FOCUS | PERSPECTIVE

PUBLISHED ONLINE: 13 OCTOBER 2013 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1954

Continental-root control on the genesis of

magmatic ore deposits
W. L. Griffin1*, G. C. Begg1,2 and Suzanne Y. O’Reilly1

Giant magma-related ore systems are prime targets for modern mineral exploration, yet it is unclear what controls their
formation. The magmas originate in Earth’s convecting mantle. To reach the surface, they must pass through the stagnant
sub-continental lithospheric mantle, but the role of this mantle in ore genesis is vigorously debated. In one view, the ascending
magmas are already metal-rich and the sub-continental lithospheric mantle acts only as a passive, buoyant raft on which the
continental crust — the final store for the ore deposits — rides. Here we argue that the sub-continental lithospheric mantle may
actually contain ore-forming elements that could be entrained by ascending magmas, and that it therefore plays a significant
role in the genesis of magmatic ore. Specifically, we suggest that some types of magma pick up ore-forming components, such
as diamonds and gold, and possibly platinum-group elements, during their passage through the mantle lithosphere, and that
the three-dimensional structure of the lithosphere helps to focus deposition of the ore. We therefore suggest that models for
ore genesis and exploration need to incorporate the entire lithosphere to be effective.

T
he sub-continental lithospheric mantle (SCLM; Box 1) formed
in the mid–late Archaean eon1–5 and changed the face of the
Earth. By providing stable continental shelves, or cratons, on
an Earth floored by oceanic crust, the SCLM forced a significant
reorganization of plate tectonics. The regions surrounding the cra-
tons became fractured to form peri-cratonic basins, and disconti-
nuities in the SCLM acted as physical guides for magma upwelling
from the convecting mantle below. The SCLM provided a durable,
buoyant and rigid reservoir for ore-forming elements, and enabled
the preservation of the overlying crust and attendant ore deposits.
The role of the SCLM in generating giant ore deposits is strongly
debated. Here we review the characteristics of some diamond, plati-
num-group elements (PGE), Ni-Cu-(PGE) and (Cu-)Au ore depos-
its worldwide, and argue that the history, structure and evolution of
the SCLM may be directly relevant to the genesis and localization
of some of these deposits. We therefore suggest that mapping of the
SCLM structure, age and composition should form a key compo-
nent of mineral exploration programmes.
The sub-continental lithospheric mantle
The origins of the SCLM are controversial1,6–9. A common view 7,8
suggests that SCLM was built up mostly from subducted oceanic
slabs that were depleted in many elements, because of shallow
melting at ocean ridges and in subduction zones. A newer view 5,9,
however, suggests that the SCLM formed from the residues of very
high-degree melting, either in plumes rising from the deep man-
tle1,5 or through high-temperature melting of the ambient upper
mantle4. Evidence for formation of the SCLM by high-degree melt-
ing is provided by observations of the Fe-depleted compositions
(FeO  <  7  wt%) of many kimberlite-borne, SCLM-derived perido-
tites that have no counterparts in modern oceanic mantle1,9.
The initial SCLM was highly depleted in magmaphile elements
and has been preserved largely due to the buoyancy imparted by
its low iron-to-magnesium ratio. Since the SCLM formed, fluids
and magmas derived from the convecting mantle have ponded at
its base or ascended via weak zones such as craton boundaries and
large faults. These magmas and fluids have progressively replenished
the SCLM (a process known as metasomatic refertilization) in mag-
maphile elements, including components of ore deposits, such as
Cu and Au. Refertilization may be especially intense where cratons
were bordered by subduction zones at some stage of their evolution,
because subduction zones provide a supply of fluids. Progressive
refertilization has changed the concentrations of major elements
and trace elements (as well as their isotopic compositions10,11) in the
SCLM. The most common rocks of the deep SCLM (garnet lherzo-
lites) are strongly metasomatized, and carry little information that
could be used to support a shallow origin for the SCLM.
Ongoing studies12,13 are integrating geophysics with mantle geo-
chemistry and geochronology to map the distribution and age of
upper-lithospheric domains to depths ≥100 km (Fig. 1). The results
imply that at least 70% of all SCLM worldwide was formed in a short
period 3.0 to 3.5 Gyr ago1,2 (billion years ago; Ga) and has resided
beneath the continents ever since. Similarly, Hf-isotope analyses of
crustal zircons14 indicate that >60% of existing continental crust
was generated >2.5  Ga, and has been progressively re-melted and
reconstituted in later tectonic episodes. Physical and temporal links
between crust and mantle1,5,12 suggest that large-scale mantle melt-
ing produced not only the cratonic SCLM but much of the original
continental crust too.
Ore deposit links with SCLM structure and composition
Diamond deposits. Primary diamond deposits provide a compel-
ling example of SCLM control on magma emplacement, and hence
on the distribution of ore deposits. The diamonds occur in dykes
and pipes of highly alkaline magmas (kimberlites and lamproites)
that are generated by low-volume melting near or below the base
of the SCLM. The magmas pick up diamonds from the deep SCLM
(>150 km) during their eruption7.
Blocks of cratonic SCLM can be imaged by seismic tomography
and magnetotelluric surveys15,16 as volumes with high seismic veloc-
ity (due to Fe depletion) and high electrical resistivity. On the large
scale (Fig. 2a), kimberlites and other low-volume mantle melts are
concentrated near the edges of cratonic blocks. High-resolution
seismic tomography (Fig. 2b) shows even more striking correlations;
most kimberlites cluster on the edges of high-velocity domains in
the deep SCLM. The correlation is easily understood in geochemi-
cal and geophysical terms. Diamond formation requires the metaso-
matic re-introduction of carbon into the originally depleted SCLM.
The carbon is typically accompanied by elements such as Ca, Al,
K, Na and Fe (refs 10,11), producing lower seismic velocities in the

1
ARC Centre of Excellence for Core to Crust Fluid Systems/GEMOC, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia, 2Minerals Targeting International PL,
17 Prowse St, West Perth, Western Australia 6005, Australia. *e-mail: bill.griffin@mq.edu.au

NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 6 | NOVEMBER 2013 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 905

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

PERSPECTIVE | FOCUS
Box 1 | Glossary
Cratons. The ancient, relatively stable cores of continental masses.
Kimberlites. Small-volume ultramafic magmas highly enriched in fluids
and alkaline elements; major host rock for diamonds.
Komatiite. Ultramafic lavas, products of high-degree melting; almost
all of Archean age (>2.5 Ga); erupted along craton margins and within
continental rift zones.
Large igneous provinces (LIPs). Voluminous outpourings of mainly
basaltic lavas; some host major Ni(Cu) sulfide deposits.
Magmaphile elements. Elements that are partitioned into silicate melts
during partial melting processes; for example, Ca, Al, Fe, Na and K.
Mantle wedge. The volume of mantle trapped between an upper plate
and a subducting lower plate; this may be oceanic mantle in intra-ocean
subduction zones (for example, Tonga-Kermadec in the Pacific) or
continental mantle where subduction takes place along a continental
margin (for example, the Andes).
Metasomatism. Compositional changes induced in pre-existing rock
volumes by interaction with fluids or melts.
Orogeny. A mountain-building event, usually involving compression,
deformation and uplift of the crust.
Platinum-group elements (PGEs). Os, Ir, Ru, Rh, Pt and Pd; typically
concentrated in alloys and sulfide minerals in mantle-derived peridotites.
Sub-continental lithospheric mantle (SCLM). The uppermost, non-
convecting part of Earth’s mantle beneath continents.
Subduction zones. Sites where (mainly) oceanic plates are carried down
into the mantle beneath the edges of other plates (both oceanic and
continental); sites of volcanism and fluid movement through the mantle
wedge above the subducting plate.
Xenolith. Literally means ‘foreign rock’; in this context, it refers to a
fragment of the SCLM or the deeper crust, carried to the upper crust or
surface in a magma (for example, basalt or kimberlite).
refertilized zones. The zones of weakness on the margins of cratonic
blocks, and in fractures within these blocks, provided channels for
the carbon-bearing fluids, and later controlled the emplacement of
the kimberlites17.
Magmatic Ni-Cu-(PGE) and PGE deposits. Large Ni-Cu-(PGE)
sulphide deposits are genetically linked to large igneous prov-
inces (LIPs) and komatiites, and the accumulation of metal-rich,
immiscible sulphide melts in mafic or ultramafic magmas18. These
magmas are produced by high-degree melting in rapidly ascend-
ing plumes that transport deep mantle rocks with temperatures of
≥1,500 °C to depths of 100 km or less19. There is a clear relationship
between the magmas and the SCLM structure; the required high-
temperature, low-pressure melting occurs only in areas of relatively
thin lithosphere, and the melts access the crust through large faults.
The spatial and temporal distribution of Ni-Cu-(PGE) and PGE
deposits implies that tectonically active craton margins represent a
favourable conjunction of these factors (Fig. 1)20.
Sulphur saturation (at constant sulphur content) decreases as
the magma ascends21; mantle-derived magmas may reach the upper
crust in a sulphur-undersaturated state, but they can assimilate
sulphur-rich continental crust to reach sulphur saturation and the
resulting sulphide immiscibility 18,22 necessary to form ore deposits.
Ni-Cu-(PGE) deposits can be divided into two geodynamically
controlled end-member styles based on the composition of co-
genetic rocks: Ultramafic (high MgO; generally komatiitic to pic-
ritic lavas and intrusions) and mafic (low MgO; generally gabbro or
norite intrusions)20. High-MgO magmas erupt at the surface where
906 NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 6 | NOVEMBER 2013 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1954
plume melting was focused by a transition from thick to thinner
SCLM during periods of tectonic extension; the rapid, unhindered
ascent means the magmas will arrive highly sulphur-undersatu-
rated. High-MgO deposits are thus commonly found in peri-cra-
tonic basins developed over SCLM (cratonic) boundaries; these
basins are more likely to contain the sulphur-rich sediments essen-
tial for sulphur saturation (such as the Kambalda camp, Western
Australia, and the Raglan camp, Canada)23.
Low-MgO systems are also associated with trans-lithospheric
faults at cratonic margins, but not with peri-cratonic basins20. They
are intrusion-hosted, and occur where magma ascent was hindered
by thick crust or a compressive tectonic environment. In such set-
tings, melt fractionation and chemical interaction with the litho-
sphere (at all depths) are likely to be enhanced. Sulphur saturation
may occur at depth22 (relative to the eventual deposit), with sul-
phide melts expelled from deeper (crustal) magma chambers at a
late stage of the crystallization of the host melts (such as in Norilsk,
Voisey’s Bay)24,25. Although many low-MgO ores show evidence for
assimilation of sulphur-bearing country rocks26,27, others show no
addition of crustal sulphur (for example, the Nebo-Babel deposit,
Western Australia28). The assimilation of silica could also lead to
sulphide saturation22,28.
PGE deposits generally share similar settings and LIP associa-
tions with the Ni-Cu-(PGE) deposits, but they tend to lie along
trans-lithospheric fault corridors that are slightly further inboard
of craton margins than their Ni-Cu-(PGE) counterparts (Fig. 1)29.
They also more commonly occur as narrow sulphide-poor reefs
within major layered intrusions rather than within associated
feeder intrusions.
30° N
0°
T
T/P
T/P/A
P
P/A
30° S
A
0° 30° E
Figure 1 | Upper-lithospheric domains (0–100 km) derived from integrated
mapping of geological and geophysical data. A, archons (lithospheric
blocks formed >2.5 Ga); P, protons (formed 2.5–1.0 Ga); T, tectons (formed
<1 Ga). Others represent episodes of significant lithospheric reworking:
for example, P/A represents a block generated in Archaean time, but
significantly modified in Proterozoic time. The cratonic nuclei (A and P/A)
are underlain by high-velocity SCLM (Fig. 2a). The Bushveld Complex and
Great Dyke are outlined by thick black lines (southern Africa). PGE deposits
(blue circles) and Proterozoic Ni-Cu(-PGE) deposits (white circles; located
around the margins of the cratonic nuclei) are denoted by size (larger size
indicates higher significance). Adapted with permission from ref. 12, © 2009
Geological Society of America.
NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1954 FOCUS | PERSPECTIVE
a b c
20° E Subducting plate
20° S
Butte Cu-Mo-Ag
30° N Yellowstone Hotspot
Or Lim 45° N
Homestake Au
Carlin Wyoming
District craton
Au Grouse
Jwa Creek
Bingham Canyon
Cu-Au
Cameroon Prem Colorado
0° volcanic

