New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Weiwei Wu, Jingsui Yang, and Dongyang Lian, School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China; Center for
Advanced Research on Mantle (CARMA), Key Laboratory of Deep-Earth Dynamics of Ministry of Natural Resources, Institute of Geology, Chinese
Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing, China
Huichao Rui, School of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Definition of Ophiolite 968

Origin and Evolution of the Term “Ophiolite” 968
Current Definition of Ophiolite in Plate Tectonics 969
Classification of Ophiolite 970
MOR-Type and SSZ-Type Ophiolites 971
Further Classification of Ophiolites 971
MOR-Type Ophiolites 971
Definition 971
Geochemical Features 972
Formation Setting and Process 972
SSZ-Type Ophiolites 973
Definition 973
Geochemical Features 973
Formation Setting and Process 973
Podiform Chromitites 974
Definition 974
High-Cr and High-Al Type 974
Low Pressure Formation Mechanisms 975
High Pressure Formation Mechanisms 977
Diamonds in Ophiolite 977
Occurrence of Diamond 977
Main Features 980
Formation Setting and Process 983
Perspectives of Ophiolites 984
Analogy of Oceanic Lithosphere 984
Recycling and Mantle Heterogeneity 985
Tracing Early History of Plate Tectonics 986
Acknowledgments 987
References 987
Further Reading 993

Definition of Ophiolite
Origin and Evolution of the Term “Ophiolite”
The term “ophiolite” has been the subject of controversary on the origin and significance of the rocks it describes for almost
200 years (Brongniart, 1821, 1827; Steinmann, 1927; Jackson and Thayer, 1972; Miyashiro, 1973; Pearce, 1975; Moores, 1982;
Pearce et al., 1984; Boudier and Nicolas, 1985; Nicolas and Boudier, 2003; Dilek and Furnes, 2011, 2014; Bodinier and Godard,
2014; Dilek and Yang, 2018 and references therein). At first, it comes from Greek word for “the snake stone,” because the greenish,
mottled and shiny appearance of sheared serpentinite is similar to some serpents, and received its first written definition by French
mineralogist, Alexandre Brongniart (1770–1847) in 1813 exemplified as a serpentine matrix containing various minerals, although
the author didn’t obviously distinguish igneous rocks from metamorphic rocks at the time (Moores, 1982). Brongniart identified
the first ophiolite in Apennines to include a suite of magmatic rocks (ultramafic rocks, gabbro, diabase and volcanic rocks)
(Brongniart, 1821, 1827). Since then, due to the original descriptive characteristic of the term “ophiolite,” the meaning of it had
been arbitrarily modified and led to the misleading use as a descriptive term to include various rocks associated with serpentiniza-
tion process. The concept of ophiolite subsequently had been first forged in the western Alps and Apennines with the efforts of
countless predecessors (Coleman, 1977; Moores, 1982 and references therein).
Before the remarkable work of Steinmann in 1927, the various components in an ophiolite had been proposed a
hypabyssal origin, as recalled by Coleman (1977). The well-known “Steinmann trinity,” which consists of the association of
radiolarite, gabbro/diabase-spilite and peridotite (serpentinite), pioneeringly drew the geological community’s attention to the
genetic association of the three components mentioned above that originally formed as in situ intrusions in axial parts of
geosynclines (Steinmann, 1927). Ophiolite had been assigned a petrogenetic significance, not just a descriptive term. With that

968 Encyclopedia of Geology, 2nd edition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102908-4.00074-6

 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 969

came another conflict: a purely magmatic origin of the ultramafic section versus an intrusive origin (Coleman, 1977). These
conflicts stem from the experimental work and field reports on stratiform complexes represented by Bowen (1927), and the
field work of Alpine peridotites represented by Benson (1926) in the early 20th centuries. Bowen (1927) favored that
peridotites formed principally by fractional crystallization of basaltic magma and gravitational accumulation of the early
formed olivine, whereas Benson (1926) proposed a plutonic origin for the peridotites and serpentinites, which intruded into
folded geosynclinal sediments within orogenic belts. These controversies boil down to the different occurrences and associ-
ations of peridotites in America and Europe (Coleman, 1977).
From 1930s to 1960s, before the emergence of the plate tectonic paradigm, the three ingredients mentioned above of a
controversy of ophiolite have been popular. Either the intrusion origin (Benson, 1926; Steinmann, 1927) or the cumulate origin
(Bowen, 1927), it has a common assumption that the autochthonous nature of ophiolite, which is apparently inconsistent with the
general lack of metamorphism associated with Alpine-type peridotites. Numerous intelligent geologists made their own efforts to
reconcile the discrepancy as reviewed by Moores (1982). The allochthonous nature of ophiolite has been proposed, although not
very convincingly by 1960s (e.g., Hess, 1955, 1960; de Roever, 1957). As recalled by Moores (1982), two camps still existed. The
European camp emphasized the close association of peridotite, gabbro, and pillow basalts (ophiolites) whereas the American camp
considered the peridotites separate from associated mafic rocks. The collision of European and American opinion concerning the
origin of ophiolites gave rise to increased intensive study of these rocks. A milestone publication presented by Brunn (1959), who
was the first worker ever to draw an analogy between the mid-Atlantic ridge and the ophiolite suite. Soon thereafter, Hess (1965)
made the similar conclusion that ophiolites represented oceanic crust after extensive work in Greece, although this opinion was not
generally accepted at that time (Thayer, 1967). However, the basic problem of autochthonous versus allochthonous origin of
ophiolite had not been resolved at this time.

Current Definition of Ophiolite in Plate Tectonics

The development of the plate tectonic hypothesis in 1960s has led to some astounding changes in geologic dogma, as well as
ophiolite. The new concepts of plate tectonic provided a new framework to conciliate the discrepancy (Coleman, 1971; Davies,
1971; Moores and Vine, 1971) advocating that fragments of the oceanic lithosphere had been thrust over or into (obducted)
continental margins at convergent plate boundaries. Closely following the presentation of this paradigm, a milestone was reached
in 1972, in which American and European geologists converged to adopt a common definition of ophiolites at the first Geological
Society of America’s Penrose Conferences on ophiolites (Anonymous, 1972). Ophiolite should not be used as a rock name or as a
lithologic unit in mapping. In a completely developed ophiolite, it has the same lithologic units as those of current oceanic
crust, i.e., a mantle section including different peridotites at lower part, and a crust section including ultramafic and mafic cumulate,
gabbro, sheeted dike and pillow lava with deep sea sediments at upper part (Fig. 1; Nicolas and Boudier, 2003; Dilek and Furnes,
2011, 2014). Based on the recognition of extensional sheeted dike complexes, the existence of harzburgitic peridotites with high-
temperature deformation fabrics, the discovery of fossil magma chambers in plutonic sequences, the allochthonous nature of
ophiolites, and the similar seismic velocity structure between Troodos (Cyprus) and Semail (Oman) ophiolites in particular and the
modern oceanic crust, particularly the Pacific Ocean (Nicolas and Boudier, 2003; Dilek and Furnes, 2011, 2014 and references
therein), ophiolites were interpreted to be remnants of oceanic lithosphere, which now normally occur in a suture zone after closure
of a paleo-ocean basin, and record the formation and evolution of an oceanic basin and plate tectonic history in an orogenic belt
(Pearce and Robinson, 2010; Kusky et al., 2011; Dilek and Furnes, 2011).
Despite the years of controversy of ophiolite (as recalled by Coleman, 1977; Moores, 1982; Nicolas, 1989), a worldwide
agreement was reached among geologists during the Penrose Conference in 1972 on the definition of what is an ophiolite
(Anonymous, 1972; Coleman, 1977; Moores, 1982; Nicolas, 1989; Dilek and Furnes, 2011, 2014; Bodinier and Godard, 2014).
As recalled by Nicolas (1989), a common definition of ophiolite, which characterizes fast-spreading centers, has now been accepted
which states as follows (Anonymous, 1972): “Ophiolite refers to a distinctive assemblage of mafic to ultramafic rocks. It should not
be used as a rock name or as a petrologic unit in mapping. In a completely developed ophiolite, the rock types occur in the following
sequence, starting from the bottom and working up (e.g., Fig. 1):

− Ultramafic complex, consisting of variable proportions of harzburgite, lherzolite and dunite, usually with a metamorphic tectonic
fabric (more or less serpentinized);
− Gabbroic complex, ordinarily with cumulus textures commonly containing cumulus peridotites and pyroxenites and usually less
deformed than the ultramafic complex;
− Mafic sheeted dike complex;
− Mafic volcanic complex, commonly pillowed.
− Associated rock types include (1) an overlying sedimentary section typically including ribbon cherts, thin shale interbeds, and
minor limestones; (2) podiform bodies of chromite generally associated with dunite; and (3) sodic felsic intrusive and
extrusive rocks.

Faulted contacts between mappable units are common. Whole sections may be missing. An ophiolite may be incomplete,
dismembered, or metamorphosed. Although ophiolite generally is interpreted to be oceanic crust and upper mantle, the use of
the term should be independent of its supposed origin.”
970 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Fig. 1 (Left) Columnar section showing the upper mantle and crustal sections of the generalized ophiolite. (Right) Field photographs of different rock units in
ophiolites: (A) foliated harzburgite; (B) harzburgite cut by mafic dykes; (C) harzburgite (yellow) and banded chromitite (dark); (D) podiform chromitite; (E) wehrlite
(olivine + clinopyroxene; dark) cut by gabbro (yellowish white); (F) layered cumulates of dunite (yellowish green) intercalated with layered chromitite (dark);
(G) layered gabbro; (H) plagiogranite intrusion; (I) sheeted dyke complex; (J) gabbro cut by basaltic intrusions; (K) and (L) pillow lava. Locations of photos: (A–D):
Mirdita ophiolite, Albania; (E, G–L): Semail ophiolite, Oman; (F) Pozanti-Karsanti ophiolite, Turkey. (Left) After Boudier F and Nicolas A (1985) Harzburgite and
lherzolite subtypes in ophiolitic and oceanic environments. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 76: 84–92.

Classification of Ophiolite

In 1968, the Wilson Cycle of ocean initial opening and final closing was identified (Wilson, 1968). Articulating a comprehensive
plate tectonic theory requires understanding the opening history of the ocean, the aging and oceanic events which affected the
corresponding oceanic lithosphere, and finally the closure and collision history, which are responsible for the ophiolite emplace-
ment onto a continent. The geological record of the evolution of ocean basins are well preserved in different type of ophiolites
formed during different stages of Wilson cycle (Dilek and Furnes, 2011). Thus, ophiolites are important markers of past plate
tectonics in addition to other markers, such as paired metamorphic belts, collisional orogens and so on (Condie and Kröner, 2008).
There are many kinds of classifications for ophiolite (Miyashiro, 1975; Church and Riccio, 1977; Dobretsov and Kepezhinscas,
1981; Moores, 1982; Beccaluva et al., 1984; Coleman, 1984; Pearce et al., 1984; Boudier and Nicolas, 1985; Ishiwatari, 1985; Zhu
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 971

et al., 1987; Zhang, 1990; Xiao, 1995; Wang et al., 1996; Dilek, 2003; Nicolas and Boudier, 2003; Kusky et al., 2011; Dilek and
Furnes, 2011, 2014). One of them proposed to classify ophiolites according to how the nature of their mantle constituents reflects
the degree of partial melting in the mantle of origin and the rate of spreading of the ridge (Boudier and Nicolas, 1985; Nicolas and
Boudier, 2003). However, the most accepted classification is according to how the geochemical nature of their crustal constituents
reflect the different tectonic environments of origin (Pearce et al., 1984; Dilek, 2003; Dilek and Furnes, 2011, 2014).

MOR-Type and SSZ-Type Ophiolites

After the Penrose conference more and more geologists were essentially convinced of the origin of ophiolites in mid-ocean ridge.
However, geochemical studies challenged this review, on the basis of major and trace elements of basalts, claimed that about one-
third of the analyzed rocks of the lower pillow lavas and sheeted dikes in the Troodos ophiolite follows a calc-alkalic trend
(Miyashiro, 1973). A supra-subduction zone (SSZ) environment was conveniently suggested (Miyashiro, 1973; Pearce and Cann,
1973; Pearce, 1975, 2008, 2014), and a subduction initiation origin was proposed for some ophiolites as well (Stern, 2004; Stern
and Gerya, 2018; Reagan et al., 2019 and references therein). Thus, a new classification of ophiolites, i.e., a suprasubduction zone
(SSZ) and a mid-ocean-ridge (MOR) ophiolite types, was proposed mainly based on geochemical compositions of crustal rocks in
ophiolites (Pearce et al., 1984; Dilek and Furnes, 2011, 2014). SSZ ophiolites include both those formed in back-arc basins (e.g.,
Josephine ophiolite) and subduction initiation (forearc) setting (e.g., Oman, Troodos, and the Coast Range ophiolite of California)
(Dilek and Furnes, 2011, 2014). The Izu-Bonin-Mariana arc-trench system is one of the best studied (through deep ocean drilling
and submersible diving surveys) and best understood modern suprasubduction zones exemplified as a contemporary
suprasubduction-zone ophiolite factory (Stern and Bloomer, 1992; Reagan et al., 2010; Dilek and Furnes, 2011).

Further Classification of Ophiolites

Ophiolites around the world, nevertheless, show striking diversities in their rock assemblages and structure (i.e., ophiolite diversity)
with respect to the Penrose definition mentioned above (Dilek and Furnes, 2011). These diversities indicate that some ophiolites are
incomplete with one or more rock units missing, and has been attributed to intense tectonic dismemberment during emplacement
onto the continents or to different tectonic settings (e.g., MOR vs. SSZ) where they were generated as an intrinsic nature (Dilek and
Furnes, 2011). It is worthy to note that seafloor mapping, deep drilling and diving have demonstrated the compositional and
structural diversities of modern oceanic lithosphere, the ancestors of future ophiolites (Dick et al., 2006; Snow and Edmonds,
2007). For instance, oceanic lithosphere at slow- and ultraslow-spreading ridges (e.g., the Mid- Atlantic Ridge (MAR), Southwest
Indian Ridge (SWIR) and Gakkel Ridge) display markedly different features from those at the fast-spreading ridges (e.g., the East
Pacific Rise (EPR)) (Warren, 2016). Moreover, the Xigaze ophiolite in southern Tibet, China shows continuous sequences but still
have decoupled crust-mantle proportions (Nicolas et al., 1981; Girardeau et al., 1985a,b,c; Girardeau and Mercier, 1988), which
could not be simply attributed to tectonic dismemberment or metamorphosism. Based on the mounting evidence, ophiolite
diversity can be an intrinsic nature of ophiolites, which can be ascribed to a combination of factors: (1) variations in degree of
partial melting governed by spreading rate of the spreading center and proximity to plumes or trenches; (2) pre-existing mantle
heterogeneities; (3) melt/fluid-solid interaction (Dilek and Furnes, 2011; Warren, 2016). Sometimes tectonic dismemberment or
metamorphosed also play a role, compounding the ophiolite diversity.
The ophiolite diversity gives rise to a new classification of ophiolite proposed by Dilek and Furnes (2011, 2014). They linked the
main ophiolite pulses temporally and spatially to some first-order global tectonic and magmatic events, which in turn govern the
development of different ophiolite types in different tectonic settings (Fig. 2; Dilek, 2003; Dilek and Furnes, 2011, 2014; Furnes and
Dilek, 2017). Thus, ophiolites can be classified to the first order as subduction-unrelated and subduction-related types. Subduction-
unrelated ophiolites without subduction contamination include continental margin (CM), mid-ocean ridge (MOR), and plume-
type (P) ophiolites, which correspond to the ophiolites developed at “normal” mid-ocean, plume-related mid-ocean, continental
margin, and subducted ridges (Pearce, 2014). Subduction-related ophiolites with subduction contamination include suprasubduc-
tion zone (SSZ) and volcanic arc (VA) ophiolites. The SSZ-type ophiolites formed in subduction initiation (forearc) and backarc
basin settings. During subduction process, fragments of any of the previously outlined ophiolite types can be incorporated into the
subduction-accretion prism to form the accretionary-type ophiolites, which do not show a distinctive lithological construction and
a unique geochemical fingerprint (Dilek and Furnes, 2011).

