New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Research on Clay Formation Could Have Implications for How to Search for Life on Mars

A new study further challenges the idea that clay on Mars formed just like that on Earth

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.

Clay minerals cannot form unless there is water available—it is an essential ingredient in their microscopic crystalline structure. Clays are found virtually nowhere on the red planet except in Mars’s most ancient terrains, dating back to an epoch about 3.7-4.1 billion years ago, called the Noachian.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Understanding these martian clays is difficult, because they can be seen only sparsely across the surface. Some of the detected clays are in bedrock that has been exposed by erosion, others have been washed downstream from such sources by the Noachian rivers.

On Earth, clay forms by weathering of mineral grains chemically attacked by water. Most scientists believe that a similar process took place on Mars during its wet, Noachian period. However, some researchers have suggested that most of the detected clay was not formed in this way at all. They argue instead it formed prior to that, while warm water was circulating through the bedrock in response to nearby volcanic and intrusive activity.

Heat and steam from the magma ocean

Now a new study by a group from Brown University, Rhode Island, published in Nature, further challenges the idea that clay on Mars formed just like that on Earth. The team has done experiments suggesting that the origin of most of Mars’s clays was even earlier. They considered the likely conditions on the hot, infant Mars, 4.5 billion years ago. At that time, the primordial magma ocean that once covered the planet was still cooling, and the first crystals had floated to the surface to grow Mars’s original “primary crust”.

At this time, Mars very likely had a hot and steamy atmosphere, which was still degassing from inside the planet and had not yet had a chance to escape to space. Conditions would have been perfect to make clays by chemical reactions between the atmosphere and the minerals within the warm and porous top of the crust.

The team suggests that such clay formation would have pervaded a layer up to 10km thick. This, they say, was subsequently buried by material spread across the surface by asteroid impacts and by lava from volcanic eruptions. Surface traces of clay are rare today, because they depend on the buried layer having been re-exposed by later, smaller, impacts or erosional processes that have acted locally to strip away the cover.

Not like Earth?

The evidence for flowing water in the Noachian is robust, and has not been undermined. However, if the new study is right, Mars may not have experienced a prolonged period when the surface conditions were right for clays to be made by weathering under humid, Earth-like, conditions.

The next Mars landers, NASA’s Mars 2020 and ESA’s ExoMars 2020, are both targeted at sites where clays have been detected. That’s precisely because these may mark sites where Earth-like habitable conditions formerly prevailed, and may have once hosted microbial life just like Earth.

On the balance of probabilities, these are still good places to look for traces of ancient microbial life. The new research suggests ancient life is unlikely to be found where the clays initially formed by chemical reactions with the atmosphere—it doesn’t rule out habitability at the sites where clays have been deposited. Yet, one link in the chain of logic may just have have been at least partially severed.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe