4.6 Article

Eocene to Oligocene retrogression and recrystallization of the Stak eclogite in northwest Himalaya

期刊

LITHOS
卷 240, 期 -, 页码 155-166

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lithos.2015.10.022

关键词

Retrogressed eclogite; Raman spectroscopy; Residual pressure; SHRIMP; Continental collision

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [Kouketsu: 22.7116]
  2. NSERC [616-2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly retrogressed eclogite is present in the Stak massif located on the northern edge of the Indian continental margin in northern Pakistan. Garnet in foliated samples contains omphacite inclusions (X-jd = 0.33-0.40) and quartz inclusions and latter retain Raman spectroscopic evidence for high residual pressures up to 0.52 GPa. These garnet grains do not show apparent compositional zoning. By contrast, one sample contains euhedral grains of garnet with quartz inclusions that show residual pressures as low as 0.25 GPa. These garnet grains do not contain omphacite inclusions, and show different compositional zoning compared to the omphacitebearing garnet The metamorphic condition of this sample was estimated to be 1.0-1.4 GPa/650-710 degrees C using residual pressure values of quartz inclusions in garnets and the garnet-clinopyroxene geothermometer. The U-Pb ages of zircon grains range from 158 to 28 Ma with a cluster between at ca. 32 Ma, which is younger than that of the peak ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic ages of eclogitic massifs in the northwestern Himalaya, e.g. Kaghan and Tso Morari. We suggest that the retrogressed eclogitic rocks in the Stak massif were heated by nearby Nanga Parbat Haramosh massif at ca. 32 Ma, subsequent to peak eclogite facies conditions. During this heating, part of the eclogite was largely recrystallized to form euhedral garnet grains. These results suggest that the Stak massif resided at a lower crustal depth while other ultrahigh-pressure massifs were exhumed in western Himalaya. (C) 2015 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