Next Article in Journal
Carrier Flotation Using Coarse Pyrite for Improving the Recovery of Finely Ground Chalcopyrite: Development of Post-Process of Carrier Flotation to Separate Finely Ground Chalcopyrite Particles from Coarse Pyrite Particles
Previous Article in Journal
Stable Isotope (δ18O, δD) Composition of Magmatic Fluids Exsolved from an Active Alkaline Magma Chamber—The Case of the AD 79 Magma Chamber of Vesuvius
 
 
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 7
10.3390/min13070914
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

First Identification of the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation in the Western Kuruktag Block, Northeastern Tarim, and Its Implications for Neoproterozoic Rift Basin Evolution

by
Minjia Sun
1,
Zhen Wei
1,2,*,
Ruiqing Guo
1,
Guiping Liu
1,
Mingming Shi
3 and
Yuanfeng Cheng
1
1
Xinjiang Key Laboratory for Geodynamic Processes and Metallogenic Prognosis of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
2
School of Geology and Mining Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
3
Urumqi Natural Resources Comprehensive Survey Center, China Geological Survey, Urumqi 830000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2023, 13(7), 914; https://doi.org/10.3390/min13070914
Submission received: 1 June 2023 / Revised: 29 June 2023 / Accepted: 4 July 2023 / Published: 6 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Geochemistry and Geochronology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata in the Kuruktag block, northeastern Tarim Craton, are pivotal for deciphering the breakup of Neoproterozoic Rodinia and related peripheral subduction processes. This study reveals previously unidentified Ediacaran strata in the western Kuruktag block, characterized by deltaic plain clastic rocks and channel deposits. Zircon geochronological analyses of basalts and sandstones indicate a maximum depositional age of ~596 Ma, thereby attributing these strata to the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation in conjunction with prior paleontological findings. The prevalence of lithic fragments and two primary detrital zircon age populations within the Yukengou Formation sandstones suggest a rift basin environment, in contrast to a passive continental margin, receiving detrital material from the neighboring Paleoproterozoic basement and Neoproterozoic magmatic activity. As a result, the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata are posited to have been deposited in an aulacogen basin. The presence of numerous Neoproterozoic zircon grains further implies significant volcanic events preceding and concurrent with Cryogenian rifting, suggesting that continental rifting along the northeastern Tarim margin may have been instigated by subduction-induced extension.

1. Introduction

Located on the northern margin of the Tarim Craton (Figure 1a), the Kuruktag block develops substantial Cryogenian–Ediacaran (known as the Nanhua–Sinian in China) strata (Figure 1b) with thicknesses exceeding 6000 m [1,2,3,4]. Their depositional setting is essential for constraining the breakup of the Neoproterozoic Rodinia supercontinent [5,6,7] and the peripheral subduction systems [8]. Nevertheless, due to restricted accessibility for comprehensive research in the central Kuruktag block, where the majority of previously reported Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata were exposed (Figure 1b), their depositional setting remains a contentious subject. Numerous scholars suggest that the strata were deposited in a continental rift–passive margin or continental rift–aulacogen basin [2,4,9,10,11,12,13,14]. However, recent investigations, leveraging structural–sedimentary patterns and contemporaneous magmatism, propose that the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata might have been deposited in a subduction environment on the supercontinent’s periphery, signifying active rift sedimentation [15,16,17]. Consequently, it is essential to identify new Cryogenian–Ediacaran sections in the Kuruktag block to furnish supplementary evidence, facilitating the constraint of the tectonic evolution of Tarim and the elucidation of supercontinent breakup dynamics.
The western part of the Kuruktag block, proximal to Korla City (Figure 1c), serves as a quintessential region for examining Cryogenian strata [1,4,6,9,10,20] and features numerous well-established stratotype sections [21,22,23]. Nevertheless, no Ediacaran strata have been reported thus far [10]. This study reclassifies the mudstone–sandstone package, initially designated the Tonian Sainaertage Formation, as the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation (Figure 1c), which is faulted against the underlying Cryogenian Beiyixi–Zhaobishan Formations and conformably overlain by the Ediacaran Shuiquan Formation, exhibiting a total exposed thickness greater than 1000 m. These newly identified Ediacaran strata, characterized by their considerable exposed thicknesses, diverse lithologies, well-preserved sedimentary structures, and accessibility, have the potential to constrain the contemporaneous tectonic setting and continental rifting dynamics of the Rodinia supercontinent when integrated with an analysis of the underlying Cryogenian strata.
Based on detrital zircon ages and sandstone petrography, this study reconstructs the depositional age and provenance of the strata. By comparing the sandstone compositions and detrital zircon age spectra with those of the Cryogenian strata, the characteristics of the provenance variations of the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata in the western Kuruktag block, northeastern Tarim, are analyzed. Moreover, the study offers a preliminary exploration of the tectonic setting and evolutionary process in which the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata were deposited.

2. Geological Setting and Stratigraphic Characteristic

The Kuruktag block, positioned on the northeastern margin of the Tarim Basin (Figure 1a), constitutes one of the peripheral fold–thrust belts of the Tarim Craton. It is bordered to the north by Southern Tianshan via the Xingger Fault, and to the south, it is segregated from the Tarim Basin by the Kongquehe Fault (Figure 1b). The Kuruktag block exhibits a typical double-layered structure sequence: a pre-Cryogenian basement and a Cryogenian–Ediacaran sedimentary cover [19,24]. The Cryogenian–Ediacaran cover, with an aggregate thickness exceeding 6 km, primarily comprises four glacial deposits and multiple layers of volcanic rocks, sandstones, mudstones, and limestones, unconformably overlying the pre-Cryogenian basement [1,4,6]. The Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata can be categorized as the Neoproterozoic Kuruktag Group, which encompasses the Beiyixi Formation, Zhaobishan Formation, Aletonggou Formation, Teruiaiken Formation, Zhamoketi Formation, Yukengou Formation, Shuiquan Formation, and Hangeerqiaoke Formation. The depositional age of the Beiyixi Formation ranges from 743 to 725 Ma [3,4,6], corresponding to the Lower Cryogenian; the depositional age of the Zhaobishan Formation to Aletonggou Formation spans from 725 to 654 Ma [20], pertaining to the Middle Cryogenian. The depositional age of the Teruiaiken Formation is younger than 635 Ma, attributable to the Upper Cryogenian [15,25,26]. The volcanic rocks at the apex of the Zhamoketi Formation exhibit an age of ~615 Ma [6,20], while the overlying volcanic rocks of the Xishanbulake Formation possess an age of 541 Ma [27], constraining the Zhamoketi, Yukengou, Shuiquan, and Hangeerqiaoke Formations to the Ediacaran.
The Cryogenian Beiyixi, Zhaobishan, Aletonggoun, and Teruiaiken Formations have been reported in the western Kuruktag block (Figure 1b,c). These formations unconformably overlie the Paleoproterozoic Xingditag Group, Tonian Paergangtage Group, and pre-Cryogenian granites [9,10,27]. However, no Ediacaran strata have been reported above these Cryogenian formations.
East of Korla City, the northern side of the Yigezitashan area consists of the Cryogenian Beiyixi Formation (glacial debris–sandstones) and Zhaobishan Formation (arkoses), while the southern side primarily exposes a purplish-red and grayish-green mudstone–sandstone package (Clastic Member) as well as dolomites and limestones (Carbonate Member). In the 1960s, lacking reliable chronological evidence, 1:200,000 geological mapping classified the Clastic Member as part of the Proterozoic Nanxinggertag Group and Xinggertag Group and the Carbonate Member as part of the Proterozoic Beixinggertag Group [22,23]. Later, during 1:50,000 geological mapping conducted from 2010 to 2014, the Clastic Member and Carbonate Member were assigned to the Tonian Sainaertage Group and the Beisainaertage Group [9,10], respectively, based on microfossil assemblages in the Clastic Member and stromatolites in the Carbonate Member. Nonetheless, the reported microfossils and stromatolites solely constrain the strata to the Neoproterozoic without definitely signifying a depositional age older than the Cryogenian. This study found that the Clastic Member and Carbonate Member as a whole dip to the south (Figure 1c), with no significant differences in attitude, metamorphism, or deformation compared to the strata on the northern side of Yigezitashan, despite the fact that they are faulted against the underlying Cryogenian strata (Figure 1c). Therefore, it is not appropriate to simply classify them as part of the Tonian.
Field observations delineate a comprehensive lithology of the Clastic Member, spanning a thickness of 1000 m, primarily comprising thin-bedded purple-red mudstones, thin-bedded siltstones, and thin- to medium-bedded fine-to-medium sandstones. These are intercalated with medium- to thick-bedded purple-red or grey-green coarse sandstones to fine conglomerates. Additionally, four medium-to-thick basalt layers are present. The sandstone features convoluted bedding, horizontal bedding, and parallel bedding (Figure 2a). Moreover, numerous bedding plane structures are preserved, such as ripples (Figure 2b), load casts (Figure 2c), and exposure indicators like raindrop and hail imprints (Figure 2d). These characteristics imply that the Clastic Member predominantly consists of fine-grained sediments deposited in shallow water with occasional exposure, possibly indicative of deltaic plain deposition. The sporadically interbedded medium- to thick-bedded conglomerates, characterized by poor sorting and well-rounded clasts (Figure 2e), may signify deltaic plain channel deposition. Consequently, the overall features of the Clastic Member display a notable resemblance to the lithological composition and depositional environments described by [12,28] for the Yukengou Formation in the central Kuruktag area. These features contrast significantly with the lithology of the Beisainaertage Formation, which consists of phyllite, foliated sandstone, and quartzite, as reported in [29].
Overlying the Clastic Member is the Carbonate Member, primarily characterized by fine-to-microcrystalline dolomite, oolitic limestone, oncolitic limestone, and clayey siltstone, exhibiting well-developed bedding that dips concordantly with the underlying Clastic Member. The dolomite beds containing stromatolites indicate a normal stratigraphic sequence without inversion (Figure 2f); thus, the Carbonate Member could be correlated with the Shuiquan Formation in terms of lithology [23]. As a result, it is essential to refine the stratigraphy of the Yigzitageshan area, with the primary focus of this study being the determination of the attribution of the Clastic Member.