W
line Mother Mineral

al k
Lode Belt

er
Au

L
Kimb Colorado

an
block

eZ
NL

on
30° S

e
CM 30° S 35° N
Arizona Cu
(Mo, Au, Ag)
30° S

0° 30° E 30° E 115° W

Figure 2 | Vs tomography of the lithospheric mantle. Red to white, high Vs; blue, low Vs. a, Africa (100–150 km depth), showing distribution of low-volume
magmatic rocks along the boundaries of high-velocity blocks. White dots, kimberlites; green circles, carbonatites; yellow, young rift basins. b, Detailed
seismic tomography, Kaapvaal craton (200 km depth), showing kimberlites around the margins of high-velocity volumes. Major diamond-rich kimberlite
provinces: Kimb, Kimberley; NL, Northern Lesotho; Prem, Premier; Jwa, Jwaneng; Or, Orapa; Lim, Limpopo Belt, including kimberlites such as Venetia. CM,
craton margin. c, Vp tomography (90 km depth) of western USA, showing main Precambrian to Tertiary (magmatic-)hydrothermal ore deposits by size
(supergiant, giant and major) and dominant metals (yellow, Au; green, Cu-Au-Mo; pink, Cu-Mo-Ag-Au; orange, Mo; light blue, REE; light grey, W(-Sn);
dark grey, Fe). Main lithospheric blocks, defined at sub-crustal depths from multidisciplinary data, are outlined. Deposits concentrate along prominent
lithospheric structures, particularly in lower-velocity regions (blue) or on the flanks of highs, where lower velocities reflect refertilization of the SCLM and/
or higher temperature. Part a adapted with permission from ref. 12, © 2009 Geological Society of America. Part b adapted with permission from ref. 12
(© 2009 GSA) and ref. 15 (© 2004 Geological Society of South Africa). Part c adapted with permission from ref. 50, © 2010 Elsevier.

