4.6 Article

Petrology, geochemistry, and geochronology of the Zhonggang ocean island, northern Tibet: implications for the evolution of the Banggongco-Nujiang oceanic arm of the Neo-Tethys

期刊

INTERNATIONAL GEOLOGY REVIEW
卷 56, 期 12, 页码 1504-1520

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00206814.2014.947639

关键词

Tibetan Plateau; Banggongco-Nujiang suture; Zhonggang ocean island; OIB; geochemistry; geochronology

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [41072166, 41272240, 41273047]
  2. China Geological Survey Project [1212011221093, 1212011121248, 12120113036700]
  3. Graduate Innovation Fund of Jilin University [2014063]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents new data relating to the tectonic evolution of the Zhonggang ocean island, within the Mesozoic Banggongco-Nujiang suture zone of northern Tibet, and discusses the implications of these data for the evolution of this region. Thirteen basalt and ten gabbro samples were collected from a sampling transect through this area; these samples have light rare earth element (LREE)-enriched chondrite-normalized REE patterns, and are enriched in highly incompatible elements, yielding primitive-mantle-normalized trace-element variation patterns that are similar to ocean island basalts (OIB). A gabbro dike intruded into basalt of the Zhonggang ocean island and was overlain by basaltic conglomerate, suggesting that this dike was formed after the basalt, but before the basaltic conglomerate. The gabbro dike yields an LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb age of 116.2 +/- 4.1 Ma, indicating the timing of formation of the Zhonggang ocean island, and suggesting in turn that the Banggongco-Nujiang Neo-Tethys Ocean remained open at this time. These data, combined with the geological history of the region, indicates that the Banggongco-Nujiang Neo-Tethys Ocean opened between the late Permian and the Early Triassic, expanded rapidly between Late Triassic and Middle Jurassic time, and finally closed between the late Early and early Late Cretaceous.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据