Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Scientific Correspondence
  • Published:

Contradictions of slate formation resolved?

Nature volume 392, page 348 (1998)Cite this article

Abstract

Slate is formed from clay-rich mud in response to tectonic stress. It has been studied for more than 150 years and was among the first geological features to be analysed on the microscopic scale1. Early observations2 recognized the importance of micaceous minerals to the splitting of slate into thin sheets, whereas current hypotheses for slate formation emphasize either mechanical processes (grain rotation and grain kinking) or chemical processes (grain dissolution and new growth). Despite a vast body of work, no single scenario incorporates these seemingly contradictory mechanisms3,4. Here we offer a unifying model that views the mechanisms as a function of the combined thermal and strain energy of the system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Transmission electron micrographs from Welsh basin rocks.

References

  1. Sorby, H. C. Edinb. New Phil. J. 55, 137–148 (1853).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Darwin, C. Geological Observations on South America (1846).

  3. Knipe, R. J. Tectonophysics 78, 249–272 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Engelder, T. & Marshak, S. J. Struct. Geol. 7, 327–343 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Merriman, R. J., Roberts, B. & Hirons, S. R. BGS Tech. Report WG/91/16 (1992).

  6. Ho, N.-C., Peacor, D. R. & van der Pluijm, B. A. J. Struct. Geol. 18, 615–623 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein, J. B. & Epstein, A. G. Fieldguide 132-205 (Rutgers Univ. Press, 1969).

  8. Lee, J. H., Peacor, D. R., Lewis, D. D. & Wintsch, R. P. J. Struct. Geol. 8, 767–780 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ho, N.-C., Peacor, D. R., & van der Pluijm, B. A. J. Struct. Geol. 17, 345–356 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Ben A. van der Pluijm, Nei-Che Ho & Donald R. Peacor

  2. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

    Richard J. Merriman

Authors
  1. Ben A. van der Pluijm
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nei-Che Ho
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donald R. Peacor
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard J. Merriman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van der Pluijm, B., Ho, NC., Peacor, D. et al. Contradictions of slate formation resolved?. Nature 392, 348 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/32810

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/32810

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing