4.0 Article

Late Orogenic Granitoids of the Tervu Agmatitic Zone in the Southeastern Part of the Svecofennian Belt (Northern Ladoga Area, Russia)

期刊

DOKLADY EARTH SCIENCES
卷 511, 期 2, 页码 685-691

出版社

MAIK NAUKA/INTERPERIODICA/SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1134/S1028334X23600561

关键词

late-orogenic granites; dating; breccia zone; Ladoga region; Svecofennian rocks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Tervu breccia zone and granitic agmatites have a sublatitudinal orientation and are discordant to the earlier structures in the Ladoga region. The U-Pb ages of the monazites from the Tervu and Peltola intrusions indicate simultaneous intrusion of the granites during the late-orogenic stage, revealing the tectonic development of the junction zone between the Karelian Craton and the Svecofennian Belt in the Fennoscandinavian shield.
The Tervu breccia zone was formed at the final stages of the Late Proterozoic magmatic and metamorphic activity (1.86 Ga ago) and healed with granitic material shortly after its formation. The Tervu breccia zone with granitic agmatites has a sublatitudinal orientation, which is discordant in relation to the earlier structures and Kurkijoki enderbite and Lauvatsaar-Impiniem diorite-tonalite complexes in the Svecofennian rocks of the Ladoga region. The largest granitic bodies in this area, the Tervu and Peltola intrusions, are located in the Tervu Zone. The U-Pb age of monazite from granites of the Peltola intrusion is determined as 1859 & PLUSMN; 4 Ma and coincides with the age of the granites of the Tervu intrusion (1859 & PLUSMN; 3 Ma), which indicates that the granites of both intrusions and some surrounding smaller bodies were intruded simultaneously into the tectonically weakened space at the late-orogenic stage while plastic deformations were turning to elasto-plastic ones. The results obtained reveal the features of the tectonic development of the junction zone of the two largest blocks of the Fennoscandinavian shield, the Karelian Craton and the Svecofennian Belt.

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

4.0
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