Neoproterozoic Magmatic Events and Tectonic Attribution of the Erguna Massif:Constraints from Geochronological,Geochemical and Hf Isotopic Data of Intrusive Rocks

Shuo Zhao,Wenliang Xu,Jie Tang,Yu Li,Peng Guo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3799/dqkx.2016.550
2016-01-01
Abstract:This paper presents LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb dating,major and trace elements,and Hf isotope data of the Neoproterozoic granitoids in the Erguna Massif with the aim of constraining the Neoproterozoic tectonic evolution and tectonic attribution of the Erguna Massif.Zircons from these granitoids are of magmatic origin in accordance with CL images and high Th/U ratios (0.17-1.46).The zircon dating results,together with previously published age data,demonstrate that the Neoproterozoic magmatisms in the Erguna Massif can be subdivided into seven stages:about 929 Ma,about 887 Ma,about 850 Ma,about 819 Ma,about 792 Ma,about 764 Ma and about 738 Ma.Geochemically,about 887 Ma granites are similar to those of post-collisional granites,whereas 850-737 Ma granit-oids are similar generally to A-type granites,except for some samples (collected from Mohe,Amuer,Bishui and Shiwei plutons) which are similar to Ⅰ-type granites.Zircon Hf isotopic compositions indicate that their primary magmas could have originated not only by partial melting of a depleted lower crust that accreated during the Meso-Neoproterozoic (TDM2=884-1563 Ma),with a contribu-tion of ancient crustal material in their petrogenesis,but also by partial melting of the residual ancient mafic crustal material.These ge-ochemical data,combined with the published data and the global magmatic-tectonic-thermal events,indicate that Neoproterozoic mag-matic events within the Erguna Massif recorded crustal evolution as a result of the assembly and breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent:magmatisms between 927 Ma and 880 Ma were the result of collision-orogeny during the stage of assembly of the Rodinia superconti-nent,whereas the 850-737 Ma magmatisms recorded the breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent.The Erguna Massif has an affinity to the adj acent massifs (e.g.Central Mongolia and Tuva massifs)near the southern margin of the Siberian block,and is similar to the Ta-rim and South China blocks at least in terms of these Neoproterozoic magmatic events,but obviously different from the North China and Siberian blocks.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?