ABSTRACT
The Big Pine
volcanic field encompasses 1000 square kilometers of the northern
In thin
section, Big Pine basalts display marked differences. Some samples contain phenocrysts of
plagioclase, resorbed olivine and orthopyroxene and minor nepheline. Others have abundant plagioclase and pyroxene
phenocrysts, but sparse olivine and no nepheline. There is also a noticeable difference in
phenocryst size. Some basalts are
comprised of phenocrysts that exceed 1mm in diameter, while others have much
smaller (<0.1mm) phenocrysts. There
is no apparent relationship between phenocryst size and mineralogy.
Major element
analyses support thin section observations.
Two distinct groupings are present.
One is generally quartz normative (silica-rich), while the second is
nepheline normative (silica-poor).
Temporal relationships are difficult to establish, but field
observations suggest the older flows were more silica undersaturated. Trace
element data is enigmatic. There is a
subtle trend for the more incompatible elements to favor silica-rich rocks;
however, strontium is clearly anomalous.
The bimodal distribution
of silica has been well documented for the Cima basalts. There, it is attributed to systematic
variation in melting depth over time. A
similar explanation for the Big Pine field is difficult to rationalize. Big Pine basalts were emplaced over a
shorter time span and display an inverse relationship, characterized by more
recent silica-rich basalts. We conclude Big Pine mineralogy and geochemistry
are best explained by partial assimilation of Mesozoic granite as basaltic
magma rose upward from the underlying mantle.