3. Sample Descriptions and Methods

3.1. Sample Descriptions

To determine the formation age and clarify the stratigraphic attribution of the Clastic Member on the southern flank of the Yigzitageshan area, this study collected one basalt sample (PM03-24ZK) from the upper part of the Clastic Member and one sandstone sample (PM03-30ZK) near the top of the Clastic Member (Figure 1c) for zircon U-Pb dating. Additionally, eight coarse sandstone and fine conglomerate samples were obtained from various locations within the Clastic Member for a detrital component analysis. The detrital component analysis, in conjunction with detrital zircon age spectra, aimed to delineate the provenance of the Clastic Member.

3.2. Sandstone Composition

In this study, the sandstone composition analysis under the microscope employed the Gazzi–Dickinson method, with point-counting principles adopted from Refs. [30,31,32]. To objectively reflect the compositional characteristics of the sandstone, more than 400 sand-sized (>62.5 μm) grains were counted for each individual sample. During the counting process, framework grains were divided into monomineralic and lithic categories. Monomineralic grains were further classified as quartz (monocrystalline and polycrystalline quartz) and feldspar (potassium feldspar and plagioclase). Additionally, lithic fragments were categorized as sedimentary lithics (including clastic, carbonate, and siliceous rocks), volcanic lithics, and metamorphic lithics (such as granulites, gneisses, schists, and mylonites). The relative proportions of the various detrital components were calculated and depicted within ternary diagrams, thereby providing a comprehensive representation of the characteristics inherent to the source region.