MOR-Type Ophiolites
Definition
Mid-ocean ridge (MOR) ophiolites represent oceanic lithosphere formed in the sea-floor spreading centers of ocean basin (Fig. 2;
Pearce et al., 1984). The overall mechanism by which ophiolites are produced is reasonably well understood, although details
continue to be controversial. Beneath ocean ridges, upwelling asthenosphere gives rise to decompression partial melting, producing
basaltic magma, and eventually, the formation of oceanic crust. The oceanic lithosphere mantle represents melting residue left after
the extraction of oceanic crust.
972 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Fig. 2 Schematic plate tectonic diagram (not to scale), depicting the major settings of magmatic construction of the oceanic lithosphere (above) and the structural
architecture of the main types of oceanic lithosphere, developed in these settings (below). Courtesy of Furnes H and Dilek Y (2017) Geochemical characterization and
petrogenesis of intermediate to silicic rocks in ophiolites: A global synthesis. Earth-Science Reviews 166: 1–37 with permission from Elsevier B.V., © 2017.

Geochemical Features
In order to avoid influenced by alteration, immobile element geochemistry of volcanic rocks in ophiolite complexes has developed
over the past 50 years to decipher their most probable tectonic setting (Cann, 1970; Pearce and Cann, 1971; Pearce, 2014). The trace
elements Y, Zr, Nb, Ti, V, Cr, Co, Ni, rare earth elements (REEs), Th, and Ta are generally relatively immobile during metamorphism
and alteration; therefore, they are reliable as indicators to trace the origin of the ophiolites (Cann, 1970; Pearce and Cann, 1971;
Shervais, 1982; Dilek and Furnes, 2011, 2014; Pearce, 2014; Saccani, 2015; Furnes and Dilek, 2017). For example, in the Nb/Yb
versus Th/Yb diagram (Pearce, 2008), the lavas and dikes of the subduction-unrelated ophiolites plot within the mantle array (Dilek
and Furnes, 2011). Moreover, the subduction-unrelated ophiolites display large variations in the Nb/Yb versus Th/Yb discrimina-
tion diagram, which may be related to the degree of partial melting and the mantle temperature and fertility (Dilek and Furnes,
2014). In a Ti-V discrimination diagram (Shervais, 1982), subduction-unrelated ophiolites straddle the field defined by the ratios
between 20 and 50, typical of mid-ocean-ridge basalts (Dilek and Furnes, 2011).

Formation Setting and Process

It has been evident that sea-floor spreading could take place in a number of settings, resulting from non-plate tectonic process (e.g.,
plume) and/or the Wilson cycle, not just at ridges in the centers of mature ocean basin (Pearce et al., 1984; Dilek and Furnes, 2014;
Pearce, 2014). Thus, Pearce (2014) recognized six types of ridges that might responsible for different MOR-type ophiolites,
including “normal” mid-ocean ridges, plume-related mid-ocean ridges, continental margin ridges, subduction-initiation ridges,
back-arc basin ridges and subducted ridges.
Consensus exists that ophiolites are fragments of ancient oceanic lithosphere obducted onto continental crust irrespective to the
tectonic setting in which they form (Coleman, 1971; Dewey and Bird, 1971; Dewey, 1976, 1977; Stern, 2004; Dilek and Furnes,
2011). Ophiolite obduction is a complex process involving several mechanisms and has been discussing for several decades
(Coleman, 1971; Dewey and Bird, 1971; Dewey, 1976, 1977). No single mechanism can be responsible for the emplacement of
all obducted ophiolites worldwide (Dewey, 1976). Recently, Condie (2016) summarized three major mechanisms for emplace-
ment of ophiolites in arcs or collisional orogens, including: (i) obduction or overthrusting of oceanic lithosphere onto passive
continental margin during continental collision, (ii) splitting off and obduction of the upper section of the subducting slab onto a
former arc, and (iii) underthrusting of oceanic lithosphere into an accretionary prism in subduction zone. Irrespective the variety of
geodynamic settings requiring for subduction, ophiolites are emplaced when their plate margin settings switch from tension or
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 973

strike-slip to compression (Shervais, 2001; Stern, 2002, 2004). Stern (2004) showed that it is almost impossible to emplace true
MORB crust at a convergent plate boundary, giving rise to the paucity of the MOR ophiolites around the world.

SSZ-Type Ophiolites
Definition
Suprasubduction zone (SSZ) ophiolites represent oceanic lithosphere formed by sea-floor spreading directly above subducted
oceanic lithosphere, analogous to the modern Izu-Bonin-Mariana and Tonga-Kermadec arc-trench rollback systems (Fig. 2; Stern
and Bloomer, 1992; Ishizuka et al., 2014; Pearce, 2014). They include both those formed in back arc basins (e.g., the Josephine
ophiolite of northern California and southern Oregon) and those that contain rocks typically associated with forearc extension
(Troodos, Oman, and the Coast Range ophiolite of California). SSZ ophiolites have the geochemical characteristic of island arcs that
are different from MOR ophiolites but they show the similarity of the structure of oceanic crust. In addition, SSZ ophiolites have
more depleted nature of their mantle sequences due to higher degree of partial melting, the more common presence of podiform
chromitites, and the crystallization of clinopyroxene before plagioclase which is reflected in the high abundance of wehrlite relative
to troctolite in their cumulate sequences (Pearce et al., 1984).

Geochemical Features
The geochemical features of SSZ ophiolites can be depicted by using MORB-normalized geochemical patterns for a selected range of
trace element (Pearce et al., 1984). The major differences between the SSZ and MOR ophiolites are features include the following:
(a) enrichment in large ion lithophile elements (LILE: K, Rb, Cs, Th, and the light rare earth elements, LREE) relative to normal
MORB (NMORB) (Pearce et al., 1984); (b) depletion in the high field strength elements (HFSE: Ti, Nb, Ta, Hf ) relative to NMORB
(Shervais, 1982, 2001); (c) common occurrence of calc-alkaline and high MgO-high Si type volcanic rocks (Shervais, 1982, 2001).
These diagrams were immediately applied to many ophiolites around the world, suggesting most of these ophiolites were generated
in SSZ environments (e.g., forearc, embryonic arc, and backarc setting; Shervais, 2001). More specifically, in the Nb/Yb versus Th/Yb
diagram (Pearce, 2008), the lavas and dikes of the suprasubduction-zone and volcanic arc ophiolites show a significant shift away
from the mantle array due to subduction/crustal input (Fig. 3A). In a Ti-V discrimination diagram (Fig. 3B) (Shervais, 1982), the
subduction-related ophiolites show a wider scatter of Ti/V ratios between <10 and >50 (Dilek and Furnes, 2011).

Formation Setting and Process

Geological reconstructions suggest that SSZ ophiolites can be linked to the Wilson cycle and formed since the initial stages of
subduction to the final closure of the ocean basin (Shervais, 2001; Dilek and Furnes, 2011, 2014). Shervais (2001) proposed that
during SSZ ophiolites’ formation and evolution, they display a consistent sequence of events, which may be summarized briefly
into five stages: birth, youth, maturity, death and resurrection. These events generally progress in an orderly fashion from birth
through death and resurrection, however, not all ophiolites display all stages of this proposed life cycle. The “birth” and “youth”
stages seem to be commonly documented in most SSZ ophiolites.
Specific tectonic settings of SSZ oceanic crust formation include the forearc, the backarc, and the incipient arc environments.
Evidence from these ophiolites and modern IBM system suggests that the first magma to form in response to intra-oceanic
subduction is MORB in composition, derived by partial melting of upwelling of asthenosphere (Stern, 2004; Stern and Gerya,
2018; Reagan et al., 2019 and references therein). As subduction proceeds, the magma composition changes to island-arc tholeiite,
probably because the hydrated asthenosphere of the “mantle wedge” eventually becomes the dominant mantle source. With the

Fig. 3 Geochemical data of mafic lavas and dikes from the subduction-related and subduction-unrelated ophiolites plotted in Nb/Yb-Th/Yb (A) and Ti-V
(B) discriminant diagrams. Data sources for the enveloped fields are given in Dilek and Furnes (2011) and Pearce (2014).
974 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

increasing flux of fluids and melts from the subducting slab, the previously depleted asthenosphere remelt to produce volcanic rocks
varied from primitive Ol + augite phyric tholeiites to tholeiitic ankaramites, high-Ca boninites, high-Mg andesites, and
clinoenstatite-phyric, low-Ca boninites (Shervais, 2001). Other SSZ ophiolites formed in the early stages of back-arc spreading
following splitting of a pre-existing arc. Nonetheless the more common mechanism for formation of SSZ ophiolites appears to have
been pre-arc rather than back-arc spreading.

Podiform Chromitites
Definition
Podiform chromitites refer to chromite deposits hosted in ophiolitic mantle peridotites (Arai and Ahmed, 2018) or modern abyssal
peridotites (Edwards et al., 2000), and are basically regarded to be a kind of special magmatic cumulates dominantly consisting of
chromite (>20 vol%) and silicate matrix (Zhou et al., 1994; Arai and Miura, 2016). The chromite ores occur in various structures,
such as pods, lenses, bands, dikes or irregular, which may provide clues for approaching their formational processes (Fig. 4). On the
basis of chromite contents and textures, chromitites can be classified into different subtypes such as massive, disseminated, and
nodular categories. Massive ores are dominantly consisted of chromite (>90%) and commonly occur in the central part of the ore
bodies, while disseminated ores contain less chromite (20–60%), and usually occur along the margin of massive ore bodies or as
small isolated bodies. Nodular ores are characterized by rounded aggregates of chromite in peridotite matrix (Fig. 4).
The majority of the podiform chromitites occur in ophiolitic mantle rocks in worldwide Phanerozoic orogenic belts, such as
Jurassic-Cretaceous Alpine-Himalayan belt, Paleozoic-Tertiary West Pacific and Cordilleran belts (Dilek and Furnes, 2011), and
some others are reported in Proterozoic ophiolites, such as Finland (Outokumpu, Liipo et al., 1995), Morocco (Bou Azzer, Ahmed
et al., 2009) and China (Miaowan, Huang et al., 2017). As Archean ophiolitic remnants are identified recently, several Archean
chromitites hosted within are reported in Madagascar (Andriamena, Reisberg, 2015), India (Nuasahi-Sukinda, Mukherjee and
Mondal, 2018) and China (Zunhua, Li et al., 2002).

High-Cr and High-Al Type

Podiform chromitites have been classified into different types according to different occurrences, compositions and textures.
In terms of spatial occurrence and structural features of chromitite and surrounding peridotite, the chromitites have been

Fig. 4 (A) Massive chromitite from Ray-Iz ophiolite, Polar Urals; (B) Massive chromitite from Dingqing ophiolite, Tibet; (C) disseminated chromitite from Dingqing
ophiolite, Tibet; (D) nodular chromitite from Luobusa ophiolite, Tibet.
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 975

divided into concordant and discordant ones (Cassard et al., 1981; Miura et al., 2012). The former and the latter are
concordant and discordant to the foliation of the ambient harzburgite, respectively (Cassard et al., 1981).
Generalized chemical compositions of chromite express as (Mg,Fe)(Cr,Al)2O4. Another more popular way is classified podiform
chromitites into high-Cr (Cr# > 60) and high-Al (Cr# < 60) types based on the Cr# [¼Cr/(Cr + Al)] values of chromite (Fig. 5) (e.g.,
Zhou et al., 2014; Xiong et al., 2017c). Usually, only one type occurs in a given peridotite massif. For example, Luobusa (China) and
Ray-Iz (Polar Urals) are known as high-Cr chromitites (Yang et al., 2015a), while Sartohay (China) and Coto (Philippines) are
known as high-Al chromitites (Zhou et al., 2014). High Al and -Cr chromitites show systematic differences not only in major
element compositions, but also in trace elements, such as Ni, Ti, Ga and PGE. High-Cr chromitites are rich in PGE and contain
abundant grains of platinum-group minerals (PGM), whereas high-Al chromitites are systematically poor in PGE and in PGM
(González-Jiménez et al., 2011; Xiong et al., 2017c). High-Cr and high-Al chromitites are generally believed to form in different
geological setting by different process (e.g., Zhou et al., 2014; Xiong et al., 2017c).
Recently, some intermediate varieties (50 < Cr# < 70) are reported in some ophiolites (Fig. 5), and their compositions straddle
the range of high-Cr and high-Al chromitites (Uysal et al., 2016, 2018; Chen et al., 2019a; Liu et al., 2019b). Another special
occurrence is the coexistence of high-Cr and high-Al chromitite pods in a single ophiolitic massif, such as Zedang (China), Mayarí-
Cristal (Cuba) and Mu
gla (Turkey) (Uysal et al., 2009; González-Jiménez et al., 2011; Xiong et al., 2017c).

Low Pressure Formation Mechanisms

It is commonly considered that podiform chromitites in ophiolitic peridotite massifs formed by interaction of tholeiite- or boninite-
like magma with peridotitic wall rocks and subsequent melt mixing/mingling at shallow depths in MOR or SSZ environments,
respectively (Fig. 6) (e.g., Arai, 1997; Zhou and Robinson, 1997; González-Jiménez et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2014; Rollinson et al.,
2018; Chen et al., 2019a). Main evidence for shallow melt/rock interaction origin for chromitites include the following: (1)
chromitite pods enveloped by dunite within harzburgite and their systematic mineral, whole-rock, and lithium isotopic geochem-
ical evolution (Zhou et al., 2005; Su et al., 2016; Xiong et al., 2015). (2) Chromite major and trace elements are compositional
comparable with these in boninite lava and MORB, and occurrence of low-pressure hydrous minerals in the primary inclusion in
chromite (Page and Barnes, 2009; Borisova et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2019a). (3) Remarkable osmium isotopic compositional

Fig. 5 Plots of (A) Mg# vs. Cr#, (B) TiO2 vs. Cr#, (C) Cr2O3 vs. Al2O3, and (D) Cr# vs. Ga of spinel of different types of podiform chromitites. Fields for MORB and
boninite according to Rollinson (2005), and melting curve after Pearce et al. (2000). Data of high-Cr and high-Al chromitites from Zhou et al. (2014) and intermediate
chromitites from Chen et al. (2019a).
976 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Fig. 6 Models for chromitites formation. (A) Olivine-saturated melt A supplied from deeper part of the mantle react with orthopyroxene and produce replacive
dunite and silica-rich melt B, then mixed melt C precipitates chromite to form chromite cumulates; (B) Cr-rich melt A produced by partial melting of the
asthenospheric mantle, assimilates crustal material as it pass through the slab window, and evolve to more siliceous, more hydrous and more oxidized melt B that
crystallizing chromite rapidly. Then chromite-bearing melt C travel upward and deposit chromitites because of velocity reduction; (C) hydro melt extracts Cr from wall
rocks. As the fluid phase exsolve from hydro melt, fluid bubbles collect chromite and float near the top of the magmatic column. Chromite concentrated in fluid pool
and subsequently sink into basaltic melt and form chromitites. (A) After Arai S and Miura M (2015) Podiform chromitites do form beneath mid-ocean ridges. Lithos
232: 143-149.

heterogeneity in platinum-group minerals (PGMs) and chromitites, which are usually are believed to be caused by mixing/mingling
of melts that have different mantle sources, or melt-rock reactions (González-Jiménez et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2007, 2012; Griffin
et al., 2016).
Studies on chromitites have been last for decades, however, the origin of element chromium is still not clear. The upper mantle
contains very low content of Cr (Cr: 2646 ppm in primitive mantle; Cr2O3: 0.4  0.1 wt% in peridotite) (Palme and O’Neill, 2003),
so the key questions about the formation mechanism is how does tremendous chromium extract from mantle rock and concentrate
into chromitite. Basically, melt-rock interaction is an indispensable process to extract Cr from pyroxene of mantle pyroxene into
melt (Zhou et al., 1994). A large system in the mantle, far larger than the size of outcrops or mining areas, is needed to fulfill the Cr
budget requirement for podiform chromitite genesis (Arai and Miura, 2016). Another key aspect of podiform chromitite formation
is how to produce chromite-oversaturated melt within upper mantle. During the magmas penetrating the upper mantle, the
decrease of pressure would narrow the chromite crystallization field and is not favorable for the formation of chromitites (Zhou
et al., 2014). But increasing of silica in olivine-chromite cotectic melt would trigger Cr saturation and chromite precipitation solely.
Therefore, melt mixing (Arai and Yurimoto, 1994; Arai and Miura, 2015) and crustal assimilation (Zhou et al., 2014) are proposed
to address the silica source. The former considers that mixing of primitive magmas with more evolved and relatively silica-rich melt
(Arai and Yurimoto, 1994; Arai and Miura, 2015). The latter believes that silica contents of melt can be increased by assimilation of
subducted crustal materials (Fig. 6) (Zhou et al., 2014). This is supported by various crustal mineral in chromitites (Zhou et al.,
2014; Robinson et al., 2015) and it could happen if magmas penetrated a slab window before traveling the overlying mantle wedge.
For a long time, fluids catch few attentions, and the role of them played in formation of chromitites is poorly understood until
now. Fluid phases are expected in mantle wedge above SSZ that release from dehydration of subducted slab. Even it has recently
been suggested that the transition zone can contain 1–1.5 wt% water (Pearson et al., 2014). The presence of water/fluid would be
capable of increasing content of Cr in melt (Edwards et al., 2000; Johan et al., 2017). Experimental study demonstrates that content
of fluid, especially reducing aqueous fluid containing carbon in melt is critical to nucleate chromite (Matveev and Ballhaus, 2002;
Johan et al., 2017). In the other hand, chromite tends to transport into fluid phase that would exsolve from water-rich melt, whereas
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 977

olivine favor to stay in silicate melt (Matveev and Ballhaus, 2002). Then the melt and chormite-bearing fluid can separate similar
with immiscibility, which is an essential process to metallogeny in some magmatic-related ore deposits (e.g., Wilkinson, 2013).
Beyond that, velocity of magma flow decrease (Zhou et al., 2014), or the solid-stare re-distribution of mineral particles in the
upwelling mantle flow (Saveliev and Fedoseev, 2019), would also contribute to chromite concentration. Thus, we emphasize that
formation of large podiform chromitite is very complicated and may be controlled by multiple mechanism in different stage.

