See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261014864

To understand subduction initiation, study forearc crust: To understand

forearc crust, study ophiolites

Article  in  Lithosphere · November 2012

DOI: 10.1130/L183.1

CITATIONS READS
209 525

5 authors, including:

Bob Stern Mark Reagan

University of Texas at Dallas University of Iowa
499 PUBLICATIONS   23,397 CITATIONS    190 PUBLICATIONS   4,967 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Osamu Ishizuka Yasuhiko Ohara

National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department of Japan
155 PUBLICATIONS   3,927 CITATIONS    141 PUBLICATIONS   3,243 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Masters Thesis View project

Subduction Initiation and Tethyan Suturing-Zagros Orogenic Belt View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Scott A. Whattam on 16 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RESEARCH

To understand subduction initiation, study forearc crust:

To understand forearc crust, study ophiolites
R.J. Stern1*, M. Reagan2*, O. Ishizuka3*, Y. Ohara4*, and S. Whattam5*
1
GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75083-0688, USA
2
DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52242, USA
3
INSTITUTE OF GEOSCIENCE AND GEOINFORMATION, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF JAPAN/AIST, CENTRAL 7, 1-1-1, HIGASHI, TSUKUBA, IBARAKI 305-8567, JAPAN
4
HYDROGRAPHIC AND OCEANOGRAPHIC DEPARTMENT OF JAPAN, TOKYO 104-0045, JAPAN
5
DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, KOREA UNIVERSITY, SEOUL 136-701, REPUBLIC OF KOREA

ABSTRACT

Articulating a comprehensive plate-tectonic theory requires understanding how new subduction zones form (subduction initiation). Because
subduction initiation is a tectonomagmatic singularity with few active examples, reconstructing subduction initiation is challenging. The
lithosphere of many intra-oceanic forearcs preserves a high-fidelity magmatic and stratigraphic record of subduction initiation. We have
heretofore been remarkably ignorant of this record, because the “naked forearcs” that expose subduction initiation crustal sections are dis-
tant from continents and lie in the deep trenches, and it is difficult and expensive to study and sample this record via dredging, diving, and
drilling. Studies of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana convergent margin indicate that subduction initiation there was accompanied by seafloor spread-
ing in what ultimately became the forearc of the new convergent margin. Izu-Bonin-Mariana subduction initiation encompassed ~7 m.y. for
the complete transition from initial seafloor spreading and eruption of voluminous mid-ocean-ridge basalts (forearc basalts) to normal arc
volcanism, perhaps consistent with how long it might take for slowly subsiding lithosphere to sink ~100 km deep and for mantle motions
to evolve from upwelling beneath the infant arc to downwelling beneath the magmatic front. Many ophiolites have chemical features that
indicate formation above a convergent plate margin, and most of those formed in forearcs, where they were well positioned to be tectoni-
cally emplaced on land when buoyant crust jammed the associated subduction zone. We propose a strategy to better understand forearcs
and thus subduction initiation by studying ophiolites, which preserve the magmatic stratigraphy, as seen in the Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc;
we call these “subduction initiation rule” ophiolites. This understanding opens the door for on-land geologists to contribute fundamentally
to understanding subduction initiation.

LITHOSPHERE; v. 4; no. 6; p. 469–483 | Published online 16 May 2012 doi: 10.1130/L183.1

INTRODUCTION
A better understanding of the mechanisms
by which new subduction zones form is criti-
cal for advancing the solid Earth sciences. Until
we can reconstruct how and why this happens,
we cannot pretend to understand a wide range
of important Earth processes and properties,
including lithospheric strength, composition,
and density, and the driving force behind plate
motions. In spite of this, our understanding of
the subduction initiation process has advanced
slowly, for two important reasons: (1) Sub-
duction initiation is an ephemeral process, so
*E-mails: rjstern@utdallas.edu; mark-reagan@uiowa
.edu; o-ishizuka@aist.go.jp; yasuhiko.ohara@gmail.com;
whattam@ac.kr.
Editor’s note: This article is part of a special issue ti-
tled “Initiation and Termination of Subduction: Rock Re-
cord, Geodynamic Models, Modern Plate Boundaries,”
edited by John Shervais and John Wakabayashi. The
full issue can be found at http://lithosphere.gsapubs
.org/content/4/6.toc.
there are few active examples, and (2) nearly
all of the evidence for tectonic, magmatic, and
sedimentary responses to subduction initia-
tion is preserved in forearcs, which are deeply
submerged and buried beneath sediments. We
would prefer to study subduction initiation in
progress, but there are few places to do this.
One such active region however, is the Puysegur
subduction zone off the coast of southern New
Zealand (LeBrun et al., 2003; Sutherland et al.,
2006). However, as only a narrow segment of
the Australia-Pacific transform plate margin is
affected, studies of Puysegur cannot capture all
of the processes that accompany major subduc-
tion initiation events, i.e., those that change the
lithospheric force balance sufficiently to cause
changes in plate motion and stimulate volumi-
nous magmatism, as discussed herein. Such
episodes shaped the western margin of North
America in Mesozoic time (Dickinson, 2004),
established a convergent margin along SW
Eurasia in Late Cretaceous time (Moghadem
and Stern, 2011), and engendered most of the
active subduction zones of the western Pacific
in Eocene time (Ishizuka et al., 2011). Major
subduction initiation episodes are hemispheric
in scale and necessarily reorganize upper-man-
tle flow, and in many cases are accompanied by
widespread and voluminous igneous activity.
Here, we outline a strategy that promises to
accelerate our understanding of processes asso-
ciated with major subduction initiation episodes
by considering both the subduction initiation
record preserved in forearcs and insights from
studying well-preserved ophiolites. The record
of subduction initiation is preserved in igneous
crust and upper-mantle residues and the associ-
ated sediments on the overriding plate next to the
trench. These collectively comprise the forearc
(Dickinson and Sealey, 1979) and provide the
best record of subduction initiation. Significant
parts of forearcs may be lost by tectonic erosion
(Scholl and von Huene, 2009); nevertheless,
whatever remains contains the best record of
the processes that accompanied subduction ini-
tiation of that particular convergent margin. We
explore why this record has been overlooked and
summarize recent studies of forearc crust and

LITHOSPHERE
For | Volume
permission to 4 | Number
copy, contact 6 | www.gsapubs.org
editing@geosociety.org | © 2012 Geological Society of America 469
STERN ET AL.
upper mantle, and what the results reveal about
subduction initiation. The expense and diffi-
culty of directly studying forearc igneous rock
exposures are huge obstacles to our progress, so
we explore the potential of some ophiolites for
illuminating forearc composition and magmatic
stratigraphy. Ophiolites are exposed on land and
so are vastly easier and cheaper to study than
forearcs. We conclude that those ophiolites that
formed in a forearc provide important opportu-
nities for advancing our understanding of sub-
duction initiation. The strategy of comparative
study of igneous forearc crust and ophiolites,
coupled with geodynamic modeling, promises
to lead to major advancements in our under-
standing of subduction initiation processes.
FOREARCS
Forearcs comprise the bulk of any arc-trench
system, occupying the ~150–200-km-wide
region above the subducted plate between the
trench and the magmatic arc. Forearcs are rela-
tively stable and low standing—intra-oceanic
forearcs lie entirely below sea level—and are
morphologically unimpressive compared to
spectacular volcanoes of the flanking magmatic
arc and the tremendous gash of the trench. For
these reasons, it is understandable that forearcs
were either overlooked or misunderstood when
the geologic implications of plate tectonics were
first being explored in the late 1960s and 1970s.
During this time, thinking about forearcs was
dominated by examples on or near continents,
such as California, Japan, Alaska, and Indone-
sia (for an account of early thinking about what
would come to be called forearcs, see Dickin-
son, 2001). Even today, the textbook example
Figure 1. Photographs of on-land (left) and submerged (right) forearc exposures. Left photo shows how easy it is for geoscientists to examine litholo-
gies and structures on land. Right photo is taken from Shinkai 6500 YK1012, Dive 1231, ~6000 m deep in the southern Mariana Trench. Only one or two
scientists at a time can go down to examine and sample rocks. Costs of an on-land field trip are a miniscule fraction of the expense of a submarine field
trip. Photo on the left is Franciscan radiolarian chert exposed on the Marin headlands, California (photo by S. Graham). Field of view on right is ~7 m.
470
of a convergent plate margin is provided by the
Late Mesozoic of California, with the Francis-
can mélange representing exhumed subduction-
zone material, the Great Valley Group repre-
senting the forearc basin, and the Sierra Nevada
Batholith representing the roots of the magmatic
arc. This is indeed an excellent example of a
sediment-rich convergent margin, but empha-
sis on California and other sediment-dominated
forearc examples has inhibited appreciation of
forearc crust itself.
Many—but not all—continental forearcs
are excellent examples of convergent margins
affected by high sediment flux. Some continental
convergent margins—such as Peru-Chile and NE
Japan—do not have high sediment flux, but these
have not been textbook examples because the
interesting outcrops are in very deep water, and
thus are difficult and expensive to study. In con-
trast, forearcs away from continents are mostly
sediment starved (Clift and Vannucchi, 2004).
Such naked forearcs expose crust and upper
mantle, which are readily accessed by drilling
through thin sediment cover, as was done during
Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) Leg 60 and
Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Legs 125 and
126 in the Izu-Bonin-Mariana arc and ODP Leg
135 in the Tonga forearc (Bloomer et al., 1995).
EROSIVE VERSUS ACCRETIONARY
FOREARCS
Subordinate proportions of forearcs are
accretionary, growing by deposition of large
sediment loads from a flanking continent, which
bury forearc crust beneath forearc basins and
then overflow to the trench, where these sedi-
ments briefly ride on the subducting plate before
www.gsapubs.org | Volume 4 | Number 6 | LITHOSPHERE
some is scraped off to form an accretionary
prism. Such situations of forearc thickening and
widening are globally unusual, because most
forearcs lose upper-plate crust to the subduc-
tion zone due to tectonic erosion, as a result of
normal faulting, oversteepening, and basal frac-
turing and abrasion along the plate interface.
Another misconception (due to bias toward
studying sediment-rich convergent margins) is
that all inner-trench slopes have very low slopes
(<3°), when, in fact, erosive margins, especially
those exposing igneous basement, are much
steeper, typically with slopes of 3°–7° (Clift and
Vannucchi, 2004). Estimates of the proportion of
accretionary versus erosive convergent margins
vary. According to Clift and Vannucchi (2004),
57% of the cumulative length of trenches is ero-
sive and 43% is accretionary, whereas Scholl
and von Huene (2007) estimated that 74% and
26% are erosive and accretionary, respectively.
Thickness of sediment on the downgoing plate
is the single most important control on whether
a margin is erosive or accretionary. A sediment
thickness of ~500 m divides the two types of
margins. Other factors favoring tectonic erosion
include collision of large bathymetric features
such as seamounts (Clift and Vannucchi, 2004)
and presence of rasping grabens on the downgo-
ing plate (Hilde, 1983).
Although most forearcs are erosive, they are
more poorly known than accretionary forearcs
because they are harder to study, and a smaller
research community has been interested in them.
Erosive forearcs are exclusively submarine, so
studying them requires research vessels with
technology to examine and sample the bottom
(Fig. 1A). Compared to accretionary forearcs,
erosive forearcs lie in deeper water, farther from

the continents, making them more difficult and
expensive to study. In contrast, accretionary
forearcs lie in shallower water, and parts rise
above sea level (e.g., Kodiak Island, Alaska;
Shimanto Belt, SW Japan; and Nias and Men-
tawai, Sumatra), where they are relatively easy
to study (Fig. 1B). Accretionary margins are
found near continents and so are usually in some
nation’s territorial waters or exclusive economic
zone, which attracts study by the scientists of
that nation. Most of the great accretionary mar-
gins lie in the Northern Hemisphere, facing the
largest continents, biggest rivers, and greatest
sediment flux. The Northern Hemisphere is also
where the richest nations are—the ones most
likely to support large-scale geoscientific efforts
needed for marine tectonic studies. In contrast,
erosive margins often lie far away from conti-
nents, rich nations, and scientists. Accretionary
Subduction initiation, forearcs, and ophiolites
margins contain potential economic deposits
of hydrocarbons, which attract the attention of
oil companies; erosive margins do not. Finally,
accretionary margins attract more geophysical
interest than do erosive margins. Accretionary
margins are characterized by progressive defor-
mation of sedimentary layering, which spatially
and temporally changes from flat lying and
unconsolidated at the trench to steeply dipping
and lithified arcward (Fig. 2A). Such lithostruc-
tural variations reward seismic-reflection profil-
ing with spectacular images, on which structural
interpretations, publications, and proposals can
be based. In contrast, intra-oceanic forearcs are
generally sediment starved because they are far
from continents, and thus large sediment fluxes.
These comprise a subclass of erosive margins
known as “naked forearcs” (Stern, 2002), which
lack thick sedimentary cover and obvious imbri-
| RESEARCH
cation. Seismic-reflection profiling over naked
forearcs yields much less interesting seismic
reflection images, and they are more difficult to
interpret (Fig. 2B). It is so much easier and more
rewarding to study accretionary margins that it
is a wonder that erosive margins are studied as
much as they are.
In spite of the challenges of studying erosive
forearcs, it is important that we do so. Naked
forearcs expose igneous infrastructure in the
inner trench wall and bury this crust under thin
sediments of the forearc itself, providing the best
opportunities for in situ investigations of this
lithosphere by drilling, dredging, and diving.
FOREARC CRUST AND UPPER MANTLE
An important characteristic of many naked
forearcs is the presence of peridotite—exposed

