sign in sign up
<<
Home , Age (geology), Geology of Mars, Mars, Martian dichotomy, Noachian

Fourth Conference on Early 2017 (LPI Contrib. No. 2014) 3078.pdf

MARS DURING THE PRE-. J. C. Andrews-Hanna1 and W. B. Bottke2, 1Lunar and Planetary La- boratory, University of , Tucson, AZ 85721, [email protected], 2Southwest Research Institute and NASA’s SSERVI-ISET team, 1050 Walnut St., Suite 300, Boulder, CO 80302.

Introduction: The surface of Mars appar- ing the pre-Noachian was ~10% of that during the ently dates back to the beginning of the Early Noachi- LHB. Consideration of the sawtooth-shaped exponen- an, at ~4.1 Ga, leaving ~400 Myr of Mars’ earliest tially declining impact fluxes both in the aftermath of evolution effectively unconstrained [1]. However, an formation and during the Late Heavy Bom- enduring record of the earlier pre-Noachian conditions bardment [5] suggests that the impact flux during persists in geophysical and mineralogical data. We use much of the pre-Noachian was even lower than indi- geophysical evidence, primarily in the form of the cated above. This bombardment is consistent preservation of the crustal dichotomy boundary, to- with a (LHB) of the inner gether with mineralogical evidence in order to infer the Solar [6] during which HUIA formed, which prevailing surface conditions during the pre-Noachian. followed the planet formation impacts during The emerging picture is a pre-Noachian Mars that was which the dichotomy formed. less dynamic than Noachian Mars in terms of impacts, Pre-Noachian Tectonism and : The geodynamics, and hydrology. within each of the southern highlands and north- Pre-Noachian Impacts: We define the pre- ern lowlands is remarkably uniform in thickness, aside Noachian as the period bounded by two impacts – from regions in which it has been thickened by volcan- the dichotomy-forming impact and the Hellas-forming ism (e.g., , Elysium) or thinned by impacts impact. The latter has previously been used to define (HUIA), both of which occurred dominantly in the the boundary between the Noachian and pre-Noachian Noachian. Furthermore, the path of the Borealis basin [1], and the former so profoundly changed the surface rim is within 1% of an , even where it has been and interior of Mars as to make it a natural starting buried beneath Tharsis [7], with no major deflections point for any study interested in early evolu- from this shape. These observations indicate that there tion. Isotopic and geochemical evidence supports the were no large-scale changes to the crust of Mars during formation of dichotomy by a giant impact the pre-Noachian. This constraint effectively rules out at > 4.47-4.5 Ga [2], while the crater retention of a global plate tectonic cycle of lithosphere recycling the Hellas basin is 3.97-4.06 Ga [3]. Based on the sim- akin to that currently operating on . Similarly, no ilar preservation state of the rim of the Borealis basin giant Tharsis-style volcanic rises formed during the as expressed in the dichotomy boundary, and the rims pre-Noachian. In contrast, the incipient stages of of the Noachian-aged basins Hellas, Isidis, Utopia and Tharsis formation may have begun in the Early Noa- Argyre (HUIA), a similar preservation state is ex- chian [8] with substantial construction continuing pected for any crustal-scale basins formed during the through the [9]. However, smaller struc- intervening pre-Noachian. The lack of evidence for tures would be more easily destroyed during the LHB, similarly well-preserved pre-Noachian basins of this and so neither localized rifting and tectonism, nor scale and the lack of evidence for excavation of the smaller shields and volcanic provinces can be ruled out dichotomy boundary by basins other than Isidis sug- during the pre-Noachian. gest that no other basins formed during this time [2]. Pre-Noachian and Climate: Fluvial The formation of at least three crustal-scale basins networks, , and sedimentary deposits formed dur- (Hellas, Isidis, and Argyre) during a span of ~200 Myr ing the pre-Noachian would have been destroyed by during the Noachian [3] and at most one crustal-scale impacts during the Noachian LHB. However, the basin (Utopia, whose age is poorly constrained) during preservation of the crustal dichotomy boundary does a span of ~400 Myr during the pre-Noachian indicates place some constraints on the pre-Noachian climate. that the average impact flux during the pre-Noachian The dichotomy boundary is a topographic step similar was <17% of that during the Noachian. If Utopia is a to that at the edges of many continents on the Earth Noachian-aged basin [4], the flux during the pre- (Fig. 1). Under a persistent Earth-like climate, such a Noachian would be lower still. At least one pre- step would be rapidly eroded to the local level. Noachian basin, Ladon, has been confidently identified On Earth the of continents relative to in the next interval smaller than HUIA. The for- level (the “freeboard”) is reduced to a value slightly mation of one Ladon-sized basin during the 400 Myr above zero by on timescales of hundreds of pre-Noachian, and the four HUIA basins in the subse- millions of . The Appalachian mountains of North quent 200 Myr implies that the mean impact flux dur- America experienced long- erosion rates of 10-50 Fourth Conference on Early Mars 2017 (LPI Contrib. No. 2014) 3078.pdf

