4.7 Article

U-Pb zircon geochronology and Hf-Nd isotopic systematics of Wadi Beitan granitoid gneisses, South Eastern Desert, Egypt

Journal

GONDWANA RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 811-824

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2013.11.002

Keywords

Arabian-Nubian Shield; Arc magmatism; Lu-Hf and Sm-Nd isotopes; Neoproterozoic; Zircon dating

Funding

  1. German Exchange Service (DAAD)
  2. Hong Kong Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Migmatitic granitoid gneisses are widespread in the southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, but their formation ages are poorly understood. They consist of granitoid gneiss ranging in composition from tonalite to granodiorite, with a distinct calc-alkaline chemical character. Zircons from three migmatitic gneiss samples from Wadi Beitan were dated on SHRIMP II and yielded magmatic emplacement ages of 719 +/- 10, 725 +/- 9 and 744 +/- 10 Ma, respectively, indicating that the gneiss protoliths are Neoproterozoic. The zircons yielded slif(t) values of -4.8 to + 12.5 and corresponding Hf crustal model ages ranging from 824 to 1753 Ma. These data indicate the involvement of both juvenile and older continental crust in protolith formation. Positive whole-rock epsilon Nd(t) values ( + 5.1 to + 6.6) and corresponding Nd model ages of 690 to 830 Ma suggest a relatively young, juvenile Neoproterozoic crustal source for the Wadi Beitan granitic gneisses. However, a epsilon Nd(t) value of + 5.1 (sample WB-23) is less than predicted for a depleted mantle source at similar to 700 Ma (epsilon Nd of about + 6.5), perhaps indicating that there was minor contribution from old (pre-Neoproterozoic) crust. The chemical data and significant variations in both isotopic systems argue for source heterogeneity and may suggest that the Wadi Beitan granitoids formed along an active continental margin. (C) 2013 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available