4.5 Article

Temperature and bulk composition control on the growth of monazite and zircon during low-pressure anatexis (Mount Stafford, central Australia)

Journal

JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 10, Pages 1973-1996

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/petrology/egl033

Keywords

accessory phases; anatexis; trace element partitioning; U-Pb dating

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The formation, age and trace element composition of zircon and monazite were investigated across the prograde, low-pressure metamorphic sequence at Mount Stafford (central Australia). Three pairs of inter-layered metapelites and metapsammites were sampled in migmatites from amphibolite-facies (T similar to 600 degrees C) to granulite-facies conditions (T similar to 800 degrees C). Sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe U-Pb dating on metamorphic zircon rims and on monazite indicates that granulite-facies metamorphism occurred between similar to 1795 and 1805 Ma. The intrusion of an associated granite was coeval with metamorphism at 1802 +/- 3 Ma and is unlikely to be the heat source for the prograde metamorphism. Metamorphic growth of zircon started at T similar to 750 degrees C, well above the pelite solidus. Zircon is more abundant in the metapelites, which experienced higher degrees of partial melting compared with the associated metapsammites. In contrast, monazite growth initiated under sub-solidus prograde conditions. At granulite-facies conditions two distinct metamorphic domains were observed in monazite. Textural observations, petrology and the trace element composition of monazite and garnet provide evidence that the first metamorphic monazite domain grew prior to garnet during prograde conditions and the second in equilibrium with garnet and zircon close to the metamorphic peak. Ages from sub-solidus, prograde and peak metamorphic monazite and zircon are not distinguishable within error, indicating that heating took place in less than 20 Myr.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available