Large Igneous Provinces
A Driver of Global Environmental and Biotic Changes
Edited by Richard E. Ernst
Alexander J. Dickson Andrey Bekker
This open access Work is a co‐publication of the American Geophysical Union and John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
This open access Work is a co‐publication of the American Geophysical Union and John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
This edition first published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA and the American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 © 2021 The Authors
This is an open access publication under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The right of Richard E. Ernst, Alexander J. Dickson and Andrey Bekker to be identified as the editors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Published under the aegis of the AGU Publications Committee
Brooks Hanson, Executive Vice President, Science Carol Frost, Chair, Publications Committee
For details about the American Geophysical Union visit us at www.agu.org.
Wiley Global Headquarters 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data
Names: Ernst, Richard, editor.
Title: Large igneous provinces : a driver of global environmental and biotic changes / edited by Richard Ernst, Andrey Bekker, Alexander J. Dickson.
Description: First edition. | Hoboken : Wiley, 2020. | Series: Geophysical monograph series | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020025916 (print) | LCCN 2020025917 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119507451 (cloth) | ISBN 9781119507475 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119507499 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Global environmental change. | Climatic changes.
Classification: LCC GE145 .L37 2020 (print) | LCC GE145 (ebook) | DDC 363.738/74072014–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020025916
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020025917
Cover Design: Wiley
Cover Image: Lava flow and sulfur emissions from the 2014-15 Bárðarbunga-Veiðivötn fissure eruption at Holuhraun (Iceland). Taken from Icelandic Coast Guard helicopter by Anja Schmidt, 21 January 2015.
Set in 10/12pt Times New Roman by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India
CONTENTS
Part I: The Temporal Record of Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs)
1� Large Igneous Province Record Through Time and Implications for Secular Environmental Changes and Geological Time-Scale Boundaries
Richard E. Ernst, David P. G. Bond, Shuan-Hong Zhang, Kenneth L. Buchan, Stephen E. Grasby, Nasrrddine Youbi, Hafida El Bilali, Andrey Bekker, and Luc S. Doucet ................................3
2� Radiometric Constraints on the Timing, Tempo, and Effects of Large Igneous Province Emplacement
Jennifer Kasbohm, Blair Schoene, and Seth Burgess ......................................................................................27
Part II: Environmental Impacts of LIP Emplacement
3� Global Warming and Mass Extinctions Associated With Large Igneous Province Volcanism
David P. G. Bond and Yadong Sun ................................................................................................................85
4� Environmental Effects of Volcanic Volatile Fluxes From Subaerial Large Igneous Provinces
Tamsin A. Mather and Anja Schmidt ...........................................................................................................103
5� Assessing the Environmental Consequences of the Generation and Alteration of Mafic Volcaniclastic Deposits During Large Igneous Province Emplacement
Benjamin Black, Tushar Mittal, Francesca Lingo, Kristina Walowski, and Andres Hernandez 117
6� Environmental Impact of Silicic Magmatism in Large Igneous Province Events Scott E. Bryan .............................................................................................................................................133
7� Evaluating the Relationship Between the Area and Latitude of Large Igneous Provinces and Earth’s Long-Term Climate State Yuem Park, Nicholas L. Swanson-Hysell, Lorraine E. Lisiecki, and Francis A. Macdonald 153
8� Preliminary Appraisal of a Correlation Between Glaciations and Large Igneous Provinces Over the Past 720 Million Years
Nasrrddine Youbi, Richard E. Ernst, Ross N. Mitchell, Moulay A. Boumehdi, Warda El Moume, Abdelhak Ait Lahna, Mohamed K. Bensalah, Ulf Söderlund, Miguel Doblas, and Colombo C. G.Tassinari 169
9� Phanerozoic Large Igneous Province, Petroleum System, and Source Rock Links
Steven C. Bergman, James S. Eldrett, and Daniel Minisini 191
Part III: Geochemical Proxies for the Environmental Effects of LIPs
10� The Osmium Isotope Signature of Phanerozoic Large Igneous Provinces
Alexander J. Dickson, Anthony S. Cohen, and Marc Davies 231
11� Sedimentary Mercury Enrichments as a Tracer of Large Igneous Province Volcanism
Lawrence M. E. Percival, Bridget A. Bergquist, Tamsin A. Mather, and Hamed Sanei 247
12� Platinum Group Element Traces of CAMP Volcanism Associated With Low‐Latitude Environmental and Biological Disruptions
Jessica H. Whiteside, Paul E. Olsen, Sean T. Kinney, and Mohammed Et‐Touhami ........................................263
13� Assessing the Effect of Large Igneous Provinces on Global Oceanic Redox Conditions Using Non-traditional Metal Isotopes (Molybdenum, Uranium, Thallium)
Brian Kendall, Morten B. Andersen, and Jeremy D. Owens 305
14� Marine Anoxia and Ocean Acidification During the End‐Permian Extinction: An Integrated View From δ238U and δ44/40Ca Proxies and Earth System Modeling
Ying Cui, Feifei Zhang, Jiuyuan Wang, Shijun Jiang, and Shuzhong Shen ......................................................325
15� Trends in Ocean S‐Isotopes May Be Influenced by Major LIP Events
Ross. R. Large, Jeffrey A. Steadman, Indrani Mukherjee, Ross Corkrey, Patrick Sack, and Trevor R. Ireland
16� Marcasite at the Permian‐Triassic Transition: A Potential Indicator of Hydrosphere Acidification
Elena Lounejeva, Jeffrey A. Steadman, Thomas Rodemann, Ross R. Large, Leonid Danyushevsky, Daniel Mantle, Kliti Grice, and Thomas J. Algeo...................................................................377
Part IV: Phanerozoic and Proterozoic Case Histories
17� The Monterey Event and the Paleocene‐Eocene Thermal Maximum: Two Contrasting Oceanic Carbonate System Responses to LIP Emplacement and Eruption
Tali L. Babila and Gavin L. Foster .................................................................................................................403
18� Permian Large Igneous Provinces and Their Paleoenvironmental Effects
Jun Chen and Yi‐Gang Xu
19� Was the Kalkarindji Continental Flood Basalt Province a Driver of Environmental Change at the Dawn of the Phanerozoic?
Peter E. Marshall, Luke E. Faggetter, and Mike Widdowson
20� Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) and Anoxia Events in “The Boring Billion”
Shuan‐Hong Zhang, Richard E. Ernst, Jun‐Ling Pei, Yue Zhao, and Guo‐Hui Hu ..........................................449
21� Breaking the Boring Billion: A Case for Solid‐Earth Processes as Drivers of System‐Scale Environmental Variability During the Mid‐Proterozoic
Charles W. Diamond, Richard E. Ernst, Shuan‐Hong Zhang, and Timothy W. Lyons
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Abdelhak Ait Lahna
Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences‐Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco
Thomas J. Algeo
Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; and State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, and State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
Morten B. Andersen
School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
Tali L. Babila
School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton Waterfront Campus, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
Andrey Bekker
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California, USA; and Department of Geology, University of Johannesbrug, South Africa
Mohamed K. Bensalah
Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences‐Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco; and Instituto Dom Luiz, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade De Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
Steven C. Bergman
SCB Geosciences, Vashon, Washington, USA
Bridget A. Bergquist
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Benjamin Black
City University of New York Graduate School and University Center, New York, New York, USA
David P. G. Bond
Department of Geography, Geology and Environment, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom
Moulay A. Boumehdi
Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences‐Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco; and Instituto Dom Luiz, Faculdade De Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
Scott E. Bryan
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Kenneth L. Buchan
273 Fifth Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Seth Burgess
United States Geological Survey, Volcano Science Center, Menlo Park, California, USA
Jun Chen
State Key Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China
Anthony S. Cohen
Department of Environment, Earth and Ecosystems, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Ross Corkrey
Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Ying Cui
Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, USA
Leonid Danyushevsky
CODES Centre for Ore Deposits and Earth Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Marc Davies
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
Charles W. Diamond
Department of Earth Sciences and NASA Astrobiology Institute, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California, USA
Alexander J. Dickson
Department of Earth Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, United Kingdom
Miguel Doblas
Instituto de Geociencias (CSIC‐UCM), Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid, Spain
Luc S. Doucet
TIGeR School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Hafida El Bilali
Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Warda El Moume
Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences‐Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco; and Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences, Ibnou Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco
James S. Eldrett
Shell International Exploration & Production B.V., Rijswijk, The Netherlands
Richard E. Ernst
Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and Faculty of Geology and Geography, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russian Federation
Mohammed Et‐Touhami
2GPMH, Département des Sciences de la Terre, Université Mohammed Premier, Oujda, Morocco
Luke E. Faggetter
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Gavin L. Foster
School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton Waterfront Campus, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
Stephen E. Grasby
Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Kliti Grice
Western Australian Organic and Isotope Geochemistry Centre, School of Earth and Planetary Science, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Andres Hernandez
City University of New York Graduate School and University Center, New York, New York, USA
Guo‐Hui Hu
Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing, China; and Key Laboratory of Paleomagnetism and Tectonic Reconstruction, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing, China
Trevor R. Ireland
Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Shijun Jiang
Institute of Groundwater and Earth Sciences, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Jennifer Kasbohm Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Brian Kendall Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Sean T. Kinney
Lamont‐Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA
Ross R. Large
CODES Centre for Ore Deposits and Earth Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Francesca Lingo
City College of New York, New York, USA
Lorraine E. Lisiecki Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Elena Lounejeva
CODES Centre for Ore Deposits and Earth Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Timothy W. Lyons
Department of Earth Sciences and NASA Astrobiology Institute, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California, USA
Francis A. Macdonald
Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Daniel Mantle
Morgan‐Goodall Palaeo, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Peter E. Marshall
Fugro GeoServices Ltd, Consett, United Kingdom
Tamsin A. Mather
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Daniel Minisini
Shell Research and Technology Centre, Houston, Texas, USA; and
Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA
Ross N. Mitchell
State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China; and The Institute for Geoscience Research (TIGeR), School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Tushar Mittal
University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
Indrani Mukherjee
CODES Centre for Ore Deposits and Earth Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Paul E. Olsen
Lamont‐Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA
Jeremy D. Owens
Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science and National High Magnet Field Laboratory, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Yuem Park
Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
Jun‐Ling Pei
Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing, China; and Key Laboratory of Paleomagnetism and Tectonic Reconstruction, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing, China
Lawrence M. E. Percival
Analytical, Environmental and Geochemistry Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Thomas Rodemann
Central Science Laboratory, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Patrick Sack
Yukon Geological Survey, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada
Hamed Sanei
Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Anja Schmidt
Department of Chemistry and Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Blair Schoene
Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Shuzhong Shen
School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
Ulf Söderlund
Department of Geology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; and The Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden
Jeffrey A. Steadman
CODES Centre for Ore Deposits and Earth Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Yadong Sun
GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
Nicholas L. Swanson‐Hysell
Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
Colombo C. G. Tassinari
Centro de Pesquisas Geocronológicas, Instituto de Geociencias, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Kristina Walowski
Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont, USA
Jiuyuan Wang
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Jessica H. Whiteside
National Oceanography Centre Southampton, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
Mike Widdowson
Department of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom
Yi‐Gang Xu
State Key Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China; and College of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Nasrrddine Youbi
Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences‐Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco; and Instituto Dom Luiz, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal; and Faculty of Geology and Geography, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russian Federation
Feifei Zhang
School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China; and Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Shuan‐Hong Zhang
Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing, China; and Key Laboratory of Paleomagnetism and Tectonic Reconstruction, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing, China
Yue Zhao
Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing, China; and Key Laboratory of Paleomagnetism and Tectonic Reconstruction, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing, China
PREFACE
Evolution of the Earth System involves interaction of all its components on a range of temporal scales lasting from minutes to days (e.g., between the biosphere and volcanism, earthquakes, tsunamis, impacts, etc.), several kiloyears (kyrs) (e.g., between the atmosphere and oceans), tens to hundreds of kyrs (linked with Milankovitch orbital cycles), to tens to hundreds of megayears (myrs) (e.g., between surficial environments and the mantle via plate tectonics). The different temporal scales on which these interactions occur help to both disrupt and stabilize the Earth System, and lead to secular perturbations. There are three potential responses of the Earth System to such perturbations: (1) the perturbation is weak and the Earth System continues to operate as before; (2) the Earth System is perturbed but eventually returns to the same or new steady state; and (3) the Earth System undergoes irreversible change (such as a mass extinction or nonlinear change in mean climate state).
