nature astronomy

Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w

Venus’s atmospheric nitrogen explained by

ancient plate tectonics

Received: 22 December 2022 Matthew B. Weller 1,5 , Alexander J. Evans 1

, Daniel E. Ibarra 1,2,3
&
Alexandria V. Johnson 4
Accepted: 12 September 2023

Published online: xx xx xxxx

Venus is the least understood of the terrestrial planets. Despite broad
Check for updates similarities to the Earth in mass and size, Venus has no evidence of plate
tectonics recorded on its young surface, and Venus’s atmosphere is
strikingly different. Numerical experiments of long-term planetary
evolution have sought to understand Venus’s thermal–tectonic history with
indeterminate results. However, Venus’s atmosphere is linked to interior
evolution and can be used as a diagnostic to constrain planetary evolution.
Here we compare the present-day Venusian atmosphere to atmospheres
generated by long-term thermal–chemical–tectonic evolution models.
We find that a continuous single-plate stagnant lid regime operating since
antiquity (magma ocean solidification) explains neither the present-day
observed atmospheric abundances of N2 and CO2, nor the surface pressure.
Instead, the Venusian atmosphere requires volcanic outgassing in an early
phase of plate-tectonic-like activity. Our findings indicate that Venus’s
atmosphere results from a great climatic–tectonic transition, from an early
phase of active lid tectonics that lasted for at least 1 Gyr, followed by the
current stagnant lid-like mode of reduced outgassing rates.

Venus is shrouded by a thick 92-bar atmosphere composed of ~96.5%
CO2, ~3% N2 and trace gases, resulting in an extreme greenhouse climate
with surface temperatures exceeding 700 K (ref. 1). The surface of Venus
is covered by vast volcanic plains estimated to have been emplaced
within the last 0.3–1.0 Gyr (refs. 2,3). Due to this voluminous volcan-
ism, the surface record of Venus’s evolution before ~1 billion years ago
(Ga) is notably absent from detection, leading to a substantial debate
regarding Venus’s climatic, tectonic and atmospheric history1,4–8. Yet,
in contrast to its surface, Venus’s thick atmosphere likely preserves
a long-term record of the planet’s surface and interior evolution as
outgassed species and isotopic ratios.
At present, Venus’s surface is tectonically and volcanically quies-
cent, showing no clear evidence of Earth-like plate tectonic activity9.
Yet, determining whether Venus once had active tectonics, as previ-
ously suggested10, is critical to untangling Venus’s tectonic and geo-
logic history. Active lid tectonics, of which plate tectonics is a subset,
is rare in the Solar System, with the Earth being the only commonly
recognized case11,12. In a plate-tectonic-like state (hereafter referenced
as active lid), the outermost rigid layer of a planet, its lithosphere, is
broken into tectonic plates, bounded by spreading centres and sub-
duction zones, that move in response to mantle convective forces13.
Active lids have abundant volcanism focused predominantly along
mid-ocean ridge spreading centres. Melt ascending from the inte-
rior, emplaced at the surface by volcanism, allows for the transport
and release of volatiles to the atmosphere through outgassing14. In a
stagnant lid state, similar to Mars today15, the lithosphere is sufficiently
viscous to impede any long-term movement induced by the underlying
mantle. A planet in a stagnant lid state lacks the hallmark signatures
of active lids, namely global networks of volcanoes (for example,
along mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones). Hence, compared to
active lids, stagnant lids have significantly decreased volcanic rates
and outgassing16,17.

Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 2Institute at Brown for Environment and Society,
1

Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 3Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 4Department of Earth,
Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. 5Present address: The Lunar and Planetary Institute/USRA, Houston,
TX, USA. e-mail: mweller@lpi.usra.edu

Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w

a 20
atmospheric N2 to within an order of magnitude (Table 1). In contrast,
10
Venusian atmospheric N2 (present) stagnant lids can generate only 10–40% of the observed atmospheric
N2 at present, for the lowest and highest initial mantle and surface tem-
Earth atmospheric
N2 (present)
perature cases, respectively (Fig. 1b and Table 1).
The minimum initial mantle temperature required to generate the
0K
observed atmospheric N2 mass, assuming an upper limit with no atmos-
N2 (kg)

,75
l id =2
ti ve T mi
2,750
K

Present
T mi =
Ac
pheric loss, is shown in Table 2 for both active and stagnant lid states
10
15
Active lid:
(from linear regression of data in Table 1; r2 ≥ 0.976 for all regressions).
Ts = 100–700 K Table 2 highlights that for increasing surface temperatures, lower initial
Tmi = 2,550–2,950 K
Stagnant lid: mantle temperatures are required to match the observed atmospheric
d Ts = 100–700 K
gna
nt li Tmi = 2,550–2,950 K N2. These results suggest that for an early active lid state on Venus,
Sta
relatively small changes in the initial mantle temperature allow the
b potential of more Earth-like surface temperatures (Ts ≤ ~300 K) that
Venusian atmospheric CO2 (present)
can still match current N2 observations and yet permit the possibility
of an early habitable Venus4,8,24. To produce the observed atmospheric
20 Earth surficial
10 N2 mass, stagnant lids would require unreasonably high initial mantle
CO2 reservoir
(present)
temperatures (Tmi > 4,300 K) that would exceed Venus’s mantle solidus.
0K
CO2 (kg)

ve
l id T mi
=2
,75
We further consider outgassing of CO2. For simplicity, we do
ti
Ac
not consider any intermediate stage of carbon silicate weathering25

Present
T mi =
2,75
0 K
and instead assume outgassed CO2 feeds directly into the atmosphere
(Fig. 1b). Our results show the observed atmospheric CO2 mass for
10
15 Venus can be matched and/or exceeded for active lid cases but can-
Earth atmospheric CO2 (present)

gna
nt li
d not be attained by any of the stagnant lid cases. For active lid cases,
Sta
–1 0 1
10 10 10
Time (Myr)
Fig. 1 | Modelled cumulative atmospheric mass of outgassed N2 and CO2 over
time for an active and stagnant lid Venus. a, Outgassing of N2 to the Venusian
atmosphere over time in active and stagnant lid states. b, Similarly, outgassing
of CO2 to the Venusian atmosphere. In a and b, shaded regions indicate the range
of modelled atmospheric mass of N2 and CO2, respectively, over initial mantle
temperatures Tmi; lighter shades indicate effects of surface temperature Ts alone;
solid outlines indicate minimum and maximum outgassing (at Ts = 100 K and
Ts = 700 K, respectively); dashed and dotted lines provide reference modelling
for the case Tmi = 2,750 K and Ts = 300 K; orange and blue lines indicate present-
day values1,35,78 for Venus and Earth, respectively. In b, the dashed blue lines show
extrapolation (in lieu of detail) back in time for the atmospheric and total surficial
reservoir of CO2 for the Earth35.
Thermal, tectonic and outgassing evolution
A planet’s atmosphere is established through cumulative volcanic
outgassing of species such as N2 (refs. 18,19). N2 is largely chemically
inert and is stable in the atmosphere over long timescales20. Hence,
atmospheric N2 can be used as a critical component in deciphering the
outgassing and tectonic histories of planets, particularly when cou-
pled with CO2 inventories and atmospheric surface pressure. Through
our models of thermal–chemical–tectonic evolution (Methods; Sup-
plementary Text 1 and 2), we examine the two standard endmembers
of planetary volcanic outgassing (active and stagnant lid states)
across a range of plausible initial solid-state mantle temperatures
(Tmi = 2,550–2,950 K; Supplementary Text 3), surface temperatures
(Ts = 100–700 K) and initial conditions for Venus8,21–23 (Methods; Supple-
mentary Text 4). The observed abundance constraints for the Venusian
atmosphere should be considered the minimum targets to be reached
in our analysis. As illustrated in Fig. 1a, our models of outgassed N2 high-
light that the present-day atmospheric N2 of Venus can only be achieved
with an early active lid state, whereas all fully stagnant lid cases cannot
match the present-day atmospheric N2 mass. Most moderate to higher
initial mantle temperature active lid cases (Tmi ≥ 2,650 K) rapidly reach
the currently observed atmospheric N2 values by ~300 Myr with the
nominal mantle and surface temperature case (Tmi = 2,750 K; Ts = 300 K)
attaining the currently observed N2 mass by ~240 Myr. Importantly,
for active lids that last for more than ~600 Myr (Fig. 1a), the highest
initial mantle and surface temperatures overpredict current Venusian
observed atmospheric CO2 masses are reached within ~90–580 Myr
2 3 4
10 10 10
(Fig. 1b). However, all active lids cases overpredict the observed atmos-
pheric CO2 by 30–380% (Table 1). In contrast, stagnant lid cases are
unable to reach observed atmospheric CO2 values, underpredicting
observations by 40–90% (Fig. 1b and Table 1).
The accumulated Venusian atmospheric surface pressure as a
function of time is shown in Fig. 2. Both active and stagnant lid cases can
reach the observed value for Venus; however, in simulations extended
to the present day, almost all active lid cases exceed the observed sur-
face pressure, but only a narrow range of stagnant lid cases can achieve
a close match. For active lid states, current Venusian surface pressures
are attained in ~27–155 Myr (Fig. 2), whereas stagnant lid states barely
achieve observed surface pressures in relatively recent times.
Our results, summarized in Fig. 3, show that the outgassed atmos-
phere of a purely stagnant lid, even with generous assumptions (for
example, no atmospheric loss or sequestering mechanisms), fails to
reproduce key observational data, the present-day N2 and CO2 abun-
dances and surface pressure. Only active lid conditions can develop
Venus-like N2 and CO2 abundances and surface pressures. However,
an active lid state over the lifetime of Venus would overproduce key
atmospheric observables, particularly for high internal and surface
temperature cases and, critically, would not be consistent with the
observations of a stagnant lid-like state for Venus today26–28. Without
initially considering significant loss of an atmospheric N2 reservoir
(Supplementary Text 5) the only active lid case we find that matches
N2 observations are those of a relatively cool initial starting state for
Venus (Table 2 and the right edge of window of atmosphere emplace-
ment in Fig. 3). However, even this case results in an overabundance
of CO2 and surface pressure (Table 1) and suggest the importance of
other mechanisms such as Venus-specific weathering reactions29,30 and
atmospheric loss31 that are likely to have occurred over the co-evolution
of the atmosphere and surface. For our results, approximately
130–160% of a CO2-equivalent atmosphere (204–231 bar) would need
to be sequestered, lost, or otherwise removed (Table 1). Yet, given that
present-day Venus is in a stagnant lid-like regime, if a tectonic transition
from an active lid to a stagnant lid tectonic state occurred sufficiently
early in Venus’s history5,32–34, this would offer a compelling pathway to
prevent substantial overproduction of the atmosphere.
Implications for Venusian evolution
Although both tectonic endmember states generate a thick CO2 rich
atmosphere, the current mass of both CO2 and N2 cannot be readily

Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w

Table 1 | Ratio of model-derived to observed N2, CO2 and Table 2 | Predicted initial mantle temperature required to
surface pressure at present for Venus match N2 observations for Venus

Tectonics Tmi (K) Ts (K) Model:Obs Tectonics Ts (K) Predicted Tmi (K) r2 Excess T (K)
N2 CO2 Ps 100 2,585 0.978 –
100 0.72 1.32 1.88 200 2,578 0.978 –
300 0.81 1.48 2.06 300 2,572 0.978 –
2,550
500 0.93 1.68 2.29 Active 400 2,563 0.976 –
700 1.09 1.96 2.60 500 2,555 0.976 –
100 1.83 3.04 3.80 600 2,549 0.977 –
300 1.99 3.25 4.04 700 2,544 0.977 –
2,650
500 2.22 3.53 4.35 100 4,599 0.999 2,233
700 2.52 3.88 4.74 200 4,537 0.998 2,171
Active
100 2.15 3.44 4.26 300 4,478 0.996 2,112
300 2.37 3.70 4.55 Stagnant 400 4,458 0.999 2,092
2,750
500 2.65 4.03 4.92 500 4,436 0.999 2,070
700 3.06 4.46 5.39 600 4,366 0.998 2,000
100 4.09 4.83 5.86 700 4,300 0.997 1,934
300 4.69 4.84 5.91 Regressions take N2 results from Table 1 for a fixed surface temperature across different
2,950 initial mantle temperatures for both active and stagnant lids. r2 indicates robustness of fit.
500 5.40 4.84 5.96 For stagnant lids, the excess temperature reflects the mantle temperature versus the solidus
temperature (Supplementary Fig. 3) required to generate Venusian N2 observables. Required
700 6.24 4.84 6.02
stagnant lid temperatures all are substantially above the solidus. Active lids lie substantially
100 0.11 0.11 0.35 below the solidus temperature and are not reported.

