Magma-Dynamic Evidence for Indosinian Cycle Emplacement of the Qitianling Granite Batholith in Nanling Range,Sourth China:Reply and Discussion to Comments by Prof.Zhu Jinchu Et Al

ZHANG Bang-tong,WU Jun-qi,LING Hong-fei,CHEN Pei-rong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-7493.2010.03.014
2010-01-01
Abstract:Although many factors can influence the duration of cooling-crystallization process of a granitic melt, such as the initial temperature of the granite melt, the crystallization temperature, the temperature and thermal conductivity of country rocks, the depth of emplacement, the volume of granite pluton, the radiogenic heat of the granite and other thermophysical parameters, the calculated results showed that the volume of granite body is the most important factor. For example, using the same parameters as the Qitianling granite batholith, but with different volumes, the tECTD values for granite plutons with various outcrop areas are caculated as follows: 42.1 Ma for Qitainling granite batholith of 520 km2;0.7 Ma for granite pluton of 50 km2;0.05 Ma for granite pluton of 4 km2. Using tabular model and in combination with zircon U-Pb age (161 Ma), the emplacement age (tE) of the Qitainling granite batholith is estimated to be 206.Ma, while the tE is 203 Ma for cubic model . This suggests that the emplacement of the Qitainling granite magma was in the Indosinian Period. Using least squares regression procedure, a best regression equation (tRb= 0.9928×tZr+2.158) with high correlation coefficient (R=0.997) is fitted for 205 pairs of zircon U-Pb ages and whole rock Rb-Sr ages of granite plutons. The frequency analysis of 205 individual values of difference between each pair (t= tZr-tRb ) for granite plutons shows symmetrical normal distribution (skewness CSK=-0.148; kutrocess CKU=6.771) with the t median of 0.0 Ma and the t mode of 2.0 Ma. These statistical characteristics indicate that, for granites as a whole, both zircon U-Pb dating age and whole-rock Rb-Sr isochron ages are consistent within error and thus the zircon U-Pb dating age cannot represent the emplacement age of a granite batholith. Therefore, we recognized that the conclusion ofU-Pb closure temperature 900 ℃ drawn from experiment of U-Pb diffusion in zircon by heating zircon crystals by Lee et al (1997) and Cherniak et al (2000) may only be applied to understanding and explaining the behaviour of U-Pb system of inherited zircons within granites during the heating and partial melting process in source regions of the granites, but can not be applied to the zircon crystallized from the granitic melts. The time difference of the whole rock Rb-Sr isochron ages (tRb-Rb=15.7~32 Ma) between syntexis type granites (Longtang granodiorite, Changtai granodiarite) and its co-magmatic volcanic rocks, and the two stages of U-Pb dating results (with age difference of 24~50 Ma) of zircons from some granite plutons in South China also support existence of large emplacementcrystallization time difference (ECTD) in granite batholiths.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?