High Pressure Formation Mechanisms

However, the recent more and more discovery of ultra-high pressure and super-reduced minerals (e.g., diamond, moissanite,
coesite, native elements and alloys) in some chromitites and their host rocks around the world challenges the traditional models for
chromitite formation (e.g., Yang et al., 2007, 2014). In situ microdiamond in chromite or separated microdiamond in chromitites
from Luobusa, Polar Urals and other ophiolites worldwide, Ca-perovskite and Ni-Mn-Co alloy inclusion within them suggest a
pressure over 14 GPa (e.g., Yang et al., 2015a; Lian et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019). Exsolved lamellae of clinopyroxene and coesite in
chromite from Luobusa, coupled with abundant micro-inclusions of clinopyroxene, requires high solubility of SiO2 and CaO in the
host chromite, and suggests a precursor of chromite, a CaFe2O4-structured high-pressure polymorph, stable at pressures over
12.5 GPa (Yamamoto et al., 2009). Calcium amphibole exsolution lamellae in chromite from Semail, along with reconstructed
precursor chromite containing SiO2 concentrations of 0.33–0.58%, suggest upwelling from a minimum pressure of 8 GPa (Chen
et al., 2019b). Electron backscattered diffraction (EBSD) analysis reveals that olivine grains co-existing with exsolved phases inside
chromite grains and occurring on chromite grain boundaries have a single pronounced crystallographic preferred orientation
(CPO). This suggests that olivine preserves the CPO of a high-pressure polymorph (wadsleyite) before the high-pressure polymorph
of chromite began to invert and exsolve (Satsukawa et al., 2015).
P
Fe3+/ Fe ratios in chromite, which hosted in mantle-derived melts indicating constant mantle oxidation state over Earth history
from Archean to Phanerozoic (Rollinson et al., 2017). Experimental studies report that UHP polymorphs can have a high affinity for
Fe3+, leading to disproportionation of Fe2+ to Fe3++Fe0 (McCammon, 2005). Mössbauer spectroscopy studies show that chromite
P
from massive ore display higher Fe3+/ Fe (0.42) than those in nodular and disseminated ores (0.22) in Luobusa chromitite. High
P
Fe3+/ Fe thus appears to be a consequence of crystallographic stabilization of Fe3+ in the UHP polymorph stable below 400 km,
despite low-fO2 conditions. The rapid upwelling of the Luobusa chromitite to the uppermost mantle (<10 Ma) has preserved the
P
high Fe3+/ Fe in samples where re-equilibration with olivine was limited (Ruskov et al., 2010; McGowan et al., 2015). Low Fe3
+ P
/ Fe are results from partially reaction with their host peridotite in the presence of hydrous melt. Furthermore, experiment studies
have confirmed that magnesiochromite is stable up to 14 GPa (Wu et al., 2016), which validate the possibility of UHP origin.
All these suggest a more common deep origin for podiform chromitites than previous thought. To reconcile the clear melt-rock
interaction in shallow and the UHP signatures, subducted slab contamination, deep recycling and deep origin have been proposed
(Zhou et al., 2014; Arai, 2013; Griffin et al., 2016; Xiong et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2015a). Slab contamination model proposes that
upward parental magma of chromitite would catch UHP minerals derived from metamorphic crustal rocks when transport through
slab window, and then deposit in chromitite. Deep recycling model claim that low-pressure podiform chromitites form by melt/
rock interaction in shallow then subducted in deep mantle, transform to UHP chromitite incorporating UHP and ultra-reduced
minerals, finally return back to the oceanic crust by mantle convection. Deep origin model does not deny the contribution of melt/
rock interaction in shallow, but it emphasizes that UHP chromite starts to crystallized in mantle transition zone and then
incorporate into oceanic crust in spreading center by plume upwelling, subsequently modified by tholeiitic and boninitic magmas
in SSZ (Fig. 6). As the pressure decrease when UHP chromite transports into shallow, Si and Ca would exsolve as lamellar of coesite
and clinopyroxene.

Diamonds in Ophiolite

Ophiolitic peridotites and associated podiform chromitites are generally believed to form at an uppermost mantle level (Arai and
Yurimoto, 1994; Zhou et al., 1994; Arai, 1997, 2013). However, the ultrahigh-pressure (UHP)-super reduced (SuR) minerals such as
diamonds, pseudomorph of stishovite, qingsongite (cBN), SiC, native metal and alloy, as well as a series of crustal minerals, have
been recently recovered from many ophiolites over the world, requiring serious rethinking of this assumption (Robinson et al.,
2004; Yang et al., 2007, 2014, 2015a,b; Yamamoto et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2009; Lian et al., 2017, 2018; Wu et al., 2017, 2019; Lian
and Yang, 2019).

Occurrence of Diamond
Diamonds from podiform chromitites of the Luobusa and Dongqiao ophiolites in Tibet were first recovered in 1981 (IGCAGS,
1981). Since then, diamonds have been successively discovered in ophiolitic peridotites and chromitite of different orogenic belts.
So far, ophiolite-hosted diamonds have been discovered from 17 different ophiolite massifs which distrusted in 12 suture zones
across the world. They occure (i) in six massifs (Dongbo, Purang, Dangqiong, Xigaze, Zedang, and Luobusa from west to east) along
the 2000 km long Yarlung-Zangbo suture (Neo-Tethys suture zone) (Bai et al., 1993; Robinson et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2007; Xu
et al., 2008, 2009; Liang et al., 2014; Howell et al., 2015); (ii) in Dingqing massif in Bangong-Nujiang suture (Neo-Tethys suture
978 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

zone), Tibet (Xiong et al., 2017a); (iii) in Ray-Iz massif, in the Paleozoic Voikar-Syninsk ophiolite belt in the polar Urals, Russia
(Yang et al., 2014, 2015a); (iv) in the Pozanti-Karsanti (also called Aladag) ophiolite in Turkey (Neo-Tethys suture zone) (Lian et al.,
2017, 2018); (v) the Mirdita ophiolite in Albania (Neo-Tethys suture zone) (Xiong et al., 2017b; Wu et al., 2017, 2019); (vi) in
Jurassic Myitkyina ophiolite in Myanmar (Neo-Tethys suture zone) (Chen et al., 2018); (vii) in late Paleozoic Sartohai ophiolite
(Central Asian Orogenic Belt) (Tian et al., 2015); (viii) in middle Silurian to late Devonian Hegenshan ophiolite, Inner Mongolia-
Daxinganling Orogenic Belt (a part of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt) (Huang et al., 2015); (ix) in Early Paleozoic Qilian ophiolite
in the North Qilian Early Paleozoic suture zone (unpublished); (x) in Nidar ophiolite in the Indus suture (Neo-Tethys suture zone),
southeast Ladakh Himalaya (Das et al., 2017); (xi) in late Jurassic Josephine ophiolite in the in the Klamath Mountains of southwest
Oregon and northern California (unpublished); and (xii) in Tehuitzingo ophiolite in southern Mexico (Farré-de-Pablo et al., 2018).
Thus, Yang et al. (2014, 2015a,b) termed these diamonds as ophiolite-hosted diamonds (Fig. 7), which is a new type of natural
diamonds in addition to diamonds found in kimberlites and UHP metamorphic rocks.
The abundance of ophiolite-hosted diamonds varies considerably between different ophiolitic massifs (Fig. 7). For example, Xu
et al. (2009) discovered over 1000 grains of diamonds in 1100 kg of chromitites from the Luobusa ophiolite. In the Hegenshan
ophiolites, 130 diamond grains were recovered from about 2000 kg of chromitites (Huang et al., 2015). Lian et al. (2017) recovered

Fig. 7 Ophiolite-hosted diamonds from the (A) Luobusa ophiolite in Tibet, China (Xu et al., 2009). (B) Ray-Iz ophiolite in Russia (Lian and Yang, 2019).
(C) Hegenshan ophiolite in Inner Mongolia, China (Huang et al., 2015). (D) Sartohay ophiolite in Xinjiang, China (Tian et al., 2015). (E) Pozanti-karsanti ophiolite,
Turkey (Lian et al., 2017). (F) Mirdita ophiolite, Albania (Wu et al., 2019).
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 979

over 100 grains of diamond from 500 kg of chromitite from the Pozanti-Karsanti ophiolite. By contrary, in some ophiolites such as
the Mirdita (Wu et al., 2017, 2019), Sartohay (Tian et al., 2015), and Myitkyina (Chen et al., 2018) ophiolites have quite low
abundances of diamonds, less than 50 grains of diamond from about 500 kg of peridotites/chromitites.
Due to the rarity of diamonds in peridotite and chromitite, it is extremely difficult to recognize in situ diamonds. After extensive
work from different research groups around the world, the first discovery of an in situ diamond is enclosed by an OsIr alloy as an
inclusion (Yang et al., 2007). However, this diamond grain is only 1–2 mm in size, which is much smaller than those in situ
diamonds (six grains) enclosed by mineral chromites from the Luobusa and Ray-Iz chromitites (Fig. 8) and from mineral
concentrates, which are commonly 50–500 mm in size, with a few as large as 700 mm (Yang et al., 2014, 2015a,b). Moreover, one
in situ diamond enclosed by mineral orthopyroxene was discovered in the Nidar ophiolite, India (Das et al., 2017), and several
in situ diamonds enclosed by mineral chromites were discovered in the Tehuitzingo ophiolite, southern Mexico (Farré-de-Pablo
et al., 2018).

Fig. 8 (A, C, E) Photomicrographs and (B, D, F) carbon element mapping images of in situ ophiolite-hosted diamonds. Reproduced from Lian D and Yang J (2019)
Ophiolite-hosted diamond: A new window for probing carbon cycling in the deep mantle. Engineering 5: 406–420 with permission from Elsevier B.V., © 2019.
980 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Main Features
Ophiolite-hosted diamonds mainly range from colorless to light yellow. Most of them are 50–500 mm in size, with a few as large as
700 mm (Lian and Yang, 2019). These diamonds encompass both monocrystalline and polycrystalline crystals and commonly are
euhedral minerals with sharp crystal edges, while some grains are rounded with eroded or pitted surfaces. Ophiolite-hosted
diamonds predominantly show a cubo-octahedral morphology, with a small portion having a perfect octahedral shape (Fig. 9).
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analyses of diamonds discovered from the Ray-Iz and Luobusa ophiolites show
that these diamonds are Type Ib with a single substitutional center, indicating a relatively short mantle residence time (Howell et al.,
2015; Xu et al., 2018).
Ophiolite-hosted diamonds show both cuboid and octahedral growth sectors with dull and bright brightness, respectively, in
cathodoluminescence (CL) images (Fig. 10) (Lian and Yang, 2019), consisting with characteristics of mix-habit diamonds (Boyd
et al., 1988; Sunagawa, 1990).
Carbon and nitrogen isotopic compositions of diamonds are the most common tools used to determine the source of diamond-
forming material and to model the processes involved in diamond formation (Cartigny et al., 1998; Cartigny, 2005; Thomassot
et al., 2007; Palot et al., 2012; Mikhail et al., 2014). As latest reviewed by Lian and Yang (2019), ophiolite-hosted diamonds are
characterized by quite light carbon isotopic composition, with d13C values ranging from −29% to −18% and a primary d13C mode
at −25% (Figs. 11 and 12). These values are much lower than those of diamonds from either kimberlites/lamproite (mainly from
−2% to −8%) or UHP metamorphic belts (mainly from −5% to −18%). The nitrogen isotopic composition and nitrogen
concentration of ophiolite-hosted diamonds are quite different from those of UHP metamorphic diamonds, but are consistent
with those of peridotitic and eclogitic diamonds (Fig. 11). On account of the isotopic characteristics of ophiolite-hosted diamonds,
he proposed that the 13C-depleted carbon signature of ophiolite diamonds was inherited from previously subducted crustal matter.

Fig. 9 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of ophiolite-hosted diamonds. (A) Euhedral octahedral diamond; (B) euhedral cubo-octahedral diamond;
(C) anhedral rounded diamond; (D) polycrystalline diamond. Reproduced from Lian D and Yang J (2019) Ophiolite-hosted diamond: A new window for probing carbon
cycling in the deep mantle. Engineering 5; 406-420 with permission from Elsevier B.V., © 2019.
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 981

Fig. 10 (A, B) Diamond from the Pozanti-Karsanti ophiolite showing different growth sectors with different brightness in CL images; (C) backscattered electron
(BSE) image of Luobusa diamond with bulbous Ni-Mn-Co-alloy inclusions. (D) Inclusion assemblage of (Ca0.81Mn0.19) SiO3, Ni-Mn-Co alloy, and quenched fluids in
the Pozanti-Karsanti diamond. (E) High-angle annular dark field (HAADF) image of Ni-Mn-Co alloy and coesite inclusions. (F) HAADF image of Mn-rich mineral
inclusion in diamond. Dia: diamond; Coe: coesite; Mn-Grt: manganese garnet; Mn-Ol: manganese olivine. Reproduced from Lian D and Yang J (2019) Ophiolite-
hosted diamond: A new window for probing carbon cycling in the deep mantle. Engineering 5: 406–420 with permission from Elsevier B.V., © 2019.

On the basis of morphology and internal growth structures, natural diamonds are normally believed to crystallize in the mantle
from fluids/melts (varying from C-O-H-rich to carbonatitic and silicate-rich) rather than from alloy melts (Harte, 2010). During
growth, diamonds commonly incorporate small volumes of fluid/melt, as well as crystalline phases. Once trapped inside a
diamond, the inclusions are protected from the surrounding media, and are therefore believed to maintain constant chemical
compositions. Thus, geochemical studies on mineral inclusions in diamonds have fundamentally changed and shaped our
understanding of where, when, and how ophiolite-hosted diamonds form, as well as of the chemical and physical nature of mantle
environments in which other natural diamonds grow (Stachel and Harris, 2008; Shirey et al. 2013; Smith et al., 2015, 2016; Stachel
and Luth, 2015; Jablon and Navon, 2016). Both micrometer-sized and nanometer-sized mineral inclusions have been observed in
ophiolite-hosted diamonds (Fig. 10) (Howell et al., 2015; Moe et al., 2018; Lian et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019) by scanning electron
microscope (SEM), FTIR, Raman spectroscopy, focused ion beam (FIB), and TEM techniques. These recognized mineral inclusions
include: ① metal alloys, including Ni-Mn-Si-Co, Ni-Mn-Co, Cr-Fe, and Fe-Si; ② silicate minerals, including albite, Mn-garnet,
Mn-olivine, CaMn-wollastonite, and CaMn-perovskite; ③ oxides, including chromite, hematite, magnetite, and coesite; and ④
fluid inclusions, including IR-active water, carbonate and silicate (Howell et al., 2015; Moe et al., 2018; Lian et al., 2018; Lian
and Yang, 2019; Wu et al., 2019). Such a mineral combination is evidently different from the inclusion assemblages within
kimberlitic, ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic and high-pressure-high-temperature synthetic diamonds (Dobrzhinetskaya et al.,
2001, 2007; Stachel and Harris, 2008; Dobrzhinetskaya, 2012; Shirey et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2015, 2016; Stachel and Luth,
982 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Fig. 11 Comparative frequency histograms of d13C values, d15N values, and nitrogen concentrations for (A–C) peridotitic diamonds, (D–F) eclogitic diamonds,
(G–I) UHP metamorphic diamonds, (J–L) fibrous/coated diamonds, (M–O) ophiolitic diamonds, and (P, Q) recycled carbon and metasediments. Reproduced from Lian
D and Yang J (2019) Ophiolite-hosted diamond: A new window for probing carbon cycling in the deep mantle. Engineering 5: 406–420 with permission from Elsevier
B.V., © 2019.

