In this study, we investigate the foundations of the hydrated volcanic glass paleoelevation-paleoenvironment proxy by testing (1) the sensitivity of volcanic glass δD values to laboratory procedures, (2) the reliability of young glass reconstructions of observed meteoric water values, and (3) the paleoenvironmental reconstructions based on volcanic glass in comparison to those of other proxies. Volcanic glass δD values are insensitive to variations in laboratory pretreatments, displaying no significant shift in δD values with variations in duration of drying, rinsing, the temperature at which glass is dried, or with the grain size that is analyzed. However, clay adhering to the glass particles may skew δD results by ~10‰, and HF acid pretreatment can cause significant isotopic shifts. Parent-water δD values calculated from young (≤0.3 Ma) glass δD values are in close accord with modern surface-water δD values across ~3000 m of elevation in the central Andes. Combined glass δD values, pedogenic carbonate δ 18 O values, and clumped isotope paleothermometry from the 16.3 Ma Los Cristales tuff provide a key test of resistance to resetting of δD values in ancient glass hydration layers. These proxies indicate hydrated volcanic glass preserves its stable isotopic information over geologic time and that the climatic patterns of the high and dry Puna Plateau were already in place by 16.3 Ma.

Abstract We begin our journey through the Mesozoic Sierran arc with an examination of the Guadalupe Igneous Complex, a layered Jurassic pluton that intrudes into largely oceanic materials in the Foothills Terrane of the Western Metamorphic belt (Figs. 1-1 and 1-2). The Guadalupe Igneous Complex is an intuitively pleasing target to begin with because of its outboard (western) location and because it consists of some of the most mafic (>8% MgO gabbros) and felsic (high-silica and high-K 2 O granophyres and rhyolites) igneous units that we will see on this trip and thus raises some longstanding petrologic questions about the connections between mafic and felsic granitoids in arcs. It is also an exciting objective because of the preservation of its likely feeder zone (the Hornitos pluton), internal layering, and capping volcanics (Fig. 1-2)…

Flat subduction of the Farallon plate beneath the western United States during the Laramide orogeny was caused by the combined effects of oceanic plateau subduction and unusually great suction in the mantle wedge, the latter of which was caused by the shallowing slab approaching the North American craton root. Once in contact with basal North America, the slab cooled and hydrated the lithosphere. Upon removal, asthenospheric contact with lithosphere resulted in magma production that was especially intense where the basal lithosphere was fertile (in what now is the Basin and Range Province), and this heating weakened the lithosphere and made it convectively unstable. Small-scale convection has since affected many areas. With slab sinking and unloading, the western United States elevated into a broad plateau, and the weak portion gravitationally collapsed. With development of a transform plate boundary, the western part of the weak zone became entrained with the Pacific plate, and deformation there is dominated by shear.

Suprasubduction-zone ophiolites have been recognized in the geologic record for over thirty years. These ophiolites are essentially intact structurally and stratigraphically, show evidence for synmagmatic extension, and contain lavas with geochemical characteristics of arc-volcanic rocks. They are now inferred to have formed by hinge retreat in the forearc of nascent or reconfigured island arcs. Emplacement of these forearc assemblages onto the leading edge of partially subducted continental margins is a normal part of their evolution. A recent paper has challenged this interpretation. The authors assert that the “ophiolite conundrum” (seafloor spreading shown by dike complexes versus arc geochemistry) can be resolved by a model called “historical contingency,” which holds that most ophiolites form at mid-ocean ridges that tap upper-mantle sources previously modified by subduction. They support this model with examples of modern mid-ocean ridges where suprasubduction zone–like compositions have been detected (e.g., ridge-trench triple junctions). The historical contingency model is flawed for several reasons: (1) the major- and trace-element compositions of magmatic rocks in suprasubduction-zone ophiolites strongly resemble rocks formed in primitive island-arc settings and exhibit distinct differences from rocks formed at mid-ocean-ridge spreading centers; (2) slab-influenced compositions reported from modern ridge-trench triple junctions and subduction reversals are subtle and/or do not compare favorably with either modern subduction zones or suprasubduction-zone ophiolites; (3) crystallization sequences, hydrous minerals, miarolitic cavities, and reaction textures in suprasubduction-zone ophiolites imply crystallization from magmas with high water activities, rather than mid-ocean-ridge systems; (4) models of whole Earth convection, subduction recycling, and ocean-island basalt isotopic compositions ignore the fact that these components represent the residue of slab melting, not the low field strength element–enriched component found in active arc-volcanic suites and suprasubduction-zone ophiolites; and (5) isotopic components indicative of mantle heterogeneities (related to subduction recycling) are observed in modern mid-ocean-ridge basalts (MORB), but, in contrast to the prediction of the historical contingency model, these basalts do not exhibit suprasubduction zone–like geochemistry. The formation of suprasubduction-zone ophiolites in the upper plate of subduction zones favors intact preservation either by obduction onto a passive continental margin, or by accretionary uplift above a subduction zone. Ophiolites characterized by lavas with MORB geochemistry are typically disrupted and found as fragments in accretionary complexes (e.g., Franciscan), in contrast to suprasubduction-zone ophiolites. This must result from the fact that oceanic crust is unlikely to be obducted for mechanical reasons, but it may be preserved where it is scraped off of the subducting slab.