It would be useful to have a better handle on how and when water appeared on the early Earth. We know that comets and asteroids can bring water from beyond the ‘snowline,’ that zone demarcated by temperatures beyond which volatiles like water, ammonia or carbon dioxide are cold enough to condense into ice grains. For our Solar System, that distance in our era is 5 AU, roughly the orbital distance of Jupiter, although the snowline would have been somewhat closer to the Sun during the period of planet formation. So we have a mechanism to bring ices into the inner Solar System but don’t know just how large a role incoming ices played in Earth’s development.
Knowing more about the emergence of volatiles on Earth would help us frame what we see in other stellar systems, as we evaluate whether or not a given planet may be habitable. Usefully, there are ways to study our planet’s formation that can drill down to its accretion from the materials in the original circumstellar disk. A new study from Caltech goes to work on the magmas that emerge from the planetary interior, finding that water could only have arrived later in the history of Earth’s formation.
Published in Science Advances, the paper involves an international team working in laboratories at Caltech as well as the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, with Caltech grad student Weiyi Liu as first author. When I think about studying magma, zircon comes first to mind. It appears in crystalline form as magma cools and solidifies. I’m no geologist, but I’m told that the chemistry of melt inclusions can identify factors such as volatile content and broader chemical composition of the original magma itself. Feldspar crystals are likewise useful, and the isotopic analysis of a variety of rocks and minerals can tell us much about their origin.
So it’s no surprise to learn that the Caltech paper uses isotopes, in this case the changing ratio of isotopes of xenon (Xe) as found in mid-ocean ridge basalt vs. ocean island basalt. Specifically, 129Xe* comes from the radioactive decay of the extinct volatile 129I, whose half-life is 15.7 million years, while 136Xe*Pu comes from the extinction of 244Pu, with a halflife of 80 million years. So the 129Xe*/136Xe*Pu ratio is a useful tool. As the paper notes, this ratio:
…evolves as a function of both time and reservoirs compositions (i.e., I/Pu ratio) early in Earth’s history. Hence, the study of the 129Xe*/136Xe*Pu in silicate reservoirs of Earth has the potential to place strong constraints on Earth’s accretion and evolution.
The ocean island basalt samples, originating as far down as the core/mantle boundary, reveal this ratio to be low by a factor of 2.8 as compared to mid-ocean ridge basalts, which have their origin in the upper mantle. Using computationally intensive simulations drawing on what is known as first-principles molecular dynamics (FPMD), the authors find that the low I/Pu levels were established in the first 80 to 100 million years of the Solar System (thus before 129I extinction), and have been preserved for the past 4.45 billion years. Their calculations assess the I/Pu findings under different accretion scenarios, drawing on simulated magmas from the lower mantle, which runs from 680 kilometers below the surface, to the core-mantle boundary (2,900 kilometers), and also from the upper mantle beginning at 15 kilometers and extending downward to 680 kilometers.
The result: The lower mantle reveals an early Earth composed primarily of dry, rocky materials, with a distinct lack of volatiles, with the later-forming upper mantle numbers showing three times the amount of volatiles found below. The volatiles essential for life seem to have emerged only within the last 15 percent, and perhaps less, of Earth’s formation. In the caption below, the italics are mine.
Image: This is Figure 4 from the paper. Caption: Schematic representation of the heterogeneous accretion history of Earth that is consistent with the more siderophile behavior of I and Pu at high P-T [pressure-temperature] conditions (this work). As core formation alone does not result in I/Pu fractionations sufficient to explain the ~3 times lower 129Xe*/136Xe*Pu ratio observed in OIBs [ocean island basalt] compared to MORBs [mid-ocean ridge basalt], a scenario of heterogeneous accretion has to be invoked in which volatile-depleted differentiated planetesimals constitute the main building blocks of Earth for most of its accretion history (phase 1), before addition of, comparatively, volatile-rich undifferentiated materials (chondrite and possibly comet) during the last stages of accretion (phase 2).Isolation and preservation, at the CMB [core mantle boundary], of a small portion of the proto-Earth’s mantle before addition of volatile-rich material would explain the lower I/Pu ratio of plume mantle, while the mantle involved in the last stages of the accretion would have higher, MORB-like, I/Pu ratios. Because the low I/Pu mantle would also have an inherently lower Mg/Si, its higher viscosity could help to be preserved at the CMB until today. Credit: Liu et al.