300 0.14 0.15 0.43

2,550
500 0.18 0.19 0.53 2.2 times the total surficial carbon inventory for the Earth35. Despite
suggestions of a moderately outgassed Venus (Earth-relative) from
700 0.22 0.26 0.64
present-day atmospheric 40Ar data36,37, our N2 results, in addition
100 0.15 0.15 0.45 to the similar carbon inventories for both the Earth and Venus and
300 0.18 0.20 0.53 non-radiogenic 36Ar concentrations nearly two orders of magnitude
2,650 greater than the Earth’s38, are consistent with Venus being highly out-
500 0.22 0.26 0.64
gassed39 relative to Earth.
700 0.26 0.33 0.75 While we find at least a short period of active lid convection is
Stagnant
100 0.19 0.21 0.56 required to match Venus’s atmospheric observables, an important
300 0.22 0.27 0.65 observation is that Venus currently lacks plate tectonics9, requiring
2,750 that in the past Venus underwent a global tectonic state shift5,32,33. From
500 0.26 0.33 0.75
our results and observations of Venus’s atmosphere, we can bracket the
700 0.30 0.42 0.86 plausible window for the tectonic transition to be between ~100 Myr
100 0.28 0.37 0.79 (consistent with atmospheric emplacement window) (Fig. 3) and up
300 0.32 0.44 0.89
to ~2.4 Gyr.
2,950 Our results indicate that a shift in tectonic states can match current
500 0.35 0.52 0.99
N2 observables without substantially overproducing CO2 or requiring
700 0.40 0.62 1.11 substantial atmospheric loss or sequestration. We consider a smooth
Initial model mantle temperatures were taken at 200 K steps in surface temperature Ts for and continuous shift in tectonic states (active to stagnant) analogous
both active and stagnant lid states. Table entries near unity indicate the Venusian observable to previous approaches10,40 at 100 Myr, 1 Gyr and 3.7 Gyr (100 Myr and
is met by model output, whereas values less than and greater than unity indicate the model
1 Gyr are shown in Fig. 4a,b). For an early transition in tectonics, only
underpredicts and overpredicts the observable, respectively. Ps, surface pressure.
high initial mantle temperature cases (Tmi > 2,800 K; all Ts) can roughly
account for outgassed N2 values seen at present (4–8% below the cur-
explained by either an active or stagnant lid state alone. The present-day rent values). The present numerically modelled atmospheric mass
atmosphere of Venus may better be explained by outgassing of a of CO2 ranges from ~140–161% of current values. Allowing for a later
plate-tectonic-like active lid regime before a later transition to a stag- transition in tectonics at 1 Gyr (Fig. 4b), allows all temperature cases
nant lid state. In aggregate, the observables of N2, CO2 and surface (Tmi = 2,550–2,950 K) to match or exceed atmospheric N2, except for
pressure allow us to determine a plausible window for this transition the lowest surface temperature cases and the lowest initial mantle
(Fig. 3). Our results require Venus to have had an early active lid state for temperature (Tmi = 2,550 K; Ts < 500 K). However, only the cases of low
its first few 100 Myr up to ~2.4 Gyr (Fig. 3 and Table 1). In this scenario, initial mantle and high surface temperatures (Tmi < 2,600 K; Ts ≥ 500 K)
the current Venusian atmosphere need not to have been exclusively allow for N2 to be within 15% of current values. CO2 produced at pre-
set primordially from a magma ocean state as suggested6,7 and instead sent from these cases (Tmi < 2,600 K; Ts ≥ 500 K) range from 151–168%
may have been substantially modified through outgassing in different of current atmospheric values. The discrepancy between observed
tectonics states. CO2 concentrations in our simulations and the atmosphere is likely
Our simulations indicate that early purely active lid states result a product of chemical reactions with the surface and some form of
in substantially thicker atmospheres than are observed presently for early atmospheric loss29,31,41. Increasing the transition time to 3.7 Gyr
Venus. The current atmospheric reservoir of CO2 for Venus is about (corresponding to the estimates for the last resurfacing age2,3) do not

Nature Astronomy
 Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w

24 Underpredicts Overpredicts
Venusian Ps (present) 10
10
2
Ps (bar)
Matches observations
Surface pressure (bar)

23
10
1
10

Melt mass (kg)

lid 0K
ti ve =2
,75 22 CO2 (kg)
Ac T mi 10
0
Earth Ps (present)
10 Ts > 100 K Ts > 500 K
21 Tmi > 2,600 K Tmi < 2,600 K
Present 10