3
V.E. ~1.5x Sedimented Forearc (Indonesia)

-
- back thrust
Depth (km)

out-of-sequence thrust
(backstop thrust)
branch
ch tth
branch thr
hrus
rust
rust
thrust reduced coherent
imaging
décollement
dé
déc oll
llem
ment

10

Sediment-flooded
A trench

2
5 km Naked forearc (Mariana) V.E. ~2x

B 21
Figure 2. Comparison of seismic-reflection profiles of (A) sedimented and (B) naked (unsedimented) forearcs. (A) Prestack depth-migrated section of
multichannel reflection profile off the Sunda Strait, from Kopp and Kukowski (2003) and interpreted by them. An arcward increase in material strength
results in a segmentation of the margin. Faint seaward- and landward-dipping faults cut the trench fill in the protothrust zone of segment I, indicat-
ing the first stages of faulting. The deformation front marks the onset of faulting in conjugate pairs of fore-thrusts and back thrusts. The frontal active
accretionary prism (segment II) is composed of tilted thrust slices separated by regularly spaced thrust faults. The transition to the fossil accretionary
prism of the outer high is marked by a prominent out-of-sequence thrust. Segment III forms the backstop to the frontally accreted material and dis-
plays much reduced tectonic activity, mainly manifested in the occasional reactivation of previous thrusts, which helps adjust the taper. (B) Mariana
forearc, trench, and part of incoming Pacific plate shown as depth section (MCS Line 22–23, from Oakley et al., 2008). Circles locate the points along
the plate reflection where depths were recorded. Normal faults on the incoming plate and the Mariana forearc are interpreted. The toe of the forearc is
uplifted as the flank of a Pacific plate seamount subducts. M—seafloor multiple; V.E.—vertical exaggeration.

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 4 | Number 6 | www.gsapubs.org 471

STERN ET AL.
0° 60°E 120°E
60°
N et al., 2000); (2) Tonga (Fisher and
Aegean
Makran Japan
Him
alay
a
30° Philippines
Ind
0° on
esi
a (Fryer et al., 1995; Parkinson and
30°
60°
S as these four.
upper mantle—in the lower trench wall. Trench
peridotite exposures demonstrate that the Moho
is also exposed, along with a complete crustal
section at shallower depths, and indicate the
thickness of the crust.
Peridotite is exposed in the inner walls of
intra-oceanic trenches at depths >8 km in the
Tonga Trench (Bloomer and Fisher, 1987) but
can be found as shallow as 5800 m in the south-
ern Mariana Trench (Michibayashi et al., 2009).
Such depths are mostly beyond the reach of
manned submersibles, which currently cannot
descend below 6500 m, so forearc peridotites
are rarely sampled except by dredging. Still, we
know about intra-oceanic peridotite exposures
in four trenches: Izu-Bonin, Mariana, Tonga,
and South Sandwich (Figs. 3 and 4). In addi-
tion, mantle peridotite is brought up by serpen-
tine mud volcanoes, which are common in the
Mariana forearc and are also known from the
Izu forearc (Fryer, 2002).
Because of its importance for understanding
the nature and origin of intra-oceanic forearcs,
some basic concepts about mantle peridotite in
general and forearc peridotite in particular are
presented here. These are residues after partial
melting and complement magmatic rocks such
as lavas—especially basalts—which are more
common subjects of marine petrologic study.
Because Earth has had mantle since shortly
after it formed, but this has been modified by
melt extraction and mixing with subducted
materials, idealized compositions are useful for
this discussion. For example, “primitive” mantle
(PM) refers to an idealized chemical composi-
tion after the core segregated but before the con-
tinental crust was extracted. PM is also known
472
180° 120°W 60°W Figure 3. Known locations of peri-
dotite exposures in the lower parts
of inner-trench walls, shown in
bold: (1) South Sandwich (Pearce
Aleutians Engel, 1969; Bloomer and Fisher,
Cascades
Kuriles 1987); (3) Mariana (Bloomer, 1983;
Lesser
Ohara and Ishii, 1998; Michibayashi
Izu-Bonin Antilles et al., 2007, 2009); (4) Izu-Bonin
Mariana (Okamura et al., 2006; Ishizuka et
Central America al., 2011). Mariana and Izu-Bonin
New Britain forearcs also bring up peridotite
Vanuatu in serpentine mud volcanoes
Tonga
Andes
Pearce, 1998). Peridotites repre-
New
Hebrides sent the bases of in situ ophiolites
Kermadec
South that make up the crust and upper
Sandwich mantle of intra-oceanic forearcs.
Other inner-trench walls may also
expose peridotite, but most have
not been sampled as extensively
as “bulk silicate earth” (BSE). Several studies an idealized upper-mantle composition, but one
have estimated PM compositions, including which acknowledges the extraction of the conti-
Mg# (100Mg/[Mg + Fe] = 89–90), CaO (2.8– nental crust. “Pyrolite” is another idealized com-
3.7 wt%), and Al2O3 (3.5–4.5 wt%; see table 2 of position (Green and Falloon, 1998) that is very
Lyubetskaya and Korenaga, 2007). These esti- similar to FMM. FMM and pyrolite approximate
mates constrain minimum Mg# and maximum the composition of upper mantle that partially
CaO and Al2O3 contents of the upper-mantle melts to generate oceanic crust beneath diver-
source region of most basalts. Because Earth has gent plate boundaries (spreading ridges) and to
been recycling surface materials and melting to produce arc melts beneath convergent margins
make basalt for several billion years, significant (note that other components such as pyroxenite
tracts of primitive upper mantle are unlikely to exist in the mantle, but these melt almost com-
exist. Instead, the concept of “fertile mid-ocean- pletely, leaving no identifiable residue).
ridge basalt (MORB)–type mantle” (FMM; If PM, BSE, FMM, and pyrolite were rocks
Pearce et al., 2000) is more useful. FMM is also instead of ideas, they would be classified as
Depth below sea level (km)
Volcanics
Gabbro
RB
MO
Peridotite
Figure 4. Interpretive section of a typical intra-oceanic forearc as reconstructed from dredging of the
Tonga Trench. Figure is from Bloomer and Fisher (1987), reproduced with permission of Journal of Geol-
ogy. N- and E- MORB refer to normal and enriched mid-ocean ridge basalt. V.E.—vertical exaggeration.
www.gsapubs.org | Volume 4 | Number 6 | LITHOSPHERE

lherzolite, an olivine-rich ultramafic rock that
contains >5% clinopyroxene (cpx), the remain-
der being orthopyroxene and an aluminous
phase (spinel or garnet; Fig. 5A). Changes in
peridotite composition due to partial melting
are simple and clear. Melt depletion dimin-
ishes abundances of cpx, CaO, and Al2O3 and
increases Cr# (Cr/Cr + Al) in the residual spi-
nel (Fig. 5). This is because basalts, which
are rich in CaO and Al2O3 (~12 and 16 wt%,
respectively), are generated by partial melting
of lherzolite, which is much poorer in CaO and
Al2O3 (~3 and ~4 wt%, respectively for FMM;
Fig. 5B). Clinopyroxene contains nearly all
the CaO in peridotite, whereas spinel in FMM
contains ~35% Al2O3 (a few percent Al2O3 is
also dissolved in pyroxene). Melt depletion
decreases the proportion of cpx, so that the
residue progressively changes from lherzolite to
harzburgite (<5% cpx); extreme melt depletion
yields dunite (>90% olivine; Fig. 5A).
Even though most forearc peridotite expo-
sures are serpentinized, there are robust mineral
and whole-rock compositional characteristics
that are remarkably unaffected by such altera-
tion. These include changes in the proportions
of minerals (Fig. 5A), major-element bulk
chemistry (Fig. 5B), and spinel compositions
(Fig. 5C). All of these reflect the amount of melt
depletion, as discussed already.
These approaches allow us to compare the
“refractoriness” of peridotites from various tec-
tonic settings, i.e., how much melt depletion
they have experienced. This reveals that forearc
peridotites are the most depleted ultramafic
rocks from any modern tectonic environment,
with the highest Cr# spinels and lowest propor-
tion of cpx and whole-rock abundances of CaO
and Al2O3 (Bonatti and Michael, 1989). Not all
forearc peridotites are so depleted; for example,
some from the South Sandwich forearc include
lherzolites with up to 3.7% Al2O3 and 4.4%
CaO, along with spinels with Cr# as low as ~0.4
(Pearce et al., 2000). Morishita et al. (2011)
documented two populations of spinel in Izu-
Bonin forearc dunites, one group with moder-
ate Cr# (0.4–0.6), and the other with high Cr#
(>0.8). Variations in spinel compositions not-
withstanding, forearc peridotites are dominated
by ultradepleted compositions rarely found in
other tectonic environments.
The unusually depleted nature of forearc
peridotites requires unusual melting conditions:
abnormally high temperature, volatile flux, or
both. Whatever the cause, these depletions are
all the more noteworthy because forearcs asso-
ciated with mature arcs have unusually low heat
flow (Stein, 2003) and rarely are volcanically
active. Whatever conditions caused the unusu-
ally extensive melting beneath forearcs no lon-
LITHOSPHERE | Volume 4 | Number 6 | www.gsapubs.org
Subduction initiation, forearcs, and ophiolites | RESEARCH
Ol
A Dunite
B FMM
10 90
5
20 80
on
Harzburgite
leti
ep
30
70
Melt d
40 15 Abyssal peridotite
FMM 60
50 50
Lherzolite 25
Opx Cpx Mariana forearc peridotite
Figure 5. What happens to peridotites when
they melt: (A) Changes in modal mineralogy
(and thus rock type) with progressive melting,
plotted on International Union of Geological
Sciences (IUGS) classification for peridotites
C
Boninite
(LeBas and Streckeisen, 1991). Fertile mid-
ocean-ridge basalt (MORB)–type mantle (FMM)
is mostly peridotite, consisting of olivine (Ol),
MD
orthopyroxene (Opx), and clinopyroxene (Cpx), Forearc peridotite
comprising lherzolite. Melting to produce basal-
tic melts depletes peridotite in clinopyroxene, Cr#
so that residual peridotite after ~20% melting
is harzburgite, with <5% clinopyroxene. Melting
of harzburgite yields boninite melts and resid- Backarc
basin
ual dunite. (B) Bulk-rock abundances of Al2O3 Abyssal peridotite
peridotite
versus CaO (volatile free, normalized to 100%
total), showing how melting depletes perido- FMM
tites in these elements. The compositions of
FMM and mantle residue after 5%, 15%, and Mg#
25% partial melting of FMM are from Pearce
and Parkinson (1993). Fields for abyssal and forearc peridotites are from Pearce et al. (1992). (C)
Composition of spinels in peridotite, plotted on Cr# (Cr/Cr + Al) versus Mg# (Mg/Mg + Fe+2) dia-
gram. Fields are after Dick and Bullen (1984), modified to show the composition of backarc basin
peridotites from the Mariana Trough (Ohara et al., 2002). Melting preferentially extracts Al from
spinel, increasing Cr# as melting progresses. Composition of FMM spinels and approximate trend
of melt depletion (MD) are also shown.
ger exist. Such transitory conditions are linked strength elements (HFSEs; elements with high
to subduction initiation in the next section. valence and small ionic radius). High LILE/
Igneous rocks of exposed forearc crust above HFSE ratios in boninites reflect metasomatism
peridotites (Fig. 4) are only now becoming the of the source mantle by hydrous fluid released
focus of geoscrutiny. At one time, forearc crust from subducted crust and sediments (Gill, 1981;
was thought to comprise oceanic crust that was Stern et al., 1991; Pearce et al., 1992). This fluid
trapped when subduction began (e.g., Dickin- lowers peridotite melting temperature at the
son and Sealey, 1979), so the origin of forearc same time that it re-enriches it in fluid-mobile
igneous crust has not, until recently, been much elements, including LILEs and LREEs.
studied. This is changing, partly because of what Not all naked forearcs have boninite, but
is now recognized as the unusually strong deple- at least one of them—the Izu-Bonin-Mariana
tion of forearc peridotites and because of inter- arc system—does (Fig. 6A; Stern et al., 1991;
est in boninites. Boninites are lavas with unusual Macpherson and Hall, 2001). Probably the best
combinations of high silica and magnesium exposure of boninite in the world is found in
coupled with low calcium and aluminum abun- the Bonin (Ogasawara) islands (Taylor et al.,
dances. These compositional features reflect 1994). These boninites erupted on the seafloor
low-pressure melting of harzburgitic mantle ca. 46–48 Ma, shortly after subduction began
(e.g., Falloon and Danyushevsky, 2000), which ca. 52 Ma (Ishizuka et al., 2006, 2011). Recent
is not otherwise observed on modern Earth. In studies of Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc crust
addition, boninites are enriched in large ion exposed in the inner-trench wall (Fig. 6B) reveal
lithophile elements (LILEs; elements with low that boninite may be the uppermost component
valence and large ionic radius) and light rare of forearc crust, underlain by thicker, slightly
earth elements (LREEs) relative to high field older tholeiitic basalts, which Reagan et al.
473
STERN ET AL.