We’re a long way from knowing in just what proportions Earth’s water has derived from incoming materials from beyond the snowline. But we’re making progress:
…our model sheds light on the origin of Earth’s water, as it requires that chondrites represent the main material delivered to Earth in the last 1 to 15% of its accretion. Independent constraints from Mo [molybdenum] nucleosynthetic anomalies require these late accreted materials to come from the carbonaceous supergroup. Together, these results indicate that carbonaceous chondrites [the most primitive class of meoteorites, containing a high proportion of carbon along with water and minerals] must have represented a non-negligible fraction of the volatile-enriched materials in phase 2 and, thus, play a substantial role in the water delivery to Earth.
All this from the observation that mid-ocean ridge basalts had roughly three times higher iodine/plutonium ratios (inferred from xenon isotopes) as compared to ocean island basalts. The key to this paper, though, is the demonstration that the ratio difference is likely from a history of accretion that began with dry planetesimals followed by a secondary accretion phase driven by infalling materials rich in volatiles.
Thus Earth presents us with a model of planet formation from dry, rocky materials, one that presumably would apply to other terrestrial worlds, though we’d like to know more. To push the inquiry forward, Caltech’s Francois Tissot, a co-author on the paper, advocates looking at rocky worlds within our own Solar System:
“Space exploration to the outer planets is really important because a water world is probably the best place to look for extraterrestrial life. But the inner solar system shouldn’t be forgotten. There hasn’t been a mission that’s touched Venus’ surface for nearly 40 years, and there has never been a mission to the surface of Mercury. We need to be able to study those worlds to better understand how terrestrial planets such as Earth formed.”
And indeed, to better measure the impact of ices brought from far beyond the snowline to the infant worlds of the inner system. Tissot’s work demonstrates how deeply we are now delving into the transition between planetary nebulae and fully formed planets. working across the entire spectrum of what he calls ‘geochemical problematics,’ which includes studying the isotopic makeup of meteorites and their inclusions, the reconstruction of the earliest redox conditions in the Earth’s ocean and atmosphere, and the analysis of isotopes to investigate ancient magmas. At Caltech, he has created the Isotoparium, a state-of-the-art facility for high-precision isotope studies.
That we are now probing our planet’s very accretion is likely not news to many of my readers, but it stuns me as another example of extraordinary methodologies driving theory forward through simulation and laboratory work. And as we don’t often consider work on the geological front in these pages, it seems a good time to point this out.
The paper is Weiyi Liu et al., “I/Pu reveals Earth mainly accreted from volatile-poor differentiated planetesimals,” Science Advances Vol. 9, No. 27 (5 July 2023) (full text).
Increasing our understanding of how Earthlike planets form and their distribution throughout the galaxy is certainly a laudable goal. But from a purely SETI-oriented viewpoint, it is a moot point. It now appears that planets of every type and class are so ubiquitous that it probably matters little. No doubt there are plenty of worlds that can support life, and that can evolve civilizations of interest to SETI researches. It is also now fairly clear (from purely circumstantial evidence) that biological life of some sort is probably common in the universe.
The key questions are, do stable conditions favorable to the development of life persist long enough in the typical stellar neighborhood that advanced life is common? And does the development of intelligence occur frequently enough that we have a chance of encountering it?
We must also recall that even if intelligent species exist in great numbers in the galaxy, only those capable of developing a physics-oriented technology will be able to make their presence known to us. No matter how culturally advanced and sophisticated they are, if they don’t build radios and spaceships we’re not likely to ever meet them.
Could it be that the ratio of XE isotopes in the mantle has changed over time for reasons other than the time at which those isotopes were accreted? For example, suppose that the heavier 136Xe*Pu, which also has the longer half life, settles deeper in the mantle (except when brought to the surface through deep plum volcanic eruptions) whilst the lighter 129Xe is buoyed to higher regions in the mantle and decays so much more quickly? Just wondering if these factors are accounted for in the Caltec paper.