Competing models for Ni-Cu-(PGE) and PGE deposits. The role
of the SCLM in the generation of magmatic Ni-Cu-(PGE) and PGE
(sulphide) deposits is controversial. The structural role of the SCLM
in focusing magma intrusion is clear, but its compositional role is
less obvious. The orthodox view is that the SCLM contributes essen-
tially nothing to magmas, and that most mantle magmas are equally
endowed in Ni, Cu and PGEs18,23. In this view, the genesis of an ore
deposit simply reflects local factors, especially contamination with
crustal sulphur. However, traditional asthenospheric-melt mod-
elling explains neither the high PGE levels in some magmas (for
example, at the Bushveld Complex), nor the provinciality of PGE
enrichment evidenced by both Ni-Cu-PGE and PGE reef depos-
its29. Interestingly, LIPs and komatiites intruded into areas without
ancient SCLM roots are not known to contain significant deposits30.
Some studies of PGEs in mafic and ultramafic rocks31 have found
no conclusive evidence for SCLM involvement. However, ‘fertile’
(mineralized and continental) flood basalts show a distinctive high-
Os signature (Fig. 3a) that may reflect the interaction of melts with
SCLM (ref. 30). The high contents of metal (PGE, Cu and Ni) alloys
and sulphur in metasomatized xenoliths from the SCLM (refs 2,32),
and the relative PGE enrichment of cratonic versus off-craton man-
tle32, also raise the question of how much SCLM-derived metals and
sulphur might be contributed to rising magmas. This issue is most
pertinent for PGEs and low-MgO Ni-Cu-PGE deposits. Perhaps the
most intriguing evidence comes from isotopic studies, which show
that ‘fertile’ LIPs have interacted with rocks that had a long-term
enrichment in Rb/Sr and depletion in Sm/Nd and Re/Os (ref. 30),
typical of ancient metasomatized SCLM. Several major LIPs
define Re-Os ‘isochrons’ reflecting their eruption ages, with ini-
tial 187Os/188Os below that of the asthenospheric mantle, implying
derivation of Os from older SCLM (Fig. 3b). The Re-Os systemat-
ics of the Bushveld intrusion and sulphides in coeval diamonds33
imply interaction between melts and the SCLM (harzburgites and
eclogites); SCLM may be a “critical component in the genesis of the
Bushveld complex and similar PGE-ore-bearing intrusions”33. This
is clearly a fertile field for further investigation.
Au-rich (±Cu) deposits. There is evidence that SCLM that has been
metasomatized by hydrous melts and fluids above subducting slabs
may play an important role in the genesis of some gold-rich (mag-
matic) hydrothermal deposits34. This includes porphyry Cu-Au,
epithermal Au, iron oxide Cu-Au (ref. 35) and intrusive-related oro-
genic Au (ref.  36) deposits. This relationship could possibly even
extend to Carlin-type Au (ref. 37) and classic orogenic gold depos-
its34, contrary to models for a purely upper- to mid-crustal origin38.
Models for generating Au-rich magmas from lower-crustal rocks or
subducting slabs fail geological and geochemical tests34. In seismic
images, these (and other magma-related) deposits are coincident
with medium- and lower-velocity SCLM (Fig. 2c). This suggests a
holistic model embracing three common features: a mantle source
region carrying (Cu-)Au; trans-lithospheric faults; and a tectonic,
possibly thermal trigger 34.
Both the asthenosphere (about 1  ppb Au; parts  per  109) and
non-refertilized lithospheric mantle are depleted in Au relative to
refertilized upper mantle, such as the Lanzo (Western Alps) and
Ronda (Spain) peridotite massifs39. Xenoliths of arc-related mantle
from near the giant Lihir gold deposit in Melanesia show metaso-
matic enrichment in Cu and Au (refs 40,41), and SCLM xenoliths
in China carry up to 14 ppb Au (ref. 42), with up to 5 ppm Au in
sulphide minerals43. Gold enrichment has also been found in SCLM
xenoliths from the Kaapvaal (South Africa) and Karelian (Finland)
cratons44. Mantle gold enrichment can be related to trapping of
earlier low-degree melts; gold behaves as an incompatible element
during melting, concentrating in the melts34. Even such metasoma-
tized SCLM is relatively durable, and may store (Cu-)Au until a later
melting event is triggered, leading to deposit formation; overlying
crust may experience multiple mineralizing events of this type45.
Gold-productive primitive magmas are low-degree partial melts
of refertilized mantle (generally SCLM), or asthenospheric melts
that have assimilated low-melting-point distillates from the SCLM,
and hence are alkaline34. This is consistent with the common asso-
ciation between gold mineralization and alkaline magmas, some of
which have mixed with crustal melts36.

NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 6 | NOVEMBER 2013 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 907

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

PERSPECTIVE | FOCUS NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1954

a b
10 6 10
Bushveld i Bushveld
Re (ppb) Mid-continent Mid-continent
Siberia 5

10
Emei Mt Siberia

s=
Karoo 4 Emei Mt

/O
Ferrar Karoo

Re
Parana Ferrar
Kerguelen 3
Parana
1 Deccan ii Kerguelen
2 Deccan

Os/188Os
Re (ppb)

1
1
0

187

00

0
0

00

00
50

1,5
1,0
0.1

2,
0.01 0.1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Os (ppb) 187
Re/188Os

Figure 3 | Re-Os data for LIPs and other magmas. a, Re and Os contents of mafic rocks from provinces with known Ni-Cu(-PGE) sulphide deposits (pink
field) and provinces lacking known deposits (blue field). b, 187Re/188Os vs 187Os/188Os in flood-basalt suites. Main figure, log–log scale; inset, linear scale.
The plots in the inset correspond to: i, Ferrar dolerites, 177±2 Myr ago, intercept 0.125±0.033 (γOs = -0.6±0.26); ii, Deccan traps, 65.6±0.3 Myr ago,
intercept 0.12843 (γOs = 1.5±0.3). Data from ref. 30 and references therein.

a b
Ni-Cu±PGE Porphyry Cu (Mo,Au), W-Sn Au-rich deposits
Diamonds

Crust PGE

Depleted Melt–SCLM
interaction
SCLM

Refertilized SCLM Oc
ea
High-degree melting nic
pla Low-degree melting
Low-degree melting te
Water lost from ‘sl
ab
slab triggers high-degree ’
melting in mantle wedge
Plume

Figure 4 | Interactions between magmas and the SCLM. a, Plume triggers kimberlite formation and flows to area of thinner SCLM where melting is
focused. Variable interaction of melts with crust and SCLM influences Ni-Cu and PGE deposit genesis. b, Generalized convergent-margin setting. Au-poor
magmatic-related deposits form from dominantly asthenospheric or crustal melts (such as Cu-rich or W-Sn porphyry, respectively). Low-degree melting
of asthenosphere, particularly in retro-arc settings, can produce Au-rich metasomatic refertilization of the SCLM. Subsequent melting (which may be
much later) contributes Au to magmatic systems, forming deposits of porphyry Cu-Au, epithermal Au, iron oxide Cu-Au, intrusive-related orogenic Au,
and possibly also Carlin-type Au and classic orogenic Au.

In New Guinea, the Grasberg and Ok  Tedi porphyry Cu-Au
deposits and the Porgera epithermal Au deposit are connected by
deep faults46 to underlying SCLM of the Australian plate, refertilized
by earlier subduction. Despite the absence of a coeval magmatic arc,
tectonic reactivation has given rise to intrusions of calc-alkaline to
alkaline affinity 47 and co-genetic Au-rich deposits. The location and
timing of such deposits imply that the SCLM may have stored met-
als that were scavenged by later magmas.
Isotopic studies of giant Eocene porphyry Cu-Au and (Cu-)Mo
deposits in the western USA show the presence of Archaean Pb
(ref. 48) in the mineralizing fluids. This is consistent with evidence
for the widespread presence of relict Archaean lithosphere beneath
younger upper-crustal rocks in the southern and western USA
(Fig. 2c)13,49. We suggest that the Archaean SCLM has been meta-
somatically enriched over time in Cu and Au, and then tapped by
mantle melting related to the post-Laramide tectonism, connected
with rollback or foundering of the Eocene slab.
Significance for mineral exploration
Geophysical imaging 12,15,16,50 and studies of mantle-derived xenoliths
show that the SCLM, especially in cratonic areas, preserves strong
lateral compositional heterogeneity. Large magmatic and hydro-
thermal ore systems are concentrated along the margins of depleted,
high-velocity mantle volumes, but rarely occur directly above such
volumes. This observation applies across the deposit types discussed
here, suggesting the possibility of a fundamental role for whole-lith-
ospheric architecture in their genesis (Fig. 4).
The emplacement of diamondiferous kimberlites is demonstrably
controlled by the details of lithospheric architecture (Figs 2b and 4a);
the magmas use weak metasomatized zones around blocks of less
modified SCLM, and these zones host diamonds formed from
metasomatically introduced carbon. Lithospheric architecture also
controls the location of focused high-degree melting of upwelling
mantle20, variable contamination of these melts with (generally
sulphur-rich) crust and the generation of Ni-Cu-(PGE) and PGE

908 NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 6 | NOVEMBER 2013 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1954
deposits (Fig. 4a). From the evidence discussed here, we argue that
metal enrichment of the SCLM is a generic process related to metas-
omatic refertilization by asthenosphere-derived melts32, particularly
at convergent margins34, and that some young Cu-Au and Au depos-
its are tapping ancient metal sources48 (Fig. 4b). The spatial distri-
bution of deposits with respect to SCLM heterogeneity (Fig.  2c)
supports the suggestion that the re-enrichment of older mantle in
ore-forming elements could be an important precursor to the gen-
eration of many ore-forming systems. Mapping of SCLM structure,
age and composition should therefore become a key component in
modern mineral exploration programs.
Ore deposits and the SCLM
The role of the SCLM in the generation and localization of signifi-
cant ore deposits can be clarified by focussing on mechanisms of
refertilization, magma–SCLM interactions (including mass balance
considerations) and the roles of different geodynamic triggers. The
sources of metals in deposits need investigation, as well as the dis-
tribution of metals in the SCLM relative to architecture, and the
timing of their introduction into the SCLM. High-pressure experi-
mental studies of metal transport mechanisms, with components
comparable to natural trapped fluids, could tell us how metals move
at depth. Further unravelling of the links between the geochronol-
ogy of the SCLM and the crust would aid recognition of metal-fer-
tilisation events in the crustal record. Improved imaging of mantle
structure (compositional and mechanical) should be integrated with
mantle-petrology studies, and with better-resolved analyses of crus-
tal architecture, including the role of large trans-lithospheric faults.
We argue that the SCLM could play an important role in the
genesis of some types of ore deposits. A predictive understanding
of the relationships between ore systems, mantle melting and litho-
sphere-scale tectonism requires a whole-system approach. It should
encompass processes operating in the asthenosphere, lithosphere
and crust, and special attention should be paid to the structure,
composition, fertility and evolution of the SCLM.
Received 3 April; accepted 6 August; published online
13 October 2013
References
1. Griffin, W. L., O’Reilly, S. Y., Afonso, J. C. & Begg, G. C. The composition and
evolution of lithospheric mantle: A re-evaluation and its tectonic implications.
J. Petrology 50, 1185–1204 (2009).
2. Griffin, W. L., Graham, S., O’Reilly, S. Y. & Pearson, N. J. Lithosphere evolution
beneath the Kaapvaal Craton: Re-Os systematics of sulphides in mantle-derived
peridotites. Chem. Geol. 208, 89–118 (2004).
3. Groves, D. I., Ho, S. E., Rock, N. M. S., Barley, M. E. & Muggeridge, M. Y.
Archaean cratons, diamond and platinum; evidence for coupled long-lived
crust–mantle systems. Geology 15, 801–805 (1987).
4. Herzberg, C. & Rudnick, R. Formation of cratonic lithosphere: an integrated
thermal and petrological model. Lithos 149, 4–15 (2012).
5. Wyman, D. A. & Kerrich, R. Formation of Archaean continental lithospheric
roots: The role of mantle plumes. Geology 30, 543–546 (2002).
6. Arndt, N. T., Coltice, N., Helmstaedt, H. & Gregoire, M. Origin of Archaean
subcontinental lithospheric mantle: some petrological constraints. Lithos
109, 61–71 (2009).
7. Helmstaedt, H. H. & Gurney, J. J. Geotectonic controls of primary diamond
deposits: implications for area selection. J. Geochem. Explor. 53, 125–144 (1995).
8. Stachel, T., Viljoen, K. S., Brey, G. & Harris, J. W. Metasomatic processes
in lherzolitic and harzburgitic domains of diamondiferous lithospheric
mantle: REE in garnets from xenoliths and inclusions in diamonds.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 159, 1–12 (1998).
9. Griffin, W. L. & O’Reilly, S. Y. Cratonic lithospheric mantle: Is anything
subducted? Episodes 30, 43–53 (2007).
10. Beyer, E. E., Griffin, W. L. & O’Reilly, S. Y. Transformation of Archaean
lithospheric mantle by refertilization: Evidence from exposed peridotites in the
Western Gneiss Region, Norway. J. Petrology 47, 1611–1636 (2006).
11. Huang, J-X., Greau, Y., Griffin, W. L., O’Reilly, S. Y. & Pearson, N. J. Multi-stage
origins of Roberts Victor eclogites: Progressive metasomatism and its isotopic
effects. Lithos 142–143, 161–181 (2012).
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 6 | NOVEMBER 2013 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 909