Age Approximate Mariana forearc, and we prefer to interpret this

Lithology
A (Ma) depth (m) as another exposure of basalts that formed when
Izu-Bonin-Mariana subduction began.
Arc tholeiites To conclude this section, it is clear that our
and calc- 37–44 understanding of the composition of forearc
n
Pacific alkaline
plate crust is incomplete, largely due to the difficulty
a

rocks
Jap

of accessing and studying this material. Much

Tokyo ∗ High-Mg Subaerially of what we think we know is based upon studies
andesite 44–45 exposed
..
..
.
of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc. We anticipate
. Boninite that Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc crust is repre-
. 3 (and related sentative of igneous rocks that form when sub-
Izu-

. 44–48
30° differentiates) duction begins, but we cannot be sure until we
B

have studied the igneous rocks of other forearcs

onin

. 5500–4760
B** 2 Pillow lava in similar detail.
. * hyaloclastite
-Ma

. Basalt (FAB) 50–52

.
Philippine SUBDUCTION INITIATION
ria

Sheeted dike
6300
na arc

Sea plate
.. Gabbro/ Gabbro In this section, we discuss igneous activity
20° N .
. Mesozoic 50–52
. associated with the formation of a new sub-
system

. basalt
.. ? duction zone. As presented already, much of

*
. * Basalt
? 6780 what we understand about the igneous crust of
500 km * forearcs comes from studies of the Izu-Bonin-
**
1 Peridotite Mariana system. The fundamental question we
address for this forearc, and one that is pertinent
130° E 140° 150°
B for many others is: Does subduction initiation
generate this broad swath of crust, which ulti-
Figure 6. (A) Schematic map of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana arc system, showing principal tectonic fea-
tures and forearc crustal sections discussed in text. 1—study of Reagan et al. (2010); 2—study of mately forms the forearc (Fig. 8)? Also, what
Ishizuka et al. (2011); 3—study of DeBari et al. (1999). Asterisk marks location of Deep Sea Drill- happens when the subduction zone itself forms?
ing Project (DSDP) Site 458; B is location of Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands. White region is seafloor For the Izu-Bonin-Mariana arc system, we have
<2500 m deep. Dashed line shows location of profile in Figure 8. (B) Schematic columnar section of documented the progression of igneous activity
crust exposed in the Bonin inner-trench wall, from Ishizuka et al. (2011), used with permission by in the forearc about the time that the Pacific plate
Elsevier. FAB—forearc basalt.
changed its motion, and we have concluded that
this activity resulted from the dynamic response
of the crust and upper mantle to subduction initi-
(2010) called “forearc basalts.” Forearc basalt richer in silica). In spite of these differences, ation. The basic idea is: at ca. 52 Ma, old, dense
lavas and related dikes have chemical compo- most forearc basalts also have trace-element lithosphere of the Pacific plate began to sink,
sitions similar to MORB. Forearc basalts were (Figs. 7B and 7C) and isotopic compositions perhaps due to differential subsidence across a
first recognized in the southern Mariana forearc (Reagan et al., 2010) that are MORB-like, lithospheric weakness, such as an old fracture
SE of Guam, where they crop out trenchward whereas younger forearc lavas have composi- zone (Fig. 9A; Stern and Bloomer, 1992). We
of thin boninites and younger arc rocks (Rea- tions suggesting that subducted fluids were conclude that subduction initiation at this time
gan et al., 2010). This outcrop pattern, as well involved in their genesis. For example, lavas was hemispheric in scale: much of the western
as the volcanic stratigraphy drilled in the Mari- generated by melting in the presence of a fluid Pacific, extending south from Izu-Bonin-Mari-
ana forearc at DSDP Site 458 (Fig. 6B) indi- from a subducting plate (e.g., Mariana arc lavas ana to Fiji and the Tonga-Kermadec convergent
cates that forearc basalts here are older than and boninites) typically have elevated Th/Yb margin, formed new subduction zones about this
the boninites and were likely the first lavas to compared to MORB. On a plot of Th/Yb versus time. This was accompanied by voluminous gen-
erupt when the Izu-Bonin-Mariana subduction Nb/Yb, most Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc basalts eration of forearc basalts, boninite, and related
zone formed (Reagan et al., 2010; Ishizuka et plot with MORB along the unmodified “mantle igneous rocks, much of which is now preserved
al., 2011). Below the forearc basalts, there are array,” whereas younger, subduction-influenced in these forearcs. We are not sure whether these
gabbroic rocks, and then mantle peridotites, as lavas trend toward Th/Yb typical of Mariana arc new subduction zones were caused by, or were
summarized in Figure 6B (Ishizuka et al., 2011). lavas (Fig. 7E). Note that Figure 7 also plots the the cause of the change in the Pacific plate abso-
Forearc basalts have major-element compo- chemostratigraphies of ophiolitic lavas, a point lute motion, from NNW to WNW at ca. 50 Ma,
sitions that are broadly MORB-like, although which is discussed further below. as reflected by the bend in the Emperor-Hawaii
significant differences exist, at least for Izu- DeBari et al. (1999) studied the Izu-Bonin- seamount chain (Sharp and Clague, 2006), but
Bonin-Mariana forearc basalts. Forearc basalts Mariana inner-trench wall (6100–6500 m deep) both events happened about the same time.
are generally not as rich in TiO2 as is typical near 32°N (Fig. 6A) and documented the pres- There are many challenges to this summary of
MORB, which often contains >1.4 wt% TiO2. ence of MORB-like basalts. They interpreted Izu-Bonin-Mariana subduction initiation. These
Forearc basalts can also be more rich in SiO2 these to represent older oceanic crust that was include hypotheses that: (1) interaction with a
than typical MORB (most forearc basalts con- trapped when subduction began. However, the mantle plume was responsible for boninite for-
tain <51% but forearc basalt–boninite tran- composition of these lavas is identical to those of mation (Macpherson and Hall, 2001); (2) extru-
sitional lavas at DSDP Sites 458 and 459 are forearc basalts from elsewhere in the Izu-Bonin- sion of Indian Ocean–Asian asthenosphere due

474 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 4 | Number 6 | LITHOSPHERE

 Subduction initiation, forearcs, and ophiolites | RESEARCH

A B

C D

E F

Figure 7. Whole-rock geochemical data of stratigraphically constrained (i.e., lower versus upper) subalkaline lavas and latest-
stage dikes of Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc lavas (left) and ophiolites of the Eastern Mediterranean–Persian Gulf region (right).
Forearc chemical data are from Reagan et al. (2010) and Ishizuka et al. (2011). Ophiolite data are from Albania (Mirdita; data
from Dilek et al., 2008); Greece (Pindos; data from Saccani and Photiades, 2004); Cyprus (Troodos; data from Flower and Levine,
1987); and Oman (Semail; data from Godard et al., 2003) as compiled by Whattam and Stern (2011). (A) Izu-Bonin-Mariana
(IBM) forearc and (B) Tethyan ophiolites on the SiO2 versus FeOt/MgO subalkaline affinity discrimination diagram (Miyashiro,
1974). (C) Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc and (D) Tethyan ophiolite lavas on chondrite-normalized rare earth element (REE) plots
(REE concentrations from Nakamura, 1974). (E) Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc and (F) Tethyan ophiolite lavas on the Nb/Yb ver-
sus Th/Yb plot (Pearce, 2008). Compositional data have been filtered to include samples with reported major-oxide totals of
98%–102% and loss on ignition (LOI) <7%. In A, total iron is expressed as FeOt (= Fe2O3 × 0.89), and oxide concentrations were
recalculated and normalized to 100% on an anhydrous (volatile-free) basis. In E and F, abbreviations are N- and E-M—normal
and enriched mid-ocean-ridge basalt (MORB). Note that in B, the only “lower lava” samples that plot as calc-alkaline (n = 4) are
from Troodos. In addition, Troodos is not represented on F because the data set of Flower and Levine (1987) does not include
concentrations of Th, Nb, and Yb. Modern Mariana arc lava data (blue dots) in E are from Peate and Pearce (1998). FAB—forearc
basalt; FC—fractional crystallization.

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 4 | Number 6 | www.gsapubs.org 475

STERN ET AL.

Volcanic front Inner forearc Outer forearc Trench

Distance from trench (km) Figure 8. Simplified P-wave veloc-
180 150 100 50 0 ity structure beneath Izu forearc
0
(approximately E-W line at
Vp ~1.9 sediments 30°50′E), modified after Kamimura
3.3 Volcanics et al. (2002), with interpreted
5 4.3
4.8 Altered basalt and diabase 4.5 3.2 lithologies. Note that forearc
4.5 crustal thickness decreases from
6.3
Depth (km)

5.8 6.3 ~11 km near the volcanic front

10 6.7 Gabbro 6.5
6.8 to 5 km or less near the trench.
Moho
7.0 6.4 e
rfac Note also significantly lower
7.3 inte st Vp ~6.
8
15 n a n ic cru P-wave seismic velocity (Vp) in
o ce
Mantle cti er o
uppermost mantle beneath the
b du U pp outer forearc (6.4–6.8 km/s vs.
Vp ~8.0 Su p ~7.0 7.3–8.0 km/s), probably reflecting
20 ust V Subducted Moho
n i c cr greater serpentinization beneath
ce a the outer forearc.
ro Mantle Vp ~8.0
we V.E. ~4x
Lo
25

to Tethys closure was a major cause of western

A Young Oceanic crust Old
Pacific arc rollback and basin opening (Flower
LM LM et al., 2001); (3) boninite formation reflected
the intersection of an active spreading ridge and
TF/FZ
AM AM a subduction-transform fault transition (Des-
champs and Lallemand, 2003); (4) compression
across a preexisting fracture zone was required
B Early protoforearc spreading (FAB)
(Hall et al., 2003); (5) lateral compositional
buoyancy contrast within oceanic lithosphere
Upwelling fertile controls subduction initiation (Niu et al., 2003);
asthenosphere; (6) the new Izu-Bonin-Mariana convergent mar-
no interaction with Sinking slab; rapid trench rollback
gin cut across, rather than followed, preexist-
slab-derived fluid
ing lithospheric fabric, such as remnant arcs,
C Late protoforearc spreading (VAB/BON) fracture zones, and spreading ridges (Taylor
and Goodliffe, 2004); and (7) subduction of the
v v v v v v v v v v v

Pacific-Izanagi spreading ridge triggered a chain

Depleted mantle stagnates; reaction of tectonic plate reorganizations that
strong interaction led to Izu-Bonin-Mariana and Tonga-Kermadec
with slab-derived fluid subduction initiation (Whittaker et al., 2007).
There is clearly a lot of uncertainty about
Localized magmatic arc Forearc crust
D (volcanic front) Fig. 11
what caused the Izu-Bonin-Mariana subduc-
tion initiation and attendant boninite volca-
v v v v v v v v v v v
nism, but there is no disagreement that it was
accompanied by voluminous igneous activity.
True subduction;
This formed Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc crust
trench rollback slows (Figs. 6 and 8) as well as crustal tracts well to
the west of the present volcanic front, includ-
ing the West Mariana Ridge and Kyushu-Palau
Figure 9. Subduction initiation, formation of the forearc, and evolution of magmatic systems, modi- Ridge. Stern and Bloomer (1992) conserva-
fied after Metcalf and Shervais (2008). (A) Older, thicker, colder, and denser lithosphere (right) is jux-
tively (i.e., assuming generation of 6-km-thick
taposed with young, thinner, hotter, and more buoyant lithosphere across a zone of weakness (e.g.,
transform fault or fracture zone [TF/FZ]). (B) Subsidence of old lithosphere allows asthenosphere to
crust) estimated that 1200–1800 km3 of crust
flood over it. Upwelling asthenosphere melts due to decompression, generating mid-ocean-ridge were produced per kilometer of arc during Izu-
basalt (MORB)–like basalt (forearc basalts of Reagan et al., 2010) accompanied by seafloor spread- Bonin-Mariana subduction initiation, and that
ing. (C) Continued lithospheric subsidence or beginning of downdip motion of slab is accompanied this episode lasted 10 m.y., for a crustal growth
by penetration of slab-derived fluids into upwelled mantle, causing melting of depleted harzbur- rate of 120–180 km3/km. This is equivalent to
gite. (D) Downdip motion of lithosphere signals start of true subduction, which terminates rapid the volume of crust produced at a mid-ocean-
trench rollback and protoforearc spreading. Forearc mantle cools, and igneous activity retreats
ridge spreading at 2–3 cm/yr. In fact, Izu-Bonin-
~200 km to what becomes the magmatic arc. Izu-Bonin-Mariana subduction initiation encom-
passed ~7 m.y. for the complete transition from initial seafloor spreading to normal arc volcanism. Mariana mean crustal thickness produced dur-
BON—boninite; FAB—forearc basalt; VAB—volcanic arc basalts; LM—lithospheric mantle (gray); ing this episode was probably greater than 6 km,
AM—asthenospheric mantle (white). Note tectonic setting of lava sequence shown in Figure 11. as shown in Figure 8 for the Izu forearc. For the

476 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 4 | Number 6 | LITHOSPHERE


Mariana forearc, Calvert et al. (2008) concluded
that 15-km-thick crust just east of the magmatic
front formed during a brief magmatic episode
early in the arc’s history. Furthermore, Izu-
Bonin-Mariana subduction initiation probably
lasted less than 10 m.y.; Ishizuka et al. (2011)
estimated that it took ~7 m.y. before a stable
magmatic arc was established near the position
that it still occupies. Finally, subduction erosion
has removed a significant amount of forearc; a
width of 1 km removed per million years trans-
lates into 240 km3/km of lost crust. All these
considerations indicate that Izu-Bonin-Mariana
crustal growth related to subduction initiation
was significantly greater than 120–180 km3/km.
Such high crustal growth rates and the
absence of large, central volcanoes of Eocene
age in the Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc imply
that crust was formed by seafloor spreading,
at least during the early, forearc basalts–domi-
nated episode. This is consistent with the pres-
ence of dense diabase dike swarms at the base
of the forearc basalts sequence in the Izu-Bonin-
Mariana forearc (Reagan et al., 2010; Ishizuka
et al., 2011). Furthermore, the composition of
forearc basalts, which is similar to MORB,
implies a similar origin by decompression
melting beneath a spreading ridge (Plank and
Langmuir, 1992). Small central volcanoes may
have formed during later, boninitic volcanism,
for example, at ODP Site 786B (Lagabrielle et
al., 1992), but the thicker, older forearc basalt
succession seems to have been emplaced by
tectonomagmatic processes akin to seafloor
spreading. There is no clear evidence about the
arrangement of spreading ridges that might have
existed; Stern (2004) inferred short segments
aligned oblique to the evolving convergent plate
boundary, although no good magnetic anomaly
patterns have yet been identified in any forearc
that could be interpreted as spreading fabric.
Given that seafloor spreading best explains
the tectonic environment for Izu-Bonin-Mariana
forearc crust formation, the logical conclusion is
that a strongly extensional environment existed
at that time. There is no evidence that early
Izu-Bonin-Mariana subduction was accompa-
nied by compression, as would be expected if
the new subduction zone was caused by one
plate being forced beneath the other (induced
subduction initiation of Stern, 2004), although
such evidence (uplift-related unconformity,
thrust faulting) might have been obliterated by
Eocene igneous activity. Such evidence of initial
compression without forearc volcanism charac-
terizes the Puysegur mini-subduction initiation
episode, which serves as an excellent example
of induced subduction initiation. The conclusion
that a strongly extensional environment accom-
panied Izu-Bonin-Mariana subduction initiation
LITHOSPHERE | Volume 4 | Number 6 | www.gsapubs.org
Subduction initiation, forearcs, and ophiolites
leads logically to the idea that hinged subsid-
ence of the older, thicker, and denser Pacific
plate allowed asthenosphere to well up and fill
the widening chasm, accompanied by extensive
decompression melting (Fig. 8B). The sequence
of events summarized in Figure 9 encapsulates
the idea of spontaneous subduction initiation
(Stern, 2004), including early extension and
seafloor spreading. On the other hand, we can-
not rule out the possibility that induced (forced)
subduction initiation might also have been asso-
ciated with early voluminous igneous activity,
due to the likelihood of lithospheric collapse
and asthenospheric upwelling, as modeled by
Hall et al. (2003).
Does current knowledge about Izu-Bonin-
Mariana subduction initiation serve as a useful
model for reconstructing how other forearcs
form? We cannot be sure because we know so
little about their crust, but Izu-Bonin-Mariana
serves as a useful analogue for the Tonga-Ker-
madec forearc. This crust is exposed only on the
island of ‘Eua and was drilled near the trench at
ODP Site 841. Arc tholeiite, gabbro, and harz-
burgitic peridotite have been dredged from the
inner-trench wall, suggesting to Bloomer et
al. (1995) that the Tonga forearc is floored by
crust similar in age and composition to that of
Izu-Bonin-Mariana, including Eocene boninite
(Crawford et al., 2003). The oldest known rocks
in the Tonga-Kermadec forearc are 46–40 Ma
arc-type lavas occurring below Upper Middle
Eocene limestones on ‘Eua (Ewart and Bryan,
1972; Duncan et al., 1985; Tappin and Balance,
1994). ODP drilling at Site 841 in the Tongan
forearc recovered a thick sequence of low-K
arc tholeiitic rhyolites (Bloomer et al., 1994),
dated by McDougall (1994) at 44 ± 2 Ma. Far-
ther north in the Tongan forearc, true low-Ca
boninitic rocks and associated backarc basin–
type basalts of probable Eocene age have been
dredged at depths in excess of 4 km (Falloon
et al., 1987) and have yielded ages between 45
and 35 Ma (Bloomer et al., 1998). It is not clear
whether or not these boninitic lavas were gen-
erated in the same ca. 52 Ma subduction initia-
tion event as that responsible for the subduction
initiation boninite–refractory-forearc mantle
package of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana arc system
to the north.
We emphasize that not all subduction zones
form by processes outlined here. As outlined by
Stern (2004), some subduction zones form as
a result of plate-boundary reconfigurations, for
example, as a result of terrane accretion or conti-
nental collision. Collision of India with Eurasia
is a good example of this, although a new sub-
duction zone has not yet formed behind (south
of) India, reflecting the great strength of Indian
Ocean lithosphere (Stern, 2004). Collision of
| RESEARCH
the Ontong-Java Plateau on the north side of
the Solomon arc in Miocene time caused a new
subduction zone to form to the south (Mann and
Taira, 2004), in what may be the best actualistic
example of subduction polarity reversal. Stern
(2004) characterized this type of subduction
initiation, which includes the Puysegur trench
example, as reflecting “induced” nucleation of
a subduction zone. Induced nucleation of a sub-
duction zone conceptually contrasts with “spon-
taneous” nucleation of a subduction zone” such
as Izu-Bonin-Mariana may be. Stern (2004) fur-
ther suggested that induced nucleation of a sub-
duction zone may not be associated with volu-
minous forearc igneous activity, such as that
forming the Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc. If so,
forearcs formed by induced nucleation of a sub-
duction zone may have fundamentally different
crustal structures and origins than those formed
during spontaneous nucleation of a subduc-
tion zone. The generalization that spontaneous
nucleation of a subduction zone results in broad
forearc magmatism, whereas induced nucleation
of a subduction zone does not, may not be true.
At least one example of induced nucleation of
a subduction zone—Aleutian subduction initia-
tion—may be an example of induced nucleation
of a subduction zone with attendant forearc
igneous activity. Scholl (2007) and Minyuk and
Stone (2009) suggested that Aleutian subduction
initiation exploited SSW-trending strike-slip
faults related to the “tectonic escape” of Alaska,
associated with motion along the North Pacific
Rim Orogenic Stream (Redfield et al., 2007). A
curved system of long strike-slip faults propa-
gated southwestward across the North Pacific
Rim throughout Cenozoic time, disrupting older
subduction zones along the Bering Sea shelf
edge. Recently obtained ca. 46 Ma 40Ar/39Ar
ages from Aleutian forearc igneous rocks (Jicha
et al., 2006; Minyuk and Stone, 2009) provide
minimum age constraints for the timing of Aleu-
tian subduction initiation, although Aleutian
subduction initiation generated middle Eocene
magmatic rocks as early as ca. 50 Ma (Scholl,
2007). The effects of tectonic erosion at con-
vergent margins must be considered for any
thoughtful subduction initiation analysis. Naked
forearcs are likely to be trimmed back by sub-
duction erosion, at rates that can vary from a few
to several kilometers per million years (Clift and
Vannucchi, 2004; Scholl and von Huene, 2007).
Subduction erosion thus can remove all of the
evidence for a magmatic forearc in several tens
of millions of years, as may be the case for the
Andean forearc.
Keeping such caveats and complications
in mind, it seems reasonable to conclude that
many forearcs form as a result of voluminous
yet ephemeral igneous activity accompanying
477
STERN ET AL.

subduction initiation. This makes it worthwhile
to reconsider the origins of forearc igneous
rocks that formed about the same time as sub-
duction initiation. For example, the ca. 55 Ma
Siletzia terrane of the Oregon and Washington
Coast Ranges formed about the same time as
Cascadia subduction initiation and is variously
interpreted as an accreted oceanic plateau (Dun-
can, 1982), produced by the Yellowstone plume
head (Pyle et al., 2009), or due to a tear in the
subducting slab (Humphreys, 2008). The pos-
sibility that Siletzia formed in situ as a forearc
magmatic response to Cascadia subduction ini-
tiation should also be entertained.
Finally, we should consider the possibil-
ity of subduction “re-initiation,” i.e., the case
where a subduction zone once existed, then
was extinguished, and then resumed at about
the same location, because of either induced or
spontaneous nucleation of a subduction zone.
The Cretaceous and younger evolution of SW
Japan serves as an example of this. Subduc-
tion of Pacific seafloor beneath NE Japan has
been continuous, but subduction of the Philip-
pine Sea beneath SW Japan has been episodic.
During Cretaceous time, a subduction zone
dipped beneath what is now SW Japan, asso-
ciated with a robust magmatic arc. Subduction
there ceased and was replaced by a transform
fault (shear margin) during Paleogene time. This
lithospheric weakness was converted into a new
forearc crust (and accreted sediments) is a key
component of orogens. These tracts of obducted
forearc lithosphere are known as ophiolites.
OPHIOLITES
Ophiolites are fragments of oceanic litho-
sphere that have been tectonically emplaced on
land. A complete “Penrose” ophiolite includes
tectonized peridotite, gabbro, sheeted dikes,
and pillow basalt (Anonymous, 1972), but this
idealization is rarely seen because ophiolites are
faulted and fragmented during emplacement or
because one, or more, unit was never generated.
Nevertheless, ophiolites are key petrotectonic
indicators, perhaps the single most impor-
tant indicator of ancient plate-tectonic activity
(Stern, 2005). Ophiolites mark tectonic sutures,
indicating both the location of ancient oceans
and convergent plate boundaries where buoyant
lithosphere was partially subducted, also known
as collision zones (Dilek, 2003). As a result,
ophiolites are often highly altered and faulted,
and much effort and imagination are needed
to reconstruct the original crust and uppermost
mantle section. Ophiolites are unequivocal evi-
dence of seafloor spreading and have been an
A Forearc ophiolite: Easy to emplace
important part of modern geologic thought since
the 1960s, but there is a lot of confusion about
the tectonic environment in which they formed.
Much of this misunderstanding results from
a lack of appreciation of the disparate lines of
evidence needed to reconstruct ophiolites, espe-
cially structural geology, igneous geochemistry,
and marine geology. Ophiolites were originally
thought to form at mid-ocean ridges, but we now
understand that most sediments and all crust on
the downgoing plate are subducted. If the down-
going plate includes very thick (>1 km; Clift and
Vannucchi, 2004) sediments, some of this may
be scraped off, and sometimes seamounts may
be transferred from the subducting to the over-
riding plate, but normal oceanic crust itself has
never been demonstrated to be transferred from
downgoing to overriding plate (i.e., by seismic-
reflection profiling) at any modern convergent
margin (Fig. 10C). Changes in plate motion
might trap mid-ocean-ridge crust in what may
ultimately become a forearc (e.g., Macquarie
Island; Varne et al., 2000), but this is likely a
very unusual tectonic scenario.
In the 1970s, geoscientists (beginning with
Miyashiro, 1973) began to recognize the simi-
larity of some ophiolite lava compositions to
B Backarc ophiolite: Difficult to emplace

subduction zone beginning in latest Oligocene Forearc Backarc basin

time, with an attendant flare-up of forearc igne- lithosphere lithosphere
ous activity (Kimura et al., 2005). Other likely
examples of subduction re-initiation include the
Paleogene Cascadia system and the Late Juras- Ophiolite
Ophiolite
sic of California.
To conclude this section, the igneous crust
and uppermost mantle of forearcs do not gener-
ally represent trapped oceanic lithosphere but in
fact typically form during upper-plate spreading
associated with subduction initiation (Shervais,
2001; Stern, 2004). There is no doubt that we
C MORB ophiolite: Almost impossible to emplace
MORB
need to better understand the composition and lithosphere
mode of formation of forearc crust, not only for Buoyant crust
its own sake but also to better reconstruct events
accompanying subduction initiation. Such stud- Subducting plate
ies require studying naked forearcs, with all the
challenges this entails. In the next section, we Suture
propose a complementary strategy that takes
advantage of the fact that forearc lithosphere is
commonly emplaced (obducted) when buoyant
lithosphere—particularly continental crust—on Figure 10. Tectonic cartoon illustrating the relative feasibility of emplacing oceanic lithospheres
the downgoing plate enters and clogs a sub- created in forearc, backarc basin, and mid-ocean-ridge settings. (A) It is relatively easy to emplace
duction zone (Wakabayashi and Dilek, 2003). forearc lithosphere. Subduction of buoyant material commonly leads to failure of subduction zone,
Introduction of buoyant lithosphere disrupts the and isostatic rebound of buoyant material emplaces ophiolite. (B) It is difficult to emplace backarc
basin oceanic lithosphere. Compression and shortening across the arc will lead to uplift of the arc.
normal operation of a subduction zone, so that
(C) It is almost impossible to emplace true mid-ocean-ridge basalt (MORB) crust at a convergent
subducted materials are partially regurgitated, plate boundary. Sediments and fragments of seamounts may be scraped off the downgoing plate,
and overlying forearc lithosphere is lifted above but subducting MORB-type lithosphere is nowhere known to be transferred from downgoing to
sea level (Glodny et al., 2005). Consequently, overriding plate (modified after Stern, 2004).

478 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 4 | Number 6 | LITHOSPHERE


those of convergent margins, leading to the
concept of the “suprasubduction zone” ophio-
lite (Pearce et al., 1984). This created tension
between conclusions based on structural stud-
ies, which indicated ophiolites form by seafloor
spreading, and those based on geochemistry,
which indicated ophiolites form at convergent
margins. This tension was temporarily rec-
onciled by the idea that suprasubduction zone
ophiolites formed in backarc basins (Dewey,
1976; Pearce, 2003). This reconciled structural
evidence of seafloor spreading with geochemi-
cal evidence for convergent margin setting, but it
is difficult to see how a backarc basin, ~200 km
from the convergent plate boundary, would be
emplaced (Fig. 10B). This logic train is further
derailed for some ophiolites interpreted as fossil
backarc basins because the associated arc and
forearc, which are typically ~200 km wide and
~30 km thick, are usually not identified (e.g.,
Semail ophiolite interpretation of Godard et al.,
2003). Furthermore, there are no known Ceno-
zoic examples of backarc basin closure (Stern,
2004), which is required to emplace a backarc
basin ophiolite.
A simple and elegant solution to the ophio-
lite emplacement problem is that whatever
crust comprises the forearc is most likely to be
emplaced during plate collision. This process is
often referred to as “obduction,” although this
term originally described how oceanic crust on
the downgoing plate was thrust over the con-
vergent margin (Coleman, 1971). Forearc litho-
sphere is optimally situated for obduction (Wak-
abayashi and Dilek, 2003). It is straightforward
to envisage emplacement of forearc lithosphere
above the same subduction system in which it
was generated due to isostatic uplift following
partial subduction of buoyant crust that jams the
subduction zone (Fig. 10A). This process—akin
to sliding a spatula under a pancake or fried egg
to lift it—is also most likely to yield the least-
disrupted ophiolites, and those most likely to
approximate the Penrose ophiolite ideal, such
as Troodos (Cyprus) and Semail (Oman). Dur-
ing the early days following the plate-tectonic
revolution, when it was thought that forearc crust
was relict, trapped oceanic crust, this provided
an attractive way to emplace MORB-type ophio-
lites. As discussed previously herein, there is lit-
tle evidence to support the idea that forearcs are
composed of trapped oceanic crust that existed
in the region prior to the formation of a new sub-
duction zone. It is increasingly clear from the
simple perspective of plausible emplacement
mechanisms that forearcs are the most likely
source of ophiolites (Casey and Dewey, 1984;
Milson, 2003; Metcalf and Shervais, 2008).
Because most ophiolites are very incom-
plete and rarely satisfy the Penrose definition,
LITHOSPHERE | Volume 4 | Number 6 | www.gsapubs.org
Subduction initiation, forearcs, and ophiolites
we propose an alternative definition that bet-
ter captures the important elements of what are
called ophiolites in the literature. An ophiolite
must consist of a significant proportion of harz-
burgitic peridotite (depleted mantle) and pil-
lowed basalt. Gabbro and sheeted dikes may be
missing, but there should be associated deep-
sea sediments. These units should be exposed
above sea level. This definition is more consis-
tent with common usage of the term ophiolite
than is the Penrose definition.
Based on emplacement mechanisms, Waka-
bayashi and Dilek (2003) distinguished four types
of ophiolites: (1) “Tethyan” ophiolites, emplaced
over passive continental margins; (2) “Cordille-
ran” ophiolites, emplaced over subduction com-
plexes; (3) “ridge-trench intersection” ophiolites
emplaced through complex processes resulting
from the interaction between a spreading ridge
and a subduction zone; and (4) the unique Mac-
quarie Island ophiolite, which was subaerially
exposed as a result of a change in plate-boundary
configuration along a mid-ocean-ridge system.
The first two types represent the overwhelming
majority of ophiolites, with the second two types
comprising miniscule proportions. Tethyan- and
Cordilleran-type ophiolites reflect the fundamen-
tally different nature of the subducted oceanic
realms, with Tethyan ophiolites subducting rela-
tively narrow oceans before colliding with conti-
nental fragments and Cordilleran ophiolites gen-
erally subducting Pacific seafloor, which contains
no continental fragments.
Given that most ophiolites originate in
forearcs, is it possible to independently deter-
mine whether or not a given ophiolite formed
during subduction initiation or as a result of
some other process, as outlined herein? Such
an assessment would be very useful because of
the difficulties involved in studying submerged
forearc igneous rocks and reconstructing sub-
duction initiation processes. If ophiolites could
be so linked, it could pay huge dividends in
advancing our understanding of the fundamen-
tal tectonic province of forearc and processes of
subduction initiation. The next section summa-
rizes a chemostratigraphic approach for evalu-
ating whether or not a given ophiolite formed
during subduction initiation.
THE SUBDUCTION INITIATION RULE
The subduction initiation rule (Whattam and
Stern, 2011) predicts that ophiolites that form
as a result of subduction initiation processes
consist of a sequence of igneous rocks formed
by a magma source that changed progressively
in composition by the combined effects of melt
depletion and subduction-related metasoma-
tism. Magmas erupted during subduction initia-
| RESEARCH
tion progress from early decompression melts of
unmodified fertile (lherzolitic) mantle to yield
forearc basalts to younger hydrous flux melts
of depleted (harzburgitic) mantle that has been
strongly modified by subduction-related fluids
to yield late high-Mg andesites and boninitic
lavas. If the subduction initiation process con-
tinues long enough to generate steady-state sub-
duction with downwelling mantle overlying the
sinking plate, then normal arc volcanics will cap
the subduction initiation sequence as the locus
of magmatism retreats from the trench. This
magmagenetic evolution is portrayed in Fig-
ures 7 and 11, which encapsulate the subduction
initiation tectonic evolution shown in Figure 9.
Whattam and Stern (2011) outlined the argu-
ments and implications of the subduction initia-
tion rule and proposed that ophiolites showing
this progression be termed “subduction initia-
tion rule ophiolites.”
It has long been recognized that some
ophiolites contain igneous rocks with strong
chemical affinities to both mid-ocean-ridge
and arc basalts. Distinguishing compositions
of MORB-like lavas include >1% TiO2, vari-
able depletion in LREEs, absence of HFSEs
(e.g., Nb, Ta), depletions on spider (primitive
mantle– or N-MORB–normalized) diagrams,
La/Nb <1, etc.; we regard these early MORB-
like sequences as forearc basalts. In contrast,
volcanic arc–like basalts have lower TiO2, are
enriched in fluid-mobile elements (e.g., LILEs
and LREEs), and have strong HFSE depletions
relative to LREE (e.g., La/Nb >1, etc.; Pearce,
2003). Recognition of both arc-like and MORB-
like compositions in some ophiolites has
encouraged some workers to infer formation in
a backarc basin (e.g., Beccaluva et al., 2004) or a
complex, multistage tectonic history, for exam-
ple, eruption of the two suites in discrete tec-
tonic environments (e.g., Saccani and Photiades,
2004; Godard et al., 2003). The reasons against
formation as a backarc basin are outlined in the
previous section. The conclusion here that the
basaltic sections in ophiolites are forearc basalts
(Reagan et al., 2010) is supported by the obser-
vation that most Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc
basalts have lower Ti/V ratios than MORB,
which probably results from the enhanced melt-
ing that commonly occurs in nascent subduction
settings. The presence of transitional lavas with
compositions that progress from forearc basalts
to boninite with time at DSDP Sites 458 and 459
also supports this contention. Some ophiolites
may reflect complex tectonic histories, but this
cannot serve as the general explanation for sub-
duction initiation rule ophiolites. Furthermore,
any inference of complex tectonic histories is
inconsistent with the absence of unconformi-
ties or significant sedimentary horizons between
479
STERN ET AL.

