pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04840 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · physics.geo-ph

Recognition: unknown

Earth and Mars interior structures set by re-melting of the first solid mantle

Antonio Manj\'on-Cabeza C\'ordoba , Maxim D. Ballmer , Oliver Shorttle
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP physics.geo-ph
keywords magma ocean crystallizationmantle differentiationplanetary interiorsEarth Mars comparisonexoplanet interiorspartial meltingconvection modeling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Partial melting in the growing mantle buffers magma-ocean iron enrichment, producing a stable basal layer on Mars but not on Earth.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines why magma-ocean crystallisation left a dense basal silicate layer at the bottom of Mars' mantle but not Earth's. It proposes that as the solid mantle forms and begins to partially melt, those melts return to the overlying magma ocean and dilute its iron content. This feedback is stronger when convection is vigorous, which occurs on larger planets and those with lower initial iron. As a result, Mars develops a denser, more differentiated base that can remain stable, while Earth's mantle stays more uniform. The same process implies that exoplanet mantles will show a split between small, layered bodies and large, well-mixed ones.

Core claim

Melts from the mantle buffer the crystallising magma ocean, limiting progressive differentiation, iron enrichment and the density anomaly of the overturned layer. This buffering is more efficient for larger planets with more vigorous mantle convection and for planets that are originally less enriched in iron. Consequently, a shallow magma ocean is more iron enriched and denser on Mars than on Earth, providing an explanation for the Mars-Earth difference in present-day structure of the mantle. The model also predicts a dichotomy in terrestrial-exoplanet interior structures, with a population with small, stratified mantles and another with large, mostly-homogeneous mantles.

What carries the argument

Parameterized convection model that couples partial melting in the growing solid mantle to the composition of the overlying magma ocean.

If this is right

  • Stronger buffering on larger planets yields more homogeneous mantles after magma-ocean solidification.
  • Lower initial iron content enhances the buffering effect and reduces basal density anomalies.
  • Terrestrial exoplanets should exhibit two distinct interior classes: small planets with stratified mantles and larger ones with well-mixed mantles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future seismic missions could confirm the size-dependent presence or absence of basal mantle layers on other rocky bodies.
  • The re-melting process may influence the long-term distribution of incompatible elements in planetary mantles.
  • This mechanism links a planet's size and bulk composition directly to its final mantle structure.

Load-bearing premise

The parameterized convection model accurately captures the feedback between partial melting in the growing solid mantle and the composition of the overlying magma ocean without needing full 3D resolution of melt migration or crystal settling.