2015; Jablon and Navon, 2016; Lian and Yang, 2019; Wu et al., 2019). The discovery of this mineral inclusion assemblage provides
further evidence for the natural origin of ophiolite-hosted diamonds and originating from a geological environment very different
from that in which natural gem-quality diamonds are formed (Moe et al., 2018). CaMn-perovskite is the most importance mineral
inclusion found in ophiolite-hosted diamonds due to its significance in both the mantle transition zone and the lower mantle
(Fujino et al., 2008; Li et al., 2015). CaMn-silicate perovskite has been discovered as mineral inclusions in diamonds from podiform
chromitite of the Hegenshan and Sartohay ophiolites in China (Lian and Yang, 2019), the Pozanti-Karsanti ophiolite in Turkey
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 983

Fig. 12 Carbon and nitrogen isotopic composition of ophiolite-hosted diamonds. Data of ophiolite-hosted diamonds are from (Howell et al., 2015; Yang et al.,
2015a; Lian et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2017, 2019). Modified from Smith CB, Walter MJ, Bulanova GP, et al. (2016) Diamonds from Dachine, French Guiana: A unique
record of Early Proterozoic subduction. Lithos 265: 82–95.

(Lian et al., 2018), and the Mirdita ophiolite in Albania (Wu et al., 2019). The calculated mineral formula of the mineral is
[(Ca0.81Mn0.19)(SiO3)]-that is, Mn-bearing Ca-silicate perovskite. The observed d-spacings and angles of the CaMn-perovskite
inclusion of the diamond from the Mirdita ophiolite are consistent with an orthorhombic structure (Wu et al., 2019), indicating
the diamonds originated no deeper than the uppermost part of the mantle transition zone (14.2 GPa). This conclusion is also
supported by high-pressure experiments (Zhang et al., 2017; Akaogi et al., 2018).

Formation Setting and Process

The discovery of diamonds and other UHP minerals in ophiolites are unexpected and has led to wide interest and debates on the
origin of these minerals. Irrespective minor people argue for the synthetic origin of the ophiolite-hosted diamonds (Litasov et al.,
2019), various scientific groups believe its natural origin and propose different models to explain the formation process of the
diamonds and the hosting peridotites and chromitites (Fig. 13) (Arai, 2013; Zhou et al., 2014; Howell et al., 2015; Yang et al.,
2015a; Griffin et al., 2016; Das et al., 2017; Ballhaus et al., 2017; Farré-de-Pablo et al., 2018). In general, these models can be

Fig. 13 Different models for the origin of unusual minerals and podiform chromitite. ① Subducted slab contamination origin. UHP minerals derived from UHP
metamorphic crustal rocks such as eclogite, contaminate upwelling magma and finally deposit in chromitite (Zhou et al., 2014); ② shallow origin chromitite
subducted into deep mantle, capsulated UHP minerals near or in the mantle transition zone, and then recycled to shallow by mantle convection (Arai, 2013; Griffin
et al., 2016); ③ both of UHP minerals and chromite are formed in the mantle transition zone, with decrease of pressure during upwelling by mantle convection,
UHP chromite would exsolve coesite and clinopyroxene, and transform to low pressure chromite (Yang et al., 2015a). OLM-Oceanic Lithospheric mantle;
SCLM-Sub-continental Lithospheric Mantle.
984 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

classified into two categories: (1) diamonds are formed in the deep mantle and exhumed by mantle plumes, channelized upwelling,
or some combination of the two (Arai, 2013; Zhou et al., 2014; Howell et al., 2015; McGowan et al. 2015; Yang et al., 2015a; Griffin
et al., 2016; Das et al., 2017); (2) diamonds are formed at the shallow level after ophiolite obduction by lightning striking or
serpentinization process (Ballhaus et al., 2017; Farré-de-Pablo et al., 2018). In the deep origin models, low-pressure rocks are
subducted into the deep mantle (e.g., the MTZ or even the lower mantle) by ancient subduction process, resulting in the formation
of UHP minerals (including diamonds); these UHP minerals are later transported into the shallow mantle via mantle convection
(Arai, 2013; Griffin et al., 2016), rise up in response to slab breakoff (Zhou et al., 2014), or mantle plume upwelling (Yang et al.,
2015a). During ascent, the diamonds and other UHP minerals can be enclosed by newly formed chromites and other minerals, and
thus protected (e.g., Yang et al. 2015a), and brought to the surface. The chromite grains may be incorporated into the peridotites and
form chromitites in the mantle wedge (Robinson et al. 2015). The entire mass was then finally emplaced on land as the discovered
diamond-bearing massifs during trench-continent collisions. In the shallow origin models, these scholars argued that the unusual
mineral association discovered in ophiolitic peridotites and chromitites may form through lightning strikes (Ballhaus et al., 2017)
or serpentinization process (Farré-de-Pablo et al., 2018). However, abundant evidence may not support these models, as has been
clarified by Griffin et al. (2018) and Yang et al. (2018, 2019, 2020). In summary, the formation process of ophiolite-hosted
diamonds and associated minerals is still mysterious. To understand these unexpected “surprises” minerals in ophiolites (Rollinson,
2016), continued research work must be conducted on these unusual minerals and hosting ophiolites collectively through
mineralogical and geochemical analyses, high-temperature and high-pressure experiments, and numerical modeling.

Perspectives of Ophiolites

Considerable dredging and drilling projects (i.e., DSDP, ODP and IODP) during the past 60 years have been conducted on the
oceanic floor in both intra-oceanic subduction and mid-ocean ridge setting, in which forearc and abyssal peridotites were widely
collected from seafloor, respectively (Ishii et al., 1992; Parkinson and Pearce, 1998; Pearce et al., 2000; Warren, 2016 and references
therein). Mantle heterogeneity, demonstrated by internal structural and compositional diversity, have been widely documented in
modern oceanic lithosphere on the sea floor (Liu et al., 2008; Lassiter et al., 2014; Warren, 2016 and references therein), in addition
to oceanic volcanism (Hart, 1984; Zindler and Hart, 1986; Hart et al., 1992; Hofmann, 1997; Andres et al., 2004; Graham et al.,
2006), mantle xenoliths (Walker et al., 1989, 1996; Martin, 1991; Parkinson et al., 1998; Burton et al., 1999; Meisel et al., 2001;
Alard et al., 2002; Bizimis et al., 2005, 2007; Harvey et al., 2010), and Phanerozoic ophiolites (Snow et al., 2000; Alard et al., 2005;
Ahmed et al., 2006; O’Driscoll et al., 2012; González-Jimenez et al., 2012, 2013). Plate tectonics has sculpted the Earth, and
subduction is the main mechanism for surface material (curst, upper mantle) to (re)cycle into the deep mantle (Rüpke et al., 2004;
Stracke, 2012). Generation and subduction of oceanic plates since early Archean accounts for the first-order heterogeneity of the
Earth’s mantle, incorporation of the heterogeneous oceanic lithospheric mantle into the deep mantle will lead to the generation of
further heterogeneities (Rampone and Hofmann, 2012; Stracke, 2012; Bodinier and Godard, 2014; Warren, 2016). Thus, recog-
nizing onset of plate tectonic and the ancient oceanic lithosphere (e.g., Precambrian ophiolite) are essential to understand the
nature of the Earth’s mantle.

Analogy of Oceanic Lithosphere

Earth’s mantle plays an important role in the evolution of the crust and provides the driving forces for plate tectonics, which
eventually determines the planet’s habitability. As an important component of the Earth’s mantle, however, the study of modern
oceanic lithosphere is limited by the tools available. Basic information has obtained through geophysical methods, such as acoustic
imaging, seismology, magnetism, magneto-tellurics, gravimetry and heat flow measurements (Anderson, 2006; Helffrich, 2006).
Nevertheless, as a result of limitations of resolution of the geophysical methods, the shape, relief, compositional structure,
segmentation geometry and other internal details of the oceanic lithosphere created along the mid-ocean ridges remain elusive
and not fully understand. In other hand, in situ abyssal samples are obtained from ocean floors and transform faults through
dredging, drilling programs and sampling by deep sea submarines (Warren, 2016), however, it is difficult and expensive to study.
Moreover, the relative position of some dredged abyssal samples in an oceanic lithosphere is not well constrained. Since the
realization that ophiolites represent fragments of ancient oceanic lithosphere, studying ophiolites opens the door for geologists to
contribute fundamentally to understanding oceanic lithosphere due to the high-fidelity magmatic and stratigraphic records
preserved in them.
Partial melting of the Earth’s upper mantle beneath the mid-ocean ridges is the main driving force for the chemical differenti-
ation of the silicate Earth (Condie, 2016). Theoretically, people assume that the crust is enriched in incompatible elements and left
behind is a residual mantle that is preferentially depleted in those elements, but well homogenized by vigorous convective stirring.
However, studies of MORB and abyssal peridotite have also identified the occurrence of compositional heterogeneities in the
mantle beneath mid-ocean ridges and diminish the valid ity of this assumption (e.g., Hofmann, 1997; Warren, 2016). For instance,
the abyssal peridotites underlain the mid-ocean ridge supposed to undergo limited melting at the present-day ridge axis. However,
an ultra-refractory mantle block, based on infertile major, trace, and modal compositions, demonstrates at the 15–16 N region
around the Fifteen-Twenty transform fault on the MAR (Paulick et al., 2006; Seyler et al., 2007; Godard et al., 2008), indicating
previous episodes of melt extraction. By contrast, some peridotites from the Romanche transform fault on the MAR (Seyler and
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 985

Bonatti, 1997) show more fertile compositions than depleted mantle (DM) (Workman and Hart, 2005), implying enriched source
mantle. In addition, studies on all the long-lived radiogenic isotope systems show ultra-depleted isotopic compositions, such as Nd
(Salters and Dick, 2002; Cipriani et al., 2004; Mallick et al., 2014), Sr (Warren et al., 2009), Pb (Warren and Shirey, 2012), Hf
(Stracke et al., 2011; Mallick et al., 2015) and Os (Harvey et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2008), providing unequivocal evidence for pre-
existing depletions. All the lines of evidence obtained from global abyssal peridotites suggest a modern heterogeneous oceanic
mantle. However, the nature of ancient oceanic mantle (older than 180 Ma) is unconstrained due to most of them had been
subducted into deeper mantle.
As a survivor of oceanic lithosphere suffered plate subduction, ophiolite can provide “older” information. In fact, geochemical
(e.g., REE, HFSE) and geochronological data (e.g., Re-Os isotopic) from many ophiolites have shown strong evidence for
compositional heterogeneity in their mantle units (Aldanmaz et al., 2009; O’Driscoll et al., 2012; Piccardo et al., 2014). The crustal
and mantle sequences in some ophiolites may not represent a simple melt-residual relationship as generally believed (Snow et al.,
2000; Tsuru et al., 2000; Walker et al., 2002; Alard et al., 2005; Gervilla et al., 2005; Frei et al., 2006; Shi et al., 2007, 2012; Marchesi
et al., 2011; O’Driscoll et al., 2012; González-Jimenez et al., 2012, 2013). For example, Os-rich alloys from the Neo-Tethyan
Dongqiao ophiolites, China, show smooth PGE patterns and 187Os/188Os ranges from 0.12003 to 0.12194 (yielding Re-depletion
ages  1.1 Ga), which may represent residue of a sub-continental lithospheric mantle (Shi et al., 2007). No consensus has been
reached about the compositional heterogeneity observed in ophiolitic mantle. It is generally suggested that these “older” peridotite
mantle may be fragments of the subcontinental lithospheric mantle (SCLM) (Hassler and Shimizu, 1998; Rampone et al., 2005; Shi
et al., 2007; O’Reilly et al., 2009; González-Jimenez et al., 2013) or long-term preservation of refractory domains in the incom-
pletely homogenized asthenospheric mantle (Liu et al., 2008). Irrespective to the origin of the compositional heterogeneity, the way
in which these “older” peridotites isolated from the vigorous convective mantle is still a matter of active debate. Anyway, based on
the studies comparison ophiolite (ancient oceanic lithosphere) and modern oceanic lithosphere, it indicates that the Earth’s upper
mantle is heterogeneous, at least from the oldest ophiolite to the present day.
The ophiolite analogy to the ancient oceanic crust has its disadvantages. We assume that if present-day oceanic lithosphere is
representative of ancient oceanic lithosphere (ophiolite) then comparisons of their respective petrologic, geologic, and physical
properties should reveal strong similarities. The basic flaw in this inference is that it is assumed that the present-day processes that
give rise to new oceanic crust beneath mid-ocean ridge are the same as those that produced ancient oceanic crust (ophiolite) in the
past and can be directly compared. However, the physical and chemical state of the Earth’s mantle has been changing with the
evolution of the planet since it formed 4.5 Ga ago, as well as the changing global tectonic regimes (Condie, 2016). As for instance
during the Hadean, radiogenic heat production in Earth was three to five times greater than that at present resulting in hotter mantle
in ancient time (about 100–300  C hotter in early Archean than at present) (Galer, 1991; Condie, 2016).
Another most serious disadvantage is the great volume difference between present-day oceanic spreading centers and on-land
ophiolites that have formed in ancient oceans now vanished. Considering the volume of ophiolites tectonically emplaced during
the Phanerozoic time compared to the amount of oceanic crust formed during this same period of time, less than 0.001% of the
oceanic crust has survived from subduction (Coleman, 1977). It therefore seems unlikely that this small proportion of ancient
oceanic lithosphere (ophiolite) can reveal all of the secrets of the oceanic lithosphere evolution.

Recycling and Mantle Heterogeneity

The earth differentiated from material of approximately chondritic composition into the stratified state that we recognize at present-
core, mantle and crust. Partial melting of the Earth’s upper mantle is the main driving force for the chemical differentiation of the
silicate Earth (Stracke, 2012). Theoretically, the crust is enriched in incompatible elements and left behind is a residual mantle that
is preferentially depleted in those elements. However, the homogeneity of the residual mantle has been complicated by the strong
evidence for pervasive crustal materials recycling in the upper and lower mantle, which indicates the mantle heterogeneity. The
mantle heterogeneity has been documented by the modern Earth’s mantle represented by isotopically and geochemically distinct
components recorded in oceanic volcanism, mantle xenoliths, abyssal peridotites, and some Phanerozoic ophiolites as we
mentioned above. In addition, considerable observational and experimental evidence from seismology and geodynamical studies
have accumulated attesting to the presence of radial and lateral heterogeneities that permeate Earth’s mantle since 4.6 Ga ago
(Zindler and Hart, 1986; Hofmann, 1997; Korenaga and Kelemen, 2000; Niu et al., 2002; Salters and Dick, 2002; Sobolev et al.,
2011; Stracke, 2012).
Hitherto, no consensus has been reached about what the most important processes for mantle heterogeneity and the influences
on the composition evolution of the Earth. As recalled by Stracke (2012), the most often invoked models are recycling of crustal
materials, delamination of the subcontinental lithosphere, and various types of mantle metasomatism. He suggests that the
generation and subduction of oceanic plates accounts for the first-order heterogeneity of the Earths’ mantle. As we mentioned
last section, the secular cooling and evolution of the Earth have controlled the transition of the style of tectonic regimes on the
surface, and eventually have governed the way in which the oceanic plates recycling into the mantle (Moresi and Solomatov, 1998;
O’Neill et al., 2007; Moyen and van Hunen, 2012; O’Neill and Debaille, 2014; Condie, 2016; Hawkesworth et al., 2016; Liu et al.,
2019a). The recycling of oceanic plates was likely performed by episodic subduction under stagnant-lid vertical tectonic regime
(O’Neill et al., 2007; Moyen and van Hunen, 2012; Hawkesworth et al., 2016), eventually the subduction style was later
transitioned into the self-sustaining continuous subduction under modern plate tectonic regime (Sizova et al., 2010; Moyen and
van Hunen, 2012; Condie, 2016; Liu et al., 2019a).
986 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Internal structural and compositional diversity have been widely documented in modern oceanic lithosphere on the sea floor
(Liu et al., 2008; Warren, 2016 and references therein), Phanerozoic ophiolites (Pearce et al., 1984; Robinson et al., 2008; Dilek and
Furnes, 2011; Kusky et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2018), and probably Precambrian ophiolites (Rizo et al., 2011). Although the origin and
mechanism of oceanic plate diversity in its structure and composition have not been completely established, all the lines of evidence
imply that the oceanic lithospheric mantle is heterogeneous, which will give rise to the generation of further heterogeneities upon
cycling into the mantle.

