www.geologicacarpathica.com
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
, APRIL 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
doi: 10.1515/geoca-2016-0013
Testing of multidimensional tectonomagmatic discrimination
diagrams on fresh and altered rocks
M. ABDELALY RIVERA-GÓMEZ
1
and SURENDRA P. VERMA
2
1
Posgrado en Ingeniería, Instituto de Energías Renovables, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Temixco, Mor., 62580, Mexico;
marig@ier.unam.mx
2
Departamento de Sistemas Energéticos, Instituto de Energías Renovables, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Temixco,
Mor. 62580, Mexico; spv@ier.unam.mx
(Manuscript received January 18, 2015; accepted in revised form March 10, 2016)
Abstract: We evaluated 55 multidimensional diagrams proposed during 2004—2013 for the tectonic discrimination of
ultrabasic, basic, intermediate, and acid magmas. The Miocene to Recent rock samples for testing the diagrams had not
been used for constructing them. Eighteen test studies (2 from ocean island; 2 from ocean island/continental rift; 6 from
continental rift; 4 from continental arc; 2 from island arc; 1 from mid-ocean ridge, and 1 from collision) of relatively
fresh rocks fully confirmed the satisfactory functioning of these diagrams for all tectonic fields for which they were
proposed. Eight additional case studies on hydrothermally altered or moderately to highly weathered rocks were also
presented to achieve further understanding of the functioning of these diagrams. For these rocks as well, the diagrams
indicated the expected tectonic setting. We also show that for testing or using these diagrams the freely-available
geochemistry databases should be used with caution but certainly after ascertaining the correct magma types to select
the appropriate diagram sets. The results encourage us to recommend these diagrams for deciphering the tectonic setting
of older terranes or areas with complex or transitional tectonic settings.
Key words: tectonic setting, discriminant function diagrams, arc, within-plate, rift, collision.
Introduction
The idea of trying to chemically fingerprint magmas from
different tectonic settings is probably best attributed to the
pioneer work of Pearce & Cann (1971, 1973). In these pa-
pers, the authors identified differences in the geochemical
signature of rocks from volcanic arc, ocean floor, and within-
plate settings. Since then, numerous bivariate (x-y-type; e.g.
Pearce & Gale 1977; Pearce & Norry 1979; Pearce 1982;
Shervais 1982), ternary (e.g. Pearce et al. 1977; Wood 1980;
Mullen 1983; Meschede 1986; Cabanis & Lecolle 1989),
and old multivariate tectonomagmatic discrimination dia-
grams (Pearce 1976; Butler & Woronow 1986), as well as 20
new multidimensional diagrams (Agrawal et al. 2004, 2008;
Verma et al. 2006; Verma & Agrawal 2011) have appeared
in the literature for basic and ultrabasic igneous rocks (with
(SiO
2
)
adj
<52 %; where the subscript
adj
refers to the adjusted
data on an anhydrous 100 % adjusted basis; Le Bas et al.
1986; Verma et al. 2002). The diagrams of the older bivariate
or ternary types for the tectonic discrimination of magmas
with higher silica (with (SiO
2
)
adj
>52 %) are less numerous
(Bailey 1981; Pearce et al. 1984; Gorton & Schandl 2000)
although, more recently, 35 diagrams have now been pro-
posed (three sets of five diagrams each, i.e., 15 for interme-
diate magmas by Verma & Verma 2013; and four sets of five
diagrams each, i.e., 20 for acid or felsic magmas by Verma et
al. 2012, 2013).
From an extensive database of samples from known tec-
tonic settings, Verma (2010) evaluated most of the tectono-
magmatic discrimination diagrams for basic and ultrabasic
rocks and concluded that only the multidimensional dia-
grams, particularly the newer ones, worked satisfactorily
with high percent success (Agrawal et al. 2004, 2008; Verma
et al. 2006). Similarly, Verma et al. (2012) evaluated the
highly used Pearce et al. (1984) diagrams for acid or felsic
magmas and found them to perform unsatisfactorily, particu-
larly for the collision setting.
Although most of the older bivariate and ternary diagrams
have already been extensively evaluated, especially by
Verma (2010), this is not the case of the newer multidimen-
sional diagrams, particularly those published after 2010
(Verma & Agrawal 2011; Verma et al. 2012, 2013; Verma &
Verma 2013). It is, therefore, worthwhile to evaluate all 55
such diagrams (Agrawal et al. 2004, 2008; Verma et al.
2006, 2012, 2013; Verma & Agrawal 2011; Verma & Verma
2013) using geochemical data from fresh as well as hydro-
thermally altered or highly weathered rocks from known tec-
tonic settings. The evaluation from fresh rock data will
provide an independent test on the functioning of these dia-
grams. The use of hydrothermally altered or weathered rocks
for such an independent evaluation will likely render these
diagrams appropriate for older terrains. Recently, Pandari-
nath (2014a) showed good functioning of these diagrams for
hydrothermally altered rocks from seven geothermal wells.
We will not present here the application to older terrains
such as Precambrian belts; this has been extensively reported
recently by Verma & Oliveira (2013, 2015), Pandarinath
(2014b), Armstrong (2015), Bora & Kumar (2015), Kaur et
al. (2015), Rahman & Mondal (2015), Srivastava et al.
(2015), and Verma et al. (2015a,b).
This testing exercise is not trivial for at least four reasons:
(1) such an evaluation of the older x-y (where x and y are
196
RIVERA-GÓMEZ and VERMA
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
simple concentration or element ratio variables) or ternary
(generally of three concentration variables) types of dia-
grams has shown them to perform unsatisfactorily in both
igneous and sedimentary rock geochemistry (Armstrong-
Altrin & Verma 2005; Verma 2010, 2015a; Verma et al.
2012, 2016; Verma & Armstrong-Altrin 2013, 2016; Arm-
strong, 2015); (2) the evaluation of the newer multidimen-
sional diagrams can provide statistical information on
percent success for the relatively older diagrams (proposed
during 2004—2011) and total percent probability values for
the newer ones (proposed during 2012—2013); and (3) a rou-
tine use of well-known databases, such as GERM,
GEOROC-Mainz, and EGDB-USGS, for testing of our dia-
grams is to be viewed with caution.
Available multidimensional diagrams
These diagrams were proposed from statistical analysis of
a large number of Miocene to Recent igneous rock samples
from known tectonic settings. Thus, for the tectonic discri-
mination of basic and ultrabasic rocks from island arc, conti-
nental rift, ocean island, and mid-ocean ridge settings,
Agrawal et al. (2004, 2008), Verma et al. (2006), and Verma
& Agrawal (2011) used geochemical data for 1159, 1645,
2732, and 1877 samples, respectively, and proposed 5 dia-
grams in each paper. Verma et al. (2012) proposed 5 dia-
grams for the discrimination of four tectonic settings (island
arc, continental arc, combined continental rift and ocean is-
land as within-plate, and collision) from a compilation of
1132 acid rock samples. Similarly, for the proposal of the 15
diagrams each, Verma et al. (2013) and Verma & Verma
(2013) employed compositional data for 3056 acid and 3664
intermediate rock samples, respectively, from island arc,
continental arc, continental rift, ocean island, and collision
tectonic settings.
The diagrams require prior calculations of complex dis-
criminant functions DF1-DF2, whose equations were pre-
sented by the respective original authors (Agrawal et al.
2004, 2008; Verma et al. 2006, 2012, 2013; Verma &
Agrawal 2011; Verma & Verma 2013). All these equations
were also summarized recently by Verma et al. (2015b),
which are reproduced here for easy reference as Tables S1-
S11 in the Supplementary Material file* (Table S1 for five
diagrams of Agrawal et al. 2004; Table S2 for five diagrams
of Verma et al. 2006; Table S3 for five diagrams of Agrawal
et al. 2008; Table S4 for five diagrams of Verma & Agrawal
2011; Tables S5-S7 for 15 diagrams of Verma & Verma
2013; Table S8 for five diagrams of Verma et al. 2012; and
Tables S9-S11 for 15 diagrams of Verma et al. 2013). The
computer program SINCLAS (Verma et al. 2002) or IgRoCS
(Verma & Rivera-Gómez 2013a) can be used for obtaining
the adjusted data referred to in these equations (see the sub-
script
adj
) and deciding the magma types (basic, ultrabasic,
intermediate, and acid; Le Bas et al. 1986).
We also note that these different sets of diagrams are inde-
pendent of each other although they require complete
datasets for all elements in the respective DF1-DF2 func-
tions. For example, the major element based diagrams would
require that concentrations of all major elements be available
in a given sample; if an element is missing from the data, the
set of major-element diagrams cannot be used. Unfortunately,
sometimes only major elements are available from a particu-
lar area, so the inference can be drawn only from one set of
diagrams. Thus, any set of diagrams can be used indepen-
dently of the other sets.
Database and procedures
The geochemical data were compiled for 1034 samples of
Miocene to Holocene relatively fresh as well as hydrother-
mally altered or weathered igneous rocks from different areas
of known, uncontroversial tectonic settings from all over the
world (Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Material file; compiled
references are in Tables S12 and S13). A synthesis of this
compilation for 18 test studies (1 to 18) from fresh rocks is
presented in Table S12 and for hydrothermally altered or
weathered rocks for 8 application studies (A1 to A8) is pro-
vided in Table S13. The cases are arranged according to the
expected tectonic setting. The original authors’ descriptions
of alteration were used to group the samples in application
studies as fresh and altered rocks; more details are provided
in the relevant sections.
The geochemical data were also examined for the Tonga
arc compiled in a freely-available geochemistry database
GEOROC-Mainz, which enabled us to show the need for
caution in the indiscriminate use of such databases.
We will describe in detail the first Test study under the
general heading of “Ocean Island tectonic setting”. This
(Test study 1) is for the region of the Hawaiian Islands, in
which four sub-regions (1a—1d) are separately considered be-
cause we wanted to show that these diagrams can be applied
and tested with individual datasets. Obviously, if the main
objective was to decipher the tectonic setting of a given area
or region, all pertinent rock data or evidence should be used.
This obviously includes the geological reconstruction of ter-
ranes. The approximate coordinates (longitude and latitude)
of sample locations are then presented in two columns. The
next columns present a subdivision of the compiled samples
in terms of basic (B)+ultrabasic (U), intermediate (I), and
acid (A) magmas, which allowed the application of appro-
priate sets of discrimination diagrams (Agrawal et al. 2004,
2008; Verma et al. 2006; Verma & Agrawal 2011 – all
these four papers for basic and ultrabasic magmas; Verma &
Verma 2013 – for intermediate magmas; and Verma et al.
2012, 2013 – for acid magmas). Thus, for the Mauna Kea
area (Test study 1a), complete data were available for 303
basic and 3 ultrabasic rock samples only; no sample proved
to be of intermediate or acid magma. Therefore, only dia-
grams for basic and ultrabasic rocks can be applied and that
too for major element based (symbol m1 for Agrawal et al.
2004 and m2 for Verma et al. 2006) and immobile trace ele-
ment based (symbol t2 for Verma and Agrawal 2011) dia-
grams; complete data were not available for the other
immobile element based diagram set (t1 for Agrawal et al.
2008). Note the table is or tables are also defined where the
results of the discrimination diagrams are presented (in this
* Supplementary Material (Tables S1—S54 and Figs. S1—S52) only in an
electronical version on www.geologicacarpathica.com
197
MULTIDIMENSIONAL TECTONOMAGMATIC ROCK DISCRIMINATION DIAGRAMS
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
case, Table 1). The next columns show the approximate ages
in Ma (or geological epoch or period) and rock types as-
signed by the original authors (in this case, 0.1—0.4 Ma). The
next column synthesizes the tectonic setting indicated by the
diagrams (in this case, OIB). The final column lists the refe-
rences from which the data were compiled (in this case,
Rhodes & Vollinger 2004; Rhodes 2012).
For a correct application of the tectonomagmatic discrimi-
nation diagrams, the IgRoCS program (Verma & Rivera-
Gómez 2013a) was used to obtain the magma types as basic
or ultrabasic, intermediate, and acid, following the recom-
mendations of the IUGS (Le Bas et al. 1986; Le Bas &
Streckeisen 1991; Le Maitre et al. 2002). It is important to
strictly follow the procedure used by the original authors of
the diagrams, for example, note the subscript adj in nume-
rous equations listed in Tables S1—S11. These magma names
could as well be mafic or ultramafic, intermediate, and felsic,
respectively, but because we are using the chemical criterion
of adjusted SiO
2
for this distinction and not the contents of
Mg, Fe, and Si, we continue to use the nomenclature of the
IUGS. Depending on the magma types, appropriate sets of
diagrams were used to test if they provided the expected re-
sults of the tectonic setting.
To infer the tectonic setting for basic and ultrabasic mag-
mas, we used the software TecD (Verma & Rivera-Gómez
2013b), which allows the application of the diagrams by
Agrawal et al. (2004, 2008), Verma et al. (2006), and Verma
& Agrawal (2011). The four tectonic settings that can be dis-
criminated from the diagrams contained in this software are
as follows: IAB (island arc basic rocks), CRB (continental
rift basic rocks), OIB (ocean-island basic rocks), and MORB
(mid-ocean ridge basic rocks). TecD automatically counts
the samples that plot in a given tectonic setting and provides
a synthesis of the counting results of all five diagrams of
a given set, both as the number of samples as well as the cor-
responding percentage values (called percent success for the
expected or inferred tectonic setting). Because a given tec-
tonic setting will be missing from one of the five diagrams in
any set, the total percentage for any of the four settings will
never be 100 %; it will be around 80 % as a maximum value.
Further, because of this automatic procedure programmed in
TecD, it is not necessary to actually plot the samples in
diagrams. Nevertheless, following the suggestion of reviewers
we provided the corresponding diagrams for almost all stud-
ies, so one can better understand the functioning of TecD.
Another program TecDIA (Verma et al. 2015c) was used
for the application of all diagrams for intermediate (Verma
& Verma 2013) and acid magmas (Verma et al. 2012, 2013).
TecDIA also computes the probabilities of samples for the
different tectonic settings and provides a synthesis of these
probability values. The tectonic settings that can be discrimi-
nated from the diagrams for intermediate and acid magmas
Table 1: Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (0.1-0.4 Ma) basic and ultrabasic rocks of Mauna Kea, Hawaii (Rhodes
and Vollinger, 2004; Rhodes et al. 2012; Test study 1a).
Figure reference; figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB CRB+OIB CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al. (2004); adjusted
major element concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
306 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
306 (100)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
306 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
306 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
306 (100)
0 (0)
---
217 (70.9)
---
89 (29.1)
IAB-OIB-MORB
306 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
306 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
306 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
306 (100)
0 (0)
Test study 1a. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Agrawal
et al. (2004)
1530 (100)
0 (0)
---
217 (14.2)
1224 (80.0)
89 (5.8)
Verma et al. (2006); log-ratios of
major elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
306 (100)
0 (0)
---
4 (1.3)
300 (98)
2 (0.7)
IAB-CRB-OIB
306 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
306 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
306 (100)
0 (0)
---
36 (11.8)
---
270 (88.2)
IAB-OIB-MORB
306 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
306 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
306 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
306 (100)
0 (0)
Test study 1a. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma et al.
(2006)
1530 (100)
0 (0)
---
40 (2.6)
1218 (79.6)
272 (17.8)
Verma and Agrawal (2011); log-
ratios of immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
306 (100)
2 (0.7)
303 (99)
---
---
1 (0.3)
IAB-CRB-OIB
306 (100)
3 (1)
---
1 (0.3)
302 (98.7)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
306 (100)
2 (0.7)
---
303 (99)
---
1 (0.3)
IAB-OIB-MORB
306 (100)
2 (0.7)
---
---
303 (99)
1 (0.3)
CRB-OIB-MORB
306 (100)
---
---
1 (0.3)
303 (99)
2 (0.7)
Test study 1a. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma
and Agrawal (2011)
1530 (100)
9 (0.6)
303 (---)
381 (24.9)
1135 (74.2)
5(0.3)
IAB- island (or continental) arc basic rock; CRB- continental rift basic rock; OIB- ocean island basic rock; MORB- mid-ocean ridge basic rock;
CRB+OIB- combined continental rift and ocean island, i.e., within-plate (WP) basic rocks; IA, CR,, OI, and MOR will be the corresponding tectonic
settings; --- means no samples; the numbers within the parentheses refer to the percent values for the corresponding number of samples; note, for the
calculations of percent synthesis values, the samples plotting in the combined CR+OI field (CRB+OIB column) are proportionately distributed
between the CR and OI settings.
198
RIVERA-GÓMEZ and VERMA
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
are as follows: IA (island arc), CA (continental Arc), CR
(continental rift) and OI (Ocean Island) together as within-
plate, and Col (collision). As for TecD, TecDIA also pro-
vides a complete synthesis of the results of all five diagrams
in a given set. In fact, TecDIA additionally gives a synthesis
of the probability estimates for each tectonic setting in all dia-
grams as well as the overall percent probability estimates of
each diagram set. Therefore, actual plotting of samples in
any diagram is really not required. Nevertheless, we also
present one example of all diagram types for intermediate
and acid magmas (Verma & Verma 2013; Verma et al.
2012, 2013).
Results and discussion
The results of the evaluation are presented in two subsec-
tions. The first part corresponds to relatively fresh rocks
from known tectonic settings, whereas the second part shows
the results for hydrothermally altered and weathered rocks.
A lower limit of five samples with complete data for a given
diagram set was arbitrarily established for using them for
testing or application purposes. Similarly, results are also
presented even if the data were available for only one or two
sets of diagrams because the evaluation is independently
achieved for all diagram sets.
Testing of the diagrams from “fresh” volcanic rocks of
ocean island tectonic settings
The first test study of the Hawaiian Islands will be de-
scribed in greater detail. All other studies will simply be
mentioned with the statistical information in order to keep
the paper short and avoid excessive repetition.
Test study 1a: Mauna Kea
For the Mauna Kea area, 303 samples of basic and 3 ultra-
basic rocks (Table S12; Rhodes and Vollinger 2004; Rhodes
2012) had complete dataset for major-element based dia-
grams of Agrawal et al. (2004) and Verma et al. (2006) and
for only one set of immobile trace element based diagrams
(Verma & Agrawal 2011). No samples had complete data for
the other set of immobile trace element based diagrams
(Agrawal et al. 2008), which could not be used. Similarly,
none of the diagrams for intermediate and acid rocks (Verma
& Verma 2013; Verma et al. 2012, 2013) could be used for
this case because no samples proved to be of these types
(missing data shown by – in the “I” and “A” columns in
Table S12).
Thus, three sets of diagrams (Agrawal et al. 2004; Verma
et al. 2006; Verma & Agrawal 2011) could be tested from
the Mauna Kea data; and the results are shown in Table 1.
The actual diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2004) for the Mauna
Kea samples do not really need to be shown for three rea-
sons: (i) these diagrams are based on only major element
concentrations and not on log-ratios; (ii) TecD provides
complete summary of all the plots (the first part of Table 1);
and (iii) we wanted to conserve journal space by presenting
only one set of diagrams based on log-ratios (Fig. 1) in the
main part of the paper. Nevertheless, for the sake of com-
pleteness and considering that most readers of the journal
would like to see the diagrams along with the synthesis in ta-
bles, we have added these diagrams (Figs. S2 and S3 for this
case study as well as in other figures for other case studies)
in the Supplementary file.
In the first set of five diagrams (Fig. S2), all Mauna Kea
samples plotted in the OIB fields in four of the five diagrams
in which this setting is present. In the diagram (IAB-CRB-
MORB) from which OIB is absent, the samples will plot in
any other fields; in this case, most of them plotted in the
CRB field, followed by the MORB field (Table 1). The syn-
thesis of all diagrams is then presented in Table 1, which
shows that the overall percent success for the OIB setting is
80.0 % being the maximum value for such a synthesis pro-
vided by TecD. Therefore, these diagrams clearly showed
the expected OIB setting for the Mauna Kea samples.
In the other set of diagrams based on log-ratios of major
elements (Verma et al. 2006), the Mauna Kea samples are
actually plotted in Fig. 1a—e (DF1—DF2 equations from
Table S2 were used for the calculations of the x and y coor-
dinates in each diagram) and the results from TecD are also
summarized in Table 1. In the first diagram (Fig. 1a), 300
(out of 306) samples plotted in the OIB field, whereas in the
other three diagrams (Fig. 1b,d,e) all samples plotted in the
OIB field. In the diagram from which the OIB field is missing
(Fig. 1c), the samples plotted in the MORB and CRB fields.
The overall synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma et al.
(2006) also showed a clear result of the OIB tectonic setting
with the percent success of 79.6 % (Table 1), very close to
the maximum value of 80 %.
Finally, the set of diagrams based on log-ratios of immo-
bile elements (Verma & Agrawal 2011) also showed an OIB
setting for the Mauna Kea samples with the percent success
of about 74.2 % (Fig. S3; Table 1). In this diagram set, the
first diagram has a combined CRB+OIB setting, only three
diagrams have an OIB setting, and from one diagram this
setting is totally missing. Therefore, the percent success for
the OIB can seldom reach the maximum value of 80 %.
Thus, a satisfactory functioning of all three diagram sets
for the OIB setting was confirmed from the Mauna Kea data
(Test study 1a).
Test study 1b: Mauna Loa
Forty-five (43 basic and 2 ultrabasic) samples from Mauna
Loa (Table S12; Rhodes & Vollinger 2004) allowed the tes-
ting of three sets of diagrams. Most of the samples plotted in
the OIB field in the three sets for major elements (two sets
for basic rocks as Figs. S4 and S5 and one set for acid rocks
as Fig. S6; percent success amounting to about 75—76 %;
Table S14), thus confirming the good functioning of all three
sets of diagrams for the OIB setting.
Test study 1c: Maui Island
Only 10 basic rock samples available from the Maui Island
(Table S12; Sherrod et al. 2007) allowed the testing of three
sets of diagrams. Most of the samples plotted in the OIB
field in the three sets (overall percent success of about
199
MULTIDIMENSIONAL TECTONOMAGMATIC ROCK DISCRIMINATION DIAGRAMS
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
Fig. 1. Application of the set of five major element-based discrimi-
nant-function DF1—DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006) for basic and ultrabasic
rock samples from Maui (Hawaiian Islands). The total number of
samples and their % success values are given in Table S12 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental rift (CR), ocean is-
land (OI), and mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name
of the tectonic field represents basic (and also ultrabasic) magma.
The symbols are shown as an inset in (a). a – four tectonic settings
IA—CR—OI—MOR; b – three tectonic settings IA—CR—OI;
c – three tectonic settings IA—CR—MOR; d – three tectonic set-
tings IA—OI—MOR; and e – three tectonic settings CR—OI—MOR.
200
RIVERA-GÓMEZ and VERMA
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
62—80 %; Figs. S7—S9; Table S15) and confirmed good
functioning of all three sets of diagrams for the OIB setting.
Test study 1d: Oahu Island
Twenty-four samples from the Oahu Island were used (Ta-
ble S12; Jackson et al. 1999). Nine samples of basic rocks
had complete datasets for Agrawal et al. (2004), Verma et al.
(2006) and Verma and Agrawal (2011). The set of trace ele-
ment based diagram (Agrawal et al. 2008) were not used, be-
cause the samples with complete data were only four (Table
S12) and we had decided to report only the results of at least
five samples. The nine basic rock samples indicated the OIB
setting in the three sets of diagrams with percent success
from 67 % to 78 % (Figs. S10—S12; Table S16).
Complete data for 15 intermediate rock samples were
available for two diagram sets (Verma & Verma 2013). For
both sets, these samples indicated a within-plate (CR+OI)
setting, with about 81 % and 87 % percent probability values
(for explanation of probability estimates, see Verma & Verma
2013), respectively, for the complete major and selected im-
mobile element based diagrams (Figs. S13 and S14;
Table S17). This inference can be considered consistent with
that of the basic rock diagrams, because those for inter-
mediate rocks are incapable of discriminating these two very
similar tectonic settings; the distinction between continental
rift and ocean island settings can only be made at present
from basic and ultrabasic rocks. The testing of the third set is
not reported because only three samples with complete data
were available (Table S12).
Test study 2: Trindade Island
The compiled rocks from the Trindade Island (Table S12;
Marques et al. 1999) included 14 (2 basic and 12 ultrabasic)
samples for testing of three sets of diagrams (Agrawal et al.
2004, 2008; Verma et al. 2006) and 24 intermediate rock
samples for two sets of diagrams (24 for the major element
based and 13 for immobile trace element based diagrams;
Verma & Verma 2013).
The testing of the diagrams for basic and ultrabasic rocks
was satisfactory because most of the 14 samples plotted in
the OIB field, with percent success of 70 %, 70 %, and 62 %,
respectively, for Agrawal et al. (2004), Verma et al. (2006),
and Agrawal et al. (2008) diagrams (Figs. S15—S17; Table
S18). Similarly, the two sets of diagrams for intermediate
rocks (major elements and immobile trace elements) were
also satisfactorily tested for the within-plate setting, with
percent probability values of about 76 % and 80 %, respec-
tively (Figs. S18 and S19; Table S19).
Testing of the diagrams from “fresh” volcanic rocks of
ocean island or continental rift tectonic setting
Test study 3: White Island, Ross Sea, Antarctica
Cooper et al. (2007) suggested that rocks from the White
Island resulted from rift-related decompression melting rather
than the action of a mantle plume earlier suggested by Be-
hrendt et al. (1991, 1992). Therefore, either a CRB or an OIB
setting could be the expected tectonic setting. We compiled
data for 22 basic rock samples (Table S12), which enabled
us to test all four sets of diagrams for basic and ultrabasic
magmas. In the major element based diagrams all samples
plotted only in the CRB and OIB fields (Figs. S20 and S21;
Table S20). The percent success values for Agrawal et al.
(2004) diagrams were about 44 % and 56 %, respectively,
for the CRB and OIB settings, whereas those for the Verma
et al. (2006) diagrams these were about 48 % and 52 %, respec-
tively (Table S20). The trace element based diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008) indicated a CRB setting with percent
success of about 64 %, whereas those of Verma & Agrawal
(2011) indicated an OIB setting with the corresponding per-
cent success of about 68 % (Figs. S22 and S23; Table S20).
Thus, the diagrams indicate either a CRB or an OIB setting
for these rocks. Unfortunately, no clear distinction between
these two very similar tectonic settings was achieved from
these diagram sets. The geological history and crustal thick-
ness of the White Island might resolve this controversy
(Behrendt et al. 1991, 1992; Cooper et al. 2007).
The continental rift and ocean island tectonic settings are
very similar, which makes their discrimination a rather diffi-
cult task. The four sets of multidimensional discrimination
diagrams (Agrawal et al. 2004, 2008; Verma et al. 2006;
Verma & Agrawal 2011) available as geochemical discrimi-
nation diagrams provided mutually inconsistent results.
A combination technique of multidimensional discrimina-
tion and petrogenetic processes yet to be proposed and prac-
ticed might eventually throw further light on this complex
problem because the discrimination diagrams have certain
limitations as discussed recently by Verma et al. (2015b) and
Verma (2015b, 2015c).