What would settle it

Seismic measurements showing a dense basal layer on an Earth-sized planet or the absence of such a layer on a Mars-sized planet would contradict the prediction that buffering efficiency scales with planet size and convection vigor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04840 by Antonio Manj\'on-Cabeza C\'ordoba, Maxim D. Ballmer, Oliver Shorttle.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of crystallisation-remelting scenarios for Earth (a) and Mars (b). Earth properties: Initial Fe#=10; Core T = 4400 K; g = 9.81 m s−2 ; Mantle Depth = 2890 km. Mars properties: Initial Fe# = 20; Core T = 2545 K; g = 3.73 m s−2 ; Mantle Depth = 1600 km. (c): initial differentiation stage with melts from the mantle which are richer in iron than the crystals from the MO. (d): cross-point situation a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Earth and Mars cases showing different crystallisation timescales as lines. Black lines are reference (average) cases with η = 1018, Fe# = 10 and 20, and core temperatures of 4400 K and 2400 K (respectively for Earth and Mars). For the properties we explore and associated references, see text. (a): Maximum Fe# for a given crystallisation timescale. (b): Resulting density difference of the buffered layer as… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sensitivity of the Fe# anomaly of the overturned silicate layer with respect to the rest of the mantle. (a) Sensitivity of this anomaly vs. mantle thickness. Mars and Earth sizes are represented for clarity. Note that the final anomaly is expected to be maximum when the thickness of the mantle is that of the critical Rayleigh number DRac and tends to 0 at infinite thickness. (b) Sensitivity of the Fe# anom… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity of maximum Fe# to different physical properties. Other physical parameters fixed at “Earth-Like” parameters (see view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows that this method approximates the exact solution at t0. As heat conservation is imposed, and conduction tends to smooth out the temperature curve, the self-similar approximation should readily approach the real solution over time (N. M. Ribe 2018; D. Turcotte & G. Schubert 2014) view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representation of the melting calculations in this work. (a) Melting approximation at a constant pressure. X represents the molar amount of the molecule which preferentially partitions to the liquid (e.g. FeSiO3 in a (Mg,Fe)SiO3 system). KFe,Mg directly affects distance between the solidus and liquidus and therefore both, fractionation and melting temperature. As specified in the text, actual dimensional t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sensitivity and numerical error of the calculations. Comparison of numerical errors from different starting conditions for Earth (a) and Mars (b). For comparison, panel (a) is the same as Fig. 4a. Note the vertical scales for Fe#. below). For view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mineral systems different from Bridgmanite. Same as Fig. 2b but for other mineral density models. (a): Akimotoite system L. Stixrude & C. Lithgow-Bertelloni (2024) as a proxy for Mars’ lower mantle. (b): Pyroxene system T. J. B. Holland & R. Powell (2011) as a proxy for Mars’ upper mantle. Earth’s data in panel (a) is the same as in view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Magma ocean crystallisation sets up the early structure and long-term evolution of terrestrial planets. Recent seismic evidence signals the presence of a silicate layer at the base of Mars' mantle. Magma-ocean crystallisation and subsequent overturn has been invoked as a hypothesis for this layer's origin. However, while a magma ocean existed in both Earth and Mars, there is no seismic evidence for a basal layer in present-day Earth. In this study, we apply a parameterized-convection model to study whether the effect of partial melting in the growing mantle on overlying magma ocean composition can explain this discrepancy. Melts from the mantle buffer the crystallising magma ocean, limiting progressive differentiation, iron enrichment and the density anomaly of the overturned layer. This buffering is more efficient for larger planets with more vigorous mantle convection and for planets that are originally less enriched in iron. Consequently, a shallow magma ocean is more iron enriched and denser on Mars than on Earth, providing an explanation for the Mars-Earth difference in present-day structure of the mantle. We also predict a dichotomy in terrestrial-exoplanet interior structures, with a population with small, stratified mantles and another with large, mostly-homogeneous mantles.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that partial melting in the growing solid mantle buffers the composition of the overlying magma ocean during crystallization, limiting progressive iron enrichment and the density anomaly of the overturned layer. This buffering effect is argued to be more efficient on larger planets like Earth (due to more vigorous convection) and on planets with lower initial iron enrichment, explaining the presence of a dense basal silicate layer on Mars but its absence on Earth. The model also predicts a dichotomy in terrestrial exoplanet interior structures, with small stratified mantles versus large mostly-homogeneous ones.

Significance. If the buffering mechanism holds under the parameterized model, the work provides a size- and composition-dependent explanation for the Earth-Mars mantle dichotomy arising directly from magma ocean processes, with implications for exoplanet differentiation. The parameterized approach is a strength for exploring broad outcomes, but the absence of quantitative validation, sensitivity tests, or comparisons to higher-fidelity simulations limits the immediate robustness of the claimed structural difference.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / model description] Abstract and model description: The central claim that 'melts from the mantle buffer the crystallising magma ocean, limiting progressive differentiation, iron enrichment and the density anomaly' and that 'this buffering is more efficient for larger planets' is presented without reported quantitative outputs, error analysis, or sensitivity tests on the free parameters controlling convection vigor and melting efficiency. This makes it impossible to verify whether the Earth-Mars distinction follows from the equations or depends on specific parameter choices.
  2. [Parameterized convection model] Parameterized convection model (core of the methods): The assumption that the 1D parameterization accurately captures the feedback between partial melting in the solid mantle and the composition of the overlying magma ocean (including melt extraction and mixing effects on Fe content) is load-bearing for the predicted dichotomy. No explicit equations, parameter values, or comparisons to 3D simulations of melt migration/crystal settling are referenced, raising the risk that the buffering efficiency (and thus the structural outcome) is an artifact of the averaging rather than a robust physical result.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the specific initial conditions or convection parameters adopted for the Earth and Mars cases to allow readers to assess the setup immediately.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment point by point below, with revisions planned where the presentation can be strengthened without altering the core findings of the parameterized model.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / model description] Abstract and model description: The central claim that 'melts from the mantle buffer the crystallising magma ocean, limiting progressive differentiation, iron enrichment and the density anomaly' and that 'this buffering is more efficient for larger planets' is presented without reported quantitative outputs, error analysis, or sensitivity tests on the free parameters controlling convection vigor and melting efficiency. This makes it impossible to verify whether the Earth-Mars distinction follows from the equations or depends on specific parameter choices.