As a contribution to understanding these cycles, particularly those of short duration (on the order of 1 myr), the authors in this volume address the effect of Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs). An emerging consensus, supported and amplified by the contributions in this book, suggests that LIPs can be significant drivers of dramatic global environmental and biological changes. Improved high‐precision geochronology (approaching or exceeding 50,000 year resolution) for some LIPs is allowing ever more sophisticated testing of the long‐proposed mass extinction–LIP link (Kasbohm et al., Chapter 2). The most dramatic climatic effect is global warming due to the emission of greenhouse‐gases from LIPs (e.g., Bond & Sun, Chapter 3; Mather & Schmidt, Chapter 4). Global cooling (and even global glaciations) can be caused by CO2 drawdown through weathering of LIP‐related basalts, and/or by sulfate aerosols (Youbi et al., Chapter 8; cf. Park et al., Chapter 7). The role of pyroclastic mafic (Black et al., Chapter 5) and silicic volcanism (Bryan, Chapter 6) as accelerators of atmospheric perturbation and then environmental change are important. Additional kill mechanisms that can be associated with LIPs include oceanic anoxia (Bergman et al., Chapter 9; Zhang et al.,Chapter 20; Diamond et al., Chapter 21), changes in redox and pH (Kendall et al., Chapter 13; Cui et al., Chapter 14; Lounejeva et al., Chapter 16; Babila & Foster, Chapter 17), sea‐level changes, toxic metal input such as Hg and PGEs (Bryan, Chapter 6; Percival et al., Chapter 11; Whiteside et al., Chapter 12; Large et al., Chapter 15), all producing a complex web of catastrophic
environmental effects (Ernst & Youbi (2017), “How Large Igneous Provinces Affect Global Climate, Sometimes Cause Mass Extinctions, and Represent Natural Markers in the Geological Record”; and Bond & Grasby (2017), “On the Causes of Mass Extinctions,” and references therein). Several chapters address a large number of LIPs: the entire LIP record (Ernst et al., Chapter 1); Neoproterozoic and Phanerozoic LIPs studied with high precision U‐Pb geochronology (Kasbohm et al., Chapter 2) and their connection to glaciations (Youbi et al., Chapter 8); and Phanerozoic LIPs, for source rock formation (Bergman et al., Chapter 9) and for osmium isotopes (Dickson et al., Chapter 10). Other chapters are more focused on specific LIPs: the 16 Ma Columbia River LIP (Babila & Foster, Chapter 17), the 62–55 Ma North Atlantic Igneous Province (Babila & Foster, Chapter 17; Bond & Sun, Chapter 3); 90 Ma LIP events (Kendall et al., Chapter 13); the 180 Ma Karoo‐Ferrar LIP (Kendall et al., Chapter 13); the 201 Ma CAMP event (Whiteside et al., Chapter 12); the 252 Ma Siberian Traps (Kendall et al., Chapter 13; Chen & Xu, Chapter 18; Bond & Sun, Chapter 3; Cui et al., Chapter 14; Lounejeva et al., Chapter 16); Permian LIPs (Chen & Xu, Chapter 18); the Kalkarindji LIP (Marshall et al., Chapter 19); and Proterozoic LIPs (Zhang et al., Chapter 20; Diamond et al., Chapter 21; Large et al., Chapter 15). The emerging role for LIPs as phenomena to mark natural Geological Time Scale (GTS) boundaries in the Precambrian is discussed in Ernst et al., Chapter 1, and Zhang et al., Chapter 20. Summaries of each of the 21 chapters in this book are provided below.
Ernst et al., Chapter 1, provide an overview of the essential characteristics of LIPs, and their importance in dramatic environmental change. A compilation of the LIP record is included, consisting of time‐slice maps with LIP distributions, a table with about 260 entries representing continental and oceanic LIPs and also silicic LIPs (SLIPs) with approximate areal extents, and potential links (both robust and speculative) with secular environmental changes and GTS boundaries.
Kasbohm et al., Chapter 2, review the available U‐Pb geochronology of LIPs and of global extinction or climate events over the past 700 Ma. They show that (1) improved geochronology in the last decade indicates that nearly all well‐dated LIPs erupted in < 1 Ma, (2) some LIPs began several hundred ka prior to a relatively short duration extinction event, and (3) there seems to be no single characteristic that makes a LIP deadly.
Bond and Sun, Chapter 3, explore the role of: (1) the climate‐changing products of volcanism including sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) from eruptions, contact metamorphism, and melting (dissociation) of gas hydrates; (2) the deadly effects of these aerosol emissions, including marine anoxia and thermal stress; and (3) increasingly sophisticated proxies to monitor paleotemperature changes.
Mather and Schmidt, Chapter 4, review the environmental effects of volcanic volatile fluxes from subaerial LIPs. The major gas species emitted by volcanism are usually H2O, CO2, SO2, H2S, and the halogen halides (e.g., HF, HCl). They discuss the challenges involved in estimating the total amounts and emission fluxes of these gases from LIP volcanism and how these estimations are pieced together based on measurements of the LIP rocks themselves as well as petrological understanding gained by the study of more recent analogues and those associated with modeling the resulting environmental consequences.
Black et al., Chapter 5, review the role of mafic volcaniclastic rocks in LIPs and consider the environmental consequences of mafic volcaniclastic alteration across a range of timescales. They also suggest that release of phosphorus, nickel, and iron during emplacement and alteration of LIP mafic volcaniclastic deposits merits further investigation as a mechanism by which LIPs impact marine chemistry and productivity.
Bryan, Chapter 6, reviews the environmental impact of silicic magmatism in LIP events with direct impacts to the environment at the provincial scale and indirect impacts at the global scale. He proposes that for LIP events to cause maximum environmental effect, it requires the combined effect of closely spaced basaltic and silicic, or effusive and explosive eruptions, that work in tandem to overload the troposphere and stratosphere with volcanic aerosols. Rapid and extreme fluctuations in pH driven by acid rain, S‐ or iron fertilization‐driven temperature chills, and toxic UV radiation bursts can be repeated every few hundred years with each new LIP supereruption.
The chapters by Park et al. and Youbi et al. both cover the topic of global cooling, but apply different approaches to assessing the role of LIPs in driving long‐term temperature declines. Park et al., Chapter 7, provide a reconstruction of the original surface extent and emplacement ages of LIPs, a paleogeographic model, and a parameterization of LIP erosion to estimate LIP area in all latitudinal bands through the Phanerozoic. This analysis reveals no significant correlation between total LIP area, not even LIP area in the tropics, and the extent of continental ice sheets. Based on their modeling, Park et al. conclude that changes in weatherability associated with LIPs are not the fundamental control on whether Earth is in a gla-
cial or nonglacial climate. The alternative approach in Youbi et al., Chapter 8, compares the geological record of LIPs with the available timing of cooling events focusing on the Neoproterozoic and Phanerozoic. Their analysis identifies plausible age‐correlations within the available uncertainties with most regional or global glaciations from 720 Ma to 34 Ma.
Bergman et al., Chapter 9, summarize geochronologic, stable isotope, and other data showing genetic links between major Phanerozoic LIPs, Oceanic Anoxic Events (OAEs) and organic‐rich petroleum source rocks, and provide insights into the importance of LIPs in hydrocarbon exploration.
Dickson et al., Chapter 10, show that osmium isotope data can be used to track LIP‐related weathering fluxes, providing a global fingerprint of the timing and magnitude of LIP emplacement, and guiding assessments of the impact of these events on ocean biogeochemistry and the regulation of the global climate system. The utility of osmium isotopes as a global tracer of past volcanism may be enhanced when used alongside proxies such as mercury concentrations, which may be more diagnostic of the style of individual episodes of LIP emplacement.
