub-oceanic mantle from oxygen thermobarometry of abyssal spinel peridotites. Nature 341, 526–527. https://doi.org/10.1038/341526a0 (1989).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Kazak, A., Dobretsov, N. & Moldavantsev, Y. E. Glaucophane schists, jadeitites, vesuvianites and nephrites of the ultrabasitic Rai-Iz massif. Geol. Geophys. 2, 60–66 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Mitchell, A. Cretaceous-Cenozoic tectonic events in the western Myanmar (Burma)–Assam region. J. Geol. Soc. 150, 1089–1102. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.150.6.1089 (1993).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Peng, G. Podiform Chromite and Associated Ophiolitic Rocks in West Junggar, Xinjiang, China. Ph.D. thesis (1995).

  107. Parlak, O., Höck, V. & Delaloye, M. Suprasubduction zone origin of the Pozanti-Karsanti ophiolite (southern Turkey) deduced from whole-rock and mineral chemistry of the gabbroic cumulates. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 173, 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2000.173.01.11 (2000).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Nozaka, T. & Liu, Y. Petrology of the Hegenshan ophiolite and its implication for the tectonic evolution of northern China. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 202, 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(02)00774-4 (2002).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Dilek, Y., Shallo, M. & Furnes, H. Rift-drift, seafloor spreading, and subduction tectonics of Albanian ophiolites. Int. Geol. Rev. 47, 147–176. https://doi.org/10.2747/0020-6814.47.2.147 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Kelemen, P. B., Shimizu, N. & Salters, V. Extraction of mid-ocean-ridge basalt from the upwelling mantle by focused flow of melt in dunite channels. Nature 375, 747–753. https://doi.org/10.1038/375747a0 (1995).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Bénard, A., Arculus, R. J., Nebel, O., Ionov, D. A. & McAlpine, S. R. B. Silica-enriched mantle sources of subalkaline picrite-boninite-andesite island arc magmas. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 199, 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2016.09.030 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Gong, X. H. et al. “Garnet” Lherzolites in the Purang Ophiolite, Tibet: Evidence for exhumation of deep oceanic lithospheric mantle. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL086101. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086101 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Breeding, C. M. & Shigley, J. E. The, “type” classification system of diamonds and its importance in gemology. Gems Gemol. 45, 96–111 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Harris, J. Recognition of diamond inclusions. 1. Syngenetic mineral inclusions. Ind. Diam. Rev. 28, 402–410 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Harris, J. Recognition of diamond inclusions. 2. Epigenetic mineral inclusions. Indu. Diam. Rev. 28, 558–561 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Nestola, F. Inclusions in super-deep diamonds: windows on the very deep Earth. Rend. Lincei 28, 595–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-017-0607-1 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Shirey, S. B. et al. Diamonds and the geology of mantle carbon. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 75, 355–421. https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2013.75.12 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Josh Beardmore for his support and proofreading, and other members of the Earth Dynamics Research group for useful discussions. This is a contribution to IGCP 648.This work was supported by the Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship grant to ZXL (FL150100133). We thank S. Tappe and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

L.S.D. led the research, compiled the data, and drafted the manuscript. Z.X.L. established the framework with L.S.D., clarified the concepts and models, and wrote the manuscript. H.G. provided expertise on ophiolitic rocks and chromitite petrogenesis.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Luc S. Doucet or Zheng-Xiang Li.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doucet, L.S., Li, ZX. & Gamal El Dien, H. Oceanic and super-deep continental diamonds share a transition zone origin and mantle plume transportation. Sci Rep 11, 16958 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96286-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96286-8

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

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