Tracing Early History of Plate Tectonics

Geological processes are ultimately consequences of Earth’s cooling with time, as well as the plate tectonics which is controlled by
the secular cooling of the mantle (Niu, 2014; Condie, 2016). As the key marker of past plate tectonics and the fragment of ancient
oceanic lithosphere (Dilek and Furnes, 2011; Furnes et al., 2015), the earliest ophiolite can help us understand the onset of the plate
tectonics and the nature of mantle in Earth’s deep time. In view of the fact that ophiolite has been widely distributed around the
world since 1.0 Ga (Condie and Kröner, 2008), the existence of Precambrian ophiolite has been and will continue to be a matter of
hot debate. The question of when ophiolites first appear in the geological record is related both to how we recognize ancient oceanic
lithosphere and to changes of oceanic lithosphere/tectonic regime through time (Condie, 2016; Cawood et al., 2018; Stern, 2018).
Numerous studies have revealed much greater diversity in Phanerozoic ophiolites, as complement to the typical Penrose-type
definition (Anonymous, 1972), and modern oceanic crust on the sea floor, leading to new definitions of how to recognize ancient
oceanic crust (Pearce et al., 1984; Robinson et al., 2008; Dilek and Furnes, 2011; Kusky et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2018) from magma-
poor types, to magma-rich types, and those associated with subduction zones (forearc and backarc), and those with ocean spreading
centers (Cannat et al., 2006; Ildefonse et al., 2007; Tucholke et al., 2008, Escartin et al., 2008; Escartín and Canales, 2011; Maffione
et al. 2013; Furnes et al., 2015). The origin and mechanism of Phanerozoic ophiolites diversity in its structure have not been
completely established yet and may be inherently associated with different spreading rates of paleo-ridges before tectonic
dismemberment during obduction emplacement, which will increase the structure diversity of ophiolite (Moores, 1982; Coleman,
1984; Liu et al., 2018). Sheeted dyke complex, the so-called earmark of ophiolites (e.g., Penrose-type), are rare even in Phanerozoic
ophiolites, so their absence in older ophiolites is inconclusive. In fact, the generation of a sheeted dyke complex requires a delicate
balance between the rates of spreading and magma supply for a sustained period such that sufficient melt is produced to keep pace
with extension in the rift zone (Robinson et al., 2008).
Early ophiolites and associated deep-sea sediments are first recognized in the geologic record about 2 Ga (Kusky, 2004). One of
the oldest recognized ophiolites that has all of the essential components in the correct stratigraphic order is the 1.95-Ga Jormua
Complex in northern Finland (Peltonen et al., 1996; Tsuru et al., 2000; Santti et al., 2006). Although older Archean ophiolites have
been described, they lack one or more of the ophiolite components and hence may not be fragments of oceanic crust (Bickle et al.,
1994). Supporters argue that the Archean ophiolites contained in the Archean greenstone belts, maybe most of them, can be
recognized as the Precambrian counterpart of the Phanerozoic ophiolites based on different lines of evidences (Kusky, 2004; Dilek
and Polat, 2008; Furnes et al., 2012, 2015 and references therein), while the opponents believe the Archean ophiolites should
preserve at least one of the definitive components (such as sheeted dykes, podiform chromitite and mantle peridotite), and the
modern-style plate tectonics did not emerge until the Neoproterozoic (Bickle et al., 1994; Hamilton, 1998, 2007, 2011; Stern, 2005;
Maurice et al., 2009). However, Archean ophiolites cannot be rejected as oceanic crust on this basis only, because just like younger
ophiolites, they may be tectonically “dismembered” or the varied oceanic crust structure is an inherent feature of the Archean
ophiolite either. And that is the case based on the assumption that the present-day processes that give rise to new oceanic crust
beneath mid-ocean ridge are the same as those that produced ancient oceanic crust (ophiolite) in the past (Condie, 2016).
Another important problem for earliest ophiolite is how we recognize the “ancient-style” and the “modern-style” plate tectonics.
The change of oceanic crust and the style of tectonic regimes on the surface is the result of secular cooling and evolution of the earth.
There are three possible hypothetical types of tectonic/thermal regimes on earth: stagnant-lid, episodic regime, and mobile regime
or modern plate tectonic regime (Moresi and Solomatov, 1998; O’Neill et al., 2007; O’Neill and Debaille, 2014; Condie, 2016; Liu
et al., 2019a). In the early stage, radiogenic heat production in Earth was three to five times greater than that at present, and there
were additional contributions from tidal heating by the Moon and impacts on the surface, the Earth’s geodynamic model was
dominated by a stagnant-lid vertical tectonic regime (Bédard, 2006; Moore and Webb, 2013; Brown, 2014; Johnson et al., 2014;
Hawkesworth et al., 2017; Brown and Johnson, 2018; Cawood et al., 2018). The recycling of oceanic plates was likely performed by
episodic subduction (O’Neill et al., 2007; Moyen and van Hunen, 2012; Hawkesworth et al., 2016). Such episodic subduction was
mainly recognized by numerical modeling as the subducting plate underwent frequent slab break-off in the hot mantle (ca.
175–250  C hotter than the present mantle) (O’Neill et al., 2007; Moyen and van Hunen, 2012), and demonstrated by geochemical
data (Moyen and van Hunen, 2012) and field observations (Friend et al., 2002; Rollinson, 2007; Nutman et al., 2019 and references
therein). As a result of the secular cooling of the mantle, the subduction style was later transitioned into the self-sustaining
continuous subduction (Sizova et al., 2010; Moyen and van Hunen, 2012; Condie, 2016; Liu et al., 2019a), as we observed
today. The continuous subduction that dominates at the modern convergent plate boundaries, is characterized by long-lived
recycling of oceanic plate into the mantle along the subduction zone.
It’s worthy to note that the term “ophiolite” is mainly based on research of Phanerozoic ophiolites (Dilek and Furnes, 2011,
2014), which may represent oceanic lithosphere differ with the Precambrian counterparts, especially the Archean’s according to the
thermal state at that time (Kusky et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019a). The Archean mantle is proposed significant hotter than present
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 987

(1350  C at present vs. 1500–1600  C at 2.5–3.0 Ga; Herzberg et al., 2010), consequently, the Archean oceanic crust was
significantly thicker than modern oceanic crust (Foley et al., 2003), the deeper layers of oceanic crust that contain layered gabbros,
ultramafic cumulates and mantle peridotites, if they have, may not have been accreted to the continents in subduction zones but,
instead, they might have been recycled into the mantle and preservation of only the upper, pillow-lava rich volcanic crust (Condie
and Benn, 2006). If this is the case, then some Archean greenstones can be recognized as ophiolites (Furnes et al., 2015), and the
oldest best-documented Archean ophiolites is the 3.8 Ga Isua Belt of Greenland (Kusky, 2004; Furnes et al., 2007, 2015) and the
oldest abyssal peridotites (>3.8 Ga) are demonstrated within the northern part of the Itsaq Gneiss Complex on the southern side of
the Isua Belt (Friend et al., 2002; Rollinson, 2007). Ophiolites are a reliable indicator for plate tectonics and subduction, given all
the ophiolites require subduction for formation and emplacement (Stern, 2005). The earliest ophiolites indicate the onset of plate
tectonics, although it may represent local event and be different with typical modern-style counterpart, at least since 3.8 Ga ago.
In fact, the latest silicon isotopic study of Archean TTGs indicates that subduction have been operating, at least locally, since as early
as 4.0 Ga (Deng et al., 2019). Kusky et al. (2018) present many examples of extensional, transform, and convergent plate
boundary structures and rock associations throughout Earth history, they suggest that the plate tectonic operate in a manner similar
to modern style tectonics since 4.0 billion years ago.
Cautions must be taken when people tried to equate Archean greenstone with ophiolite. Firstly, the term “greenstone belts” used
to describe elongated to variably-shaped terranes of variable length and width, consisting of spatially and temporally related,
Archean to Proterozoic intrusive and extrusive ultramafic, mafic to felsic rocks commonly associated with variable amounts and
types of metasedimentary rocks, and intruded by granitoid plutons (de Wit, 1998; Furnes et al., 2015). The word green stems from
the variety of green minerals such as serpentine, chlorite, epidote, actinolite and hornblende that comprise the main volume of the
mafic rocks, showing that they represent low- to medium grade (most commonly), or even granulite-facies metamorphic rock
assemblages (Furnes et al., 2015). They can represent some of the earliest Earth history with a wide spectrum of tectonic
environments (de Wit, 1998; Kusky, 2004). Obviously, the “ophiolite” is not the synonymous word with “greenstone” and Archean
ophiolites can exist in the Precambrian greenstone belts. Secondly, the identification of Archean ophiolite is often based on
geochemical fingerprints due to the intense deformation of them (Furnes et al., 2015). There are many problems with using
so-called geochemical discriminant diagrams to identify ancient tectonic settings. These include (i) the fact that specific mantle
sources can be tapped in more than one tectonic setting, (ii) varying degrees of melting and mixing can affect incompatible element
distributions in derivative magmas, (iii) alteration and metamorphism can redistribute incompatible elements, (iv) mantle source
geochemical signatures can be changed by contamination of basaltic magmas with continental crust, and (v) some tectonic settings
in Archean may not be represented on Earth today.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Fei Liu for his contribution during the early preparation of this manuscript. This research was supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (41720104009, 41802055, 41802034), the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities (XJ2020003001), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20180349), the fund from the Key
Laboratory of Deep-Earth Dynamics of Ministry of Natural Resources (J1901-16; for Wu and Lian, respectively), and the IGCP-649
(IUGS-UNESCO).