–1 =2
,75
0K N2 (kg)
10 T mi Active lid: 10
20 Active lid
Ts = 100–700 K

an t lid
–2 St agn
10
10
–3
10
–1 0 1
10
Fig. 2 | Surface pressures (Ps) and cumulative extrusive melt produced as a
function of time for active and stagnant lid tectonic states. Description of
results follows from Fig. 1.
result in substantially different predictions due to the lower outgassing
rates of active lids after ~1 Gyr, with the exception of allowing lower
surface temperatures to outgas sufficient N2 by the present (Tmi < 2,600;
300 K ≤ Ts ≤ 500 K; consistent with predictions from Table 2). Results
above Tmi = 2,600 K produce an overshoot of N2 from ~120–400% of
atmospheric levels. These results also produce 142–160% of current
atmospheric CO2 values. In aggregate, with a transition in tectonic
states, 0.7–10.5 bar of N2 and 125–149 bar of CO2 are available to be lost
to space, sequestered, or recycled back into the interior of the planet.
Early active lid states naturally lead to thick atmospheres and cur-
rent day Venusian levels of N2. These developing atmospheres would
lead to substantial climate change due to outgassing25, which can force
a transition in the global tectonic state from early active lid to stagnant
lid convection5,7,32,42,43. For the scenario of large scale resurfacing of the
planet within the last 300 Myr to 1 Gyr, followed by periods of reduced,
but nonzero, volcanic rates and tectonic activity to present5,44,45, Venus
either would have started cooler (mantle/surface) with a simple transi-
tion in tectonic state, or the transition is dynamic, potentially lasting
several Gyr to the present5.
In this work, we have not considered the effects of a preexisting
atmosphere6, or of atmospheric loss. If we consider the effects of an
atmosphere that retains some amount of CO2 from a prior magma
ocean phase (Supplementary Text 4), CO2 concentrations may be
matched in stagnant lid cases where ~34–79 bars of CO2 are already
present at the start of the experiments. Initial concentrations of CO2
would need to be significantly greater for stagnant lid cases to match
the observations if atmospheric loss is considered. However, N2 would
still insufficiently outgas to match observations. In the active lid and
transitioning cases, CO2 concentrations would be substantially greater
than currently observed atmospheric levels, indicating the loss of
potentially hundreds of bars of CO2.
Atmospheric loss due to high EUV flux of the early Sun is likely
nonnegligible for the first 300–1,000 Myr (ref. 31). Ref. 31 found that
thick CO2 atmospheres may be required to prevent atmospheric
escape, which would suggest that the thinner atmospheres of stag-
nant lids (without a large preexisting atmosphere) may be easier
to strip, potentially including a substantial fraction of N2 (ref. 46),
whereas active and transitional lid cases with thicker CO2 rich atmos-
pheres (Fig. 1b) may better retain their N2. Although the details of loss
are complex (Supplementary Text 5), for either tectonic state some
fraction of CO2 and N2 is expected to be lost in the first billion years
of the Solar System, moderating the N2 overshoot and limiting CO2
overproduction inherent with an early active lid. After ~0.1–1.0 Gyr,
loss effects would diminish. Qualitatively considering atmospheric
loss indicates that a transition in tectonic regimes may become even
more important to match atmospheric N2 abundances and not over-
produce CO2. This further suggests a minimum timeframe of at least
Present
Tmi = 2,550–2,950 K Stagnant lid
Window of atmospheric
19 emplacement
Stagnant lid: 10
Ts = 100–700 K –1 0 1 2 3 4
Tmi = 2,550–2,950 K 10 10 10 10 10 10
18
10
10
2
10
3
10
4 Time (Myr)
10
Time (Myr) Fig. 3 | Atmospheric observables compared to simulation of active and
stagnant lid tectonic states. Shaded boxes on the timeline (red arrows)
indicate active (green) and stagnant (grey) lid tectonic state simulation results
that match present observations of Venus1,35,78. Each box indicates the timeframe
in which some combination of simulation mantle and surface temperatures
can produce results that are present on Venus. The window of atmospheric
emplacement (blue shaded region) depends on N2 and CO2 production; it is
determined when N2 and CO2 match or fail to match observations, the leading
(early) edge occurs at Tmi > 2,600 K and Ts > 100 K, and the trailing (late) edge
at Tmi < 2,600 K and Ts > 500 K. The active lid tectonic state can match present
conditions in Ps, CO2, and N2 if atmospheric loss, and/or other sequestration
processes are considered; however, the stagnant lid tectonic state can only
match surface pressure Ps starting a few hundred Ma—with CO2 levels only
matched at ~10 Gyr, and N2 production is never sufficient to match observed
atmospheric levels. The present-day atmosphere of Venus cannot have been
produced under a stagnant tectonic lid state, whereas active lid tectonics are
able to match key atmoshperic observations.
1 Gyr of early active lid convection on Venus and further extending
the younger boundary for the atmospheric window (Fig. 3) towards
the present, in agreement with estimates for the last resurfacing age
of ~3.7 Gyr (refs. 2,3).
Our results can be extended to early phases of active lid activity on
similarly sized bodies (for example, Venus and Earth). Active lid planets
are predicted to have high outgassing rates and thick early atmospheres
(Fig. 2). In this state, Earth-like observables for atmospheric N2 and total
surficial inventory of CO2 can be matched by 100 Myr. These results
suggest early active lids have a substantially reduced window of time
(tens of megayears; Fig. 1b) in which to circumvent the accumulation of
a thick CO2 rich atmosphere that precludes the existence and stability
of liquid water at the surface of the planet. In this scenario in the first
100 Myr of solid-state evolution, an active lid planet to potentially
maintain liquid water at the surface must lose to space or otherwise
sequester from the atmosphere ~40 bars of CO2.
In contrast, due to the lower outgassing rates of stagnant lids, it is
predicted these planets would produce substantially thinner atmos-
pheres, particularly early in their evolution (Fig. 2). Stagnant lid con-
vection requires at least 1 Gyr to match Earth-like values for N2 (Fig. 1a)
and more than 2 Gyr for total surficial CO2 inventories (Fig. 1b). These
results suggest that early stagnant lid planet have a substantially larger
window of time (gigayears) in which CO2 dominated atmospheres are
developing, potentially allowing for the stability of liquid water at the
surface of the planet.
Our results indicate Venus-type atmospheres may be a more
likely consequence of early active lids when compared to stagnant
lids. The present state on Venus may result from an early runaway-
plate-tectonic-like state in which any putative recycling, loss, or seques-
tration failed to prevent the rapid accumulation of CO2 in the atmos-
phere, leading to an extreme greenhouse state and Venus today.
If Venus was in an early active lid state, there are open questions:
did Venus ever harbour life, and can vestiges from this early life-bearing
epoch be detectable from the atmosphere? The existence of a thick
CO2-rich atmosphere may imply that life never existed, that it never

Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w

simulations, heat generated within the interior is required to balance

a
10
20
heat loss from the surface as follows:
Venusian atmospheric N2 (present)

̇ ) − ρm fpm Lpm = As qs − Ac qc
Vm (H − ρm Cm Tm (1)
Earth atmospheric
N2 (present)

where Vm is the mantle volume, Cm is the mantle’s heat capacity, ρm is

N2 (kg)

the density of the mantle, Tm ̇ is the time averaged mantle temperature,

H is a radiogenic heat production term, Lpm is the latent heat of melt,

Transition 100 Myr

15
10
fpm is the melt production, As and Ac are the surface and core areas, and

Transition 1 Gyr
qs and qc are the heat losses from the surface and core. A simplified

Present
version of equation (1) is used to track the evolution of a single layer
core, Vm (ρc Cc Tċ ) = −Ac qc . Relevant values are given in Supplementary
Table 1.
b For the mantle, the general heat flux relationship is given by the
Nusselt-Rayleigh scaling form23,53–55:
Venusian atmospheric CO2 (present)
β
20
10 Earth surficial qm Ra
Nu = =( ) . (2)
CO2 reservoir ΔT Racr
(present) km
d
CO2 (kg)

Present Here the nondimensional heat flow is given as Nu (from Nusselt’s

Transition 100 Myr

Transition 1 Gyr

name); the Rayleigh number is Ra (from Rayleigh’s name); the critical

15
Rayleigh number is Racr, qm is the heat flux out of the mantle, km is the
10
Earth atmospheric CO2 (present) mantle thermal conductivity, ΔT is the temperature difference across
the mantle, d is the convective depth scale (taken as the convective
–1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 mantle thickness) and β is the scaling parameter. For plate-tectonic-like
Time (Myr) active lid convection, the heat loss from the mantle can be treated as
Fig. 4 | Outgassed N2 and CO2 abundances as driven by tectonic regime the heat loss from the surface. The Rayleigh number indicates the
change at 100 Myr and 1 Gyr. a, Outgassing of N2 to the Venusian atmosphere vigour of convection:
over time with transition from active to stagnant lid states. b, Similarly,
outgassing of CO2 to the Venusian atmosphere. Transitioning at either 100 Myr gρm αΔTd3
Ra = (3)
or 1 Gyr to a stagnant lid tectonic state creates better accord with present-day κηa
observations. In a and b, the results are the same as the yellow-coloured results
in Fig. 1, up to the point of transition, after which the outgassing atmosphere where g is surface gravity, α is the mantle thermal expansivity, κ is
production is reduced. The earlier transition shows the strongest deviation thermal diffusivity and ηa is the internal viscosity, which is taken at the
from pure active or stagnant lid states. The 100 Myr transition results are shown
midpoint of the mantle (for example, (Ts − Tc ) / 2 )). Relating the time
in green, the 1 Gyr results are shown in pink. The other markings are the same
scale for boundary layer breakaway following ref. 13 results in an expres-
as in Fig. 1. The transition at 1 Gyr shows effectively no deviation (of up to a few
sion for the convective velocity u as a function of the Rayleigh
percent) from earlier transitioning cases. A transition in tectonic states from
an early active lid to a later stagnant lid can achieve present-day atmospheric
number:
observations of both outgassed species. 2β
κ Ra
u = c0 ( ) ( ) (4)
d Racr