Percival et al., Chapter 11, provide a review of the sedimentary mercury enrichments as a tracer of LIP volcanism. In recent years, mercury (Hg) enrichments and elevated mercury/total organic carbon (Hg/TOC) ratios have been increasingly utilized as a marker of volcanism in sedimentary records deposited distally from LIPs. Of additional intrigue is the relationship between Hg and Hg/TOC with other volcanic proxies such as osmium isotopes, suggesting that the different systems record different aspects of LIP volcanism and emplacement.
Whiteside et al., Chapter 12, report multiple iridium anomalies interpreted to be the remnants of weathered basaltic ashes or aerosols of CAMP eruptions from three basins across a 15° swath of paleolatitude. Thus, PGE concentrations provide geochemical traces of CAMP eruptions and can serve as a potential proxy for CAMP eruptive pulses in both marine and nonmarine Triassic‐Jurassic boundary successions, permitting evaluation of correlations worldwide.
Kendall et al., Chapter 13, assess the effect of LIPs on global oceanic redox conditions using nontraditional metal isotopes. Uranium (U) and molybdenum (Mo) isotope systems are relatively well established tracers of global oceanic redox conditions, particularly for the extent of anoxic and euxinic seafloor, whereas the thallium (Tl) isotope system is emerging as a tracer for the extent of well‐oxygenated seafloor characterized by manganese (Mn) oxide burial. Existing isotope mass balance models for these metals indicate an expansion of oceanic anoxia (by ~1 to 2 orders of magnitude greater than the modern ocean) accompanied LIP emplacement.
Cui et al., Chapter 14, address marine anoxia and ocean acidification during the end‐Permian extinction, with a focus on the role of the Siberian Trap volcanism and show that δ238U and δ44/40Ca can be used to evaluate the increase in oceanic anoxic area and ocean acidification, respectively. The evidence from these proxies suggests that excessive nutrient load in the ocean, decreased strength of meridional overturning circulation along with ocean acidification in poorly buffered seawater, potentially triggered by the Siberian Traps LIP, created the most severe biological crisis and delayed recovery in the Earth’s history.
Large et al., Chapter 15, present sulfur isotope data from carefully selected sedimentary pyrites in marine black shales and assess the trends in comparison with the LIP record. The combination of S‐isotopes of mantle origin and metals commonly associated with mantle melts (Pt, Au, Ni, Co) is strong support for derivation of these anomalous components from major LIP eruptive centers.
Lounejeva et al., Chapter 16, investigate the use of marcasite as a new proxy for hydrosphere acidification with application to the Permian‐Triassic transitions. Abundant pyrite in black shales at the Permian‐Triassic Boundary (PTB) from several localities around the world has been regarded as evidence of oceanic anoxia during the End‐Permian Mass Extinction (EPME). However, a significant amount of the “pyrite” in these rocks is not actually pyrite but marcasite, the orthorhombic polymorph of FeS2. Marcasite is particularly sensitive to changes in pH and fO2, which theoretically enables it to be utilized as a proxy for geochemical changes in the marine environment.
Babila and Foster, Chapter 17, address the Monterey Carbon Isotope Excursion (MCIE; ~17–13.5 Ma) and the Paleocene‐Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM; ~56 Ma) as oceanic carbonate systems with contrasting responses to LIP emplacement, the Columbia River and North Atlantic LIPs, respectively. They conclude that, although similar underlying carbon cycle processes are at play during both events, their specific behavior is somewhat different as the magnitude, carbon emissions rate (slow vs. fast), and background climate state (icehouse vs. greenhouse) conspire to cause distinct carbon isotope expressions and variable climatic responses to each LIP emplacement.
Chen and Xu, Chapter 18, provide a review of seven Permian large igneous provinces (mafic: Skagerrak‐Centered, Tarim, Panjal, Emeishan, and Siberian; silicic: Kennedy‐Connors‐Auburn and Choiyoi) and their paleoenvironmental effects. Their analyses suggest that (1) high volume of volcanic products, (2) short duration, and (3) widespread sill intrusions that led to contact metamorphism with wall rocks (e.g., evaporates, organic‐rich
sediments, and petroleum reservoirs) are the pivotal factors determining the paleoenvironmental effects of LIP volcanism. The combination of these three characteristics enabled the Siberian Traps volcanism to be the most deadly, and affect the contemporaneous environment and biota on a global scale.
Marshall et al., Chapter 19, evaluate the plausible role of the Kalkarindji LIP (Australia) as a driver of environmental change at the beginning of the Phanerozoic. However, temporal discrepancies between Kalkarindji eruptions and biotic turnover suggest only a partial role for this LIP in the Botomian‐Toyonian Extinction, which wiped out up to 45% of all genera in the fossil record; while other environmental factors such as sea‐level change causing ocean anoxia are implicated in the Redlichiid‐Olenellid Extinction.
Zhang et al., Chapter 20, show that major LIPs during the so‐called Boring Billion are likely contemporaneous with black shale formation, especially at 1,100 Ma, 1,380 Ma, and 1,650–1,620 Ma. The results also suggest that, while the Boring Billion was characterized by suboxic or mildly oxygenated marine basins, it was interrupted by several OAEs that were partly caused by the environmental impact of LIPs. A case is made that these links between global scale LIPs and black shales in the Boring Billion can potentially be used as natural markers for subdivisions of the Proterozoic timescale.
Diamond et al., Chapter 21, show that although the mid‐Proterozoic Boring Billion (1.8–0.8 Ga) is known for long‐term environmental stability, several independent proxies suggest that conditions were transiently more oxygenated, such as at ~1.4 Ga. They explore the possibility that LIP‐induced impacts on productivity might have favored organic matter burial, transient oxygenation, and potential advantages for aerobic life.
These 21 chapters provide a framework for an expanded program of evaluating the role of LIPs in contributing to global environmental and biotic change as recorded in the sedimentary record. From a broader perspective, it is now clear that LIPs represent a significant driver in the evolution of the Earth System, over a range of temporal scales but most directly for timescales of 100–106 years. Future research programs can now build toward a more comprehensive integration of the terrestrial magmatic and sedimentary records, with increasing characterization of regional‐scale LIPs (and other types of magmatic events) and their global environmental effects (through gas release and erosion products). The proxies required to achieve these ambitious goals are becoming ever more sophisticated, with trace elements and novel isotopic techniques now being added to the sedimentary, mineralogical, and petrographic toolkit. Finally, improved understanding of the role of LIPs and other drivers of Earth System interactions over the long 4.5 billion year
history of the Earth can contribute insights into the environmental feedback processes shaping modern climate change.
We appreciate our chapter authors for their authoritative contributions assembled here, which provide a robust initial assessment of the role of LIPs in dramatic global environmental and biological changes. All chapters in this book were peer reviewed following AGU journal standards. Our sincere thanks go to the many reviewers
whose detailed and thoughtful comments helped ensure scientific quality. We thank the staff of Wiley (Rituparna Bose, Emily Bae, Nithya Sechin, Carol Kromminga & Aneetta Antony) and AGU (Jenny Lunn) who have been our partners in this exciting journey from initial idea to completed book.
Richard E. Ernst
Alexander J. Dickson
Andrey Bekker
Part I
The Temporal Record of Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs)
Large Igneous Province Record Through Time and Implications for Secular Environmental Changes and Geological Time-Scale Boundaries
Richard E. Ernst1,2, David P. G. Bond3, Shuan-Hong Zhang4, Kenneth L. Buchan5, Stephen E. Grasby6, Nasrrddine Youbi2,7,8, Hafida El Bilali1, Andrey Bekker9, and Luc S. Doucet10
ABSTRACT
An emerging consensus suggests that large igneous provinces (LIPs) are a significant driver of dramatic global environmental and biological changes, including several Phanerozoic mass extinctions, leading to plausible links with geological time scale (GTS) boundaries. LIP-induced environmental changes are now being identified in the Precambrian record, suggesting potential for the use of LIPs to define natural pre-Phanerozoic GTS boundaries. There is now opportunity for more systematic integration of the sedimentary and LIP records. Here we provide maps of generalized LIP distributions through time, and a compilation of LIP ages, approximate areal extents, and potential links (both robust and speculative) with secular environmental changes and GTS boundaries.
1.1. LARGE IGNEOUS PROVINCES
1Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
2Faculty of Geology and Geography, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russian Federation
3Department of Geography, Geology and Environment, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom
4Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing, China; Key Laboratory of Paleomagnetism and Tectonic Reconstruction, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing, China
5273 Fifth Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
6Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
7Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences-Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco
8Instituto Dom Luiz, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
9Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California, USA; Department of Geology, University of Johannesbrug, South Africa
10 TIGeR School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Large igneous provinces are voluminous (> 0.1 Mkm3 ( = 106 km3); frequently above 1 Mkm3), mainly mafic (ultramafic) magmatic events of intraplate affinity (based on tectonic setting and/or geochemistry) that occur in both continental and oceanic settings, are often linked with mantle plumes, and are typically emplaced over a short time period ( < 5 myr; often < 2 myr) or in multiple short pulses with a maximum duration of a few tens of myr (e.g., Coffin & Eldholm, 1994; Courtillot & Renne, 2003; Bryan & Ernst, 2008; Bryan & Ferrari, 2013; Ernst, 2014; Ernst & Youbi, 2017). LIPs consist of volcanic packages (flood basalts) and a plumbing system of regional dyke swarms (linear, radiating, and a recently identified circumferential type), sill complexes, layered mafic-ultramafic (M-UM) intrusions, and crustal magmatic underplates (Ernst et al., 2019). Continental LIPs can also be associated with major silicic magmatic events termed Silicic LIPs (SLIPs) (Bryan & Ferrari, 2013; Ernst, 2014; Bryan, Chapter 6 this volume), as well as carbonatites and kimberlites (Ernst & Bell, 2010; Ernst et al., 2018). Oceanic LIPs comprise oceanic plateaus and ocean basin flood basalts (e.g., Coffin & Eldholm, 1994; Kerr, 2005, 2014); however, oceanic LIPs are poorly preserved during ocean closure (Coffin & Eldholm, 2001; Dilek & Ernst, 2008; Utsunomiya et al, 2008; Safonova, 2009). Continental LIPs have occurred on average (but irregularly) every 30 myr throughout the Phanerozoic
Large Igneous Provinces: A Driver of Global Environmental and Biotic Changes, Geophysical Monograph 255, First Edition. Edited by Richard E. Ernst, Alexander J. Dickson, and Andrey Bekker.
© 2021 The Authors. Co-published 2021 by the American Geophysical Union and John Wiley and Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781119507444.ch1
This is an open access publication under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
and Proterozoic. The oceanic LIP record is similar to that of continental LIPs for the past 200 myr, while for earlier times it is incompletely preserved in ophiolite fragments in orogenic belts (Coffin & Eldholm, 2001; Dilek & Ernst, 2008; Doucet et al., 2020). The rate at which LIPs (continental and oceanic), and also SLIPs occurred in the Archean is more difficult to assess due to the poorer preservation of that ancient record. Some intraplate events of sub-LIP scale can be linked to LIPs on the basis of proxies such as local flood basalt thickness, average dyke width greater than 10 m, and other criteria. These are inferred to represent “LIP fragments” or “LIP remnants” that have been reduced in size by plate tectonic fragmentation and/or erosion (Ernst, 2007).
1.2. LINKS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Owing to their large volume and short duration of emplacement, LIPs and associated SLIPs can have a dramatic effect on global environments. Postulated effects operate over short (up to several years) to long (up to several 100 kyrs and even myrs) timescales and include warming, cooling, acid rain, ocean acidification, ozone depletion increasing UV-B radiation, marine anoxia, mercury poisoning, and sea level changes, many of which are evidenced by, for example, stable isotopic excursions and changes in chemical composition of sediments (Ernst & Youbi, 2017; Bekker & Ernst 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Grasby et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2019; Svensen et al., 2019; Youbi et al., 2020; Babila & Foster, chapter 17 this volume; Bergman et al., Chapter 9 this volume; Black et al., Chapter 5 this volume; Bond & Sun, Chapter 3 this volume; Dickson et al., Chapter 10 this volume; Kendall et al., Chapter 13 this volume; Mather & Schmidt, Chapter 4 this volume; Lounejeva et al., Chapter 16 this volume; Chen & Xu, Chapter 18 this volume; Cui et al., Chapter 14 this volume; Percival et al., Chapter 11 this volume; Whiteside et al., Chapter 12 this volume; Youbi et al., Chapter 8 this volume). With increasing precision of U-Pb dating of LIPs, resulting in age uncertainties in some cases less than 50,000 years, an increasing number of Phanerozoic Global Time Scale (GTS) boundaries that were originally defined based on biotic crises (including mass extinctions) can be correlated with LIP events (e.g., Wignall, 2001; Bond & Grasby, 2017; Kasbohm et al., Chapter 2 this volume; Ernst et al., 2020a). This relationship extends into the Precambrian, for which existing GTS boundaries are only roughly numerically defined based on major tectonic changes such as emergence of large continents at the Archean-Proterozoic boundary, and the assembly of the Nuna/Columbia and Rodinia supercontinents at the end of the Paleoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic, respectively. However, these tectonic events were long-lived and are globally diachronous
(up to 100 myr). It has been proposed that specific LIPs could define the GTS boundaries (e.g., Ernst & Youbi, 2017; Zhang et al., 2018, 2020; Ernst et al., 2020a). The implication is that while LIPs are only of regional magmatic extent (often more than 1 Mkm3 in volume), their purported environmental impacts are potentially recorded in global sedimentary archives. Thus, LIPs themselves do not represent “golden spikes,” but their environmental impacts might correspond to “golden spikes” in the sedimentary record.
There is a need for a more integrated and detailed correlation of LIPs and sedimentary records in order to fully investigate the role of LIPs in secular environmental/biological changes and therefore their correlation with the GTS. In the absence of biotic crises and extinction events in the Precambrian sedimentary record, LIPs have great potential in defining GTS boundaries. The LIP record could provide a geological meaning to the current arbitrarily selected numeric values across immense global archives of Precambrian strata. However, this endeavor requires a sustained and focused effort in the fields of chemostratigraphy and stable isotope geochemistry over the coming decades. This chapter demonstrates the potential for this.
1.3. LIP RECORD THROUGH TIME AND POSSIBLE LINKS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND GTS BOUNDARIES
As a contribution to assessing the role of LIPs in secular environmental/biological changes and their correlations with the GTS, we provide a summary of the LIP record through time in a series of time-slice diagrams (Fig. 1.1) and in a data compilation (Table 1.1). Table 1.1 also summarizes proposed links between LIPs, GTS boundaries, and selected environmental impacts. This compilation includes continental LIPs, oceanic LIPs, and silicic LIPs (SLIPs). The continental LIP record is robust owing to the excellent preservation of dyke swarm component in the interior of crustal blocks when the flood basalt component has been removed by erosion (Ernst, 2014, and references therein). However, the oceanic record back through time is incomplete owing to the difficulty of recognizing accreted oceanic LIPs in ophiolites (Dilek & Ernst, 2008; Doucet et al., 2020). The recent compilation by Doucet et al. (2020) provides an expanded database of oceanic LIPs (O-LIPs) and inferred seamounts (OIB) within accreted oceanic plate stratigraphy (Kusky et al., 2013; Safonova & Santosh, 2014). The former are included in Table 1.1, but the latter are not included given their description as seamounts, which suggests they more likely belong to hot-spot tracks (plume tails) rather than plume head stage (i.e., LIPs). The Archean record of LIPs is at a
HALIP (0.13–0.09)
Angayucham (~0.20)
Wrangellia (0.23)
Columbia River (0.016)
LIPs: 0–500 Ma
(0.13–0.09)
Trap (0.14)
Magdalen (0.36)
Jutland(Skagerrak)EUNWA (0.30) NAIP(0.06)
Dnieper
Caucasus (0.16)
PanjalQiangtang (0.28)
YakutskVilyui (0.37)
Suordakh (0.45)
(0.30)
Okhotsk (0.15) Magellan Rise (0.15)
Sierra Madre Occidental (0.04)
CAMP (0.20)
Ceara Rise (0.07)
Manihiki Plateau (0.12)
Hikurangi Plateau (0.12)
CaribbeanColumbian (0.09)
Pinon (0.12)
(0.10)
Sierra Leone Rise (0.07)
ParanáEtendeka (0.13)
Maud Rise (0.10)
AfroArabian (0.04–0.02)
Central Tibet 0.18 & 0.13
Tarim (0.27) Sorachi (0.15) Comei (0.13) Bunbury (0.13) (0.18)
Shatsky- Tamu (0.15) Hess Rise (0.1)
Mino-Tamba (0.34) Sanbagawa (0.15)
Siletzia (0.05) (0.13–0.08)
Deccan 0.066
(0.05)
Nauru Pigafetta E. Mariana
Mid-Pacific Mtns
(0.06)
Madagascar (0.09) Karoo (0.183)
Bohol (0.10),
Greater Ontong Java (0.12) Emeishan (0.26)
NW-Australian (0.15)
KennedyConnersAuburn (0.32–0.28)
Kerguelen (0.12)
Naturaliste Plateau 0.10)
Ferrar (0.18)
Ferrar (0.18)
Franklin (0.72)
Gunbarrel (0.78)
Wichita (0.53)
Whitsunday (0.12)
LIPs: 500-1000 Ma
Thule (0.72)
CIMP (0.62-0.56)
Paraupebas-
Piranhas (0.54)
CIMP (0.620.55)
CIMP: Ouarzazate (0.57)
Blekinge-Dalarna (0.98-0.95)
CIMP: Volyn (0.57)
Irkutsk (0.72)
SWCUC (0.83-0.76)
(0.89)
Mount Rogers (0.75) Bahia
Precordillera (0.58)
Iguerda-Taïfast (0.88)
Manso (0.87)
ZadinianMayumbian (0.92)
Rushinga-Bukoba (0.8) (b)
Arabian(0.85) Nubian
Dashigou (0.92-0.90)
Malani (0.76)
Zambezi (Munali) (0.88-0.86)
Roan (0.76-0.74) (0.92)
Gannakouriep (0.79)
SWCUC = South-West China United Continent (0.83-0.76) [includes: Shaba-Ogcheon, Kangding, Kudi, Suxiong-Xiaofeng, Guibei & Kuluketage]
Mutare (0.72)
Fingeren (0.72)
Mundine Well (0.76)
SWCUC (0.83-0.76)
Kalkarindji (0.51)
Gairdner-
Boucaut (0.78)
Willouran (0.83)
Figure 1.1 Global maps (a–f) showing the schematic distribution of LIPs and SLIPs through time. Abbreviations: CAMP = Central Atlantic Magmatic Province; HALIP = High Arctic Large Igneous Province; NAIP -= North Atlantic Igneous Province; OJP Ontong Java plateau. BRIC = Booth River intrusive complex. CSDG = Central Scandinavian Dolerite Complex. Table 1.1 provides additional information on each event. Maps are in Robinson projection. Modified and updated after Figure 1.6 in Ernst (2014) and Figure 1 in Ernst and Youbi (2017). See Table 1.1 for specific referencing. Continental LIPs are in black, oceanic LIPs are in blue, accreted oceanic LIPs are in purple, and silicic LIPs are in orange. The barcode matching of 825–750 Ma LIP /SLIPs in South China and Tarim blocks supported the interpretation of Song et al. (2012) of their membership along with intervening Qaidam and Qilian blocks into a single terrane, termed the South-West China United Continent (SWCUC; Song et al., 2012).
