A MORB-arc basalt–adakite association in the 2.5 Ga Wutai greenstone belt: late Archean magmatism and crustal growth in the North China Craton

2004 ◽  
Vol 131 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 323-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhihong Wang ◽  
Simon A Wilde ◽  
Kaiyi Wang ◽  
Liangjun Yu
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Houxiang Shan ◽  
Mingguo Zhai ◽  
RN Mitchell ◽  
Fu Liu ◽  
Jinghui Guo

Abstract Whole-rock major and trace elements and Hf isotopes of magmatic zircons of tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite (TTG) rocks with different ages (2.9, 2.7 and 2.5 Ga) from the three blocks (the Eastern Block, Western Block and Trans-North China Orogen) of the North China Craton were compiled to investigate their respective petrogenesis, tectonic setting and implications for crustal growth and evolution. Geochemical features of the 2.5 Ga TTGs of the Eastern Block require melting of predominant rutile-bearing eclogite and subordinate garnet-amphibolite at higher pressure, while the source material of the 2.7 Ga TTGs is garnet-amphibolite or granulite at lower pressure. The 2.5 Ga TTGs have high Mg#, Cr and Ni, negative Nb–Ta anomalies and a juvenile basaltic crustal source, indicating derivation from the melting of a subducting slab. In contrast, features of the 2.7 Ga TTGs suggest generation from melting of thickened lower crust. The 2.5 and 2.7 Ga TTGs in the Trans-North China Orogen were formed at garnet-amphibolite to eclogite facies, and the source material of the 2.5 Ga TTGs in the Western Block is most likely garnet-amphibolite or eclogite. The 2.5 Ga TTGs in the Trans-North China Orogen and Western Block were generated by the melting of a subducting slab, whereas the 2.7 Ga TTGs in the Trans-North China Orogen derived from melting of thickened lower crust. The Hf isotopic data suggest both the 2.5 and 2.7 Ga TTG magmas were involved with contemporary crustal growth and reworking. The two-stage model age (TDM2) histograms show major crustal growth between 2.9 and 2.7 Ga for the whole North China Craton.


Minerals ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renyu Zeng ◽  
Jianqing Lai ◽  
Xiancheng Mao ◽  
Bin Li ◽  
Jiandong Zhang ◽  
...  

The Alxa block is located in the southwestern margin of the North China Craton. The Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolution, crustal growth and tectonic affinity of the block remain unknown or controversial. The Longshoushan (LS) area is one of the few areas that outcrop Paleoproterozoic to crystalline basement rocks in the Alxa Block. In this study, we preset whole-rock geochemistry, zircon U–Pb geochronology and Lu–Hf isotope data from metagabbro, metadiorite, quartz syenite, granitic leucosome and pegmatoid leucosome in the LS area. These rocks all are enriched in LREE and LILE, and depleted in HREE and HFSE. Eight new LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb ages yielded three magmatic ages of 2044 Ma, 2029 Ma and 1940 Ma, and three metamorphic ages of 1891 Ma, 1848 Ma and 1812 Ma. Lu–Hf analyses reveal that the magmatic zircons and anatectic/metamorphic zircons from all the rock types are characterized by positive εHf(t) (−0.16 to 10.89) and variable εHf(t) (−11.21 to 6.24), respectively. Based on the previous studies and our new data, we conclude that the LS area experienced three magmatic events (2.5–2.45 Ga, ~2.1–2.0 Ga and ~1.95–1.91 Ga) and three regional metamorphism/anataxis events (~1.93–1.89 Ga, ~1.86–1.84 Ga and ~1.81 Ga) in Paleoproterozoic. The age–Hf isotope data establishes two main crustal growth events at ~2.9–2.5 Ga and ~2.2–2.0 Ga in the LS area. These data indicate that the LS area experienced intraplate extensional setting in the middle Paleoproterozoic, and continental subduction, collision and exhumation in the late Paleoproterozoic. Combining the geochronological framework and tectonic evolution, we suggest that the Alxa Block is part of the Khondalite Belt.


2011 ◽  
Vol 149 (4) ◽  
pp. 729-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
BAO-FU HAN ◽  
ZHAO XU ◽  
RONG REN ◽  
LIN-LIN LI ◽  
JIN-HUI YANG ◽  
...  

AbstractThe most important crustal growth on Earth occurred at ~2.7 Ga, but the North China Craton (NCC) is characterized by prevalent development of ~2.5 Ga juvenile crust, with relatively rare records of ~2.7 Ga crustal growth. The Fuping Complex in the middle segment of the Trans-North China Orogen (TNCO) between the Eastern and Western blocks of the NCC is composed mainly of ~2.5 Ga Fuping tonalitic–trondhjemitic–granodioritic (TTG) gneisses and Longquanguan augen gneisses, ~2.1 Ga Nanying granitic gneisses and the Wanzi supracrustal rocks. Previous studies have suggested one major phase of crustal growth at ~2.5 Ga, possible intracrustal recycling at ~2.1 Ga and the presence of older rocks in the Fuping Complex, but there has been no record of ~2.7 Ga crustal growth. The Fuping TTG gneisses are dominated by stromatic migmatite, and new U–Pb dating of magmatic zircons from two stromatic migmatite samples yielded three different ages: (1) 2.75 Ga, which is the oldest age obtained from the Fuping TTG gneisses, (2) 2.54 Ga, which just falls in the published zircon U–Pb age range of 2.53 to 2.47 Ga for the Fuping TTG gneisses, and (3) 2.11 Ga, which is almost the same as the age of the Nanying granitic gneisses. Therefore, there are two generations of TTG gneisses in the Fuping Complex. Importantly, both of the 2.75 and 2.54 Ga zircons have the highest εHf(t) values, almost equal to the contemporaneous depleted mantle. This indicates high contributions of juvenile material to the two generations of TTG gneisses. In contrast, the 2.11 Ga zircons have apparently low εHf(t) values of −0.47 to +2.04, just falling in between 2.55 and 2.75 Ga continental crust values. This strongly suggests the reworking of the two generations of TTG gneisses at 2.1 Ga. Zircon U–Pb and Hf isotopes convincingly reveal two major phases of crustal growth in the Fuping Complex at ~2.7 and ~2.5 Ga, the same as in the northern and southern segments of the TNCO, and also confirm one major phase of intracrustal recycling at ~2.1 Ga, which may be responsible for the Nanying granitic gneisses.


2020 ◽  
Vol 350 ◽  
pp. 105921
Author(s):  
Chunrong Diwu ◽  
Tingyi Wang ◽  
Jianghao Yan

Lithos ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 324-325 ◽  
pp. 55-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Wei ◽  
Samuel B. Mukasa ◽  
Jianping Zheng ◽  
Maria F. Fahnestock ◽  
Julia G. Bryce

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document