3.3. Zircon U-Pb Geochronology

Zircon separation was carried out at the Langfang Geological and Mineral Testing and Sorting Company, Langfang, China. Fresh samples were ground to 60–80 mesh, and zircons were selected using magnetic and heavy liquid separation. Under a binocular microscope, zircons free of cracks and inclusions were chosen, adhered to a double-sided adhesive, and embedded in an epoxy resin. After curing, the sample was ground to expose the zircon core, followed by polishing, cleaning, and obtaining transmitted-light and cathodoluminescence (CL) photomicrographs. Zircon U-Pb dating was performed at the Tianjin Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources Isotope Laboratory, using a Neptune inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS) and a 193 mm laser ablation (LA) system. The ablated material was transported to the Neptune (ICP-MS) via helium carrier gas; the energy density was 13–14 J/cm2, with a spot size of 35 μm and a frequency of 8–10 Hz. Fractionation correction was performed using the 91,500 zircon standard, and the GJ-1 standard was used to control the testing accuracy. Data processing was conducted using the ICPMSDataCal program [33]. The common lead correction followed the method of Andersen [34]. For zircons older than 1 billion years, 207Pb/206Pb and 1σ corresponding ages were used, with the concordance calculated as 100 × (207Pb/206Pb age)/(206Pb/238U age); for zircons younger than 1 billion years, 206Pb/238U and 1σ corresponding ages were used, with the concordance calculated as 100 × (207Pb/235U age)/(206Pb/238U age). This study excluded data with discordance >10%. Detrital zircon age spectra (Kernel density estimation plots) and cumulative probability curves were generated using the PROVENANCE software (version 3.3) [35]. The weighted mean age of the youngest two or more zircon grains overlapping in age (within 1σ error) was employed to constrain the maximum depositional age, i.e., the YC1σ(2+) age [36].

4. Results

4.1. Sandstone Composition

The sandstones in the Clastic Member in the southern part of the Yigezitageshan area exhibit a relatively low degree of metamorphism, with a clearly discernable clastic texture and only slight sericitization in the matrix. The detrital grains present within the sandstone range in size from fine sand to coarse sand and fine gravel, exhibiting poor sorting and subangular to subrounded shapes (Figure 3). The detrital component analysis results are presented in Table S1.
According to the counting results, the sandstone composition in the area is complex, with an average feldspar content of 18% (F/QFL, in which QFL refers to all framework grains), an average quartz content of 54% (Q/QFL), and an average lithic content of 29% (L/QFL). Consequently, these sandstones are feldspathic litharenites, with minor occurrences of lithic arkoses and sublitharenites (Figure 4a) [37]. The lithic fragments are predominantly sedimentary lithics (average content of 18%, Ls/QFL) and volcanic lithics (average content of 7%, Lv/QFL), with a small number of samples containing more metamorphic lithics (average content of 4%, Lm/QFL) (Figure 4b,c).
The sedimentary lithics are mostly subrounded and mainly comprise siltstones, mudstones, and clay-bearing siliceous rocks; the volcanic lithics primarily include rhyolites, andesites, and other acidic volcanic rocks; and the metamorphic lithics mainly consist of quartz-rich mylonites, quartzites, and slates (Figure 3). In the QFL diagram, the sandstones in this study are predominantly situated within the recycled orogen region, with a few samples in the dissected magmatic arc region (Figure 4b).

4.2. U-Pb Geochronology

4.2.1. Basalt Zircon U-Pb Dating Results

The zircons extracted from the basalt sample are predominantly rounded, exhibiting long-axis lengths smaller than 100 μm and aspect ratios close to 1:1. CL images display homogeneous dark or grey colors, with a subset of zircons displaying oscillatory zonation (Figure 5a). In this study, twenty zircon grains were analyzed, yielding 18 concordant ages, with an overall distribution between 1809 and 2504 Ma (Figure 6a). These results suggest that all these zircons are of a xenocrystic origin. The dataset is reported in Table S2.

4.2.2. Sandstone Zircon U-Pb Dating Results

Zircons selected from the sandstone sample typically exhibit subrounded to subangular shapes, with long-axis lengths ranging between 50 and 150 μm and aspect ratios varying between 1:1 and 2:1. CL images reveal diverse brightness levels and oscillatory zoning in most detrital zircons, reflecting magmatic zircon characteristics. A total of 80 zircon grains were analyzed, with all U/Th ratios ranging between 0.3 and 12.7 (Table S2), nearly all below 10, further indicating a magmatic origin. After excluding six discordant ages, 74 concordant ages were obtained, spanning from 591.8 ± 14.2 Ma to 2481.7 ± 18.6 Ma (Figure 6b) and presenting two main age populations of 600–860 Ma and 1700–2100 Ma (Figure 6d). The zircon U-Pb dating dataset is reported in Table S3.

5. Discussion

5.1. Depositional Age and Attribution

The sandstones in the Clastic Member in the southern part of Yigezitageshan exhibit a low degree of metamorphism (Figure 3), distinct from the lithological characteristics of the previously designated Tonian Sainaertage Formation. In the 1:50,000 regional geological survey, Leiosphaeridia? Spp. and Lophosphaeridium? sp. were found in the Clastic Member, while Baicalia cf. mauritanica and Minjaria? sp. were discovered in the overlying Carbonate Member, preliminarily constraining the strata to the Neoproterozoic [10]. However, the sedimentary association of the Clastic Member and overlying Carbonate Member not only corresponds to the Sainaertage Formation and Beisainaertage Formation of the Tonian but also matches the association of the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation and Shuiquan Formation in the central Kuruktag. Therefore, it is necessary to calibrate the age and attribution of the strata.
Although medium- to thick-bedded basalts are interbedded within the Clastic Member, the zircon U-Pb dating results for the basalts reveal that all zircons are of a xenocrystic origin, with ages ranging from 1809 ± 10 Ma to 2504 ± 9 Ma (Figure 6a), rendering them unsuitable for constraining the depositional age of the strata. Consequently, this study employed detrital zircon U-Pb dating results to determine the maximum depositional age of the strata. The dating results show that the youngest single zircon grain has an age of 591.8 ± 14.2 Ma, while the weighted average age of the youngest two or more zircon grains overlapping in age within 1σ (YC1σ(2+) age) is 596.5 ± 4.7 Ma (n = 6), constraining the maximum depositional age of the Clastic Member to ~596 Ma.
This evidence directly refutes previous proposals to designate the Clastic Member as part of the Tonian strata and suggests that it should be reassigned to Ediacaran or post-Ediacaran strata. The zircon U-Pb dating results for the andesite at the top of the Zhamoketi Formation are 615 Ma [6,28], indicating that the Clastic Member of the southern Yigezitageshan area should be positioned above the Zhamoketi Formation. Combined with the paleontological data obtained from the 1:50,000 geological mapping, the Clastic Member is assigned to the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation, with the overlying Carbonate Member corresponding to the Ediacaran Shuiquan Formation.
The detrital zircon age spectrum of the sandstone in this study exhibits remarkable consistency with the age spectrum of the Yukengou Formation [15] in the central Kuruktag block (Figure 6c,d). This further corroborates that the Clastic Member on the southern flank of Yigezitageshan belongs to the Yukengou Formation. Moreover, considering that the Yukengou Formation is situated in the middle to lower part of the Ediacaran in Kuruktag, while the underlying (the Zhamoketi Formation) and overlying (Cambrian Xishanbulak Formation) volcanic rocks are 615 Ma and 541 Ma, respectively [15,27], we believe that the YC1σ(2+) age (596.5 ± 4.7 Ma) of the sandstone sample obtained from this study is more likely to be closer to the true depositional age of the Yukengou Formation [36].

5.2. Provenance

In the western Kuruktag block, the sandstones of the Yukengou Formation (i.e., Clastic Member) comprise, on average, 18% feldspar, 54% quartz, and 28% lithic fragments, thus positioning themselves within the dissected magmatic arc and recycled orogen regions on the QFL diagram (Figure 4b,c). This indicates that the primary provenance of the sandstone was dissected arcs and orogenic wedges [31]. The lithic fragments chiefly encompass fine-grained sandstones, mudstones, clay-bearing siliceous rocks, and other sedimentary rocks, along with rhyolites, andesites, and other acidic volcanic rocks, as well as quartzose mylonites, quartzites, and slates. This evidence further demonstrates that the main detritus originated from corresponding rock types exposed in magmatic arcs and orogenic belts. Given that the sandstones of the Yukengou Formation display relatively poor structural and compositional maturities and possess subangular zircon grains (Figure 5), it is highly possible that they represent proximal deposition in close proximity to the source area.
The detrital zircon age spectrum of the Yukengou Formation reveals that a significant portion of the detritus originated from Paleoproterozoic materials, corresponding to the 1787–2010 Ma age population (39 grains, 53%). Furthermore, a considerable portion of the detritus was derived from Neoproterozoic materials (32 grains, 43%), aligning with the age population of 591–850 Ma.
Paleoproterozoic detrital zircons may have been sourced from the crystalline basement of Kuruktag, such as the widespread ~1800–2100 Ma magmatic zircons observed in the Xingditage Group [38,39,40,41,42]. In addition, Paleoproterozoic (metamorphosed) magmatic rocks, including the blue quartz granites (1930–1940 Ma) and gneissic granites [43,44,45,46], may have contributed the necessary materials. These sources could also correlate with the metamorphic lithics present within the detrital components (Figure 3).
The Neoproterozoic sources of the sandstones are more complex, encompassing three age intervals: 591–600 Ma, 670–730 Ma, and 730–850 Ma. The 730–850 Ma detritus may stem from a series of magmatic events produced during the assembly and breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent, such as the mid-Neoproterozoic diorites, monzonitic granites, granodiorites, and rhyolites [47]. Additionally, late-Neoproterozoic bimodal magmatic activities, including mafic and granitic magmatism, are also present [46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. The 591–730 Ma detrital zircons are relatively close to the depositional ages of the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata, potentially deriving directly from the erosion of the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata and contemporaneous magmatic activities, such as the late Neoproterozoic granodiorites and potassium-rich granites [53,54], quartz syenites [49], and the Cryogenian–Ediacaran basalts, andesites, dacites, and andesitic tuffs [3,6,15,20]. Moreover, a series of magmatic events nearly coeval with the Yukengou Formation also developed across the entire Tarim Craton (620–600 Ma) [17]. These geological units can all serve as potential sources for the Yukengou Formation and could be further corroborated by the volcanic and sedimentary lithics in the sandstone (Figure 3).