The four Tethyan ophiolites mentioned here

The Subduction Initiation Rule show subduction initiation rule relationships,
with lower lavas being more MORB-like and
Lava Mantle Age upper lavas being more arc-like, as Whattam
and Stern (2011) showed. Troodos and Semail
composition composition are at either end of the 3000-km-long ophiolite
Youngest belt that marks the Late Cretaceous forearc of
Calc-alkaline
Sometimes boninite
SW Asia, including the inner and outer ophio-
Harzburgitic mantle source lite belts of Zagros, Iran (Moghadam and Stern,
Mostly LREE-depleted
Lower ΣREE
Modified by fluids from
2011). The magmatic chemostratigraphies of the
Higher TiO2, Y, Zr subducted crust /sediments
many Zagros ophiolites have not been worked
Lower Ti/V
Higher Cr/Y out, but these ophiolites in many cases have
strong compositional affinities in some respect
to arc magmas, for example, with respect to La/
1–3 km Nb (arc lavas usually have La/Nb >1.4 accord-
ing to Condie, 1999). It is very likely that we
will be able to work out magmatic stratigraphies
in more ophiolites around the world, but this
will require thoughtful integrated structural and
petrologic studies.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Tholeiitic
LREE-depleted
Higher ΣREE
Subduction initiation rule ophiolites provide
Higher TiO2, Y, Zr Lherzolitic mantle source wonderful opportunities to better understand the
Higher Ti/V Unaffected by fluids from crust and upper mantle of magmatic forearcs
Lower Cr/Y subducted crust/sediments Oldest and the ways in which new subduction zones
form. Identifying and studying subduction ini-
Figure 11. The subduction initiation rule, simplified after Whattam and Stern (2011). Ophiolites
tiation rule ophiolites will provide easy access
(and forearc crust) that form as a result of subduction initiation preserve systematic variations in
basalt compositions (left), from mid-ocean-ridge basalt (MORB)–like at the base to volcanic arc)– to forearc lithosphere samples and structures,
like basalt (VAB), even boninitic, at the top. This reflects changes in the source mantle as a new allowing many scientific perspectives to be
subduction zone starts, beginning with adiabatic upwelling of asthenosphere that is not influ- engaged cheaply and easily. Where ophiolites
enced by subduction-related fluids (Fig. 9B) to form MORB-like basalts (forearc basalts) by seafloor can be firmly linked to forearcs through applica-
spreading. Fluids from the sinking lithosphere become increasingly important with time, eventu- tion of the subduction initiation rule and other
ally reaching and metasomatically re-enriching the increasingly depleted mantle source of melts
approaches, geodynamic models for subduc-
(Fig. 9C). Asthenospheric upwelling diminishes in importance with time and is ultimately replaced
by induced convection as sinking lithosphere begins downdip motion, and true subduction begins
tion initiation can be more easily developed
(Fig. 9D). This isolates the forearc mantle wedge, leading to establishment of localized magmatic and tested. Because subduction initiation rule
arc behind a cold, dead forearc. LREE—light rare earth element; ∑REE— total rare earth element ophiolites are fossil forearcs, they often can be
concentrations. traced across strike for tens of kilometers and
along strike for hundreds of kilometers. Ero-
sion of deformed subduction initiation rule
ophiolite lavas with MORB-like versus volca- ingly interpreted to be products of magmatism ophiolites exposes various levels, allowing four-
nic arc–like basalt compositions. Such inter- in a single (suprasubduction zone) tectonic set- dimensional reconstructions of timing as well
ruptions might be difficult to identify because ting, albeit one that changed rapidly. as vertical, across-strike, and along-strike mag-
of ophiolite deformation, but such an important It is worth emphasizing that it is generally matic variations. Sampling for geochronology is
and distinctive feature should sometimes be difficult to recognize a magmatic stratigraphy in easier than for in situ forearcs because of this
recognized if this interpretation is generally cor- ophiolites, because they are so often jumbled by exposure, and relations of such dated samples to
rect. Conversely, the interpretation of a single, faulting, and because lavas and associated intru- the surrounding rocks and fabrics provide con-
rapidly evolving magmagenetic environment is sions with different chemistries appear similar text for interpreting the ages. The multiple per-
favored because such a hiatus is generally not in the field. We recognize four ophiolites that spectives and levels of detail allowed by these
observed. In addition, lavas with compositions have been studied in sufficient detail to recon- approaches mean that many aspects of forearc
that are transitional between forearc basalts and struct their magmatic stratigraphies: Mirdita, crust structure and subduction initiation can be
boninites have been observed in some ophiolites Pindos, Troodos, and Semail (as summarized understood much better by indirect study of sub-
(e.g., Dilek and Furnes, 2009). As a result, ophi- by Whattam and Stern, 2011). There are other duction initiation rule ophiolites than by study-
olite compositional variability is increasingly examples of subduction initiation rule ophiolites ing forearcs directly, as can be seen by mentally
ascribed to progressive depletion and metaso- that could also be considered, for example, the comparing the experiences captured in Figure 1.
matism of the mantle source as the ophiolite 485–489 Ma ophiolite belt that can be traced Even as we recognize that studies of sub-
magmatic crust forms (e.g., Shervais, 2001; >1000 km from Newfoundland down into the duction initiation rule ophiolites are essential
Beccaluva at al., 2005; Dilek and Furnes, 2009). Taconic suture of New York (Bédard et al., for understanding forearcs, studies of in situ
Ophiolite lava compositions thus are increas- 1998; Schroetter et al., 2003; Pagé et al., 2009). forearc crust need to move forward. We are only

480 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 4 | Number 6 | LITHOSPHERE


