Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T11:36:58.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Zircon U–Pb ages and petrogenesis of late Miocene adakitic rocks from the Sari Gunay gold deposit, NW Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2021

Hossein Shahbazi*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Faculty of sciences, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
Yasaman Taheri Maghami
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Faculty of sciences, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
Hossein Azizi
Affiliation:
Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
Yoshihiro Asahara
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan
Wolfgang Siebel
Affiliation:
Institute of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Albert-Ludwig University Freiburg, Freiburg 79104, Germany
Mohammad Maanijou
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Faculty of sciences, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
Ali Rezai
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Faculty of sciences, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
*
*Author for correspondence: Hossein Shahbazi, Email: shahbazi@basu.ac.ir
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Late Miocene volcanic rocks host the Sari Gunay epithermal gold deposit in NW Iran. These rocks are located within the Hamedan–Tabriz volcanic belt and occupy the northwestern part of the Sanandaj–Sirjan zone (SaSZ). The volcanic rocks span in composition from latite to dacite and rhyolite. Plagioclase, hornblende, biotite and quartz are the main phenocrysts in a fine-grained and glassy matrix. Laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry zircon U–Pb dating yielded crystallization ages of 10.10 ± 0.01 Ma and 11.18 ± 0.14 Ma for rhyolite and dacite, respectively. High ratios of Sr/Y (> 20) and La/Yb (> 20), high contents of Sr (≥ 400 ppm), low contents of MgO (≤ 6 wt%), Y ≤ 18 ppm (c. 16.5 ppm), Yb ≤ 1.9 ppm (c. 1.53 ppm) and weak negative Eu anomalies (Eu*/Eu c. 0.81) are compatible with a high-silica adakitic signature of the rocks. Regarding the location of the study area nearly 100 km from the Zagros suture zone, we argue that delamination of lithospheric mantle beneath the SaSZ has played a key role in the development of the adakitic rocks in a post-collision tectonic regime. The adakitic melts are suggested to have formed by partial melting of delaminated continental lithosphere and/or lower crustal amphibolite following the collision of the Arabian and Iranian plates.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Simplified geological and tectonic zones of Iran (modified after Richads et al. 2012). Location of the Hamedan–Tabriz volcanic belt (HTV) in NW Iran (after Azizi & Moinvaziri, 2009). Location of the Sari Gunay epithermal gold deposit and Moho profile from Mehran to Lahijan (A–B section). Locations with adakitic rocks in Iran mentioned in the text are as follows: Salafchegan (Qom) and Anar (Omrani et al.2008), Tafresh (Ghorbani & Bezenjani, 2011), Ghroveh–Bijar (Azizi et al.2014a; Torkian et al.2019), Saqqez–Takab (Azizi et al.2019a), Tabriz (Jahangiri, 2007), Arasbaran (Jamali et al.2010; Jamali & Mehrabi 2015), Bibi–Maryam (Nehbandan area) (Delavari et al.2014), Sabzevar area (Rossetti et al.2014; Shafaii Moghadam et al.2016) and Meiduk (Alirezaei et al.2017).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Geological map of the Sari Gunay epithermal gold deposit area Sanandaj–Sirjan zone (SaSZ), NW Iran, and sampling locality, redrawn from Geological Map of Iran 1:100 000 Series Sheet No. 5660 (Kohin) Geological Survey and Mineral Exploration of Iran (Khan Nazar et al.2015).

Figure 2

Table 1. Summary of K–Ar, 40Ar–39Ar and zircon U–Pb age data of the Miocene volcanic rocks from the Sari Gunay gold deposit and the Ghorveh-Bijar area, Sanandaj–Sirjan zone, NW Iran

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Field view of the Sari Gunay epithermal gold deposit. (a, b) Field photographs from the hillside of the Sari Gunay epithermal gold deposit. (c) Locations of samples DKAR11 (rhyolite) and DKAR21 (dacite) chosen for U–Pb dating.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. (a) Plan view of the Sari Gunay gold mine deposit. NW–SE-trending high-grade gold bodies are shown in pink and beige; low-grade gold halo zone shown in light blue and drill-holes lines (blue). (b) 3D view of the high-grade gold ore body (red) Cu-Au, porphyry body (aqua colour), and drill holes lines (blue). (c) Oblique 3D view of Sari Gunay mine with topographic features looking NW. (d) Block model of the central high-grade gold bodies showing gold grade distribution (after Wilkinson, 2005).

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Field photographs and photomicrographs of adakitic rocks from Sari Gunay: (a) sanidine phenocryst in a dacite; (b) sieve texture of plagioclase phenocryst in latite sample; (c) seriate textures in latite; (d) porphyritic texture, plagioclase, biotite and hornblende phenocrysts set in a quartz latite fine-grained matrix; (e) vitrophyric texture and zoning of plagioclase and hornblende phenocrysts in quartz latite; (f) glomeroporphyritic texture and oscillatory zoning of plagioclase in dacite; (g) sericitized K-feldspar phenocrysts (sanidine) with euhedral shape and Carlsbad twins in a dacite; (h) zircon grain and sericitization and devitrified glass in dacite matrix; (i) quartz phenocrysts in a rhyolite; (j, k) radial euhedral tourmaline aggregates in rhyolites; and (l) silicification relationships in a rhyolite sample. Pl – plagioclase; Hbl – hornblende; Kfs – K-feldspar; Qz – quartz; Ms – muscovite; Tur – tourmaline; Cal – calcite; Zn – zircon (Whitney & Evans, 2010).

Figure 6

Table 2. Major- and trace-element concentrations of the Sari Gunay epithermal gold deposit host rocks

Figure 7

Fig. 6. (a) Cathodoluminescence (CL) images of zircons from sample DKAR11 (rhyolite). (b) CL images from zircons of sample DKAR21 (dacite) with positions of ablation.

Figure 8

Table 3. U–Pb isotopic data for zircon crystal determined by LA-ICP-MS in volcanic host rocks of the Sari Gunay epithermal gold deposit

Figure 9

Fig. 7. Zircon U–Pb concordia diagrams weighted mean ages and 2σ errors for samples (a, b) DKAR11 and (c, d) DKAR21.

Figure 10

Fig. 8. Selected Harker variation diagrams for Sari Gunay adakitic rocks. Open circles are Sari Gunay volcanic samples analysed by Richards et al. (2006); closed circles are samples analysed in this study.

Figure 11

Fig. 9. (a) Chondrite-normalized REE and (b) primitive-mantle-normalized trace-element patterns for Sari Gunay adakitic rocks and their comparison with post-collisional Miocene ore-bearing adakites (Li et al.2011). Normalized values for REE are from Boynton (1984) and normalizing values of the trace elements are from Sun & McDonough (1989). Open circles are Sari Gunay volcanic samples analysed by Richards et al. (2006).

Figure 12

Fig. 10. (a) AFM diagram: A (Na2O + K2O), F (FeO + Fe2O3), M (MgO) (Irvine & Baragar, 1971); (b) Th versus Co diagram after Hastie et al. (2007); (c) R1–R2 diagram after De la Roche et al. (1980) for classification of the Sari Gunay adakitic rocks; and (d) Zr/TiO2 versus Nb/Y diagram (after Winchester & Floyd, 1977). Open circles are Sari Gunay volcanic samples analysed by Richards et al. (2006). B – basalt; BA/A – basaltic andesite and andesite; D/R* – dacite and rhyolite (* indicates that latites and trachytes also fall in the D/R fields).

Figure 13

Table 4. CIPW normative mineralogy of the Sari Gunay gold deposit volcanic host rocks, Sanandaj–Sirjan zone, NW Iran. All DK-, K- and IR- Sari Gunay volcanic samples were analysed by Richards et al. (2006).

Figure 14

Fig. 11. Tectonic discrimination diagrams for Sari Gunay adakitic rocks. (a) (La)N/(Yb)N versus (Yb)N diagram after Martin (1986); (b) La/Yb versus Yb diagram after Castillo et al. (1999); (c) Th/Yb versus Th/Sm diagram (Zhu et al.2009); and (d) Ta versus Yb tectonic discrimination diagram (Pearce et al.1984). Open circles are Sari Gunay volcanic samples analysed by Richards et al. (2006). VAG – volcanic-arc granites; WPG – within-plate granites; ORG – ocean ridge granites; syn-COLG – syn-collision granites.

Figure 15

Fig. 12. Genetic classification diagrams for adakitic rocks: (a) LaN/NbN versus YbN; (b) Cr (ppm) versus SiO2; (c) P2O5 (wt%) versus SiO2; and (d) Th/Ce versus SiO2 (wt%) diagrams (Wang et al.2006). Sari Gunay samples plot in the field of delaminated lower-crust-derived adakites. Open circles are Sari Gunay volcanic samples analysed by Richards et al. (2006).

Figure 16

Fig. 13. (a, b) Diagrams for discriminating high-silica (HSA) and low-silica (LSA) adakite types: (a) MgO (wt%) versus SiO2 (wt%) and (b) Cr/Ni versus TiO2 (Martin et al.2005). (c) Dy/Yb versus SiO2 diagram showing that amphibole rather than garnet as a residual phase played an important role in the generation of the Sari Gunay adakitic rocks (Davidson et al.2013). (d) La/Yb versus La (ppm) diagram (Gao et al.2007) showing the role of partial melting during the generation of the Sari Gunay adakites. Open circles are Sari Gunay volcanic samples analysed by Richards et al. (2006); closed circles are samples analysed in this study.

Figure 17

Fig. 14. LaN/YbN versus YbN diagram (Martin, 1986). Sari Gunay samples can be generated by partial melting of a 10% garnet-amphibolite source associated with 10% garnet-metasomatized mantle peridotite. The field of delaminated lower-crust-derived adakites is from Wang et al. (2006). Mid-ocean-ridge basalt (MORB) source and normalizing values of the trace elements from Sun & McDonough (1989). Open circles are Sari Gunay volcanic samples analysed by Richards et al. (2006).

Figure 18

Fig. 15. Schematic geodynamic model for the generation of adakitic rocks of the Sari Gunay gold deposit. (a) The crustal thickness or Moho depth in NW Iran before delamination (Moho profile from Mehran to Lahijan, line A–B shown in Fig. 1); and (b) adakite formation by lithospheric delamination (delamination includes part of the lower crust and the metasomatized lithosphere mantle) and interaction with melts coming from the upwelling asthenospheric mantle. Crustal thickness (i.e. depth of Moho) is from Dehghani & Makris (1983).