Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T06:22:54.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Petrogenesis and tectonic setting of the Dapingliang Late Neoproterozoic magmatic rocks in the eastern Kuluketage Block: geochronological, geochemical and Sr–Nd–Pb–Hf isotopic implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2019

Wei Chen*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Earth Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
Xinbiao Lü
Affiliation:
Faculty of Earth Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China Institute of Geological Survey, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
Xiaofeng Cao*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Earth Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China National Demonstration Center for Experimental Mineral Exploration Education, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
Wenjia Ai
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
*
Author for correspondence: Xiaofeng Cao, Email: Cao079@qq.com; Wei Chen, Email: weichen@cug.edu.cn
Author for correspondence: Xiaofeng Cao, Email: Cao079@qq.com; Wei Chen, Email: weichen@cug.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the past ten years, a great deal of geological study has been reported on the magmatic rocks exposed in the central and western region of the Kuluketage Block, while similar research in the eastern region has rarely been reported. In this paper, we report zircon U–Pb geochronological, zircon Lu–Hf isotopic, whole-rock elemental and Sr–Nd–Pb isotopic data for the Dapingliang intermediate-acid intrusive rocks in the eastern Kuluketage Block, in order to evaluate its petrogenesis and tectonic significance. Laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) zircon U–Pb dating provided a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 735 ± 3 Ma for the albitophyre (D1), 717 ± 2 Ma for the granite porphyry (D2) and 721 ± 1 Ma for the diorite porphyrite (D3). Geochemical analyses reveal that D1 and D2 belong to Na-rich alkaline A-type granites, and D3 shows the features of high-K calc-alkaline I-type granite. D1 and D2 are characterized by light rare earth element (LREE) enrichment and relative depletion of high field strength element (HFSE), with relatively flat heavy rare earth element (HREE) patterns and obviously negative Eu anomalies. D3 is characterized by the enrichment of LREE and depletion of HFSE, with negative slope HREE patterns and slightly negative Eu anomalies. In tectonic discrimination diagrams, D1 and D2 fall in the within-plate granite (WPG) field, indicating a rift setting. Although D3 falls within the volcanic arc granite (VAG) field, it most likely formed in a rift setting, as inferred from its petrology, Sr–Nd–Hf isotopes and regional tectonic evolution. Based on pronounced εNd(t), εHf(t), Pb isotopic data, TDM2 and high (87Sr/86Sr)i and elemental compositions, D1 was derived from the partial melting of basement amphibolites of the old lower crust. D2 originated from a mixture of the old lower crust and depleted mantle-derived magmas and was dominated by partial melting of the basement amphibolites of the lower crust. D3 could have been formed by partial melting of K-rich hornblende in the lower crust. Combining previous studies, we think that the c. 745–710 Ma magmatic rocks were formed in a continental rift setting. A partial melting scheme, triggered by underplating of mantle plume-derived magmas, is proposed to interpret the formation of c. 745–710 Ma A-type and I-type granitoids, mantle-derived mafic dykes, bimodal intrusive rocks, adakitic granites and volcanic rocks. These magmatic activities were probably a reflection of the break-up of the Rodinia supercontinent.

Highlights

  1. (1) Circa 720 Ma magmatism in the eastern Kuluketage Block.

  2. (2) Na-rich granite was derived from partial melting of basement amphibolites.

  3. (3) The c. 745–710 Ma magmatic rocks were formed in a continental rift setting.

  4. (4) The underplating of mantle plume-derived magmas is proposed.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Tectonic framework of Tarim Craton and adjacent areas (after Wu et al.2018). NCC, North China Craton; SCC, South China Craton; TC, Tarim Craton; STMT, Southern Tianshan Mountains; NKMT, Northern Kunlun Mountains; EKMT, Eastern Kunlun Mountains; ALMT, Altun Mountains. (b) Regional geological map of the Kuluketage Block in NE Tarim (after Cao et al.2012), showing the distribution of the c. 1000–615 Ma geochronological data. Superscript indicates no. in Table 1. Digitals of ages and errors are omitted.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. The age distribution of the Kuluketage Neoproterozoic magmatic rocks.

Figure 2

Table 1. Compilation of the latest Mesoproterozoic to Neoproterozoic geochronological data from the Kuluketage Block

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Simplified geological map of the Dapingliang area (after Liu et al.2015; Chen et al.2016), showing the sample locations and the geochronological data.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Hand specimen and photomicrographs of the albitophyre (a–a3), granite porphyry (b–b3) and diorite porphyrite (c–c3). Pl, Plagioclase; Kf, K-feldspar; Q, quartz; Ms, muscovite; Ab, albite; Bi, biotite; Px, pyroxene; Hbl, hornblende.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Zircon U–Pb concordia diagrams (a, b, c) and the CL images of zircon grains (a1–c1). a1–c1: red circles indicate the U–Pb isotopic analysis spots, and 206Pb/238U ages are presented between the circles, while green circles indicate the Lu–Hf isotopic analysis spots and the εHf(t) values are also presented between the circles.

Figure 6

Table 2. LA-ICP-MS U–Pb isotopic compositions of zircon grains for the D1, D2 and D3

Figure 7

Fig. 6. (a, b) Initial Hf composition and εHf(t) vs crystal age plots for dated zircon samples (after Long et al.2011b). (c) Histogram of the TDM2.

Figure 8

Table 3. LA-ICP-MS Lu–Hf isotopic compositions of zircon grains for the D1, D2 and D3

Figure 9

Fig. 7. Geochemical classification diagrams. (a) TAS diagram, after Cox et al. (1979); (b) A/CNK – A/NK diagram, after Shand (1943); (c) SiO2–K2O diagram, after Peccerillo & Taylor (1976); (d) K2O–Na2O diagram, after Peccerillo & Taylor (1976).

Figure 10

Fig. 8. Chrondrite-normalized REE patterns (a, c, e) and primitive mantle-normalized incompatible elements spider diagrams (b, d, f). The normalizing values are from Sun & McDonough (1989).

Figure 11

Fig. 9. (a) La / Sm–La discrimination diagram. (b) La / Yb–La discrimination diagram. (c) Ce / Yb–Ce discrimination diagram. Base plot is taken from Treuil & Joron (1975).

Figure 12

Fig. 10. Geochemical discrimination diagrams. (a) (Na2O + K2O)/CaO–(Zr + Nb + Ce + Y) and (d) FeO/MgO–(Zr + Nb + Ce + Y) discrimination diagrams after Pimentel et al. (1999). (b) (Na2O − K2O)/CaO – 10000 * Ga/Al, (c) FeO/MgO – 1000 * Ga/Al, (e) Ce – 1000 * Ga/Al and (f) Zr – 1000 * Ga/Al discrimination diagrams after Whalen et al. (1987). (g) Nb – Y – Ce, (h) Nb – Y– 3Ga and (I) Rb/Nb – Y/Nb discrimination diagrams after Eby (1992).

Figure 13

Fig. 11. Tectonic discrimination diagrams. (a) Nb–Y and (b) Ta–Yb discrimination diagrams after Pearce et al. (1984). (c) Rb/30 – Hf – 3*Ta discrimination diagram after Harris et al. (1986). VAG, volcanic arc granite; ORG, ocean ridge granite; WPG, within-plate granite; syn-COLG, syn-collision granite; POG, post-collision granite.

Figure 14

Table 4. Major elements (wt %), trace elements (ppm) and rare earth elements (ppm) of the Dapingliang pluton

Figure 15

Fig. 12. Plot of εNd(t) vs initial Sr isotope ratio for Dapingliang suite rocks. Base plot is after Keay et al. (1997). Symbols as in Figure 11.

Figure 16

Table 5. Sr and Nd isotopic data for D1, D2 and D3

Figure 17

Fig. 13. Isotopic correlation diagram for (a) 208Pb/204Pb vs 206Pb/204Pb and (b) 207Pb/204Pb vs 206Pb/204Pb of the Dapingliang suite rocks. Base plot is after White (2005). Symbols as in Figure 11.

Figure 18

Table 6. Pb isotopic data and initial ratios for D1, D2 and D3

Figure 19

Fig. 14. (a) Diagram of εHf(t) – t (after Long et al.2011b). (b) Diagram of εNd(t) – t (after Cao et al.2014). Data cited from Long et al. (2011b), Zhang et al. (2012a, b), Cao et al. (2014), Tang et al. (2016), Chen et al. (2017) and references therein.

Figure 20

Fig. 15. A proposed model for the generation of Late Neoproterozoic (c. 745–710 Ma) magma in the Kuluketage area, mostly likely triggered by underplating magmas.