beginning to understand the igneous crust of a
single forearc in any detail—that of Izu-Bonin-
Mariana—and this example seems to be unusual
in terms of the abundance of early-arc boninites.
We need to continue to test and refine what we
know about forearc magmatic evolution. It is
especially important that we drill and sample
through the magmatic stratigraphy of an igneous
forearc in order to better understand the sequence
and timing of magmas at one location, allowing
us to answer questions such as: What are the
relative proportions of forearc basalts versus vol-
canic arc–like basalt/boninitic lavas? How does
forearc basalt magmatism transition to volcanic
arc–like basalt magmatism? Is it gradational or
abrupt? How long does forearc volcanism last?
Answering such questions for an in situ forearc
and comparing these answers with those for sub-
duction initiation rule ophiolites will be key tests
of the ideas presented in this paper. Furthermore,
there are aspects of forearc structure and evolu-
tion that cannot be understood without studying
extant forearcs. For example, active serpentine
mud volcanoes in the Mariana forearc serve as
actualistic models for sedimentary serpentinite
deposits associated with some forearcs (Fryer
et al., 1995; Fryer, 2002). Knowing that these
mud volcanoes exist has stimulated the search
for ancient serpentine mudflows (e.g., Teklay,
2006). Another example is the problem of tec-
tonic erosion, which can remove a few kilome-
ters of forearc crust in a few million years. Stud-
ies of active systems are generally aware that
some crust is missing, whereas studies of ophiol-
ites rarely consider this complication.
Another point worth emphasizing is that
there may be a wide range of subduction ini-
tiation magmatic products. Our models now
are heavily biased toward the Izu-Bonin-Mar-
iana convergent margin, which has abundant
boninitic lavas and serpentinite mud volcanoes.
The Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc may serve as
a useful example of intra-oceanic subduction
initiation, but it could be less useful as a model
for continental margin subduction initiation.
Subcontinental mantle lithosphere is compo-
sitionally distinct from that beneath the ocean
basins (Bonatti and Michael, 1989), and conti-
nental and oceanic mantle may melt to different
extents during subduction initiation. Because
there are likely to be significant differences in
magmatic products from that shown by Izu-
Bonin-Mariana and ophiolites, we should keep
an open mind when considering the origin of
any magmatic forearc built about the time that
subduction began at a given convergent mar-
gin. The Siletzia terrane of coastal Oregon and
Washington (Duncan, 1982) could be an exam-
ple of continental margin subduction initiation
where the magmatic sequence is somewhat dif-
LITHOSPHERE | Volume 4 | Number 6 | www.gsapubs.org
Subduction initiation, forearcs, and ophiolites
ferent than that seen for Izu-Bonin-Mariana, for
example, by having upper alkalic lavas instead
of volcanic arc–like basalt overlying tholeiites.
Above all, combined studies of subduction
initiation rule ophiolites and forearc crust need
to be integrated with geodynamic modeling to
learn about the ways in which new subduction
zones form. Geodynamic modeling of subduc-
tion initiation needs to be firmly tethered in real-
ity, and the more that such models attempt to
explain the rocks making up a real forearc and
ophiolite, the more rapidly our understanding of
this fundamental Earth processes will advance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Dave Scholl for edifying comments on
accretionary prisms and Steve Graham for the
photo of a Franciscan chert exposure. Thought-
ful reviews by Rod Metcalf, Jean Bédard, and
editors John Shervais and John Goodge are
much appreciated. This manuscript was written
while Stern enjoyed a Blaustein Fellowship at
Stanford University. Stern’s research on intra-
oceanic arcs has been supported by the National
Science Foundation, most recently by grant
OCE-0961352. Reagan acknowledges research
support from National Science Foundation grant
EAR-0840862. This is University of Texas at
Dallas Geosciences contribution 1228.
REFERENCES CITED
Anonymous, 1972, Penrose field conference on ophiolites:
Geotimes, v. 17, p. 24–25.
Beccaluva, L., Coltori, M., Giunta, G., and Siena, F., 2004,
Tethyan vs. Cordilleran ophiolites: A reappraisal of dis-
tinctive tectono-magmatic features of supra-subduction
complexes in relation to the subduction mode: Tectono-
physics, v. 393, p. 163–174, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2004.07.034.
Beccaluva, L., Coltorti, M., Saccani, E., and Siena, F., 2005,
Magma generation and crustal accretion as evidenced
by supra-subduction ophiolites of the Albanide-
Hellenide Subpelagonian zone: The Island Arc, v. 14,
p. 551–563, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1738.2005.00483.x.
Bédard, J.H., Lauzière, K., Tremblay, A., and Sangster, A.,
1998, Evidence from Betts Cove ophiolite boninites
for forearc seafloor-spreading: Tectonophysics, v. 284,
p. 233–245, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(97)00182-0.
Bloomer, S.H., 1983, Distribution and origin of igneous rocks
from the landward slopes of the Mariana Trench: Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research, v. 88, no. B9, p. 7411–7428,
doi:10.1029/JB088iB09p07411.
Bloomer, S.H., and Fisher, R.L., 1987, Petrology and geo-
chemistry of igneous rocks from the Tonga Trench—A
non-accreting plate boundary: The Journal of Geology,
v. 95, p. 469–495, doi:10.1086/629144.
Bloomer, S.H., Ewart, W., Hergt, J.M., and Bryant, W.T., 1994,
Geochemistry of igneous rocks from ODP Site 841,
Tonga forearc, in Hawkins, J.W., Parsons, L., Allan,
J., et al., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program,
Scientific Results Volume 135: College Station, Texas,
Ocean Drilling Program, p. 625–646.
Bloomer, S.H., Taylor, B., MacLeod, C.J., Stern, R.J., Fryer,
P., Hawkins, J.W., and Johnson, L., 1995, Early arc
volcanism and the ophiolite problem: A perspective
from drilling in the western Pacific, in Taylor, B., and
Natland, J., eds., Active Margins and Marginal Basins
of the Western Pacific: American Geophysical Union
Geophysical Monograph 88, p. 1–30.
| RESEARCH
Bloomer, S.H., Falloon, T., Petcovic, H., Nielsen, R.L., and Dun-
can, R.A., 1998, Petrology and geochemistry of volcanic
and plutonic rocks from the Tonga forearc, southwest
Pacific (abstract): Eos (Transactions, American Geophysi-
cal Union), v. 79, no. 45, Fall Meeting supplement, p. F420.
Bonatti, E., and Michael, P.J., 1989, Mantle peridotites from
continental rifts to ocean basins to subduction zones:
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 91, p. 297–311,
doi:10.1016/0012-821X(89)90005-8.
Calvert, A.J., Klemperer, S.L., Takahashi, N., and Kerr, B.C.,
2008, Three-dimensional crustal structure of the Mari-
ana island arc from seismic tomography: Journal of
Geophysical Research–Solid Earth, v. 113, doi:10.1029
/2007JB004939.
Casey, J.F., and Dewey, J.F., 1984, Initiation of subduction
zones along transform and accreting plate bound-
aries, triple-junction evolution, and forearc spread-
ing centres—Implications for ophiolitic geology and
obduction in Gass, G., Lippard, S.J., and Shelton, A.W.,
eds., Ophiolites and Oceanic Lithosphere: Geological
Society of London Special Publication 13, p. 269–290,
doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.1984.013.01.22.
Clift, P.D., and Vannucchi, P., 2004, Controls on tectonic accre-
tion versus erosion in subduction zones: Implications for
the origin and recycling of the continental crust: Reviews
of Geophysics, v. 42, RG2001, doi:10.1029/2003RG000127.
Coleman, R.G., 1971, Plate tectonic emplacement of upper
mantle peridotites along continental edges: Journal of
Geophysical Research, v. 76, p. 1212–1222, doi:10.1029
/JB076i005p01212.
Condie, K.C., 1999, Mafic crustal xenoliths and the origin
of the lower continental crust: Lithos, v. 46, p. 95–101,
doi:10.1016/S0024-4937(98)00056-5.
Crawford, A.J., Meffre, S., and Symonds, P.A., 2003, Chapter
25—120 to 0 Ma tectonic evolution of the southwest
Pacific and analogous geological evolution of the 600
to 220 Ma Tasman fold belt system, in Hillis, R.R., and
Müller, R.D., eds., Evolution and Dynamics of the Aus-
tralian Plate: Geological Society of Australia Special
Publication 22, p. 377–397.
DeBari, S.M., Taylor, B., Spencer, K., and Fujioka, K., 1999,
A trapped Philippine Sea plate origin for MORB from
the inner slope of the Izu-Bonin Trench: Earth and Plan-
etary Science Letters, v. 174, p. 183–197, doi:10.1016
/S0012-821X(99)00252-6.
Deschamps, A., and Lallemand, S., 2003, Geodynamic set-
ting of Izu-Bonin-Mariana boninites, in Larter, R.D.,
and Leat, P.T., eds., Intra-Oceanic Subduction Systems:
Tectonic and Magmatic Processes: Geological Society
of London Special Publication 219, p. 163–185.
Dewey, J.F., 1976, Ophiolite obduction: Tectonophysics,
v. 31, p. 93–120, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(76)90169-4.
Dick, H.J.B., and Bullen, T., 1984, Chromian spinel as a pet-
rogenetic indicator in abyssal and Alpine-type perido-
tites and spatially associated lavas: Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 86, p. 54–76, doi:10.1007
/BF00373711.
Dickinson, W.R., 2001, Ch. 16: The coming of plate tectonics
to the Pacific Rim, in Oreskes, N., ed., Plate Tectonics:
An Insider’s History of the Modern Theory of the Earth:
Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, p. 264–287.
Dickinson, W.R., 2004, Evolution of the North American
Cordillera: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sci-
ences, v. 32, p. 13–45, doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.32
.101802.120257.
Dickinson, W.R., and Sealey, D.R., 1979, Structure and stra-
tigraphy of forearc regions: The American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 63, p. 2–31.
Dilek, Y., 2003, Ophiolite concept and its evolution, in Dilek,
Y., and Newcomb, S., eds., Ophiolite Concept and the
Evolution of Geological Thought: Geological Society of
America Special Paper 373, p. 1–16.
Dilek, Y., and Furnes, H., 2009, Structure and geochemis-
try of Tethyan ophiolites and their petrogenesis in
subduction rollback systems: Lithos, v. 113, p. 1–20,
doi:10.1016/j.lithos.2009.04.022.
Dilek,Y., Furnes, H., and Shallo, M., 2008, Geochemistry of the
Jurassic Mirdita ophiolite (Albania) and the MORB to
SSZ evolution of a marginal basin oceanic crust: Lithos,
v. 100, p. 174–209, doi:10.1016/j.lithos.2007.06.026.
Duncan, R.A., 1982, A captured island chain in the Coast
Range of Oregon and Washington: Journal of Geophysi-
481
STERN ET AL.
cal Research, v. 87, no. B13, p. 10,827–10,837, doi:10.1029
/JB087iB13p10827.
Duncan, R.A., Vallier, T.L., and Falvey, D.A., 1985, Volcanic
episodes at ‘Eua, Tonga islands, in Scholl, D.W., and
Vallier, T.L., eds., Geology and Offshore Resources
of the Pacific Island Arcs–Tonga Region: Houston,
Texas, Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral
Resources, and American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Earth Science Series, v. 2, p. 281–290.
Ewart, A., and Bryan, W.B., 1972, Petrography and geochemis-
try of the igneous rocks from E’ua, Tongan Islands: Geo-
logical Society of America Bulletin, v. 83, p. 3281–3298,
doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1972)83[3281:PAGOTI]2.0.CO;2.
Falloon, T.J., and Danyushevsky, L.V., 2000, Melting of refrac-
tory mantle at 1.5, 2 and 2.5 GPa under anhydrous and
H2O-undersaturated conditions: Implications for the
petrogenesis of high-Ca boninites and the influence of
subduction components on mantle melting: Journal
of Petrology, v. 41, p. 257–283, doi:10.1093/petrology
/41.2.257.
Falloon, T.J., Green, D.H., and Crawford, A., 1987, Dredged
igneous rocks from the northern termination of the
Tofua magmatic arc, Tonga and adjacent Lau Basin:
Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 34, p. 487–506,
doi:10.1080/08120098708729428.
Fisher, R.L., and Engel, C.G., 1969, Ultramafic and basaltic
rocks dredged from the nearshore flank of the Tonga
Trench: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 80,
p. 1373–1378, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1969)80[1373:UAB
RDF]2.0.CO;2.
Flower, M.F.J., and Levine, H.M., 1987, Petrogenesis of a
tholeiite-boninite sequence from Ayios Mamas, Troo-
dos ophiolite: Evidence for splitting of a volcanic arc?:
Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 97,
p. 509–524, doi:10.1007/BF00375328.
Flower, M.F.J., Russo, R.M., Tamaki, K., and Hoang, N., 2001,
Mantle contamination and the Izu-Bonin-Mariana
(IBM) ‘high-tide mark’: Evidence for mantle extrusion
by Tethyan closure: Tectonophysics, v. 333, p. 9–34,
doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(00)00264-X.
Fryer, P., 2002, Recent studies of serpentinite occurrences
in the oceans: Mantle-ocean interactions in the plate
tectonic cycle: Chemie der Erde, v. 62, p. 257–302,
doi:10.1078/0009-2819-00020.
Fryer, P., Mottl, M., Johnson, L., Haggerty, J., Phipps, S., and
Maekawa, H., 1995, Serpentine bodies in the forearcs of
western Pacific convergent margins: Origin and asso-
ciated fluids, in Taylor, B., and Natland, J., eds., Active
Margins and Marginal Basins of the Western Pacific:
American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph
88, p. 259–279.
Gill, J.B., 1981, Orogenic Andesites and Plate Tectonics: New
York, Springer-Verlag, 390 p.
Glodny, J., Lohrmnann, J., Echtler, H., Gräfe, K., Seifert, W.,
Collao, S., and Figueroa, O., 2005, Internal dynamics
of a paleoaccretionary wedge: Insights from combined
isotope tectonochronology and sandbox modeling of
the south-central Chilean forearc: Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, v. 231, p. 23–39, doi:10.1016/j.epsl
.2004.12.014.
Godard, M., Dautria, J.-M., and Perrin, M., 2003, Geochemi-
cal variability of the Oman ophiolite lavas: Relation-
ship with spatial distribution and paleomagnetic direc-
tions: Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, v. 4,
no. 6, 8609, doi:10.1029/2002GC000452.
Green, D.H., and Falloon, T.J., 1998, Pyrolite: A Ringwood
concept and its current expression, in Jackson, I., ed.,
The Earth’s Mantle: New York, Cambridge University
Press, p. 311–378.
Hall, C.E., Gurnis, M., Sdrolias, M., Lavier, L.L., and Mül-
ler, R.D., 2003, Catastrophic initiation of subduction
following forced convergence across fracture zones:
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 212, p. 15–30,
doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00242-5.
Hilde, T.W.C., 1983, Sediment subduction versus accretion
around the Pacific: Tectonophysics, v. 99, p. 381–397,
doi:10.1016/0040-1951(83)90114-2.
Humphreys, E., 2008, Cenozoic slab windows beneath the
western United States, in Circum-Pacific Tectonics, Geo-
logic Evolution, and Ore Deposits Symposium—Pro-
ceedings Volume: Arizona Geological Society Digest,
p. 389–398.
482
Ishizuka, O., Kimura, J.-I., Li, Y.B., Stern, R.J., Reagan, M., Tay-
lor, R.N., Ohara, Y., Bloomer, S.H., Ishii, T., Hargrove, U.S.,
III, and Haraguchi, S., 2006, Early stages in the evolution
of Izu-Bonin arc volcanism: New age, chemical, and iso-
topic constraints: Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
v. 250, p. 385–401, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2006.08.007.
Ishizuka, O., Tani, K., Reagan, M.K., Kanayama, K., Umino,
S., Harigane, Y., Sakamoto, I., Miyajima, Y., Yuasa, M.,
and Dunkley, D.J., 2011, The timescales of subduction
initiation and subsequent evolution of an oceanic
island arc: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 306,
p. 229–240, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.04.006.
Jicha, B.R., Scholl, D.W., Singer, B.S., Yogodzhinsky, G.M.,
and Kay, S.M., 2006, Revised age of Aleutian Island
arc formation implies high rate of magma production:
Geology, v. 34, p. 661–664, doi:10.1130/G22433.1.
Kamimura, A., Kasahara, J., Shinohara, M., Hino, R., Shio-
bara, H., Fujie, G., and Kanazawa, T., 2002, Crustal
structure study at the Izu-Bonin subduction zone
around 31°N: Implications of serpentinized materi-
als along the subduction plate boundary: Physics of
the Earth and Planetary Interiors, v. 132, p. 105–129,
doi:10.1016/S0031-9201(02)00047-X.
Kimura, J.-I., Stern, R.J., and Yoshida, T., 2005, Re-initiation
of subduction and magmatic responses in SW Japan
during Neogene time: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 117, p. 969–986, doi:10.1130/B25565.1.
Kopp, H., and Kukowski, N., 2003, Backstop geometry and
accretionary mechanics of the Sunda margin: Tecton-
ics, v. 22, no. 6, p. 1072, doi:10.1029/2002TC001420.
Lagabrielle, Y., Sizun, J.-P., and Arculus, R.J., 1992, The con-
structional and deformational history of the igneous
basement penetrated at Site 786, in Fryer, P., Pearce,
J.A., Stokking, L.B., et al., Proceedings of the Ocean
Drilling Program, Scientific Results, Volume 125: Col-
lege Station, Texas, Ocean Drilling Program, p. 263–276.
LeBas, M.J., and Streckeisen, A.L., 1991, The IUGS sys-
tematics of igneous rocks: Journal of the Geological
Society of London, v. 148, p. 825–833, doi:10.1144
/gsjgs.148.5.0825.
LeBrun, J.-F., Lamarche, G., and Collot, J.-Y., 2003, Subduc-
tion initiation at a strike-slip boundary: The Cenozoic
Pacific-Australian plate boundary, south of New Zea-
land: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B9,
2453, doi:10.1029/2002JB002041.
Lyubetskaya, T., and Korenaga, J., 2007, Chemical com-
position of Earth’s primitive mantle and its variance:
1. Methods and results: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 112, B03211, doi:1029/2005JB004223.
Macpherson, C.G., and Hall, R., 2001, Tectonic setting of
Eocene boninite magmatism in the Izu-Bonin-Mariana
forearc: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 186,
p. 215–230, doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00248-5.
Mann, P., and Taira, A., 2004, Global tectonic significance
of the Solomon Islands and Ontong Java Plateau
convergent zone: Tectonophysics, v. 389, p. 137–190,
doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2003.10.024.
McDougall, I., 1994, Dating of rhyolitic glass in the Tonga
forearc (Hole 841B), in Hawkins, J.W., Parsons, L., and
Allan, J., et al., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Proj-
ect, Scientific Results Leg 135: College Station, Texas,
Ocean Drilling Program, p. 923–924.
Metcalf, R.V., and Shervais, J.W., 2008, Supra-subduction
zone ophiolites: Is there really an ophiolite conun-
drum?, in Wright, J.E., and Shervais, J.W., eds., Ophio-
lites, Arcs, and Batholiths: Geological Society of Amer-
ica Special Paper 438, p. 191–222.
Michibayashi, K., Tasaka, M., Ohara, Y., Ishii, T., Okamoto, A.,
and Fryer, P., 2007, Variable microstructure of peridotite
samples from the southern Mariana Trench: Evidence
of a complex tectonic evolution: Tectonophysics,
v. 444, p. 111–118, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2007.08.010.
Michibayashi, K., Ohara, Y., Stern, R.J., Fryer, P., Kimura, J.-I.,
Tasaka, M., Harigane, Y., and Ishii, T., 2009, Peridotites
derived from a ductile shear zone within backarc litho-
spheric mantle, southern Mariana Trench: Results of
a Shinkai 6500 dive: Geophysics Geochemistry Geo-
systems, v. 10, doi:10.1029/2008GC002197.
Milson, J., 2003, Forearc ophiolites: A view from the west-
ern Pacific, in Dilek, Y., and Robinson, P.T., eds., Ophiol-
ites in Earth History: The Geological Society of London
Special Publications 218, p. 507–515.
www.gsapubs.org | Volume 4 | Number 6 | LITHOSPHERE
Minyuk, P.S., and Stone, D.B., 2009, Paleomagnetic deter-
mination of paleolatitude and rotation of Bering Island
(Komandorsky Islands) Russia: Comparison with rota-
tions in the Aleutian Islands and Kamchatka: European
Geophysical Union Stephan Mueller Special Publica-
tion Series, v. 4, p. 329–348, doi:10.5194/smsps-4-329
-2009.
Miyashiro, A., 1973, The Troodos ophiolitic complex was
probably formed in an island arc: Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, v. 19, p. 218–224, doi:10.1016/0012-821X
(73)90118-0.
Miyashiro, A., 1974, Volcanic rock series in island arcs and
active continental margins: American Journal of Sci-
ence, v. 274, p. 321–355, doi:10.2475/ajs.274.4.321.
Moghadam, H.S., and Stern, R.J., 2011, Geodynamic evolu-
tion of late Cretaceous Zagros ophiolites: Formation of
oceanic lithosphere above a nascent subduction zone:
Geological Magazine, v. 148, p. 762–801, doi:10.1017
/S0016756811000410.
Morishita, T., Tani, K., Shukono, H., Harigane, Y., Tamura, A.,
Kumagai, H., and Hellebrand, E., 2011, Diversity of
melt conduits in the Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc mantle:
Implications for the earliest stage of arc magmatism:
Geology, v. 39, p. 411–414, doi:10.1130/G31706.1.
Nakamura, N., 1974, Determination of REE, Ba, Fe, Mg,
Na and K in carbonaceous and ordinary meteorites:
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 38, p. 757–775,
doi:10.1016/0016-7037(74)90149-5.
Niu, Y., O’Hara, M.J., and Pearce, J.A., 2003, Initiation of
subduction zones as a consequence of lateral com-
positional buoyancy contrast within the lithosphere,
a petrological perspective: Journal of Petrology, v. 44,
p. 851–866, doi:10.1093/petrology/44.5.851.
Oakley, A.J., Taylor, B., and Moore, G.F., 2008, Pacific plate
subduction beneath the central Mariana and Izu-Bonin
forearcs: New insights from an old margin: Geochem-
istry Geophysics Geosystems, v. 9, no. 6, Q06003,
doi:10.1029/2007GC001820.
Ohara, Y., and Ishii, T., 1998, Peridotites from southern Mari-
ana forearc: Heterogeneous fluid supply in mantle
wedge: The Island Arc, v. 7, p. 541–552.
Ohara, Y., Stern, R.J., Ishii, T., Yurimoto, H., and Yamazaki, T.,
2002, Peridotites from the Mariana Trough: First look
at the mantle beneath an active back-arc basin: Con-
tributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 143, p. 1–18,
doi:10.1007/s00410-001-0329-2.
Okamura, H., Sarai, S., and Kim, Y.U., 2006, Petrology of
forearc peridotite from the Hahajima Seamount, the
Izu-Bonin arc, with special reference to chemical char-
acteristics of chromian spinel: Mineralogical Maga-
zine, v. 70, p. 15–26, doi:10.1180/0026461067010310.
Pagé, P., Bédard, J.H., and Tremblay, A., 2009, Geochemical
variations in a depleted fore-arc mantle: The Ordovi-
cian Thetford Mines ophiolite: Lithos, v. 113, p. 21–47,
doi:10.1016/j.lithos.2009.03.030.
Parkinson, I.J., and Pearce, J.A., 1998, Peridotites from the
Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc (ODP Leg 125): Evidence
for mantle melting interaction in a supra-subduction
zone setting: Journal of Petrology, v. 39, p. 1577–1618,
doi:10.1093/petrology/39.9.1577.
Pearce, J.A., 2003, Supra-subduction zone ophiolites: The
search for modern analogues, in Dilek, Y., and New-
comb, S., eds., Ophiolite Concept and the Evolution
of Geological Thought: Geological Society of America
Special Paper 373, p. 269–293.
Pearce, J.A., 2008, Geochemical fingerprinting of oceanic
basalts with applications to ophiolite classification and
the search for Archean oceanic crust: Lithos, v. 100,
p. 14–48, doi:10.1016/j.lithos.2007.06.016.
Pearce, J.A., and Parkinson, I.J., 1993, Trace element models
for mantle melting: Application to volcanic arc petro-
genesis, in Prichard, H.M., Alabaster, T., Harris, N.B.,
and Neary, C.R., eds., Magmatic Processes and Plate
Tectonics: The Geological Society of London Special
Publication 76, p. 373–403.
Pearce, J.A., Lippard, S.J., and Roberts, S., 1984, Character-
istics and tectonic significance of supra-subduction
zone ophiolites, in Kokelaar, B.P., and Howells, M.F.,
eds., Marginal Basin Geology: Volcanic and Associated
Sedimentary and Tectonic Processes in Modern and
Ancient Marginal Basins: Geological Society of Lon-
don Special Publication 16, p. 77–94.

Pearce, J.A., Vander Laan, S.R., Arculus, R.J., Murton, B.J.,
Ishii, T., Peate, D.W., and Parkinson, I.J., 1992, Boninite
and harzburgite from Leg 125 (Bonin-Mariana forearc):
A case study of magma genesis during the initial
stages of subduction, in Fryer, P., et al., Proceeding
of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, Site
778–786, Bonin-Mariana Region: College Station,
Texas, Ocean Drilling Program, p. 623–659.
Pearce, J.A., Barker, P.F., Edwards, S.J., Parkinson, I.J.,
and Leat, P.T., 2000, Geochemistry and tectonic sig-
nificance of peridotites from the South Sandwich
arc-basin system, South Atlantic: Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 139, p. 36–53, doi:10.1007
/s004100050572.
Peate, D., and Pearce, J., 1998, Causes of spatial composi-
tional variations in Mariana arc lavas: Trace element
evidence: The Island Arc, v. 7, p. 479–495.
Plank, T., and Langmuir, C.H., 1992, Effects of the melting
regime on the composition of the oceanic crust: Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research, v. 97, no. B13, p. 19,749–
19,770, doi:10.1029/92JB01769.
Pyle, D.G., Duncan, R., Wells, R.E., Graham, D.W., Harrison,
B., and Hanan, B., 2009, Siletzia: An oceanic large igne-
ous province in the Pacific Northwest: Geological Soci-
ety of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 41, no. 7,
p. 369.
Reagan, M.K., Ishizuka, O., Stern, R.J., Kelley, K.A., Ohara,
Y., Blichert-Toft, J., Bloomer, S.H., Cash, J., Fryer, P.,
Hanan, B.B., Hickey-Vargas, R., Ishii, T., Kimura, J.I.,
Peate, D.W., Rowe, M.C., and Woods, M., 2010, Fore-
arc basalts and subduction initiation in the Izu-Bonin-
Mariana system: Geochemistry Geophysics Geosys-
tems, v. 11, Q03X12, doi:10.1029/2009GC002871.
Redfield, T.F., Scholl, D.W., Fitzgerald, P.G., and Beck, M.E.,
Jr., 2007, Escape tectonics and the extrusion of Alaska:
Past, present, and future: Geology, v. 35, p. 1039–1042,
doi:10.1130/G23799A.1.
Saccani, E., and Photiades, A., 2004, Mid-ocean ridge
and supra-subduction affinities in the Pindos Massif
ophiolites (Greece): Implications for magma genesis
in a proto-forearc setting: Lithos, v. 73, p. 229–253,
doi:10.1016/j.lithos.2003.12.002.
Scholl, D.W., 2007, Viewing the tectonic evolution of the
Kamchatka-Aleutian (KAT) connection with an Alaska
crustal extrusion perspective, in Eichelberger, J., Gor-
deev, E., Izbekov, P., Kasahara, M., and Lees, J., eds.,
Volcanism and Subduction: The Kamchatka Region:
American Geophysical Union Geophysical Mono-
graph 172, p. 3–35.
Scholl, D.W., and von Huene, R., 2007, Crustal recycling at
modern subduction zones applied to the past—Issues
of growth and preservation of continental basement
crust, mantle geochemistry, and supercontinent recon-
LITHOSPHERE | Volume 4 | Number 6 | www.gsapubs.org
View publication stats
Subduction initiation, forearcs, and ophiolites
struction, in Hatcher, R.D., Jr., Carlson, M.P., McBride,
J.H., and Martínez Catalán, J.R., eds., 4-D Framework
of Continental Crust: Geological Society of America
Memoir 200, p. 9–32.
Scholl, D.W., and von Huene, R., 2009, Implications of esti-
mated magmatic additions and recycling losses at
the subduction zones of accretionary (non-collisional)
and collisional (suturing) orogens, in Cawood, P., and
Kröner, A., eds., Accretionary Orogens in Space and
Time: The Geological Society of London Special Publi-
cation 318, p. 105–125.
Schroetter, J.-M., Pagé, P., Bédard, J.H., Tremblay, A., and
Bécu, V., 2003, Forearc extension and seafloor spread-
ing in the Thetford Mines ophiolite complex, in Dilek,
Y., and Robinson, P.T., eds., Ophiolites in Earth History:
Geological Society of London Special Publication 218,
p. 231–251.
Sharp, W.D., and Clague, D.A., 2006, 50-Ma initiation of
Hawaiian-Emperor Bend records major change in
Pacific plate motion: Science, v. 313, p. 1281–1284,
doi:10.1126/science.1128489.
Shervais, J.W., 2001, Birth, death, and resurrection: The life
cycle of suprasubduction zone ophiolites: Geochem-
istry Geophysics Geosystems v. 2, no. 1, doi:10.1029
/2000GC000080.
Stein, C., 2003, Heat flow and flexure at subduction zones:
Geophysical Research Letters, v. 30, doi:10.1029
/2003GL018478.
Stern, R.J., 2002, Subduction zones: Reviews of Geophys-
ics, v. 40, doi:10.1029/2001RG000108.
Stern, R.J., 2004, Subduction initiation: Spontaneous and
induced: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 226,
p. 275–292.
Stern, R.J., 2005, Evidence from ophiolites, blueschists,
and ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic terranes that
the modern episode of subduction tectonics began
in Neoproterozoic time: Geology, v. 33, p. 557–560,
doi:10.1130/G21365.1.
Stern, R.J., and Bloomer, S.H., 1992, Subduction zone
infancy: Examples from the Eocene Izu-Bonin-Mariana
and Jurassic California arcs: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 104, p. 1621–1636, doi:10.1130/0016-
7606(1992)104<1621:SZIEFT>2.3.CO;2.
Stern, R.J., Morris, J., Bloomer, S.H., and Hawkins, J.W.,
Jr., 1991, The source of metasomatic fluids and the
generation of arc melts: Trace element and radiogenic
isotope evidence from Eocene boninites, Mariana
forearc: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 55,
p. 1467–1481, doi:10.1016/0016-7037(91)90321-U.
Sutherland, R., Barnes, P., and Uruski, C., 2006, Miocene–
Recent deformation, surface elevation, and volcanic
intrusion of the overriding plate during subduction
initiation, offshore southern Fiordland, Puysegur mar-
| RESEARCH
gin, southwest New Zealand: New Zealand Journal of
Geology and Geophysics, v. 49, p. 131–149.
Tappin, D.R., and Balance, P.F., 1994, Contributions to the
sedimentary geology of ‘Eua Island, Kingdom of
Tonga: Reworking in an oceanic forearc, in Stevenson,
A.J., Herzer, R.H., and Balance, P.F., eds., Geology and
Submarine Resources of the Tonga–Lau–Fiji Region:
South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
(SOPAC), Suva, Technical Bulletin 8, p. 1–20.
Taylor, B., and Goodliffe, A.M., 2004, The West Philip-
pine Basin and the initiation of subduction, revis-
ited: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 31, doi:10.1029
/2004GL020136.
Taylor, R.N., Nesbitt, R.W., Vidal, P., Harmon, R.S., Auvray,
B., and Croudace, I.W., 1994, Mineralogy, chemistry,
and genesis of the Boninite series volcanics, Chichi-
jima, Bonin Islands, Japan: Journal of Petrology, v. 35,
p. 577–617, doi:10.1093/petrology/35.3.577.
Teklay, M., 2006, Neoproterozoic arc–back-arc system ana-
log to modern arc–back-arc systems: Evidence from
tholeiite-boninite association, serpentinite mudflows
and across-arc geochemical trends in Eritrea, southern
Arabian-Nubian Shield: Precambrian Research, v. 145,
p. 81–92, doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2005.11.015.
Varne, R., Brown, A.V., and Falloon, T., 2000, Macquarie
Island; its geology, structural history, and the timing
and tectonic setting of its N-MORB to E-MORB mag-
matism, in Dilek, Y., et al., eds., Ophiolites and Oceanic
Crust, New Insights from Field Studies and the Ocean
Drilling Program: Geological Society of America Spe-
cial Paper 349, p. 301–320.
Wakabayashi, J., and Dilek, Y., 2003, What constitutes
‘emplacement’ of an ophiolite?: Mechanisms and rela-
tionship to subduction initiation and formation of met-
amorphic soles, in Dilek, Y., and Robinson, P.T., eds.,
Ophiolites in Earth History: Geological Society of Lon-
don Special Publications 218, p. 427–447, doi:10.1144
/GSL.SP.2003.218.01.22.
Whattam, S.A., and Stern, R.J., 2011, The ‘subduction-initi-
ation rule’: A key for linking ophiolites, intra-oceanic
forearcs and subduction initiation: Contributions
to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 162, p. 1031–1045,
doi:10.1007/s00410-011-0638-z.
Whittaker, J.M., Müller, R.D., Leitchenkov, G., Stagg, H.,
Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C., and Goncharov, A., 2007, Major
Australian-Antarctic plate reorganization at Hawaiian-
Emperor Bend time: Science, v. 318, p. 83–86, doi:10.1126
/science.1143769.
MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 29 SEPTEMBER 2011
REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 28 MARCH 2012
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED 11 APRIL 2012
Printed in the USA
483