Next Article in Journal
Ce and Nd Extraction by Cationic Exchange, Using Bentonite, Diatomite, and Eggshell—Preliminary Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Petrogenesis of Syn-Collisional Adakitic Granitoids and Their Copper Mineralization Potential in the North Qilian Suture Zone
Previous Article in Journal
Geostatistical Evaluation of a Porphyry Copper Deposit Using Copulas
Previous Article in Special Issue
Petrogenesis of Shihuiyao Rare-Metal Granites in the Southern Great Xing’an Range, NE China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/min13060734
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Geochronology and Petrogenesis of the Early Paleozoic Jilongjie Granites in the Central South China Block: Implication for Post-Kinematic Lithospheric Delamination

by
Haiyang He
1,2,3,
Tingting Wang
1,
Qinglin Sui
1,
Xianzhe Duan
1,
Xuan Ren
1,
Danping Hou
1,
Yanshi Xie
1,
Shan Liu
1,
Peng Feng
1,
Huanbao Zhang
1,* and
Liang Chen
1,2,*
1
School of Resource & Environment and Safety Engineering, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Resources and Environment, East China University of Technology, Nanchang 330013, China
3
Hunan Key Laboratory of Rare Metal Minerals Exploitation and Geological Disposal of Wastes, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2023, 13(6), 734; https://doi.org/10.3390/min13060734
Submission received: 12 February 2023 / Revised: 24 May 2023 / Accepted: 25 May 2023 / Published: 29 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mineralization in Subduction Zone)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Controversy over the geodynamic interpretation of the early Paleozoic granites in the South China Block constrains understanding of tectonic–magmatic evolution. In this paper, we present zircon U-Pb age, Hf isotope, and major and trace element data of the early Paleozoic granites in the Jilongjie region, south-central Hunan Province. A sample that yielded a weighted average 206Pb/238U age of 425 ± 3 Ma falls into the post-collisional granite field in the classification discriminant of magmatic rocks. Geochemical features indicate that the Jilongjie pluton is a shoshonitic metaluminous rock. The Jilongjie pluton’s chondrite-normalized rare earth element patterns exhibit a slight enrichment of light rare earth elements (LREEs) relative to heavy rare earth elements (HREEs) with (La/Yb)N ratios of 15.1–23.7 and weak Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.68–0.78). Zircon Hf isotope results show εHf(t) ranging from −9.94 to −0.69. Jilongjie granite’s parent magma originated from a mixing of crust-derived felsic and mantle-derived mafic magmas, which then underwent fractional crystallization during its ascent. Jilongjie granite was generated through a post-collisional extensional setting associated with delamination of the thickened lithosphere.

1. Introduction

The South China Block (SCB) was formed by the amalgamation of the Cathaysia Block in the southeast and the Yangtze Block in the northwest during the Neoproterozoic [1,2,3,4,5]. There is a significant amount of granite in the South China Block, which is generally considered one of the largest granite provinces in the world [6,7]. These granites are considered to have responded to the Caledonian, Indosinian, and Yanshanian tectonic events in the South China Block [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Caledonian massive granitic intrusions outcrop to the east of the Anhua–Luocheng Fault zone as batholiths and laccoliths, and are important components of the Phanerozoic granites in the eastern South China Block (Figure 1).
In recent years, many studies have been carried out on Indosinian and Yanshanian granites in the South China Block; Yanshanian granites are closely related to large-scale mineralization [21,22,23,24,25]. However, the petrogenesis and tectonic setting of Caledonian granites are still controversial (Table 1), with different viewpoints on tectonic settings, such as continental margin arc, oceanic–continental subduction, continental collision, and intracontinental orogeny.
In this paper, we present zircon U-Pb dating, Hf isotope results, and whole-rock geochemical data for the early Paleozoic granites in the south-central Hunan, central South China Block, which have previously received much attention. In-depth study of the petrogenesis and tectonic setting provides information to further understanding of the SCB’s early Paleozoic tectonic–magmatic evolution.
Minerals 13 00734 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Geotectonic map of China and its adjacent areas; (b) simplified geological map showing the distribution of the Early Middle Paleozoic granites in the eastern SBC (modified from Li, et al. [26] and Zhao, et al. [27]); (c) geological map of the Jilongjie area. Part of the data sources are shown in Table 1.
Figure 1. (a) Geotectonic map of China and its adjacent areas; (b) simplified geological map showing the distribution of the Early Middle Paleozoic granites in the eastern SBC (modified from Li, et al. [26] and Zhao, et al. [27]); (c) geological map of the Jilongjie area. Part of the data sources are shown in Table 1.
Minerals 13 00734 g001
Table
Table 1. Summary ages of the Early Middle Paleozoic rocks in SCB.
Table 1. Summary ages of the Early Middle Paleozoic rocks in SCB.
NumberLocalityLithologyDating MethodAge (Ma)Literature
1TanghuGraniteZircon U-Pb dating433 ± 2[28]
2WangyangshanGraniteZircon U-Pb dating434[29]
GuidongGranodioriteZircon U-Pb dating425.5 ± 1.7
ZhaiqianGraniteZircon U-Pb dating430.7 ± 1.9
3NapengGraniteZircon U-Pb dating418 ± 12[30]
4Song ChayGraniteZircon U-Pb dating428 ± 5[31]
5ZhuguangGraniteZircon U-Pb dating446.7 ± 6.3; 424.6 ± 3.7[32]
6SongwangFoliated graniteZircon U-Pb dating440.7 ± 5.6[7]
DaguGranitic gneiss421.9 ± 9.8
YuntanBiotite orthogneiss427.1 ± 4.2
ChidongBiotite paragneiss423.0 ± 7.0
HebapuGranitic gneiss429.6 ± 5.2
7WeipuGraniteZircon U-Pb dating427.4 ± 4.0[33]
8Northwestern FujianGraniteZircon U-Pb dating437 ± 5; 437 ± 4; 440 ± 5; 441 ± 4[34]
9TianjingpingGranodioriteZircon U-Pb dating447 ± 2[35]
10SibaoGraniteShrimp U-Pb zircon432[26]
Weipu433
11YunkaiGranite; gneissic graniteZircon U-Pb dating430 ± 10; 443 ± 4; 437 ± 5[36]
12Wugong domainGneissoid granite; orthogneiss; migmatiteZircon U-Pb dating455 ± 8; 455 ± 9; 456 ± 5; 443 ± 5; 424 ± 6; 452 ± 4[37]
Northern Wuyi domainGenissoid granite; orthogneiss; migmatite410 ± 10; 427 ± 15; 430 ± 9; 457 ± 6
Southern Wuyi domainGenissoid granite; orthogneiss430 ± 6; 438 ± 3; 432 ± 6; 427 ± 4; 426 ± 6; 426 ± 8; 437 ± 3; 430 ± 6
Yunkai domainOrthogneiss; gneissoid granite; leucosome in migmatite; paragneiss450 ± 8; 449 ± 5; 443 ± 7; 415 ± 7; 435 ± 8; 452 ± 6
13WupingGneissic graniteZircon U-Pb dating496 ± 4; 494 ± 6[38]
14Le’anBiotite monzogranite429 ± 2[39]
ZhangjiafangBiotite monzogranite440 ± 2
ShuangzhuangMonzogranite; biotite monzogranite424 ± 4; 441 ± 3
PengongmiaoMonzogranite405 ± 3
WanyangshanMonzogranite433 ± 4
TanghuMonzogranite454 ± 2
BanshanpuMonzogranite418 ± 2
HongxiaqiaoGranodiorite432 ± 6
MiaoershanMonzogranite400 ± 4; 415 ± 2
HaiyangshanBiotite monzogranite429 ± 11
FengdingshanGranodiorite402 ± 2
15Xuefengshan BelttGraniteZircon U-Pb dating428 ± 4; 438 ± 3; 437 ± 4; 411 ± 4; 412 ± 4; 424 ± 3[40]
16TaishanGraniteZircon U-Pb dating436 ± 3; 436 ± 3; 436 ± 4; 436 ± 6;[41]
17YuechenlingGraniteZircon U-Pb dating435 ± 4; 427 ± 3; 417 ± 6[27]
Miaoershan404 ± 4
18Northern GuangdongBasalt; andesite; dacite, ignimbriteZircon U-Pb dating; Shrimp U-Pb dating435 ± 6; 435 ± 6[42]
19YunkaiCharnockiteZircon U-Pb dating439 ± 2; 439 ± 4[43]
20DoulongGraniteZircon U-Pb dating429 ± 3; 430 ± 3; 430 ± 2; 430 ± 2[44]
21ShangmushuiGranodioriteZircon U-Pb dating444 ± 4[45]
22WanyangshanTonalite; granodiorite; monzonitic graniteZircon U-Pb dating438 ± 3; 426 ± 3[46]
23DaningGraniteSHRIMP419.1 ± 6.4[47]

