4.7 Article

High Water Contents in Zircons Suggest Water-Fluxed Crustal Melting During Cratonic Destruction

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2021GL097126

关键词

zircon water content; water-fluxed melting; granite genesis; mantle origin; cratonic destruction; North China Craton

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41688103, 41673010]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB18000000]
  3. Key Special Project for Introduced Talents Team of Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Guangzhou) [GML2019ZD0202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study addresses the origin and role of water in granite generation by analyzing zircons from Late Mesozoic granites in the North China Craton. The results suggest that water predominantly comes from the mantle and facilitates crustal melting, leading to the formation of more voluminous melts.
Water is essential for the formation of granites, but its origin and role in granite generation (i.e., dehydration vs. water-fluxed melting) remain uncertain. These issues are addressed by combining water abundances and other geochemical indices in zircons from Late Mesozoic granites generated during the destruction of the North China Craton (NCC). The water contents in zircons from the NCC Early Cretaceous granites (763 ppm, median) are much higher than those of the NCC Jurassic granites (424-513 ppm), upper mantle and continental arc magmas (92-477 ppm). More importantly, the higher water contents in the voluminous Early Cretaceous granites also have higher zircon saturation temperatures, epsilon(Hf)(t), and lower delta O-18 values. These observations suggest a predominantly mantle origin for the water, and water-fluxed crustal melting, in which larger water ingression produced more voluminous melts. The high-water flux was likely related to the subduction of the Paleo-Pacific Plate, which ultimately destabilized the NCC.

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

4.7
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