Dronning Maud Land
Ontong Java
Conrad Del Caño Crozet
Malaita (0.12)
Choiyoi (0.27)
Wallaby (0.12)
Sailajiazitage
Niquelandia (0.79)
Seychelles (0.75)
Ogcheon (0.75)
Kikitat (0.72)
Thistlethwaithe-Munn (1.17)
60°N
Hart River (1.38)
Moyie-Purcell-Tobacco Root (1.47–1.45)
Salmon River Arch (1.38)
SW Laurentia (1.08)
Corson (1.15)
Mackenzie (1.27)
Keweenawan (1.11–1.09)
Salto do Céu – Nova Lacerda (1.44–1.38)
Nova Floresta (1.22)
HuanchacaRincon del Tigre (1.11)
LIPs: 1000-1500 Ma
Midsommerso-Zig Zag Dal (1.38)
Gardar (1.28 & 1.16)
CSDG (1.27-1.25)
Lake Ladoga (1.46)
Severobyrrang (1.36)
Chieress (1.38)
Sette Daban (1.01) MSHMS
Mashak (1.38)
Protogine Zone (1.22)
Trond-Gota (1.46)
Abitibi (1.14), Sudbury [dykes] (1.24)
Bas Drâa (1.42–1.38)
Juscelândia (1.30–1.25)
Betara (1.50–1.45)
HuilaEpembe (1.11)
KuneneKibaran (1.38)
Umkondo (1.11)
60°S
MSHMS = Mealy-Seal Lake (1.25–1.24), Harp (1.27) & Michael-Shabogamo (1.46)
Pilansberg (1.38–1.36)
Srednech... (1.26)
Yanliao (1.32)
Mahoda (1.11)
Lakhna - Bandalimal (1.46-1.42)
GaliwinkuDerim Derim (1.32)
Bangemall (1.46)
Biberkine (1.39)
Marnda Moorn (1.21)
Bunger Hills (1.13)
Vestfold Hills-4 (1.38),
Vestfold Hills-5 (1.25)
Warakurna (1.08)
LIPs: 1500–2000 Ma
KCH (1.74–1.75)
Western Channel-Wernecke (1.59)
Ghost- Mara River-Morel (1.88–1.87)
Hearne (1.90) (d)
Pelly Bay (1.70)
Frobisher (1.92)
MelvilleBugt (1.63)
Povungnituk (1.99)
Pechanga-Onega (1.98–1.96)
Sparrow-Christopher Island (1.83) Hame (1.67–1.64)
(Purtuniq) Flin Flon (1.90)
Mugford (1.95)
Ramah Group (1.89)
Minto-Eskimo (1.99)
Circum-Superior (1.88–1.87)
Avanavero (1.79)
Orocaima (1.97)
Uatumã (1.87–1.89)
Mata Mata (1.58)
BrevenHallefors (1.60)
Aikski (1.75)
UkrainianAMCG (1.79–1.75)
Zenaga (1.66) & Tagragra of Akka (1.75)
Kuonamka (1.50)
Nersa-2 (1.64)
Angaul (1.92)
Xuwuija (1.93)
Xiwangshan (1.97)
Khajuraho (1.97)
Timpton (1.75)
Kalaro-Nimnyrsky (1.86)
Miyun (1.73)
Taishan (1.63) Licheng (1.23), Yishui (1.21),
Pipilla (1.77)
Pebbair (1.79)
Mammoth (1.59) (1.89)
Florida (-Uruguayan) (1.79)
KCH = Kivalliq-CleaverHadley Bay (1.75–1.74)
Figure 1.1 (Continued)
Charlie (1.98–1.97)
Kayser (1.52)
Moi-MoiMaria (1.88)
Espinhaco (1.75)
Libiri (1.79)
Essakane (1.52) & Korsimoro (1.58)
Humpata (1.50)
Curaca-Chapada Diamantina (1.50)
Tandil (1.59)
BastanarHampi (1.88)
Mashonaland (1.88) HartCarson (1.83–1.79)
Black Hills-
Hartley (1.93–1.91) Soutpansberg (1.89–1.83)
Boonadgin
Vestfold Hills-3 (1.75)
Xionger-Taihang (1.78–1.76)
Late Calvert (1.69–1.67),
Toole Creek (1.66), Laiwu (1.67) Fiery Creek (1.73–1.71), Wonga (1.74),
Eastern Creek (1.79)
Gawler Range (1.59)
Union Island-McKee (2.04),
Indin (2.12–2.10), Malley-MacKay (2.23–2.21), SW Slave Magmatic Province (Dogrib) (2.19)
Griffin (2.11), Tulemalu-MacQuoid (2.19), & Kaminak (2.49)
Cauchon (2.07 & 2.09)
Lac Esprit (2.07)
Kennedy (2.01), Bear Mountain -Snowy Pass (2.12–2.10), Wind River (2.17), Blue Draw (2.48)
Lac de GrasBRIC (2.03)
Fort Frances (2.07)
Korak (2.04)
LIPs: 2000–2510 Ma
Kangamuit-MD3 (2.05–2.03), BN1-MD1 (2.22), Graedefjord (2.37),
Kilarsaarfik (2.50)
Rivière du Gué (2.15)
Tikkigatsiagak (2.14–2.11)
Mistassini-Ptarmigan-Irsuaq (2.51)
Biscotasing (2.17), Ungava-Nipissing (2.22–2.21),
du Chef (2.4)
Matachewan (2.48–2.45)
Marathon (2.12–2.10)
Ringvassoy (2.41)
BLIP (2.51–2.44), Kevitsa-Kuetsjarvi-Umba (2.06), Uoleviniehto-Imandra (2.40)
Voronezh (2.07)
Tohmajärvi-Pirtguba-Karelia (2.12-2.10), Koli (2.21), Taivalkoski-Kuito (2.33–2.31), Palomaa (2.07), Rantavaara (2.15)
Tagragra of TataEburnean (2.04)
Man Leo (2.25–2.00)
Sebanga Poort (2.41), Mtshingwe (2.47), Crystal Springs (2.51)
Bushveld (2.06)
30°S
60°S
60°N
Kam Group (2.73-2.68)
Prince Albert (2.70)
Stillwater-Rendevous (2.71-2.69)
Visien (2.79)
LIPs: >2510 Ma
Abitibi belt (2.75-2.71)
‘Ring of Fire’- Bird River (2.74), Steep Rock (2.93), Balmer (2.99)
Serra Leste (2.75)
Hekport (2.25) Ongeluk (2.43)
Zanhuang-Menglianggu (2.09), Yixingzhai (2.06),
Hengling (2.15),
Haicheng (2.12)
Devarabanda (2.08),
Anantapur-Kunigal (2.22),
Mahbubnagar-Dandeli (2.19), Kandlamadugu (2.22), Bangalore-Karimnagar (2.37),
Kaptipada (2.25), Dantweara (2.4)
Weeli Wolli-Woongara (2.45),
Turee Creek (2.22), Cheela Springs (2.03) Narracoota (2.1)
Widgiemooltha (2.42)
Vestfold Hills - 2 (2.24)
Ahmeyim (inclu. Great Dyke of Mauritania) (2.73), Aousserd-Tichla (2.67)
Great Dyke of Zimbabwe (2.58), Bulawayan-Zeederbergs -Belingwe (2.71)
Ventersdorp > 1 LIP (2.78-2.68)
Hlagothi (2.87), Nsuze (2.96),
Gavião (3.3) Uaua (2.73 & 2.63) Onverwacht >1 LIP (3.49-3.33)
Stockford (2.61)
Sylvania Inlier (2.75)
Fortescue >1 LIP (2.78-2.68) & Radley (2.92)
Yandinilling (2.62)
Eastern Goldfields (2.70)
Meeline-Norie-Windimurra-Little Gap
Gnanagooragoo-Yalgowra (2.75-2.71), (2.81-2.79)
60°S
Figure 1.1 (Continued)
Table 1.1 LIPs Through Time and Matches (Definite and Approximate) With the GTS (Geological Time-Scale) Boundaries and Potential Environmental Changes
Type (C,O, Oa, S), Name [crustal block] (references subsequent to Ernst, 2014; Ernst & Youbi, 2017)
C Columbia River [w. North America]
(Mkm2)
Chronostratigraphic boundary &/or environmental change timing in Ma (Reference)
End Burdigalian 15.97; mid-Miocene Climate Optimum 16 (Kasbohm & Schoene, 2018)
C Afro-Arabian [East Africa, Arabian Peninsula] Main 31 (precursor 34) 2.40 Middle Rupelian (end Priabonian) (Youbi et al., Chapter 8 this volume)
S Sierra Madre Occidental (Bryan et al., 2008; Bryan & Ferrari, 2013)
Bartonian 38.00 Oa Siletzia (Crescent, Prometheus, Yakutat) [w. North America] (Wells et al., 2014; Stern & Dumitru, 2019)
O Benham Rise (Philippine Sea) (Barretto et al., 2020)48–41 0.11
C NAIP (North Atlantic Igneous Province) [Europe & Greenland] (Wilkinson et al., 2017) 62 & 55 1.10
C Deccan [India+ Chagos-Laccadive & Seychelles portions] (Schoene et al., 2019)
O Maud Rise ca. 70
O Sierra Leone Rise
O Crozet (Meyzen et al., 2016; Doucet et al., 2020) 70–74
O Conrad Rise (Indian ocean) (Krishna, 2003; Doucet et al., 2020) 73
Oa East Sulawesi (Doucet et al., 2020)
C Madagascar
End Thanetian 56.0, PETM 56
62 pulse: End Danian 61.6 or end Selandian 59.2 55 pulse: End Thanetian 56.0, PETM 56 (Storey et al., 2007)
Cretaceous 66.0 (Schoene et al., 2019); mass extinction; also bolide link, (e.g., Sprain et al., 2019)
Campanian 72.1
Campanian 72.1
Campanian 72.1
89.8, O Del Cano (Kerr, 2003; Doucet et al., 2020)
O, Oa Caribbean-Colombian
C Hess Rise
C Naturaliste Plateau
Oa Malaita & Bohol (Doucet et al., 2020) 120 & 100— Oa possible Hawaii starting plume LIP (Kamchatka-Okhotsk region) (Niu et al., 2017)
O Southwest African (Agulhas)
S Whitsunday
O, Oa Ontong Java Nui (Greater Ontong Java, Manihiki, Hikurangi OPs + Sorachi-Yezo, Pinon accreted OPs)
O Wallaby (Cuvier) Plateau (Olierook et al., 2015)
C,O HALIP (High Arctic) [North America, Asia, Europe, Alpha-Mendeleev rise]
Oa Central Tibetan Meso-Tethyan-2 (Zhongba, Sagasangsang) (Tibet) (Zhang et al., 2014; Hao et al., 2019; Doucet et al., 2020
&
C,O Bunbury-Comei + Kerguelen-Rajmahal [Indian Ocean, India] 134 & 110 / 861.60
Aptian, Selli Anoxia ~120
Aptian, Selli Anoxia ~120
Barremian 126.3 (end Cenomanian 93.9)
134 pulse: End Valanginian 134.7, Valanginian-Weissert C-isotope excursion 135.2
1.1 (Continued)
O Mid-Pacific Mountains [Pacific Ocean] ca. 130
C EQUAMP (Equatorial Atlantic Magmatic Province) [ne South America] (Hollanda et al., 2019) ca. 135
C Parana-Etendeka (includes rifted margin magmatism) [South America, Africa] 134
C Trap [sw Greenland] ca. 140 0.03
Oa East Sulawesi (Utsunomiya et al., 2008; Doucet et al., 2020) 138
C Magellan Rise ca. 150
Oa Sanbagawa (Paleo-Pacific Ocean) (Sawada et al., 2019; Doucet et al., 2020) ca. 150
O Shatsky Rise-Tamu [Pacific Ocean] (Sager et al., 2013)ca. 150 0.42
C NW Australian Margin 160–140 2.12
Oa Lesser Caucasus (Galoyan et al., 2007; Doucet et al., 2020) 168–160
C Karoo [s Africa, Antarctica] (Svensen et al., 2012) 183.25 3.15
C Ferrar [Antarctica, Tasmania] (Burgess et al., 2015)
S Chon Aike [South America] 1st
Oa Central Tibetan Meso-Tethyan-1 (Tibet) (Zhang et al., 2014; Doucet et al., 2020) 193–172
C CAMP (Central Atlantic Magmatic Province) [North America, Europe, Africa, South America](Davies et al., 2017)
Oa Wrangellia (North & South portions) [w North America] (Greene et al., 2010)
Oa, C Angayucham (Wrangellia?) [nw North America]230 ?
