The authors regret that we identified an error in our reported values of paleo-crustal thickness for the Eocene and Miocene samples in the Aconcagua region, which were based on Eu anomalies in zircons (Tang et al., 2020). The values reported in Table S5 of the original manuscript are not normalized for chondrite and thus the crustal thickness calculations reported in the paper based on this method are incorrect. The properly determined crustal thickness values using the Tang et al. (2020) method produce values as high and higher than modern for the Eocene (∼56 km) and Miocene (∼67-83 km) samples respectively (revised Table S5 in the supplementary material). These values are inconsistent with independent geological and geophysical constraints reported in the paper and hence are interpreted as unrealistically high. Alternatively, we here use the zircon geochemistry data published in the paper to calculate paleo-crustal thickness from zircon La/Yb ratios, which are then used to calculate whole rock ratios using partition coefficients from Chapman et al. (2016) and are then tied into the Profeta et al. (2015) La/Yb whole rock crustal thickness calculation (see methodology in Balica et al., 2020). Revised crustal thicknesses based on La/Yb values estimated from zircon trace element concentrations (revised Table S5 and revised Fig. 7 of this document) are consistent with crustal thicknesses obtained from whole rock La/Yb data from the Aconcagua volcanic complex (Ramos et al., 1996) and are within error of those originally reported. Therefore, our underlying interpretation remains unchanged. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Geochemistry and Petrology
- Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Space and Planetary Science