2. Geological Setting and Petrography

The SCB consists of the Cathaysia Block in the southeast and the Yangtze Block in the northwest. The northeasterly trending Jiangshan–Shaoxing Fault is the present boundary between the Cathaysia Block and the Yangtze Block [25,39,48]. However, the southwestern extension is uncertain due to intensive younger tectonic modification and poor exposure.
The Cathaysia basement is considered to be predominantly composed of gneiss, schist, migmatite, amphibolite, and pyroclastic rocks from the Mesoproterozoic and Paleoproterozoic ages [14,49,50,51]. The Precambrian Cathaysia Block basement can be divided into the Nanling–Yunkai terrane in the southwest and the Wuyishan terrane in the northeast [52]. The oldest basement rocks in the Cathaysia Block are amphibolites (~1.80 Ga) distributed on the Wuyishan terrane [53]. Moreover, minor Mesoproterozoic granite (~1.43 Ga) was identified on Hainan Island in the south [54]. Recently, some Neoproterozoic mafic rocks were identified in the Cathaysian block [55]. The basement of the Yangtze Block is mainly composed of Proterozoic rocks, with minor Archean rocks, such as Kongling complex, dating to ca. 3.2 Ga [56,57,58,59]. Moreover, Neoproterozoic volcanic rocks appear around the Yangtze Block.
Samples for this study were collected in Jilongjie Town, 30 km southwest of Hengyang City, Hunan Province (N 26°50′17.81″; E 112°15′10.21″). The plutonic rock area is approximately 25 km2; host rocks are quartz sandstone and siltstone of the Permian Yangping and Leping Formation, as well as Carboniferous dolomite and dolomitic limestone. Plutonic rocks are in nonconformity contact with host rocks (Figure 2a). Exposed rock units in the study area also include Sinian slate, dolomite and limestone, Cambrian slate and phyllite, Ordovician phyllite and limestone, Devonian limestone, dolomite and mudstone, Carboniferous sandstone and siltstone, Cretaceous Dongjing Formation sandstone and conglomerate, Paleogene Dongtang Formation sandstone and sandy mudstone, and Quaternary sandy clay and sandy soil (Figure 1c).
Jilongjie plutonic rocks are uniform in structure; their main minerals are K-feldspar (35%~40%), plagioclase (25%~30%), quartz (20%~30%), biotite (6%~10%), and amphibole (2%~4%); their accessory minerals include titanite, magnetite, and zircon (Figure 2e,f). Plagioclase occurs mainly as euhedral plate-like crystals, with albite twining; K-feldspar and quartz are anhedral (Figure 2e,f).

3. Analytical Methods

Zircon U-Pb dating, major and trace element analyses of whole rock, and zircon Hf isotopic analyses were conducted at the Wuhan SampleSolution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd., Wuhan, China. Zircon U-Pb dating analysis was conducted using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). Detailed operating conditions for the LA system and ICP-MS instrument and data reduction were the same as described in [60]. Ion-signal intensities were acquired using an Agilent 7700e (Agilent Technology, Tokyo, Japan). In this study, the spot size was set to 32 µm and the laser frequency was set to 5 Hz. U-Pb dating and trace element calibration used zircon 91500 and glass NIST610 (Wuhan SampleSolution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd., Wuhan, China) as external standards, respectively. Off-line selection and integration of background and analyzed signals, time-drift correction, and quantitative calibration for trace element analysis and U-Pb dating were completed using ICPMSDataCal 12.2, an Excel-based software [61]. Concordia diagrams and weighted mean calculations of zircon samples were conducted using the Isoplot/Ex (version 3.0) program [62].
Major and trace element analyses of whole rock were performed using X-ray fluorescence (XRF, Rigaku, Japan) and ICP-MS (Agilent 7700e). Analytical uncertainties for major elements were generally <1 wt.%. Analytical results for AGV-2, BHVO-2, BCR-2, and RGM-2 international standards indicate that accuracies were better than 5% for most elements. The analytical procedure details were as described by Liu, et al. [63].
Hafnium isotope ratio analysis experiments were conducted in situ using a Neptune Plus multicollector (MC) ICP-MS (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) in combination with a Geolas HD excimer ArF laser ablation system (Coherent, Göttingen, Germany). This laser ablation system includes a “wire” signal smoothing device that produces smooth signals even at very low laser repetition rates (as low as 1 Hz) [64]. Helium was the carrier gas within the ablation cell, and was merged with argon (makeup gas) after the ablation cell. Small amounts of nitrogen were added to the argon makeup gas flow to improve its sensitivity to Hf isotopes [65]. Compared to the standard arrangement, the addition of nitrogen in combination with the newly designed X skimmer cone and Jet sample cone in Neptune Plus improved the signal intensities of Hf, Yb, and Lu by factors of 5.3, 4.0, and 2.4, respectively. Detailed operating conditions for the laser ablation system, the MC-ICP-MS instrument, and the analytical method were the same as those described by Hu, et al. [66].

4. Results

4.1. Zircon U-Pb Geochronological Results

In this study, seventeen zircon grains in a sample (JL-U) from the Jilongjie pluton were selected for LA-ICP-MS dating. Zircon U-Pb data are listed in Table 2, and the concordia diagram is shown in Figure 3a. These zircon grains were euhedral, gray-white, or colorless. The crystals were elongated with lengths ranging from 120 to 280 μm and aspect ratios from 2:1 to 5:1. In cathodoluminescence, zircon crystals showed a clear and dense ring structure, indicating magmatic origin (Figure 3a). Zircon trace element data showed high Th/U values, which also indicate a magmatic crystallization origin [67]. Zircon trace element contents are listed in Table 3, and the chondrite-normalized REE diagram is shown in Figure 3b. Zircon crystals had similar characteristics to typical magmatic zircons [67], such as positive Ce and negative Eu anomalies, and HREE enrichment relative to LREE (Figure 3b).
Seventeen zircon grains had consistent or near-uniform 206Pb/238U ages ranging from 417 ± 3 Ma to 432 ± 3 Ma, with a weighted mean age of 426 ± 3 Ma (MSWD = 2.1, n = 17) (Figure 3a). The average age of Jilongjie plutonic rocks represents the crystallization age of the magmatic rocks, indicating that they were emplaced in the early Paleozoic.

4.2. Whole-Rock Geochemistry

Eleven representative samples were selected for whole-rock major element and trace element analyses (Table 3). Their loss on ignition (L.O.I.) range (1.83–3.04) suggests that Jilongjie plutonic rocks were insignificantly affected by alteration. Hence, we normalized the major element contents to 100% on a volatile-free basis. Jilongjie plutonic rocks had an SiO2 content of 64.27–66.34 wt.%, K2O content of 4.38–4.94 wt.%, Na2O content of 2.50–2.93 wt.%, Al2O3 content of 12.95–14.31 wt.%, and total alkali (K2O + Na2O) content of 7.43–8.20. According to the total alkali–silica (TAS) diagram of igneous rocks proposed by Le Maitre [68], all Jilongjie plutons fall into the granite area (Figure 4a). In the K2O − SiO2 diagram, all samples fall into the shoshonite field [69]. The samples’ A/CNK (Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O + K2O)) range was 0.80–1.04, and their A/NK (Al2O3/(Na2O + K2O)) range was 1.28–1.53. Therefore, in the A/CNK − A/NK diagram, Jilongjie granites fall into the meta-aluminous to weakly peraluminous fields [70]. In conclusion, Jilongjie pluton is shoshonitic granite.
Jilongjie granite contains 155.1–239.7 ppm of rare earth elements (∑REE). The chondrite-normalized rare earth element pattern suggests that Jilongjie granite has obvious enrichment of light rare earth elements relative to heavy rare earth elements ((La/Yb)N = 15.1–23.7) (Figure 5a). The samples showed a weak negative Eu anomaly, with Eu/Eu* in the 0.68–0.78 range (Figure 5a, Table 4). In the primitive-mantle-normalized trace element diagram, the samples clearly showed enrichment of large ion lithophile elements (such as Sr, Rb, and Ba) and depletion of high-field-strength elements (such as Nb, Ta, and Ti) (Figure 5b).

4.3. Zircon Hf Isotopic Results

Hafnium isotopic results and related parameters of 17 zircon grains of the Jilongjie granite samples are listed in Table 5. 176Lu/177Hf values were 0.001295–0.002283, 176Yb/177Hf values were 0.30414–0.56216, and 176Hf/177Hf values were 0.282502–0.282238 (Table 5). The Hf isotopic composition showed a wide variation; εHf(t) values were −9.94 to −0.69; model age values TDM were 1.08–1.46 Ga, and two-stage model age values TDM2 were 1.46–2.04 Ga (Table 5).

5. Discussion

5.1. Genetic Type and Magma Source

Granite’s genesis and geodynamic mechanisms are closely related to rock types [72]. Whalen, et al. [73] proposed that A, I, S, and M-type granites can be distinguished according to rocks’ geochemical characteristics, such as FeO*/MgO and the Y vs. 10,000 × Ga/Al discriminant diagram. In the discrimination diagram, all samples fall into I, S, and M regions, indicating that they are not A-type granites (Figure 6a,b). I-type granites are generally calcium-rich and aluminum-poor, with a high Na2O/K2O ratio, and are mostly meta-aluminous (A/CNK < 1.1). I-type granites’ dark minerals mostly contain clinopyroxene or amphibole. S-type granites are rich in aluminum but low in calcium, with a low Na2O/K2O ratio. They are peraluminous (A/CNK > 1.1), and contain metamorphic minerals such as sillimanite, cordierite, garnet, and andalusite [74]. Jilongjie plutonic rocks are meta-aluminous to weakly peraluminous (A/CNK = 0.80–1.04) and contain amphiboles (Figure 2), which are similar to I-type granites. Moreover, the Jilongjie pluton falls into the I-type granite region in the Rb/Zr vs. SiO2 plot (Figure 6c), as well as the I-type granite trend in the P2O5 vs. SiO2 plot (Figure 6d). Therefore, its petrological and petrochemical characteristics indicate that Jilongjie granite is an I-type granite.