C Siberian Traps [n Siberia] (Burgess & Bowring, 2015)
C Emeishan [s China] (Shellnutt et al., 2012)
S Choiyoi [South America] (Rocha-Campos et al., 2011 ; Spalletti & Limarino, 2017)
C Himalaya Neotethys (main, + Abor & Woniusi portions) [See Panjal – South Qiangtang on map)]
C Panjal [Himalaya] (Shellnutt, 2016)
C South Qiangtang [Central Asia]
C Tarim [Central Asia] (Xu et al., 2014)
C Skagerrak (Skagerrak centered; Jutland) (Scandinavia)300
280
290–2800.25
S Barguzin-Vitam [Central Asia] (Kravchinsky, 2012) ca. 300
End Kimmeridgian 152.1
Middle-late Jurassic (163.1)
End Pliensbachian 183.7; link with early Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event.
End Triassic 201.4 (Davies et al., 2017); mass extinction
Late Carnian (End Carnian ~227); Carnian Pluvial Event (or HuMid Episode) and minor extinctions
End Permian 251.9; mass extinction (Burgess et al., 2017)
Capitanian 259.8, P3-P4 glaciation 273–260; (Chen & Xu, Chapter 18 this volume); mass extinction (Wignall et al., 2009)
GSSP Marker
Sakmarian 290.1, P2 glaciation 287–280 (Chen & Xu, Chapter 18 this volume; Youbi et al., Chapter 8 this volume)
Gzhelian 298.9, P1 glaciation 300–290
S Kennedy-Conners-Auburn (e. Australia) (Bryan et al., 2004) 320–280 (Continued)
Table
Table 1.1 (Continued)
Type (C,O, Oa, S), Name [crustal block] (references subsequent to Ernst, 2014; Ernst & Youbi, 2017)
Age (Ma) Size (Mkm2)
Oa Mino-Tamba (e. Asia) (Utsunomiya et al., 2008; Doucet et al., 2020) 340–330
C Kola-Dnieper [East European craton] (c) ca. 375, 3652.96
C Yakutsk-Vilyui [Siberia] (Polyansky et al., 2017) ca. 375, 3651.15
C Altay-Sayan [c Asia] (Kravchinsky, 2012; Ernst et al., 2020b) ca. 420–3900.35
C Suordakh [e Siberia] ( Chamberlain et al., 2018, 2019)ca. 440 0.40
C Kalkarindji [Australian craton] (Jourdan et al., 2014 ; Marshall et al., Chapter 19 this volume) 510 3.51
C Wichita [sw Laurentia] 533 0.18
C Paraupebas-Piranhas [Amazonian craton] (Teixeira et al., 2019a) 535
Oa Precordillera (S. America) (Utsunomiya et al., 2008; Doucet et al., 2020) 576
C CIMP: Ouarzazate [West African craton] (Youbi et al., 2019) 580–560 0.06
C CIMP : Volyn, Seiland [Baltica] (Shumlyanskyy et al., 2016; Larsen et al., 2018) ca. 580–5700.16
C CIMP 590–560 Ma pulse (Grenville dykes, Sept Isle intrusion & Catoctin volcanics) [e Laurentia]
Chronostratigraphic boundary &/or environmental change timing in Ma (Reference)
End Frasnian; middle Famennian, end Graptolites; FrasnianFamennian, and the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary (Hangenberg Event)
End Silurian 419.2 or Eifelian 393.3–387.7 (Ernst et al., 2020b)
End Katian 445.2 or end Hirnantian 443.8, Hirnantian glaciation 440
End Age 4 (Epoch 2) 509, ROECE anomaly (Jourdan et al., 2014)
End Fortunian ca. 530
Mid Ediacaran, Gaskier Glaciation 580
C CIMP: Baltoscandian-Egersund [Baltica] 615 0.07 Early Ediacaran
C CIMP: 615 Ma pulse (Long Range pulse) [e Laurentia]615
C Franklin (-Thule) (Canada & Greenland portions) [n Laurentia]
C Kikitat [Alaska] (Macdonald & Wordsworth, 2017) 715
C Irkutsk [Siberia craton] (Ernst et al., 2016) 720
C Mutare-Fingeren [Kalahari & Grunehogna cratons] (Gumsley et al., 2019)
C,S Malani (India, Seychelles) [greater Indian craton] (Samal et al., 2019)
C Mount Rogers [e Laurentia] ca. 760–7400.06
C Mundine Well-Keene [West Australian craton] (Zi et al., 2019) 755–750
C Ogcheon [North China craton] (Lee et al., 1998) 755
C Seychelles 755
C,S Shaba [South China block] 755
C Roan (Congo craton) (Hitzman et al., 2012; Sillitoe et al., 2017) 765–735
End Tonian 716.5 (start Sturtian glaciation) (Macdonald & Wordsworth, 2017)
Late Tonian
Table 1.1 (Continued)
C Boucaut [s West Australian craton]
C Gunbarrel [w. Laurentia]
C,S Kanding [South China block], Kudi (Tarim block)
C Gannakouriep [sw Kalahari craton] 800
C Niquelândia [Brasilia belt] (Ferreira Filho et al., 2010)790
C Rushinga-Bukoba ca. 800
C, S Suxiong-Xiaofeng [South China block] 800
C Gairdner-Willouran [s Australian craton]
C,S Guibei [South China block] 825
C Kuluketage (Qiganbualke) [Tarim block] (Zhang et al., 2009; Ni et al., 2019) 820 & 780—
Oa Arabian-Nubian (Arabian-Nubian Shield) (Teklay et al., 2002; Doucet et al., 2020) ca. 850
C Zambezi (Munali) [Zambia, Congo craton] (Evans, 2012; Howell et al., 2017; Ward et al., 2018) 880–860
C Manso [n West African craton] (Baratoux et al., 2019)ca. 880 0.08
C Iguerda-Taifast [s West African craton] ca. 0.87
C Sailajiazitage [Tarim craton] (Zhang et al., 2019) 890
Late Tonian
Mid Tonian
Mid Tonian ca. 15 myr older than Bitter Springs anomaly) (Swanson-Hysell et al., 2015)
C Dashigou (Sariwon) [North China craton] 920 0.50 Mid Tonian, (?) black shale (anoxia event) ca. 920 (Zhang et al., 2020)
C Bahia-Araquai [Sao Francisco craton] 920 0.15
C Zadinian-Mayumbian (Gangil) [Greater Congo craton]924–912 0.34
C Sette-Daban [e Siberian craton] 1005, 9750.05 End Stenian 1000
C Warakurna [c Australian craton] 1075 1.56 Mid Stenian
C Southwest Laurentia (formerly Southwest Diabase Province) [sw Laurentia] 1100–10701.08
C Keweenawan [c Laurentia] 1115–10850.47
C Huila (GN)-Epembe [sw Congo craton] 1110 0.03
C Mahoba [Bundelkhand craton] 1110 0.01
C Huanchaca-Rincon del Tigre [Amazonia] 1110 0.21
C Umkondo (Africa) [Kalahari craton] 1112–11062.00
C Umkondo (Antarctica) [Grunehogna craton] 1112–11060.22
C Bunger Hills [Antarctica] (Stark et al., 2018a) 1130
C Abitibi-Corson [c. Laurentia] (McCormick et al., 2017)1140–11500.31
C Thiselthwaite-Munn [nw Laurentia] 1170
C Marnda Moorn [Yilgarn craton] 1210 0.71
C Licheng (1230 Ma) & Yishui (1210 Ma) [North China craton] 1230–12100.05
C Nova Floresta [Amazonia] (Teixeria et al., 2019b) 1220
C Sudbury [dykes] [e Laurentia] 1235–12380.18
C Vestfold Hills-5 [Antarctica] 1240
Mid Stenian (1200–1000), (?)black shale (anoxia event) ca. 1100 (Zhang et al., 2020)
Mid Stenian
Early Stenian
Early Stenian
End Ectasian 1200
Late Ectasian
(Continued)
Table 1.1 (Continued)
Type (C,O, Oa, S), Name [crustal block] (references subsequent to Ernst, 2014; Ernst & Youbi, 2017)
Age (Ma)
Size (Mkm2)
Chronostratigraphic boundary &/or environmental change timing in Ma (Reference)
C Mealy-Seal Lake [e Laurentia] 1250 0.02 Mid Ectasian
C CSDG (Central Scandinavian Dolerite Complex) [Baltica] (Goldberg, 2010) 1270–12500.27
C Srednecheremshan [Siberian craton] (Ernst et al., 2016)1260
C Harp [Nain portion, North Atlantic craton] 1270 0.07
C Mackenzie [Laurentia] 1272–12652.90
C Juscelândia-Serra dos Borges [Brasilia belt] (Ferreira Filho et al., 2010) ca. 1300–1250—
C Galiwinku-Derim Derim [North Australian craton] 1320 0.19 Mid Ectasian
C Yanliao [North China craton (Zhang et al., 2017) 1320 0.08
C Hart River-Salmon River Arch [w Laurentia] 1380 0.02 End Calymmian 1400 (1385), (?) black shale (anoxia event) 1385 (Zhang et al., 2018)
C Vestfold Hills-4 [Antarctica] 1380
C Chieress (Severobyrrang) [n Siberian craton] (Priyatkina et al., 2017) 1384 (1360)0.02
C Kunene-Kibaran [Greater Congo craton] 1380–13602.10
C Mashak [e Baltica] 1385 0.09
C Midsommerso-Zig Zag Dal (Greenland) [ne Laurentia]1385 0.10
C Biberkine (Yilgarn craton) (Stark et al., 2018b) 1390
C Bas Draa [Anti Atlas inliers, West African craton] 1415–1380—
C Salto do Céu – Figuera Branca – Nova Lacerda [Amazonia] (Teixeira et al., 2016; Teixeira et al., 2019b)
1440–1420 & 1380
C Lakhna & Bandalimal) [Bastar craton] (Samal et al., 2019)1460–14200.04
C Betara [Betara block] (Siga et al., 2011) 1445 0.09
C Michael-Shabagamo [e Laurentia] (Rogers et al., 2019)1450–14250.07
C Moyie [w Laurentia] 1460 0.11
C Tuna-Trond Gota-Lake Ladoga [n Baltica] 1460–14500.68
C Bangemall [nw Australian craton] 1465 0.04
C Curaca-Chapada Diamantina [Sao Francisco craton]1500 0.18
C Humpata [Greater Congo craton] 1500
C Kuonamka [n Siberian craton] 1500
C Essakane [Amazonia] (Baratoux et al., 2019) 1520
C Kayser [Amazonia] (Baratoux et al., 2019) 1520
C Korsimoro [West African craton] (Baratoux et al., 2019)1575
C Mata Mata [Amazonia] (Teixeira et al., 2019b) 1575
C, S Gawler Range [Gawler-Curnamona craton] 1590
C Mammoth-Western Channel (-Wernecke) (w. Laurentia] (Rogers et al., 2018) 1590
C Tandil [Rio de la Plata craton (Teixeira et al., 2013) 1590
C Breven-Hallefors [Baltica] 1600
Late Calymmian
Mid Calymmian, (?)black shales (anoxia event) ca. 1500 (Zhang et al., 2020)
Mid Calymmian
Early Calymmian
End Statherian 1600
End Statherian 1600
1.1 (Continued)
C Taishan [North China craton] (Peng, 2015) 1630–16200.05
C Melville Bugt (Greenland) [ne Laurentia] Klausen & Nilsson 2019 1640–16300.12
C Zenaga [Anti Atlas inliers, West African craton] 1660 0.01
C Hame [Baltica] 1676–16400.01
C Laiwu [North China craton] (Peng, 2015) 1670 0.01
C Toole Creek (Dead Horse, Cobbold) & Bulonga [North Australian craton] (Gibson et al., 2018) 1660–1655
C Late Calvert (Sybella) (Willyama?) [North Australian craton] (Gibson et al., 2018)
1690–1670
C Pelly Bay [n Laurentia] 1700 0.02
C Fiery Creek (Oenpelli?) [North Australian craton] (Gibson et al., 2018; Pirajno & Hoatson, 2012) 1730–1710
C Wonga [North Australian craton] (Gibson et al., 2018)1740
C Miyun (1730 Ma) & Damiao-Shachang (1730–1680 Ma) [North China craton] 1730–16800.09
C Kivalliq (Pitz-Nueltin, McRae, Wellington, Cleaver portions) [n Laurentia] (Peterson et al., 2015)
1770–1730 (peak 1750)
C Aiski (Navysh) [e Baltica] (Krasnobaev et al., 2013) 1750
C Lunch Creek (north & south) / Mt. Isa [North Australian craton] 1750 0.13
C Timpton [Siberian craton] 1750 0.42
C Vestfold Hills-3 [Antarctica] ca. 1750
C Tagragra of Akka [Anti Atlas Inlier, West African craton] 1755
C Papilia (Newer Dolerites) [Singhbhum craton] (Shanker et al., 2014; Samal et al., 2019) 1760
C Espinhaco [Amazonian craton] 1770
C Xionger-Taihang [North China craton] 1770
Late Statherian, (?)black shales (anoxia event) ca. 1650 (Zhang et al., 2020)
Mid Statherian
Statherian, (?) black shales (anoxia event) ca. 1750 (Zhang et al., 2020)
Mid Statherian
C Libiri [West African craton] (Baratoux et al., 2019) 1790 End Orosirian 1800, FA of sulphidic marine deposits 1780
C Pebbair [Dharwar craton] (Söderlund et al., 2019) 1788
C Avanavero [Amazonia] 1790
C Florida (Uruguayan) [Rio de la Plata craton] (Teixeira et al., 2013) 1790
C Ukrainian AMCG- Prutivka-Novogol [Sarmatia] 1790
C Hart (Carson-Mount Hay) [Kimberley block, North Australian craton] 1810–17902.80
C Eastern Creek [eastern North Australian craton] (Gibson et al., 2018) 1790–1780
C Sparrow-Uranium City-Christopher Island [nw Laurentia]1833–18180.35 Late Orosirian (Continued)
Table
Table 1.1 (Continued)
Type (C,O, Oa, S), Name [crustal block] (references subsequent to Ernst, 2014; Ernst & Youbi, 2017) Age (Ma) Size (Mkm2)
C Kalaro-Nimnyrsky-Malozadoiskii [s Siberian craton]1870 0.58
C Black Hills-Soutpansberg [Kalahari craton] (Olsson et al., 2016) 1880–18400.04
C Circum-Superior (Chukotat, Labrador, Molson-Thompson, Pickle Crow portions) [Superior craton] 1885–18700.20
C Ghost-Mara River- Morel [Slave craton] 1890–18700.21
C Mashonaland [Kalahari craton] 1880 0.18
C Ramah Group [Nain portion, North Atlantic craton] (Sahin & Hamilton, 2019) 1890
C Bastanar-Hampi [Indian craton] (Samal et al., 2019)1890 0.18
C Boonadgin [Yilgarn craton] (Stark et al., 2019) 1890
S Uatuma [Amazonia] (Teixeira et al., 2019b) 1880 1.50
C Maria-Carajas-Tucumã [Amazonia] (Teixeira et al., 2019a,b) 1880
Oa Flin Flon (Churchill Province) (Stern et al., 1995; Doucet et al., 2020) ca. 1900
C Hearne [Slave craton] 1900 0.04
C Frobisher Suite M-UM event [Meta-Incognito block] (Liikane et al., 2017) ca. 1920 0.07
C Hartley (Tsineng, Moshaneng) [Kalahari craton] (Semami Alebouyeh et al., 2016) 1930–19100.27
C Angaul [Siberian craton] (Donsakaya et al., 2018) 1915
C Mugford [Nain portion, North Atlantic craton] 1950
C Xuwujia [North China craton] (Peng, 2015) 1960–19300.03
C Khajuraho (Jhansi) [Bundelkhand craton] (Samal et al., 2019) 1970 0.02
C Pechenga-Onega [Karelian craton] (Lubnina et al., 2016; Davey, 2019) 1970 0.50
C Xiwangshan [North China craton] (Peng, 2015) 1970 0.01
S Orocaima [Amazonia] (Teixeira et al., 2019b) 1980–19600.20
C Moi Moi–Charlie-Lucie [Amazonia] (Teixeira et al., 2019b; Klaver et al., 2016)
1985–1975—
C, O Minto-Povungnituk-Eskimo [Superior craton] (Kastek et al., 2018; Hamilton et al., 2016) 1998 0.44
C Kennedy [Wyoming craton] 2010 0.01
C Lac de Gras-Booth River Igneous Complex (BRIC) [Slave craton] 2027–20230.07
C Cheela Springs [West Australian craton] (Muller et al., 2005; Bekker et al., 2016) 2031
C Union Island-McKee [Slave craton] (Sheen et al., 2019)2045–2035—
C Kangamuit-MD3 [North Atlantic craton] 2050–20300.09
Chronostratigraphic boundary &/or environmental change timing in Ma (Reference)
Mid Orosirian, 1880–1870 Ma black shale (anoxia event) (Bekker et al., 2014)
Mid Orosirian
Mid Orosirian
Mid Orosirian
Early Orosirian
Early Orosirian
Table 1.1 (Continued)
C Bushveld [Kaapvaal craton] 2060 0.39 End Rhyacian 2060 (minimum age for the termination of the Lomagundi-Jatuli isotope excursion)
C Keivitsa–Kuetsjärvi-Umba [Karelia-Kola craton] 2060
C Yixingzhai [North China craton] (Peng, 2015) 2060
C Lac Esprit [Superior craton] 2070 0.07 Mid Rhyacian (could correspond to the termination of the Lomagundi-Jatuli isotope excursion)
C Voronezh [Sarmatia] 2070 0.20
C Fort Frances [Superior craton] 2075 0.17
C Palomaa [Karelian craton] (Davey, 2019; Davey et al., 2020) 2070
C Devarabanda [Dharwar craton] (Söderlund et al., 2019)2080 0.07
C Cauchon [Superior craton] 2090 & 20700.02
C Zanhuang-Menglianggu [North China craton] (Peng, 2015; Yang et al., 2019) 2090
C Snowy Pass [Wyoming craton] 2100–20800.01
Oa Narracoota [West Australian craton] (Pirajno & Hoatson, 2012) ca. 2100
C Griffin-Kazan-Chipman [Hearne & Rae cratons] (Regan et al., 2017; Buchan & Ernst, 2020)
2116–21110.14
C Bear Mountain [Wyoming craton] 2115 0.02
C Tommajarvi-Pirtguba [Karelian craton] (Davey, 2019; Davey et al., 2020) 2115 0.11
C Haicheng-Xiliu [North China craton] (Wang et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2019)
C Marathon [Superior craton]
2115–2100—
2120–21000.16
C Indin [Slave craton] 2126–21080.04
C Tikkigatsiagak-Avakutak [North Atlantic craton] (Sahin & Hamilton, 2019)
2140–21100.01
C Hengling [North China craton] (Peng, 2015) 2150
C Rantavaara [Karelia-Kola craton] (Davey, 2019) 2150 0.04
C Riviere du Gue [Superior craton] 2150 0.07
C Biscotasing-Payne River [Superior craton] (Hamilton et al., 2017) 2172–21670.45
C Wind River & Rabbit Creek – Powder River (Wyoming craton) (Kilian et al., 2016)
2170 & 2155—
C Mahbubngour-Dandeli [Dharwar craton] (Söderlund et al., 2019) 2180 0.29
C SW Slave Magmaatic Province (Dogrib) [Slave craton]2193–21800.04
C Tulemalu-MacQuoid [Rae craton] 2190 0.04
Oa Man-Leo (Lompo, 2010; Doucet et al., 2020) 2250–2000—
Late Rhyacian (could correspond to the termination of the Lomagundi-Jatuli isotope excursion)
Late Rhyacian (maximum age for the termination of the Lomagundi-Jatuli isotope excursion)
Late Rhyacian (peak of the Lomagundi-Jatuli isotope excursion)
Mid Rhyacian (peak of the Lomagundi-Jatuli isotope excursion)
Mid Rhyacian (peak of the Lomagundi-Jatuli isotope excursion)
Mid Rhyacian (peak of the Lomagundi-Jatuli isotope excursion)
(Continued)
Table 1.1 (Continued)
Type (C,O, Oa, S), Name [crustal block] (references subsequent to Ernst, 2014; Ernst & Youbi, 2017) Age (Ma) Size (Mkm2)
C Malley & MacKay [Slave craton] 2230 & 22100.07
C Koli (Karjalitic sills) [Karelia-Kola craton] 2215 0.10
C Anantapur-Kunigal [Dharwar craton] (Söderlund et al., 2019) 2215 0.24
C Kandlamadugu [Dharwar craton] (Söderlund et al., 2019)2220 0.41
C Ungava-Nipissing [Superior craton] 2220–22100.58
C BN-1 [North Atlantic craton] 2225 0.04
C Turee Creek (Pilbara craton] (Krapež et al., 2017) 2215
C Vestfold Hills-2 [Antarctica] 2240 0.01
C Ippaguda [Dharwar craton] [(Söderlund et al., 2019; Samal et al., 2019) 2250 0.08
C Kaptipada [Singhbhum craton] (Samal et al., 2019) 2250 0.02
C Hekpoort [Kaapvaal craton] (de Kock et al., 2019) ca. 2250 0.20
C Tailvalkovski-Kuito [Karelia-Kola craton] (Stepanova et al., 2015; Davey, 2019) 2330–23100.02
C Bangalore-Karimnagar [Dharwar & Bastar cratons] (Söderlund et al., 2019) 2365 0.26
C Graedefjord- Scourie (North Atlantic craton) 2420–2365—
C Dantewara [Bastar craton] (Samal et al., 2019) ca. 2400 0.06
C Widgiemooltha (-Erayinia)- [Yilgarn craton] [Pisarevsky et al., 2015) 2420–24000.45
C Sebanga Poort (Zimbabwe) [Kaapvaal craton] 2420
C Ringvassoy [Norrbotten block] 2410
C Uoleviniehto – Imandra [Karelian craton] (Davey, 2019; Davey et al., 2020) 2400
C du Chef [Superior craton] 2400
C Ongeluk [Kaapvaal craton] (Gumsley et al., 2017) 2425 0.20
C Welli Wolli-Woongara [Pilbara craton] 2450 0.04
C Matachewan [Superior craton] 2460 (+2480)0.56
C BLIP-2 (Baltic LIP-young) (Pääjärvi) [Karelia-Kola craton]2445 0.28
C Blue Draw [Wyoming craton] 2480 0.01
C Kaminak [Hearne craton] 2498 0.03
C BLIP-1 (Baltic LIP-old) [Karelia-Kola craton] 2505 0.28
C Crystal Springs [Zimbabwe] 2510
C Mistassini-Ptarmigan-Irsuaq [Superior craton] 2510–25000.11
C Great Dyke of Zimbabwe [Zimbabwe craton] 2575 0.07
C Stockford (Limpopo belt) (Xie et al., 2017; Stark et al., 2018c) 2605
C Yandinilling [Yilgarn craton] (Stark et al., 2018c) 2620
Chronostratigraphic boundary &/or environmental change timing in Ma (Reference)
Early Rhyacian, Rietfontein glaciation ca. 2220 (Gumsley et al., 2017) ; minimum age for the start of the LomagundiJatuli carbon isotope excursion
Early Rhyacian
End Siderian 2300, Gowganda-Rooihoogte glaciation ca. 2330 (Gumsley et al., 2017)
Mid Siderian, Bruce-Duitschland glaciation ca. 2370 (Gumsley et al., 2017)
Mid Siderian
Mid Siderian
Mid Siderian, initiation of Ramsey Lake-Makganyene glaciation ca. 2430 (Gumsley et al., 2017)
Early Siderian
End Archean 2500
Late Neoarchean
Late Neoarchean
C Aousserd-Tichla [Reguibat craton] 2670
C Stillwater-Rendevous [Wyoming craton] 2710–26800.07
C,O? Abitibi belt (Superior craton) 2750–2680—
C Allanridge (younger Ventersdorp) [Kaapvaal craton] (Gumsley et al., 2020) 2720–2680—
C Maddina (part of Fortescue) [Pilbara craton] 2715
C,O? Eastern Goldfields & Gnanagooragoo-Yalgowra [Yilgarn craton] 2750–2710—
C Kam Group [Slave craton] 2730–2680--
C Prince Albert [Rae craton] 2700
C,O? Bulawayan-Zeederbergs-Belingwe [Zimbabwe craton]ca. 2710
C Uaua [Sao Francisco craton] (Oliveira et al., 2013) 2730 & 2625
C Ahmeyim (includes Great Dyke of Mauritania) [Reguibat craton] 2733
C Kathleen Valley (-Kylena) (middle Fortescue) [Pilbara craton] 2740
C Ring of Fire & Bird River [Superior craton] 2740–27300.04
C Serra Leste Magmatic Suite [Carajas block] (Ferreira Filho et al., 2017) 2750
C Sylvania Inlier [Pilbara craton] (Wingate, 1999) 2750
Mid Neoarchean, iron formations (Bekker et al., 2014)
Mid Neoarchean
C Black Range-Mount Roe (older Fortescue) [Pilbara craton]2780 0.13 End Mesoarchean 2800
C Klipriviersberg -(older Ventersdorp) [Kaapvaal craton] (Gumsley et al., 2020) 2780
Oa Vizien [ne Superior craton] (Skulski & Percival, 1996)2785
C Meeline-Norie-Windimurra-Little Gap [Yilgarn craton] (Ivanic, 2019)
2810–2790—
C Hlagothi [Kaapvaal craton] 2860 0.03 Late Mesoarchean
C Radley [Pilbara craton] (van Kranendonk et al., 2006)2920
C Steep Rock [North Caribou terrane, Superior craton]2930
C Balmer [North Caribou terrane, Superior craton] 2990
C Nsuze (Ushushwana, Barberton-Badplaas [Kaapvaal craton] (Gumsley et al., 2015)
Mid Mesoarchean
Mid Mesoarchean
2990–2980—
S Gavião [Gavião block] (Zincone et al., 2016) 3300
C Onverwacht (Komati, Hooggenoeg, Kromberg fm) [Kaapvaal craton] (Byerly et al., 2018)
3490–3330 (multiple pulses)
Source: Information from Ernst (2014) and Ernst and Youbi (2017); additional referencing provides updates or new events. Both LIPs and LIP-fragments/remnants (see text and Ernst, 2007) are included.
Notes: Events are grouped by age (bound by bold lines) to emphasize their potentially bulk contribution to environmental effects; those grouped events do not necessarily belong to a single LIP/plume. Grey background identifies those LIPs that are more strongly linked with GTS boundaries. Locations within regions are labeled: w = west, ne = northeast, etc.; C = continental, O = oceanic, Oa = accreted oceanic, S = silicic; PETM = Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. In most cases, ages are quoted to the nearest 5 myr. Those with uncertainties > 10 myr are preceded by “ca.” Areal estimates were not available in all cases, and in most of those cases, the size is small and we are interpreting these as fragments of LIPs.
Table 1.1 (Continued)
