Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T08:56:01.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Constraints of magmatism on the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic metallogenic system in the central Lesser Xing’an Range, NE China: evidence from geochronology, geochemistry and Sr–Nd–Pb–Hf isotopes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2021

Chuntao Zhao
Affiliation:
College of Earth Science, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China Key Laboratory of Mineral Resources Evaluation in Northeast Asia, Ministry of Natural Resources, Changchun 130061, China
Jinggui Sun*
Affiliation:
College of Earth Science, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China Key Laboratory of Mineral Resources Evaluation in Northeast Asia, Ministry of Natural Resources, Changchun 130061, China
Yang Liu
Affiliation:
College of Earth Science, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China
Xiaolei Chu
Affiliation:
College of Earth Science, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China
Zhikai Xu
Affiliation:
College of Earth Science, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China
Jilong Han
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
Wenqing Li
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Mineral Resources Evaluation in Northeast Asia, Ministry of Natural Resources, Changchun 130061, China
Liang Ren
Affiliation:
College of Earth Science, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China
Chenglin Bai
Affiliation:
College of Earth Science, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China
*
Author for correspondence: Jinggui Sun, Email: sunjinggui@jlu.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The medium-sized Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic skarn deposit is located in the central Lesser Xing’an Range, NE China. The ore bodies are mainly hosted in the contact zone between granodiorite intrusions and lower Cambrian dolomitic crystalline limestones or skarns. To reveal the magmatic influence on the mineralization, resource potential and metallogenic geodynamic process of this deposit, a systematic study of the geology, petrology, zircon U–Pb dating, element geochemistry, amphibole geochemistry and Sr–Nd–Pb–Hf isotopes of the Ergu deposit intrusives was conducted. The results show the following: (1) The major rock types in the mine area are medium-grained granodiorite and porphyritic granite, and the rock related to mineralization is medium-grained granodiorite. Zircon U–Pb dating suggests that the granodiorite and porphyritic granite formed at 181.9–183.8 Ma and 182.7 Ma, respectively. Thus, an Early Jurassic magmatic event led to the formation of the Ergu deposit. (2) The granodiorite and porphyritic granite are high-K calc-alkaline I-type granites that formed by comagmatic evolution with varying degrees of fractional crystallization and were likely derived from partial melting of the lower crust. The Ergu deposit occurred in an active continental-margin tectonic setting. (3) The high water content (5.69 wt % H2O), high oxygen fugacity (ΔFMQ = +1.75 to +1.82) and intermediate-plutonic emplacement (3.13 km) of the granodioritic magma are key factors in the formation of the Ergu deposit. The porphyry granite is characterized by high water content (>4 wt % H2O), reduced oxygen fugacity (ΔFMQ = −0.47) and shallow emplacement (<3 km).

Information

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

Fig. 1. (a) Location of NE China with respect to the main tectonic units of China and Russia, modified after Wu et al. (2007). ‘A’ and ‘M’ represent the Altaids and Manchrids. (b) Tectonic sketch maps of NE China, modified after Wu et al. (2000). (c) Simplified geological map of the Lesser Xing’an range, modified after Wu et al. (2011).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. (a) Simplified geological map of the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit; (b, c))cross section of the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit (sketch modified after Ren, 2017).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. (a) Hand specimen photograph and (b) photomicrographs of granodiorite with massive structures; (c, d) Light green, euhedral amphibole crystals in the granodiorite. (e) Hand specimen photograph and (f) photomicrographs of porphyritic granite with massive structures. Bt = biotite; Kfs = K-feldspar; Pl = plagioclase; Q = quartz; Hb = amphibole; Mag = magnetite.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Photomicrographs of skarn and mineralization features in the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit. (a) A typical zoned garnet crystal; (b) epidote and magneitite intergrowth; (c) tufted epidote crystal; (d) early garnet and diopside minerals are cut by calcite veins;(e) microscopic picture of magnetite replaced by pyrrhotite; (f) irregular molybdenite crystal; (g) microscopic picture of paragenetic pyrite and chalcopyrite; (h) mineral assemblage consisting of pyrite, chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite; (i) mineral assemblage consisting of pyrite, galena, sphalerite and chalcopyrite. Grt = garnet; Di = diopside; Ep = epidote; Cal = calcite; Mag = magnetite; Ccp = chalcopyrite; Py = pyrite; Mot = molybdenite; Po = pyrrhotite; Sp = sphalerite; Gn = galena.

Figure 4

Table 1. LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb of granodiorite (EGX-1 and XSH-5) and porphyritic granite (EGX-2 and EGX-3) from the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Cathodoluminescence (CL) images of representative analysed zircons from granodiorite (a, b) and porphyritic granite (c, d) of the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit. Full line represents U–Pb age analytical spot; dashed line represents Hf isotope analytical spot.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Concordia diagrams of zircon U–Pb ages and the weighted mean diagrams for granodiorite (a, b) and porphyritic granite (c, d) of the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns of zircon grains (a), magma oxygen fugacity (fo2) of the granodiorite, porphyritic granite and amphibole of granodiorite in the Ergu deposit (b), and classifications and compositions of amphiboles (c). MH = magnetite–hematite buffer; NNO = Ni–NiO buffer; FMQ = fayalite–magnetite–quartz buffer; IW = iron–wustite buffer. The calculation method of lgfo2 and T (Ti-in-zircon thermometer) is based on Ferry & Watson (2007) and Qiu et al. (2013).