5.2. Magma Source

Generally, the following models could account for the generation of I-type granite: (1) partial melting of metamorphic intermediate-mafic volcanic rocks [78,79,80]; (2) fractionation from the mantle-derived mafic magma [81,82]; (3) partial melting of juvenile crust induced by asthenosphere underplating [83,84]; and (4) mixing between mantle-derived mafic- and crust-derived felsic magma [85,86,87,88].
I-type granites generated by the fractional crystallization of mantle–derived mafic magma ordinarily have the following characteristics [81,82,89]: (1) massive ultramafic and mafic lavas exposed around the study area; (2) samples with obvious negative Eu and Sr anomalies, indicating that magma formation was the result of the fractional crystallization of plagioclase from ultramafic and mafic melts; (3) the occurrence of mafic enclaves; and (4) enrichment with Sr-Nd-Pb isotopic features. The geological and geochemical characteristics of the Jilongjie pluton rule out fractional crystallization of mantle-derived mafic magma.
Zircon grains from Jilongjie granite samples had negative εHf(t) values ranging from −9.9 to −0.7 (Figure 7); this rules out partial melting of metamorphic intermediate-mafic volcanic rocks and fractionation from mantle-derived mafic magma (Figure 7). Based on these negative εHf(t) values and the model age of 1.04–1.46 Ga, the most direct explanation is that they originated from the anatexis or remelting of ancient crustal materials [90]. However, zircon Hf isotope data show obvious inhomogeneity (its variation range was several ε units); this required an open system to cause remarkable changes in the 176Hf/177Hf ratio in the melt (Figure 7) [91]. As zircon Hf isotope ratios hardly change with partial melting or fractional crystallization, the heterogeneity of zircon Hf isotopes likely indicates the interaction of mantle- and crust-derived magmas [92]. Therefore, similar to the heterogeneity of zircon Hf isotopes observed in other parts of the world, the Jilongjie pluton with similar characteristics is also interpreted as the result of the mixing of mantle- and crust-derived magmas [77,91,92,93,94]. Previous studies indicated that igneous rock with a high transition metal content are generally interpreted as direct melting from mantle peridotite or mixed melting from crust and mantle materials [95,96]. The high content of transition metals in Jilongjie granite was most likely derived from the mixed melting of crustal and mantle materials (Table 4). Moreover, in the (La/Yb)N diagram, the Jilongjie pluton falls into a mixed mantle and crust region (Figure 7c).
However, it is difficult to explain the whole-rock major and trace geochemical characteristics of Jilongjie pluton based solely on the mixing of mantle- and crust-derived material. The depletion of Ba, Nb, Ta, Sr, and Ti indicate that its parent magma has undergone significant fractional crystallization (Figure 5). For example, the depletion of Nb, Ta, and Ti indicates the fractional crystallization of titanium-rich mineral phases (such as ilmenite and/or rutile) and Ca-amphibole, and the strong depletion of Sr and Ba indicates the fractional crystallization of plagioclase and potassium feldspar. Moreover, the Rb vs. Sr and Ba vs. Sr diagrams also suggest fractional crystallization of plagioclase and potassium feldspar (Figure 8a,b). Fractional crystallization of zircon and K-feldspar are also indicated in Zr vs. SiO2 and Ba vs. SiO2 diagrams, respectively (Figure 8c,d).
Mantle material may have played an important role in the SCB’s Triassic magmatism, including the Shangmushui, Daning, and Wanyangshan plutons [45,46,47]. The geochemical characteristics of Jilongjie granite are similar to those of the above plutons (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Therefore, based on geological, major and trace element geochemical, and Hf isotope data, we suggest that the parent magma of Jilongjie granite originated from mixed crust-derived felsic and mantle-derived mafic magmas, followed by fractional crystallization during its ascent or in the emplacement level.

5.3. Tectonic Implications

According to previous studies, granites and granitic gneisses dated from the Late Ordovician to the Early Devonian are considered the significant products of early Paleozoic magmatism in the SCB [37,38,39,44,100,101,102]. The early Paleozoic Wuyi–Yunkai orogeny in the SCB was the first extensive tectonothermal event since the Neoproterozoic break-up of the Rodinia supercontinent, roughly synchronized with the Caledonian orogeny in Europe [1,103,104]. However, the tectonic–magmatic evolution of the early Paleozoic remains controversial. Some scholars suggest that the Wuyi–Yunkai orogeny was the result of continental collisions or arc collisions caused by the subduction and closure of the Huanan Ocean between the Cathaysian and Yangtze blocks during the Caledonian period [105,106,107]. Others argue that the Yangtze and Cathaysian blocks were still continuous in the early Paleozoic, and thus the Wuyi–Yukai orogeny represents an intracontinental collision [7,14,37,108,109,110]. The following petrological and sedimentary geological features indicate that the Wuyi–Yunkai orogeny was more likely an intraplate orogeny rather than a subduction-related orogenic event: (1) Using statistics from previous research, we found that massive granites are widely distributed, which is inconsistent with the linear distribution of magmatic rocks in the subduction mode (Figure 1a; [6]). (2) Early Paleozoic ophiolitic suites, arc andesites, and calc-alkaline volcanic rocks related to the closure of the Huanan Ocean (mentioned above) are absent [12,14,109]. (3) The paleoecological and biostratigraphical evolution in the Cathaysia and Yangtze blocks are related and continuous [111]. (4) The age spectra of detrital zircon from lower Paleozoic sandstones of the Cathaysia and Yangtze blocks have similar characteristics [109,112].
Although the Jilongjie pluton is a significant distance from the Wuyi–Yunkai orogeny’s core area, according to its temporal and spatial distribution characteristics, it is likely to be the westward extension of the orogenic belt or the product of early Paleozoic granitic magmatism [31,113]. Therefore, it should have been generated in the same tectonic setting. However, it is controversial whether the tectonic setting of the early Paleozoic magmatic rocks (especially 460–400 Ma) in the South China Plate was syn-collisional [43,113] or post-collisional [26,27,37,39,44,100,101]. As shown in Figure 9, Jilongjie granites plot in the field of syn-collisional to post-collisional granites.
Increasing evidence indicates that extensional mechanisms related to the post-collision stage were responsible for the generation of magmatic rocks in the SCB after 435 Ma, as follows: (1) Massive granites are widely distributed in the SCB, which is inconsistent with the characteristics of a small amount of migmatite and leucogranite generated in the syn-collisional orogenic stage [115]. (2) The high-magnesium basalt in the Wuyi–Yunkai orogenic belt indicates that the potential temperature of mantle melting at that time exceeded 1300 °C, which is significantly different from the syn-collision extrusion regime [42]. (3) The mafic intrusive rocks and contemporaneous granitic rocks generated by the decompression melting of the mantle in the SBC due to lithospheric extension are characterized by a bimodal pattern, which is consistent with post-collision extensional magmatism rather than a compression regime [26,101]. (4) Recent studies of deformation and advanced metamorphism indicate a prograde metamorphism associated with synorogenic crustal thickening and a retrograde metamorphism with postorogenic rapid exhumation at 460–435 and 435–400 Ma, respectively [26,27,100].
In summary, we suggest that the tectonic–magmatic evolution model of the Early Paleozoic (460–400 Ma) in the SCB can be summarized as follows: (1) During the syn-collision period (460–435 Ma), the crust was significantly shortened and thickened, causing high-temperature crustal anatexis and generating granitic rocks, accompanied by thickening of the lithospheric root (Figure 10a) [7,26,37,39]; (2) between 435 and 400 Ma, as the lithosphere was denser than the underlying asthenosphere, delamination caused part of the lithosphere root to be removed [116]. The subsequent upwelling of the asthenosphere provided heat to melt the lithospheric mantle [117]. The partial melting of the depleted lithosphere produced mafic magma, which intruded into the middle and upper crust, forming a huge magma chamber [118]. The intrusive mafic magma promoted massive crustal melting and generated granitic melts [117]. Subsequently, the depleted mantle-derived material mixed with the granitic parent magma, generating intermediate granites, including the Jilongjie pluton (Figure 10b).

6. Conclusions

(1)
The Jilongjie pluton was emplaced at ~426 Ma and displays shoshonite and metaluminous characteristics.
(2)
Jilongjie granites’ parent magma originated from a mixing of crust-derived felsic and mantle-derived mafic magmas, and then underwent fractional crystallization during its ascent and/or emplacement.
(3)
The post-collisional extensional mechanism associated with the delamination of the thickened lithosphere was responsible for post-435 Ma igneous rock (including the Jilongjie pluton) in the SCB.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.W.; Data curation, Q.S. and X.D.; Formal analysis, X.R., D.H. and Y.X.; Funding acquisition, H.Z. and L.C.; Investigation, S.L. and P.F.; Methodology, Q.S.; Resources, Q.S.; Software, Y.X.; Writing—original draft, H.H.; Writing—review and editing, H.H. and L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (Grant No. 2023JJ30507, 2023JJ30505 and 2023JJ30508); the Research Foundation of the Education Bureau of Hunan Province, China (Grant No. 22B0433 and 22A0294); and the Open Research Fund from the State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Resources and Environment (East China University of Technology) (2022NRE08).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the editor-in-chief and reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Li, X.H.; Li, Z.X.; Zhou, H.W.; Liu, Y.; Kinny, P.D. U–Pb zircon geochronology, geochemistry and Nd isotopic study of Neoproterozoic bimodal volcanic rocks in the Kangdian Rift of South China: Implications for the initial rifting of Rodinia. Precambrian Res. 2002, 113, 135–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, Z.X.; Li, X.H.; Li, W.X.; Ding, S.J. Was Cathaysia part of Proterozoic Laurentia?–New data from Hainan Island, south China. Terra. Nova 2008, 20, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, Z.X.; Zhang, L.H.; Powell, C.M. South China in Rodinia: Part of the missing link between Australia–East Antarctica and Laurentia? Geology 2015, 23, 407–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhou, X.M.; Zhu, Y.H. Late Proterozoic colisional orogen and geosuture in Southeastern China- Petrological evidence. Chin. J. Geochem. 1993, 12, 239–251. [Google Scholar]
  5. Charvet, J.; Shu, L.; Shi, Y.S.; Guo, L.Z.; Faure, M. The building of south China: Collision of Yangzi and Cathaysia blocks, problems and tentative answers. J. Southeast Asian Earth Sci. 1996, 13, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sun, T. A new map showing the distribution of granites in South China and its explanatory notes. Geol. Bull. China 2006, 25, 332–335. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wang, Y.; Fan, W.; Zhao, G.; Ji, S.; Peng, T. Zircon U–Pb geochronology of gneissic rocks in the Yunkai massif and its implications on the Caledonian event in the South China Block. Gondwana Res. 2007, 12, 404–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ren, J.S. On the Geotectonics of Southern China. Acta Geol. Sin. 1991, 4, 111–130. [Google Scholar]
  9. Li, Z.X.; Li, X.H. Formation of the 1300-km-wide intracontinental orogen and postorogenic magmatic province in Mesozoic South China: A flat-slab subduction model. Geology 2007, 35, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shu, L.S. Predevonian Tectonic Evolution of South China:from Cathaysian Block to Caledonian Period FoldedOrogenic Belt. Geol. J. China Univ. 2006, 12, 418–431. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, X.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, J.; Cheng, J.; Li, Q. Ordovician graptolite-bearing strata in southern Jiangxi with a special reference to the Kwangsian Orogeny. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2011, 53, 1602–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shu, L.; Faure, M.; Wang, B.; Zhou, X.; Song, B. Late Palaeozoic–Early Mesozoic geological features of South China: Response to the Indosinian collision events in Southeast Asia. Comptes Rendus Geosci. 2008, 340, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shu, L.S.; Deng, P.; Yu, J.H.; Wang, Y.B.; Jiang, S.Y. The age and tectonic environment of the rhyolitic rocks on the western side of Wuyi Mountain, South China. Sci. China Ser. D Earth Sci. 2008, 51, 1053–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shu, L.S.; Yu, J.H.; Jia, D.; Wang, B.; Shen, W.Z.; Zhang, Y.Q. Early Paleozoic orogenic belt in the eastern segment of South China. Geol. Bull. China 2008, 27, 1581–1593. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wang, Y.; Fan, W.; Guo, F.; Peng, T.; Li, C. Geochemistry of Mesozoic Mafic Rocks Adjacent to the Chenzhou-Linwu fault, South China: Implications for the Lithospheric Boundary between the Yangtze and Cathaysia Blocks. Int. Geol. Rev. 2003, 45, 263–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, Y.; Fan, W.; Sun, M.; Liang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Peng, T. Geochronological, geochemical and geothermal constraints on petrogenesis of the Indosinian peraluminous granites in the South China Block: A case study in the Hunan Province. Lithos 2007, 96, 475–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, W.; Peng, T. Structural signatures and 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of the Indosinian Xuefengshan tectonic belt, South China Block. J. Struct. Geol. 2005, 27, 985–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, Y.J.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, W.M.; Xi, X.W.; Guo, F.; Li, G. Numerical modeling for generation of Indo–Sinian peraluminous granitoids Hunan Province: Basaltic underplating vs tectonic thickening. Sci. China (Ser. D) 2002, 45, 1042–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bao, H.Z.; Zhang, Z.C. Genesis of Silicic Large Igneous Provinces and effects of resources and environment. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2020, 36, 1973–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, A. Mirror-image thrusting in the South China Orogenic Belt: Tectonic evidence from western Fujian, southeastern China. Tectonophysics 1999, 305, 497–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mao, J.W.; Xie, Z.Q.; Guo, C.L.; Yuan, C.D.; Cheng, Y.B.; Chen, Y.C. Spatial-Temporal distribution of Mesozoic ore deposits in South China and their metallogenic settings. Geol. J. China Univ. 2008, 14, 510–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, Q.; Jin, W.J.; Li, C.D.; Wang, Y.L. Yanshanian large-scale magmatism and lithosphere thinning in Eastern China: Relation to large igneous province. Earth Sci. Front. 2009, 16, 21–51. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wan, Y.; Liu, D.; Xu, M.; Zhuang, J.; Song, B.; Shi, Y.; Du, L. SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology and geochemistry of metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks in Northwestern Fujian, Cathaysia block, China: Tectonic implications and the need to redefine lithostratigraphic units. Gondwana Res. 2007, 12, 166–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shen, W.Z.; Ling, H.F.; Li, W.X.; Wang, D.Z.; Huang, X.; Pan, J. The Nd-Sr isotope study of Mesozoic granitoids in Jiangxi Province. Chin. Sci. Bull. 1998, 43, 2653–2657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, J.F.; Jahn, B.M. Crustal evolution of southeastern China: Nd and Sr isotopic evidence. Tectonophysics 1998, 284, 101–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, Z.X.; Li, X.H.; Wartho, J.A.; Clark, C.; Li, W.X.; Zhang, C.L.; Bao, C. Magmatic and metamorphic events during the early Paleozoic Wuyi-Yunkai orogeny, southeastern South China: New age constraints and pressure-temperature conditions. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 2009, 122, 772–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhao, K.-D.; Jiang, S.-Y.; Sun, T.; Chen, W.-F.; Ling, H.-F.; Chen, P.-R. Zircon U–Pb dating, trace element and Sr–Nd–Hf isotope geochemistry of Paleozoic granites in the Miao’ershan–Yuechengling batholith, South China: Implication for petrogenesis and tectonic–magmatic evolution. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2013, 74, 244–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, X.; Tatsumoto, M.; Premo, W.R. Age and origin of the Tanghu Granite, south. Geology 1989, 17, 395–399. [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, X.H. Geochronology of the Wanyangshan–Zhuguangshan granitoid batholith: Implication for the crust development. Sci. China Ser. B 1991, 34, 620–629. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wang, J.H.; Sun, D.Z.; Chang, X.Y.; Deng, S.X.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, H.W. U–Pb dating of the Napeng granite at the NW margin of the Yunkai block, Guangdong, South China. Acta Mineral. Sin. 1998, 18, 130–133. [Google Scholar]
  31. Roger, F.; Leloup, P.H.; Jolivet, M.; Lacassin, R.; Trinh, P.T.; Brunel, M.; Seward, D. Long and complex thermal history of the Song Chay metamorphic dome (Northern Vietnam) by multi-system geochronology. Tectonophysics 2000, 321, 449–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xu, X.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Griffin, W.L.; Deng, P.; Pearson, N.J. Relict Proterozoic basement in the Nanling Mountains (SE China) and its tectonothermal overprinting. Tectonics 2005, 24, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, C.H.; Lee, C.Y.; Hsieh, P.S.; Zeng, W.; Zhou, H.W. Approaching the age problem for some metamorphosed Precambrian basement rocks and Phanerozoic granitic bodies in the Wuyi area: The application of EMP monazite age dating. Geol. J. China Univ. 2008, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, R.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, H.W.; Zhong, Z.Q.; Zeng, W.; Xiang, H.; Ji, S.; Lv, X.Q.; Li, C.Z. Petrogenesis of the Caledonian migmatites and related granites in northwestern Fujian Province, South China: Syndeformational crustal anatexis. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2008, 24, 1205–1222. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zeng, W.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, H.; Zhong, Z.; Xiang, H.; Liu, R.; Jin, S.; Lü, X.; Li, C. Caledonian reworking of Paleoproterozoic basement in the Cathaysia Block: Constraints from zircon U-Pb dating, Hf isotopes and trace elements. Sci. Bull. 2008, 53, 895–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wan, Y.; Liu, D.; Wilde, S.A.; Cao, J.; Chen, B.; Dong, C.; Song, B.; Du, L. Evolution of the Yunkai Terrane, South China: Evidence from SHRIMP zircon U–Pb dating, geochemistry and Nd isotope. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2010, 37, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, Y.; Zhang, A.; Fan, W.; Zhao, G.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, F.; Li, S. Kwangsian crustal anatexis within the eastern South China Block: Geochemical, zircon U–Pb geochronological and Hf isotopic fingerprints from the gneissoid granites of Wugong and Wuyi–Yunkai Domains. Lithos 2011, 127, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, A.; Wang, Y.J.; Fan, W.M.; Zhang, F.F.; Zhang, Y.Z. LA-ICPMS zircons U–Pb geochronology and Hf isotopic composition of the Taoxi migmatite (Wuping): Constrains on the formation age of the Taoxi complex and the Yu’nan event. Geotecton. Et Metallog. 2011, 35, 64–72. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, A.; Fan, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zi, J. Geochronological and geochemical constraints on the petrogenesis of Middle Paleozoic (Kwangsian) massive granites in the eastern South China Block. Lithos 2012, 150, 188–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chu, Y.; Lin, W.; Faure, M.; Wang, Q.; Ji, W. Phanerozoic tectonothermal events of the Xuefengshan Belt, central South China: Implications from UPb age and LuHf determinations of granites. Lithos 2012, 150, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Huang, X.-L.; Yu, Y.; Li, J.; Tong, L.-X.; Chen, L.-L. Geochronology and petrogenesis of the early Paleozoic I-type granite in the Taishan area, South China: Middle-lower crustal melting during orogenic collapse. Lithos 2013, 177, 268–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yao, W.-H.; Li, Z.-X.; Li, W.-X.; Wang, X.-C.; Li, X.-H.; Yang, J.-H. Post-kinematic lithospheric delamination of the Wuyi–Yunkai orogen in South China: Evidence from ca. 435Ma high-Mg basalts. Lithos 2012, 154, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, D.; Zheng, J.; Ma, Q.; Griffin, W.L.; Zhao, H.; Wong, J. Early Paleozoic crustal anatexis in the intraplate Wuyi–Yunkai orogen, South China. Lithos 2013, 175–176, 124–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Peng, T.; Fan, W.; Zhao, G.; Peng, B.; Xia, X.; Mao, Y. Petrogenesis of the early Paleozoic strongly peraluminous granites in the Western South China Block and its tectonic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2015, 98, 399–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zou, Y.; Nong, N.J.; Guo, S.Y.; Huang, X.Q.; Sun, M.X. Petrogenesis of the shangmushui pluton in southeast Guangxi province: Constraints from petrochemistry, zircon U-Pb ages and Hf isotope. J. Mineral. Petrol. 2017, 37, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, D.; Ma, T.Q.; Liu, W.; Liu, Y.R.; Ma, A.J.; Ni, Y.J. Zircon SHRIMP U-Pb Age, Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implication of Wanyangshan Pluton in Southeast Hunan Province. Geotecton. Et Metallog. 2016, 40, 873–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cheng, S.B.; Fu, J.M.; Xu, D.M.; Chen, X.Q.; Ma, L.Y.; Wang, X.D.; Pang, Y.C. Zircon SHRIMP U-Pb dating and geochemical characteristics of Daning batholith in northeast Guangxi. Geol. China 2009, 36, 1278–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, Y.; Fan, W.; Cawood, P.A.; Li, S. Sr–Nd–Pb isotopic constraints on multiple mantle domains for Mesozoic mafic rocks beneath the South China Block hinterland. Lithos 2008, 106, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, X.; Gao, S.; Diwu, C.; Ling, W. Precambrian crustal growth of Yangtze Craton as revealed by detrital zircon studies. Am. J. Sci. 2008, 308, 421–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shu, L.; Faure, M.; Jiang, S.; Yang, Q.; Wang, Y. SHRIMP zircon U-Pb age, litho- and biostratigraphic analyses of the Huaiyu Domain in South China–Evidence for a Neoproterozoic orogen, not Late Paleozoic-Early Mesozoic collision. Episodes 2006, 29, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yu, J.-H.; Wang, L.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Griffin, W.L.; Zhang, M.; Li, C.; Shu, L. A Paleoproterozoic orogeny recorded in a long-lived cratonic remnant (Wuyishan terrane), eastern Cathaysia Block, China. Precambrian Res. 2009, 174, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yu, J.-H.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Wang, L.; Griffin, W.L.; Zhou, M.-F.; Zhang, M.; Shu, L. Components and episodic growth of Precambrian crust in the Cathaysia Block, South China: Evidence from U–Pb ages and Hf isotopes of zircons in Neoproterozoic sediments. Precambrian Res. 2010, 181, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, L.M.; Min, S.; Wang, Y.; Xing, G.; Zhao, G.; Cai, K.; Zhang, Y. Geochronological and Geochemical study of Palaeoproterozoic gneissic granites and clinopyroxenite xenoliths from NW Fujian, SE China: Implications for the crustal evolution of the Cathaysia Block. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2011, 41, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, Z.X.; Li, X.H.; Zhou, H.W.; Kinny, P.D. Grenvillian continental collision in south China: New SHRIMP U–Pb zircon results and implications for the configuration of Rodinia. Geology 2002, 30, 163–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, A.; Wang, Y.; Fan, W.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, J. Earliest Neoproterozoic (ca. 1.0 Ga) arc–back-arc basin nature along the northern Yunkai Domain of the Cathaysia Block: Geochronological and geochemical evidence from the metabasite. Precambrian Res. 2012, 220–221, 217–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gao, S.; Yang, J.; Zhou, L.; Li, M.; Hu, Z.; Guo, J.; Yuan, H.; Gong, H.; Xiao, G.; Wei, J. Age and growth of the Archean Kongling terrain, South China, with emphasis on 3.3 ga granitoid gneisses. Am. J. Sci. 2011, 311, 153–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Soret, M.; Larson, K.P.; Cottle, J.; Ali, A. How Himalayan collision stems from subduction. Geology 2021, 49, 894–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Qiu, Y.M.; Gao, S.; Macnaughton, N.J.; Ling, W.L. First evidence of ≥3.2Ga continental crust in the Yangtze craton of South China and its implications for Archean crustal evolution and Phanerozoic tectonics. Geology 2000, 28, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gao, S.; Ling, W.L.; Qiu, Y.M.; Lian, Z.; Hartmann, G.; Simon, K. Contrasting geochemical and Sm-Nd isotopic compositions of Archean metasediments from the Kongling high-grade terrain of the Yangtze craton: Evidence for cratonic evolution and redistribution of REE during crustal anatexis. Geochim. Cosmochim. 1999, 63, 2071–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zong, K.; Klemd, R.; Yuan, Y.; He, Z.; Guo, J.; Shi, X.; Liu, Y.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, Z. The assembly of Rodinia: The correlation of early Neoproterozoic (ca. 900 Ma) high-grade metamorphism and continental arc formation in the southern Beishan Orogen, southern Central Asian Orogenic Belt (CAOB). Precambrian Res. 2017, 290, 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, Y.; Gao, S.; Hu, Z.; Gao, C.; Zong, K.; Wang, D. Continental and Oceanic Crust Recycling-induced Melt-Peridotite Interactions in the Trans-North China Orogen: U-Pb Dating, Hf Isotopes and Trace Elements in Zircons from Mantle Xenoliths. J. Petrol. 2010, 51, 537–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ludwing, K.R. Users Manual for IsoplotEx 3.75: A geochronological toolkit for Microsoft Excel. Berkeley Geochronol. Cent. Spec. Publ. 2012, 5, 1–75. [Google Scholar]
  63. Liu, Y.; Zong, K.; Kelemen, P.B.; Gao, S. Geochemistry and magmatic history of eclogites and ultramafic rocks from the Chinese continental scientific drill hole: Subduction and ultrahigh-pressure metamorphism of lower crustal cumulates. Chem. Geol. 2008, 247, 133–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Gao, S.; Xiao, S.; Zhao, L.; Günther, D.; Li, M.; Zhang, W.; Zong, K. A “wire” signal smoothing device for laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry analysis. Spectrochim. Acta Part B At. Spectrosc. 2012, 78, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hu, Z.; Gao, S.; Liu, Y.; Chen, H.; Hu, S. Accurate Determination of Rare Earth Elements in USGS, NIST SRM, and MPI-DING Glasses by Excimer LA-ICP-MS at High Spatial Resolution. Spectrosc. Lett. 2008, 41, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Gao, S.; Liu, W.; Zhang, W.; Tong, X.; Lin, L.; Zong, K.; Li, M.; Chen, H.; et al. Improved in situ Hf isotope ratio analysis of zircon using newly designed X skimmer cone and jet sample cone in combination with the addition of nitrogen by laser ablation multiple collector ICP-MS. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2012, 27, 1391–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hoskin, P.W.; Schaltegger, U. The Composition of Zircon and Igneous and Metamorphic Petrogenesis. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2003, 53, 27–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Le Maitre, R.W. Chemical variability of some common igneous rocks. J. Petrol. 1976, 17, 589–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Peccerillo, A.; Taylor, S.R. Geochemistry of Eocene Calc-Alkaline Volcanic Rocks from the Kastamonu Area, Northern Turkey. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1976, 58, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Maniar, P.D.; Piccoli, P.M. Tectonic discrimination of granitoids. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1989, 101, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rudnick, R.L.; Gao, S. The Composition of the Continental Crust; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  72. Li, Y.; He, H.; Wang, C.; Wei, Y.; Chen, X.; He, J.; Ning, Z.; Zhou, A. Early Cretaceous (ca. 100 Ma) magmatism in the southern Qiangtang subterrane, central Tibet: Product of slab break-off? Int. J. Earth Sci. 2016, 106, 1289–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Whalen, J.B.; Currie, K.L.; Chappell, B.W. A-type granites geochemiclcharacterist discrimination and petrogenes. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1987, 95, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chappell, B.W.; White, A.J.R. Two contrasting granite types. Pac. Geol. 1974, 8, 173–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sylvester, P.J. Post-Collisional Alkaline Granites. J. Geol. 1989, 97, 261–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Harris, N.B.W.; Pearce, J.A.; Tindle, A.G. Geochemical Characteristics of Collision-Zone Magmatism; Geological Society: London, UK, 1986; Volume 19. [Google Scholar]
  77. Li, X.H.; Li, Z.X.; Li, W.X.; Liu, Y.; Yuan, C.; Wei, G.J.; Qi, C.S. U–Pb zircon, geochemical and Sr–Nd–Hf isotopic constraints on age and origin of Jurassic I- and A-type granites from central Guangdong, SE China: A major igneous event in response to foundering of a subducted flat-slab? Lithos 2007, 96, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chappell, B.W.; Stephens, W.E. Origin of infracrustal (I-type) granite magmas. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. Earth Sci. 1988, 79, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sisson, T.W.; Ratajeski, K.; Hankins, W.B.; Glazner, A.F. Voluminous granitic magmas from common basaltic sources. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2005, 148, 635–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Topuz, G.; Altherr, R.; Siebel, W.; Schwarz, W.H.; Zack, T.; Hasözbek, A.; Barth, M.; Satır, M.; Şen, C. Carboniferous high-potassium I-type granitoid magmatism in the Eastern Pontides: The Gümüşhane pluton (NE Turkey). Lithos 2010, 116, 92–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chen, B.; Arakawa, Y. Elemental and Nd-Sr isotopic geochemistry of granitoids from the West Junggar foldbelt (NW China), with implications for Phanerozoic continental growth. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2005, 69, 1307–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. DePaolo, D.J. Trace element and isotopic effects of combined wallrock assimilation and fractional crystallization. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1981, 53, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhang, D.H.; Wei, J.H.; Fu, L.B.; Chen, H.Y.; Tan, J.; Li, Y.J.; Shi, W.J.; Tian, N. Formation of the Jurassic Changboshan-Xieniqishan highly fractionated I-type granites, northeastern China: Implication for the partial melting of juvenile crust induced by asthenospheric mantle upwelling. Geol. J. 2015, 50, 122–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hu, P.Y.; Li, C.; Li, J.; Wang, M.; Xie, C.M.; Wu, Y.W. Zircon U–Pb–Hf isotopes and whole-rock geochemistry of gneissic granites from the Jitang complex in Leiwuqi area, eastern Tibet, China: Record of the closure of the Paleo-Tethys Ocean. Tectonophysics 2014, 623, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zhu, R.-Z.; Lai, S.-C.; Qin, J.-F.; Zhao, S.-W. Early-Cretaceous highly fractionated I-type granites from the northern Tengchong block, western Yunnan, SW China: Petrogenesis and tectonic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2015, 100, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. He, H.Y.; Li, Y.L.; Wang, C.S.; Han, Z.P.; Ma, P.F.; Xiao, S.Q. Petrogenesis and tectonic implications of Late Cretaceous highly fractionated I−type granites from the Qiangtang block, central Tibet. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2019, 176, 337–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Yang, J.H.; Sun, J.F.; Zhang, J.H.; Wilde, S.A. Petrogenesis of Late Triassic intrusive rocks in the northern Liaodong Peninsula related to decratonization of the North China Craton: Zircon U–Pb age and Hf–O isotope evidence. Lithos 2012, 153, 108–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Clemens, J.D.; Darbyshire, D.P.F.; Flinders, J. Sources of post-orogenic calcalkaline magmas: The Arrochar and Garabal Hill–Glen Fyne complexes, Scotland. Lithos 2009, 112, 524–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Chen, J.L.; Xu, J.F.; Yu, H.X.; Wang, B.D.; Wu, J.B.; Feng, Y.F. Late Cretaceous high-Mg# granitoids in southern Tibet: Implications for the early crustal thickening and tectonic evolution of the Tibetan Plateau? Lithos 2015, 232, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhu, D.C.; Mo, X.X.; Wang, L.Q.; Zhao, Z.D.; Niu, Y.L.; Zhou, C.Y.; Yang, Y.H. Petrogenesis of highly fractionated I-type granites in the Chayu area of eastern Gangdese, Tibet: Constraints from zircon U-Pb geochronology, geochemistry and Sr-Nd-Hf isotopes. Sci. China Serise D-Earth Sci. 2009, 39, 833–848. [Google Scholar]
  91. Kemp, A.I.S.; Hawkesworth, C.J.; Fostern, G.L.; Paterson, B.A.; Woodhead, J.D.; Hergt, J.M.; Gray, C.M.; Whitehouse, M.J. Magmatic and crustal differentiation history of granitic rocks from Hf-O isotopes in zircon. Science 2007, 315, 980–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bolhar, R.; Weaver, S.D.; Whitehouse, M.J.; Palin, J.M.; Woodhead, J.D.; Cole, J.W. Sources and evolution of arc magmas inferred from coupled O and Hf isotope systematics of plutonic zircons from the Cretaceous Separation Point Suite (New Zealand). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2008, 268, 312–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Belousova, E.A.; Griffin, W.L.; O’Reilly, S.Y. Zircon Crystal Morphology, Trace Element Signatures and Hf Isotope Composition as a Tool for Petrogenetic Modelling: Examples from Eastern Australian Granitoids. J. Petrol. 2006, 47, 329–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Griffin, W.L.; Wang, X.; Jackson, S.E.; Perace, N.J.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Xu, X.S.; Zhou, X.M. Zircon chemistry and magma mixing, SE China: In-situ analysis of Hf isotopes, Tonglu and Pingtan igneous complexes. Lithos 2002, 61, 237–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Benoit, M.; Aguillón-Robles, A.; Calmus, T.; Maury, R.C.; Bellon, H.; Cotten, J.; Bourgois, J.; Michaud, F. Geochemical Diversity of Late Miocene Volcanism in Southern Baja California, Mexico: Implication of Mantle and Crustal Sources during the Opening of an Asthenospheric Window. J. Geol. 2002, 110, 627–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ickert, R.B.; Thorkelson, D.J.; Marshall, D.D.; Ullrich, T.D. Eocene adakitic volcanism in southern British Columbia: Remelting of arc basalt above a slab window. Tectonophysics 2009, 464, 164–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wu, F.Y.; Li, X.H.; Zheng, Y.F.; Gao, S. Lu-Hf isotopic systematics and their applications in petrology. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2007, 23, 185–220. [Google Scholar]
  98. Yang, Q.K.; Hua, C.; Yu, Y.S.; Zhang, X.L. Genesis of Caledonian granodiorite in Nancheng, central Jiangxi: Constraints from LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb geochronology and geochemistry. J. Guilin Univ. Technol. 2019, 39, 781–792. [Google Scholar]
  99. Zong, Z.-J.; Du, Y.-S.; Li, S.-T.; Cao, Y.; Du, J.-G.; Deng, X.-H.; Xue, L.-W. Petrogenesis of the early Permian A-type granites in the Halajun region, southwest Tianshan, western Xinjiang, NW China: Implications for geodynamics of Tarim large igneous province. Int. Geol. Rev. 2020, 63, 1110–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wang, Y.; Fan, W.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, Y. Phanerozoic tectonics of the South China Block: Key observations and controversies. Gondwana Res. 2013, 23, 1273–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, Y.; Zhang, A.; Fan, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y. Origin of paleosubduction-modified mantle for Silurian gabbro in the Cathaysia Block: Geochronological and geochemical evidence. Lithos 2013, 160–161, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Shu, L.-S.; Faure, M.; Yu, J.-H.; Jahn, B.-M. Geochronological and geochemical features of the Cathaysia block (South China): New evidence for the Neoproterozoic breakup of Rodinia. Precambrian Res. 2011, 187, 263–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Li, Z.X.; Li, X.H.; Kinny, P.D.; Wang, J. The breakup of Rodinia: Did it start with a mantle plume beneath South China? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1999, 173, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, X.-C.; Li, X.-H.; Li, W.-X.; Li, Z.-X. Variable involvements of mantle plumes in the genesis of mid-Neoproterozoic basaltic rocks in South China: A review. Gondwana Res. 2009, 15, 381–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hsü, K.J.; Li, J.L.; Chen, H.H.; Wang, Q.C.; Sun, S.; Sengor, A.M.C. Tectonics of South China: Key to understanding West Pacific WMY. Tectonophysics 1990, 183, 9–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Guo, L.Z.; Shi, Y.S.; Lu, H.F.; Ma, R.S.; Dong, H.G.; Yang, S.F. The pre-Devonian tectonic patterns and evolution of South China. J. Southeast Asian Earth Sci. 1989, 3, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
  107. Shui, T. Tectonic framework of the southeastern China continental basement. Sci. China Ser.B 1988, 31, 414–421. [Google Scholar]
  108. Li, L.-M.; Sun, M.; Wang, Y.; Xing, G.; Zhao, G.; Lin, S.; Xia, X.; Chan, L.; Zhang, F.; Wong, J. U–Pb and Hf isotopic study of zircons from migmatised amphibolites in the Cathaysia Block: Implications for the early Paleozoic peak tectonothermal event in Southeastern China. Gondwana Res. 2011, 19, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Wang, Y.; Zhang, F.; Fan, W.; Zhang, G.; Chen, S.; Cawood, P.A.; Zhang, A. Tectonic setting of the South China Block in the early Paleozoic: Resolving intracontinental and ocean closure models from detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology. Tectonics 2010, 29, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Charvet, J.; Shu, L.; Faure, M.; Choulet, F.; Wang, B.; Lu, H.; Breton, N.L. Structural development of the Lower Paleozoic belt of South China: Genesis of an intracontinental orogen. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2010, 39, 309–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Jiayu, R.; Junxuan, F.; Miller, A.I.; Guoxiang, L. Dynamic patterns of latest Proterozoic-Palaeozoic-early Mesozoic marine biodiversity in South China. Geol. J. 2007, 42, 431–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Chen, X.; Rong, J.Y.; Charles, E.M.; David, A.T.H.; Zhang, R.B.; Zhang, R.D.; Li, R.Y.; Wang, Y. Late Ordovician to earliest Silurian graptolite and brachiopod biozonation from the Yangtze region, South China, with a global correlation. Geol. Mag. 2000, 137, 623–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Yan, D.-P.; Zhou, M.-F.; Wang, C.Y.; Xia, B. Structural and geochronological constraints on the tectonic evolution of the Dulong-Song Chay tectonic dome in Yunnan province, SW China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2006, 28, 332–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Pearce, J.A.; Harris, N.B.W.; Tindle, A.G. Trace Element Discrimination Diagrams for the Tectonic Interpretation of Granitic Rocks. J. Petrol. 1984, 25, 956–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. England, P.C.; Thompson, A.B. Pressure–temperature–time paths of regions metamorphism I. Heat transfer during the evolution of regions of thickened continental crust. J. Petrol. 1984, 25, 894–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Turner, S.; Sandiford, M.; Foden, J. Some geodynamic and compositional constraints on “postorogenic” magmatism. Geology 1992, 20, 931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gutiérrez-Alonso, G.; Murphy, B.; Fernández-Suárez, J.; Weil, A.B.; Franco, M.P.; Gonzalo, J.C. Lithospheric delamination in the core of Pangea: Sm–Nd insights from the Iberian mantle. Geology 2011, 39, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gvirtzman, Z. Partial detachment of a lithospheric root under the southeast Carpathians: Toward a better definition of the detachment concept. Geology 2002, 30, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wang, X.-L.; Zhou, J.-C.; Wan, Y.-S.; Kitajima, K.; Wang, D.; Bonamici, C.; Qiu, J.-S.; Sun, T. Magmatic evolution and crustal recycling for Neoproterozoic strongly peraluminous granitoids from southern China: Hf and O isotopes in zircon. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2013, 366, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 13 00734 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Field contact relationship between rocks; (b) field photo of Jilongjie granite; (c) field photo of Permian sandstone; (d) hand specimen photo of Jilongjie granite; (e,f) photomicrographs of Jilongjie granite. Q—quartz; Kf—potassium feldspar; Pl—plagioclase; Bt—biotite; Hb—hornblende.
Figure 2. (a) Field contact relationship between rocks; (b) field photo of Jilongjie granite; (c) field photo of Permian sandstone; (d) hand specimen photo of Jilongjie granite; (e,f) photomicrographs of Jilongjie granite. Q—quartz; Kf—potassium feldspar; Pl—plagioclase; Bt—biotite; Hb—hornblende.
Minerals 13 00734 g002
Minerals 13 00734 g003 550
Figure 3. Cathodoluminescence (CL) and U-Pb concordia diagrams (a) and chondrite normalized REE pattern (b) of zircon crystals from the Jilongjie pluton.
Figure 3. Cathodoluminescence (CL) and U-Pb concordia diagrams (a) and chondrite normalized REE pattern (b) of zircon crystals from the Jilongjie pluton.
Minerals 13 00734 g003
Minerals 13 00734 g004 550
Figure 4. Geochemical characteristics of the Jilongjie pluton. (a) SiO2 − (Na2O + K2O) diagram [68]; (b) SiO2–K2O diagram [69]; (c) A/CNK–A/NK diagram [70]. Data sources: Nanmushui [45]; Daning [47]; and Wanyangshan [46].
Figure 4. Geochemical characteristics of the Jilongjie pluton. (a) SiO2 − (Na2O + K2O) diagram [68]; (b) SiO2–K2O diagram [69]; (c) A/CNK–A/NK diagram [70]. Data sources: Nanmushui [45]; Daning [47]; and Wanyangshan [46].
Minerals 13 00734 g004
Minerals 13 00734 g005 550
Figure 5. (a) Chondrite-normalized REE patterns; (b) Primitive-mantle-normalized trace element patterns. UCC—upper continental crust; MCC—middle continental crust; LCC—lower continental crust; TCC—total continental crust [71].
Figure 5. (a) Chondrite-normalized REE patterns; (b) Primitive-mantle-normalized trace element patterns. UCC—upper continental crust; MCC—middle continental crust; LCC—lower continental crust; TCC—total continental crust [71].
Minerals 13 00734 g005
Minerals 13 00734 g006 550
Figure 6. Chemical discrimination diagrams for I-, S-, M, and A-type granites; (a) 10,000× Ga/Al vs. FeO*/MgO [75]; (b) 10,000× Ga/Al vs. Y [75]; (c) Rb/Zr vs. SiO2 [76]; and (d) P2O5 vs. SiO2 [77].
Figure 6. Chemical discrimination diagrams for I-, S-, M, and A-type granites; (a) 10,000× Ga/Al vs. FeO*/MgO [75]; (b) 10,000× Ga/Al vs. Y [75]; (c) Rb/Zr vs. SiO2 [76]; and (d) P2O5 vs. SiO2 [77].
Minerals 13 00734 g006
Minerals 13 00734 g007 550
Figure 7. (a) (176Hf/177Hf) vs. t (Ma); (b) εHf (t) vs. t (Ma) [97]; (c) (La/Yb)N vs. Eu/Eu* [98]. The data source is the same as that in Figure 4. The legends are the same as Figure 4.
Figure 7. (a) (176Hf/177Hf) vs. t (Ma); (b) εHf (t) vs. t (Ma) [97]; (c) (La/Yb)N vs. Eu/Eu* [98]. The data source is the same as that in Figure 4. The legends are the same as Figure 4.
Minerals 13 00734 g007
Minerals 13 00734 g008 550
Figure 8. (a) Rb vs. Sr; (b) Ba vs. Sr; (c) Zr vs. SiO2; and (d) Ba vs. SiO2 diagrams of granite in the Jilongjie area (after Zong, et al. [99]). Mineral abbreviations are the same as Figure 2.
Figure 8. (a) Rb vs. Sr; (b) Ba vs. Sr; (c) Zr vs. SiO2; and (d) Ba vs. SiO2 diagrams of granite in the Jilongjie area (after Zong, et al. [99]). Mineral abbreviations are the same as Figure 2.
Minerals 13 00734 g008
Minerals 13 00734 g009 550
Figure 9. (a) Y vs. Nb and (b) (Y + Nb) vs. Rb [114]. The data source is the same as Figure 4.
Figure 9. (a) Y vs. Nb and (b) (Y + Nb) vs. Rb [114]. The data source is the same as Figure 4.
Minerals 13 00734 g009
Minerals 13 00734 g010 550
Figure 10. Simplified diagrams showing (a) ~460–135 Ma, crustal thickening and (b) ~435–400 Ma, lithospheric delamination in central SCB (modified after [101]). Data sources: Duolong batholith [44]; Miao’ershan I-type granite [27]; Taishan I-type granite [41]; strongly peraluminous granitic batholiths [37,39,119].
Figure 10. Simplified diagrams showing (a) ~460–135 Ma, crustal thickening and (b) ~435–400 Ma, lithospheric delamination in central SCB (modified after [101]). Data sources: Duolong batholith [44]; Miao’ershan I-type granite [27]; Taishan I-type granite [41]; strongly peraluminous granitic batholiths [37,39,119].
Minerals 13 00734 g010
Table
Table 2. LA-ICP-MS results of zircon from the Jilongjie pluton.
Table 2. LA-ICP-MS results of zircon from the Jilongjie pluton.
Samples and Anal. NO.Th
(ppm)		U
(ppm)		Th/U
Ratio		Isotopic Ratios (±1σ)Ages (±1σ Ma)Concordance
207Pb/206Pb207Pb/235U206Pb/238U207Pb/206Pb207Pb/235U206Pb/238U
1. JL-U-0183810470.800.05990.00130.56090.01100.06790.0006611514527423493%
2. JL-U-025357450.720.06020.00130.57620.01280.06920.0006613464628431493%
3. JL-U-0396310350.930.05720.00130.53320.01120.06760.0007498454347421497%
4. JL-U-04101910290.990.06150.00120.59060.01190.06930.0007657444718432491%
5. JL-U-056288670.720.06120.00130.58280.01190.06870.0005656384668428391%
6. JL-U-065757720.750.05930.00120.55890.01070.06800.0005589104517424393%
7. JL-U-077059080.780.05200.00110.48650.01000.06790.0007283484037423494%
8. JL-U-088249730.850.05760.00120.54870.01150.06880.0006522444448429396%
9. JL-U-096489260.700.05660.00120.53340.01100.06810.0005476464347425397%
10. JL-U-10146510321.420.05650.00130.53600.01200.06880.0006478524368429498%
11. JL-U-1158410010.580.05780.00120.53950.01080.06730.0005524444387420395%
12. JL-U-125418830.610.05700.00120.53320.01090.06760.0005494424347422397%
13. JL-U-137109510.750.06200.00120.57370.01060.06680.0005676434607417390%
14. JL-U-146669680.690.05790.00120.55630.01130.06930.0005528464497432396%
15. JL-U-156108590.710.05670.00130.53440.01150.06790.0005480484358424397%
16. JL-U-166919390.740.05650.00120.54090.01100.06910.0005472444397431398%
17. JL-U-1710489601.090.06050.00130.58070.01240.06930.0006620464658432392%
Table
Table 3. Trace element (ppm) data of zircon from the Jilongjie pluton.
Table 3. Trace element (ppm) data of zircon from the Jilongjie pluton.
SamplesLaCePrNdSmEuGdTbDyHoErTmYbLuHf
JL-U-0114.469.13.9316.76.052.0217.85.6264.725.212327.626957.411,975
JL-U-024.4943.62.1511.35.941.9214.24.1344.916.374.616.215935.111,808
JL-U-0311329629.211719.84.2823.86.1765.724.011324.825155.410,905
JL-U-040.1436.00.263.043.761.1814.14.6452.019.593.220.320143.712,041
JL-U-0554.215616.673.812.81.8215.83.6642.015.874.917.618241.012,484
JL-U-0616.063.75.1423.65.411.3114.04.1147.617.583.718.818842.111,647
JL-U-075.4842.21.999.894.100.7211.93.5043.517.084.418.719243.811,190
JL-U-0826.188.47.0529.06.721.5112.33.7742.716.881.018.618941.911,752
JL-U-097.326.60.0420.972.050.609.933.2539.516.178.918.318943.412,680
JL-U-101.7954.32.5216.611.53.8125.36.8373.225.411324.523350.110,947
JL-U-1131.811310.345.79.21.5517.24.7758.124.212629.831371.212,653
JL-U-122.1432.90.854.542.770.6111.13.6447.019.49823.224356.012,367
JL-U-1322.782.26.8829.66.701.3613.03.7541.516.178.718.218641.812,362
JL-U-142.8436.61.035.793.130.8911.43.9148.020.198.822.924054.412,462
JL-U-1516.673.55.9828.66.431.3913.64.1447.318.990.321.121649.811,889
JL-U-1623.391.39.1544.79.491.5116.34.3746.417.584.319.119143.112,040
JL-U-177.1556.73.1015.86.882.7019.05.7061.021.396.220.820343.510,285
Table
Table 4. Major (wt.%) and trace element (ppm) concentrations of the Jilongjie granite.
Table 4. Major (wt.%) and trace element (ppm) concentrations of the Jilongjie granite.
SampleJL-1HJL-2HJL-3HJL-4HJL-5HJL-6HJL-7HJL-8HJL-9HJL-10HJL-11H
Rock typeGranite
SiO265.4864.9564.7066.3464.2765.4765.8165.2265.2265.9765.70
TiO20.530.550.520.550.550.570.570.560.540.520.52
Al2O314.3113.7914.1813.9413.6112.9514.0713.8314.0113.8713.72
Fe2O3T3.143.423.463.233.313.063.302.723.162.892.88
MnO0.040.050.050.050.060.050.050.060.050.050.05
MgO1.672.401.862.062.501.562.091.892.022.052.03
CaO2.412.842.622.333.003.332.512.902.312.742.72
Na2O2.502.652.512.602.642.932.612.672.632.722.72
K2O4.944.444.774.624.384.874.544.794.624.564.55
P2O50.200.200.190.200.200.210.210.200.200.190.19
L.O.I2.172.742.491.832.043.041.992.681.872.462.38
Total99.38100.0199.3499.7399.57100.0399.7399.5299.63100.0199.46
A/CNK1.030.961.011.030.940.801.020.931.040.960.96
A/NK1.511.511.531.501.501.281.531.441.501.471.46
Mg#51.2658.1351.5155.7959.9250.2255.5757.8555.9358.4158.24
Trace element (ppm)
Sc10.810.011.010.910.98.4911.011.010.99.499.31
V67.069.067.369.872.456.270.570.669.864.163.3
Cr150153149160161156150159158143142
Co10.811.412.810.511.96.8710.47.829.899.238.93
Ni66.366.169.961.265.337.962.146.260.553.152.0
Ga16.516.916.716.616.715.416.416.116.716.115.6
Rb287249266252243271249264255247246
Sr144154139155144126161154165155155
Y15.414.016.314.015.313.614.214.513.213.012.8
Zr287211211284310265274308267226217
Nb17.116.715.816.717.116.516.816.816.515.415.2
Ba7879907429421012918836935885923931
La41.841.937.940.236.628.644.129.541.138.835.8
Ce88.989.381.888.081.956.897.670.389.487.679.1
Pr10.010.49.5310.49.736.6111.48.7210.410.19.30
Nd38.539.736.439.237.226.442.934.639.638.335.7
Sm5.785.975.936.025.874.396.555.805.975.795.28
Eu1.051.071.111.091.130.901.190.991.111.061.00
Gd3.543.643.833.593.722.803.503.393.433.423.13
Tb0.510.490.530.490.500.430.510.500.480.450.44
Dy2.912.763.052.742.972.572.832.832.572.582.44
Ho0.510.480.540.480.510.450.480.500.460.450.41
Er1.521.351.621.401.521.301.501.441.391.311.24
Tm0.220.200.240.220.220.200.220.220.220.180.18
Yb1.531.271.541.371.451.291.411.401.301.181.13
Lu0.210.170.220.200.210.180.210.200.190.170.16
Hf8.046.126.068.218.797.818.049.157.986.496.37
Ta1.401.321.431.331.351.381.361.381.351.241.19
Pb34.135.535.437.933.639.239.440.138.836.437.3
Th45.049.844.650.344.951.547.847.344.952.048.1
U6.475.347.636.415.5610.46.237.058.336.205.76
∑REE223.16222.64211.59220.30209.81155.07239.67185.96221.71213.82197.45
(La/Yb)N19.5823.7217.6921.0418.1615.8722.4015.1222.6223.5822.82
Eu/Eu*0.710.710.710.720.740.780.760.680.750.730.75
Eu/Eu* = E u N S m N × G d N .
Table
Table 5. Zircon Hf isotopic in situ analysis results and related parameters.
Table 5. Zircon Hf isotopic in situ analysis results and related parameters.
Sample No.Age/Ma176Yb/177Hf2σ176Lu/177Hf2σ176Hf/177Hf2σεHf(0)εHf(t)TDM(Ga)TDMC (Ga)fLu/Hf
JL-U-014230.03560.00100.0014950.0000380.2823530.000024−14.82−5.941.291.78−0.95
JL-U-024310.05340.00060.0021530.0000270.2825020.000014−9.56−0.691.091.46−0.94
JL-U-034210.03530.00030.0014110.0000210.2824220.000019−12.37−3.501.191.63−0.96
JL-U-044320.05620.00060.0022830.0000240.2823780.000013−13.93−5.081.281.74−0.93
JL-U-054280.03140.00050.0013030.0000210.2823050.000014−16.52−7.481.351.89−0.96
JL-U-064240.04170.00060.0017400.0000210.2824240.000015−12.30−3.461.191.63−0.95
JL-U-074230.03740.00060.0015080.0000260.2822600.000015−18.10−9.221.421.99−0.95
JL-U-084290.04820.00070.0019790.0000240.2823240.000018−15.84−6.961.341.85−0.94
JL-U-094250.03320.00060.0013870.0000250.2823360.000022−15.43−6.481.311.82−0.96
JL-U-104290.03370.00220.0013770.0000880.2823470.000015−15.03−5.981.291.79−0.96
JL-U-114200.04230.00070.0017540.0000230.2825010.000017−9.57−0.811.081.46−0.95
JL-U-124220.03940.00150.0016360.0000590.2823660.000017−14.37−5.551.271.76−0.95
JL-U-134170.03620.00100.0014810.0000380.2823230.000014−15.88−7.121.331.85−0.96
JL-U-144320.03730.00110.0015400.0000410.2824300.000015−12.09−3.031.181.61−0.95
JL-U-154240.05300.00210.0021270.0000890.2823980.000016−13.23−4.501.241.69−0.94
JL-U-164310.04620.00060.0018630.0000220.2822380.000034−18.88−9.941.462.04−0.94
JL-U-174320.03040.00070.0012950.0000290.2822640.000016−17.98−8.851.411.98−0.96
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

He, H.; Wang, T.; Sui, Q.; Duan, X.; Ren, X.; Hou, D.; Xie, Y.; Liu, S.; Feng, P.; Zhang, H.; et al. Geochronology and Petrogenesis of the Early Paleozoic Jilongjie Granites in the Central South China Block: Implication for Post-Kinematic Lithospheric Delamination. Minerals 2023, 13, 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13060734

AMA Style

He H, Wang T, Sui Q, Duan X, Ren X, Hou D, Xie Y, Liu S, Feng P, Zhang H, et al. Geochronology and Petrogenesis of the Early Paleozoic Jilongjie Granites in the Central South China Block: Implication for Post-Kinematic Lithospheric Delamination. Minerals. 2023; 13(6):734. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13060734

Chicago/Turabian Style

He, Haiyang, Tingting Wang, Qinglin Sui, Xianzhe Duan, Xuan Ren, Danping Hou, Yanshi Xie, Shan Liu, Peng Feng, Huanbao Zhang, and et al. 2023. "Geochronology and Petrogenesis of the Early Paleozoic Jilongjie Granites in the Central South China Block: Implication for Post-Kinematic Lithospheric Delamination" Minerals 13, no. 6: 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13060734

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop