3.8 Article

Petrologic and thermobarometric study of the Rias schists (NW Iberian Massif)

期刊

BOLETIN GEOLOGICO Y MINERO
卷 130, 期 3, 页码 445-464

出版社

INST GEOLOGICA MINERO ESPANA
DOI: 10.21701/bolgeomin.130.3.004

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CGL2013-46061-P, 14.Y26.31.0012]
  2. Juan de la Cierva grant [FJCI-2014-20740]
  3. Russian Federation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Rios Schists crop out in the so-called Iberian Variscan parautochthon, surrounding the Malpica-Tui Complex (NW Iberian Massif), as part of the westernmost internal areas of the European Variscan belt. Three Variscan metamorphic events have been identified in the Bias Schists (M-1, M-2 and post-M-2). M-1 comprise unoriented microinclusions that have only been identified in garnet porphyroblast cores and inside staurolite crystals. M-1 comprises the matrix foliation (S-2) and the assemblage garnet(RIM) + staurolite + muscovite + biotite + chlorite + rutile/ilmenite + magnetite + quartz and the development of syntectonic andalusite. Finally, post-M-2 (post-S-2) includes andalusite and plagioclase together with secondary muscovite, biotite and chlorite and accessory tourmaline, Fe/Ti oxides, apatite and carbonate. Results of multi-equilibrium thermobarometry (pressure-temperature pseudosections), for M-2 indicates a medium-pressure Barrovian metamorphic event (0.5-0.6 GPa; 580-570 degrees C; ca. 20 km deep), followed by moderate cooling during decompression, together with the extensional collapse of the Variscan orogenic pile (post-M-2 ; 0.3 GPa; 540 degrees C; ca. 10 km deep). Inferred P T conditions in the Rias Schists, and their spatial relationship with the overlying allochthonous high-pressure pelitic schists (i.e. Cean Schists), suggest that both lithologies were part of the same continental margin during the beginning of the Variscan orogeny. However, they experienced very different tectonothermal evolutions due to their putative locations in the orogenic wedge.

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

3.8
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