Test study 4: McMurdo area, Antarctica
Drill core basic volcanic glass samples of Miocene age
(15.9—18.4 Ma; Table S12; Nyland et al. 2013) were
recovered from the McMurdo Sound area, Antarctica.
The tectonic setting of the area was not reported by Nyland
et al. (2013), but it may well be either a continental rift or
an ocean island. The basic rock diagrams might help us to
distinguish between them. Fairly complete geochemical
data, including alteration information, for 24 glass samples
were reported by Nyland et al. (2013). Complete data (Table
S12) for 24 samples were thus available for three sets of
diagrams (Agrawal et al. 2004; Verma et al. 2006; Verma &
Agrawal 2011) and data for 20 (out of 24) samples were
complete for the diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2008). The
major element based diagram sets indicated an ocean island
setting, with about 63 % or 64 % percent success (Figs. S24
and S25; Table S21). The immobile trace element based
diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2008) showed percent values of
55 % for the CRB and 45 % for the OIB setting; so they did
not provide a clear answer (Fig. S26; Table S21). The other
immobile element based diagrams (Verma & Agrawal
2011), however, suggested an OIB setting for these glass
samples, with percent success of about 72 % (Fig. S27;
Table S21). Therefore, an OIB setting could be inferred for
the McMurdo Sound area during the Miocene.
201
MULTIDIMENSIONAL TECTONOMAGMATIC ROCK DISCRIMINATION DIAGRAMS
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
Testing of the diagrams for “fresh” volcanic rocks from
continental rift tectonic setting
Test study 5: Garrotxa, Spain
Geochemical data for 16 samples of Quaternary basic and
ultrabasic rocks from the NE Volcanic Province of Spain
(Garrotxa area) were reported by Cebriá et al. (2000). The
use of all four sets of diagrams was possible (Table S12).
These diagrams consistently confirmed a continental rift set-
ting for these samples, with percent success values of 60 %
to 80 % (Figs. S28—S31; Table S22).
Test study 6: Styrian basin, Austria
Geochemical data for 39 (9 basic and 30 ultrabasic) Qua-
ternary rock samples from this area (Table S12; Ali et al.
2013) clearly indicated a continental rift setting in all four
sets of diagrams, with percent success of about 71 % to 80 %
(Figs. S32—S35; Table S23).
Test study 7: Cameroon Mountains, Cameroon
Fourteen samples of basic rocks from the year 1999 and
2000 (recent) eruptions (Table S12; Suh et al. 2003) had
complete data for three sets of diagrams, all of which were
consistent with a continental rift setting, with percent suc-
cess values of 56 % to 74 % (Figs. S36—S38; Table S24).
Test study 8: Nosy Be Archipelago, Madagascar
Melluso & Morra (2000) reported geochemical data for
27 samples of Miocene mafic alkaline rocks from the Nosy
Be Island (Table S12). Three sets of diagrams could be
applied, all of which indicated a continental rift setting, with
percent success values of about 56 % to 73 % (Figs. S39—
S41; Table S25).
Test study 9: Tianheyong, Inner Mongolia, China
Geochemical data for only eight samples of early Miocene
were reported by Yang et al. (2009). These samples had
complete data for three sets of diagrams (Table S12). The
two sets based on major elements (Agrawal et al. 2004; Ver-
ma et al. 2006) indicated a continental rift setting, with per-
cent success of about 73 % for both of them (Figs. S42 and
S43; Table S26). However, the set based on immobile ele-
ments (Agrawal et al. 2008) suggested an ocean island set-
ting for these samples (percent success of 75 %; Fig. S44;
Table S26).
Test study 10: Halaha volcanic field, Central Great
Xing‘an Range, China
Fourteen samples of Quaternary basic rocks (Table S12;
Ho et al. 2013) from the Halaha volcanic field, NE China, in-
dicated a continental rift setting (Table S27). Both sets of the
major element based diagrams showed higher percent suc-
cess values of 67 % and 71 % than both sets of immobile ele-
ment based diagrams (44 % and 49 % only; Figs. S45—S48;
Table S27). Nevertheless, the expected CRB tectonic setting
was confirmed from all diagram sets.
Testing of the diagrams for “fresh” volcanic rocks from
continental arc tectonic settings
Test study 11: Aniakchak ignimbrite, Alaska
Geochemical data for 9 samples from about 3400 years old
ignimbrite (Table S12; Dreher et al. 2005) from the
Aniakchak caldera, Aleutian Peninsula, were used to test all
multidimensional diagrams for acid rocks (Verma et al.
2012, 2013). Both sets based on log-ratios of major elements
(Figs. S49 and S50) showed a continental arc setting, with
percent probability values of 85 % and 56 % (Table S28).
The two sets based on log-ratios of immobile elements also
indicated the same tectonic setting with percent probability
values of 70 % and 77 % (Figs. S51 and S52; Table S28).
This inference seems to be consistent with the continental
arc setting for this peninsular part of the Aleutian arc and in-
volvement of crustal material in the genesis of the ignimbri-
tic magma (Dreher et al. 2005).
We will not present more diagrams because the reader
should have ascertained from our presentation so far that the
diagrams serve the purpose of visualization only and are not
really required for the interpretation. TecD and TecDIA pro-
vide all necessary information to understand the results of
the multidimensional diagrams. Furthermore, for interme-
diate and acid rocks TecDIA provides probability estimates
which cannot be obtained directly from the examination of
the respective diagrams.
Test study 12a—12c: Guatemala, Central America
Nine samples of intermediate volcanic rocks from recent
eruptions of the Fuego volcanic complex (Test study 12a;
Table S12; Chesner & Rose Jr. 1984) allowed the evaluation
of the major element based diagram set (Verma & Verma
2013), which indicated the expected continental arc setting
for these samples, with the total percent probability value of
65 % (Table S29).
Geochemical data for 40 samples of lava from the Meseta
volcano (Test study 12b; Table S12; Chesner & Halsore
1997) also allowed the application of only one set of major
element based diagrams (Verma & Verma 2013), which
confirmed the expected continental arc setting for these
samples, with the total percent probability value of 72 %
(Table S30).
The final Test study (12c) from this group was for Quater-
nary volcanic rocks from the Santiaguito volcanic complex
(Table S12; Scott et al. 2013). Eighteen samples of interme-
diate rocks had complete data for two sets of diagrams,
which showed a continental arc setting (total percent proba-
bility values of 74 % and 55 %; Table S31). Only five of
these samples had complete data for the remaining set of dia-
grams, which also indicated a continental arc setting for
these samples (Table S31). Additionally, 17 samples of acid
rocks allowed the application of all four sets of diagrams
(Table S32). One set of major element based diagrams indi-
cated an island arc setting for these samples, whereas the
other set a continental arc setting. One set of immobile ele-
ment based diagrams did not provide a consistent answer, in-
dicating, in fact, a transitional continental arc to collision
202
RIVERA-GÓMEZ and VERMA
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
setting. The final set of diagrams also based on immobile ele-
ments, on the other hand, provided a consistent answer of
a continental arc setting, with total percent probability of
77 % (Table S32). These inconsistencies seem to be a natural
consequence of crustal involvement in the genesis of these
magmas as suggested by the original authors (Scott et al.
2013).
Test study 13: Huequi volcano, Chile
Nine intermediate rock samples of historic activity from
this volcanic dome complex in the Andean southern volcanic
zone (Table S12, Watt et al. 2011) had complete data for two
of the three sets of diagrams, which showed the expected
continental arc setting with total percent probability values
of about 70 % (Table S33).
Test study 14: Nisyros Island, Dodecanese, Greece
Only the major element based diagram set could be tested
from Quaternary volcanic rocks of Nisyros Island, Greece
(Table S12; Di Paola 1974). Sixteen samples of intermediate
rocks indicated a continental arc setting but with a rather low
percent probability value of 49 % or a continental arc to col-
lision transitional setting, with the respective probability
values of 49 % and 40 %, respectively (Table S34). The acid
rocks (11 samples) were also consistent with a continental
arc setting and showed much higher percent probability
values of 71 % and 75 % (Table S35). These different in-
ferences may be related to different petrogenetic processes
for these two magma types.
Testing of the diagrams from “fresh” volcanic rocks of
island arc tectonic setting
Test study 15: Augustine Island
One set of diagrams based on major elements in interme-
diate rocks was tested from the geochemical data for Pleis-
tocene-Holocene volcanic rocks from this small island in the
Aleutian arc (Table S12; Johnson et al. 1996). Twenty-one
samples consistently plotted in the arc setting, with the
island arc predominating over the continental arc (total per-
cent probability of 59 % and 41 %, respectively; Table S36).
Thus, the expected tectonic setting of an island arc seems to
be confirmed.
Test study 16a: Barren Island, Andaman-Nicobar Islands
Data for 25 samples of Quaternary basic volcanic rocks
from the Barren Island were compiled (Test study 16a; Table
S12; Chandrasekharam et al. 2009; Streck et al. 2011). In the
major element based diagrams these island arc samples
showed percent success of about 73 % and 80 % for the
Agrawal et al. (2004) and Verma et al. (2006) diagrams, re-
spectively (Table S37). Only 11 samples had complete data
for immobile element based diagrams of Agrawal et al.
(2008), whereas 24 of them had complete data for Verma &
Agrawal (2011) diagrams. Both sets also indicated an arc
setting, with high percent success of 80 % (Table S37). Simi-
larly, 21 samples from the Barren Island proved to be from
intermediate magma, which, in the major element based dia-
grams (Verma & Verma 2013) showed an island arc setting
with total percent probability of 52 %, followed by about
42 % for the continental arc setting (Table S38). The two
sets of immobile element based diagrams confirmed the island
arc setting for intermediate rocks, with higher total percent
probability of about 74 % (Table S38). Thus, the expected
tectonic setting of an island arc seems to be confirmed.
Test study 16b: Narcondam Island, Andaman-Nicobar
Islands
For the Narcondam Island, only 10 samples of interme-
diate and 8 of acid rocks were available (Test study 16b;
Table S12; Pal et al. 2007; Streck et al. 2011). Although for
intermediate rocks the major element based diagrams indi-
cated an island arc setting, the total percent probability was
very low (only about 41 %; Table S39). Eight of these sam-
ples with complete data for the two sets of immobile element
based diagrams, however, confirmed the island arc setting
with total percent probability values of 71 % and 58 % (Ta-
ble S39). The major element based diagrams for acid rocks
also confirmed the island arc setting with total percent proba-
bility of about 72 % (Table S40). However, one set of immo-
bile trace element based diagrams indicated a continental arc
(total percent probability of about 58 %) rather than an is-
land arc (total percent probability of about 42 %; Table S40).
The reasons for this discrepancy will have to be evaluated,
but one of them is probably related to the data quality of
trace elements (larger analytical errors for trace than for ma-
jor elements).
Testing of the diagrams for “fresh” volcanic rocks from
mid-ocean ridge tectonic settings
Test study 17: Central Indian Ridge
Yi et al. (2014) reported geochemical data for axial posi-
tions of the Indian Ridge (Table S12). Thirty-three samples
proved to be of basic magma types, whereas 14 turned out to
be intermediate rocks. The latter were not used for testing
because the mid-ocean ridge setting is missing from the dia-
grams for intermediate rocks (Verma & Verma 2013). There-
fore, the Supplementary file does not have the corresponding
report table. Nevertheless, this setting can be included in the
future versions of these diagrams. The basic rocks confirmed
the mid-ocean ridge tectonic setting in all four sets of dia-
grams, with high percent success values of 65 % to 76 %
(Table S41).
Testing of the diagrams for “fresh” volcanic rocks from
collision tectonic settings
Test study 18: Shirak area, NW Armenia
The Pliocene-Pleistocene volcanic rocks of Armenia are
considered a key component of the Arabia-Eurasia collision
(Neill et al. 2013). Thirteen samples of intermediate rocks
had complete data for two sets of diagrams; 9 of these sam-
ples could be used for the remaining set of diagrams (Table
S12). All diagram sets consistently indicated a collision set-
203
MULTIDIMENSIONAL TECTONOMAGMATIC ROCK DISCRIMINATION DIAGRAMS
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
ting for these samples; the corresponding percent probability
values varied from a low 43 % to a considerably high 67 %
(Table S42).
Evaluation of the diagrams for “hydrothermally
altered” or “weathered” volcanic rocks from different
tectonic settings
Test study A1: Eaio Island, Maquesas Islands, French
Polynesia
Twenty-five (24 basic and 1 ultrabasic; Caroff et al. 1999;
Table S13) hydrothermally altered samples from three drill
holes in the Eaio Island were used to evaluate three of the
four sets of diagrams, which affirmed an ocean island tecto-
nic setting in all diagram sets (Table S43). In spite of the
alteration indicated by high-temperature iddingsite and low-
temperature zeolites, gypsum, calcite, and clay minerals
(Caroff et al. 1999), most of the compiled samples plotted in
the OIB field and showed high percent success values of
75 % to 78 % (Table S43).
Test study A2: Koolau, Haleakala, and Kohala, Hawaiian
Islands
Moderately to highly altered rocks (exfoliated shell, core-
stone, rind, and shell samples) affected by spheroidal weathe-
ring from three volcanoes (Koolau, Haleakala, and Kohala)
of the Hawaiian Islands, were sampled and analysed by Pati-
no et al. (2003). A sample from a corestone-shell set was di-
vided into three subsuites (corestone, exfoliated shell,
andrind) with different degrees of alteration (Patino et al.
2003). The approximate ages of these samples as reported by
Patino et al. (2003) were about 2—4 Ma for Koolau (Oahu Is-
land), 0.35—0.4 Ma for Haleakala (Maui Island), and 0.35 Ma
for Kohala (Hawaii). For 9 samples of basic and ultrabasic
rocks, unfortunately, only major element based diagrams
could be tested; complete data for none of the immobile ele-
ment based diagrams were available. Both sets of major ele-
ment based diagrams indicated a continental rift setting with
62 % and 71 % percent success; the ocean island setting
showed the next setting with 36 % and 25 % (Table S44).
Thus, although the expected ocean island setting was not in-
ferred for these moderately to intensely weathered rocks, the
inferred continental rift setting is very similar to the expected
setting; both of them belong to the within-plate setting.
Test study A3: Hainan Island, China
The geochemistry of basaltic lavas from Hainan Island
near the northern edge of the South China Sea (Miocene to
Holocene; Table S13) was reported by Wang et al. (2012).
The alteration was indicated by high loss on ignition (LOI)
values (Wang et al. 2012). We selected 13 slightly to in-
tensely altered basic and 10 intermediate rock samples for
this evaluation. The basic rock samples had complete
datasets for only the major element based diagrams; for im-
mobile trace element diagrams only four samples had com-
plete data, which were not considered (Table S13). Both
major element based diagrams indicated a continental rift
setting with percent success of about 69 % and 74 %
(Table S45). The 10 intermediate rock samples also had
complete data for major elements only; for immobile ele-
ments only three samples had complete data. The major ele-
ment based diagrams showed a within-plate (CR+OI) setting
for them, with a high total percent probability of 83 %
(Table S46). Thus, in spite of alteration, a consistent result of
a continental rift or a within-plate setting was obtained from
basic and intermediate rocks, respectively.
Test study A4: Moyuta and Tecuamburro volcanoes, Gua-
temala
Highly altered rocks (exfoliated shell, corestone, rind, and
columnar joint block samples; see also Test study A2 above)
affected by spheroidal weathering from two volcanoes
(Moyuta and Tecuamburro) of Guatemala, were sampled and
analysed by Patino et al. (2003). The ages of the samples
from Moyuta were not reported by Patino et al. (2003), al-
though an approximate age of Pliocene—Pleistocene was in-
dicated for the Tecuamburro volcano. As for the earlier Test
study), only the major element based diagrams for interme-
diate rocks could be tested from 7 samples. This diagram set
indicated a continental arc setting with about 53 % total per-
cent probability value (Table S47). Thus, the expected tec-
tonic setting was inferred in spite of the intense spheroidal
weathering that affected these rock samples.
Test study A5: Sarapiquí Miocene arc, Costa Rica
Gazel et al. (2005) reported geochemical data for rocks
from the Sarapiquí Miocene (11.4—22.2 Ma) arc (or paleo-
arc), northern Costa Rica (Table S13). Gazel et al. (2005)
stated that pyroclasts in their samples were altered; additio-
nally, H
2
O
+
contents in three of the four samples showed rel-
atively high values (1.70—7.00 %). Ten samples of basic
rocks (probably of ages 15—22 Ma; Gazel et al. 2005) had
complete data for the two major element based diagram sets
and one immobile element set and suggested an arc setting
for them (Table S48). From the basic rock diagrams, the dis-
tinction between an island and a continental arc is at present
not possible, because the continental arc setting was not rep-
resented in the databases used for proposing these diagrams
(Agrawal et al. 2004, 2008; Verma et al. 2006; Verma &
Agrawal 2011). However, 14 samples of intermediate rocks
(probably of ages 11—15 Ma, somewhat younger than the ba-
sic rocks; Gazel et al. 2005) from this paleoarc had complete
data for two sets of diagrams, which clearly confirmed an is-
land arc setting, with percent probability values of 67 % for
the major element based diagrams and 57 % for one set of
immobile element based diagrams (Table S49). It is not clear
if this Miocene arc represents an island or a continental arc
setting. Nevertheless, because these two tectonic settings are
very similar, this inference could be interpreted as a valid re-
sult. Finally, only four rock samples proved to be of acid type,
which were not used for testing the respective diagrams.
Test study A6: Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand
From the Rotokawa and Ngatamariki geothermal systems,
Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand, hydrothermally altered
intermediate rocks were sampled from deep drill holes and
204
RIVERA-GÓMEZ and VERMA
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
analysed for their major and trace elements by Browne et al.
(1992). These authors did not report the tectonic setting of
their geothermal area with temperatures above 300 °C. Prac-
tically no samples escaped the alteration indicated by altered
psudomorph (altered hypersthene, titanomagnetite to leuco-
xene, high LOI up to 6.2 %, and high volatile contents;
Browne et al. 1992). The present-day tectonic setting seems
to be an active rifting of an arc (Deering et al. 2011).
Twenty-eight samples had complete data for the major ele-
ment based diagrams, which indicated an island arc setting
with a relatively low total percent probability value of about
44 %, followed by about 36 % for the continental arc setting
(Table S50). The diagram set based on immobile major and
trace elements could be tested from only five samples. It also
indicated an island arc setting but with higher probability
of about 63 % followed by 37 % for the continental arc
(Table S50).
Test study A7a: SE Indian and SW Pacific seafloor, Indian
and Pacific Oceans
Pyle et al. (1995) reported geochemical data from fresh as
well as altered seafloor rocks (dredged and drilled) of different
ages (0—4 and 15—23 Ma; Table S13). The presence of mica-
ceous alteration minerals, low CaO/Al
2
O
3
reflecting perva-
sive alteration, unusually high Rb contents, and contamination
from seawater alteration were suggested by Pyle et al. (1995)
as the symptoms of alteration for most samples. The authors
used an intense leaching procedure before sample prepara-
tion for geochemical data acquisition. Complete major ele-
ment data were available for 9 samples, of which 7 samples
had complete immobile element data as well. Therefore, all
four diagram sets could be tested from these data. The applica-
tion showed a mid-ocean ridge setting from all diagrams, with
a high percent success of about 72—80 % (Table S51).
Test study A7b: central Indian Ridge, Indian Ocean
Geochemical data for mafic and ultramafic rocks were re-
ported for the central part of the Indian Ridge (Yi et al. 2014;
Table S13). Most samples are characterized by moderate to
intense alteration of primary minerals. In highly altered gab-
broic rocks, clinopyroxene is replaced by amphibole and
chlorite, plagioclase changed to aggregates of prehnite or
cryptocrystalline secondary minerals, and altered veins of
Fe-Ti oxide and minor chlorite are present (Yi et al. 2014).
In other samples, olivine is altered to aggregates of serpen-
tine, iron oxide, and iron hydroxide; most harzburgites are
strongly serpentinized (Yi et al. 2014). Twenty-eight sam-
ples with complete major element data indicated a mid-
ocean ridge setting with 64 % and 55 % percent success
values (Table S52). A lesser number of samples (17 and 20)
had complete immobile element data for the respective dia-
grams. They also indicated a mid-ocean ridge setting for
these diagrams with high success rates of about 70 %
(Table S52).
Test study A8: Aeolian Island, Italy
Only 17 samples of hydrothermally altered (7 intermediate
and 10 acid) rocks could be compiled from Del Moro et al.
(2011; Table S13) for this final Test study. The volcanic and
subvolcanic rocks underwent alteration processes induced by
acid-sulphate hydrothermal systems (Del Moro et al. 2011).
According to these authors, some rocks showed argillic to si-
licic alteration containing abundant hydrous sulphate and
hydroxyl-sulphate minerals, whereas other rocks underwent
pyrometamorphic processes. Two sets of diagrams for inter-
mediate rocks could be tested; in both sets all samples con-
sistently plotted in the collision field and showed high total
percent probability values of about 83 % and 84 %
(Table S53). For acid rocks, all four sets of diagrams could
be applied. The first set of major element based diagrams
showed a collision setting but with a low total percent proba-
bility of 42 %, whereas the other set indicated a transitional
arc to collision setting (Table S54). However, both sets of
immobile element based diagrams were consistent with
a collision setting for these samples (total percent probability
values of about 82 % and 60 %; Table S54).
Use of freely-available geochemical databases for tectonic
discrimination
Agrawal & Verma (2007) were the first to show that freely-
available geochemical databases should not be indiscrimi-
nately used for tectonic discrimination. Here, we use the
example of GEOROC-Mainz to confirm the difficulties in
using compiled data without critically examining the origi-
nal papers from which the data were compiled.
Tongan arc data were downloaded as an excel file on
May 27, 2015. This file contains 222 rows of samples com-
piled from 29 references. However, only 151 samples have
complete major element data compiled from 19 references.
There may also be discrepancies regarding the information
on age or alteration parameters and references listed but we
will point out only the discrepancies between the database
and the data presented in the corresponding literature refe-
rences. One problem with the database is that it contains zero
(0) concentration values for numerous elements; zero values
are not possible because this means that either the element of
interest was not measured or it was not determinable by the
analytical technique used. Therefore, the zero values should
simply be blank cells.
Haase et al. (2002) reported data for 27 samples from the
arc setting (Havre, Monowai, Rauol, Vulcanolog, Brothers,
and Clark) whereas the GEOROC database has only 5 sam-
ples. Similarly, Hergt and Woodhead (2007) reported data
for 8 samples from Eua Island whereas the database has only
4 samples from this paper. Furthermore, these two papers
(Haase et al. 2002; Hergt and Woodhead 2007) were already
compiled and used by the proponents of the multidimensional
diagrams; these data therefore should not be used for testing
of diagrams. For the data from Pearce et al. (2007), the data-
base shows one sample (s16-95-2) listed as of Tongan arc,
but this sample with TiO
2
contents of 3.54 % and Nb of
74.07 ppm is listed in the original paper as an ocean island
basalt. Furthermore, in this paper (Pearce et al. 2007), 16 sam-
ples listed as Tongan arc are not present in the database.
Similar discrepancies are also observed between the database
and the original work of Hawkins et al. (1977). The database
205
MULTIDIMENSIONAL TECTONOMAGMATIC ROCK DISCRIMINATION DIAGRAMS
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
reports 5 samples which were not found in Hawkins et al.
(1977); these authors did not report any new data rather than
average values from earlier papers. Therefore, it is not clear
from where these samples were compiled. Fallon et al.
(2007) reported data for numerous samples from forearc,
ridge, and backarc regions; however, the database contains
data for 3 samples from the Melville ridge registered as
from the Tongan arc. Thus, it will not be advisable to use
the database without prior examination of the original
references.
Even if we ignore all the above problems, for five major
element-based diagram sets (two for basic and ultrabasic
rocks, Tables S1 and S2; one for intermediate rocks, Table
S5; and two for acid rocks, Tables S8 and S9), a total of 151
rock samples are available in this database. The database
also indicates that in terms of the three main subdivisions for
diagram sets, these samples are distributed as follows: 91
samples of basic and ultrabasic rocks (65 basalts, 22 tholeii-
tes, and 4 more basalts listed as basalt/not given); 48 inter-
mediate (9 andesite, 34 basaltic andesite, and 5 boninite);
and 7 acid (4 dacite and 3 rhyolite); 5 rock type not given.
This subdivision for the use of multidimensional discrimina-
tion diagrams would simply not match that obtained from
the application of IgRoCS strictly following the IUGS re-
commendations. When major element data for 151 samples
in this database are processed in IgRoCS, the following sub-
division was obtained: 84 samples of basic (1 alkali basalt,
1 picrite, 1 potassic trachybasalt, and 81 subalkali basalt)
and 2 of ultrabasic rocks (basanite); 52 intermediate
(11 andesite, 37 basaltic andesite, and 4 boninite); and
13 acid (9 dacite and 4 rhyolite). Because of these discrepan-
cies, the user will have to process the database in IgRoCS
before using the multidimensional diagrams.
Further considerations of the Tongan arc datafile from the
GEOROC-Mainz compilation are concerned with the num-
ber of samples with valid concentration values for the major-
trace or trace element-based diagrams. For basic and
ultrabasic rocks, out of 86 samples only 29 and 22 samples
are available for the diagram sets of Agrawal et al. (2008;
complete data required for La, Sm, Yb, Nb, and Th) and Ver-
ma & Agrawal (2011; complete data required for Nb, V, Y,
Zr, and TiO
2
), respectively.
For the combined major and trace element-based diagram
set for intermediate rocks, the required elements with com-
plete data are TiO
2
, MgO, P
2
O
5
, Nb, Ni, V, Y, and Zr
(Table S6). Out of 52 samples in the database only 22 sam-
ples had complete data for use of this diagram set (in fact,
5 more samples had a 0 value for Nb, which were not counted
as valid samples). Similarly, for the trace element-based dia-
gram set for intermediate rocks, 23 samples had complete
data for the required elements (La, Ce, Sm, Yb, Nb, Th, Y,
and Zr; Table S7). Finally, for the major-trace and trace ele-
ment-based diagram sets for acid rocks (Tables S10 and
S11), complete data were available for only 3 samples and
1 sample, respectively (4 out of 13 samples).
Because of all these difficulties, the multidimensional dia-
grams were not used for testing these Tongan data. We con-
clude that the freely-available databases should be used with
caution.
Additional explanation on the performance of multidi-
mensional diagrams
We finally mention the possible reasons for obtaining
varying percent success values in different diagram sets. Oc-
casionally, the total percent success values are much lower
than the highest value of about 80 % for basic and ultrabasic
rocks (Agrawal et al. 2004, 2008; Verma et al. 2006; Verma
& Agrawal 2011). This highest percent success value could
be even somewhat higher for probability-based counting in
the diagram sets for intermediate and acid rocks (Verma et
al. 2012, 2013; Verma & Verma 2013). When the total per-
cent success values are relatively small (much less than
80 %), we must first resort to the by-chance probability values
for a given diagram set. Because the total probabilities are
divided into four tectonic settings in the final synthesis of
a diagram set, the total by-chance percent probability for
a given tectonic setting will be around 25 %. Therefore, this
by-chance probability serves the purpose of better interpreting
our inferences.
Although the statistical problems associated with the use
of crude compositional data (e.g., Pearson 1897; Chayes
1960, 1971; Butler 1979) have been overcome by the log-ratio
transformation technique in the new multidimensional dia-
grams (e.g., Aitchison 1984, 1986, 1999; Egozcue et al.
2003; Thomas & Aitchison 2005; Pawlowsky-Glahn &
Egozcue 2006; Buccianti 2013; Verma 2015a), other prob-
lems still prevail. Some of them can be summarized as fol-
lows: (i) the data quality plays an important role, but the
appropriate information is seldom available in the published
geochemical literature (only indications are sometimes pro-
vided as overall percent errors and not for individual
geochemical data); (ii) post-emplacement changes are rela-
tively common in older terrains, which may move the sam-
ples from one tectonic setting to another although the
multidimensional diagrams are shown to be relatively robust
against small concentration changes of a few tens of percent;
(iii) age data are seldom available for individual geochemi-
cally analysed samples, which renders the sample grouping
difficult; (iv) even when age data are available, the corre-
sponding uncertainty may span tens of millions of years,
a period relatively large to have caused significant changes
in the tectonic setting of a given area; and (v) the different
types of magmas in a given region may have originated from
different sources (mantle or crustal or both), which is not
taken into account in the multidimensional diagrams but will
also cause dispersion in such diagrams.
Conclusions
Satisfactory application of the new multidimensional dia-
grams has been demonstrated for 18 test studies of relatively
fresh rocks and 8 application studies of hydrothermally al-
tered or weathered rocks. In most cases studies, the expected
tectonic setting was indicated by the respective applicable
diagrams. The importance of petrogenetic processes and data
quality is highlighted, especially, for cases where the expected
tectonic setting was not inferred from the diagrams.
206
RIVERA-GÓMEZ and VERMA
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
Acknowledgements: This work was partly supported by
DGAPA-PAPIIT grant IN104813. M.A. Rivera-Gómez is
grateful to Conacyt for her doctoral fellowship. We are
grateful to the journal Editor handling our manuscript, three
anonymous reviewers, and the managing editor of the jour-
nal, for numerous suggestions which helped us improve our
presentation.
References
Agrawal S. & Verma S.P. 2007: Comment on “Tectonic classifica-
tion of basalts with classification trees” by Pieter Vermeesch
(2006). Geochim Cosmochim Acta 71, 3388-3390.
Agrawal S., Guevara M. & Verma S.P. 2004: Discriminant analysis
applied to establish major-element field boundaries for tectonic
varieties of basic rocks. Int. Geol. Rev. 46, 575—594.
Agrawal S., Guevara M. & Verma S.P. 2008: Tectonic discrimina-
tion of basic and ultrabasic rocks through log-transformed ra-
tios of immobile trace elements. Int. Geol. Rev. 50,
1057—1079.
Aitchison J. 1984: Statistical analysis of geochemical compositions.
Math. Geol. 16, 531—564.
Aitchison J. 1986: The statistical analysis of compositional data.
Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1—416.
Aitchison J. 1999: Logratios and natural laws in compositional data
analysis. Math. Geol. 31, 563—580.
Ali S., Ntaflos T. & Upton B.G.J. 2013: Petrogenesis and mantle
source characteristics of Quaternary alkaline mafic lavas in the
western Carpathian—Pannonian Region, Styria, Austria. Chem.
Geol. 337-338, 99—113.
Armstrong-Altrin J.S. 2015: Evaluation of two multidimensional
discrimination diagrams from beach and deep-sea sediments
from the Gulf of Mexico and their application to Precambrian
clastic sedimentary rocks. Int. Geol. Rev. 57, 1446-1461.
Armstrong-Altrin J.S. & Verma S.P. 2005: Critical evaluation of
six tectonic setting discrimination diagrams using geochemical
data of Neogene sediments from known tectonic settings. Sed.
Geol. 177, 115—129.
Bailey J.C. 1981: Geochemical criteria for a refined tectonic dis-
crimination of orogenic andesites. Chem. Geol. 32, 139—154.
Behrendt J.C., LeMasurier W.E., Cooper A.K., Tessensohn F.,
Trehu A. & Damaske D. 1991: Geophysical studies of the
West Antarctic Rift System. Tectonics 10, 1257—1273.
Behrendt J.C., LeMasurier W.E. & Cooper A.K. 1992: The West
Antarctic Rift System – A propagating rift captured by a man-
tle plume? In: Yoshida Y., Kaminuma K. & Shiraishi K.
(Eds.): Recent Progress in Antarctic Earth Science. Terra
Science, Tokyo, 315—322.
Bora S. & Kumar S. 2015: Geochemistry of biotites and host grani-
toid plutons from the Proterozoic Mahakoshal Belt, central
India tectonic zone: implication for nature and tectonic setting
of magmatism. Int. Geol. Rev. 57, 1686—1706.
Browne P.R.L., Graham I.J., Parker R.J. & Wood C.P. 1992: Sub-
surface andesite lavas and plutonic rocks in the Rotokawa and
Ngatamariki geothermal systems, Taupo volcanic zone, New
Zealand. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 51, 199—215.
Buccianti A. 2013: Is compositional data analysis a way to see
beyond the illusion? Comput. Geosci. 50, 165—173.
Butler J.C. 1979: Trends in ternary petrologic variation diagrams -
fact or fantasy? Am. Mineral. 64, 1115—1121.
Butler J.C. & Woronow A. 1986: Discrimination among tectonic
settings using trace element abundances of basalts. J. Geophys.
Res. 91, 10289—10300.
Cabanis B. & Lecolle M. 1989: Le diagramme La/10-Y/15-Nb/8: un
outil pour la discrimination des séries volcaniques et la mise en
évidence des processus de mélange et/ou de contamination
crustale. Compte Rendu Acad. Sci. Paris 309, 2023—2029.
Caroff M., Guillou H., Maliaux M., Maury R.C., Guille G. &
Cotten J. 1999: Assimilation of ocean crust by hawaiitic and
mugearitic magmas: an example from Eiao (Marquesas).
Lithos 46, 235—258.
Cebriá J.M., López-Ruiz J., Doblas M., Oyarzun R., Hertogen J. &
Benito R. 2000: Geochemistry of the Quaternary alkali basalts
of Garrotxa (NE volcanic province, Spain): a case of double
enrichment of the mantle lithosphere. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res. 102, 217—235.
Chandrasekharam D., Santo A.P., Capaccioni B., Vaselli O., Alam
M.A., Manetti P. & Tassi F. 2009: Volcanological and petro-
logical evolution of Barren Island (Andaman Sea, Indian
Ocean). J. Asian Earth Sci. 35, 469—487.
Chayes F. 1960: On correlation between variables of constant sum.
J. Geophys. Res. 65, 4185—4193.
Chayes F. 1971: Ratio correlation. A manual for students of petro-
logy and geochemistry. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London, 1—99.
Chesner C.A. & Halsor S.P. 1997: Geochemical trends of sequential
lava flows from Meseta volcano, Guatemala. J. Volcanol. Geo-
therm. Res. 78, 221—237.
Chesner C.A. & Rose Jr. W.I. 1984: Geochemistry and evolution of
the Fuego volcanic complex, Guatemala. J. Volcanol. Geo-
therm. Res. 21, 25—44.
Cooper A.F., Adam L.J., Coulter R.F., Eby G.N. & McIntosh W.C.
2007: Geology, geochronology and geochemistry of a basanitic
volcano, White Island, Ross Sea, Antarctica. J. Volcanol. Geo-
therm. Res. 165, 189—216.
Deering C.D., Bachmann O., Dufek J. & Gravley D.M. 2011: Rift-
related transition from andesite to rhyolite volcanism in the-
Taupo Volcanic Zone (New Zealand) controlled by
crystal-melt dynamics in mush zones with variable mineral as-
semblages. J. Petrol. 52, 2243—2263.
Del Moro S., Renzulli A. & Tribaudino M. 2011: Pyrometamorphic
processes at the magma-hydrothermal system interface of ac-
tive volcanoes: evidence from buchite ejecta of Stromboli
(Aeolian Islands, Italy). J. Petrol. 52, 541—564.
Di Paola G.M. 1974: Volcanology and petrology of Nisyros Island
(Dodecanese, Greece). Bull. Volcanol. 38, 944—987.
Dreher S.T., Eichelberger J.C. & Larsen J.F. 2005: The petrology
and geochemistry of the Aniakchak caldera-forming ignim-
brite, Aleutian arc, Alaska. J. Petrol. 46, 1747—1768.
Egozcue J.J., Pawlowsky-Glahn V., Mateu-Figueras G. & Barceló-
Vidal C. 2003: Isometric logratio transformations for composi-
tional data analysis. Math. Geol. 35, 279—300.
Fallon T.J., Danyushevsky L.V., Crawford T.J., Maas R., Wood-
head J.D., Eggins S.M., Bloomer S.H., Wright D.J., Zlobin
S.K. & Stacey A.R. 2007: Multiple mantle plume components
involved in the petrogenesis of subuduction-related lavas from
the northern Lau basin: evidence from the geochemistry of arc
and backarc submarine volcanoes. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys.
8, doi:10.1029/2007GC001619.
Gazel E., Alvarado G.E., Obando J. & Alfaro A. 2005: Geología y
evolución magmática del arco de Sarapiquí, Costa Rica. Rev.
Geol. Am. Cen. 32, 13—31.
Gorton M.P. & Schandl E.S. 2000: From continents to island arcs: a
geochemical index of tectonic setting for arc-related and
within-plate felsic to intermediate volcanic rocks. Can. Mineral.
38, 1065—1073.
Haase K.M., Worthington T.J., Stoffers P., Garbe-Schönberg D.
& Wright I.C. 2002: Mantle dynamics, element recycling,
and magma genesis beneath the Kermadec arc-Havre
trough. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 3, 1071, doi:10.1029/
207
MULTIDIMENSIONAL TECTONOMAGMATIC ROCK DISCRIMINATION DIAGRAMS
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
2002GC00035.
Hawkins J.W. Jr. 1977: Petrological and geochemical characteris-
tics of marginal basin basalts island arcs. In: Talwani M. &
Pitman W.C.III (Eds.): Deep Sea Trenches and Back-Arc Ba-
sins. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C.
355—365.
Hergt J.M. & Woodhead J.D. 2007: A critical evaluation of recent
models for Lau-tonga arc-backarc basin magmatic evolution.
Chem. Geol. 245, 9—44.
Ho K.-S., Ge W.-C., Chen J.-C., You C.-F., Yang H.-J. & Zhang
Y.-L. 2013: Late Cenozoic magmatic transitions in the central
Great Xing’an Range, Northeast China: Geochemical and iso-
topic constraints on petrogenesis. Chem. Geol. 352, 1—18.
Jackson M.C., Frey F.A., Garcia M.O. & Wilmoth R.A. 1999:
Geology and geochemistry of basaltic lava flows and dikes
from the Trans-Koolau tunnel, Oahu, Hawaii. Bull Volcanol.
60, 381—401.
Johnson K.E., Harmon R.S., Richardson J.M., Moorbath S. &
Strong D. 1996: Isotope and trace element geochemistry of
Augustine Volcano, Alaska: implications for magmatic evolu-
tion. J. Petrol. 37, 95—115.
Kaur P., Chaudhri N. & Hofmann A.W. 2015: New evidence for
two sharp replacement fronts during albitization of granitoids
from northern Aravalli orogen, northwest India. Int. Geol. Rev.
57, 1660—1685.
Le Bas M.J., Le Maitre R.W., Streckeisen A. & Zanettin B. 1986:
A chemical classification of volcanic rocks based on the total
alkali-silica diagram. J. Petrol. 27, 745—750.
Le Bas M.J. & Streckeisen A.L. 1991: The IUGS systematics of ig-
neous rocks. J. Geol. Soc. London 148, 825—833.
Le Maitre R.W., Streckeisen A., Zanettin B., Le Bas M.J., Bonin
B., Bateman P., Bellieni G., Dudek A., Schmid R., Sorensen
H. & Woolley A.R. 2002: Igneous rocks. A classification and
glossary of terms: recommendations of the International Union
of Geological Sciences, Subcommission of the Systematics of
Igneous Rocks, ed. 2nd. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 1—236.
Marques L.S., Ulbrich M.N.C., Ruberti E. & Tassinari C.G. 1999:
Petrology, geochemistry and Sr-Nd isotopes of the Trindade
and Martin Vaz volcanic rocks (southern Atlantic Ocean). J.
Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 93, 191—216.
Melluso L. & Morra V. 2000: Petrogenesis of Late Cenozoic mafic
alkaline rocks of the Nosy Be archipelago (northern Madagas-
car): relationships with Comorean magmatism. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res. 96, 129—142.
Meschede M. 1986: A method of discriminating between different
types of mid-ocean ridge basalts and continental tholeiites with
the Nb-Zr-Y diagram. Chem. Geol. 56, 207—218.
Mullen E.D. 1983: MnO/TiO
2
/P
2
O
5
: a minor element discrimina-
tion for basaltic rocks of oceanic environments and its implica-
tions for petrogenesis. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 62, 53—62.
Neill I., Meliksetian K., Allen M.B., Navarsardyan G. & Karapetyan
S. 2013: Pliocene-Quaternary volcanic rocks of NW Armenia:
Magmatism and lithospheric dynamics within an active oro-
genic plateau. Lithos 180-181, 200—215.
Nyland R.E., Panter K.S., Rocchi S., Di Vincenzo G., Del Carlo P.,
Tiepolo M., Field B. & Gorsevski P. 2013: Volcanic activity
and its link to glaciation cycles: Single-grain age and geoche-
mistry of Early to Middle Miocene volcanic glass from AN-
DRILL AND-2A core, Antarctica. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.
250, 106—128.
Pal T., Mitra S.K., Sengupta S., Katari A., Bandopadhyay P.C. &
Bhattacharya A.K. 2007: Dacite—andesites of Narcondam vol-
cano in the Andaman Sea – an imprint of magma mixing in
the inner arc of the Andaman—Java subduction system. J. Vol-
canol. Geotherm. Res. 168, 93—113.
Pandarinath K. 2014a: Testing of the recently developed tectono-
magmatic discrimination diagrams from hydrothermally al-
tered igneous rocks of 7 geothermal fields. Turk. J. Earth Sci.
23, 412—426.
Pandarinath K. 2014b: Tectonomagmatic origin of Precambrian
rocks of Mexico and Argentina inferred from multi-dimensional
discriminant-function based discrimination diagrams. J. South.
Am. Earth. Sci. 56, 464—484.
Patino L.C., Velbel M.A., Price J.R. & Wade J.A. 2003: Trace ele-
ment mobility during spheroidal weathering of basalts and
andesites in Hawaii and Guatemala. Chem. Geol. 202,
343—364.
Pawlowsky-Glahn V. & Egozcue J.J. 2006: Compositional data and
their analysis: an introduction. In: A. Buccianti, G. Mateu-
Figueras & V. Pawlowsky-Glahn (Eds.), Compositional data
analysis in the Geosciences: from theory to practice. Geol. Soc.
London Spec. Publ., London, 1—10.
Pearce J.A. 1976: Statistical analysis of major element patterns in
basalts. J. Petrol. 17, 15—43.
Pearce J.A. 1982: Trace element characteristics of lavas from de-
structive plate boundaries. In: Thorpe R.S. (Ed.): Andesites.
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 525—548.
Pearce J.A. & Cann J.R. 1971: Ophiolite origin investigated by dis-
criminant analysis using Ti, Zr and Y. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
12, 339—349.
Pearce J.A. & Cann J.R. 1973: Tectonic setting of basic volcanic
rocks determined using trace element analyses. Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett. 19, 290—300.
Pearce J.A. & Gale G.H. 1977: Identification of ore-deposition en-
vironment from trace-element geochemistry of associated ig-
neous host rocks. Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 7, 14—24.
Pearce J.A. & Norry M.J. 1979: Petrogenetic implications of Ti, Zr,
Y, and Nb variations in volcanic rocks. Contrib. Mineral.
Petrol. 69, 33—47.
Pearce T.H., Gorman B.E. & Birkett T.C. 1977: The relationship
between major element chemistry and tectonic environment of
basic and intermediate volcanic rocks. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
36, 121—132.
Pearce J.A., Harris N.B.W. & Tindle A.G. 1984: Trace element dis-
crimination diagrams for the tectonic interpretation of granitic
rocks. J. Petrol. 25, 956—983.
Pearce J.A., Kempton P.D. & Gill J.B. 2007: Hf-Nd evidence for
the origin and distribution of mantle domains in the SW Pacif-
ic. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 260, 98—114
Pearson K. 1897: Mathematical contribution to the theory of evolu-
tion – on a form of spurious correlation which may arise
when indices are used in the measurement of organs. Proc.
Royal Soc. London 60, 489—502.
Pyle D.G., Christie D.M., Mahoney J.J. & Duncan R.A. 1995:
Geochemistry and geochronology of ancient southeast Indian
and southwest Pacific seafloor. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 22261—
22282.
Rahman M.S. & Mondal M.E.A. 2015: Evolution of continental
crust of the Aravalli craton, NW India, during the Neoarchae-
an—Palaeoproterozoic: evidence from geochemistry of grani-
toids. Int. Geol. Rev. 57, 1510—1525.
Rhodes J.M. 2012: Compositional diversity of Mauna Kea shield
lavas recovered by the Hawaii Scientific Drilling Project: In-
ferences on source lithology, magma supply, and the role of
multiple volcanoes. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 13, 2—28.
Rhodes J.M. & Vollinger M.J. 2004: Composition of basaltic lavas
sampled by phase-2 of the Hawaii scientific drilling proyect:
Geochemical stratigraphy and magma types. Geochem. Geo-
phys. Geosys. 5, 1—38.
Scott J.A.J., Pyle D.M., Mather T.A. & Rose W.I. 2013: Geoche-
mistry and evolution of the Santiaguito volcanic dome com-
208
RIVERA-GÓMEZ and VERMA
G
G
G
G
GEOL
EOL
EOL
EOL
EOLOGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPA
OGICA CARPATHICA
THICA
THICA
THICA
THICA, 2016, 67, 2, 195—208
plex, Guatemala. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 252, 92—107.
Sherrod D.R., Murai T. & Tagami T. 2007: New K—Ar ages for cal-
culating end-of-shield extrusion rates at West Maui volcano,
Hawaiian island chain. Bull. Volcanol. 69, 627—642.
Shervais J.W. 1982: Ti-V plots and the petrogenesis of modern and
ophiolitic lavas. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 59, 101—118.
Srivastava R.K., Samal A.K. & Gautam G.C. 2015: Geochemical
characteristics and petrogenesis of four Palaeoproterozoic
mafic dike swarms and associated large igneous provinces
from the eastern Dharwar craton, India. Int. Geol. Rev. 57,
1462—1484.
Streck M.J., Ramos F., Gillam A., Haldar D. & Duncan R.A. 2011:
The intra-oceanic Barren Island and Narcondam arc volcanoes,
Andaman Sea: Implications for subduction inputs and crustal
overprint of a depleted mantle source. In: Ray J., Sen G. &
Ghosh B. (Eds.): Topics in Igneous Petrology. Springer
Science+Business Media, 241—273.
Suh C.E., Sparks R.S.J., Fitton J.G., Ayonghe S.N., Annen C., Nana
R. & Luckman A. 2003: The 1999 and 2000 eruptions of
Mount Cameroon: eruption behaviour and petrochemistry of
lava. Bull. Volcanol. 65, 267—281.
Thomas C.W. & Aitchison J. 2005: Compositional data analysis of
geological variability and process: a case study. Math. Geol.
37, 753—772.
Verma S.K. & Oliveira E.P. 2013: Application of multi-dimensional
discrimination diagrams and probability calculations to Paleo-
proterozoic acid rocks from Brazilian cratons and provinces to
infer tectonic settings. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 45, 117—146.
Verma S.K. & Oliveira E.P. 2015: Tectonic setting of basic igneous
and metaigneous rocks of Borborema Province, Brazil using
multi-dimensional geochemical discrimination diagrams.
J. South Am. Earth Sci. 58, 309—317.
Verma S.P. 2010: Statistical evaluation of bivariate, ternary and
discriminant function tectonomagmatic discrimination dia-
grams. Turk. J. Earth Sci. 19, 185—238.
Verma S.P. 2015a: Monte Carlo comparison of conventional ternary
diagrams with new log-ratio bivariate diagrams and an exam-
ple of tectonic discrimination. Geochem. J. 49, 393-412.
Verma S.P. 2015b: Origin, evolution, and tectonic setting of the
eastern part of the Mexican Volcanic Belt and comparison with
the Central American Volcanic Arc from conventional multi-
element normalized and new multidimensional discrimination
diagrams and discordancy and significance tests. Turk. J. Earth
Sci. 24, 111-164.
Verma S.P. 2015c: Present state of knowledge and new geochemi-
cal constraints on the central part of the Mexican Volcanic Belt
and comparison with the Central American Volcanic Arc in
terms of near and far trench magmas. Turk. J. Earth Sci., 24:
399-460.
Verma S.P. & Agrawal S. 2011: New tectonic discrimination dia-
grams for basic and ultrabasic volcanic rocks through log-
transformed ratios of high field strength elements and
implications for petrogenetic processes. Rev. Mex. Cienc.
Geol. 28, 24—44.
Verma S.P. & Armstrong-Altrin J.S. 2013: New multi-dimensional
diagrams for tectonic discrimination of siliciclastic sediments
and their application to Precambrian basins. Chem. Geol. 355,
117—133.
Verma S.P. & Armstrong-Altrin J.S. 2016: Geochemical discrimi-
nation of siliciclastic sediments from active and passive mar-
gin settings. Sediment. Geol., 332, 1—12.
Verma S.P. & Rivera-Gómez M.A. 2013a: Computer programs for
the classification and nomenclature of igneous rocks. Episodes
36, 115—124.
Verma S.P. & Rivera-Gómez M.A. 2013b: New computer program
TecD for tectonomagmatic discrimination from discriminant
function diagrams for basic and ultrabasic magmas and its ap-
plication to ancient rocks. J. Iber. Geol. 39, 167—179.
Verma S.P. & Verma S.K. 2013: First 15 probability-based multi-
dimensional discrimination diagrams for intermediate magmas
and their robustness against post-emplacement compositional
changes and petrogenetic processes. Turk. J. Earth Sci. 22,
931—995.
Verma S.P., Torres-Alvarado I.S. & Sotelo-Rodríguez Z.T. 2002:
SINCLAS: standard igneous norm and volcanic rock classifi-
cation system. Comput. Geosci. 28, 711—715.
Verma S.P., Guevara M. & Agrawal S. 2006: Discriminating four
tectonic settings: five new geochemical diagrams for basic and
ultrabasic volcanic rocks based on log-ratio transformation of
major-element data. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 115, 485-528.
Verma S.K., Pandarinath K. & Verma S.P. 2012: Statistical evalua-
tion of tectonomagmatic discrimination diagrams for granitic
rocks and proposal of new discriminant-function-based multi-
dimensional diagrams for acid rocks. Int. Geol. Rev. 54,
325—347.
Verma S.P., Pandarinath K., Verma S.K. & Agrawal S. 2013:
Fifteen new discriminant-function-based multi-dimensional
robust diagrams for acid rocks and their application to Precam-
brian rocks. Lithos 168-169, 113—123.
Verma S.K., Oliveira E.P. & Verma S.P. 2015a: Plate tectonic set-
tings for Precambrian basic rocks from Brazil by multi-dimen-
sional tectonomagmatic discrimination diagrams and their
limitations. Int. Geol. Rev. 57, 1566-1581.
Verma S.P., Verma S.K. & Oliveira E.P. 2015b: Application of 55
multi-dimensional tectonomagmatic discrimination diagrams
to Precambrian belts. Int. Geol. Rev. 57, 1365-1388.
Verma S.P., Cruz-Huicochea R., Díaz-González L. & Verma S.K.
2015c: A new computer program TecDIA for multidimensional
tectonic discrimination of intermediate and acid magmas and
its application to the Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic.
J. Geosci. 60, 203—218.
Verma S.P., Díaz-González L. & Armstrong-Altrin J.S. 2016: Ap-
plication of a new computer program for tectonic discrimina-
tion of Cambrian to Holocene clastic sediments. Earth Sci.
Inform., 10.1007/s12145-015-0244-0 published on-line, in
press.
Wang X.-C., Li Z.-X., Li X.-H., Li J., Liu Y., Long W.-G., Zhou J.-
B. & Wang F. 2012: Temperature, pressure, and composition
of the mantle source region of Late Cenozoic basalts in Hain-
an Island, SE Asia: a consequence of a young thermal mantle
plume close to subduction zones? J. Petrol. 53, 177—233.
Watt S.F.L., Pyle D.M. & Mather T.A. 2011: Geology, petrology
and geochemistry of the dome complex of Huequi volcano,
southern Chile. Andean Geol. 38, 335—348.
Wood D.A. 1980: The application of a Th-Hf-Ta diagram to prob-
lems of tectonomagmatic classification and to establishing the
nature of crustal contamination of basaltic lavas of the British
Tertiary volcanic province. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 50,
11—30.
Yang Z., Luo Z., Zhang H., Zhang Y., Huang F., Sun C. & Dai J.
2009: Petrogenesis and Geological Implications of theTian-
heyong Cenozoic Basalts, Inner Mongolia China. Earth Sci.
Front. 16, 90—106.
Yi S.-B., Oh C.-W., Pak S.J., Kim J. & Moon J.-W. 2014:
Geochemistry and petrogenesis of mafic-ultramafic rocks from
the Central Indian Ridge, latitude 8°—17° S: denudation of
mantle harzburgites and gabbroic rocks and compositional
variation of basalts. Int. Geol. Rev. 56, 691—1719.
i
Supplementary Material
The discriminant function DF1-DF2 equations were recently summarized by Verma et al. (2015b),
which are reproduced here in Tables S1-S11 for an easy reference.
Table S1.
DF1-DF2 equations for the first set of five diagrams proposed by Agrawal et al. (2004) for basic and ultrabasic magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Agrawal et al. (2004);
adjusted major
element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-
MORB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
= 0.258×(SiO
2
)
adj
+ 2.395×(TiO
2
)
adj
+ 0.106×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 1.019×(Fe
2
O
3
)
adj
–
6.778×(MnO)
adj
+ 0.405×(MgO)
adj
+ 0.119×(CaO)
adj
+0.071×(Na
2
O)
adj
– 0.198×(K
2
O)
adj
+ 0.613×(P
2
O
5
)
adj
–
24.065
DF2
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
= 0.730×(SiO
2
)
adj
+ 1.119×(TiO
2
)
adj
+ 0.156×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 1.332×(Fe
2
O
3
)
adj
+
4.376×(MnO)
adj
+ 0.493×(MgO)
adj
+ 0.936×(CaO)
adj
+0.882×(Na
2
O)
adj
– 0.291×(K
2
O)
adj
– 1.572×(P
2
O
5
)
adj
–
59.472
IAB-CRB-OIB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
= 0.251×(SiO
2
)
adj
+ 2.034×(TiO
2
)
adj
– 0.100×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 0.573×(Fe
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 0.032×(FeO)
adj
– 2.877×(MnO)
adj
+ 0.260×(MgO)
adj
+ 0.052×(CaO)
adj
+0.322×(Na
2
O)
adj
– 0.229×(K
2
O)
adj
– 18.974
DF2
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
= 2.150×(SiO
2
)
adj
+ 2.711×(TiO
2
)
adj
+ 1.792×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 2.295×(Fe
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 1.484×(FeO)
adj
– 8.594×(MnO)
adj
+ 1.896×(MgO)
adj
+ 2.158×(CaO)
adj
+ 1.201×(Na
2
O)
adj
+ 1.763×(K
2
O)
adj
– 200.276
IAB-CRB-MORB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
= 0.435×(SiO
2
)
adj
– 1.392×(TiO
2
)
adj
+ 0.183×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 0.148×(FeO)
adj
+
7.690×(MnO)
adj
+ 0.021×(MgO)
adj
+ 0.380×(CaO)
adj
+ 0.036×(Na
2
O)
adj
+ 0.462×(K
2
O)
adj
– 1.192×(P
2
O
5
)
adj
–
29.435
DF2
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
= 0.601×(SiO
2
)
adj
– 0.335×(TiO
2
)
adj
+ 1.332×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 1.449×(FeO)
adj
+
0.756×(MnO)
adj
+ 0.893×(MgO)
adj
+ 0.448×(CaO)
adj
+ 0.525×(Na
2
O)
adj
+ 1.734×(K
2
O)
adj
+ 2.494×(P
2
O
5
)
adj
–
78.236
IAB-OIB-MORB
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
= 1.232×(SiO
2
)
adj
+ 4.166×(TiO
2
)
adj
+ 1.085×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 3.522×(Fe
2
O
3
)
adj
+
0.500×(FeO)
adj
– 3.930×(MnO)
adj
+ 1.334×(MgO)
adj
+ 1.085×(CaO)
adj
+ 0.416×(Na
2
O)
adj
+ 0.827×(K
2
O)
adj
–
119.050
DF2
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
= 1.384×(SiO
2
)
adj
+ 1.091×(TiO
2
)
adj
+ 0.908×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 2.419×(Fe
2
O
3
)
adj
+
0.886×(FeO)
adj
+ 5.281×(MnO)
adj
+ 1.269×(MgO)
adj
+ 1.790×(CaO)
adj
+ 2.572×(Na
2
O)
adj
+ 0.138×(K
2
O)
adj
–
134.295
CRB-OIB-MORB
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
= 0.310×(SiO
2
)
adj
+ 1.936×(TiO
2
)
adj
+ 0.341×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 0.760×(Fe
2
O
3
)
adj
+
0.351×(FeO)
adj
– 11.315×(MnO)
adj
+ 0.526×(MgO)
adj
+ 0.084×(CaO)
adj
+ 0.312×(K
2
O)
adj
+ 1.892×(P
2
O
5
)
adj
–
32.909
DF2
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
= 0.703×(SiO
2
)
adj
+ 2.454×(TiO
2
)
adj
+ 0.233×(Al
2
O
3
)
adj
+ 1.943×(Fe
2
O
3
)
adj
–
0.182×(FeO)
adj
– 2.421×(MnO)
adj
+ 0.618×(MgO)
adj
+ 0.712×(CaO)
adj
– 0.866×(K
2
O)
adj
– 1.180×(P
2
O
5
)
adj
–
56.455
The tectonic fields are: IAB−island arc basic (or ultrabasic) rocks; CRB−continental rift basic (or ultrabasic) rocks; OIB−ocean island basic (or ultrabasic)
rocks; and MORB−mid ocean ridge basic (or ultrabasic) rocks. The subscript
adj
refers to adjusted data from the SINCLAS (Verma et al. 2002) or IgRoCS
computer program (Verma and Rivera-Gómez 2013a).
ii
Table S2.
DF1-DF2 equations (approximate coefficients) for the second set of five diagrams proposed by Verma et al. (2006) for basic and
ultrabasic magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-
MORB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
= – 4.676×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) + 2.533×ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) – 0.388×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 3.969×
ln(FeO/SiO
2
)
+ 0.898×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) – 0.583×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) – 0.290×ln(CaO/SiO
2
) – 0.270×ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
)
+ 1.081×ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) + 0.184×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) + 1.544
DF2
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
= 0.675×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) + 4.590× ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 2.090×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 0.851×
ln(FeO/SiO
2
)
– 0.433×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) + 1.483×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) – 2.363× ln(CaO/SiO
2
) – 1.656× ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
)
– 0.676× ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) + 0.413×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) + 13.164
IAB-CRB-OIB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
= 4.000×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) – 2.238×ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 0.811×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) – 2.586×
ln(FeO/SiO
2
)
– 1.243×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) + 0.587×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) – 0.315×ln(CaO/SiO
2
) + 0.432×ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
)
– 1.026×ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) + 0.051×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) – 0.572
DF2
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
= – 1.370×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) + 3.010×ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 0.324×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 1.900×
ln(FeO/SiO
2
)
– 1.975×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) + 1.441×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) – 2.266×ln(CaO/SiO
2
) + 1.866×ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
)
+ 0.287×ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) + 0.814×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) + 1.820
IAB-CRB-MORB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
= – 1.574×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) + 6.150×ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 1.554×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) +
3.413×ln(FeO/SiO
2
)
– 0.009×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) + 1.248×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) – 2.110×ln(CaO/SiO
2
) –
0.768×ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
) + 1.143×ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) + 0.352×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) + 16.871
DF2
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
= 3.984×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) + 0.220×ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 1.152×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) – 2.204×
ln(FeO/SiO
2
)
– 1.623×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) + 1.429×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) – 1.252×ln(CaO/SiO
2
) + 0.358×ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
)
– 0.641×ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) + 0.265×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) + 5.051
IAB-OIB-MORB
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
= 5.340×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) – 1.628×ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 0.834×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) –
4.736×ln(FeO/SiO
2
)
– 0.125×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) + 0.645×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) + 1.515×ln(CaO/SiO
2
) –
0.815×ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
) – 0.889×ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) – 0.226×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) + 5.776
DF2
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
= 1.180×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) + 5.511×ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 2.774×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) – 0.134×
ln(FeO/SiO
2
)
+ 0.667×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) + 1.104×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) – 1.723×ln(CaO/SiO
2
) – 3.895×ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
)
+ 0.947×ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) – 0.108×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) + 15.498
CRB-OIB-MORB
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
= – 0.518×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) + 4.989×ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 2.220×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) +
1.180×ln(FeO/SiO
2
) – 0.301×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) + 1.330×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) – 2.183×ln(CaO/SiO
2
) –
1.932×ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
) + 0.698×ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) + 0.900×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) + 13.262
DF2
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
= 5.051×ln(TiO
2
/SiO
2
) – 0.497×ln(Al
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) + 1.005×ln(Fe
2
O
3
/SiO
2
) – 3.385×
ln(FeO/SiO
2
)
+ 0.553×ln(MnO/SiO
2
) + 0.292×ln(MgO/SiO
2
) + 0.401×ln(CaO/SiO
2
) – 2.864×ln(Na
2
O/SiO
2
)
– 0.219×ln(K
2
O/SiO
2
) – 1.056×ln(P
2
O
5
/SiO
2
) + 2.888
The tectonic fields are: IAB−island arc basic (or ultrabasic) rocks; CRB−continental rift basic (or ultrabasic) rocks; OIB−ocean island basic (or ultrabasic)
rocks; and MORB−mid ocean ridge basic (or ultrabasic) rocks. The subscript
adj
refers to adjusted data from the SINCLAS (Verma et al. 2002) or IgRoCS
computer program (Verma and Rivera-Gómez 2013a), but is eliminated from these equations.
iii
Table S3.
DF1-DF2 equations for the set of five diagrams based on trace element ratios proposed by Agrawal et al. (2008) for basic and ultrabasic
magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Agrawal et al. (2008);
log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-
MORB
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t1
= 0.3518×ln(La/Th) + 0.6013×ln(Sm/Th) – 1.3450×ln(Yb/Th) + 2.1056×ln(Nb/Th) –
5.4763
DF2
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t1
= – 0.3050×ln(La/Th) – 1.1801×ln(Sm/Th) + 1.6189×ln(Yb/Th) + 1.2260×ln(Nb/Th) –
0.9944
IAB-CRB-OIB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t1
= 0.5533×ln(La/Th) + 0.2173×ln(Sm/Th) – 0.0969×ln(Yb/Th) + 2.0454×ln(Nb/Th) – 5.6305
DF2
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t1
= –2.4498×ln(La/Th) + 4.8562×ln(Sm/Th) – 2.1240×ln(Yb/Th) – 0.1567×ln(Nb/Th) +
0.9400
IAB-CRB-MORB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t1
= 0.3305×ln(La/Th) + 0.3484×ln(Sm/Th) – 0.9562×ln(Yb/Th) + 2.0777×ln(Nb/Th) –
4.5628
DF2
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t1
= –0.1928×ln(La/Th) – 1.1989×ln(Sm/Th) + 1.7531×ln(Yb/Th) + 0.6607×ln(Nb/Th) –
0.4384
IAB-OIB-MORB
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t1
= 1.7517×ln(Sm/Th) – 1.9508×ln(Yb/Th) + 1.9573×ln(Nb/Th) – 5.0928
DF2
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t1
= –2.2412×ln(Sm/Th) + 2.2060×ln(Yb/Th) + 1.2481×ln(Nb/Th) – 0.8243
CRB-OIB-MORB
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t1
= –0.5558×ln(La/Th) – 1.4260×ln(Sm/Th) + 2.2935×ln(Yb/Th) – 0.6890×ln(Nb/Th) +
4.1422
DF2
(CAB-OIB-MORB)t1
= –0.9207×ln(La/Th) + 3.6520×ln(Sm/Th) – 1.9866×ln(Yb/Th) + 1.0574×ln(Nb/Th) –
4.4283
The tectonic fields are: IAB−island arc basic (or ultrabasic) rocks; CRB−continental rift basic (or ultrabasic) rocks; OIB−ocean island basic (or ultrabasic)
rocks; and MORB−mid ocean ridge basic (or ultrabasic) rocks.
iv
Table S4.
DF1-DF2 equations for the set of five diagrams based on major and trace element ratios proposed by Verma and Agrawal (2011) for
basic and ultrabasic magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-
MORB
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
= – 0.6611×ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 2.2926×ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) + 1.6774×ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
) +
1.0916×ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 21.3603
DF2
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
= 0.4702×ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 3.7649×ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) – 3.911×ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
)
+2.2697×ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 4.8487
IAB-CRB-OIB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
= –0.6146×ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 2.3510×ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) + 1.6828×ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
) +
1.1911×ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 22.7253
DF2
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
= 1.3765×ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) – 0.9452×ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) + 4.0461×ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
) –
2.0789×ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 22.2450
IAB-CRB-MORB
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
= –0.6624×ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 2.4498×ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) + 1.2867×ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
) +
1.0920×ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 18.7466
DF2
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
= 0.4938 · ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 3.4741 · ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) – 3.8053 · ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
) +
2.0070 · ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 3.3163
IAB-OIB-MORB
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
= –0.2646×ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 2.0491×ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) + 3.4565×ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
) +
0.8573×ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 32.9472
DF2
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
= 0.01874×ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 4.0937×ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) – 4.8550×ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
) +
2.9900×ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 0.1995
CRB-OIB-MORB
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
= –0.7829×ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 0.3379×ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) + 3.3239×ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
) –
0.51232×ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 16.0941
DF2
(CAB-OIB-MORB)t2
= 1.7478×ln(Nb/(TiO
2
)
adj
) – 0.0421×ln(V/TiO
2
)
adj
) + 3.5301×ln(Y/TiO
2
)
adj
) –
1.4503×ln(Zr/(TiO
2
)
adj
) + 28.3592
The tectonic fields are: IAB−island arc basic (or ultrabasic) rocks; CRB−continental rift basic (or ultrabasic) rocks; OIB−ocean island basic (or ultrabasic)
rocks; and MORB−mid ocean ridge basic (or ultrabasic) rocks. The subscript
adj
refers to adjusted data from the SINCLAS (Verma et al. 2002) or IgRoCS
computer program (Verma and Rivera-Gómez 2013a).
v
Table S5.
DF1-DF2 equations (approximate coefficients) for the set of five diagrams based on major element ratios proposed by Verma and Verma (2013) for intermediate magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Verma and Verma
(2013); log-ratios of
major elements
(mint)
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
11.431
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.031
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-0.402
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-0.284
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(1.291
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.067
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.212
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
2.489
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-2.225
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(1.120
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-2.456
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
mint
12.202
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.335
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(0.871
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-1.792
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(0.816
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.305
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-1.720
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-1.998
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.691
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-0.011
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.578
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
mint
IA-CA-CR+OI
14.315
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.072
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-0.219
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.112
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(1.426
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.177
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.363
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
3.846
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-3.790
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(0.542
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-2.519
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
mint
13.489
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(1.062
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-0.774
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(3.002
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-2.148
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.374
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-3.499
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
4.807
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-3.433
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(3.440
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-1.049
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
mint
IA-CA-Col
4.312
+
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.468
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-0.816
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(1.360
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-0.740
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.387
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(2.050
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
4.106
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-2.432
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-0.782
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.887
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
mint
7.586
+
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-1.326
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(0.790
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-2.967
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(2.230
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.362
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(2.897
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-4.961
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(2.601
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-4.329
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
1.760
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
mint
IA-CR+OI-Col
7.895
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.112
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-0.488
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-0.827
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(1.258
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.050
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(0.496
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
1.456
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-1.517
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(1.539
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-2.436
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
mint
15.241
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.296
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(0.771
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-1.328
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(0.682
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.246
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-2.131
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-1.130
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.066
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-0.0788
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.737
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
mint
vi
CA-CR+OI-Col
12.350
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.078
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(0.161
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-0.894
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(0.988
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.528
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-1.139
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
0.431
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-0.537
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(1.971
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-2.322
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
mint
3.501
+
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.143
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-1.277
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.921
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
-0.465
(
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.260
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(0.446
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
1.346
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.161
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(2.606
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.407
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
mint
The tectonic settings are: IA−island arc; CA−continental arc; CR−continental rift; OI−ocean island; and Col−collision. The subscript
adj
refers to adjusted data from the
SINCLAS (Verma et al. 2002) or IgRoCS computer program (Verma and Rivera-Gómez 2013a).
vii
Table S6.
DF1-DF2 equations (approximate coefficients) for the set of five diagrams based on immobile major and trace element ratios proposed by Verma and
Verma (2013) for intermediate magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Verma and Verma
(2013); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements (mtint)
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
1.901
+
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.583
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(0.454
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(1.677
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
-0.415
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.939
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(0.631
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
1.023
(
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
mtint
18.638
-
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(-2.008
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(0.214
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(-1.712
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
-0.131
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.336
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-0.477
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
0.249
(
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
mtint
IA-CA-CR+OI
8.228
+
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.843
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(0.835
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(1.924
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
-0.372
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.686
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(0.428
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
0.875
(
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
mtint
12.452
+
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.387
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(1.921
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(-0.185
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
0.118
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(0.176
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-2.651
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-1.172
(
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
mtint
IA-CA-Col
8.109
+
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.723
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(-0.641
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(-0.368
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
0.320
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(0.908
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(0.125
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.801
(
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
mtint
20.630
-
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(-1.365
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(-1.783
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(-0.872
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
-0.134
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.124
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(2.200
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
1.317
(
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
mtint
IA-CA-CR+OI
4.469
-
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(-0.692
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(-0.757
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(-1.583
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
0.385
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(0.862
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-0.301
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.856
(
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
mtint
17.041
-
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(-1.981
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(0.426
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(-1.710
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
-0.122
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.323
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-0.504
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
0.215
(
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
mtint
CA-CR+OI-Col
5.752
+
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(-0.714
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(0.337
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(-1.620
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
0.545
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(1.438
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-1.082
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-1.256
(
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
mtint
21.028
-
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(-1.772
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(0.069
)
)
ln(V/TiO
(-1.641
)
)
ln(Ni/TiO
-0.174
(
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.861
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-0.054
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.0240
(
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
mtint
The tectonic settings are: IA−island arc; CA−continental arc; CR−continental rift; OI−ocean island; and Col−collision. The subscript
adj
refers to adjusted data from the
SINCLAS (Verma et al. 2002) or IgRoCS computer program (Verma and Rivera-Gómez 2013a).
viii
Table S7.
DF1-DF2 equations (approximate coefficients) for the set of five diagrams based on immobile trace element ratios proposed by Verma and Verma
(2013) for intermediate magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Verma and Verma
(2013); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements (tint)
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
3.816
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(0.181
)
ln(Y/Yb
(1.929
)
ln(Th/Yb
(0.270
)
ln(Nb/Yb
1.332
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(1.295
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(-1.254
ln(La/Yb)
-0.167
(
DF1
tint
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
3.306
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(-0.489
)
ln(Y/Yb
(0.851
)
ln(Th/Yb
(0.960
)
ln(Nb/Yb
-1.276
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(0.490
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(1.727
ln(La/Yb)
-0.243
(
DF2
tint
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
IA-CA-CR+OI
3.385
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(0.172
)
ln(Y/Yb
(1.581
)
ln(Th/Yb
(0.029
)
ln(Nb/Yb
1.324
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(1.741
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(-1.269
ln(La/Yb)
0.018
(
DF1
tint
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
0.292
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(1.070
)
ln(Y/Yb
(1.877
)
ln(Th/Yb
(1.244
)
ln(Nb/Yb
1.022
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(-0.412
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(-2.044
ln(La/Yb)
-2.100
(
DF2
tint
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
IA-CA-Col
5.801
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(-0.034
)
ln(Y/Yb
(1.473
)
ln(Th/Yb
(0.348
)
ln(Nb/Yb
0.124
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(0.930
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(0.752
ln(La/Yb)
0.093
(
DF1
tint
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
3.684
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(0.444
)
ln(Y/Yb
(2.774
)
ln(Th/Yb
(1.825
)
ln(Nb/Yb
-0.078
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(-1.360
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(-0.073
ln(La/Yb)
-2.038
(
DF2
tint
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
IA-CR+OI-Col
2.934
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(-0.164
)
ln(Y/Yb
(1.558
)
ln(Th/Yb
(-0.042
)
ln(Nb/Yb
1.164
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(1.379
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(-1.352
ln(La/Yb)
0.721
(
DF1
tint
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
4.155
+
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(0.377
)
ln(Y/Yb
(-0.787
)
ln(Th/Yb
(-0.761
)
ln(Nb/Yb
1.347
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(-0.250
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(-2.035
ln(La/Yb)
0.238
(
DF2
tint
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
CA-CR+OI-Col
0.877
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(-0.305
)
ln(Y/Yb
(1.658
)
ln(Th/Yb
(0.569
)
ln(Nb/Yb
1.900
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(1.366
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(-1.389
ln(La/Yb)
-0.977
(
DF1
tint
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
3.915
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb
(-0.400
)
ln(Y/Yb
(1.191
)
ln(Th/Yb
(1.126
)
ln(Nb/Yb
-0.901
(
)
ln(Sm/Yb
(0.364
)
ln(Ce/Yb
(1.164
ln(La/Yb)
-0.0870
(
DF2
tint
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
The tectonic settings are: IA−island arc; CA−continental arc; CR−continental rift; OI−ocean island; and Col−collision.
ix
Table S8.
DF1-DF2 equations (approximate coefficients) for the set of five diagrams based on major element ratios proposed by Verma et al. (2012)
for acid magmas.
Figure reference; figure
type
Discrimination diagram
Discriminant function equations
Verma
et al.
(2012);
log-ratios of major
elements (m3)
IA+CA-CR-Col
1.583
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.156
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-1.652
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.561
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(0.456
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.187
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(0.427
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
0.934
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-2.092
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(0.957
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
0.361
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CR
-
CA
(IA
m3
6.691
+
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.354
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(0.174
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.232
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-0.245
)
)
ln(M gO/SiO
(-0.028
)
)
ln(M nO/SiO
(0.740
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
0.699
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.110
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-0.955
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
0.472
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CR
-
CA
(IA
m 3
IA-CA-CR
6.257
+
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.339
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(1.717
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-0.714
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-0.852
)
)
ln(M gO/SiO
(-0.191
)
)
ln(M nO/SiO
(-0.139
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-1.066
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(2.743
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-0.087
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.479
(
F1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
CR)
-
CA
-
(IA
m 3
0.998
+
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.019
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(1.662
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(1.314
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(1.250
)
)
ln(M gO/SiO
(-0.074
)
)
ln(M nO/SiO
(0.217
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
1.121
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-3.205
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-1.758
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.320
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
CR)
-
CA
-
(IA
m 3
IA-CA-Col
3.083
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.268
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(1.507
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-0.817
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-0.139
)
)
ln(M gO/SiO
(-0.123
)
)
ln(M nO/SiO
(-0.722
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-0.498
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.520
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-0.034
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.362
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
m 3
18.190
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.495
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-2.339
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-3.189
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-1.152
)
)
ln(M gO/SiO
(0.062
)
)
ln(M nO/SiO
(-1.226
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-0.735
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(1.747
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(1.984
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.142
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
m 3
IA-CR-Col
.179
2
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
-0.075
(
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-2.058
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.622
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(0.062
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.067
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(0.197
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
949
.
2
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-2.641
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(1.288
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
0.023
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CR
-
(IA
m3
x
517
.
6
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
-0.226
(
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(0.670
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.152
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-0.326
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.090
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(0.408
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
0.303
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.827
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-1.054
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
0.279
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CR
-
(IA
m3
CA-CR-Col
8.262
+
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
-0.034
(
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(1.810
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.106
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-0.326
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.072
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(0.341
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
0.638
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.526
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-1.794
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
0.064
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CR
-
(CA
m3
3.896
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.353
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-3.309
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-0.205
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-0.062
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.001
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(0.754
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-0.880
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.247
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(0.802
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
0.876
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CR
-
(CA
m3
The tectonic settings are: IA−island arc; CA−continental arc; CR−continental rift; and Col−collision. The subscript
adj
refers to adjusted data from the SINCLAS (Verma
et al.
2002) or IgRoCS
computer program (Verma and Rivera-Gómez 2013a).
xi
Table S9.
DF1-DF2 equations (approximate coefficients) for the set of five diagrams based on major element ratios proposed by Verma et al. (2013) for acid magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Verma et al. (2013);
log-ratios of major
elements (macid)
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
2.115
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.146
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-1.781
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.742
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(0.225
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.134
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.0652
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
1.831
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-1.769
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(0.226
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
0.051
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
macid
2.543
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.854
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(0.085
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.212
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(0.023
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.026
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(0.823
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
1.030
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-1.189
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-1.648
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
1.091
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
macid
IA-CA-CR+OI
2.650
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.164
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(2.038
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-0.520
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-0.239
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.147
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.083
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-0.761
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.623
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
0.130
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
OI)
CR
-
OI
CA
-
(IA
macid
2.979
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.002
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-1.405
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-2.448
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(-0.451
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.253
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(1.160
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-5.151
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(5.102
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.045
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
macid
IA-CA-Col
3.220
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.409
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(1.154
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-1.231
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.156
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.912
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-1.238
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.619
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(2.271
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.489
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
macid
12.688
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.226
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(1.163
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(3.036
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.255
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.374
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
3.691
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-3.899
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(2.244
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
0.681
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
macid
IA-CR+OI -Col
4.290
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(-0.024
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(2.577
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.383
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(0.075
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.443
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(-0.743
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.144
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
+
CR
-
(IA
macid
2.595
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.751
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-0.320
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.150
)
)
ln(CaO/SiO
(0.023
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.753
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(1.545
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.873
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
macid
CA-CR+OI -Col
4.332
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.212
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(-2.431
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(0.650
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(0.119
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.296
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
1.889
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(-1.651
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(1.065
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-0.022
(
DF1
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
macid
xii
0.916
-
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(P
(0.726
)
)
O/SiO
ln(K
(0.651
)
)
O/SiO
ln(Na
(-0.223
)
)
ln(MgO/SiO
(-0.018
)
)
ln(MnO/SiO
(-0.779
)
)
ln(FeO/SiO
-0.798
(
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Fe
(0.992
)
)
/SiO
O
ln(Al
(1.626
)
)
/SiO
ln(TiO
-1.084
(
DF2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
3
2
adj
2
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
macid
The tectonic settings are: IA−island arc; CA−continental arc; CR−continental rift; OI−ocean island; and Col−collision. The subscript
adj
refers to adjusted data from the SINCLAS
(Verma et al. 2002) or IgRoCS computer program (Verma and Rivera-Gómez 2013a).
xiii
Table S10.
DF1-DF2 equations (approximate coefficients) for the set of five diagrams based on immobile major and trace element ratios proposed by
Verma et al. (2013) for acid magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Verma et al. (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
(mtacid)
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
4.704
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.577
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(-0.237
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(0.729
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-0.228
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.091
(
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
mtacid
3.709
-
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(-0.082
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(0.209
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.476
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-1.253
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.268
(
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
mtacid
IA-CA-CR+OI
4.701
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.301
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(-0.530
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(1.060
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-0.025
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.018
(
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
mtacid
3.702
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.742
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(1.099
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.724
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(0.118
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.197
(
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
mtacid
IA-CA-Col
3.988
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.136
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(-0.861
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(1.183
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(0.248
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
mtacid
7.274
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.682
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(1.126
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.382
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(1.129
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
mtacid
IA-CR+OI-Col
2.771
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.333
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(-0.900
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(1.104
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-0.079
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
0.095
(
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
mtacid
0.805
-
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.171
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(0.339
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.279
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-0.998
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.298
(
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
CR
-
(IA
mtacid
CA-CR+OI-Col
3.726
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(0.824
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(-0.131
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(0.444
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-0.432
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.081
(
DF1
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
CR
-
(CA
mtacid
xiv
5.425
-
)
)
ln(Zr/TiO
(-0.377
)
)
ln(Y/TiO
(0.271
)
)
ln(Nb/TiO
(-0.754
)
)
/TiO
O
ln(P
(-1.110
)
)
ln(MgO/TiO
-0.341
(
DF2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
adj
2
5
2
adj
2
Col)
-
CR
-
(CA
mtacid
The tectonic settings are: IA−island arc; CA−continental arc; CR−continental rift; OI−ocean island; and Col−collision. The subscript
adj
refers to adjusted data
from the SINCLAS (Verma et al. 2002) or IgRoCS computer program (Verma and Rivera-Gómez 2013a).
xv
Table S11.
DF1-DF2 equations (approximate coefficients) for the set of five diagrams based on immobile trace element ratios proposed by Verma et al.
(2013) for acid magmas.
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Discriminant function equations
Verma et al. (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements (tacid)
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
9.497
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(-0.567
)
ln(Y/Yb)
(0.644
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(0.063
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(0.822
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(-4.329
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
7.810
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
-4.994
(
DF1
tacid
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
10.251
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(-1.269
)
ln(Y/Yb)
(-1.139
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(0.843
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(0.250
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(2.621
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
-3.620
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
2.325
(
DF2
tacid
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
CA
(IA
IA-CA-CR+OI
9.614
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(-0.488
)
ln(Y/Yb)
(1.558
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(0.334
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(1.692
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(-3.632
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
6.616
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
-5.209
(
DF1
tacid
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
4.934
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(-0.342
)
ln(Y/Yb)
(1.035
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(-0.499
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(0.158
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(-2.678
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
4.792
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
-3.72
(
DF2
tacid
OI)
CR
-
CA
-
(IA
IA-CA-Col
0.731
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(-0.878
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(0.594
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(0.840
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(-0.963
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
1.076
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
-0.047
(
DF1
tacid
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
5.099
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(-2.495
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(0.774
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(-0.225
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(-0.077
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
4.736
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
-4.067
(
DF2
tacid
Col)
-
CA
-
(IA
IA-CR+OI-Col
2.914
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(-0.620
)
ln(Y/Yb)
(0.089
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(0.542
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(0.898
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(-1.004
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
1.047
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
0.259
(
DF1
tacid
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
13.950
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(0.373
)
ln(Y/Yb)
(1.119
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(-0.411
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(0.483
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(-5.369
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
8.414
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
-5.356
(
DF2
tacid
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(IA
CA-CR+OI-Col
11.340
-
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(-0.263
)
ln(Y/Yb)
(0.636
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(-0.079
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(0.776
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(-4.783
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
8.436
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
-5.409
(
DF1
tacid
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
6.088
)
ln(Zr/Yb)
(-1.414
)
ln(Y/Yb)
(-0.984
)
ln(Th/Yb)
(1.037
)
ln(Nb/Yb)
(0.838
)
ln(Sm/Yb)
(0.516
)
ln(Ce/Yb)
-1.730
(
)
ln(La/Yb)
1.683
(
DF2
tacid
Col)
-
OI
CR
-
(CA
The tectonic settings are: IA−island arc; CA−continental arc; CR−continental rift; OI−ocean island; and Col−collision.
xvi
Table S12
Synthesis of the compilation of “fresh” rock samples used in the present study for testing of discrimination diagrams (18 test studies)
.
Test study
Approximate
location
Number of Samples*
(Figure no;
Table no. for results)
Age and rock type
Inferred
Tectonic
setting
Reference
Region
Sub-region
Long. (°) Lat. (°)
B + U
I
A
Age (Ma)
Author rock type
m1/m2, t1, t2
m, mt, t
m, mt, t
Expected tectonic setting: Ocean Island
1. Hawaiian Islands
(Pacific Ocean)
1a. Mauna Kea
-155.5
19.8
303+3, 0, 303+3
(Figs. 1, S2, S3;
Table 1)
---
---
0.1-0.4
submarine
basaltic lava
OIB
Rhodes and Vollinger
(2004), Rhodes (2012)
1b. Mauna Loa
-155.6
19.5
43+2, 0, 43+2
(Figs. S4-S6;
Table S14)
---
---
0.1-0.4
submarine
basaltic lava
OIB
Rhodes and Vollinger (2004)
1c. Maui
-156.6
20.9
10, 0, 10
(Figs. S7- S9;
Table S15)
---
---
1.9–2.1
basaltic lava
OIB
Sherrod et al. (2007)
1d. Oahu
-157.9
21.5
9, 4, 9
(Figs. S10- S12;
Table S16)
15, 15, 3
(Figs. S13-
S14; Table
S17)
---
2.9–3.9
basaltic lava and
dike rocks
OIB; OI
Jackson et al. (1999)
2. Trindade Island
(southern Atlantic
Ocean)
2. Trindade
-29.3
-20.5
2+12, 2+11, 0
(Figs. S15- S17;
Table S18)
24, 0, 13
(Figs. S18-
S19; Table
S19)
---
<0.27–3.6
different types of
alkalic rocks
OIB; CR+OI
Marques et al.(1999)
Expected tectonic setting: Ocean Island or Continental rift
3. Antarctica (Ross
Sea)
3. White Island
168.0
-78.0
22, 22, 22
(Figs. S20- S23;
Table S20)
---
---
0.17-7.65
Alkali rocks
CRB; OIB
Cooper et al. (2007)
4. Antarctica
4. McMurdo Sound
166.9
-77.8
24, 20, 20
(Figs. S24- S27;
Table S21)
---
---
15.9-18.4
drill core glasses
OIB
Nyland et al. (2013)
Expected tectonic setting: Continental rift
5. Spain
5. Garrotxa, NE
Volcanic province
2.5
42
8+8, 8+7, 8+7
(Figs. S28- S31;
Table S22)
---
---
0.7-0.0115
alkaline rocks
CRB
Cebriá et al. (2000)
6. Austria
6. Styrian basin
14.4
47.5
9+30, 9+30, 9+30
(Figs. S32- S35;
Table S18)
---
---
Quaternary
Styrian basin
lavas
CRB
Ali et al. (2013)
7. Cameroon
7. Mount Cameroon
9.2
4.2
14, 0, 14
(Figs. S36- S38;
Table S18)
---
---
Eruptions of
years 1999 and
2000
Lava flow
CRB
Suh et al. (2003)
xvii
8. Madagascar
8. Nosy Be Archipelago
48.3
-13.3
27, 0, 27
(Figs. S39- S41;
Table S25)
---
---
7-10
Mafic alkaline
rocks
CRB
Melluso and Morra (2000)
9. Inner Mongolia,
China
9. Tianheyong
114.0
41.0
8, 8, 0
(Figs. S42- S44;
Table S26)
---
---
21.7±1.7
basanites
CRB; OIB
Yang et al. (2009)
10. China (north-
east)
10. Halaha volcanic
field, Central Great
Xing‘an Range
120.5
47.5
14, 14, 14
(Figs. S45- S48;
Table S27)
---
---
0.17-2.04
basalt
CRB
Ho et al. (2013)
Expected tectonic setting: Continental arc
11. Aleutian arc,
Alaska
11. Aniakchak
ignimbrite
-158.1
56.9
---
---
9, 9, 9
(Figs.
S49- S52;
Table
S28)
0.0034
rhyodacitic to
andesitic
ignimbrite
CA
Dreher et al. (2005)
12. Guatemala
12a. Fuego volcanic
complex
-90.9
14.5
---
9, 0, 0
(Table S29)
---
Recent
eruptions
lava
CA
Chesner and Rose Jr.
(1984)
12b. Meseta Volcano
-90.7
14.6
---
40, 0, 0
(Table S30)
---
Quaternary
lava
CA
Chesner and Halsor (1997)
12c. Santiaguito
volcanic dome complex
-91.6
14.8
---
18, 5, 18
(Table S31)
17, 17, 17
(Table
S32)
0.000112
lava
CA; IA or
CA-Col
Scott et al.(2013)
13. Chile
13. Huequi volcano
dome complex
-72.6
-42.5
---
9, 9, 0
(Table S33)
---
0.000123
lava
CA
Watt et al. (2011)
14. Greece
14. Nisyros Island,
Dodecanese
27
36.6
---
16, 0, 0
(Table S34)
11, 0, 0
(Table
S35)
Quaternary
volcanic rocks
CA
Di Paola (1974)
Expected tectonic setting: Island arc
15. Aleutian arc
15. Augustine Island
-153.4
59.36
---
21, 0, 0
(Table S36)
---
6.0
volcanic rocks
IA
Johnson et al. (1996)
16. Andaman-
Nicobar Islands
16a. Barren Island
93.85
12.29
25, 11, 24
(Table S37)
21, 21, 9
(Table S38)
---
Quaternary
volcanic rocks
Arc
Chandrasekharam et al.
(2009); Streck et al. (2011)
16b. Narcondam Island
94.28
13.43
---
10, 8, 8
(Table S39)
8, 0, 0
(Table
S40)
Quaternary
volcanic rocks
IA
Pal et al. (2007); Streck et
al. (2011)
Expected tectonic setting: Mid-ocean ridge
17. Indian Ocean
17. Indian Ridge
(central)
66
-14
33, 32, 33
(Table S41)
[14, 14, 14]
(---)
---
Quaternary
basaltic rocks
MORB
Yi et al. (2014)
xviii
Expected tectonic setting: Collision
18. Armenia
18. Shirak area
43.9
40.9
---
13, 9, 13
(Table S42)
---
2.5-4.6
volcanic rocks
Col
Neill et al. (2013)
B−basic rock; U−ultrabasic rocks : m1−first set of major element based diagrams (Agrawal et al. 2004); m2−second set of major element based diagrams (Verma et al. 2006); t1−first set of trace element based
diagrams (Agrawal et al. 2008); t2−second set of trace element based diagrams (Verma and Agrawal 2011); I−set of intermediate rocks based diagrams (Verma and Verma 2013); A-set of acid rocks based diagrams
(Verma et al. 2012; Verma et al. 2013); m− major elements mt−(immobile) major and trace elements; t−(immobile) trace elements, for each set respectively; --- no sample; note less than five (an arbitrarily set lower
number) samples are not considered for evaluation. Inferred tectonic setting: Arc−island or continental arc; CRB−continental rift for basic rocks; OIB−ocean island for basic rocks; MORB−mid-ocean ridge for basic
rocks, IA−Island Arc, CA−Continental Arc, CR−continental rift; OI−ocean island; CR+OI−within-plate; Col−Collision.
xix
Table S13
Synthesis of the compilation of hydrothermally altered rock samples used in the present study for testing of discrimination diagrams (8 application studies)
.
Test study
Approximate
location
Number of Samples*
(Table no. for results)
Age and rock type
Inferred
Tectonic
setting
Reference
Region
Sub-region
Long. (°) Lat. (°)
B + U
I
A
Age (Ma)
Author rock type
m1/ m2, t1, t2
m, mt, t
m, mt, t
Expected tectonic setting: Ocean Island
A1. Marquesas
Islands
A1. Eaio Island
-140.67
-7.98
24+1, 0, 24+1
(Table S43)
---
---
4.95-5.52
hydrothermally
altered rocks
OIB
Caroff et al. (1999)
A2. Hawaiian
Islands
A2. Haleakala, Koolau,
and Kohala volcanoes
-156
20
4+5, 0, 0
(Table S44)
---
---
0.35-4
spheroidal
weathering
CRB
Patino et al. (2003)
Expected tectonic setting: Ocean Island or continental rift
A3. Hainan Island,
China
A3. Hainan Island
109.5
19.8
13, 4, 4
(Table S45)
10, 3, 3
(Table S46)
---
13-Holocene
slightly to
intensely altered
CRB; WP
Wang et al. (2012)
Expected tectonic setting: Continental arc
A4. Guatemala
A4. Moyuta and
Tecuamburro volcanoes
-90.43
14.16
---
7, 0, 0
(Table S47)
---
probably
Pliocene-
Pleistocene
spheroidal
weathering
CA
Patino et al. (2003)
Expected tectonic setting: Island or continental arc
A5. Costa Rica
A5. Sarapiqui Miocene
arc
-84.23
10.77
10, 3, 10
(Table S48)
14, 14, 3
(Table S49
4, 4, 1
11.4-22.2
altered rocks
Arc; IA
Gazel et al. (2005)
A6. New Zealand
A6. Taupo Volcanic
Zone
176.18
-38.65
---
28, 5, 0
(Table S50)
---
> 0.33
drill hole
hydrothermally
altered rocks
IA
Browne et al. (1992)
Expected tectonic setting: Mid-ocean ridge
A7. Indian and
Pacific Oceans
A7a.SE Indian and SW
Pacific seafloor
110 to
160
-40 to
-60
9, 7, 9
(Table S51)
---
---
0-4 and 15-23
altered and fresh
rocks
MORB
Pyle et al. (1995)
A7b. central Indian
Ridge
66
-8 to
-17
26+2, 17, 20
(Table S52)
[4, 3, 3]
---
Quaternary
altered and fresh
rocks
MORB
Yi et al. (2014)
Expected tectonic setting: collision
A8. Italy
A8. Stromboli volcano,
Aeolian Island
14.92
38.49
---
7, 3, 7
(Table S53)
10, 10, 10
(Table S54)
Quaternary
buchite ejecta
Col
Del Moro et al. (2011)
For more explanation, see footnote of Table S12.
xx
Table S14.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (0.1-0.4Ma) basic and ultrabasic rocks of Mauna Loa, Hawaii (Rhodes and Vollinger,
2004; Test study 1b).
Figure reference; figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated
samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al. (2004); adjusted major
element concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
2 (4.5)
38 (84.4)
5 (11.1)
IAB-CRB-OIB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (2.2)
44 (97.8)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
23 (51.1)
---
22 (48.9)
IAB-OIB-MORB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
45 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
45 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
44 (97.8)
1 (2.2)
Test study 1b. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2004)
225 (100)
0 (0)
---
26 (11.6)
171 (76.0) 28 (12.4)
Verma et al. (2006); log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
37 (82.2)
8 (17.8)
IAB-CRB-OIB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
45 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (2.2)
---
44 (97.8)
IAB-OIB-MORB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
45 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
45 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
45 (100)
0 (0)
Test study 1b. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma et al. (2006)
225 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (0.4)
172 (76.4) 52 (23.1)
Verma and Agrawal (2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
45 (100)
0 (0)
45 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
45 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
45 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
45 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
45 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
45 (100)
0 (0)
Test study 1b. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma and Agrawal
(2011)
225 (100)
0 (0)
45 (---)
56 (24.9)
169 (75.1)
0(0)
IAB−island (or continental) arc basic rock; CRB−continental rift basic rock; OIB−ocean island basic rock; MORB−mid-ocean ridge basic
rock; CRB+OIB−combined continental rift and ocean island, i.e., within-plate (WP) basic rocks; IA, CR,, OI, and MOR will be the
corresponding tectonic settings; --- means no samples; the numbers within the parentheses refer to the percent values for the corresponding
number of samples; note, for the calculations of percent synthesis values, the samples plotting in the combined CR+OI field (CRB+OIB
column) are proportionately distributed between the CR and OI settings.
xxi
Table S15.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (1.9–2.1Ma) basic and ultrabasic rocks of the Maui Island, Hawaii (Sherrod
et al. 2007; Test study 1c).
Figure
reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples
(%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004);
adjusted major
element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
10 (100)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
10 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
9 (90)
---
1 (10)
IAB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
10 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
10 (100)
0 (0)
Test study 1c. Synthesis of all five
diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2004)
50 (100)
0 (0)
---
9 (18)
40 (80)
1 (2)
Verma et al.
(2006); log-
ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
9 (90)
1 (10)
IAB-CRB-OIB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
10 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
3 (30)
---
7 (70)
IAB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
10 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
10 (100)
0 (0)
Test study 1c. Synthesis of all five
diagrams of Verma et al. (2006)
50 (100)
0 (0)
---
3 (6)
39 (78)
8 (16)
Verma and
Agrawal
(2011); log-
ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
10 (100)
0 (0)
9 (90)
---
---
1 (10)
IAB-CRB-OIB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
3 (30)
7 (70)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
9 (90)
---
1 (10)
IAB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
9 (90)
1 (10)
CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
9 (90)
1 (10)
Test study 1c. Synthesis of all five
diagrams of Verma and Agrawal (2011
)
50 (100)
0 (0)
9 (---)
15 (30)
31 (62)
4(8)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxii
Table S16.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (2.9–3.9 Ma) basic and ultrabasic rocks of the Oahu Island, Hawaii (Jackson
et al. 1999; Test study 1d).
Figure reference; figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no.
of
samples
(%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of
discriminated samples (%)
IAB CRB+OI
B
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al. (2004); adjusted major
element concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
8 (88.9)
1 (11.1)
IAB-CRB-OIB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
9 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (11.1)
---
8 (88.9)
IAB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
9 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
9 (100)
0 (0)
Test study 1d. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2004)
45 (100) 0 (0)
---
1 (2)
35 (78)
9 (20)
Verma et al. (2006); log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
6 (66.7)
3 (33.3)
IAB-CRB-OIB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
9 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
---
9 (100)
IAB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
8 (88.9)
1 (11.1)
CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
7 (77.8)
2 (22.2)
Test study 1d. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma et al. (2006)
45 (100) 0 (0)
---
0 (0)
30 (67)
15 (33)
Verma and Agrawal (2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
9 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
9 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
9 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
9 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
9 (100)
0 (0)
Test study 1d. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma and Agrawal
(2011)
45 (100) 0 (0)
9 (---)
11 (24)
34 (76)
0(0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxiii
Table S17.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (2.9–3.9 Ma) intermediate rocks of the Oahu Island, Hawaii (Jackson et al.
1999; Test study 1d).
Magma type,
Figure name;
Figure number
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate CR+OI
[
s
x
] [p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
] [p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
] [p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements;
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
15
0 (0)
---
---
15 [0.777±0.087]
(0.6282-0.9942)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
15
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
15 [0.763±0.092]
(0.6015-0.9929)
---
IA-CA-Col
15
---
15
[0.7525±0.0444]
(0.6727-0.8286)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
15
---
0 (0)
---
15 [0.796±0.085]
(0.6617-0.9961)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
15
---
---
0 (0)
15 [0.780±0.084]
(0.6548-0.9940)
0 (0)
Test study 1d.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
75
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{15} {11.2869}
[19%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{60} {46.7383}
[81%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
15
0 (0)
---
---
15
[0.99334±0.00382]
(0.9852-0.9985)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
15
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
15 [0.9925±0.0050]
(0.9811-0.9993)
---
IA-CA-Col
15
---
0 (0)
14
[0.568±0.055]
(0.5048-
0.6604)
---
1 (0.6189)
IA-CR+OI-Col
15
---
0 (0)
---
15
[0.99229±0.00366]
(0.9848-0.9976)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
15
---
---
0 (0)
15 [0.9764±0.0167]
(0.9365-0.9973)
0 (0)
Test study 1d.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
selected immobile
major and trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
75
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{14}
{7.9546}
[12%]
{60} {59.3177}
[87%]
{1} {0.6189}
[1%]
IA−island arc; CA−continental arc; IA+CA–combined island and continental arcs, i.e., arc setting; CR−continental rift; OI−ocean
island; CR+OI –combined continental rift and ocean island, i.e., within-plate (WP) setting; Col−collision;
Θ the probability values for
samples from a given locality are represented by (p
IA+CA
)
– probability for the combined island and continental arc setting in the first
diagram;
[p
IA
]
– probability for the island arc setting in the diagrams;
[p
CA
]
– probability for the continental arc setting in the
diagrams;
[p
CR+OI
]
– probability for the combined continental rift and ocean island setting in all diagrams;
[p
Col
]
– probability for the
collision setting in the diagrams;
s
x
− mean ± 1SD (standard deviation) of the probability estimates for all samples
discriminated in a given tectonic setting; these are reported in []; the final row gives a synthesis of results as {Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob], where {Σn} is the total number of samples or data points plotting in all five diagrams is reported in the column of total
number of samples, whereas the sum of samples plotting in a given tectonic field is reported in the respective tectonic field column;
{Σprob} is the sum of probability values for all samples plotting in a given tectonic field is reported in the respective tectonic field
column; and [%prob] is the total probability of a given tectonic setting expressed in percent after assigning the probability of IA +
CA to IA and CA (using weighing factors explained in Verma and Verma 2013).
xxiv
Table S18.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (<0.27-3.6 Ma) basic and ultrabasic rocks of Trindade Island, southern
Atlantic Ocean (Marques et al. 1999; Test study 2).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples
(%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (7.1)
12 (85.8)
1 (7.1)
IAB-CRB-OIB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
2 (14.3)
12 (85.7)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
14 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
13 (92.9)
1 (7.1)
CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
---
---
2 (14.3)
12 (85.7)
0 (0)
Test study 2. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
70 (100)
0 (0)
---
19 (27)
49 (70)
2 (3)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (7.1)
12 (85.8)
1 (7.1)
IAB-CRB-OIB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
2 (14.3)
12 (85.7)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
13 (92.9)
---
1 (7.1)
IAB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
13 (92.9)
1 (7.1)
CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
---
---
1 (7.1)
12 (85.8)
1 (7.1)
Test study 2. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
70 (100)
0 (0)
---
17 (24)
49 (70)
4 (6)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
13 (100)
0 (0)
13 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
6 (46.2)
7 (53.8)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
13 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
13 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
13 (100)
---
---
1 (7.7)
12 (92.3)
0 (0)
Test study 2. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
65 (100)
0 (0)
13 (---)
25 (38)
40 (62)
0 (0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxv
Table S19.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (<0.27-3.6 Ma) intermediate rocks of the Trindade Island (Marques et al. 1999; Test
study 2).
Magma type, Figure
name
Figure
type
Total
number of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate CR+OI [
s
x
] [p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision Col
[
s
x
] [p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
] [p
CA
]
Θ
Intermediate; Verma
and Verma (2013); log-
ratios of all major
elements
IA+CA-
CR+OI-
Col
24
1 (0.4915)
---
---
23 [0.863±0.177]
(0.4372-0.9981)
0 (0)
IA-CA-
CR+OI
24
---
1 (0.4582)
2 [0.4920±0.0240]
(0.4750, 0.5089)
21 [0.887±0.151]
(0.4579-0.9941)
---
IA-CA-
Col
24
---
1 (0.4845)
15 [0.718±0.095]
(0.5470-0.8654)
---
8 [0.605±0.152]
(0.4006-0.7849)
IA-
CR+OI-
Col
24
---
1 (0.5906)
---
19 [0.920±0.063]
(0.7475-0.9980)
4 [0.4938±0.0346]
(0.4482-0.5291)
CA-
CR+OI-
Col
24
---
---
1 (0.4758)
19 [0.807±0.121]
(0.5207-0.9909)
4 [0.484±0.046]
(0.4387-0.5428)
Test study 2. Diagrams
based on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn}
{Σprob}
[%prob]
120
{1}
{0.4915}
[---]
{3}
{1.5333}
[1.7%]
{18} {12.2347}
[13.4%]
{82} {71.2933}
[75.6%]
{16} {8.7540}
[9.3%]
Intermediate; Verma and
Verma (2013); log-ratios
of immobile trace
elements
IA+CA-
CR+OI-
Col
13
0 (0)
---
---
13 [0.9811±0.0109]
(0.9560-0.9946)
0 (0)
IA-CA-
CR+OI
13
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
13 [0.99727±0.00412]
(0.9857-0.9997)
---
IA-CA-
Col
13
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
13 [0.9776±0.0238]
(0.9199-0.9966)
IA-
CR+OI-
Col
13
---
0 (0)
---
13 [0.9678±0.0147]
(0.9365-0.9875)
0 (0)
CA-
CR+OI-
Col
13
---
---
0 (0)
13 [0.9266±0.0329]
(0.8669-0.9706)
0 (0)
Test study 2. Diagrams
based on log-ratios of
immobile trace elements
{Σn}
{Σprob}
[%prob]
65
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{52} {50.3470}
[80%]
{13} {12.7086}
[20%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xxvi
Table S20.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Neogene-Quaternary (0.17-7.65Ma; Pliocene-Pleistocene) basic rocks from White
Island, Ross Sea, Antarctica (Cooper et al. 2007; Test study 3).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
4 (18.2)
18 (81.8)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
14 (63.6)
8 (36.4)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
22 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
22 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
---
---
9 (40.9)
13 (59.1)
0 (0)
Test study 3. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
110 (100)
0 (0)
---
49 (44.5)
61 (55.5)
0 (0)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
8 (36.4)
14 (63.6)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
12 (54.5)
10 (45.5)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
22 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
22 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
---
---
11 (50)
11 (50)
0 (0)
Test study 3. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
110 (100)
0 (0)
---
53 (48.2)
57 (51.8)
0 (0)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
22 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
21 (95.5)
1 (4.5)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
22 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
22 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
---
---
14 (63.6)
8 (36.4)
0 (0)
Test study 3. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
110 (100)
0 (0)
22 (---)
71 (64.5)
39 (35.5)
0 (0)
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
22 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
3 (13.6)
19 (86.4)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
22 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
22 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
22 (100)
---
---
3 (13.6)
19 (86.4)
0 (0)
Test study 3. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma and Agrawal (2011
)
110 (100)
0 (0)
22 (---)
35 (31.8)
75 (68.2)
0(0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxvii
Table S21.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Miocene (
15.91-18.41 Ma
) drill core basic volcanic glass samples of the
McMurdo Sound
area, Antarctica (Nyland et al. 2013; Test study 4).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
24 (100)
0 (0)
---
6 (25)
18 (75)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
24 (100)
0 (0)
---
6 (25)
18 (75)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
24 (100)
0 (0)
---
24 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
24 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
24 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
24 (100)
---
---
8 (33.3)
16 (66.7)
0 (0)
Test study 4. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
120 (100)
0 (0)
---
44 (36.7)
76 (63.3)
0 (0)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
24 (100)
0 (0)
---
6 (25)
18 (75)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
24 (100)
0 (0)
---
6 (25)
18 (75)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
24 (100)
0 (0)
---
24 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
24 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
24 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
24 (100)
---
---
7 (29.2)
17 (70.8)
0 (0)
Test study 4. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
120 (100)
0 (0)
---
43 (35.8)
77 (64.2)
0 (0)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
20 (100)
0 (0)
20 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
20 (100)
0 (0)
---
14 (70)
6 (30)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
20 (100)
0 (0)
---
20 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
20 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
20 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
20 (100)
---
---
10 (50)
10 (50)
0 (0)
Test study 4. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
100 (100)
0 (0)
20 (---)
55 (55)
45 (45)
0 (0)
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
20 (100)
0 (0)
20 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
20 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (5)
19 (95)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
20 (100)
0 (0)
---
20 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
20 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
20 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
20 (100)
---
---
1 (5)
19 (95)
0 (0)
Test study 4. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma and Agrawal (2011)
100 (100)
0 (0)
20 (---)
28 (28.0)
72 (72.0)
0(0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxviii
Table S22.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (0.70-0.0115 Ma) basic rocks of Garrotxa, NE Volcanic province, Spain
(Cebriá et al. 2000; Test study 5).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
16 (100)
0 (0)
---
14 (88)
2 (12)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
16 (100)
0 (0)
---
16 (100)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
16 (100)
0 (0)
---
16 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
16 (100)
1 (6)
---
---
10 (63)
5 (31)
CRB-OIB-MORB
16 (100)
---
---
16 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 5. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
80 (100)
1 (1)
---
62 (78)
12 (15)
5 (6)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
16 (100)
0 (0)
---
16 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
16 (100)
0 (0)
---
16 (100)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
16 (100)
0 (0)
---
16 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
16 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
15 (93.8)
1 (6.2)
CRB-OIB-MORB
16 (100)
---
---
16 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 5. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
80 (100)
0 (0)
---
64 (80)
15 (19)
1 (1)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
15 (100)
0 (0)
15 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
15 (100)
0 (0)
---
14 (93.3)
1 (6.7)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
15 (100)
0 (0)
---
15 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
15 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
15 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
15 (100)
---
---
7 (46.7)
8 (53.3)
0 (0)
Test study 5. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
75 (100)
0 (0)
15 (---)
45 (60)
30 (40)
0 (0)
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
15 (100)
0 (0)
15 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
15 (100)
0 (0)
---
8 (53.3)
7 (46.7)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
15 (100)
0 (0)
---
15 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
15 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
15 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
15 (100)
---
---
14 (93.3)
1 (6.7)
0 (0)
Test study 5. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma and Agrawal (2011)
75 (100)
0 (0)
15 (---)
46 (61)
29 (397)
0(0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxix
Table S23.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (1.9-2.4 Ma) basic rocks from the
Styrian basin,
Austria (
Ali et al. 2013
; Test
study 6).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
18 (46.2)
---
21 (53.8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
39 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
1 (2.6)
38 (97.4)
CRB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
---
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 6. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
195 (100)
18 (9.2)
---
138 (70.8)
1 (0.5)
38 (19.5)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
39 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
15 (38.5)
24 (61.5)
CRB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
---
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 6. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
195 (100)
0 (0)
---
156 (80)
15 (7.7)
24 (12.3)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
39 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
39 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
---
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 6. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
195 (100)
0 (0)
39 (---)
146 (74.9)
49 (25.1)
0 (0)
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
39 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
39 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
19 (48.7)
20 (51.3)
CRB-OIB-MORB
39 (100)
---
---
39 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 6. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma and Agrawal (2011)
195 (100)
0 (0)
39 (---)
151 (77.4)
24 (12.3)
20(10.3)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxx
Table S24.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Recent (years 1999 and 2000 eruptions) basic rocks of the Mount Cameroon, Cameroon (Suh et
al. 2003; Test study 7).
Figure reference; figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no.
of
samples
(%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated
samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al. (2004); adjusted major
element concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
7 (50)
7 (50)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
12 (86)
2 (14)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
14 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
---
14 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100) ---
---
8 (57)
6 (43)
0 (0)
Test study 7. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2004)
70 (100) 0 (0)
---
41 (59)
29 (41)
0 (0)
Verma et al. (2006); log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
5 (36)
9 (64)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
8 (57)
6 (43)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
14 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
---
14 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100) ---
---
12 (86)
2 (14)
0 (0)
Test study 7. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma et al. (2006)
70 (100) 0 (0)
---
39 (56)
31 (44)
0 (0)
Verma and Agrawal (2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
14 (100) 0 (0)
14 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
14 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
14 (100) 0 (0)
---
---
14 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100) ---
---
14 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 7. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma and Agrawal
(2011)
70 (100) 0 (0)
14 (---)
52 (74)
18 (26)
0 (0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxxi
Table S25.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Miocene (7-10 Ma) basic rocks of the Nosy Be Archipelago, Madagascar (Melluso and Morra, 2000;
Test study 8).
Figure reference; figure type
Discrimination
diagram
Total no.
of samples
(%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated
samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al. (2004); adjusted major
element concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
3 (11)
23 (85)
1 (4)
IAB-CRB-OIB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
26 (96)
1 (4)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
27 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
16 (59)
11 (41)
CRB-OIB-MORB
27 (100)
---
---
20 (74)
7 (26)
0 (0)
Test study 8. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2004)
135 (100)
0 (0)
---
76 (56.3) 47 (34.8)
12 (8.9)
Verma et al. (2006); log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
11 (41)
15 (56)
1 (4)
IAB-CRB-OIB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
22 (82)
5 (18)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
26 (96)
---
1 (4)
IAB-OIB-MORB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
17 (63)
10 (37)
CRB-OIB-MORB
27 (100)
---
---
25 (92)
1 (4)
1 (4)
Test study 8. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma et al. (2006)
135 (100)
0 (0)
---
84 (62.2) 38 (28.1)
13 (9.6)
Verma and Agrawal (2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-
MORB
27 (100)
0 (0)
27 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
26 (96)
1 (4)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
27 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
27 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
27 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
27 (100)
---
---
26 (96)
1 (4)
0 (0)
Test study 8. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma and
Agrawal (2011)
135 (100)
0 (0)
27 (---)
99 (73.3) 36 (26.7)
0(0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxxii
Table S26.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Miocene (21.7 Ma) basic rocks of the Tianheyong region, Mongolia China (Yang et al.
2009; Test study 9).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples
(%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
7 (88)
1 (12)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
7 (88)
1 (12)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
8 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
6 (75)
2 (25)
CRB-OIB-MORB
8 (100)
---
---
7 (88)
1 (12)
0 (0)
Test study 9 Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
40 (100)
0 (0)
---
29 (73)
9 (22)
2 (5)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
7 (87.5)
1 (12.5)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
7 (87.5)
1 (12.5)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
8 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
8 (100)
2 (25)
---
---
6 (75)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
8 (100)
---
---
7 (87.5)
1 (12.5)
0 (0)
Test study 9. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
40 (100)
2 (5)
---
29 (73)
9 (22)
0 (0)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
8 (100)
0 (0)
8 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
8 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
8 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
8 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
8 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
8 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
8 (100)
0 (0)
Test study 9. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
40 (100)
0 (0)
8 (---)
10 (25)
30 (75)
0 (0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxxiii
Table S27.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (0.17-2.04 Ma) basic rocks of the Halaha volcanic field,
Central Great Xing
‘an Range, NE
China (
Ho et al. 2013
; Test study 10).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
11 (79)
3 (21)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
12 (86)
2 (14)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
12 (86)
---
2 (14)
IAB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
8 (57)
6 (43)
CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
---
---
12 (86)
2 (14)
0 (0)
Test study 10. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
70 (100)
0 (0)
---
47 (67)
15 (22)
8 (11)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
11 (79)
3 (21)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
12 (86)
2 (14)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
14 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
3 (21)
11 (79)
CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
---
---
13 (93)
1 (7)
0 (0)
Test study 10. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
70 (100)
0 (0)
---
50 (71)
9 (13)
11 (16)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
14 (100)
5 (36)
9 (64)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
14 (100)
5 (36)
---
6 (43)
3 (21)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
14 (100)
5 (36)
---
9 (64)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
5 (36)
---
---
9 (64)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
---
---
10 (71)
4 (29)
0 (0)
Test study 10. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
70 (100)
20 (28)
9 (---)
30 (44)
20 (28)
0 (0)
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
9 (64)
---
---
5 (36)
IAB-CRB-OIB
14 (100)
5 (36)
---
9 (64)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
9 (64)
---
5 (36)
IAB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
9 (64)
5 (36)
CRB-OIB-MORB
14 (100)
---
---
9 (64)
0 (0)
5 (36)
Test study 10. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma and Agrawal (2011)
70 (100)
5 (7)
9 (---)
34 (49)
11 (16)
20(28)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xxxiv
Table S28.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Holocene (0.0034 Ma) acid rocks of the Aniakchak area, Aleutian arc, Alaska
(Dreher et al. 2005; Test study 11).
Magma
type,
Figure
name
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
] [p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Acid;
Verma et al.
(2012); log-
ratios of all
major
elements
IA+CA–CR–
Col
9
9 [0.820±0.071]
(0.6983-0.9389)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA–CA–CR
9
---
0 (0)
9 [0.707±0.078]
(0.6024-0.8055)
0 (0)
---
IA–CA–Col
9
---
0 (0)
9
[0.8195±0.0384]
(0.7657-0.8627)
---
0 (0)
IA–CR–Col
9
---
1 (0.8659)
---
8 [0.486±0.091]
(0.3894-0.6456)
0 (0)
CA–CR–Col
9
---
---
9
[0.8965±0.0422]
(0.8143-0.9415)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 11.
Diagrams
based on log-
ratios of
major
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
45
{9} {7.3795}
[---]
{1} {0.8659}
[4%]
{27} {21.8069}
[85%]
{8} {3.8874}
[11%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
Acid;
Verma et al.
(2013); log-
ratios of all
major
elements
IA+CA-
CR+OI-Col
9
4 [0.663±0.116]
(0.5457-0.8222)
---
---
5
[0.5279±0.0443]
(0.4685-0.5723)
0 (0)
IA-CA-
CR+OI
9
---
0 (0)
6 [0.559±0.137]
(0.4338-0.8235)
3
[0.4849±0.0263]
(0.4594-0.5119)
---
IA-CA-Col
9
---
0 (0)
9 [0.727±0.061]
(0.6606-0.8411)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-
Col
9
---
0 (0)
---
9 [0.688±0.086]
(0.5396-0.7986)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-
Col
9
---
---
5 [0.646±0.134]
(0.4946-0.8445)
4
[0.5220±0.0361]
(0.4772-0.5573)
0 (0)
Test study 11.
Diagrams
based on log-
ratios of
major
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
45
{4} {2.6500}
[---]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{20} {13.1225}
[56%]
{21} {12.3711}
[44%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
Acid;
Verma et al.
(2013); log-
ratios of
immobile
major and
trace
elements
IA+CA-
CR+OI-Col
9
7 [0.521±0.081]
(0.3854-0.6072)
---
---
2
[0.4290±0.0095]
(0.4223, 0.4357)
0 (0)
IA-CA-
CR+OI
9
---
0 (0)
6 [0.600±0.060]
(0.5051-0.6492)
3
[0.4812±0.0336]
(0.4424-0.5019)
---
IA-CA-Col
9
---
0 (0)
7
[0.5618±0.0443]
(0.4666-0.5951)
---
2
[0.44745±0.00361]
(0.4449, 0.4500)
IA-CR+OI-
Col
9
---
0 (0)
---
6 [0.497±0.066]
(0.3766-0.5547)
3 [0.3694±0.0222]
(0.3553-0.3950)
CA-CR+OI-
Col
9
---
---
9 [0.592±0.113]
(0.4338-0.7193)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 2a.
Diagrams
based on log-
ratios of
immobile
major and
trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
45
{7} {3.6470}
[---]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{22} {12.8589}
[70%]
{11} {5.2815}
[22%]
{5} {2.0031}
[8%]
Acid;
Verma et al.
(2013); log-
ratios of
immobile
trace
elements
IA+CA-
CR+OI-Col
9
9
[0.8546±0.0157]
(0.8199-0.8689)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-
CR+OI
9
---
0 (0)
9
[0.7986±0.0247]
(0.7740-0.8427)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
9
---
0 (0)
9
[0.7761±0.0208]
---
0 (0)
xxxv
(0.7487-0.8141)
IA-CR+OI-
Col
9
---
9
[0.764±0.071]
(0.5921-
0.8310)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-
Col
9
---
---
9
[0.9612±0.0087]
(0.9412-0.9699)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 11.
Diagrams
based on log-
ratios of
immobile
trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
45
{9} {7.6911}
[---]
{9} {6.8736}
[23%]
{27} {22.8229}
[77%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xxxvi
Table S29.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from recent intermediate rocks of the Fuego volcanic complex, Guatemala (Chesner and Rose
Jr., 1984; Test study 12a).
Magma type,
Figure name;
Figure number
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI
[
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision Col [
s
x
] [p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA
[
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements;
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
9
8 [0.790±0.213]
(0.4815-0.9661)
---
---
0 (0)
1 (0.9977)
IA-CA-CR+OI
9
---
0 (0)
9 [0.759±0.127]
(0.5884-0.9997)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
9
---
0 (0)
8 [0.687±0.123]
(0.5353-0.8289)
---
1 (0.9739)
IA-CR+OI-Col
9
---
5
[0.891±0.075]
(0.7653-
0.9493)
---
0 (0)
4 [0.706±0.201]
(0.5665-1.0000)
CA-CR+OI-Col
9
---
---
6 [0.873±0.111]
(0.6702-0.9621)
0 (0)
3 [0.587±0.164]
(0.4865-0.7758)
Test study 12a.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
45
{8} {6.3219}
[---]
{5} {4.4546}
[16%]
{23} {17.5595}
[65%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{9} {6.5585}
[19%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xxxvii
Table S30.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary intermediate rocks of the Meseta volcano, Guatemala (Chesner and Halsor,
1997; Test study 12b).
Magma type,
Figure name;
Figure number
Figure type
Total
number
of
sample
s
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and Verma
(2013); log-ratios
of all major
elements;
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
40
40 [0.9617±0.0285]
(0.8814-0.9815)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
40
---
0 (0)
40 [0.746±0.053]
(0.6385-0.8271)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
40
---
0 (0)
40 [0.769±0.046]
(0.6789-0.8360)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
40
---
40
[0.9577±0.028
7] (0.8800-
0.9809)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
40
---
---
40
[0.9484±0.0426]
(0.8093-0.9789)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 12b.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of major
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
200
{40} {38.4681}
[---]
{40} {38.3098}
[28.0%]
{120} {98.5657}
[72.0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xxxviii
Table S31.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Holocene (0.000112) intermediate rocks of the Santiaguito complex, Guatemala
(Scott et al. 2013; Test study 12c).
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
ntermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
18
18
[0.808±0.067]
(0.7547-0.9500)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
18
---
0 (0)
18
[0.7359±0.0255]
(0.7112-0.8137)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
18
---
0 (0)
18 [0.687±0.048]
(0.6501-0.8012)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
18
---
18
[0.7203±0.0995]
(0.6322-0.9160)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
18
---
---
18 [0.669±0.139]
(0.5705-0.9348)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 12c.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
90
{18} {14.5494}
[---]
{18} {12.9660}
[26%]
{54} {37.6497}
[74%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
5
5 [0.811±0.151]
(0.5541-0.9444)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
5
---
1 (0.5617)
4 [0.594±0.068]
(0.5056-0.6694)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
5
---
1 (0.5530)
3
[0.5540±0.0275]
(0.5290-0.5834)
---
1 (0.3917)
IA-CR+OI-Col
5
---
5 [0.774±0.134]
(0.5579-0.9210)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
5
---
---
5 [0.938±0.094]
(0.7699-0.9894)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 12c.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
25
{5} {4.0545}
[---]
{7} {4.9838}
[36%]
{12} {8.7249}
[62%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{1} {0.3917}
[2%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
18
18
[0.696±0.093]
(0.5167-0.8366)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
18
---
16
[0.448±0.071]
(0.3488-0.6806)
2
[0.4897±0.0062]
(0.4853, 0.4941)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
18
---
1 (0.6796)
17
[0.5055±0.0434]
(0.4633-0.6348)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
18
---
18
[0.707±0.081]
(0.5452-0.8419)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
18
---
---
18 [0.866±0.050]
(0.7749-0.9509)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 12c.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
90
{18} {12.5319}
[---]
{35} {20.5673}
[45%]
{37} {25.1544}
[55%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xxxix
Table S32.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Holocene (0.000112) acid rocks of the Santiaguito complex, Guatemala (Scott et al. 2013; Test study
12c).
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-
plate
CR+OI
[
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
]
Θ
Collision Col
[
s
x
]
[p
Col
]
Θ
IA+CA
[
s
x
]
(
p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA
[
s
x
]
[p
IA
]
Θ
CA
[
s
x
]
[p
CA
]
Θ
Acid;
Verma et al.
(2012);
All major
elements
IA+CA-
CR+OI-Col
17
17
[0.98126±0.00418]
(0.9694-0.9859)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-
CR+OI
17
---
15 [0.598±0.049] (0.5207-
0.6870)
2 [0.590±0.088]
(0.5280, 0.6528)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
17
---
16 [0.5990±0.0392]
(0.5188-0.6715)
1 (0.5823)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-
Col
17
---
17 [0.99699±0.00180]
(0.9905-0.9983)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-
CR+OI-Col
17
---
---
17
[0.99280±0.00210]
(0.9863-0.9954)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 12c.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of major
elements
{Σn}
{Σprob}
[%prob]
85
{17} {16.6813}
[---]
{48} {35.4968}
[66%]
{20} {18.6406}
[34%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
Acid;
Verma et al.
(2013);
All major
elements
IA+CA-
CR+OI-Col
17
17 [0.9743±0.0087]
(0.9476-0.9834)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-
CR+OI
17
---
0 (0)
17 [0.7076±0.0204]
(0.6708-0.7499)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
17
---
0 (0)
17 [0.8405±0.0216]
(0.7991-0.8747)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-
Col
17
---
17 [0.9331±0.0274]
(0.8395-0.9611)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-
CR+OI-Col
17
---
---
17 [0.9881±0.0051]
(0.9714-0.9930)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 12c.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of major
elements
{Σn}
{Σprob}
[%prob]
85
{17} {16.5629}
[---]
{17} {15.8622}
[27%]
{51} {43.1143}
[73%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
Acid;
Verma et al.
(2013); log-ratios
of immobile major
and trace elements
IA+CA-
CR+OI-Col
17
6 [0.561±0.059]
(0.5014-0.6376)
---
---
0 (0)
11 [0.592±0.079]
(0.4825-0.7154)
IA-CA-
CR+OI
17
---
0 (0)
17 [0.6567±0.0428]
(0.5394-0.7047)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
17
---
0 (0)
10 [0.4634±0.0370]
(0.4031-0.5147)
---
7 [0.484±0.065]
(0.4161-0.6002)
IA-CR+OI-
Col
17
---
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
17 [0.690±0.077]
(0.5354-0.7923)
CA-
CR+OI-Col
17
---
---
10 [0.581±0.072]
(0.4793-0.6976)
0 (0)
7 [0.554±0.051]
(0.4896-0.6350)
Test study 12c.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
{Σn}
{Σprob}
[%prob]
85
{6} {3.3668}
[---]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{37} {21.6074}
[49%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{42} {25.5029}
[51%]
Acid;
Verma et al.
(2013); log-ratios
of immobile trace
elements
IA+CA-
CR+OI-Col
17
17 [0.9236±0.0161]
(0.8822-0.9449)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-
CR+OI
17
---
0 (0)
17 [0.7405±0.0323]
(0.6760-0.7861)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
17
---
0 (0)
17 [0.7617±0.0398]
(0.6809-0.8356)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-
Col
17
---
16 [0.765±0.079] (0.5939-
0.8973)
---
1 (0.4833)
0 (0)
CA-
CR+OI-Col
17
---
---
17 [0.9705±0.0091]
(0.9438-0.9827)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 12c.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
{Σn}
{Σprob}
[%prob]
85
{17} {15.7007}
[---]
{16} {12.2378}
[22%]
{51} {42.0368}
[77%]
{1}
{0.4833}
[1%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xl
Table S33.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Holocene (
0.000123
) intermediate rocks of the
Huequi
volcano dome complex, Chile (
Watt et al. 2011
;
Test study 13).
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision Col [
s
x
] [p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
9
9 [0.916±0.074]
(0.8015-0.9949)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
9
---
1 (0.4993)
8 [0.784±0.165]
(0.5574-0.9109)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
9
---
1 (0.5290)
8 [0.756±0.157]
(0.5492-0.8786)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
9
---
9 [0.841±0.154]
(0.5868-0.9970)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
9
---
---
9 [0.942±0.050]
(0.8244-0.9877)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 13.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
45
{9} {8.2423}
[---]
{11} {8.5945}
[29%]
{25} {20.7899}
[71%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
9
8 [0.805±0.115]
(0.6487-0.9461)
---
---
0 (0)
1 (0.4591)
IA-CA-CR+OI
9
---
0 (0)
9 [0.588±0.054]
(0.5038-0.7054)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
9
---
0 (0)
8 [0.534±0.095]
(0.4085-0.7079)
---
1 (0.4950)
IA-CR+OI-Col
9
---
9 [0.737±0.150]
(0.4447-0.9169)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
9
---
---
9 [0.859±0.150]
(0.5257-0.9832)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study13.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
45
{8} {6.4395}
[---]
{9} {6.6365}
[27%]
{26} {17.2963}
[70%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{2} {0.9540}
[3%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xli
Table S34.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary intermediate rocks of the Nisyros Island, Greece (Di Paola, 1974; Test study 14).
Magma type,
Figure name;
Figure number
Figure type
Total
number of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and Verma
(2013); log-ratios
of all major
elements;
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
16
7 [0.665±0.124]
(0.4966-0.8626)
---
---
1 (0.6186)
8 [0.691±0.128]
(0.5344-0.9240)
IA-CA-CR+OI
16
---
0 (0)
15 [0.761±0.134]
(0.4753-0.9752)
1 (0.8251)
---
IA-CA-Col
16
---
0 (0)
9 [0.598±0.092]
(0.5049-0.7717)
---
7 [0.734±0.130]
(0.5420-0.8802)
IA-CR+OI-Col
16
---
5 [0.592±0.152]
(0.3940-0.7994)
---
1 (0.6185)
10 [0.804±0.088]
(0.6912-0.9615)
CA-CR+OI-Col
16
---
---
9 [0.652±0.102]
(0.5109-0.8295)
1 (0.6005)
6 [0.569±0.084]
(0.4270-0.6388)
Test study 14.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of major
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
80
{7} {4.6517} [---]
{5} {2.9598}
[6%]
{33} {22.6620}
[49%]
{4} {2.6627}
[5%]
{31} {22.1191}
[40%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xlii
Table S35.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary acid rocks of the Nisyros Island, Greece (Di Paola, 1974; Test study 14).
Magma type, Figure
name
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate CR+OI [
s
x
] [p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
] [p
CA
]
Θ
Acid; Verma et al.
(2012); All major
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
11
10 [0.731±0.160]
(0.5079-0.9313)
---
---
0 (0)
1 (0.9648)
IA-CA-CR+OI
11
---
0 (0)
11 [0.768±0.087]
(0.6230-0.8683)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
11
---
0 (0)
10 [0.7312±0.0446]
(0.6385-0.8120)
---
1 (0.9690)
IA-CR+OI-Col
11
---
7 [0.719±0.154]
(0.4796-0.8826)
---
0 (0)
4 [0.640±0.253]
(0.4241-0.9568)
CA-CR+OI-Col
11
---
---
10 [0.712±0.162]
(0.4600-0.9350)
0 (0)
1 (0.9236)
Test study 14. Diagrams
based on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
55
{10} {7.3070}
[---]
{7} {5.0311}
[16%]
{31} {22.8785}
[71%]
{0} {0}
[0%]
{7} {5.4192}
[13%]
Acid; Verma et al.
(2013); All major
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
11
9 [0.670±0.175]
(0.3665-0.8633)
---
---
0 (0)
2 [0.552±0.262]
(0.3673, 0.7376)
IA-CA-CR+OI
11
---
0 (0)
10 [0.828±0.149]
(0.4918-0.9373)
1 (0.9423)
---
IA-CA-Col
11
---
0 (0)
10 [0.857±0.097]
(0.6108-0.9346)
---
1 (0.9793)
IA-CR+OI-Col
11
---
0 (0)
---
8 [0.5273±0.0419]
(0.4764-0.6122)
3 [0.565±0.117]
(0.4813-0.6979)
CA-CR+OI-Col
11
---
---
9 [0.688±0.177]
(0.3912-0.8875)
1 (0.3659)
1 (0.7049)
Test study 14. Diagrams
based on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
55
{9} {6.0315}
[---]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{29} {23.0522}
[75%]
{10} {5.5269}
[14%]
{7} {4.4827}
[11%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xliii
Table S36.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Pleistocene-Holocene intermediate rocks from the Augustine volcano, Alaska
(Johnson et al. 1996; Test study 15).
Magma type,
Figure name;
Figure
number
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma
(2013); log-
ratios of all
major
elements;
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
21
21
[0.905±0.054]
(0.7810-0.9814)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
21
---
14
[0.5543±0.0344]
(0.4999-0.6192)
7 [0.608±0.095]
(0.4996-0.7092)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
21
---
17 [0.585±0.059]
(0.4988-0.7272)
4
[0.6371±0.0328]
(0.6041-0.6730)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
21
---
21 [0.865±0.076]
(0.6997-0.9733)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
21
---
---
21
[0.850±0.084]
(0.6518-0.9607)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 15.
Diagrams
based on log-
ratios of major
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
105
{21} {19.0011}
[---]
{52} {35.8767}
[59.3%]
{32} {24.6512}
[40.7%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xliv
Table S37.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary basic rocks of the Barren Island, Andaman-Nicobar Islands
(Chandrasekharam et al. 2009; Streck et al. 2011; Test study 16a).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
22 (88)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (12)
IAB-CRB-OIB
25 (100)
25 (100)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
25 (100)
22 (88)
---
0 (0)
---
3 (12)
IAB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
22 (88)
---
---
0 (0)
3 (12)
CRB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
25 (100)
Test study 16a. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
125 (100)
91 (72.8)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
34 (27.2)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
25 (100)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
25 (100)
25 (100)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
25 (100)
25 (100)
---
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
25 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
25 (100)
Test study 16a. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
125 (100)
100 (80.0)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
25 (20.0)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
11 (100)
11 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
11 (100)
11 (100)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
11 (100)
11 (100)
---
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
11 (100)
11 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
11 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
11 (100)
Test study 16a. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
55 (100)
44 (80)
0 (---)
0 (0)
0 (0)
11 (20)
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
24 (100)
24 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
24 (100)
24 (100)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
24 (100)
24 (100)
---
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
24 (100)
24 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
24 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
24 (100)
Test study 16a. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma and Agrawal (2011)
120 (100)
96 (80.0)
0 (---)
0 (0)
0 (0)
24 (20.0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xlv
Table S38.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary, intermediate rocks of the Barren Island, Andaman-Nicobar Islands
(Chandrasekharam et al. 2009; Streck et al. 2011; Test study 16a).
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
] [p
IA
]
Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
21
19 [0.887±0.117]
(0.6356-0.9931)
---
---
1 (0.6605)
1 (0.9189)
IA-CA-CR+OI
21
---
9 [0.5177±0.0379]
(0.4805-0.5932)
11 [0.582±0.149]
(0.4730-0.9993)
1 (0.3955)
---
IA-CA-Col
21
---
16 [0.624±0.053]
(0.5341-0.7284)
4 [0.5503±0.0405]
(0.5185-0.6097)
---
1 (0.9569)
IA-CR+OI-Col
21
---
19 [0.874±0.136]
(0.5863-0.9952)
---
1 (0.6915)
1 (0.9974)
CA-CR+OI-
Col
21
---
---
20 [0.830±0.168]
(0.5349-0.9945)
1 (0.7049)
0 (0)
Test study 16a.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
105
{19} {16.8541}
[---]
{44} {31.2416}
[51.6%]
{35} {25.2019}
[41.6%]
{4} {2.4524}
[3.1%]
{3}
{2.8732}
[3.7%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile
major and trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
21
21
[0.9967±0.0051]
(0.9754-0.9994)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
21
---
21 [0.890±0.047]
(0.7355-0.9299)
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
21
---
21 [0.899±0.050]
(0.7278-0.9407)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
21
---
21
[0.9964±0.0060]
(0.9710-0.9993)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-
Col
21
---
---
21
[0.99959±0.00133]
(0.9938-1.0000)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 16a.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
105
{21} {20.9317}
[---]
{63} {58.5025}
[73.6%]
{21} {20.9913}
[26.4%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
9
9
[0.99417±0.00303]
(0.9900-0.9994)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
9
---
9 [0.9069±0.0156]
(0.8855-0.9375)
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
9
---
9 [0.9257±0.0084]
(0.9123-0.9404)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
9
---
9
[0.99632±0.00191]
(0.9935-0.9996)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-
Col
9
---
---
9
[0.99555±0.00229]
(0.9926-0.9996)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 16a.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
45
{9} {8.9475}
[---]
{27} {25.4600}
[74%]
{9} {8.9599} [26%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xlvi
Table S39.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary, intermediate rocks of the Narcondam Island, Andaman-Nicobar Islands (Pal et al. 2009; Streck et
al. 2011; Test study 16b).
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-
plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision Col [
s
x
] [p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
] [p
IA
]
Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and Verma
(2013); log-ratios
of all major
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
10
6 [0.720±0.138]
(0.5329-0.8831)
---
---
0 (0)
4 [0.562±0.048]
(0.5158-0.6223)
IA-CA-CR+OI
10
---
5 [0.604±0.062]
(0.5460-0.7093)
5 [0.552±0.049]
(0.5031-0.6120)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
10
---
6 [0.468±0.049]
(0.4100-0.5427)
1 (0.3967)
---
3 [0.400±0.073]
(0.3448-0.4822)
IA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
6 [0.683±0.172]
(0.4999-0.8629)
---
0 (0)
4 [0.645±0.066]
(0.5571-0.7172)
CA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
---
6 [0.709±0.164]
(0.5194-0.8923)
0 (0)
4 [0.6253±0.0443]
(0.5828-0.6696)
Test study 16b.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of major
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
50
{6} {4.3201}
[---]
{17} {9.9209}
[41%]
{12} {7.4106}
[31%]
{0} {0}
[0%]
{15} {8.5253} [28%]
Intermediate;
Verma and Verma
(2013); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
8
8 [0.924±0.079]
(0.7846-0.9952)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
8
---
8 [0.765±0.131]
(0.5716-0.9087)
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
8
---
8 [0.743±0.144]
(0.5235-0.8941)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
8
---
8 [0.916±0.092]
(0.7515-0.9947)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
8
---
---
8 [0.9737±0.0279]
(0.9302-0.9992)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 16b.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
40
{8} {7.3902}
[---]
{24} {19.3889}
[71%]
{8} {7.7897} [29%]
{0} {0}
[0%]
{0} {0}
[0%]
Intermediate;
Verma and Verma
(2013); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
8
4 [0.696±0.165]
(0.5416-0.9013)
---
---
0 (0)
4 [0.574±0.060]
(0.4999-0.6445)
IA-CA-CR+OI
8
---
7 [0.659±0.086]
(0.5372-0.8031)
1 (0.5999)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
8
---
7 [0.607±0.123]
(0.4888-0.8443)
0 (0)
---
1 (0.4605)
IA-CR+OI-Col
8
---
6 [0.621±0.149]
(0.5272-0.9209)
---
0 (0)
2 [0.565±0.049]
(0.5311, 0.5998)
CA-CR+OI-Col
8
---
---
4 [0.746±0.135]
(0.6299-0.8934)
0 (0)
4 [0.6164±0.0431]
(0.5543-0.6539)
Test study 16b.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
40
{4} {2.7834}
[---]
{20} {12.5912}
[58%]
{5} {3.5821} [17%]
{0} {0}
[0%]
{11} {6.3540} [25%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xlvii
Table S40.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary acid rocks of Narcondam Island, Andaman-Nicobar Islands (Pal et al. 2009; Streck et al.
2011; Test study 16b).
Magma type, Figure
name
Figure type
Total
number
of
sample
s
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
] [p
IA
]
Θ
CA [
s
x
] [p
CA
]
Θ
Acid; Verma et al.
(2012); All major
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
8
8 [0.9733±0.0082]
(0.9547-0.9820)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
8
---
8 [0.797±0.054]
(0.6775-0.8414)
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
8
---
8 [0.807±0.054]
(0.7031-0.8526)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
8
---
8
[0.99434±0.0039
7] (0.9848-
0.9969)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
8
---
---
8 [0.9945±0.0027]
(0.9881-0.9964)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 16b.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of major
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
40
{8} {7.7865}
[---]
{24} {20.7847}
[72%]
{8} {7.9560} [28%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
Acid; Verma et al.
(2013); All major
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
8
8 [0.9688±0.0125]
(0.9420-0.9794)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
8
---
4
[0.5586±0.0319]
(0.5271-0.6014)
4 [0.5522±0.0308]
(0.5157-0.5796)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
8
---
1 (0.5576)
7 [0.596±0.046]
(0.5480-0.6586)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
8
---
8
[0.9582±0.0273]
(0.8975-0.9768)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
8
---
---
8 [0.9858±0.0073]
(0.9695-0.9913)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test study 16b.
Diagrams based on
log-ratios of major
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
40
{8} {7.7506}
[---]
{13} {10.4580}
[42%]
{19} {14.2693}
[58%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
xlviii
Table S41.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from recent basic rocks from the Indian Ridge (Yi et al. 2014; Test study 17).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
33 (100)
2 (6)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
31 (94)
IAB-CRB-OIB
33 (100)
29 (88)
---
1 (3)
3 (9)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
33 (100)
2 (6)
---
0 (0)
---
31 (94)
IAB-OIB-MORB
33 (100)
2 (6)
---
---
0 (0)
31 (94)
CRB-OIB-MORB
33 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
33 (100)
Test study 17. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
165 (100)
35 (21.2)
---
1 (0.6)
3 (1.8)
126 (76.4)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
33 (100)
1 (3)
---
1 (3)
0 (0)
31 (94)
IAB-CRB-OIB
33 (100)
2 (6)
---
5 (15)
26 (79)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
33 (100)
1 (3)
---
1 (3)
---
31 (94)
IAB-OIB-MORB
33 (100)
1 (3)
---
---
0 (0)
32 (97)
CRB-OIB-MORB
33 (100)
---
---
2 (6)
0 (0)
31 (94)
Test study 17. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
165 (100)
5 (3.0)
---
9 (5.4)
26 (15.8)
125 (75.8)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
32 (100)
6 (19)
1 (3)
---
---
25 (78)
IAB-CRB-OIB
32 (100)
7 (22)
---
11 (34)
14 (44)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
32 (100)
7 (22)
---
2 (6)
---
23 (72)
IAB-OIB-MORB
32 (100)
6 (19)
---
---
0 (0)
26 (81)
CRB-OIB-MORB
32 (100)
---
---
2 (6)
0 (0)
30 (94)
Test study 17. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
160 (100)
26 (16.2)
1 (---)
16 (10.0)
14 (8.8)
104 (65.0)
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
33 (100)
0 (0)
2 (6)
---
---
31 (94)
IAB-CRB-OIB
33 (100)
31 (94)
---
2 (6)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
33 (100)
0 (0)
---
2 (6)
---
31 (94)
IAB-OIB-MORB
33 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
2 (6)
31 (94)
CRB-OIB-MORB
33 (100)
---
---
2 (6)
0 (0)
31 (94)
Test study 17. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma and Agrawal (2011)
165 (100)
31 (18.8)
2 (---)
8 (4.8)
2 (1.2)
124(75.2)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
xlix
Table S42.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from late Miocene-Pleistocene (2.5-4.6 Ma) intermediate rocks of Shirak, Armenia (Neill et al. 2013; Test
study 18).
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate CR+OI [
s
x
] [p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision Col
[
s
x
] [p
Col
]
Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
13
0 (0)
---
---
5 [0.591±0.188]
(0.4557-0.9061)
8 [0.763±0.180]
(0.4610-0.9284)
IA-CA-CR+OI
13
---
0 (0)
7 [0.755±0.096]
(0.5592-0.8473)
6 [0.649±0.156]
(0.4796-0.8637)
---
IA-CA-Col
13
---
0 (0)
5 [0.584±0.077]
(0.4621-0.6596)
---
8 [0.736±0.098]
(0.5234-0.8480)
IA-CR+OI-Col
13
---
0 (0)
---
5 [0.635±0.182]
(0.4899-0.9308)
8 [0.826±0.169]
(0.5453-0.9688)
CA-CR+OI-Col
13
---
---
3 [0.491±0.053]
(0.4517-0.5514)
3 [0.560±0.210]
(0.4118-0.7999)
7 [0.692±0.193]
(0.3740-0.8926)
Test study 18.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
65
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{15} {9.6749}
[22%]
{19} {11.7012}
[26%]
{31} {23.4464}
[52%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
9
0 (0)
---
---
2 [0.794±0.112]
(0.7143, 0.8728)
7 [0.807±0.167]
(0.4841-0.9685)
IA-CA-CR+OI
9
---
0 (0)
4 [0.665±0.117]
(0.5211-0.7604)
5 [0.714±0.154]
(0.5674-0.9279)
---
IA-CA-Col
9
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
9 [0.774±0.142]
(0.6140-0.9513)
IA-CR+OI-Col
9
---
0 (0)
---
3 [0.694±0.199]
(0.4774-0.8693)
6 [0.856±0.104]
(0.6676-0.9684)
CA-CR+OI-Col
9
---
---
0 (0)
2 [0.797±0.128]
(0.7065, 0.8873)
7 [0.821±0.158]
(0.5205-0.9807)
Test study 18.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
45
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{4} {2.6600}
[8%]
{12} {8.8313}
[25%]
{29} {23.5052}
[67%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
13
2 [0.4754±0.0419]
(0.4458, 0.5050)
---
---
5 [0.573±0.077]
(0.4476-0.6392)
6 [0.659±0.158]
(0.3935-0.8547)
IA-CA-CR+OI
13
---
0 (0)
6 [0.564±0.114]
(0.4729-0.7587)
7 [0.634±0.134]
(0.4218-0.8101)
---
IA-CA-Col
13
---
0 (0)
6 [0.647±0.143]
(0.4507-0.7845)
---
7 [0.800±0.177]
(0.5330-0.9522)
IA-CR+OI-Col
13
---
0 (0)
---
7 [0.616±0.068]
(0.5380-0.7369)
6 [0.669±0.136]
(0.4518-0.8473)
CA-CR+OI-Col
13
---
---
5 [0.586±0.125]
(0.3928-0.7132)
2 [0.466±0.071]
(0.4158, 0.5158)
6 [0.677±0.167]
(0.3677-0.8346)
Test study 18.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
65
{2} {0.9509}
[---]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{17} {10.1969}
[27%]
{21} {12.5533}
[30%]
{25} {17.6317}
[43%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
l
Table S43.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from late Miocene (4.95-5.52 Ma) drill hole basic and ultrabasic rocks of the Eiao Island,
French Polynesia (Caroff et al. 1999; Test study A1).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (4)
24 (96)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (4)
24 (96)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
24 (96)
---
1 (4)
IAB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
25 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
---
---
1 (4)
24 (96)
0 (0)
Test study A1. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
125 (100)
0 (0)
---
27 (21.6)
97 (77.6)
1 (0.8)
Verma et al.
(2006); log-ratios
of major elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
2 (8)
23 (92)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
25 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
24 (96)
---
1 (4)
IAB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
25 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
25 (100)
0 (0)
Test study A1. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
125 (100)
0 (0)
---
26 (20.8)
98 (78.4)
1 (0.8)
Verma and
Agrawal (2011);
log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
25 (100)
0 (0)
25 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
25 (100)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
25 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
25 (100)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
25 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
25 (100)
0 (0)
Test study A1. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma and Agrawal (2011)
125 (100)
0 (0)
25 (---)
31 (24.8)
94 (75.2)
0(0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
li
Table S44.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Pliocene-Pleistocene (0.35-4 Ma) altered basic and ultrabasic rocks of Koolau, Haleakala, and Kohala volcanoes,
Hawaiian Islands (Patino et al. 2003; Test study A2).
Figure reference; figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples
(%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al. (2004); adjusted major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
9 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
9 (100)
1 (11)
---
7 (78)
1 (11)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
9 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
1 (11)
---
---
8 (89)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
---
---
7 (77.8)
2 (22)
0 (0)
Test study A2. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2004)
45 (100)
2 (4)
---
32 (71)
11 (25)
0 (0)
Verma et al. (2006); log-ratios of major elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
9 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
5 (55.6)
4 (44.4)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
9 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
1 (11)
---
---
8 (88.9)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
---
---
5 (55.6)
4 (44.4)
0 (0)
Test study A2. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma et al. (2006)
45 (100)
1 (2)
---
28 (62)
16 (36)
0 (0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
lii
Table S45.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from late Miocene to Holocene slightly to intensely altered basic rocks of the Hainan
Island, China (Wang et al. 2012; Test study A3).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
11 (84.6)
1 (7.7)
1 (7.7)
IAB-CRB-OIB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
10 (76.9)
---
3 (23.1)
IAB-OIB-MORB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
10 (76.9)
3 (23.1)
CRB-OIB-MORB
13 (100)
---
---
11 (84.6)
1 (7.7)
1 (7.7)
Test study A3. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
65 (100)
0 (0)
---
45 (69.2)
12 (18.5)
8 (12.3)
Verma et al.
(2006); log-ratios
of major elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
11 (84.6)
2 (15.4)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
12 (92.3)
1 (7.7)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
13 (100)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
13 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
9 (69.2)
4 (30.8)
CRB-OIB-MORB
13 (100)
---
---
12 (92.3)
1 (7.7)
0 (0)
Test study A3. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
65 (100)
0 (0)
---
48 (73.8)
13 (20)
4 (6.2)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
liii
Table S46.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from late Miocene to Holocene slightly to intensely altered intermediate rocks of the Hainan Island, China
(Wang et al. 2012; Test study A3).
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision Col [
s
x
] [p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
] [p
IA
]
Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
10
0 (0)
---
---
10 [0.760±0.114]
(0.6118-0.9400)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
10
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
10 [0.649±0.132]
(0.4636-0.8260)
---
IA-CA-Col
10
---
4 [0.702±0.135]
(0.5975-0.8870)
6 [0.584±0.077]
(0.5009-0.7102)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
0 (0)
---
10 [0.843±0.083]
(0.7229-0.9457)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
---
0 (0)
10 [0.729±0.158]
(0.5172-0.9227)
0 (0)
Test study A3.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
50
{0} {0}
[0%]
{4} {2.8068} [8%]
{6} {3.5068} [9%]
{40} {29.8050}
[83%]
{0} {0}
[0%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
liv
Table S47.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from intermediate altered rocks of Moyuta and Tecuamburro volcanoes, Guatemala (Patino et al. 2003; Test study A4)
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision Col [
s
x
] [p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
] [p
IA
]
Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
7
4 [0.773±0.166]
(0.5740-0.9469)
---
---
0 (0)
3 [0.6097±0.0334]
(0.5726-0.6373)
IA-CA-CR+OI
7
---
1 (0.5005)
6 [0.645±0.129]
(0.4962-0.7923)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
7
---
2 [0.508±0.050]
(0.4719, 0.5431)
5
[0.5223±0.0428]
(0.4780-0.5900)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
7
---
4 [0.736±0.220]
(0.5173-0.9342)
---
0 (0)
3 [0.807±0.073]
(0.7236-0.8532)
CA-CR+OI-Col
7
---
---
5 [0.707±0.161]
(0.5430-0.8958)
0 (0)
2
[0.51602±0.00324]
(0.5137, 0.5183)
Test study A4.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
35
{4} {3.0921}
[---]
{7} {4.4586} [24%]
{16} {10.0142}
[53%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{8} {5.2829} [23%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
lv
Table S48.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from basic rocks from the Sarapiqui Miocene (11.4-22.2 Ma) arc, Costa Rica (Gazel et al. 2005; Test study A5).
Figure reference; figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples
(%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al. (2004); adjusted major
element concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
6 (60)
---
1 (10)
0 (0)
3 (30)
IAB-CRB-OIB
10 (100)
6 (60)
---
1 (10)
3 (30)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
10 (100)
7 (70)
---
1 (10)
---
2 (20)
IAB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
6 (60)
---
---
1 (10)
3 (30)
CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
---
---
1 (10)
0 (0)
9 (90)
Test study A5. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Agrawal et al. (2004)
50 (100)
25 (50)
---
4 (8)
4 (8)
17 (34)
Verma et al. (2006); log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
6 (60)
---
4 (40)
0 (0)
0 (0)
IAB-CRB-OIB
10 (100)
7 (70)
---
1 (10)
2 (20)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
10 (100)
7 (70)
---
3 (30)
---
0 (0)
IAB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
6 (60)
---
---
4 (40)
0 (0)
CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
---
---
7 (70)
3 (30)
0 (0)
Test study A5. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma et al. (2006)
50 (100)
26 (52)
---
15 (30)
9 (18)
0 (0)
Verma and Agrawal (2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
10 (100)
6 (60)
1 (10)
---
---
3 (30)
IAB-CRB-OIB
10 (100)
6 (60)
---
3 (30)
1 (10)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
10 (100)
6 (60)
---
2 (20)
---
2 (20)
IAB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
6 (60)
---
---
1 (10)
3 (30)
CRB-OIB-MORB
10 (100)
---
---
1 (10)
1 (10)
8 (80)
Test study A5. Synthesis of all five diagrams of Verma and Agrawal
(2011)
50 (100)
24 (48)
1 (---)
7 (14)
3 (6)
16(32)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
lvi
Table S49.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Miocene (11.4-22.2 Ma) basic rocks from the Sarapiqui paleoarc, Costa Rica (Gazel et al. 2005; Test
study A5).
Magma type,
Figure name;
Figure number
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements;
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
14
12
[0.889±0.080]
(0.6909-0.9840)
---
---
0 (0)
2
[0.5734±0.0115]
(0.5653, 0.5816)
IA-CA-CR+OI
14
---
12
[0.745±0.132]
(0.4222-
0.9030)
2
[0.565±0.074]
(0.5126,
0.6176)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
14
---
11
[0.773±0.118]
(0.5209-
0.9481)
2
[0.613±0.068]
(0.5652,
0.6613)
---
1 (0.3978)
IA-CR+OI-Col
14
---
13
[0.903±0.126]
(0.5191-
0.9932)
---
0 (0)
1 (0.5340)
CA-CR+OI-Col
14
---
---
12
[0.775±0.142]
(0.4974-
0.9492)
0 (0)
2 [0.580±0.076]
(0.5267, 0.6339)
Test study A5.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
70
{12} {10.6683}
[---]
{36} {29.1787}
[67%]
{16} {11.6534}
[27%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{6} {3.2393}
[6%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
14
12
[0.874±0.182]
(0.5066-0.9943)
---
---
0 (0)
2 [0.724±0.064]
(0.6785, 0.7687)
IA-CA-CR+OI
14
---
11
[0.670±0.057]
(0.5495-
0.7442)
3
[0.489±0.054]
(0.4263-
0.5208)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
14
---
9
[0.641±0.060]
(0.5366-
0.7109)
2
[0.529±0.049]
(0.4947,
0.5636)
---
3 [0.624±0.169]
(0.4331-0.7548)
IA-CR+OI-Col
14
---
12
[0.889±0.145]
(0.5928-
0.9917)
---
0 (0)
2 [0.669±0.065]
(0.6225, 0.7150)
CA-CR+OI-Col
14
---
---
11
[0.922±0.145]
(0.5481-
0.9993)
1 (0.6499)
2 [0.592±0.160]
(0.4793, 0.7050)
Test study A5.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
selected
immobile major
and trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
70
{12} {10.4894}
[---]
{32} {23.7991}
[57%]
{16} {12.6613}
[31%]
{1} {0.6499}
[1%]
{9} {5.8397}
[11%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
lvii
Table S50.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary (> 0.33 Ma) intermediate rocks of geothermal fields of the Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand (Browne et al.
1992; Test study A6).
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate CR+OI
[
s
x
] [p
CR+OI
]
Θ
Collision Col
[
s
x
] [p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
] [p
CA
]
Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
28
22 [0.708±0.171]
(0.5043-0.9941)
---
---
0 (0)
6 [0.693±0.171]
(0.5458-0.9988)
IA-CA-CR+OI
28
---
18 [0.717±0.180]
(0.5042-0.9814)
10 [0.655±0.177]
(0.4044-0.8706)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
28
---
10 [0.716±0.251]
(0.3534-0.9779)
9 [0.578±0.158]
(0.3477-0.7784)
---
9 [0.591±0.180]
(0.4102-0.9984)
IA-CR+OI-Col
28
---
19 [0.765±0.178]
(0.5048-0.9942)
---
0 (0)
9 [0.685±0.158]
(0.5308-0.9926)
CA-CR+OI-Col
28
---
---
22 [0.759±0.136]
(0.5419-0.9985)
0 (0)
6 [0.671±0.215]
(0.3729-0.9776)
Test study A6.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
140
{22} {15.5813}
[---]
{47} {34.6054}
[43.9%]
{41} {28.4448}
[36.1%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{30} {19.6639}
[20.0%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
5
5 [0.936±0.061]
(0.8286-0.9766)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
IA-CA-CR+OI
5
---
4 [0.753±0.099]
(0.6176-0.8295)
1 (0.6733)
0 (0)
---
IA-CA-Col
5
---
4 [0.747±0.095]
(0.6134-0.8247)
1 (0.6179)
---
0 (0)
IA-CR+OI-Col
5
---
5 [0.919±0.073]
(0.7884-0.9607)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
CA-CR+OI-Col
5
---
---
5 [0.9744±0.0379]
(0.9072-0.9988)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Test studyA6.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
immobile major
and trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
25
{5} {4.6808}
[---]
{13} {10.5968}
[63%]
{7} {6.1633}
[37%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
lviii
Table S51.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Neogene-Quaternary (0-4 and 15-23 Ma) basic rocks from SW Indian and SW Pacific seafloor, Indian
and Pacific Oceans (Pyle et al. 1995; Test study A7a).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
9 (100)
IAB-CRB-OIB
9 (100)
2 (22)
---
3 (33)
4 (45)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
---
9 (100)
IAB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
0 (0)
9 (100)
CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
9 (100)
Test study A7a. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
45 (100)
2 (4.4)
---
3 (6.7)
4 (8.9)
36 (80)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
9 (100)
IAB-CRB-OIB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
2 (22)
7 (78)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
---
9 (100)
IAB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
0 (0)
9 (100)
CRB-OIB-MORB
9 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
9 (100)
Test study A7a. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
45 (100)
0 (0)
---
2 (4.4)
7 (15.6)
36 (80)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
7 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
---
7 (100)
IAB-CRB-OIB
7 (100)
0 (0)
---
2 (29)
5 (71)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
7 (100)
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
---
7 (100)
IAB-OIB-MORB
7 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
0 (0)
7 (100)
CRB-OIB-MORB
7 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (100)
Test study A7a. Synthesis of all five diagrams
of Agrawal et al. (2008)
35 (100)
0 (0)
0 (---)
2 (5.7)
5 (14.3)
28 (80)
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
7 (100)
0 (0)
1 (14)
---
---
6 (86)
IAB-CRB-OIB
7 (100)
5 (71)
---
2 (29)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
7 (100)
0 (0)
---
1 (14)
---
6 (86)
IAB-OIB-MORB
7 (100)
0 (0)
---
---
0 (0)
7 (100)
CRB-OIB-MORB
7 (100)
---
---
1 (14)
0 (0)
6 (86)
Test study A7a. Synthesis of all five diagrams
of Verma and Agrawal (2011)
35 (100)
5 (14)
1 (---)
5 (14)
0 (0)
25(72)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
lix
Table S52.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary basic rocks from Central Indian Ridge, Indian Ocean (Yi et al. 2014; Test study A7b).
Figure reference;
figure type
Discrimination diagram
Total no. of
samples (%)
Predicted tectonic affinity and number of discriminated samples (%)
IAB
CRB+OIB
CRB
OIB
MORB
Agrawal et al.
(2004); adjusted
major element
concentrations
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
28 (100)
2 (7)
---
2 (7)
2 (7)
22 (79)
IAB-CRB-OIB
28 (100)
17 (61)
---
6 (21)
5 (18)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
28 (100)
2 (7)
---
4 (14)
---
22 (79)
IAB-OIB-MORB
28 (100)
2 (7)
---
---
4 (14)
22 (79)
CRB-OIB-MORB
28 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
4 (14)
24 (86)
Test study A7b. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2004)
140 (100)
23 (16.4)
---
12 (8.6)
15 (10.7)
90 (64.3)
Verma et al. (2006);
log-ratios of major
elements
IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB
28 (100)
10 (36)
---
0 (0)
1 (3)
17 (61)
IAB-CRB-OIB
28 (100)
10 (36)
---
2 (7)
16 (57)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
28 (100)
9 (32)
---
0 (0)
---
19 (68)
IAB-OIB-MORB
28 (100)
10 (36)
---
---
1 (3)
17 (61)
CRB-OIB-MORB
28 (100)
---
---
3 (11)
1 (3)
24 (86)
Test study A7b. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma et al. (2006)
140 (100)
39 (27.9)
---
5 (3.6)
19 (13.6)
77 (55.0)
Agrawal et al.
(2008); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
17 (100)
3 (18)
0 (0)
---
---
14 (82)
IAB-CRB-OIB
17 (100)
3 (18)
---
5 (29)
9 (53)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
17 (100)
3 (18)
---
0 (0)
---
14 (82)
IAB-OIB-MORB
17 (100)
3 (18)
---
---
0 (0)
14 (82)
CRB-OIB-MORB
17 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
17 (100)
Test study A7b. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Agrawal et al. (2008)
85 (100)
12 (14.1)
0 (---)
5 (5.9)
9 (10.6)
59 (69.4)
Verma and Agrawal
(2011); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB
20 (100)
3 (15)
0 (0)
---
---
17 (85)
IAB-CRB-OIB
20 (100)
19 (95)
---
1 (5)
0 (0)
---
IAB-CRB-MORB
20 (100)
3 (15)
---
0 (0)
---
17 (85)
IAB-OIB-MORB
20 (100)
3 (15)
---
---
0 (0)
17 (85)
CRB-OIB-MORB
20 (100)
---
---
0 (0)
1 (5)
19 (95)
Test study A7b. Synthesis of all five diagrams of
Verma and Agrawal (2011)
100 (100)
28 (28.0)
0 (---)
1 (1.0)
1 (1.0)
70 (70.0)
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table 1 or S14.
lx
Table S53.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary intermediate rocks from the Aeolian Island, Italy (Del
Moro et al. 2011
; Test
study A8).
Magma type,
Figure name
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
]
[p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision
Col [
s
x
]
[p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
] [p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of all
major elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
7
0 (0)
---
---
0 (0)
7 [0.99996±0.00004]
(0.9999-1.0000)
IA-CA-CR+OI
7
---
0 (0)
6 [0.812±0.197]
(0.5043-0.9999)
1 (0.4546)
---
IA-CA-Col
7
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
7 [0.99868±0.00204]
(0.9948-1.0000)
IA-CR+OI-Col
7
---
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
7 [0.99993±0.00014]
(0.9996-1.0000)
CA-CR+OI-
Col
7
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 [0.9722±0.0280]
(0.9321-0.9994)
Test study A8.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
35
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{6} {4.8713}
[15%]
{1} {0.4546}
[1%]
{28} {27.7956}
[84%]
Intermediate;
Verma and
Verma (2013);
log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-
Col
7
0 (0)
---
---
0 (0)
7 [0.939±0.071]
(0.7932-0.9970)
IA-CA-CR+OI
7
---
0 (0)
4 [0.660±0.120]
(0.4889-
0.7676)
3
[0.868±0.197]
(0.6398-
0.9823)
---
IA-CA-Col
7
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
7 [0.9719±0.0256]
(0.9309-0.9926)
IA-CR+OI-Col
7
---
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
7 [0.913±0.108]
(0.6929-0.9952)
CA-CR+OI-
Col
7
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 [0.922±0.109]
(0.6869-0.9948)
Test study A8.
Diagrams based
on log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
35
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{4} {2.6402}
[9%]
{3} {2.6030}
[8%]
{28} {26.2215}
[83%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
lxi
Table S54.