established a sufficient rate of carbon sequestration or that any carbon where c0 is a constant13.
was recycled into the interior. If life existed, and carbon was released The previous formulations suffice to account for plate-tectonic-like
back into the atmosphere, it may be possible to detect organic car- active lid convection; however, modifications are required to account
bon isotopes. DAVINCI and other future atmospheric missions can for convection underneath a thick immobile surface, or a stagnant
well constrain C and N isotopic ratios, with 15N/14N determining how lid. Schematically, the differences between active and stagnant lid
much atmosphere was lost to space. This determination will place bet- convection are illustrated in Supplementary Fig. 1. Within a stagnant
ter constraints on the cumulative outgassing and escape rates of the lid, most temperature variation occurs within the conductive lid and
Venusian atmosphere, both of which can better constrain the timing is consequently not available to drive convection. Instead, convection
of a potential transition in tectonic states for Venus and explore the is driven by the temperature contrast across the rheologic sublayer
potential of early Venusian habitability. between the base of the stagnant lid and the nearly isothermal mantle.
Solving for the temperature at the base of the stagnant lid Tsl (ref. 47),
Methods it follows that
Parametrized thermal evolution models
Tsl = Tm − ΔTrh (5)
We simulate the long-term thermal–chemical evolution of Venus
with parametrized one-dimensional models of interior evolution that
couples the evolution of the planet from the interior to the atmos- with
phere13,23,47–51. Parametrized models have two important strengths:
the first is that they can isolate processes and behaviours that more T2m
ΔTrh = 2.23R (6)
complex models cannot individually address, which otherwise leads E
to results in which the physics describing a behaviour is difficult to where R is the universal gas constant and E is the activation energy.
pinpoint; and second, these classes of models can reach parameter In contrast to the active lid convective regime where the thickness of
ranges that more complex models are unable to achieve52. For these the lithosphere can be directly determined from mantle heat loss, the

Nature Astronomy
Article
growth of the stagnant lid follows from an energy balance at the base
of the lithosphere and rheologic sublayer, or the heat flux through the
conductive lid (dsl)53:
ρm Cm (Tm − Tsl ) dsl̇ = qsl − qm (7)
where qsl is the heat flux at the top of the conductive stagnant lid, dsl̇
is the lid thickness over time; qm can be solved by substituting ΔTrh
for ΔT in equation (2). The heat flux out of the stagnant lid qsl is
determined through Fourier’s law, using the temperature contrast
across the stagnant lid and the stagnant lid thickness. Inspection of
equations (5)–(7) implicitly suggests that the depth scales of convec-
tion between plate-tectonic-like active lids and stagnant lids are
starkly different. Inherent in the assumption of active lid convection
is that the surface participates in mantle overturn, thus suggesting
that the convective depth is the entire mantle depth d. Conversely,
in the stagnant lid, the convective mantle occurs beneath the thick
stagnant lid. Thus, a modification to equations (3) and (4), substitut-
ing mantle depth d with the new stagnant lid convective thickness
of d − dsl̇ , with dsl̇ (as constrained by equation (7)) to potentially be a
substantive portion of the entire mantle thickness d. The power law
exponent β in equations (2) and (4) is taken to be 0.33 for endmember
active lid and 0.2 for endmember stagnant lid convection23, per Sup-
plementary Table 1.
Viscosity parametrization
Our viscosity formulation depends on temperature, pressure, water
content48,49 and melt fraction (‘Melting parametrization’):
E + pV
η (Tm , p, H2 O, φ) = A0 fH2 O exp ( − γφ) (8)
RTm
A0 and γ are empirical constants49,56–58, p is pressure and V is the
activation volume. We assume viscosity is controlled by diffusion
creep and therefore behaves as a Newtonian fluid. Our formulation
relates an empirical relationship that defines fugacity in terms of water
concentrations (OH)59:
−r
2 3
fH2 O = exp (c0 + c1 lnCOH + c2 ln COH +c3 ln COH ) (9)
where fH2 O is the water fugacity, c0 − c3 are experimental constants, r
is the fugacity constant and COH is the water concentration, which is
expressed in units of atomic H/106 Si. We assume an olivine mineral
ratio of Fe2SiO4 to Mg2SiO4 of 1:9. Viscosity is therefore modified by the
effects of oxygen fugacity fH2 O and melt fraction φ (refs. 49,59), as
shown in equations (8) and (9), with both quantities evolving together
with time and temperature. Calibration of the numerical simulations
is shown in Supplementary Text 1 and Supplementary Fig. 2.
Melting parametrization
Melting serves as a form of direct communication between the inte-
rior and surface of a planet, directly coupling to the thermal evolu-
tion (equation (1)) and viscosity (equation (8)) models. We use the
well-studied model for the generation of partial melt from adiabatic
decompression60,61 and models of hydrous mantle melting62.
To parametrize the solidus and liquidus for our experiments, we
adopt a standard form of a simple polynomial expression between
temperature and pressure63:
dry
Tsol = aP2 + bP + c (10a)
dry
Tliq = dP2 + eP + f (10b)
Nature Astronomy
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w
where a– f are constants from published experiments. The relation-
ships in equations (10a) and (10b) are experimentally anhydrous and
constrained to depths corresponding to ~10 Gpa or less. For simplic-
dry dry
ity, we assume that both Tsol and Tliq are of a linear form with higher
pressures and/or greater depths.
H2O in our simulations is an incompatible species (melt favoured)
allowing for changes in the water concentrations for the bulk solid
mantle over time. Water partitioning in the melt is estimated following:
CH2 O
Xmelt = ( ) (11)
DH2 O + φ (1 − DH2 O )
where Xmelt is the concentration of water in the melt (kg H2O per kg of
melt), CH2 O is the weight fraction concentration of water in the bulk
solid mantle, DH2 O is the bulk distribution coefficient of water and φ
is the melt fraction. The melt fraction is averaged in our melt layer
(calculated from onset depth of melting to cessation depth of melt-
ing). Clinopyroxene phases are not depleted, and consequently this
approach is similar to equilibrium batch melting. These assumptions
ensure the solidus and liquidus functions are continuous over the
melt domain.
To account for the effects of dissolved water components on
the anhydrous solidus and liquidus equations (10a) and (10b) are
modified62:
dry
Tsol = Tsol − ΔTH2 O (12a)
dry
Tliq = Tliq − ΔTH2 O (12b)
where Tsol and Tliq are the composite hydrous solidus and liquidus and
dry dry
Tsol and Tliq are the anhydrous solidus and liquidus temperatures. ΔTH2 O
is the shift in temperatures from dry to melting hydrous curves, which
scales as the water concentration in the melt:
γ
ΔTH2 O = KXmelt (13)
K and γ are constants as determined by ref. 62. The melt fraction
φ then can be parametrized with the following power law
relationship:
β
dry
T − (Tsol − ∆TH2 O (Xmelt ))
φ=( ) (14)
dry dry
Tliq − Tsol
where T is the time dependent temperature of the mantle at a
given depth.
We account for the effects of depletion of melt and residuum51,64.
The difference in solidus is estimated at ~150 K between undepleted
and depleted (that is, harzburgite) peridotite64. The solidus of the
residuum is increased linearly by degree of melt (maximum 40%) up to
a maximum value of 150 K, similar in principle to the approach of ref. 51.
For simplicity and to account for melt buoyancy65,66, melt generated
above 12 GPa is assumed to be transported upward towards the surface
and below 12 GPa to be extracted downward deeper into the mantle.
Calculation of the melt zone includes a determination of the upper
and lower boundary of melt production. These are determined where
the solidus crosses the mantle adiabat (Supplementary Fig. 3). We
calculate the thermal profile (the venotherm) in two parts (Supple-
mentary Fig. 1): a conductive lithosphere and the convective adiabat.
The difference between the upper and lower crossing is taken to be the
average partial melt zone thickness. The partial melt zone thickness is
a function of the thermal evolution, the mantle water content and the
amount of previous melt and depletion that has occurred.
Article
Melt extraction and outgassing
For a planet operating in a plate-tectonic-like regime, the vast major-
ity of volcanism is accommodated through decompression melt at
spreading centres (on Earth, mid-ocean ridges). Melt production in
this case simply follows49
fpm = φ∗ Dmelt Spr (15)
where φ* is the melt fraction that reaches the surface and Dmelt is
the depth of the melting layer to the surface, which changes over time.
The spreading rate of the mid-ocean ridges follows the function
Spr = 2MORL uc (16)
where MORL is the ridge length and uc is the convective velocity
in a plate-tectonic-like active lid13,49. MORL is assumed to be both con-
stant with time and to scale with the surface area difference between
Earth and Venus.
Convection within a stagnant lid planet is dominated by regions of
passive upwellings and downwellings, which stands in stark contrast to
the much more active stirring and vigorous convection of a
plate-tectonic-like system. Passive upwelling velocities are approxi-
mately proportional to the velocity of the interior ui, such that ui < uc.
Holding all things equal between active and stagnant lids, adiabatic
decompression melt is suppressed due to the thicker stagnant lid when
compared to active lid convection (illustrated in Supplementary Figs. 3
and 4). Increasing boundary layer thicknesses require an increase in
the mantle temperatures to generate similar levels of melt. With lower
convective velocities fluxing new material into the melt zone and also
suppressed adiabatic melting, melt production then is generally more
inefficient when compared to active lid systems67 and is expressed as
∗
4ui φ D2melt
fpm = As (17)
d2
here, the melt channel thickness Dmelt is measured from the base of the
lithosphere to the base of the melt zone. The depth of the convecting
mantle is a proxy for convective cell size and conveniently normalizes
melt production across the entire surface area As of the planet.
The general expression for the volatile flow rate into the atmos-
phere is as follows:
Ωv = ρm fpm χd (18)
where χd is the outgassing efficiency factor following from refs. 49,
68, 69 (see Supplementary Text 2 for further discussion). Volatiles are
extracted from the interior as melting progresses, allowing for feed-
back in mantle viscosity and the long-term thermal evolution. Regas-
sing and release of volatile species from metamorphic reactions are not
considered. A comparison of convective velocity, boundary layer thick-
ness and melt production for our models is shown in Supplementary
Fig. 4. The general overall model setup is illustrated in Supplementary
Fig. 5. To link the melt evolution (from the convection experiments) to
outgassing (atmosphere evolution), we employ the gas speciation of
model of ref. 70 (see Supplementary Text 2 and Supplementary Fig. 6
for additional discussion).
Initial composition and atmosphere
Given the current uncertainty of Venus’s internal composition, we
restrict our consideration to Earth-like compositions. Our models
follow from estimates of the Bulk Silicate Earth composition71. This
assumption offers two critical controls: (1) the Bulk Silicate Earth
assumption constrains the outgassing species and (2) also constrains
models of the interior structure to be consistent with a MgSiO3 man-
tle. The redox conditions of the pre-melt mantle are fixed at FMQ-1.5
Nature Astronomy
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w
(ref. 70) (the fayalite–magnetite–quartz buffer). On differentiated bod-
ies in our Solar System, this value represents the average fO2 of basalts72.
The concentration of water in the Venusian mantle is unknown, but
estimates range from a nominally dry ~5–50 ppm to a relatively water
rich ~800 ppm (refs. 36,73–75). We assume the bulk solid-state Venusian
mantle initially contains 600 ppm of both H2O and CO2 (refs. 20,76)
and 40 ppm of N2 (ref. 77) at the beginning of our simulations. The
solubility of N in silicate melt can be substantially greater, ranging
from ~200 ppm to a few weight percent (with the assumption that the
partition coefficient is 0 and the mantle is oxidizing, which is likely
appropriate for melt sourced in Earth-like upper mantles). Melt there-
fore can be highly enriched when compared to the background mantle.
We allow for a maximum potential concentration of 400 ppm of N2
that may go into the melt, provided there is sufficient N2 available in
the surrounding mantle, allowing for this enrichment. We examine
the results of differing N2 concentrations in Supplementary Text 6 and
Supplementary Figs. 7–9. Concentrations of species in the mantle are
updated as melting progresses, reducing the total availability of spe-
cies that may enter the melt. We allow for total depletion of volatiles
from the mantle; however, no model explored reaches this condition.
Volatiles are extracted from the melt that reaches the surface and are
released to the atmosphere as constrained by the pressure-sensitive gas
speciation of ref. 70 (‘Melt extraction and outgassing’). For simplicity,
and given the lack of constraints, we assume the initial atmosphere in
our numerical experiments to be negligible of order 1 × 10−3 bars of
pressure. This is done to focus the experiment on the process of outgas-
sing after solid-state convection initiates. The tenuous atmosphere is
assumed to be the product of volcanic outgassing, with the chemical
makeup of the initial atmosphere reflecting the initial outgassed spe-
cies from the speciation model at the first timestep.
Data availability
Data used to generate Figs. 1–4 are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.7570178.
Code availability
MATLAB is a commercial code. The C parametrized thermal evolution
code used here and described in the Methods sections, in addition to
the MATLAB analysis code(s), are available from the authors upon
reasonable request.
References
1. Bullock, M. A. & Grinspoon, D. H. The recent evolution of climate
on Venus. Icarus 150, 19–37 (2001).
2. Schaber, G. G. et al. Geology and distribution of impact craters on
Venus: what are they telling us? J. Geophys. Res. 97, 13257–13301
(1992).
3. Strom, R. G., Schaber, G. G. & Dawson, D. D. The global resurfacing
of Venus. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 99, 10899–10926 (1994).
4. Way, M. J. et al. Was Venus the first habitable world of our solar
system? Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 8376–8383 (2016).
5. Weller, M. B. & Kiefer, W. S. The physics of changing tectonic
regimes: Implications for the temporal evolution of mantle
convection and the thermal history of Venus. J. Geophys. Res.
Planets 125, e2019JE005960 (2020).
6. Gillmann, C. et al. Dry late accretion inferred from Venus’s
coupled atmosphere and internal evolution. Nat. Geosci. 13,
265 (2020).
7. Gillmann, C. & Tackley, P. Atmosphere/mantle coupling
and feedbacks on Venus. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 119,
1189–1217 (2014).
8. Way, M. J. & Del Genio, A. D. Venusian habitable climate
scenarios: modeling Venus through time and applications to
slowly rotating Venus-like exoplanets. J. Geophys. Res. 125,
e2019JE006276 (2020).
Article
9. Solomon, S. C. et al. Venus tectonics - An overview of Magellan
observations. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 97, 13199–13255 (1992).
10. Phillips, R. J., Bullock, M. A. & Hauck, S. A. Climate and
interior coupled evolution on Venus. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28,
1779–1782 (2001).
11. McGill, G. E. Venus tectonics: another Earth or another Mars?
Geophys. Res. Lett. 6, 739–741 (1979).
12. Kaula, W. M. & Phillips, R. J. Quantitative tests for plate tectonics
on Venus. Geophys. Res. Lett. 8, 1187–1190 (1981).
13. Schubert, G., Turcotte, D. L. & Olson, P. Mantle Convection in the
Earth and Planets (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).
14. Cann, J. R. et al. A review of melt migration processes in the
adiabatically upwelling mantle beneath oceanic spreading
ridges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A. 355, 283–318 (1997).
15. Nimmo, F. & Stevenson, D. J. Influence of early plate tectonics on
the thermal evolution and magnetic field of Mars. J. Geophys. Res.
Planets 105, 11969–11979 (2000).
16. Guimond, C. M., Noack, L., Ortenzi, G. & Sohl, F. Low volcanic
outgassing rates for a stagnant lid archean Earth with
graphite-saturated magmas. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 320,
106788 (2021).
17. Noack, L., Rivoldini, A. & Van Hoolst, T. Volcanism and outgassing
of stagnant-lid planets: Implications for the habitable zone.
Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 269, 40–57 (2017).
18. Som, S. M. et al. Earth’s air pressure 2.7 billion years ago
constrained to less than half of modern levels. Nat. Geosci. 9,
448–451 (2016).
19. Stüeken, E. E. et al. Mission to planet Earth: the first two billion
years. Space Sci. Rev. 216, 31 (2020).
20. Marty, B. The origins and concentrations of water, carbon,
nitrogen and noble gases on Earth. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 313,
56–66 (2012).
21. Boujibar, A., Driscoll, P. & Fei, Y. Super-earth internal structures
and initial thermal states. J. Geophys. Res. 125, e2019JE006124
(2020).
22. Taylor, F. & Grinspoon, D. Climate evolution of Venus. J. Geophys.
Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JE003316 (2009).
23. Breuer, D. & Moore, W. B. in Treatise on Geophysics
(ed. Gerald Schubert) 299–348 (Elsevier, 2007).
24. Warren, A. O. & Kite, E. S. Narrow range of early habitable Venus
scenarios permitted by modeling of oxygen loss and radiogenic
argon degassing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 120, e2209751120 (2023).
25. Walker, J. C. G., Hays, P. B. & Kasting, J. F. A negative feedback
mechanism for the long-term stabilization of the Earth’s surface
temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 9776 (1981).
26. Rolf, T. et al. Dynamics and evolution of Venus’ mantle through
time. Space Sci. Rev. 218, 70 (2022).
27. Solomatov, V. S. & Moresi, L. N. Stagnant lid convection on Venus.
J. Geophys. Res. 101, 4737–4753 (1996).
28. Bjonnes, E., Johnson, B. C. & Evans, A. J. Estimating Venusian
thermal conditions using multiring basin morphology. Nat. Astron
5, 498–502 (2021).
29. Zolotov, M. Y. Gas–solid interactions on venus and other solar
system bodies. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 84, 351–392 (2018).
30. Taylor, F. W., Svedhem, H. & Head, J. W. Venus: the atmosphere,
climate, surface, interior and near-space environment of an
Earth-like planet. Space Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-
018-0467-8 (2018).
31. Johnstone, C. P., Lammer, H., Kislyakova, K. G., Scherf, M. &
Güdel, M. The young sun’s XUV-activity as a constraint for lower
CO2-limits in the Earth’s archean atmosphere. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 576, 117197 (2021).
32. Weller, M. B., Lenardic, A. & O’Neill, C. The effects of internal
heating and large scale climate variations on tectonic bi-stability
in terrestrial planets. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 420, 85–94 (2015).
Nature Astronomy
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w
33. Weller, M. B. & Lenardic, A. On the evolution of terrestrial planets:
bi-stability, stochastic effects, and the non-uniqueness of tectonic
states. Geosci. Front 9, 91–102 (2018).
34. O’Neill, C. et al. A window for plate tectonics in terrestrial planet
evolution? Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 255, 80–92 (2016).
35. Lécuyer, C., Simon, L. & Guyot, F. Comparison of carbon, nitrogen
and water budgets on Venus and the Earth. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
181, 33 (2000).
36. Namiki, N. & Solomon, S. C. Volcanic degassing of argon
and helium and the history of crustal production on Venus.
J. Geophys. Res. 103, 3655 (1998).
37. Kaula, W. M. Constraints on Venus evolution from radiogenic
argon. Icarus 139, 32 (1999).
38. Hoffman, J. H., Hodges, R. R., Donahue, T. M. & McElroy, M. B.
Composition of the Venus lower atmosphere from the Pioneer
Venus Mass Spectrometer. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 85,
7882–7890 (1980).
39. Halliday, A. N. The origins of volatiles in the terrestrial planets.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 105, 146–171 (2013).
40. Krissansen-Totton, J., Fortney, J. J. & Nimmo, F. Was Venus ever
habitable? Constraints from a coupled interior–atmosphere–
redox evolution model. Planet. Sci. J. 2, 216 (2021).
41. Bierson, C. J. & Zhang, X. Chemical cycling in the Venusian
atmosphere: a full photochemical model from the surface to
110 km. J. Geophys. Res. 125, e2019JE006159 (2020).
42. Lenardic, A., Jellinek, A. M. & Moresi, L. N. A climate induced
transition in the tectonic style of a terrestrial planet. Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett. 271, 34–42 (2008).
43. Foley, B. J., Bercovici, D. & Landuyt, W. The conditions for
plate tectonics on super-Earths: inferences from convection
models with damage. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 331–332,
281–290 (2012).
44. Byrne, P. K. et al. A globally fragmented and mobile lithosphere
on Venus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118, e2025919118 (2021).
45. Filiberto, J., Trang, D., Treiman, A. H. & Gilmore, M. S. Present-day
volcanism on Venus as evidenced from weathering rates of
olivine. Sci. Adv. 6, eaax7445 (2020).
46. Tian, F., Kasting, J. F., Liu, H.-L. & Roble, R. G. Hydrodynamic
planetary thermosphere model: 1. Response of the Earth’s
thermosphere to extreme solar EUV conditions and the
significance of adiabatic cooling. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2007JE002946 (2008).
47. Grasset, O. & Parmentier, E. M. Thermal convection in a
volumetrically heated, infinite Prandtl number fluid with
strongly temperature-dependent viscosity: implications for
planetary thermal evolution. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 103,
18171–18181 (1998).
48. Sandu, C. & Kiefer, W. S. Degassing history of Mars and the
lifespan of its magnetic dynamo. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39,
L03201 (2012).
49. Sandu, C., Lenardic, A. & McGovern, P. The effects of deep water
cycling on planetary thermal evolution. J. Geophys. Res. Solid
Earth 116, B12404 (2011).
50. Grott, M., Morschhauser, A., Breuer, D. & Hauber, E. Volcanic
outgassing of CO2 and H2O on Mars. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 308,
391–400 (2011).
51. Morschhauser, A., Grott, M. & Breuer, D. Crustal recycling, mantle
dehydration, and the thermal evolution of Mars. Icarus 212,
541–558 (2011).
52. Weller, M. B., Lenardic, A. & Moore, W. B. Scaling relationships
and physics for mixed heating convection in planetary interiors:
isoviscous spherical shells. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121,
7598–7617 (2016).
53. Schubert, G. Subsolidus convection in the mantles of terrestrial
planets. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 7, 289–342 (1979).
Article
54. Schubert, G., Stevenson, D. & Cassen, P. Whole planet cooling
and the radiogenic heat source contents of the Earth and moon.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 85, 2531–2538 (1980).
55. Stevenson, D. J., Spohn, T. & Schubert, G. Magnetism and thermal
evolution of the terrestrial planets. Icarus 54, 466–489 (1983).
56. Hirth, G. & Kohlstedt, D. in Inside the Subduction Factory, Vol. 138
(ed. Eiler, J.) 83–105 (AGU Geophysical Monograph, 2003).
57. Liebske, C. et al. Viscosity of peridotite liquid up to 13 GPa:
implications for magma ocean viscosities. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
240, 589–604 (2005).
58. Karato, S. & Wu, P. Rheology of the upper mantle: a synthesis.
Science 260, 771–778 (1993).
59. Li, Z.-X. A., Lee, C.-T. A., Peslier, A. H., Lenardic, A. & Mackwell, S. J.
Water contents in mantle xenoliths from the Colorado
Plateau and vicinity: implications for the mantle rheology and
hydration-induced thinning of continental lithosphere.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 113 https://doi.org/10.1029/
2007JB005540 (2008).
60. McKenzie, D. The generation and compaction of partially molten
rock. J. Petrol. 25, 713–765 (1984).
61. McKenzie, D. & Bickle, M. J. The volume and composition
of melt generated by extension of the lithosphere. J. Petrol. 29,
625–679 (1988).
62. Katz, R. F., Spiegelman, M. & Langmuir, C. H. A new
parameterization of hydrous mantle melting. Geochemistry,
Geophys. Geosystems 4, 1073 (2003).
63. Hirschmann, M. M. The mantle solidus: experimental constraints
and the effect of peridotite composition. Geochemistry Geophys.
Geosystems https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GC000070 (2000).
64. Maaløe, S. The solidus of harzburgite to 3 GPa pressure: the
compositions of primary abyssal tholeiite. Mineral. Petrol. 81,
1–17 (2004).
65. Ohtani, E., Nagata, Y., Suzuki, A. & Kato, T. Melting relations of
peridotite and the density crossover in planetary mantles. Chem.
Geol. 120, 207–221 (1995).
66. Ohtani, E., Suzuki, A. & Kato, T. in Properties of Earth and Planetary
Materials at High Pressure and Temperature (eds Manghnani, M. H. &
Yagi, T.) 227–239 (American Geophysical Union, 1998).
67. Hauck, S. A. & Phillips, R. J. Thermal and crustal evolution of Mars.
J. Geophys. Res. Planets https://doi.org/10.1029/2001je001801
(2002).
68. Grott, M., Breuer, D. & Laneuville, M. Thermo-chemical evolution
and global contraction of Mercury. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 307,
135–146 (2011).
69. O’Neill, C., Lenardic, A., Jellinek, A. M. & Kiefer, W. S. Melt
propagation and volcanism in mantle convection simulations,
with applications for Martian volcanic and atmospheric evolution.
J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JE002799 (2007).
70. Gaillard, F. & Scaillet, B. A theoretical framework for volcanic
degassing chemistry in a comparative planetology perspective
and implications for planetary atmospheres. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 403, 307–316 (2014).
71. McDonough, W. F. & Sun, S. S. The composition of the Earth.
Chem. Geol. 120, 223–253 (1995).
72. Herd, C. D. K. Basalts as probes of planetary interior redox state.
Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 68, 527–553 (2008).
73. Grinspoon, D. H. Implications of the high D/H ratio for the sources
of water in Venus’ atmosphere. Nature 363, 428–431 (1993).
Nature Astronomy
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w
74. Marty, B. & Yokochi, R. Water in the early Earth. Rev. Mineral.
Geochem. 62, 421–450 (2006).
75. Peslier, A. H., Schönbächler, M., Busemann, H. & Karato, S.-I.
Water in the Earth’s interior: distribution and origin. Space Sci.
Rev. 212, 743–810 (2017).
76. Saal, A. E., Hauri, E. H., Langmuir, C. H. & Perfit, M. R. Vapour
undersaturation in primitive mid-ocean-ridge basalt and
the volatile content of Earth’s upper mantle. Nature 419,
451–455 (2002).
77. Grewal, D. S., Dasgupta, R., Hough, T. & Farnell, A. Rates of
protoplanetary accretion and differentiation set nitrogen budget
of rocky planets. Nat. Geosci. 14, 369–376 (2021).
78. Baines, K. H. et al. in Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets
(eds Bullock, M. A., Mackwell, S. J., Simon-Miller, A. A. &
Harder, J. W.) 137–160 (Univ. of Arizona Press, 2013).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by funds provided by A.J.E., Brown University
and NASA’s Solar System Workings programme (grant number
80NSSC23K0167), which partially funded M.B.W. Additional support
was provided through the USRA/LPI Urey fellowship for M.B.W.
Author contributions
M.B.W., A.J.E. and A.V.J. conceptualized the project. A.J.E., M.B.W. and
D.E.I. devised the methodology and M.B.W. and A.J.E. performed the
investigation. Visualization was done by M.B.W. Funding acquisition
was handled by M.B.W. and A.J.E. All authors contributed to the writing
and editing of the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version
contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02102-w.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed
to Matthew B. Weller.
Peer review information Nature Astronomy thanks Helmut Lammer,
Cedric Gillmann and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their
contribution to the peer review of this work.
Reprints and permissions information is available at
www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with
the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited
2023