References
Ahmed AH, Hanghøj K, Kelemen PB, Hart SR, and Arai S (2006) Osmium isotope systematics of the Proterozoic and Phanerozoic ophiolitic chromitites: In situ ion probe analysis of
primary Os-rich PGM. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 245: 777–791.
Ahmed AH, Arai S, Abdel-Aziz YM, Ikenne M, and Rahimi A (2009) Platinum-group elements distribution and spinel composition in podiform chromitites and associated rocks from the
upper mantle section of the Neoproterozoic Bou Azzer ophiolite, Anti-Atlas, Morocco. Journal of African Earth Sciences 55: 92–104.
Akaogi M, Kawahara A, Kojitani H, et al. (2018) High-pressure phase transitions in MgCr2O4Mg2SiO4 composition: Reactions between olivine and chromite with implications for
ultrahigh-pressure chromitites. American Mineralogist 103: 161–170.
Alard O, Griffin WL, Pearson NJ, Lorand J-P, and O’Reilly SY (2002) New insights into the Re–Os systematics of sub-continental lithospheric mantle from in situ analysis of sulphides.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 203: 651–663.
Alard O, Luguet A, Pearson NJ, et al. (2005) In situ Os isotopes in abyssal peridotites bridge the isotopic gap between MORBs and their source mantle. Nature 436: 1005–1008.
Aldanmaz E, Schmidt MW, Gourgaud A, and Meisel T (2009) Mid-ocean ridge and supra-subduction geochemical signatures in spinel–peridotites from the Neotethyan ophiolites in SW
Turkey: Implications for upper mantle melting processes. Lithos 113: 691–708.
Anderson DL (2006) Speculations on the nature and cause of mantle heterogeneity. Tectonophysics 416: 7–22.
Andres M, Blichert-Toft J, and Schilling J-G (2004) Nature of the depleted upper mantle beneath the Atlantic: Evidence from Hf isotopes in normal mid-ocean ridge basalts from 79 N
to 55 S. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 225: 89–103.
Anonymous (1972) Penrose field conference on ophiolites. Geotimes 17: 24–25.
Arai S (1997) Control of wall-rock composition on the formation of podiform chromitites as a result of magma/peridotite interaction. Resource Geology 47: 177–188.
Arai S (2013) Conversion of low-pressure chromitites to ultrahigh-pressure chromitites by deep recycling: A good inference. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 379: 81–87.
Arai S and Ahmed AH (2018) Secular change of chromite concentration processes from the Archean to the Phanerozoic. In: Mondal SK and Griffin WL (eds.) Processes and Ore
Deposits of Ultramafic-Mafic Magmas Through Space and Time, pp. 139–157. Elsevier.
Arai S and Miura M (2015) Podiform chromitites do form beneath mid-ocean ridges. Lithos 232: 143–149.
Arai S and Miura M (2016) Formation and modification of chromitites in the mantle. Lithos 264: 277–295.
988 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Arai S and Yurimoto H (1994) Podiform chromitites of the Tari-Misaka ultramafic complex, Southwest Japan, as mantle-melt interaction products. Economic Geology 89: 1279–1288.
Bai WJ, Zhou MF, and Robinson PT (1993) Possibly diamond-bearing mantle peridotites and podiform chromitites in the Luobusa and Donqiao ophiolites, Tibet. Canadian Journal of
Earth Sciences 30: 1650–1659.
Ballhaus C, Wirth R, Fonseca ROC, et al. (2017) Ultra-high pressure and ultra-reduced minerals in ophiolites may form by lightning strikes. Geochemical Perspectives Letters
5: 42–46.
Beccaluva L, Ohnenstetter D, Ohnenstetter M, and Paupy A (1984) Two magmatic series with island arc affinities within the Vourinos ophiolite. Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology 85: 253–271.
Bédard JH (2006) A catalytic delamination-driven model for coupled genesis of Archaean crust and sub-continental lithospheric mantle. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
70: 1188–1214.
Benson WN (1926) The tectonic conditions accompanying the intrusion of basic and ultrabasic igneous rocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 19: 1–90.
Bickle MJ, Nisbet EG, and Martin A (1994) Archean greenstone belts are not oceanic crust. Journal of Geology 102: 121–128.
Bizimis M, Sen G, Salters VJM, and Keshav S (2005) Hf-Nd-Sr isotope systematics of garnet pyroxenites from Salt Lake Crater, Oahu, Hawaii: Evidence for a depleted component in
Hawaiian volcanism. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 69: 2629–2646.
Bizimis M, Griselin M, Lassiter JC, Salters VJM, and Sen G (2007) Ancient recycled mantle lithosphere in the Hawaiian plume: Osmium–Hafnium isotopic evidence from peridotite
mantle xenoliths. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 257: 259–273.
Bodinier JL and Godard M (2014) Orogenic, ophiolitic, and abyssal peridotites. In: Holland HD and Turekian KK (eds.) Treatise on Geochemistry, 2nd edn, pp. 103–167. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Borisova AY, Ceuleneer G, Kamenetsky VS, et al. (2012) A new view on the petrogenesis of the oman ophiolite chromitites from microanalyses of chromite-hosted inclusions. Journal of
Petrology 53(12): 2411–2440.
Boudier F and Nicolas A (1985) Harzburgite and lherzolite subtypes in ophiolitic and oceanic environments. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 76: 84–92.
Bowen NL (1927) The origin of ultrabasic and related rocks. American Journal of Science 14: 89–108.
Boyd SR, Pillinger CT, Milledge HJ, Mendelssohn MJ, and Seal M (1988) Fractionation of nitrogen isotopes in a synthetic diamond of mixed crystal habit. Nature 331: 604–607.
Brongniart A (1821) Sur le gisement ou position relative des ophiolites, euphotides, jaspes, etc. dans quelques parties des Apennins. Annales des Mines, Paris 6: 177–238.
Brongniart A (1827) Classification et Caractères Minéralogique des Roches Homogènes et Heterogènes. Paris: F.G. Levrault.
Brown M (2014) The contribution of metamorphic petrology to understanding lithosphere evolution and geodynamics. Geoscience Frontiers 5: 553–569.
Brown M and Johnson T (2018) Secular change in metamorphism and the onset of global plate tectonics. American Mineralogist 103: 181–196.
Brunn JH (1959) La dorsale médio-atlantique et les épanchements ophiolitiques. Comte Rendu du Soc Géol France 8: 234–236.
Burton KW, Schiano P, Birck J-L, and Allègre CJ (1999) Osmium isotope disequilibrium between mantle minerals in a spinel-lherzolite. Earth and Planetary Science Letters
172: 311–322.
Cann JR (1970) Rb, Sr, Y, Zr and Nb in some ocean floor basaltic rocks. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 10: 7–11.
Cannat M, Sauter D, Mendel V, et al. (2006) Modes of seafloor generation at a melt-poor ultraslow-spreading ridge. Geology 34: 605–608.
Cartigny P (2005) Stable isotopes and the origin of diamond. Elements 1: 79–84.
Cartigny P, Harris JW, Phillips D, Girard M, and Javoy M (1998) Subduction-related diamonds?—The evidence for a mantle-derived origin from coupled d13C–d15N determinations.
Chemical Geology 147: 147–159.
Cassard D, Nicolas A, Rabinovitch M, et al. (1981) Structural classification of chromite pods in southern New Caledonia. Economic Geology 76: 805–831.
Cawood PA, Hawkesworth CJ, Pisarevsky SA, et al. (2018) Geological archive of the onset of plate tectonics. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and
Engineering Sciences 376: 20170405.
Chen Y, Yang J, Xu Z, Tian Y, and Lai S (2018) Diamonds and other unusual minerals from peridotites of the Myitkyina ophiolite, Myanmar. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences
164: 179–193.
Chen C, Su B, Xiao Y, et al. (2019a) Intermediate chromitite in Kızılda
g ophiolite (SE Turkey) formed during subduction initiation in Neo-Tethys. Ore Geology Reviews 104: 88–100.
Chen T, Jin Z, Zhang J, and Wang L (2019b) Calcium amphibole exsolution lamellae in chromite from the Semail ophiolite: Evidence for a high-pressure origin. Lithos
334–335: 273–280.
Church WR and Riccio L (1977) Fractionation trends in the Bay of Islands ophiolite of Newfoundland: Polycyclic cumulate sequences in ophiolites and their classification. Canadian
Journal of Earth Sciences 14: 1156–1165.
Cipriani A, Brueckner HK, Bonatti E, and Brunelli D (2004) Oceanic crust generated by elusive parents: Sr and Nd isotopes in basalt-peridotite pairs from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Geology 32: 657–660.
Coleman RG (1971) Plate tectonic emplacement of upper mantle peridotites along continental edges. Journal of Geophysical Research 76: 1212–1222.
Coleman RG (1977) Ophiolites: Ancient Oceanic Lithosphere? Berlin Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Coleman RG (1984) The diversity of ophiolites. Geologie en Mijnbouw 63: 141–150.
Condie KC (2016) Earth as an Evolving Planetary System, 3rd edn. Elsevier Academic Press.
Archean geodynamics: Similar to or different from modern geodynamics? Condie KC, Benn K, Benn K, Mareschal JC, and Condie KC (eds.) (2006) Archean Geodynamics and
Environments, pp. 47–59. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.
Condie KC and Kröner A (2008) When did plate tectonics begin? Evidence from the geologic record. In: Condie KC and Pease V (eds.) When Did Plate Tectonics Begin on Planet Earth?
281–294. Geological Society of America Special Paper.
Das S, Basu AR, and Mukherjee BK (2017) In situ peridotitic diamond in Indus ophiolite sourced from hydrocarbon fluids in the mantle transition zone. Geology 45: 755–758.
Davies HL (1971) Peridotite-gabbro-basalt complex in eastern Papua: An overthrust plate of oceanic mantle and crust. Canberra: Geoscience Australia. Record 128.
de Roever WP (1957) Sind die alpinotypen Peridotitmassen vielleicht tektonisch verfrachtete Bruchstücke der Peridotitschale? Geologische Rundschau 46: 137–146.
de Wit MJ (1998) On Archean granites, greenstones, cratons and tectonics: Does the evidence demand a verdict? Precambrian Research 91: 181–226.
Deng Z, Chaussidon M, Guitreau M, et al. (2019) An oceanic subduction origin for Archaean granitoids revealed by silicon isotopes. Nature Geoscience 12: 774–778.
Dewey JF and Bird JM (1971) The origin and emplacement of the ophiolite suite: Appalachian ophiolites in Newfoundland. Journal of Geophysical Research 76: 3179–3206.
Dewey JF (1976) Ophiolite obduction. Tectonophysics 31: 93–120.
Dewey JF (1977) Suture zone complexities: A review. Tectonophysics 40: 53–67.
Dick H, Natland J, and Ildefonse B (2006) Past and future impact of deep drilling in the oceanic crust and mantle. Oceanography 19: 72–80.
Dilek Y (2003) Ophiolite Concept and Its Evolution. Special Papers-Geological Society of America 373 1–16.
Dilek Y and Furnes H (2011) Ophiolite genesis and global tectonics: Geochemical and tectonic fingerprinting of ancient oceanic lithosphere. Geological Society of America Bulletin
123: 387–411.
Dilek Y and Furnes H (2014) Ophiolites and their origins. Elements 10: 93–100.
Dilek Y and Polat A (2008) Suprasubduction zone ophiolites and Archean tectonics. Geology 36: 431–432.
Dilek Y and Yang JS (2018) Ophiolites, diamonds, and ultrahigh-pressure minerals: New discoveries and concepts on upper mantle petrogenesis. Lithosphere 10: 3–13.
Dobretsov NL and Kepezhinscas VV (1981) Three types of ultrabasic magmas and their bearing on the problem of ophiolites. Ofioliti 6: 221–236.
Dobrzhinetskaya LF (2012) Microdiamonds—Frontier of ultrahigh-pressure metamorphism: A review. Gondwana Research 21: 207–223.
Dobrzhinetskaya LF, Green HWI, Mitchell TE, and Dickerson RM (2001) Metamorphic diamonds: Mechanism of growth and inclusion of oxides. Geology 29: 263–266.
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 989

Dobrzhinetskaya LF, Wirth R, and Green HW 2nd (2007) A look inside of diamond-forming media in deep subduction zones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 104: 9128–9132.
Edwards SJ, Pearce JA, and Freeman J (2000) New insights concerning the influence of water during the formation of podiform chromitite. In: Ophiolites and Oceanic Crust: New
Insights from Field Studies and Ocean Drilling Program, 139–147. Geological Society of America Special Papers.
Escartín J and Canales JP (2011) Detachments in oceanic lithosphere: Deformation, magmatism, fluid flow, and ecosystems. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union
92: 31.
Escartin J, Smith DK, Cann J, et al. (2008) Central role of detachment faults in accretion of slow-spreading oceanic lithosphere. Nature 455: 790–794.
Farré-de-Pablo J, Proenza JA, González-Jiménez JM, et al. (2018) A shallow origin for diamonds in ophiolitic chromitites. Geology 47: 75–78.
Foley SF, Buhre S, and Jacob DE (2003) Evolution of the Archean crust by delamination and shallow subduction. Nature 421: 245–249.
Frei R, Gervilla F, Meibom A, Proenza JA, and Garrido CJ (2006) Os isotope heterogeneity of the upper mantle: Evidence from the Mayarí-Baracoa ophiolite belt in eastern Cuba. Earth
and Planetary Science Letters 241: 466–476.
Friend C, Bennett V, and Nutman A (2002) Abyssal peridotites >3800 Ma from southern West Greenland: Field relationships, petrography, geochronology, whole-rock and mineral
chemistry of dunite and harzburgite inclusions in the Itsaq Gneiss Complex. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 143: 71–92.
Fujino K, Suzuki K, Hamane D, et al. (2008) High-pressure phase relation of MnSiO3 up to 85 GPa: Existence of MnSiO3 perovskite. American Mineralogist 93: 653–657.
Furnes H and Dilek Y (2017) Geochemical characterization and petrogenesis of intermediate to silicic rocks in ophiolites: A global synthesis. Earth-Science Reviews 166: 1–37.
Furnes H, de Wit M, Staudigel H, Rosing M, and Muehlenbachs K (2007) A vestige of Earth’s oldest ophiolite. Science 315: 1704–1707.
Furnes H, Robins B, and De Wit MJ (2012) Geochemistry and petrology of Lavas in the Upper Onverwacht Suite, Barberton Mountain Land, South Africa. South African Journal of
Geology 115: 171–210.
Furnes H, Dilek Y, and de Wit M (2015) Precambrian greenstone sequences represent different ophiolite types. Gondwana Research 27: 649–685.
Galer SJG (1991) Interrelationships between continental freeboard, tectonics and mantle temperature. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 105: 214–228.
Gervilla F, Proenza JA, Frei R, et al. (2005) Distribution of platinum-group elements and Os isotopes in chromite ores from Mayarí-Baracoa Ophiolitic Belt (eastern Cuba). Contributions
to Mineralogy and Petrology 150: 589–607.
Girardeau J and Mercier JCC (1988) Petrology and texture of the ultramafic rocks of the Xigaze ophiolite (Tibet): Constraints for mantle structure beneath slow-spreading ridges.
Tectonophysics 147: 33–58.
Girardeau J, Mercier JCC, and Wang XB (1985a) Petrology of the mafic rocks of the Xigaze ophiolite, Tibet: Implication of the oceanic lithosphere. Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology 90: 309–321.
Girardeau J, Mercier JCC, and Yougong Z (1985b) Origin of the Xigaze ophiolite, Yarlung Zangbo suture zone, southern Tibet. Tectonophysics 119: 407–433.
Girardeau J, Mercier JCC, and Yougong Z (1985c) Structure of the Xigaze ophiolite, Yarlung Zangbo suture zone, southern Tibet, China: Genetic implications. Tectonics 4: 267–288.
Godard M, Lagabrielle Y, Alard O, and Harvey J (2008) Geochemistry of the highly depleted peridotites drilled at ODP Sites 1272 and 1274 (Fifteen-Twenty Fracture Zone, Mid-Atlantic
Ridge): Implications for mantle dynamics beneath a slow spreading ridge. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 267: 410–425.
González-Jiménez JM, Proenza JA, Gervilla F, et al. (2011) High-Cr and high-Al chromitites from the Sagua de Tánamo district, Mayarí-Cristal Ophiolitic Massif (eastern Cuba):
Constraints on their origin from mineralogy and geochemistry of chromian spinel and platinum group elements. Lithos 125: 101–121.
González-Jimenez JM, Gervilla F, Griffin WL, et al. (2012) Os-isotope variability within sulfides from podiform chromitites. Chemical Geology 291: 224–235.
González-Jimenez JM, Marchesi C, Griffin WL, et al. (2013) Transfer of Os isotopic signatures from peridotite to chromitite in the subcontinental mantle: Insights from in situ analysis of
platinum-group and base-metal minerals (Ojen peridotite massif, southern Spain). Lithos 164: 74–85.
González-Jiménez JM, Griffin WL, Gervilla F, et al. (2014) Chromitites in ophiolites: How, where, when, why? Part I. Origin and significance of platinum-group minerals. Lithos
189: 127–139.
Graham DW, Blichert-Toft J, Russo CJ, Rubin KH, and Albarede F (2006) Cryptic striations in the upper mantle revealed by hafnium isotopes in southeast Indian ridge basalts. Nature
440: 199–202.
Griffin WL, Afonso JC, Belousova EA, et al. (2016) Mantle recycling: Transition zone metamorphism of tibetan ophiolitic peridotites and its tectonic implications. Journal of Petrology
57: 655–684.
Griffin WL, Howell D, Gonzalez-Jimenez JM, Xiong Q, and O’Reilly SY (2018) Comment on “Ultra-high pressure and ultra-reduced minerals in ophiolites may form by lightning strikes”
Geochemical Perspectives Letters 7: 1–2.
Hamilton WB (1998) Archean magmatism and deformation were not products of plate tectonics. Precambrian Research 91: 143–179.
Hamilton WB (2007) Earth’s first two billion years—The era of internally mobile crust. In: Hatcher RD Jr., Carlson MP, McBride JH, and Catalán JRM (eds.) 4-D Framework of
Continental Crust, pp. 233–296. Geological Society of America.
Hamilton WB (2011) Plate tectonics began in Neoproterozoic time, and plumes from deep mantle have never operated. Lithos 123: 1–20.
Hart SR (1984) A large-scale isotope anomaly in the Southern Hemisphere mantle. Nature 309: 753–757.
Hart SR, Hauri EH, Oschmann LA, and Whitehead JA (1992) Mantle plumes and entrainment: Isotopic evidence. Science 256: 517.
Harte B (2010) Diamond formation in the deep mantle: The record of mineral inclusions and their distribution in relation to mantle dehydration zones. Mineralogical Magazine
74: 189–215.
Harvey J, Gannoun A, Burton KW, et al. (2006) Ancient melt extraction from the oceanic upper mantle revealed by Re–Os isotopes in abyssal peridotites from the Mid-Atlantic ridge.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 244: 606–621.
Harvey J, Gannoun A, Burton KW, et al. (2010) Unravelling the effects of melt depletion and secondary infiltration on mantle Re–Os isotopes beneath the French Massif Central.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 74: 293–320.
Hassler DR and Shimizu N (1998) Osmium isotopic evidence for ancient subcontinental lithospheric mantle beneath the Kerguelen Islands, Southern Indian Ocean. Science
280: 418–421.
Hawkesworth CJ, Cawood PA, and Dhuime B (2016) Tectonics and crustal evolution. GSA Today 26: 4–11.
Hawkesworth CJ, Cawood PA, Dhuime B, and Kemp TIS (2017) Earth’s continental lithosphere through time. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 45: 169–198.
Helffrich G (2006) Heterogeneity in the mantle—Its creation, evolution and destruction. Tectonophysics 416: 23–31.
Herzberg C, Condie K, and Korenaga J (2010) Thermal history of the Earth and its petrological expression. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 292: 79–88.
Hess HH (1955) Serpentines, orogeny and epeirogeny. Geological Society of America Special Papers 62: 391–408.
Hess HH (1960) Caribbean research project: Progress report. Geological Society of America Bulletin 71: 235–240.
Hess HH (1965) Mid-oceanic ridges and tectonics of the sea floor, Submarine Geology and Geophysics. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Symposium of the Colston Research
Society, Butterworths, London 317–334.
Hofmann AW (1997) Mantle geochemistry: The message from oceanic volcanism. Nature 385: 219–229.
Howell D, Griffin WL, Yang J, et al. (2015) Diamonds in ophiolites: Contamination or a new diamond growth environment? Earth and Planetary Science Letters 430: 284–295.
Huang Z, Yang J, Robinson PT, et al. (2015) The Discovery of Diamonds in Chromitites of the Hegenshan Ophiolite, Inner Mongolia, China. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition)
89: 341–350.
Huang Y, Wang L, Kusky T, et al. (2017) High-Cr chromites from the Late Proterozoic Miaowan Ophiolite Complex, South China: Implications for its tectonic environment of formation.
Lithos 288–289: 35–54.
Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences (1981) The discovery of alpine-type diamond bearing ultrabasic intrusions in Xizang (Tibet). Geological Review
27: 445–447. (in Chinese).
990 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Ildefonse B, Blackman DK, John BE, et al. (2007) Oceanic core complexes and crustal accretion at slow-spreading ridges. Geology 35: 623–626.
Ishii T, Robinson PT, Maekawa H, and Fiske R (1992) Petrological studies of peridotites from diapiric serpentinite seamounts in the Izu-Ogasawara-Mariana forearc, Leg 125.
Proceeding of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results 125: 445–485.
Ishiwatari A (1985) Igneous Petrogenesis of the Yakuno Ophiolite (Japan) in the context of the diversity of ophiolites. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 89: 155–167.
Ishizuka O, Tani K, and Reagan MK (2014) Izu-bonin-mariana forearc crust as a modern ophiolite analogue. Elements 10: 115–120.
Jablon BM and Navon O (2016) Most diamonds were created equal. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 443: 41–47.
Jackson ED and Thayer TP (1972) Some criteria for distinguishing between stratiform, concentric and alpine peridotite-gabbro complexes. In: Proceedings of the 24th International
Geological Congress, Montreal 289–296.
Johan Z, Martin RF, and Ettler V (2017) Fluids are bound to be involved in the formation of ophiolitic chromite deposits. European Journal of Mineralogy 29(4): 543–555.
Johnson TE, Brown M, Kaus BJP, and VanTongeren JA (2014) Delamination and recycling of Archaean crust caused by gravitational instabilities. Nature Geoscience 7: 47–52.
Korenaga J and Kelemen PB (2000) Major element heterogeneity in the mantle source of the North Atlantic igneous province. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 184: 251–268.
Kusky T (2004) In: Condie KC (ed.) Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Italy: Developments in Precambrian Geology.
Kusky TM, Wang L, Dilek Y, et al. (2011) Application of the modern ophiolite concept with special reference to Precambrian ophiolites. Science China Earth Sciences 54: 315–341.
Kusky TM, Windley BF, and Polat A (2018) Geological evidence for the operation of plate tectonics throughout the Archean: Records from Archean Paleo-Plate Boundaries. Journal of
Earth Science 29: 1291–1303.
Lassiter JC, Byerly BL, Snow JE, and Hellebrand E (2014) Constraints from Os-isotope variations on the origin of Lena Trough abyssal peridotites and implications for the composition
and evolution of the depleted upper mantle. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 403: 178–187.
Li J, Kusky TM, and Huang X (2002) Archean podiform chromitites and mantle tectonites in ophiolitic melange, North China Craton: A record of early oceanic mantle processes. GSA
Today 12: 4–11.
Li Y, Huang R, Wiedenbeck M, and Keppler H (2015) Nitrogen distribution between aqueous fluids and silicate melts. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 411: 218–228.
Lian D and Yang J (2019) Ophiolite-hosted diamond: A new window for probing carbon cycling in the deep mantle. Engineering 5: 406–420.
Lian D, Yang J, Dilek Y, et al. (2017) Deep mantle origin and ultra-reducing conditions in podiform chromitite: Diamond, moissanite, and other unusual minerals in podiform chromitites
from the Pozanti-Karsanti ophiolite, southern Turkey. American Mineralogist 102: 1101–1113.
Lian D, Yang J, Wiedenbeck M, et al. (2018) Carbon and nitrogen isotope, and mineral inclusion studies on the diamonds from the Pozanti-Karsanti chromitite, Turkey. Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology 173(9): 1–18.
Liang F, Xu Z, and Zhao J (2014) In-situ moissanite in dunite: Deep mantle origin of mantle peridotite in Luobusa Ophiolite, Tibet. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition) 88: 517–529.
Liipo J, Vuollo J, Nykänen V, et al. (1995) Chromites from the early Proterozoic Outokumpu-Jormua Ophiolitic Belt: A comparison with chromitites from Mesozoic ophiolites. Lithos
36: 15–27.
Litasov KD, Kagi H, Voropaev SA, et al. (2019) Comparison of enigmatic diamonds from the Tolbachik arc volcano (Kamchatka) and Tibetan ophiolites: Assessing the role of
contamination by synthetic materials. Gondwana Research 75: 16–27.
Liu CZ, Snow JE, Hellebrand E, et al. (2008) Ancient, highly heterogeneous mantle beneath Gakkel ridge, Arctic Ocean. Nature 452: 311–316.
Liu T, Wu F-Y, Liu C-Z, et al. (2018) Variably evolved gabbroic intrusions within the Xigaze ophiolite (Tibet): New insights into the origin of ophiolite diversity. Contributions to Mineralogy
and Petrology 173: 91.
Liu H, Sun WD, Zartman R, and Tang M (2019a) Continuous plate subduction marked by the rise of alkali magmatism 2.1 billion years ago. Nature Communications 10: 3408.
Liu X, Su BX, Xiao Y, et al. (2019b) Initial subduction of Neo-Tethyan ocean: Geochemical records in chromite and mineral inclusions in the Pozantı-Karsantı ophiolite, southern Turkey.
Ore Geology Reviews 100: 102926.
Maffione M, Morris A, and Anderson MW (2013) Recognizing detachment-mode seafloor spreading in the deep geological past. Scientific Reports 3: 2336.
Mallick S, Dick HJB, Sachi-Kocher A, and Salters VJM (2014) Isotope and trace element insights into heterogeneity of subridge mantle. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems
15: 2438–2453.
Mallick S, Standish JJ, and Bizimis M (2015) Constraints on the mantle mineralogy of an ultra-slow ridge: Hafnium isotopes in abyssal peridotites and basalts from the 9–25 E
Southwest Indian Ridge. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 410: 42–53.
Marchesi C, González-Jiménez JM, Gervilla F, et al. (2011) In situ Re–Os isotopic analysis of platinum-group minerals from the Mayarí-Cristal ophiolitic massif (Mayarí-Baracoa
Ophiolitic Belt, eastern Cuba): Implications for the origin of Os-isotope heterogeneities in podiform chromitites. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 161: 977–990.
Martin CE (1991) Osmium isotopic characteristics of mantle-derived rocks. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 55: 1421–1434.
Matveev S and Ballhaus C (2002) Role of water in the origin of podiform chromitite deposits. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 203: 235–243.
Maurice C, David J, Bédard JH, and Francis D (2009) Evidence for a widespread mafic cover sequence and its implications for continental growth in the Northeastern Superior Province.
Precambrian Research 168: 45–65.
McCammon CA (2005) The paradox of mantle redox. Science 308: 807–808.
McGowan NM, Griffin WL, González-Jiménez JM, et al. (2015) Tibetan chromitites: Excavating the slab graveyard. Geology 43: 179–182.
Meisel T, Walker RJ, Irving AJ, and Lorand J-P (2001) Osmium isotopic compositions of mantle xenoliths: A global perspective. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 65: 1311–1323.
Mikhail S, Verchovsky AB, Howell D, et al. (2014) Constraining the internal variability of the stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen within mantle diamonds. Chemical Geology
366: 14–23.
Miura M, Arai S, Ahmed AH, et al. (2012) Podiform chromitite classification revisited: A comparison of discordant and concordant chromitite pods from Wadi Hilti, northern Oman
ophiolite. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 59: 52–61.
Miyashiro A (1973) The Troodos ophiolitic complex was probably formed in an island arc. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 19: 218–224.
Miyashiro A (1975) Classification, characteristics, and origin of ophiolites. Journal of Geology 83: 249–281.
Moe KS, Yang JS, Johnson P, Xu X, and Wang W (2018) Spectroscopic analysis of microdiamonds in ophiolitic chromitite and peridotite. Lithosphere 10: 133–141.
Moore WB and Webb AA (2013) Heat-pipe Earth. Nature 501: 501–505.
Moores EM (1982) Origin and emplacement of ophiolites. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 20: 735–760.
Moores EM and Vine FJ (1971) The Troodos massif, Cyprus, and other ophiolites as oceanic crust: Evaluation and implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A
268: 443–466.
Moresi L and Solomatov V (1998) Mantle convection with a brittle lithosphere: Thoughts on the global tectonic styles of the Earth and Venus. Geophysical Journal International
133: 669–682.
Moyen J-F and van Hunen J (2012) Short-term episodicity of Archaean plate tectonics. Geology 40: 451–454.
Mukherjee R and Mondal SK (2018) Petrogenetic evolution of chromite deposits in the Archean greenstone belts of India. In: Mondal SK and Griffin WL (eds.) Processes and Ore
Deposits of Ultramafic-Mafic Magmas Through Space and Time, pp. 159–195. Elsevier.
Nicolas A (1989) Structures of Ophiolites and Dynamics of Oceanic Lithosphere. Springer Science & Business Media.
Nicolas A and Boudier F (2003) Where ophiolites come from and what they tell us. In: Dilek Y and Newcomb S (eds.) Ophiolite Concept and the Evolution of Geological Thought.
vol. 373, pp. 137–152. Geological Society of America.
Nicolas A, Girardeau J, Marcoux J, et al. (1981) The Xigaze ophiolite (Tibet): A peculiar oceanic lithosphere. Nature 294: 414–417.
Niu Y (2014) Geological understanding of plate tectonics: Basic concepts, illustrations, examples and new perspectives. Global Tectonics & Metallogeny 10: 23–46.
Niu YL, Regelous M, Wendt IJ, Batiza R, and O’Hara MJ (2002) Geochemistry of near-EPR seamounts: Importance of source vs. process and the origin of enriched mantle component.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 199: 327–345.
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 991

