4.6 Article

Age and composition of Cu-Au related rocks from the lower Yangtze River belt: Constraints on paleo-Pacific slab roll-back beneath eastern China

期刊

LITHOS
卷 202, 期 -, 页码 331-346

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.lithos.2014.06.007

关键词

Adakite; Cu-Au deposit; Yangtze River belt; Pb-Sr-Nd isotopes; Zircon age

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41090372, 41372072]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [2011T2S39]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cu-Au mineralization in the Yangtze River belt is closely related to the formation of adakitic rocks. The origin of these rocks is still controversially discussed. In this study, we report zircon U-Pb ages, major-trace element and Pb-Sr-Nd isotopes of Cu-Au related adakitic rocks from the Anqing and Tongling areas of the lower Yangtze River belt (LYRB). Geochemically, the rocks show similarities to adakites derived from slab melting. Statistical evaluation of existing zircon U-Pb data from the LYRB reveals a protracted magmatic activity from 148 Ma to 106 Ma with peak activity at similar to 139 Ma. Cu-Au related magmatism tends to decrease in age from the southwest (Gan-Hang belt) to the northeast (LYRB). This trend was probably imposed by a roll-back process of the paleo-Pacific plate. The Cu-Au related adakitic rocks in the Gan-Hang belt and the middle and lower Yangtze River belt show systematic variation in geochemical and Pb-Sr-Nd isotopic compositions, pointing to a change in magma composition with time. The rocks have features in common with Cenozoic slab-derived adakites, but have experienced different extents of melt peridotite interaction and complex crustal assimilation processes. AFC modeling shows that input of crustal material increased with time. Combined with the decrease of estimated copper reserves, it is concluded that this records a diminishing influence of slab-derived components during the course of the paleo-Pacific subduction process. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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