Testing of multidimensional diagrams from Quaternary acid rocks from the Aeolian Island, Italy (Del Moro et al. 2011; Test study A8).
Magma type, Figure
name
Figure type
Total
number
of
samples
Number of discriminated samples
Arc
Within-plate
CR+OI [
s
x
] [p
CR+OI
] Θ
Collision Col
[
s
x
] [p
Col
] Θ
IA+CA [
s
x
]
(p
IA+CA
) Θ
IA [
s
x
]
[p
IA
] Θ
CA [
s
x
]
[p
CA
] Θ
Acid; Verma et al.
(2012); All major
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
10
4 [0.793±0.201]
(0.5185-0.9877)
---
---
1 (0.5346)
5 [0.736±0.231]
(0.5020-0.9704)
IA-CA-CR+OI
10
---
6 [0.773±0.181]
(0.5775-0.9982)
1 (0.5718)
3 [0.688±0.235]
(0.4576-0.9270)
---
IA-CA-Col
10
---
3 [0.790±0.205]
(0.5876-0.9983)
1 (0.8847)
---
6 [0.902±0.153]
(0.5963-0.9987)
IA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
2 [0.713±0.240]
(0.5437, 0.8831)
---
1 (0.7291)
7 [0.951±0.047]
(0.8596-0.9889)
CA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
---
7
[0.9703±0.0410]
(0.8924-1.0000)
1 (0.6449)
2 [0.697±0.291]
(0.4917, 0.9025)
Test study A8. Diagrams
based on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
50
{4} {3.1709}
[---]
{11} {8.4333}
[24%]
{9} {8.2488}
[24%]
{6} {3.9731}
[10%]
{20} {17.1507}
[42%]
Acid; Verma et al.
(2013); All major
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
10
4 [0.795±0.215]
(0.5030-0.9983)
---
---
1 (0.5617)
5 [0.819±0.140]
(0.6095-0.9645)
IA-CA-CR+OI
10
---
5 [0.904±0.204]
(0.5392-1.0000)
0 (0)
5 [0.802±0.096]
(0.7246-0.9310)
---
IA-CA-Col
10
---
4 [0.9991±0.0011]
(0.9980-1.0000)
1 (0.8844)
---
5 [0.99939±0.00033]
(0.9990-0.9997)
IA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
5 [0.940±0.082]
(0.8403-1.0000)
---
1 (0.6177)
4 [0.834±0.095]
(0.7233-0.9536)
CA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
---
4 [0.822±0.167]
(0.6768-0.9997)
2
[0.5634±0.0240]
(0.5465, 0.5804)
4 [0.763±0.145]
(0.6131-0.9453)
Test study A8. Diagrams
based on log-ratios of
major elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
50
{4} {3.1790}
[---]
{14} {13.2117}
[37%]
{5} {4.1727}
[12%]
{9} {6.3171}
[14%]
{18} {15.4767}
[37%]
Acid; Verma et al.
(2013); log-ratios of
immobile major and
trace elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
10
0 (0)
---
---
1 (0.4611)
9 [0.766±0.119]
(0.5796-0.9446)
IA-CA-CR+OI
10
---
0 (0)
5
[0.5284±0.0195]
(0.5037-0.5492)
5 [0.577±0.085]
(0.5132-0.7105)
---
IA-CA-Col
10
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
---
10 [0.748±0.122]
(0.5632-0.9144)
IA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
0 (0)
---
0 (0)
10 [0.781±0.119]
(0.5388-0.9439)
Test study A8. Diagrams
based on log-ratios of
immobile major and trace
elements
CA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
---
0 (0)
0 (0)
10 [0.685±0.163]
(0.3833-0.9117)
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
50
{0} {0}
[0%]
{0} {0}
[0%]
{5} {2.6418}
[8%]
{6} {3.3471}
[10%]
{39} {29.0341}
[82%]
Acid; Verma et al.
(2013); log-ratios of
immobile trace
elements
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col
10
0 (0)
---
---
4 [0.773±0.195]
(0.5366-0.9645)
6 [0.764±0.138]
(0.5160-0.9392)
IA-CA-CR+OI
10
---
0 (0)
6 [0.821±0.163]
(0.6021-0.9999)
4 [0.907±0.105]
(0.7764-0.9998)
---
IA-CA-Col
10
---
0 (0)
1 (0.6838)
---
9 [0.812±0.084]
(0.6754-0.9554)
IA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
0 (0)
---
3 [0.755±0.213]
(0.5764-0.9905)
7 [0.855±0.169]
(0.5299-1.0000)
CA-CR+OI-Col
10
---
---
0 (0)
2 [0.834±0.157]
(0.7222, 0.9448)
8 [0.758±0.154]
(0.4944-0.9651)
Test study A8. Diagrams
based on log-ratios of
immobile trace elements
{Σn} {Σprob}
[%prob]
50
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{0} {0}
[ 0%]
{7} {5.6121}
[14%]
{13} {10.6515}
[26%]
{30} {23.9439}
[60%]
For the explanation of abbreviations, see footnote of Table S17.
lxii
Fig. S1. Schematic locations of the 18 test (numbers 1 to 18) and 8 (numbers A1 to A8) application studies.
lxiii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF
2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S2. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Mauna Kea Island (Hawaiian Islands; Test
study 1a). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table 1 for
the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
ultrabasic) magma.
lxiv
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
CR
B+O
IB-
M
OR
B)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
CR
B-O
IB)
t2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
CR
B-M
O
RB
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
OIB
-M
O
RB
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(CR
B-O
IB-
M
O
RB
)t2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S3. Application of the set of five
immobile
element-based
discriminant-
function DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams
(subscript t2 in all these diagrams; Verma and
Agrawal 2011) for basic and ultrabasic rock
samples from Mauna Kea Island (Hawaiian
Islands; Test study 1a). The total number of
samples and their % success values are given
in Table 1 for island arc (IA), continental rift
(CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge
(MOR). The letter B after the name of the
tectonic field represents basic (and ultrabasic)
magma. a. Four tectonic settings IA–CR+OI–
MOR; b. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–OI;
c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR; d.
Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR; and e.
Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxv
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
CR
B-O
IB-
M
O
RB
)m1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
CR
B-O
IB)
m1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
CR
B-M
O
RB
)m1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
OIB
-M
O
RB
)m1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(CR
B-O
IB-
M
O
RB
)m1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S4. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2
discrimination
diagrams
(see
the
subscript m1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et
al. 2004) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Mauna Loa Island (Hawaiian Islands;
Test study 1b). The total number of samples
and their % success values are given in Table
S14 for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic
(and also ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–
OI–MOR; and e. Three tectonic settings CR–
OI–MOR.
lxvi
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S5. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2
discrimination
diagrams
(see
the
subscript m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et
al. 2006) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Mauna Loa Island (Hawaiian Islands;
Test study 1b). The total number of samples
and their % success values are given in Table
S14 for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic
(and also ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–
OI–MOR; and e. Three tectonic settings CR–
OI–MOR.
lxvii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S6. Application of the set of five
immobile
element-based
discriminant-
function DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams
(subscript t2 in all these diagrams; Verma and
Agrawal 2011) for basic and ultrabasic rock
samples from Mauna Loa Island (Hawaiian
Islands; Test study 1b). The total number of
samples and their % success values are given
in Table S14 for the tectonic settings of island
arc (IA), continental rift (CR), ocean island
(OI), and mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter
B after the name of the tectonic field
represents basic (and also ultrabasic) magma.
a. Four tectonic settings IA–CR+OI–MOR; b.
Three tectonic settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three
tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR; d. Three
tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR; and e. Three
tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxviii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S7. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2
discrimination
diagrams
(see
the
subscript m1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et
al. 2004) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Maui Island (Hawaiian Islands; Test
study 1c). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S15
for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic
(and also ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–
OI–MOR; and e. Three tectonic settings CR–
OI–MOR.
lxix
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S8. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Maui Island (Hawaiian Islands; Test study 1c).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S15 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxx
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF2
(I
AB-OIB-
M
ORB
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S9. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the
subscript t2 in all these diagrams; Verma and
Agrawal 2011) for basic and ultrabasic rock
samples from Maui Island (Hawaiian Islands;
Test study 1c). The total number of samples
and their % success values are given in Table
S15 for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
also ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic
settings IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–
OI–MOR; and e. Three tectonic settings CR–
OI–MOR.
lxxi
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S10. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Oahu Island (Hawaiian Islands; Test study 1d).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S16 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S11. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Oahu Island (Hawaiian Islands; Test study 1d).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S16 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxiii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S12. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript
t2 in all these diagrams; Verma and Agrawal
2011) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Oahu Island (Hawaiian Islands; Test
study 1d). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S16
for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxiv
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1(IA+CA-CR+OI-Col)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
+
C
A
-C
R
+
OI
-C
ol
)
m
in
t
Col
CR+OI
IA+CA
a
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1(IA-CA-CR+OI)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
-C
A
-C
R
+
O
I)
m
in
t
CR+OI
IA
CA
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1(IA-CA-Col)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
-C
A
-C
ol
)
m
in
t
Col
IA
CA
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CR+OI-Col)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
int
Col
CR+OI
IA
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1(CA-CR+OI-Col)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
A
-C
R
+
O
I-
C
ol
)
m
in
t
Col
CR+OI
CA
e
Fig. S13. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
mint in all these diagrams; Verma and Verma
2013) for intermediate rock samples from
Oahu Island (Hawaiian Islands; Test study 1d).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S17 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
arc (CA), continental rift (CR), ocean island
(OI) and collision (Col). a. Five tectonic
settings IA+CA-CR+OI-Col; b. Four tectonic
settings IA-CA-CR+OI; c. Four tectonic
settings IA-CA-Col; d. Four tectonic settings
IA-CR+OI-Col; and e. Four tectonic settings
CA-CR+OI-Col.
lxxv
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA+CA-CR+OI-Col)
mtint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A+
CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
ti
nt
Col
CR+OI
IA+CA
a
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-CR+OI)
mtint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
CR+
O
I)
m
ti
nt
CR+OI
IA
CA
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-Col)
mtint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
Co
l)
m
ti
nt
Col
IA
CA
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CR+OI-Col)
mtint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
ti
nt
Col
CR+OI
IA
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CA-CR+OI-Col)
mtint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
ti
nt
Col
CR+OI
CA
e
Fig. S14. Application of the set of five
immobile major and trace element-based
discriminant-function DF1–DF2 discrimination
diagrams (see the subscript mtint in all these
diagrams; Verma and Verma 2013) for
intermediate rock samples from Oahu Island
(Hawaiian Islands; Test study 1d). The total
number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S17 for the tectonic settings
of island arc (IA), continental arc (CA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
collision (Col). a. Five tectonic settings IA+CA-
CR+OI-Col; b. Four tectonic settings IA-CA-
CR+OI; c. Four tectonic settings IA-CA-Col; d.
Four tectonic settings IA-CR+OI-Col; and e.
Four tectonic settings CA-CR+OI-Col.
lxxvi
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S15. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript m1 in
all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004) for
basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Trindade Island (Southern Atlantic Ocean;
Test study 2). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S18
for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxvii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S16. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Trindade Island (Test study 2). The total
number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S18 for the tectonic settings
of island arc (IA), continental rift (CR), ocean
island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The
letter B after the name of the tectonic field
represents basic (and also ultrabasic) magma.
a. Four tectonic settings IA–CR–OI–MOR; b.
Three tectonic settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three
tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR; d. Three
tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR; and e. Three
tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxviii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
CR
B+O
IB-
M
OR
B)t
1
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
CR
B-O
IB)
t1
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
CR
B-M
O
RB
)t
1
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(IA
B-
OIB
-M
O
RB
)t
1
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F
2
(CR
B-O
IB-
M
O
RB
)t1
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S17. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript
t1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2008)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Trindade Island, southern Atlantic Ocean (Test
study 2). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S18
for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxix
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA+CA-CR+OI-Col)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A+
CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
int
Col
CR+OI
IA+CA
a
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-CR+OI)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
CR+
O
I)
m
int
CR+OI
IA
CA
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-Col)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
Co
l)
m
int
Col
IA
CA
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CR+OI-Col)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
int
Col
CR+OI
IA
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CA-CR+OI-Col)
mint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
int
Col
CR+OI
CA
e
Fig. S18. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
mint in all these diagrams; Verma and Verma
2013) for intermediate rock samples from
Trindade Island, southern Atlantic Ocean (Test
study 2). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S19
for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental arc (CA), continental rift (CR),
ocean island (OI), and collision (Col). a. Five
tectonic settings IA+CA-CR+OI-Col; b. Four
tectonic settings IA-CA-CR+OI; c. Four
tectonic settings IA-CA-Col; d. Four tectonic
settings IA-CR+OI-Col; and e. Four tectonic
settings CA-CR+OI-Col.
lxxx
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA+CA-CR+OI-Col)
tint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A+
CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
ti
nt
Col
CR+OI
IA+CA
a
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-CR+OI)
tint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
CR+
O
I)
ti
nt
CR+OI
IA
CA
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-Col)
tint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
Co
l)
ti
nt
Col
IA
CA
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CR+OI-Col)
tint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
ti
nt
Col
CR+OI
IA
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CA-CR+OI-Col)
tint
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
ti
nt
Col
CR+OI
CA
e
Fig. S19. Application of the set of five
immobile trace element-based discriminant-
function DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams
(see the subscript tint in all these diagrams;
Verma and Verma 2013) for intermediate rock
samples from Trindade Island, southern
Atlantic Ocean (Test study 2). The total
number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S19 for the tectonic settings
of island arc (IA), continental arc (CA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
collision (Col). a. Five tectonic settings
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col; b. Four tectonic settings
IA-CA-CR+OI; c. Four tectonic settings IA-
CA-Col; d. Four tectonic settings IA-CR+OI-
Col; and e. Four tectonic settings CA-CR+OI-
Col.
lxxxi
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S20. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
White Island (Antarctica, Ross Sea; Test study
3). The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S20 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxxii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S21. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
White Island (Antarctica, Ross Sea; Test study
3). The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S20 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxxiii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
1
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S22. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript
t1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2008)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
White Island (Antarctica, Ross Sea; Test study
3). The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S20 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxxiv
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S23.
Application of the set of five immobile
element-based discriminant-function DF1–DF2
discrimination diagrams (see the subscript t2 in all
these diagrams; Verma and Agrawal 2011) for
basic and ultrabasic rock samples from White
Island (Antarctica, Ross Sea; Test study 3). The
total number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S20 for the tectonic settings of
island arc (IA), continental rift (CR), ocean island
(OI), and mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B
after the name of the tectonic field represents basic
(and also ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic
settings IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–
CR–MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxxv
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S24. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript m1 in
all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004) for
basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
McMurdo Sound region (Antarctica; Test
study 4). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S21
for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxxvi
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S25. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–DF2
discrimination diagrams (see the subscript m2 in
all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006) for basic
and ultrabasic rock samples McMurdo Sound
region, Antarctica (Test study 4). The total
number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S21 for the tectonic settings
of island arc (IA), continental rift (CR), ocean
island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The
letter B after the name of the tectonic field
represents basic (and also ultrabasic) magma. a.
Four tectonic settings IA–CR–OI–MOR; b.
Three tectonic settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three
tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR; d. Three
tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR; and e. Three
tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxxvii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
1
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S26. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript
t1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2008)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
McMurdo Sound region (Antarctica; Test
study 4). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S21
for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxxviii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S27. Application of the set of five immobile
element-based discriminant-function DF1–DF2
discrimination diagrams (see the subscript t2 in
all these diagrams; Verma and Agrawal 2011)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
McMurdo Sound region (Antarctica; Test study
4). The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S21 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge
(MOR). The letter B after the name of the
tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings IA–
CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings IA–
CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR;
d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR; and e.
Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
lxxxix
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S28. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–DF2
discrimination diagrams (see the subscript m1 in
all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004) for basic
and ultrabasic rock samples from Garrotxa, NE
Volcanic province (Spain; Test study 5). The total
number of samples and their % success values are
given in Table S22 for the tectonic settings of
island arc (IA), continental rift (CR), ocean island
(OI), and mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B
after the name of the tectonic field represents basic
(and also ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–
CR–MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
xc
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S29. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples Garrotxa,
NE Volcanic province (Spain; Test study 5).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S22 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
xci
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
1
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S30. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the
subscript t1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et
al. 2008) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Garrotxa, NE Volcanic province (Spain;
Test study 5). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S22
for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
also ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic
settings IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–
OI–MOR; and e. Three tectonic settings CR–
OI–MOR.
xcii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S31.
Application of the set of five immobile
element-based discriminant-function DF1–DF2
discrimination diagrams (see the subscript t2 in all
these diagrams; Verma and Agrawal 2011) for
basic and ultrabasic rock samples from Garrotxa,
NE Volcanic province (Spain; Test study 5). The
total number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S22 for the tectonic settings of
island arc (IA), continental rift (CR), ocean island
(OI), and mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B
after the name of the tectonic field represents basic
(and also ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic
settings IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic
settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–
CR–MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
xciii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S32. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Styrian basin (Austria; Test study 6). The total
number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S23 for the tectonic settings
of island arc (IA), continental rift (CR), ocean
island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The
letter B after the name of the tectonic field
represents basic (and also ultrabasic) magma.
a. Four tectonic settings IA–CR–OI–MOR; b.
Three tectonic settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three
tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR; d. Three
tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR; and e. Three
tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
xciv
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S33. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Styrian basin (Austria; Test study 6). The total
number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S23 for the tectonic settings
of island arc (IA), continental rift (CR), ocean
island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The
letter B after the name of the tectonic field
represents basic (and also ultrabasic) magma.
a. Four tectonic settings IA–CR–OI–MOR; b.
Three tectonic settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three
tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR; d. Three
tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR; and e. Three
tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
xcv
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
1
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S34. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the
subscript t1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et
al. 2008) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Styrian basin (Austria; Test study 6). The
total number of samples and their % success
values are given in Table S23 for the tectonic
settings of island arc (IA), continental rift
(CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge
(MOR). The letter B after the name of the
tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
xcvi
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S35. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript
t2 in all these diagrams; Verma and Agrawal
2011) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Styrian basin (Austria; Test study 6). The
total number of samples and their % success
values are given in Table S23 for the tectonic
settings of island arc (IA), continental rift
(CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge
(MOR). The letter B after the name of the
tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
xcvii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S36. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Mount Cameroon (Cameroon; Test study 7).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S24 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
xcviii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S37. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Mount Cameroon (Cameroon; Test study 7).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S24 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
xcix
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S38. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript
t2 in all these diagrams; Verma and Agrawal
2011) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Mount Cameroon (Cameroon; Test study
7). The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S24 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S39. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Nosy Be Archipelago (Madagascar; Test study
8).The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S25 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
ci
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S40. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Nosy Be Archipelago (Madagascar; Test study
8). The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S25 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
cii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S41. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript
t2 in all these diagrams; Verma and Agrawal
2011) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Nosy Be Archipelago (Madagascar; Test
study 8). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S25
for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
ciii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S42. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Tianheyong (Inner Mongolia; Test study 9).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S26 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
civ
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S43. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m2 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Tianheyong (Inner Mongolia; Test study 9).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S26 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
cv
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
1
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S44. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the
subscript t1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et
al. 2008) for basic and ultrabasic rock samples
from Tianheyong (Inner Mongolia; Test study
9). The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S26 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean
ridge (MOR). The letter B after the name of
the tectonic field represents basic (and also
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR
cvi
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
1
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
1
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S45. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript m1 in
all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2004) for
basic and ultrabasic rock samples from Halaha
volcanic field (Central Great Xing’an Range,
NE China; Test study 10). The total number of
samples and % success values are given in
Table S27 for island arc (IA), continental rift
(CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge
(MOR). The letter B after the name of the
tectonic field represents basic (and ultrabasic)
magma. a. Four tectonic settings IA–CR–OI–
MOR; b. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–OI; c.
Three tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR; d. Three
tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR; and e. Three
tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
cvii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
MORB
IAB
OIB
a
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)m
2
IAB
OIB
CRB
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
MORB
CRB
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(IA
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
IAB
OIB
MORB
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)m2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)m
2
CRB
OIB
MORB
e
Fig. S46.
Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–DF2
discrimination diagrams (see the subscript m2 in
all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2006) for basic
and ultrabasic rock samples from Halaha volcanic
field (Central Great Xing’an Range, NE China;
Test study 10). The total number of samples and
their % success values are given in Table S27 for
the tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and mid-ocean ridge
(MOR). The letter B after the name of the tectonic
field represents basic (and also ultrabasic) magma.
a. Four tectonic settings IA–CR–OI–MOR; b.
Three tectonic settings IA–CR–OI; c. Three
tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR; d. Three tectonic
settings IA–OI–MOR; and e. Three tectonic
settings CR–OI–MOR.
cviii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
1
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t1
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
1
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S47. Application of the set of five
immobile element-based discriminant-function
DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams (subscript
t1 in all these diagrams; Agrawal et al. 2008)
for basic and ultrabasic rock samples from
Halaha volcanic field (Central Great Xing’an
Range, NE China; Test study 10). The total
number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S27 for island arc (IA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings
IA–CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–
MOR; d. Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR;
and e. Three tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
cix
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB+OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
+
O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
a
CRB+OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-OIB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-O
IB
)t
2
OIB
IAB
b
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-CRB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-C
R
B
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
c
CRB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IAB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
IAB
d
OIB
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CRB-OIB-MORB)t2
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(C
R
B
-O
IB
-M
O
R
B
)t
2
MORB
CRB
e
OIB
Fig. S48.
Application of the set of five immobile
element-based discriminant-function DF1–DF2
discrimination diagrams (see the subscript t2 in all
these diagrams; Verma and Agrawal 2011) for
basic and ultrabasic rock samples from Halaha
volcanic field (Central Great Xing’an Range, NE
China; Test study 10). The total number of
samples and their % success values are given in
Table S27 for the tectonic settings of island arc
(IA), continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
mid-ocean ridge (MOR). The letter B after the
name of the tectonic field represents basic (and
also ultrabasic) magma. a. Four tectonic settings
IA–CR+OI–MOR; b. Three tectonic settings IA–
CR–OI; c. Three tectonic settings IA–CR–MOR; d.
Three tectonic settings IA–OI–MOR; and e. Three
tectonic settings CR–OI–MOR.
cx
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(
IA+CA–CR–Col
)
m3
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(
IA+
CA–
C
R–
Co
l
)
m3
Col
CR
IA+CA
a
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(
IA–CA–CR
)
m3
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(
IA-
CA-
CR
)
m3
CR
IA
CA
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-Col)
m3
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
Co
l)
m3
Col
IA
CA
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CR-Col)
m3
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CR-
Co
l)
m3
Col
CR
IA
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CA-CR-Col)
m3
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(CA-
CR-
Co
l)
m3
Col
CR
CA
e
Fig. S49. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
m3 in all these diagrams; Verma et al. 2012)
for acid rock samples from Aniakchak
ignimbrite, Alaska (Test study 11). The total
number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S28 for the tectonic settings
of island arc (IA), continental arc (CA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
collision (Col). a. Five tectonic settings
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col; b. Four tectonic settings
IA-CA-CR+OI; c. Four tectonic settings IA-
CA-Col; d. Four tectonic settings IA-CR+OI-
Col; and e. Four tectonic settings CA-CR+OI-
Col.
cxi
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA+CA-CR+OI-Col)
macid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A+
CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
a
c
id
Col
CR+OI
IA+CA
a
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-CR+OI)
macid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
CR+
O
I)
m
a
c
id
CR+OI
IA
CA
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-Col)
macid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
Co
l)
m
a
c
id
Col
IA
CA
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CR+OI-Col)
macid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
a
c
id
Col
CR+OI
IA
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CA-CR+OI-Col)
macid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
a
c
id
Col
CR+OI
CA
e
Fig. S50. Application of the set of five major
element-based discriminant-function DF1–
DF2 discrimination diagrams (see the subscript
macid in all these diagrams; Verma et al.
2013) for acid rock samples from Aniakchak
ignimbrite, Alaska (Test study 11). The total
number of samples and their % success values
are given in Table S28 for the tectonic settings
of island arc (IA), continental arc (CA),
continental rift (CR), ocean island (OI), and
collision (Col). a. Five tectonic settings
IA+CA-CR+OI-Col; b. Four tectonic settings
IA-CA-CR+OI; c. Four tectonic settings IA-
CA-Col; d. Four tectonic settings IA-CR+OI-
Col; and e. Four tectonic settings CA-CR+OI-
Col.
cxii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA+CA-CR+OI-Col)
mtacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A+
CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
ta
c
id
Col
CR+OI
IA+CA
a
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-CR+OI)
mtacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
CR+
O
I)
m
ta
c
id
CR+OI
IA
CA
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-Col)
mtacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
Co
l)
m
ta
c
id
Col
IA
CA
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CR+OI-Col)
mtacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
ta
c
id
Col
CR+OI
IA
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CA-CR+OI-Col)
mtacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
m
ta
c
id
Col
CR+OI
CA
e
Fig. S51. Application of the set of five
immobile major and trace element-based
discriminant-function DF1–DF2 discrimination
diagrams (see the subscript mtacid in all these
diagrams; Verma et al. 2013) for acid rock
samples from Aniakchak ignimbrite, Alaska
(Test study 11). The total number of samples
and their % success values are given in Table
S28 for the tectonic settings of island arc (IA),
continental arc (CA), continental rift (CR),
ocean island (OI), and collision (Col). a. Five
tectonic settings IA+CA-CR+OI-Col; b. Four
tectonic settings IA-CA-CR+OI; c. Four
tectonic settings IA-CA-Col; d. Four tectonic
settings IA-CR+OI-Col; and e. Four tectonic
settings CA-CR+OI-Col.
cxiii
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA+CA-CR+OI-Col)
tacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A+
CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
ta
c
id
Col
CR
IA+CA
a
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-CR+OI)
tacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
CR+
O
I)
ta
c
id
CR
IA
CA
b
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CA-Col)
tacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CA-
Co
l)
ta
c
id
Col
IA
CA
c
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(IA-CR+OI-Col)
tacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(I
A-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
ta
c
id
Col
CR+OI
IA
d
-8
-4
0
4
8
DF1
(CA-CR+OI-Col)
tacid
-8
-4
0
4
8
D
F2
(CA-
CR+
O
I-
Co
l)
ta
c
id
Col
CR+OI
CA
e
Fig. S52. Application of the set of five
immobile trace element-based discriminant-
function DF1–DF2 discrimination diagrams
(see the subscript tacid in all these diagrams;
Verma et al. 2013) for acid rock samples from
Aniakchak ignimbrite, Alaska (Test study 11).
The total number of samples and their %
success values are given in Table S28 for the
tectonic settings of island arc (IA), continental
arc (CA), continental rift (CR), ocean island
(OI), and collision (Col). a. Five tectonic
settings IA+CA-CR+OI-Col; b. Four tectonic
settings IA-CA-CR+OI; c. Four tectonic
settings IA-CA-Col; d. Four tectonic settings
IA-CR+OI-Col; and e. Four tectonic settings
CA-CR+OI-Col.