244Pu has a half life of on 82 million years so I don’t think it can be used for deep time measures of mantle water vapor escape. Since 244Pu has too short a decay time, it can’t be used to tell us anything about Earth’s mantle over billions of years. Argon 40, U235 and U238 are needed. Quote “Pu has not been developed for chronological applications for a very practical reason: there are no long-lived isotopes of plutonium against which to normalize its abundance.” Davis, K.D. McKeegan, 2014. Science Direct, Xenon isotope.
Quote from this paper: “All this from the observation that mid-ocean ridge basalts had roughly three times higher iodine/plutonium ratios (inferred from xenon isotopes) as compared to ocean island basalts.” This not surprising because it takes millions of years for islands to form and continental drift caused by the creation of new crust which is made at the ocean ridges which move apart and drive continental drift through seafloor spreading. New crust should have a more 244Pu which has not decayed yet, but it has decayed in older rock and land?
Could we have had more water as a Super Earth only to have most of it blown away?
2.6 million years ago Plutonium 244 rained down on earth. Averaged over 4.5 billion years it may have happened 1730 times. The neutron star mergers may have created more amounts also. This could be the cause of the Thorium anomaly on the moon. These elements from supernova and neutron mergers are also encountered as we travel thru the galaxy arms.
RADIOACTIVE PLUTONIUM FROM A NEARBY SUPERNOVA FOUND ON EARTH.
http://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/radioactive-plutonium-from-nearby-supernova-found-on-earth
A super Earth has more mass and therefore more gravity so it can hold more volatiles.
I do agree with the idea of this paper that Earth’s water came from the accretion disk and asteroids. I thought the differentiation processes in the mantle off the siderophiles, lithophiles, atmophiles came after it was formed or after 4.5 billion years. There might be some truth to the idea that some volatile rich planetesimals came last, since most of the Earth is made of heavy metals. I don’t think the mantle reservoirs of different xenon isotopes can explain a the proto planetary accretion disk process, a period before 4.5 billion years. Intuitively most of the water in the Earth’s mantle came from differentiation of the collisions of planetesimals with a larger proto Earth with greater mass and gravity. Why would all the planetesimals composed of mostly water or volatiles come last which seems rather ad hock.
Certainly Tissot is right to suggest renewed attention to the Venerean surface. This is the one star system in the galaxy known to host life, and Venus is a prime candidate to have had habitable conditions in the past. ( https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/ ) If any region of Venus’ ancient surface can be targeted (see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19336-1 ), a probe may not make discoveries in archaeology or paleontology … but can we rule it out? In any case, the older and newer crust could be contrasted for a study like this. If we can round up a hundred billion for literal trench warfare in Europe, we ought to be able to fund a decent NASA program to invent robots capable of doing useful work in autoclaves, furnaces and kilns all over this country as well as on other planets.
Sadly though, the motivations of “The Powers That Be” determine where and when resources will be expended: anything that will preserve, protect and extend the power of TPTB including trench (and other modalities of) warfare remain on the table.
With our notions and observations of proto-planetary disks, it is hard for me to picture how the proto-earth would build up so selectively. Do we see illustration of the process amid young stars, say, in the Orion nebula or other star forming regions? Because it would appear that the disks where these processes occur have a lot of volatiles to begin with. It would seem that the magma discussed would have to be at some intermediate point after a lot of material had been blown away by more violent collisions than when the process began. Or else the Iodine/ Plutonium ratio data are misleading.
Additional considerations: What about the separation of the Earth and Moon?
This must have been a terrible blast. But about when would it have occurred?
That must have released a lot of volatile material back into space and gave the Earth a thinner regolith above its mantle as well.
After the event ( assuming it occurred) we have a planet with volatiles sufficient for oceans ( which either rained down with comets or welled up from a hot interior – or both) and an equilibrium condition that allowed for plate tectonic circulation unique distinct from the other terrestrial planets and … moons.
I admit to being confused. It sounds like there is some significant data in this
isotope history, but it also seems like the Earth has so many distinctive features too. If we get a clearer picture of a similar exoplanet, I would tend to doubt that we will observe the same rabbit pulled out of the hat.
There is a theory that water or a least a fair amount of it came from asteroids and their oxides interacting with the hydrogen envelope that was around the early earth. Not sure if they have balanced the isotope proportions or took the approach that both comets and the hydrogen route brought water to earth.