4.5 Article

Petrogenesis of the Late Jurassic peraluminous biotite granites and muscovite-bearing granites in SE China: geochronological, elemental and Sr-Nd-O-Hf isotopic constraints

期刊

CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINERALOGY AND PETROLOGY
卷 172, 期 11-12, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00410-017-1422-5

关键词

Biotite granites; Muscovite; bearing granites; Peraluminous granites; Highly fractionated granites; SE China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation [41272083]
  2. National Key Basic Research Projects [2012CB416706]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biotite granites and muscovite-bearing granites are dominant rock types of the widespread granites in SE China. However, their petrogenesis has been enigmatic. A combined study of zircon U-Pb dating and Lu-Hf isotopes, whole-rock element geochemistry and Sr-Nd-O isotopes was performed for three late Mesozoic granitic plutons (Xinfengjie, Jiangbei and Dabu) in central Jiangxi province, SE China. All the plutons are composed of biotite granites and muscovite-bearing granites that have been poorly investigated previously. The new data not only allow us to assess their sources and magma evolution processes, but also helps us to better understand the genetic link to the large-scale polymetallic mineralization in SE China. LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb dating shows that three plutons were emplaced in the Late Jurassic (159-148 Ma) and that the muscovite-bearing granites are almost contemporaneous with the biotite granites. The biotite granites have -SiO2 contents of 70.3-74.4 wt% and are weakly to strongly peraluminous with ASI from 1.00 to 1.26, and show a general decrease in ASI with increasing -SiO2. They have relatively high zircon saturation temperatures (T-Zr = 707-817 degrees C, most > 745 degrees C) and show a general decrease in T-Zr with increasing -SiO2. They have high initial Sr-87/Sr-86 ratios (0.7136 to 0.7166) and high delta O-18 values (9.1-12.8 parts per thousand most > 9.5 parts per thousand) and clearly negative epsilon(Nd) (T) (- 9.5 to - 11.8) and epsilon(Hf) (T) (in situ zircon) (- 13.1 to - 13.5). The muscovite-bearing granites have high -SiO2 contents (74.7-78.2 wt%). They are also weakly to strongly peraluminous with ASI of 1.04-1.18 but show a general increase in ASI with increasing -SiO2. They have relatively low T-Zr (671-764 degrees C, most < 745 degrees C) and also show a general decrease in T-Zr with increasing -SiO2. The muscovite-bearing granites have high Rb (up to 810 ppm) and high -(K2O + Na2O)/CaO (up to 270), Rb/Sr (up to 42) and Rb/Ba (up to 30) as well as low K/Rb (< 150, down to 50), Zr/Hf (< 24, down to 11) and Nb/Ta (< 6, down to 2). They show similar Nd-O-Hf isotopic compositions to the biotite granites with epsilon(Nd) (T) of -8.7 to -12.0, delta O-18 of 8.7-13.0% (most > 9.5%) and epsilon(Hf) (T) (in situ zircon) of -11.3 to -13.1. Geochemical data suggest the origin of the biotite granites and muscovite-bearing granites as follows: Partial melting of Precambrian metasedimentary rocks (mainly two-mica schist) in the lower crust at temperatures of ca. 820 degrees C generated the melts of the less felsic biotite granites. Such primary crustal melts underwent biotite-dominant fractionation crystallization, forming the felsic biotite granites. Progressive plagioclase-dominant fractionation crystallization from the evolved biotite granites produced the more felsic muscovite-bearing granites. Thus, the biotite granites belong to the S-type whereas the muscovite-bearing granites are highly fractionated S-type granites. We further suggest that during the formation of the muscovite-bearing granites the fractional crystallization was accompanied by fluid fractionation and most likely the addition of internally derived mineralizing fluids. That is why the large-scale polymetallic mineralization is closely related to the muscovite-bearing granites rather than biotite granites in SE China. This is important to further understand the source and origin of biotite granites and muscovite-bearing granites in SE China even worldwide.

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

4.5
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