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
FOCUS | PERSPECTIVE
12. Begg, G. C. et al. The lithospheric architecture of Africa: Seismic tomography,
mantle petrology and tectonic evolution. Geosphere 5, 23–50 (2009).
13. Griffin, W. L. et al. Archaean lithospheric mantle beneath Arkansas:
continental growth by microcontinent accretion. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am.
123, 1763–1775 (2011).
14. Belousova, E. A. et al. The growth of the continental crust: Constraints from
zircon Hf-isotope data. Lithos 119, 457–466 (2010).
15. Fouch, M. J. et al. Mantle seismic structure beneath the Kaapvaal and
Zimbabwe Cratons. S. Afr. J. Geol. 107, 33–44 (2004).
16. Jones, A. G. et al. Area selection for diamonds using magnetotellurics:
Examples from southern Africa. Lithos 112S, 83–92 (2009).
17. Malkovets, V. G., Griffin, W. L., O’Reilly, S. Y. & Wood, B. J. Diamond,
subcalcic garnet and mantle metasomatism: Kimberlite sampling patterns
define the link. Geology 35, 339–342 (2007).
18. Naldrett, A. J. Secular variation of magmatic sulphide deposits and their
source magmas. Econ. Geol. 105, 669–688 (2010).
19. Herzberg, C. & O’Hara M. J. Plume-associated ultramafic magmas of
Phanerozoic age. J. Petrol. 43, 1857–1883 (2002).
20. Begg, G. C. et al. Lithospheric, cratonic and geodynamic setting of
Ni-Cu-PGE sulphide deposits. Econ. Geol. 105, 1057–1070 (2010).
21. Wendlandt, R. F. Sulfur saturation of basalt and andesite melts at high
pressures and temperatures. Am. Mineral. 67, 877–885 (1982).
22. Ripley, E. M. & Li, C. Sulfide saturation in mafic magmas: is external
sulfur required for magmatic Ni-Cu-(PGE) ore genesis? Econ. Geol.
108, 45–58 (2013).
23. Lesher, C. M. & Keays, R. R. in The Geology, Geochemistry, Mineralogy,
and Mineral Beneficiation of the Platinum-Group Elements Special Vol. 54
(ed. Cabri, L. J.) 579–617 (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and
Petroleum, 2002).
24. Urvantsev, N. N. in Geology and deposits of the Noril’sk region
234–238 (1971).
25. Evans-Lamswood, D. M. et al. Physical controls associated with the
distribution of sulphides in the Voisey’s Bay Ni-Cu-Co deposit, Labrador.
Econ. Geol. 95, 749–770 (2000).
26. Ripley E. M & Li, C. Sulfur isotopic exchange and metal enrichment
in the formation of magmatic Cu-Ni-(PGE) deposits. Econ. Geol.
98, 635–641 (2003).
27. Maier, W. D. et al. The Kabanga Ni sulphide deposit, Tanzania: I. Geology,
petrography, silicate rock geochemistry, and sulphur and oxygen isotopes.
Miner. Deposita. 45, 419–441 (2010).
28. Seat, Z. et al. The Nebo-Babel Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide deposit (West Musgrave,
Australia): Part 1, U/Pb zircon ages, whole-rock and mineral chemistry,
and O-Sr-Nd isotope compositions of the intrusion, with constraints on
petrogenesis. Econ. Geol. 106, 527–556 (2011).
29. Maier, W. D. & Groves, D. I., 2011. Temporal and spatial controls on
the formation of magmatic PGE and Ni-Cu deposits. Miner. Deposita
46, 841–857 (2011).
30. Zhang, M., O’Reilly, S. Y., Wang, K-L., Hronsky, J. & Griffin, W. L. Flood
basalts and metallogeny: the lithospheric mantle connection. Earth Sci. Rev.
86, 145–174 (2008).
31. Fiorentini, M. L. et al. Platinum group element geochemistry of
mineralised and nonmineralised komatiites and basalts. Econ. Geol.
105, 795–823 (2010).
32. Lorand, J-P, Luguet, A. & Alard, O. Platinum-group element systematics and
petrogenetic processing of the continental upper mantle: A review. Lithos
164–167, 2–21 (2013).
33. Richardson, S. H. & Shirey, S. B. Continental mantle signature of Bushveld
magmas and coeval diamonds. Nature 453, 910–913 (2008).
34. Hronsky, J. M. A., Groves, D. I., Loucks, R. R. & Begg, G. C. A unified
model for gold mineralisation in accretionary orogens and implications
for regional-scale exploration targeting methods. Miner. Deposita.
47, 339–358 (2012).
35. Groves D. I., Bierlein, F. P., Meinert, L. D. & Hitzman, M. W. Iron-oxide
copper-gold (IOCG) deposits through Earth history: implications for origin,
lithospheric setting, and distinction from other epigenetic iron oxide deposits.
Econ. Geol. 105, 641–654 (2010).
36. Mair, J. L., Farmer, G. L., Groves, D. I., Hart, C. J. R. & Goldfarb, R. J.
Petrogenesis of mid-Cretaceous post-collisional magmatism at Scheelite
Dome, Yukon, Canada: evidence or a lithospheric mantle source for
intrusion-related gold systems. Econ. Geol. 106, 451–480 (2011).
37. Muntean, J.L,. Cline, J. S., Simon, A. C. & Longo, A. A. Magmatic