m/Myr [10], which was likely limited by the uplift rate Noachian. The pre-Noachian climate is thus inferred to rather than erosion. This freeboard concept applied be wet, but not persistently Earth-like, similar to some under climate conditions as well, resulting in the interpretations of the Noachian climate. Alternatively, relatively uniform elevation of the edge of the conti- if the Fe/Mg clays instead formed by hydrothermal nental shelves from erosion during ages when sea processes [13] or from surface-driven in level was lower. The concept of freeboard is applicable the Noachian, combined with the lack of large-scale whether the high-standing was generated erosion of the dichotomy boundary, this leaves open by tectonism or by impact. On Mars, Earth-like erosion the possibility of a cold and barren pre-Noachian with rates would have drastically reduced the elevation of a stripped waiting to be revived by Noa- the southern highlands and reduced the dichotomy chian-era impacts and volcanism. boundary to a gradual slope leading down to the low- Conclusions and Implications: The complete . At the rate of erosion experienced by the Appa- lack of a pre-Noachian geological record forces us to lachians, the 8 km topographic step across the dichot- rely upon indirect inferences based on the geophysical omy boundary could have been reduced by 4-20 km and mineralogical records in an attempt to reconstruct during the 400 Myr pre-Noachian. Although erosion the conditions during this substantial period of martian would have been accompanied by flexural uplift [11], history. The preservation of the dichotomy boundary the dichotomy boundary scarp itself would have been requires that there were no large-scale crustal rear- largely erased under these conditions and a more grad- rangements or modifications during the pre-Noachian. ual slope would be expected. As a caveat, it is difficult No basin-forming impacts occurred during this time to completely rule out the other extreme end-member period spanning between the Borealis and Hellas im- interpretation – that the near constant elevation of the pacts. Impact rates during the pre-Noachian were southern highlands is the result of high erosion rates <17% of those in the Noachian, and likely lower still. coupled with a pre-Noachian close to the av- Neither plate nor regional volcanic rise con- erage southern highlands elevation. However, in this struction were active during this time. Erosion of the scenario one might expect higher further newly formed dichotomy boundary scarp during the from the putative shoreline, in conflict with the similar pre-Noachian occurred at rates substantially lower than elevations within the southern highlands over distances is characteristic of recently generated high topography of up to ~5000 km from the dichotomy boundary. in terrestrial mountain belts, though widespread aque- a b ous alteration of the crust suggests the presence of liq- uid water at shallow depths. This interpretation of pre-Noachian conditions sug- gests that this , spanning ~400 Myr of Mars’ 4 c 4 d earliest history, was a quiescent time relative to the 2 Noachian in every respect. For this reason, this period 2 0 has been dubbed the martian “doldrums”. However, -2 0 the pre-Noachian may have had the greatest astrobio-

elevation (km) -4 -2 logical potential of any time period on Mars. It was -6 -4 possibly wetter than the Hesperian and 0 3000 6000 0 3000 6000 distance (km) distance (km) epochs, but provided a more stable environment than Figure 1. Maps of the elevation of Earth (a; relative to sea the LHB-era Noachian. level) and Mars (b), and profiles across North America (at References: [1] Carr M. H. and Head J. W. (2010) EPSL 45°N) and the (at 150°E). Earth’s conti- 294, 185–203. [2] Bottke W. F. and Andrews-Hanna J. C. nents remain close to sea level (dashed line in a) except (2017) Geosci., 10, 344-348. [3] Robbins S. J. et al. in areas of active mountain building. (2013) , 225, 173–184. [4] Werner, S. C. (2008), Ica- While the geophysical record effectively rules out rus, 195, 45–60. [5] Morbidelli, A. et al., (2012), EPSL 355, 144–151. [6] Gomes, R. et al., (2005), Nature, 435, 466–469. Earth-like conditions being maintained throughout the [7] Andrews-Hanna, J. C. et al., (2008), Nature, 453, 1212– pre-Noachian, the mineralogical record supports the 1215. [8] Karasözen, E. et al., (2016), JGR, 121, presence of liquid water in the subsurface. Extensive doi:10.1002/2015JE004936. [9] Bouley, S. et al., (2016), Fe/Mg phyllosilicate deposits are found on Noachian Nature, 531, 344–347. [10] Reed J. S. et al. (2005), Basin surfaces, which may have formed at depth and later Research, 17, 259-268. [11] Evans, A. J. et al., (2010), JGR, been exposed at the surface [12]. By this interpreta- 115, doi: 10.1029/2009JE003469. [12] Carter, J. et al., (2013), JGR, 118, doi: 10.1029/2012JE004145. [13] Eh- tion, these clays pre-date the Noachian surfaces in lmann, B. L. et al., (2011), Nature, 479, 53–60. which they are found, and could have formed within

surface-driven weathering sequences in the pre-