4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Oxygen isotope geochemistry of rocks from the pre-pilot hole of the Chinese Continental Scientific Drilling Project (CCSD-PPH1)

期刊

AMERICAN MINERALOGIST
卷 90, 期 5-6, 页码 857-863

出版社

MINERALOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2138/am.2005.1650

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Qinglongshan O- and H-isotope anomaly occurs within a coesite-bearing, eclogite-facies regional metamorphic belt in Eastern China near Donghai in Jiangsu province. The anomaly is defined by low values of delta O-18 and delta D. Garnets from eclogite have delta O-18 as low as -11 parts per thousand and rutiles are -15 parts per thousand (VSMOW). Phengites have delta D of -120 parts per thousand (VSMOW). The anomaly is Neoproterozoic in age. Surface outcrops of coesite-eclogite-facies rocks with unusually low delta O-18 and delta D values extend over an area of at least 1600 km(2). The Chinese Continental Scientific Drilling project has made it possible to investigate the depth of the Qinglongshan anomaly and to measure an O-isotope profile across a garnet peridotite body sandwiched between crustal rocks. New O-isotope analyses of minerals separated from drill core gneisses, eclogites, amphibolite, and quartzite verify that the Qinglongshan O-isotope anomaly extends to a depth of at least 432 in. Crustal rocks with unusually low PO form both the hanging- and foot-walls of a 100 m thick, fault-bounded, garnet peridotite body intersected by the drill. Minerals of the garnet peridotite body have delta O-18 values indistinguishable from mantle nodules and megacrysts. The garnet peridotites may have originated from enriched mantle sources in sub-cratonic lithosphere, isolated from mantle convection. This origin is consistent with the collision of the Archean Sino-Korean craton with the Yangtze plate, consequent subduction, and UHP metamorphism. The garnet peridotite was transported from the mantle and emplaced into UHP crustal rocks during Triassic subduction and cratonic collision.

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