hydrothermal origin of Nevada’s Carlin-type gold deposits. Nature Geosci.
4, 122–127 (2011).
38. Tomkins, A. G. Windows of metamorphic sulphur liberation in the crust:
Implications for gold deposit genesis. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta
74, 3246–3259 (2010).
PERSPECTIVE | FOCUS
39. Lorand, J. P., Schmidt, G., Palme, H. & Kratz, K. L. Highly siderophile element
geochemistry of the Earth’s mantle: new data for the Lanzo (Italy) and Ronda
(Spain) orogenic peridotite bodies. Lithos 53, 149–164 (2000).
40. McInnes, B. I. A., McBride, J. S., Evans, N. J., Lambert, D. D. & Andrew, A. S.
Osmium isotope constraints on ore metal recycling in subduction zones.
Science 286, 512–516 (1999).
41. Gregoire, M., McInnes, B. I. A. & O’Reilly, S. Y. Hydrous metasomatism of
oceanic sub-arc mantle, Lihir, Papua New Guinea. Part 2. Trace element
characteristics of slab-derived fluids. Lithos 59, 91–108 (2001).
42. Zheng, J., Sun, M., Zhou, M.‑F. & Robinson, P. Trace elemental and PGE
geochemical constraints of Mesozoic and Cenozoic peridotitic xenoliths on
lithospheric evolution of the North China Craton. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta
69, 3401–3408 (2005).
43. Saunders, J. E., Pearson, N. J. & O’Reilly, S. Y. Gold mobility in the mantle:
Constraints from sulphides in pyroxenites and lherzolite. Mineral. Mag.
75, 1802 (2011).
44. Maier, W. D. et al. The concentration of platinum-group elements and
gold in southern African and Karelian kimberlite-hosted mantle xenoliths:
Implications for the noble metal content of the Earth’s mantle. Chem. Geol.
302–303, 119–135 (2012).
45. Grainger, C. J., Groves, D. I., Tallarico, F. H. B., Fletcher, I. R. Metallogenesis
of the Carajas Mineral Province, Southern Amazon Craton, Brazil: varying
styles of Archaean through Paleoproterozoic to Neoproterozoic base- and
precious-metal mineralisation. Ore Geol. Rev. 33, 451–489 (2008).
46. Hill, K. C., Kendrick, R. D., Crowhurst, P. V. & Gow, P. A. Copper-gold
mineralization in New Guinea: tectonics, lineaments, thermochronology and
structure. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 49, 737–752 (2002).
47. Richards, J. P. Post-subduction porphyry Cu-Au and epithermal Au deposits:
Products of remelting of subduction-modified lithosphere. Geology
37, 247–250 (2009).
48. Pettke, T., Oberli, F. & Heinrich, C. A. The magma and metal source of giant
porphyry-type ore deposits, based on lead isotope microanalysis of individual
fluid inclusions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 296, 267–277 (2010).
910 NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 6 | NOVEMBER 2013 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1954
49. Lee, C.‑T., Yin, Q., Rudnick, R. L. & Jacobsen, S. B. Preservation of ancient
and fertile lithospheric mantle beneath the southwestern United States.
Nature 411, 69–73 (2001).
50. Schmandt, B. & Humphreys, E. Complex subduction and small-scale
convection revealed by body-wave tomography of the western United States
upper mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 297, 435–445 (2010).
Acknowledgements
We thank Steve Grand and Brandon Schmandt for providing seismic tomography
data; Jon Hronsky, Bob Loucks, Norman Pearson, Steve Barnes and Steve Beresford
for useful discussions; and Ming Zhang for his comprehensive review of isotopic data.
We acknowledge long-term support for lithospheric analysis by WMC Resources Ltd,
BHP Billiton Ltd and Macquarie University. Extensive analytical work at GEMOC used
instrumentation purchased with, and supported by, funding from the ARC, DEST,
Macquarie University and industry. Further support was provided by ARC Discovery
and Linkage Grants to W.L.G. and S.Y.O’R. This is contribution 207 from the ARC
Centre of Excellence for Core to Crust Fluid Systems (www.ccfs.mq.edu.au) and 848
from the GEMOC Key Centre (www.gemoc.mq.edu.au).
Author contributions
All of the authors contributed to the lithospheric mapping and geochemical analysis
for this paper. G.C.B. assembled much of the information on metallic ore deposits;
W.L.G., S.Y.O’R. and G.C.B. synthesized the information on lithosphere composition and
structure and diamond deposits. Most of the manuscript has been written by W.L.G. and
G.C.B., with important contributions by S.Y.O’R.
Additional information
Reprints and permissions information is available online at www.nature.com/reprints.
Correspondence should be addressed to W.L.G.
Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.