Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-qr5l4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:47:09.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Closure of India–Asia collision margin along the Shyok Suture Zone in the eastern Karakoram: new geochemical and zircon U–Pb geochronological observations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2020

Shailendra Pundir
Affiliation:
Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India
Vikas Adlakha*
Affiliation:
Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India
Santosh Kumar
Affiliation:
Centre of Advanced Study, Department of Geology, Kumaun University, Nainital, Uttarakhand, 263001, India
Saurabh Singhal
Affiliation:
Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India
*
Author for correspondence: Vikas Adlakha, Email: vikas.himg@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New whole-rock geochemical analyses along with laser ablation multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry U–Pb zircon ages of the granite–rhyolite from the Karakoram Batholith, exposed along the Shyok Valley, NW India, have been performed to understand the timing and geochemical evolution of these magmatic bodies and their implications for the geodynamic evolution of the Karakoram Batholith. New geochronological data on granites and rhyolites along with previously published geochronological data indicate that the Karakoram Batholith evolved during Albian time (~110–100 Ma) owing to the subduction of Tethys oceanic lithosphere along the Shyok Suture Zone. This region witnessed a period of no magmatism during ~99–85 Ma. Following this, the Kohistan–Ladakh arc and Karakoram Batholith evolved as a single entity in Late Cretaceous and early Palaeogene times. Late Cretaceous (~85 Ma) rhyolite intrusions within the Karakoram Batholith show calc-alkaline subduction-related signatures with a highly peraluminous nature (molar A/CNK = 1.42–1.81). These intrusions may have resulted from c. ~13.8 % to ~34.5 % assimilation of pre-existing granites accompanied by fractional crystallization during the ascent of the magma. The contamination of mantle wedge-derived melts with crust of the active continental margin of the Karakoram most likely enhanced the high peraluminous nature of the rhyolite magma, as has been constrained by assimilation fractional crystallization modelling. Two granite samples from the contact of the Shyok Metamorphic Complex and Karakoram Batholith indicate that the post-collisional Miocene magmatism was not only confined along the Karakoram Fault zone but also extends ~30 km beyond the Shyok–Muglib strand.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Overview map of the Himalayan–Tibetan orogenic belt and geologic map across the Karakoram and Ladakh. (a) Map showing the main tectonic structures and sutures in the Himalaya, Tibet and the Karakoram region. (b) Simplified map showing the regional geology of the eastern Karakoram region (after Phillips, 2008) with the location of the study area in the rectangle. (c) Geological map of the SE Karakoram with the locations of collected samples from the Karakoram Batholith. The Longmu–Ghoza Co fault (LGF) and Angmong fault (AF) are from van Buer et al. (2015) (modified after Phillips et al.2004; Jain & Singh 2008; Ravikant et al.2009). (Sample location SM 9 includes both SM 9A and SM 9B).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Outcrop-scale structures from the KFZ and upstream Shyok Valley. (a) Horizontal lineations representing the Tangtse strand of the KFZ. (b) Vertical foliation near the Tangtse strand of the KFZ. (c) Horizontal lineations representing the Muglib strand of the KFZ. Pen for scale is ~ 13 cm long. (d) Migmatization in the TMC of the KFZ. (e) Foliation-parallel (black) and cross-cutting (red) leucocratic dyke intrusions within the SMC. (f) Leucocratic dyke intrusions parallel to the foliation plane within the SMC. GPS for scale is ~30 cm long. (g) Normal faulting showing extensional feature in the north of the Shyok–Muglib strand. (h) Well-exposed marble near the Pangong Tso region in the Tangtse Valley. Geological hammer for scale is ~33 cm long.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Outcrop-scale structures from the upstream Shyok Valley. (a) Marble and amphibolite schist of the PMC mapped along the Shyok river in the NE of the Shyok–Muglib strand of the KF. (b) Contact of the SMC with the KB. (c) Porphyritic granites with large laths of K-feldspar and plagioclase feldspar. Geological hammer for scale is ~33 cm long. (d) Undeformed granite body of the KB. (e, f) Contact of the Murgo Volcanics (rhyolites) with the KB.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Photomicrographs of the studied rock samples from the SMC and KB. (a–i) Granites showing medium- to coarse-grained porphyritic texture with phenocrysts of quartz (Qz), K-feldspar (Kfs), plagioclase (Pl) and biotite (Bt). (j–l) Porphyritic texture and exhibition of euhedral phenocrysts of sanidine (Sa), plagioclase and quartz. hbl – hornblende.

Figure 4

Table 1. Major- (wt %) and trace-element (ppm) contents of the analysed samples from the Karakoram Batholith, eastern Karakoram, India

Figure 5

Fig. 5. K2O versus SiO2 plot for the studied granites and rhyolites (fields are shown after Peccerillo & Taylor, 1976).

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Major element-based geochemical classification plots for granites and rhyolites. (a) Molar A/NK (Al2O3/Na2O + K2O) versus molar A/CNK (Al2O3/CaO + Na2O + K2O) plot (discrimination fields after Maniar & Piccoli, 1989). (b) Plot of Na2O + K2O–CaO against SiO2 showing the approximate ranges for the alkalic, alkali–calcic, calc-alkalic and calcic rock series (after Frost et al.2001). (c) FeO/(FeOt + MgO) versus wt % SiO2 diagram showing the boundary between ferroan plutons and magnesian plutons (after Frost et al.2001). (d) Molar A/CNK (Al2O3/CaO + Na2O + K2O) versus SiO2 plot (fields after Chappell & White, 1974).

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Total alkali silica (TAS) plot (fields after Cox et al.1979).

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Harker variation plots as major oxides (wt %) versus SiO2 (wt %) for the granites and rhyolites.

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Tectonic discrimination diagrams to identify the tectonic setting of the analysed samples. (a) Nb versus Y tectonic discrimination diagram (Pearce et al.1984), and (b) Rb versus Y + Nb tectonic discrimination diagram (Pearce et al.1984). VAG – volcanic arc granite; syn-COLG – syn-collisional granite; WPG – within-plate granite; ORG – ocean ridge granite.

Figure 10

Fig. 10. (a) Chondrite-normalized (Taylor & McLennan, 1985) rare earth element diagram plotted for the analysed samples. (b) Primitive mantle-normalized (Taylor & McLennan, 1985) trace-element spider diagram plotted for the analysed samples.

Figure 11

Fig. 11. Cathodoluminescence images of representative zircons from the analysed samples. (a) SM 8; (b) SM 9A; (c) SM 16; (d) SM 17; (e) SM 20; (f) SM 22.

Figure 12

Fig. 12. 206Pb–238U ages and concordia diagrams for LA-MC-ICP-MS zircon data plots. (a) SM 8, all data analyses; (b) SM 8, most concordant ages showing crystallization age. (c) SM 9A, all data analyses; (d) SM 9A, most concordant ages showing crystallization age. (e) SM 16, all data analyses; (f) SM 16, most concordant ages showing crystallization age.

Figure 13

Fig. 13. 206Pb–238U ages and concordia diagrams for LA-MC-ICP-MS zircon data plots. (a) SM 17, all data analyses; (b) SM 17, most concordant ages showing crystallization age. (c) SM 20, all data analyses; (d) SM 20, most concordant ages showing crystallization age. (e) SM 22, all data analyses; (f) SM 22, most concordant ages showing crystallization age.

Figure 14

Fig. 14. Th/Nb versus Zr plot for the studied samples. Trends reflect increasing fractional crystallization (FC), assimilation fractional crystallization (AFC) and bulk assimilation (BA) (after Nicolae & Saccani, 2003).

Figure 15

Fig. 15. Plots demonstrating the quantitative models of fractional crystallization (FC) using the Petromodeler program (after Ersoy, 2013).

Figure 16

Fig. 16. Plots demonstrating the quantitative models of assimilation accompanied by fractional crystallization (AFC). (a) Assimilation of rhyolite SM 23 and granite SM 14 producing rhyolite sample SM 21; (b) assimilation of rhyolite SM 23 and granite SM 14 producing rhyolite sample SM 22; (c) assimilation of rhyolite SM 23 and the average of KB granites producing rhyolite sample SM 21; (d) assimilation of rhyolite SM 23 and the average of KB granites producing rhyolite sample SM 22 using the Petromodeler program (after Ersoy, 2013).

Figure 17

Fig. 17. Zircon 206Pb–238U age probability diagram for rocks from (a) the Karakoram Batholith; and (b) the Kohistan-Ladakh Arc. Data from present study and: a – Desio et al. (1964); b – Honegger et al. (1982); c – Parrish & Tirrul (1989); d – Schärer et al. (1984); e – Khan et al. (1996); f – Krol et al. (1996); g – Searle et al. (1998); h – Weinberg & Dunlap (2000); i – Weinberg et al. (2000); j – Fraser et al. (2001); k – Hildebrand et al. (2000); l – Dunlap & Wysoczanski (2002); m – Schaltegger et al. (2002); n – Phillips et al. (2004); o – Heuberger et al. (2007); p – Singh et al. (2007); q – Jain & Singh (2008); r – Upadhyay (2008); s – Jagoutz et al. (2009); t – Ravikant et al. (2009); u – Boutonnet et al. (2012); v – Phillips et al. (2013); w – Borneman et al. (2015); x – van Buer et al. (2015); y – Kumar et al. (2017); z – Sen et al. (2018). India–Asia collision data from: a – Searle et al. (1987); b – Klootwijk et al. (1992); c – Rowley (1996); d – Najman et al. (2010); e – Bouilhol et al. (2013); f – Hu et al. (2016); g – Sen et al. (2018). SSZ closure data from: a – Petterson & Windley (1985); b – Treloar et al. (1996); c – Rolland et al. (2000); d – Heuberger et al. (2007); e – Ravikant et al. (2009); f – Borneman et al. (2015); g – Kumar et al. (2017); h – Searle & Hacker (2018).

Figure 18

Fig. 18. Configuration of the Shyok suture closure (SSZ) and subsequent collision of the Dras Island Arc (DIA) and Karakoram terrane showing the generation of the Murgo rhyolites at the active continental margin of the Karakoram at ~85 Ma (modified after Jain, 2014; Manikyamba et al.2014). KB – Karakoram Batholith; LB – Ladakh Batholith.

Supplementary material: File

Pundir et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Pundir et al. supplementary material(File)
File 35.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Pundir et al. supplementary material

Table S2

Download Pundir et al. supplementary material(File)
File 319.5 KB