    Authors: The manuscript reports quantitative model outputs for Earth and Mars parameter sets, including differences in iron enrichment of the residual magma ocean and the resulting density anomaly of the overturned layer (see results section and associated figures). We agree, however, that explicit sensitivity tests and error analysis on the convection vigor and melting efficiency parameters are not currently included. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection presenting sensitivity tests across a range of Rayleigh numbers and melt extraction efficiencies, together with a brief assessment of how these variations affect the Earth-Mars structural dichotomy. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Parameterized convection model] Parameterized convection model (core of the methods): The assumption that the 1D parameterization accurately captures the feedback between partial melting in the solid mantle and the composition of the overlying magma ocean (including melt extraction and mixing effects on Fe content) is load-bearing for the predicted dichotomy. No explicit equations, parameter values, or comparisons to 3D simulations of melt migration/crystal settling are referenced, raising the risk that the buffering efficiency (and thus the structural outcome) is an artifact of the averaging rather than a robust physical result.

    Authors: We accept that the methods section would be improved by explicit listing of the governing equations and adopted parameter values for the convection-melting feedback. These will be inserted in the revised version, following standard parameterized convection formulations that include melt buoyancy and extraction. While the study is deliberately parameterized to explore broad outcomes across planetary sizes and compositions, we will add a limitations paragraph that cites relevant 3D studies of melt migration and crystal settling and discusses the averaging assumptions. We do not view the buffering result as an artifact, but clearer documentation of the parameterization is warranted. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper deploys a parameterized convection model to forward-simulate the feedback between partial melting in the growing solid mantle and the composition of the overlying magma ocean. The central claim—that melts buffer iron enrichment more effectively on larger planets with vigorous convection, producing a denser overturned layer on Mars than Earth—emerges from integrating the model's physical equations (convection scaling, melting relations, density evolution) from stated initial conditions and literature-derived parameters. No step equates a prediction to its inputs by construction, renames a fitted quantity as an independent result, or relies on a self-citation chain for a uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The model is run as an independent test of the buffering hypothesis rather than being tuned to force the Earth-Mars dichotomy; therefore the derivation remains self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard planetary-science assumptions about magma-ocean crystallization and overturn plus several tunable parameters in the convection parameterization; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • mantle convection parameters
    Viscosity, heat flux, and melting thresholds in the parameterized model are chosen or fitted to produce the buffering contrast.
  • initial iron enrichment
    Planets are assumed to start with different bulk iron contents that affect final density anomaly.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Magma-ocean crystallization produces an iron-rich layer that can overturn to the base of the mantle
    Invoked as the starting hypothesis for the basal layer on Mars.
  • domain assumption Parameterized convection adequately represents the vigor and melt production in the growing solid mantle
    Core modeling choice that enables the buffering calculation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5523 in / 1414 out tokens · 30560 ms · 2026-05-08T16:26:32.629680+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Earth and Planetary Science Letters , year = 2011, month = apr, volume =

    Andrault, D., Bolfan-Casanova, N., Nigro, G. L., et al. 2011, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.02.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.02.006 2011

  2. [2]

    D., Hirschmann, M

    Asimow, P. D., Hirschmann, M. M., & Stolper, E. M. 1997, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:

    1997

  3. [3]

    Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 355, 255, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1997.0009

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.1997.0009 1997

  4. [4]

    2017, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 18, 2785, doi: 10.1002/2017GC006917

    Nomura, R. 2017, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 18, 2785, doi: 10.1002/2017GC006917

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gc006917 2017

  5. [5]

    D., Spaargaren, R

    Ballmer, M. D., Spaargaren, R. J., Mallik, A., et al. 2025, Science Advances, 11, 2072, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adu2072

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adu2072 2025

  6. [6]

    B., Smrekar, S

    Banerdt, W. B., Smrekar, S. E., Banfield, D., et al. 2020, Nature Geoscience, 13, 183, doi: 10.1038/s41561-020-0544-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-020-0544-y 2020

  7. [7]

    1989, Geophysical Journal International, 98, 23, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1989.tb05511.x Bolr˜ ao, D

    Blankenbach, B., Busse, F., Christensen, U., et al. 1989, Geophysical Journal International, 98, 23, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1989.tb05511.x Bolr˜ ao, D. P., Ballmer, M. D., Morison, A., et al. 2021, Solid Earth, 12, 421, doi: 10.5194/se-12-421-2021

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.1989.tb05511.x 1989

  8. [8]

    C., Costa, M

    Bouvier, L. C., Costa, M. M., Connelly, J. N., et al. 2018, Nature, 558, 586, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0222-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0222-z 2018

  9. [9]

    2023, Nature, 617, 743, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05935-7

    Rambaux, N. 2023, Nature, 617, 743, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05935-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05935-7 2023

  10. [10]

    2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 8303, doi: 10.1002/2017GL074261

    Brodholt, J., & Badro, J. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 8303, doi: 10.1002/2017GL074261

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gl074261 2017

  11. [11]

    Caracas, R., Hirose, K., Nomura, R., & Ballmer, M. D. 2019, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 516, 202, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2019.03.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2019.03.031 2019

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., & Mayor, M. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 529, L45, doi: 10.1086/312457

    work page doi:10.1086/312457 2000

  13. [13]

    I., Louren¸ co, D

    Citron, R. I., Louren¸ co, D. L., Wilson, A. J., et al. 2020,

    2020

  14. [14]

    Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 21, doi: 10.1029/2019GC008895

    work page doi:10.1029/2019gc008895

  15. [15]

    J., et al

    Crameri, F., Schmeling, H., Golabek, G. J., et al. 2012, Geophysical Journal International, 189, 38, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05388.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2012.05388.x 2012

  16. [16]

    B., Kurnosov, A., et al

    Criniti, G., Ballaran, T. B., Kurnosov, A., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 129, doi: 10.1029/2023JB026879

    work page doi:10.1029/2023jb026879 2024

  17. [17]

    D., Yin, Q

    Debaille, V., Brandon, A. D., Yin, Q. Z., & Jacobsen, B. 2007, Nature, 450, 525, doi: 10.1038/nature06317

    work page doi:10.1038/nature06317 2007

  18. [18]

    2025, Nature Geoscience, 18, 1056, doi: 10.1038/s41561-025-01797-y

    Deng, J., Miyazaki, Y., Yuan, Q., & Du, Z. 2025, Nature Geoscience, 18, 1056, doi: 10.1038/s41561-025-01797-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-025-01797-y 2025

  19. [19]

    , keywords =

    Dorn, C., Khan, A., Heng, K., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424915

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424915 2015

  20. [20]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac33af

    Dorn, C., & Lichtenberg, T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac33af 13

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac33af 2021

  21. [21]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , author =

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T., Hess, P. C., & Parmentier, E. M. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 110, 1, doi: 10.1029/2005JE002480

    work page doi:10.1029/2005je002480 2005

  22. [22]

    2010, Science (New York, N.Y.), 329, 1516, doi: 10.1126/science.1192448

    Fiquet, G., Auzende, A. L., Siebert, J., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 1516, doi: 10.1126/science.1192448

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1192448 2010

  23. [23]

    Flament, N., Gurnis, M., & M¨ uller, R. D. 2013, Lithosphere, 5, 189, doi: 10.1130/L245.1

    work page doi:10.1130/l245.1 2013

  24. [24]

    S., O’Rourke, J

    Hamid, S. S., O’Rourke, J. G., & Soderlund, K. M. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 88, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/accb99

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/accb99 2023

  25. [25]

