Melt propagation and volcanism in mantle convection simulations, with applications for Martian volcanic and atmospheric evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard models for a warm, wet early Mars require a significant CO2‐H2O atmosphere in the past. The source for these phases is assumed to be volcanic degassing. However, no consistent, dynamical models exist relating volcanic degassing to evolving mantle temperatures. Here we use a range of thermal, geophysical, geological, and petrological constraints from Mars to constrain mantle convection model simulations of Mars' post‐Noachian stagnant lid evolution. We develop a methodology to self‐consistently calculate melt extraction from the mantle source region. Using a dike‐propagation algorithm, we can calculate the rate of volcanism and rate of volcanic degassing from these simulations and compare them with estimates for Mars. We find that Martian melt production rates are satisfied by a 200‐km thick lithosphere (surface heat flow 25 ± 5 mW/m3) for an intermediate Martian solidus. Core‐mantle temperatures cannot exceed ∼1850°C from geodynamo constraints, and the enrichment of heat‐producing elements into the crust is unlikely to exceed 25–50%. For hotter Martian mantle temperatures in the past, we find an evolution in rates of volcanism from >0.17 km3/yr for the early Hesperian to ∼1 × 10−4km3/yr at present, consistent with geological evidence. During this same interval, CO2flux would have declined from 8.8 × 107to 6.7 × 106kg/yr. If the early Hesperian supported a dense (>1 bar) atmosphere, this implies that the average loss rate of CO2from the atmosphere was 15 times greater than the maximum influx rate during this time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".