Figure 8

Table 2. Zircon grains trace elements of granodiorite (EGX-1) and porphyritic granite (EGX-2) from the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit

Figure 9

Table 3. Composition of amphibole from the Ergu granodiorites

Figure 10

Table 4. Whole-rock geochemical data of intrusions from the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit (major elements wt %; trace elements ppm)

Figure 11

Fig. 8. (a) SiO2 vs (Na2O + K2O) plot (Middlemost, 1994). (b) Na2O vs K2O plot (Middlemost, 1972). (c) SiO2 vs K2O plot (Peccerillo & Taylor, 1976). (d) A/CNK vs A/NK plot (Maniar & Piccoli, 1989). (e) Chondrite-normalized REE patterns (normalized values are from Boynton, 1984). (f) Primitive-mantle-normalized trace element patterns (normalized values are from Sun & McDonough, 1989). Average values of major element contents and the compositional fields of plutons associated with Fe, Cu, Zn and skarn deposits worldwide (Meinert, 1995; Pons et al. 2010) are shown for comparison (a, c, d). The shaded areas represents the Early Jurassic granite data in the Lesser Xing’an Ranfe area and are modified after Xu et al. (2013) and Han et al. (2019).

Figure 12

Table 5. Hf isotopic data for zircons of intrusions from the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit

Figure 13

Fig. 9. ϵHf(t) vs crystallization age of zircons from granodiorite and porphyritic granite of the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit (Vervoort et al. 1999; Yang et al. 2006). Luming and Xulaojiugou deposit data are from Hu et al. (2014b), Huojihe deposit data from Hu et al. (2019), Da’anhe data (unpublished) from our team, and Cuihongshan deposit data from Chen et al. (2014) and Fei et al. (2018).

Figure 14

Table 6. Sr–Nd–Pb isotopic data for granodiorites from the Ergu Fe–Zn polymetallic deposit

Figure 15

Fig. 10. Sr–Nd–Pb–Hf discrimination diagrams of the Early–Middle Jurassic granitoids in the Lesser Xing’an Range skarn–porphyry deposits: (a) ϵNd(t) vs (87Sr/86Sr)i diagram (Jahn et al. 2004); (b) ϵNd(t) vs crystallization age of zircons diagram (Wu et al. 2000); (c) plot of ϵHf(t) vs ϵNd(t) (Vervoort & Blichert-Toft 1999); (d) 208Pb/204Pb vs 206Pb/204Pb diagram (after Zartman & Doe, 1981). Luming and Xulaojiugou deposit data are from Hu et al. (2014b), Huojihe deposit data from Hu et al. (2019), Da’anhe data (unpublished) from our team, and Cuihongshan deposit data from Chen et al. (2014) and Fei et al. (2018).

Figure 16

Fig. 11. Compilation of age data of diagenesis and skarn–porphyry deposit mineralization age in the LXZR. The LXZR granites are from Han et al. (2019). Sketch modified after Han et al. (2019). Published data are from Table 7.

Figure 17

Table 7. Geochronological data for the Early–Middle Jurassic porphyry and skarn deposits from the Lesser Xing’an Range

Figure 18

Fig. 12. (a) SiO2 vs P2O5 plot. Trends of the I- and S-type granites are from Chappell & White (1992). (b) Th vs Rb plot. Trends of the I- and S-type granites are from Chappell & White, 1992. (c)–(f) Discrimination diagrams of K2O + Na2O vs 10 000 Ga/Al, TFeO/MgO vs 10 000 Ga/Al, Ce vs 10 000 Ga/Al, Y vs 10 000 Ga/Al (Whalen et al. 1987).

Figure 19

Fig. 13. (a) Rb/Sr vs Sr plot. (b) Sc/Yb vs SiO2/Al2O3, (c) Dy/Sm vs Zr/Sm and (d) (La/Yb)N vs La (after Liao et al. 2019) diagrams. Pl = plagioclase; Kfs = K-feldspar; Bt = biotite; Hbl = hornblende; Zr = zircon; Sph = titanite; Ap = apatite; Mon = monazite; Allan = allanite.

Figure 20

Fig. 14. (a) Th/Yb vs Ta/Yb plot (Pearce & Norry, 1983). (b) Sr/Y vs Y plot (Defant & Drummond, 1990). (c) Nb vs Y plot (Pearce et al. 1984). (d) Rb vs Y + Nb plot (Pearce et al. 1984). The shaded areas represents the Early Jurassic granite data in the Lesser Xing’an Ranfe area and are modified after Xu et al. (2013) and Han et al. (2019).

Figure 21

Fig. 15. (a) Nb vs Y and (b) V vs Ni correlation diagrams for intrusions associated with Fe and Cu mineralization at Ergu deposit. Open circles indicate the average compositions of plutons associated with skarn deposit types worldwide (Meinert 1995).

Figure 22

Fig. 16. Sketch showing the genetic model and tectonic setting for the Early Jurassic porphyry–skarn mineralization in the Lesser Xing’an Range. Modified after Han et al. (2019).