Nutman AP, Bennett VC, Friend CRL, and Kranendonk MV (2019) The Eoarchean legacy of Isua (Greenland) worth preserving for future generations. Earth-Science Reviews 198:
102923.
O’Driscoll B, Day JMD, Walker RJ, et al. (2012) Chemical heterogeneity in the upper mantle recorded by peridotites and chromitites from the Shetland Ophiolite Complex, Scotland.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 333–334: 226–237.
O’Neill C and Debaille V (2014) The evolution of Hadean–Eoarchaean geodynamics. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 406: 49–58.
O’Neill C, Lenardic A, Moresi L, Torsvik TH, and Lee CTA (2007) Episodic Precambrian subduction. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 262: 552–562.
O’Reilly SY, Zhang M, Griffin WL, Begg G, and Hronsky J (2009) Ultradeep continental roots and their oceanic remnants: A solution to the geochemical “mantle reservoir” problem?
Lithos 112: 1043–1054.
Page P and Barnes SJ (2009) Using trace elements in chromites to constrain the origin of podiform chromitites in the thetford mines ophiolite, Quebec, Canada. Economic Geology
104: 997–1018.
Palme H and O’Neill HSC (2003) Cosmochemical estimates of mantle composition. Treatise on Geochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043751-6/02177-0.
Palot M, Cartigny P, Harris JW, Kaminsky FV, and Stachel T (2012) Evidence for deep mantle convection and primordial heterogeneity from nitrogen and carbon stable isotopes in
diamond. Earth & Planetary Science Letters s 357–358: 179–193.
Parkinson IJ and Pearce JA (1998) Peridotites from the Izu–Bonin–Mariana forearc (ODP Leg 125): Evidence for mantle melting and melt–mantle interaction in a supra-subduction
zone setting. Journal of Petrology 39: 1577–1618.
Parkinson IJ, Hawkesworth CJ, and Cohen AS (1998) Ancient mantle in a Modern Arc: Osmium Isotopes in Izu-Bonin-Mariana Forearc Peridotites. Science 281: 2011–2013.
Paulick H, Bach W, Godard M, et al. (2006) Geochemistry of abyssal peridotites (Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 15 200 N, ODP Leg 209): Implications for fluid/rock interaction in slow spreading
environments. Chemical Geology 234: 179–210.
Pearce JA (1975) Basalt geochemistry used to investigate past tectonic environments on Cyprus. Tectonophysics 25: 41–67.
Pearce JA (2008) Geochemical fingerprinting of oceanic basalts with applications to ophiolite classification and the search for Archean oceanic crust. Lithos 100: 14–48.
Pearce JA (2014) Immobile element fingerprinting of ophiolites. Elements 10: 101–108.
Pearce JA and Cann JR (1971) Ophiolite origin investigated by discriminant analysis using Ti, Zr and Y. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 12: 339–349.
Pearce JA and Cann JR (1973) Tectonic setting of basic volcanic rocks determined using trace element analyses. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 19: 290–300.
Pearce JA and Robinson PT (2010) The Troodos ophiolitic complex probably formed in a subduction initiation, slab edge setting. Gondwana Research 18: 60–81.
Pearce JA, Lippard SJ, and Roberts S (1984) Characteristics and Tectonic Significance of Supra-Subduction Zone Ophiolites. London: Geological Society 77–94. Special Publications 16.
Pearce JA, Barker PF, Edwards SJ, Parkinson IJ, and Leat PT (2000) Geochemistry and tectonic significance of peridotites from the South Sandwich arc–basin system, South Atlantic.
Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 139: 36–53.
Pearson DG, Brenker FE, Nestola F, et al. (2014) Hydrous mantle transition zone indicated by ringwoodite included within diamond. Nature 507: 221–224.
Peltonen P, Kontinen A, and Huhma H (1996) Petrology and geochemistry of metabasalts from the 1.95 Ga Jormua Ophiolite, Northeastern Finland. Journal of Petrology
37: 1359–1383.
Piccardo GB, Padovano M, and Guarnieri L (2014) The Ligurian Tethys: Mantle processes and geodynamics. Earth-Science Reviews 138: 409–434.
Rampone E and Hofmann AW (2012) A global overview of isotopic heterogeneities in the oceanic mantle. Lithos 148: 247–261.
Rampone E, Romairone A, Abouchami W, Piccardo GB, and Hofmann AW (2005) Chronology, petrology and isotope geochemistry of the Erro-Tobbio peridotites (Ligurian Alps, Italy):
Records of late Palaeozoic lithospheric extension. Journal of Petrology 46: 799–827.
Reagan MK, Ishizuka O, Stern RJ, et al. (2010) Fore-arc basalts and subduction initiation in the Izu-Bonin-Mariana system. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 11: 427–428.
Reagan MK, Heaton DE, Schmitz MD, et al. (2019) Forearc ages reveal extensive short-lived and rapid seafloor spreading following subduction initiation. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 506: 520–529.
Reisberg LC (2015) Ophiolitic chromitites from the andriamena greenstone belt, madagascar: Possible evidence for mid-archean plate tectonics. In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.
Rizo H, Boyet M, Blichert-Toft J, and Rosing M (2011) Combined Nd and Hf isotope evidence for deep-seated source of Isua lavas. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 312: 267–279.
Robinson PT, Bai W-J, Malpas J, et al. (2004) Ultra-High Pressure Minerals in the Luobusa Ophiolite, Tibet, and Their Tectonic Implications. vol. 226, Special Publication-Geological
Society of London, pp 247–272.
Robinson PT, Malpas J, Dilek Y, and Zhou M-F (2008) The significance of sheeted dike complexes in ophiolites. GSA Today 18: 4–10.
Robinson PT, Trumbull RB, Schmitt A, et al. (2015) The origin and significance of crustal minerals in ophiolitic chromitites and peridotites. Gondwana Research 27(2): 486–506.
Rollinson H (2005) Chromite in the mantle section of the Oman ophiolite: A new genetic model. Island Arc 14: 542–550.
Rollinson H (2007) Recognising early Archaean mantle: A reappraisal. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 154: 241–252.
Rollinson H (2016) Surprises from the top of the mantle transition zone. Geology Today 32: 58–64.
Rollinson H, Adetunji J, Lenaz D, and Szilas K (2017) Archaean chromitites show constant Fe3 +/SFe in Earth’s asthenospheric mantle since 3.8 Ga. Lithos 282–283: 316–325.
Rollinson H, Mameri L, and Barry T (2018) Polymineralic inclusions in mantle chromitites from the Oman ophiolite indicate a highly magnesian parental melt. Lithos
310–311: 381–391.
Rüpke LH, Morgan JP, Hort M, and Connolly JAD (2004) Serpentine and the subduction zone water cycle. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 223: 17–34.
Ruskov T, Spirov I, Georgieva M, et al. (2010) Mössbauer spectroscopy studies of the valence state of iron in chromite from the luobusa massif of tibet: Implications for a highly reduced
deep mantle. Journal of Metamorphic Geology 28(5): 551–560.
Saccani E (2015) A new method of discriminating different types of post-Archean ophiolitic basalts and their tectonic significance using Th-Nb and Ce-Dy-Yb systematics. Geoscience
Frontiers 6: 481–501.
Salters VJM and Dick HJB (2002) Mineralogy of the mid-ocean-ridge basalt source from neodymium isotopic composition of abyssal peridotites. Nature 418: 68–72.
Santti J, Kontinen A, Sorjonen-Ward P, Johanson B, and Pakkanen L (2006) Metamorphism and chromite in serpentinized and carhonate-silica-altered peridotites of the
paleoproterozoic Outokumpu-Jormua ophiolite belt, eastern Finland. International Geology Review 48: 494–546.
Satsukawa T, Griffin WL, Piazolo S, and O’Reilly SY (2015) Messengers from the deep: Fossil wadsleyite-chromite microstructures from the mantle transition zone. Scientific Reports
5(1): 16484.
Saveliev DE and Fedoseev VB (2019) Solid-state redistribution of mineral particles in the upwelling mantle flow as a mechanism of chromite concentration in the ophiolite ultramafic
rocks (on the example of Kraka ophiolite, the Southern Urals). Georesursy 21: 31–46.
Seyler M and Bonatti E (1997) Regional-scale melt-rock interaction in lherzolitic mantle in the Romanche Fracture Zone (Atlantic Ocean). Earth and Planetary Science Letters
146: 273–287.
Seyler M, Lorand JP, Dick HJB, and Drouin M (2007) Pervasive melt percolation reactions in ultra-depleted refractory harzburgites at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 15 200 N: ODP Hole
1274A. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 153: 303–319.
Shervais JW (1982) Ti-V plots and the petrogenesis of modern and ophiolitic lavas. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 59: 101–118.
Shervais JW (2001) Birth, death, and resurrection: The life cycle of suprasubduction zone ophiolites. Geochemistry 2: 2000GC000080.
Shi R, Alard O, Zhi X, et al. (2007) Multiple events in the Neo-Tethyan oceanic upper mantle: Evidence from Ru–Os–Ir alloys in the Luobusa and Dongqiao ophiolitic podiform
chromitites, Tibet. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 261: 33–48.
Shi R, Griffin WL, O’Reilly SY, et al. (2012) Melt/mantle mixing produces podiform chromite deposits in ophiolites: Implications of Re–Os systematics in the Dongqiao Neo-tethyan
ophiolite, northern Tibet. Gondwana Research 21: 194–206.
Shirey SB, Cartigny P, Frost DJ, Keshav S, Nestola F, Nimis P, Pearson DG, Sobolev NV, and Walter MJ (2013) Diamonds and the geology of mantle carbon. Reviews in Mineralogy and
Geochemistry 75: 355–421.
992 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites

Sizova E, Gerya T, Brown M, and Perchuk LL (2010) Subduction styles in the Precambrian: Insight from numerical experiments. Lithos 116: 209–229.
Smith EM, Kopylova MG, Frezzotti ML, and Afanasiev VP (2015) Fluid inclusions in Ebelyakh diamonds: Evidence of CO2 liberation in eclogite and the effect of H2O on diamond habit.
Lithos 216–217: 106–117.
Smith CB, Walter MJ, Bulanova GP, et al. (2016) Diamonds from Dachine, French Guiana: A unique record of Early Proterozoic subduction. Lithos 265: 82–95.
Snow JE and Edmonds HN (2007) Ultraslow-spreading ridges rapid paradigm changes. Oceanography 20: 90–101.
Snow JE, Schmidt G, and Rampone E (2000) Os isotopes and highly siderophile elements (HSE) in the Ligurian ophiolites, Italy. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 175: 119–132.
Sobolev AV, Hofmann AW, Jochum KP, Kuzmin DV, and Stoll B (2011) A young source for the Hawaiian plume. Nature 476: 434–437.
Stachel T and Harris JW (2008) The origin of cratonic diamonds—Constraints from mineral inclusions. Ore Geology Reviews 34: 5–32.
Stachel T and Luth RW (2015) Diamond Formation—Where, when and how? Lithos 220–223: 200–220.
Steinmann G (1927) Die ophiolitischen Zonen in den mediterranen Kettengebirgen. Compte Rendu, XIVe Congrès Géologique International, 1926, Madrid, Graficas Reunidas vol. 2,
637–667.
Stern RJ (2002) Subduction zones. Reviews of Geophysics 40: 1012.
Stern RJ (2004) Subduction initiation: Spontaneous and induced. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 226: 275–292.
Stern RJ (2005) Evidence from ophiolites, blueschists, and ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic terranes that the modern episode of subduction tectonics began in Neoproterozoic time.
Geology 33: 557–560.
Stern RJ (2018) The evolution of plate tectonics. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 376: 20170406.
Stern RJ and Bloomer SH (1992) Subduction zone infancy: Examples from the Eocene Izu-Bonin-Mariana and Jurassic California arcs. Geological Society of America Bulletin
104: 1621–1636.
Stern RJ and Gerya T (2018) Subduction initiation in nature and models: A review. Tectonophysics 746: 173–198.
Stracke A (2012) Earth’s heterogeneous mantle: A product of convection-driven interaction between crust and mantle. Chemical Geology 330–331: 274–299.
Stracke A, Snow JE, Hellebrand E, et al. (2011) Abyssal peridotite Hf isotopes identify extreme mantle depletion. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 308: 359–368.
Su B, Zhou M, and Robinson PT (2016) Extremely large fractionation of Li isotopes in a chromitite-bearing mantle sequence. Scientific Reports 6: 22370.
Sunagawa I (1990) Growth and morhology of diamond crystals under stable and metastable conditions. Journal of Crystal Growth 99: 1156–1161.
Thayer TP (1967) Chemical and structural relations in ultramafic and feldspathic rocks in Alpine intrusive complexes. In: Wyllie PJ (ed.) Ultramafic and Related Rocks, pp. 222–238.
New York: John Wiley.
Thomassot E, Cartigny P, Harris JW, and Viljoen KS (2007) Methane-related diamond crystallization in the Earth’s mantle: Stable isotope evidences from a single diamond-bearing
xenolith. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 257: 362–371.
Tian Y, Yang J, Robinson PT, et al. (2015) Diamond discovered in high-Al chromitites of the sartohay ophiolite, Xinjiang Province, China. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition)
89: 332–340.
Tsuru A, Walker RJ, Kontinen A, Peltonen P, and Hanski E (2000) Re-Os isotopic systematics of the 1.95 Ga Jormua Ophiolite Complex, northeastern Finland. Chemical Geology
164: 123–141.
Tucholke BE, Behn MD, Buck WR, and Lin J (2008) Role of melt supply in oceanic detachment faulting and formation of megamullions. Geology 36: 455–458.
Uysal I, Tarkian M, Sadiklar MB, et al. (2009) Petrology of Al- and Cr-rich ophiolitic chromitites from the Mu
gla, SW Turkey: implications from composition of chromite, solid inclusions
of platinum-group mineral, silicate, and base-metal mineral, and Os-isotope geochemistry. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 158(5): 659–674.
Uysal I, Akmaz RM, Saka S, and Kapsiotis A (2016) Coexistence of compositionally heterogeneous chromitites in the Antalya-Isparta ophiolitic suite, SW Turkey: A record of sequential
magmatic processes in the sub-arc lithospheric mantle. Lithos 248241: 160–174.
Uysal _l, Kapsiotis A, Akmaz M, Saka S, and Seitz HM (2018) The Guleman ophiolitic chromitites (SE Turkey) and their link to a compositionally evolving mantle source during subduction
initiation. Ore Geology Reviews 93: 98–113.
Walker RJ, Carlson RW, Shirey SB, and Boyd FR (1989) Os, Sr, Nd, and Pb isotope systematics of southern African peridotite xenoliths: Implications for the chemical evolution of
subcontinental mantle. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53: 1583–1595.
Walker RJ, Hanski E, Vuollo J, and Liipo J (1996) The Os isotopic composition of Proterozoic upper mantle: Evidence for chondritic upper mantle from the Outokumpu ophiolite, Finland.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 141: 161–173.
Walker RJ, Prichard HM, Ishiwatari A, and Pimentel M (2002) The osmium isotopic composition of convecting upper mantle deduced from ophiolite chromites. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 66: 329–345.
Wang X, Bao PS, and Rong H (1996) Rare earth elements geochemistry of the mantle peridotite in the ophiolite studies of China. Acta Petrologica Sinica 11: 24–41.
Warren JM (2016) Global variations in abyssal peridotite compositions. Lithos 248–251: 193–219.
Warren JM and Shirey SB (2012) Lead and osmium isotopic constraints on the oceanic mantle from single abyssal peridotite sulfides. Earth and Planetary Science Letters
359–360: 279–293.
Warren JM, Shimizu N, Sakaguchi C, Dick HJB, and Nakamura E (2009) An assessment of upper mantle heterogeneity based on abyssal peridotite isotopic compositions. Journal of
Geophysical Research - Solid Earth 114: B12203.
Wilkinson JJ (2013) Triggers for the formation of porphyry ore deposits in magmatic arcs. Nature Geoscience 6: 917–925.
Wilson JT (1968) Static or mobile earth: The current scientific revolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 112: 309–320.
Workman RK and Hart SR (2005) Major and trace element composition of the depleted MORB mantle (DMM). Earth and Planetary Science Letters 231: 53–72.
Wu Y, Xu M, Jin Z, Fei Y, and Robinson PT (2016) Experimental constraints on the formation of the Tibetan podiform chromitites. Lithos 245: 109–117.
Wu W, Yang J, Ma C, Milushi I, Lian D, and Tian Y (2017) Discovery and significance of diamonds and Moissanites in chromitite within the Skenderbeu Massif of the Mirdita Zone
Ophiolite, West Albania. Acta Geologica Sinica-English Edition 91: 882–897.
Wu W, Yang J, Wirth R, et al. (2019) Carbon and nitrogen isotopes and mineral inclusions in diamonds from chromitites of the Mirdita ophiolite (Albania) demonstrate recycling of
oceanic crust into the mantle. American Mineralogist 104: 485–500.
Xiao X (1995) Discussion on the classification of ophiolites by spreading rate. Acta Petrologica Sinica 11: 10–23.
Xiong F, Yang J, Robinson PT, et al. (2015) Origin of podiform chromitite, a new model based on the Luobusa ophiolite, Tibet. Gondwana Research 27: 525–542.
Xiong F, Yang J, Dilek Y, Xu X, and Zhang Z (2017a) Origin and significance of diamonds and other exotic minerals in the Dingqing ophiolite peridotites, eastern Bangong-Nujiang
suture zone, Tibet. Lithosphere 10: 142–155.
Xiong F, Yang J, Robinson PT, et al. (2017b) Diamonds Discovered from High-Cr Podiform Chromitites of Bulqiza, Eastern Mirdita Ophiolite, Albania. Acta Geologica Sinica (English
Edition) 91: 455–468.
Xiong Q, Henry H, Griffin WL, et al. (2017c) High- and Low-Cr chromitite and Dunite in a Tibetan ophiolite: Evolution from mature subduction system to incipient forearc in the Neo-
Tethyan Ocean. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 172(6): 45.
Xu X, Yang J, Ba D, et al. (2008) Diamond discovered from the Kangjinla chromitite in the Yarlung Zangbo ophiolite belt, Tibet. Acta Petrologica Sinica 24: 1453–1462. (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Xu XZ, Yang JS, Chen SY, et al. (2009) Unusual mantle mineral group from chromitite orebody Cr-11 in Luobusa ophiolite of Yarlung-Zangbo suture zone, Tibet. Journal of Earth
Science 20: 284–302.
Xu X, Cartigny P, Yang J, et al. (2018) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy data and carbon isotope characteristics of the ophiolite-hosted diamonds from the Luobusa ophiolite,
Tibet, and Ray-Iz ophiolite, Polar Urals. Lithosphere 10: 156–169.
 Tectonics and Structural Geology | New Concepts in Ophiolites, Oceanic Lithosphere and Podiform Chromites 993

Yamamoto S, Komiya T, Hirose K, and Maruyama S (2009) Coesite and clinopyroxene exsolution lamellae in chromites; in situ ultrahigh pressure evidence from podiform chromitites in
the luobusa ophiolite, southern tibet. Lithos 109(3): 314–322.
Yang JS, Dobrzhinetskaya L, Bai WJ, et al. (2007) Diamond-and coesite-bearing chromitites from the Luobusa ophiolite, Tibet. Geology 35: 875–878.
Yang JS, Robinson PT, and Dilek Y (2014) Diamonds in ophiolites. Elements 10: 127–130.
Yang J, Meng F, Xu X, et al. (2015a) Diamonds, native elements and metal alloys from chromitites of the Ray-Iz ophiolite of the Polar Urals. Gondwana Research 27: 459–485.
Yang J, Robinson PT, and Dilek Y (2015b) Diamond-bearing ophiolites and their geological occurrence. Episodes 38: 344–364.
Yang JS, Trumbull RB, Robinson P, Xiong FH, and Lian D (2018) Comment 2 on “Ultra-high pressure and ultra-reduced minerals in ophiolites may form by lightning strikes”
Geochemical Perspectives Letters 8: 6–7.
Yang JS, Lian DY, Robinson PT, et al. (2019) A shallow origin for diamonds in ophiolitic chromitites: Comment. Geology 47: e475.
Yang J, Simakov SK, Moe K, Scribano V, Lian D, and Wu W (2020) Comment on “Comparison of enigmatic diamonds from the Tolbachik arc volcano (Kamchatka) and Tibetan
ophiolites: Assessing the role of contamination by synthetic materials” by Litasov et al., (2019). Gondwana Research 79: 301–303.
Zhang Q (1990) Classification of ophiolites. Scientia Geologica Sinica 1: 54–61.
Zhang Y, Jin Z, Griffin WL, Wang C, and Wu Y (2017) High-pressure experiments provide insights into the Mantle Transition Zone history of chromitite in Tibetan ophiolites. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 463: 151–158.
Zhou MF and Robinson PT (1997) Origin and tectonic environment of podiform chromite deposits. Economic Geology 92: 259–262.
Zhou MF, Robinson PT, and Bai WJ (1994) Formation of podiform chromitites by melt/rock interaction in the upper mantle. Mineralium Deposita 29: 98–101.
Zhou MF, Robinson PT, Malpas J, Edwards SJ, and Qi L (2005) REE and PGE geochemical constraints on the formation of dunites in the Luobusa ophiolite, Southern Tibet. Journal of
Petrology 46: 615–639.
Zhou MF, Robinson PT, Su BX, et al. (2014) Compositions of chromite, associated minerals, and parental magmas of podiform chromite deposits: The role of slab contamination of
asthenospheric melts in suprasubduction zone environments. Gondwana Research 26(1): 262–283.
Zhu B, Wang L, and Wang L (1987) Paleozoic era ophiolite of southwest part in western Junggar, Xinjiang, China. Bulletin of Xi’an Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources, Chinese
Academy of Geological Sciences 17: 1–64.
Zindler A and Hart SR (1986) Chemical geodynamics. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 14: 493–571.

Further Reading
Coleman RG (1977) Ophiolites: Ancient Oceanic Lithosphere? Berlin Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Condie KC (2016) Earth as an Evolving Planetary System, 3rd edn Elsevier Academic Press.
Dilek Y (2003) Ophiolite Concept and Its Evolution. Special Papers-Geological Society of America 373 1–16.
Dilek Y and Furnes H (2011) Ophiolite genesis and global tectonics: Geochemical and tectonic fingerprinting of ancient oceanic lithosphere. Geological Society of America Bulletin
123: 387–411.
Kusky T (2004) Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. In: Condie KC (ed.) Developments in Precambrian Geology. Elsevier.
Miyashiro A (1973) The Troodos ophiolitic complex was probably formed in an island arc. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 19: 218–224.
Moores EM (1982) Origin and emplacement of ophiolites. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 20: 735–760.
Nicolas A (1989) Structures of Ophiolites and Dynamics of Oceanic Lithosphere. Springer Science & Business Media.
Pearce JA, Lippard SJ, and Roberts S (1984) Characteristics and tectonic significance of supra-subduction zone ophiolites. Geological Society, London, Special Publications
16: 77–94.
Wilson JT (1968) Static or mobile Earth: The current scientific revolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 112: 309–320.
Yang JS, Dobrzhinetskaya L, Bai WJ, et al. (2007) Diamond-and coesite-bearing chromitites from the Luobusa ophiolite, Tibet. Geology 35: 875–878.
Yang JS, Robinson PT, and Dilek Y (2014) Diamonds in ophiolites. Elements 10: 127–130.