Differences and similarities between emplacement models of kimberlite and basaltic maar-diatreme volcanoes

Abstract

Abstract Most kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes erupted during the Tertiary or earlier and therefore their tephra rings and, less often, their near-surface diatreme-filling deposits have usually been eliminated by erosion. Poorly eroded Quaternary non-kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes, especially those of mafic and ultramafic magma types, have the same diatreme size range (diameter and depth) as kimberlite pipes and show similar internal volcaniclastic diatreme lithofacies. In addition, these young volcanoes often have a more or less preserved tephra ring consisting of hundreds to perhaps a few thousand thin tephra beds. Volcanological analyses of the xenolith-rich primary volcaniclastic deposits both within these diatremes and in the tephra ring beds reflect phases of explosive pipe growth and are of convincingly phreatomagmatic origin. The similarities between non-kimberlite pipes and kimberlite pipes suggest to some researchers that phreatomagmatic processes were also responsible for pipe excavation processes in kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes. In contrast, other researchers have suggested that kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes were emplaced largely by magmatic processes as a consequence of exsolution and the explosive expansion of juvenile volatiles. We therefore analysed and compared some key geological features of kimberlite and ultrabasic to basic ‘basaltic’ maar-diatreme volcanoes to determine similarities and differences with respect to their emplacement behaviour.