    Holland, T. J. B., & Powell, R. 2011, Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 29, 333, doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1314.2010.00923.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1525-1314.2010.00923.x 2011

  26. [26]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , author =

    Huang, R., Ballaran, T. B., McCammon, C. A., Miyajima, N., & Frost, D. J. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126, doi: 10.1029/2021JB021936

    work page doi:10.1029/2021jb021936 2021

  27. [27]

    Jimenez, J., & Zufiria, J. A. 1987, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 178, 53, doi: 10.1017/S0022112087001113

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112087001113 1987

  28. [28]

    2023, Nature, 622, 718, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06586-4

    Khan, A., Huang, D., Dur´ an, C., et al. 2023, Nature, 622, 718, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06586-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06586-4 2023

  29. [29]

    2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 578, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117330

    Giardini, D. 2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 578, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117330

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117330 2022

  30. [30]

    2023, Icarus, 400, 115564, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115564

    Korenaga, J. 2023, Icarus, 400, 115564, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115564

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115564 2023

  31. [31]

    S., Kleine, T., Borg, L

    Kruijer, T. S., Kleine, T., Borg, L. E., et al. 2017, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 474, 345, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.06.047

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2017.06.047 2017

  32. [32]

    W., & Coltice, N

    Labrosse, S., Hernlund, J. W., & Coltice, N. 2007, Nature, 450, 866, doi: 10.1038/nature06355

    work page doi:10.1038/nature06355 2007

  33. [33]

    2013, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 118, 1155, doi: 10.1002/jgre.20068

    Lebrun, T., Massol, H., Chassefi` ere, E., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 118, 1155, doi: 10.1002/jgre.20068

    work page doi:10.1002/jgre.20068 2013

  34. [34]

    2025, Super-Earths and Earth-like exoplanets, Vol

    Lichtenberg, T., & Miguel, Y. 2025, Super-Earths and Earth-like exoplanets, Vol. 7 (Elsevier), 51–112, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-99762-1.00122-4 Manj´ on-Cabeza C´ ordoba, A. 2025, ParaMonty CTMantle MagmaOcean, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17649325

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99762-1.00122-4 2025

  35. [35]

    2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 122, 577, doi: 10.1002/2016JE005250

    Maurice, M., Tosi, N., Samuel, H., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 122, 577, doi: 10.1002/2016JE005250

    work page doi:10.1002/2016je005250 2017

  36. [36]

    McDonough, W., & s. Sun, S. 1995, Chemical Geology, 120, 223, doi: 10.1016/0009-2541(94)00140-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0009-2541(94)00140-4 1995

  37. [37]

    McNamara, A. K. 2019, Tectonophysics, 760, 199, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2018.04.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2018.04.015 2019

  38. [38]

    2019, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 516, 25, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2019.03.037

    Morison, A., Labrosse, S., Deguen, R., & Alboussi` ere, T. 2019, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 516, 25, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2019.03.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2019.03.037 2019

  39. [39]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 129, 2024JE008576, doi: 10.1029/2024JE008576

    Pierrehumbert, R. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 129, doi: 10.1029/2024JE008576

    work page doi:10.1029/2024je008576 2024

  40. [40]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab08ed O’Rourke, J

    Nikolaou, A., Katyal, N., Tosi, N., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab08ed O’Rourke, J. G. 2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, doi: 10.1029/2019GL086126

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab08ed 2019

  41. [41]

    S., Dettmer, J., & Tkalˇ ci´ c, H

    Pachhai, S., Li, M., Thorne, M. S., Dettmer, J., & Tkalˇ ci´ c, H. 2022, Nature Geoscience, 15, 79, doi: 10.1038/s41561-021-00871-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-021-00871-5 2022

  42. [42]

    P., Gard´ es, E., & Andrault, D

    Pacynski, L. P., Gard´ es, E., & Andrault, D. 2025, Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, 52, doi: 10.1007/s00269-025-01312-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00269-025-01312-0 2025

  43. [43]

    J., Sinmyo, R., et al

    Petitgirard, S., Malfait, W. J., Sinmyo, R., et al. 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 14186, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1512386112

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1512386112 2015

  44. [44]

    Ribe, N. M. 2018, Theoretical Mantle Dynamics (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/9781316795897

    work page doi:10.1017/9781316795897 2018

  45. [45]

    C., Jagt, L., & Cottaar, S

    Russell, S., Irving, J. C., Jagt, L., & Cottaar, S. 2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, doi: 10.1029/2023GL105684

    work page doi:10.1029/2023gl105684 2023

  46. [46]

    D., Padovan, S., et al

    Samuel, H., Ballmer, M. D., Padovan, S., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006613

    work page doi:10.1029/2020je006613 2021

  47. [47]

    2023, Nature, 622, 712, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06601-8

    Samuel, H., Drilleau, M., Rivoldini, A., et al. 2023, Nature, 622, 712, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06601-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06601-8 2023

  48. [48]

    2022, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 322, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2021.106831

    Schwinger, S., & Breuer, D. 2022, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 322, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2021.106831

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2021.106831 2022

  49. [49]

    A., & Militzer, B

    Seager, S., Kuchner, M., Hier-Majumder, C. A., & Militzer, B. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1279, doi: 10.1086/521346

    work page doi:10.1086/521346 2007

  50. [50]

    Solomatov, V. S. 1995, Physics of Fluids, 7, 266, doi: 10.1063/1.868624

    work page doi:10.1063/1.868624 1995

  51. [51]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Spaargaren, R. J., Wang, H. S., Mojzsis, S. J., Ballmer, M. D., & Tackley, P. J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acac7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac7d 2023

  52. [52]

    Geophysical Journal International , author =

    Stixrude, L., & Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. 2024, Geophysical Journal International, 237, 1699, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggae126

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggae126 2024

  53. [53]

    Tackley, P. J. 2008, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 171, 7, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2008.08.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2008.08.005 2008

  54. [54]

    J., & Tazzoli, V

    Shaw, C. J., & Tazzoli, V. 2002, European Journal of Mineralogy, 14, 525, doi: 10.1127/0935-1221/2002/0014-0525

    work page doi:10.1127/0935-1221/2002/0014-0525 2002

  55. [55]

    Tschauner, O., Ma, C., Prescher, C., & Prakapenka, V. B. 2018, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 53, 62, doi: 10.1111/maps.13009 14

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13009 2018

  56. [56]

    2014, Geodynamics, 3rd edn

    Turcotte, D., & Schubert, G. 2014, Geodynamics, 3rd edn. (Cambridge University Press), 636

    2014

  57. [57]

    L., & Oxburgh, E

    Turcotte, D. L., & Oxburgh, E. R. 1967, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 28, 29, doi: 10.1017/S0022112067001880

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112067001880 1967

  58. [58]

    Williams, Q., & Garnero, E. J. 1996, Science, 273, 1528, doi: 10.1126/science.273.5281.1528

    work page doi:10.1126/science.273.5281.1528 1996

  59. [59]

    S., Jackson, J

    Wolf, A. S., Jackson, J. M., Dera, P., & Prakapenka, V. B. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 120, 7460, doi: 10.1002/2015JB012108

    work page doi:10.1002/2015jb012108 2015

  60. [60]

    2014, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 236, 109, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2014.04.006

    Yang, T., & Fu, R. 2014, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 236, 109, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2014.04.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2014.04.006 2014

  61. [61]

    Yoshizaki, T., & McDonough, W. F. 2020, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 273, 137, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.01.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2020.01.011 2020

  62. [62]

    2017, Science, 357, 393, doi: 10.1126/science.aan0760

    Yuan, K., & Romanowicz, B. 2017, Science, 357, 393, doi: 10.1126/science.aan0760

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aan0760 2017

  63. [63]

    2008, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, doi: 10.1029/2008GC002048 ´Edouard Boukar´ e, C., Badro, J., & Samuel, H

    Zhong, S., McNamara, A., Tan, E., Moresi, L., & Gurnis, M. 2008, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, doi: 10.1029/2008GC002048 ´Edouard Boukar´ e, C., Badro, J., & Samuel, H. 2025, Nature, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08701-z

    work page doi:10.1029/2008gc002048 2008