5.3. Geological Significance

The Tarim Craton is commonly placed at the northwest margin of the Neoproterozoic Rodinia supercontinent in various reconstruction models [5,7,48,55]. As a result, the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata developed in the Kuruktag block, on the northern side of Tarim, may document the peripheral tectonic evolution of this supercontinent [5,6,7,8]. Previous studies have primarily focused on the well-exposed Cryogenian strata, which contain volcanic interbeds [3,6,9,10,20,56,57], with relatively limited amount of investigation into the Ediacaran strata. However, given that the base of the Cryogenian strata is characterized by continental deposition and intense magmatic activity, signifying the onset of basin development [10], the determination of its depositional setting is prone influence by provenance and contemporaneous volcanic activity [32].
In contrast, the Ediacaran strata were deposited ~140 Ma after the onset of basin deposition (~740 Ma, corresponding to the base of the Beiyixi Formation). Furthermore, they display broader distribution, onlapping the Cryogenian strata [12,15,16,58], representing the sedimentary records of the basin’s middle-late stages. Therefore, an analysis of the depositional setting of the Ediacaran strata, combined with a comparison with the Cryogenian strata, enables a more accurate constraint of the depositional setting of the Cryogenian–Ediacaran sedimentary basin.
The sandstones constituting the Yukengou Formation are chiefly composed of feldspathic litharenites, with only minor occurrences of lithic arkoses and sublitharenites (Figure 4). The lithic fragment proportion could surpass 30%, and the accompanying QFL diagram illustrates a provenance of recycled orogen or dissected magmatic arc (Figure 4). This characteristic suggests that the compositional maturity of the Yukengou Formation sandstones is relatively low, markedly contrasting with sandstones from passive continental margins. Sandstones associated with passive continental margins typically exhibit high quartz contents, such as quartzarenites, subarkoses, or sublitharenites, and are located within the cratonic interior region on the QFL diagram [59,60,61,62].
Moreover, the sandstones of the Cryogenian strata primarily consist of feldspathic litharenites and litharenites, with minor lithic arkoses and subarkoses [10]. Their provenance primarily includes dissected magmatic arcs, basement uplifts, transitional continents, and recycled orogen [10]. Consequently, the compositional variations in the sandstones from the Yukengou Formation and the Cryogenian strata are insignificant (Figure 4), suggesting a shared provenance. The abundant sedimentary lithics, volcanic lithics, and metamorphic lithics present in the Yukengou Formation sandstones are also prevalent in the Cryogenian sandstones [10]. This implies that the provenance of the orogenic wedge underwent erosion since the Cryogenian and continuously supplied material to the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation.
The detrital zircon age spectra can also reflect the tectonic setting of the sedimentary basin in which sandstones are deposited [63]. Sedimentary basins developed along convergent plate boundaries typically incorporate a large number of detrital zircons with ages closely approximating the depositional age of the strata [63], potentially sourced directly from the erosion of magmatic arcs [64]. Collisional basins, such as foreland basins, generally contain a small proportion of detrital zircons with ages near the deposition age but exhibit a larger number of detrital zircons with ages ~150 Ma older than the depositional age [63]. Extensional sedimentary basins, including continental rift basins and cratonic interior basins, typically possess a limited proportion of detrital zircons with ages close to their depositional age, while the majority are much older than the depositional age [61,63,64]. In passive continental margins, the detrital zircons of sediments are usually older than their depositional age, such as the Neoproterozoic Sainaertage Formation in the Kuruktag area, which has the youngest detrital zircons with Paleoproterozoic ages [65]. Similarly, in the Tethyan Himalaya, the youngest detrital zircons of the Mesozoic sandstones, deposited along the passive margin of the Indian continent, are either Early Paleozoic or Neoproterozoic [62,64,66].
The detrital zircon age spectra and cumulative probability curves of the Yukengou Formation sandstones exhibit two primary age peaks at ~771 Ma and ~1985 Ma. Consequently, the youngest age peak is >100 Ma older than the depositional age of the Yukengou Formation (~596 Ma in this study), which is not a typical characteristic of sandstones in convergent basins nor representative of detrital zircon age compositions in passive continental margin sediments (Figure 7) [63]. Given that more than 50% of the detrital zircons are nearly 1000 Ma older than the depositional age in the Yukengou Formation sandstones, it is suggested that there is significant input from the cratonic basement source. Therefore, the detrital zircon age compositions and cumulative probability curves collectively indicate that the Yukengou Formation is more likely to have been deposited in an extensional basin (area C in Figure 7). When compared to the detrital zircon age compositions of the Cryogenian sandstones [20,57], both the Cryogenian and Ediacaran sandstones exhibit similar age spectra (Figure 7), which are consistent with the features of an extensional basin [63]. This indicates that the source area remained stable throughout the deposition of the Cryogenian strata and the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation.
In summary, the detrital components and detrital zircon age compositions of the Yukengou Formation sandstones closely resemble those of the Cryogenian strata, indicating that both of the Cryogenian and Ediacaran strata in the Kuruktag block, northeastern Tarim, developed in an extensional setting rather than a convergent one. The deposition of the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation occurred approximately 140 Ma after the deposition of the Cryogenian Beiyixi Formation (~740 Ma). However, as mentioned above, the entire extensional basin had not evolved into a passive continental margin at the time of the Yukengou Formation’s deposition. Consequently, it can be inferred that the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata in the Kuruktag block are more likely to have been deposited in an aulacogen basin [69,70,71].
An aulacogen has been delineated as a failed rift that experienced subsequent structural inversion, typically intersecting a rifted continental margin at a high angle [69]. Seismic profiles from the Tarim basin indicate that the entire Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata emerged within a confined belt that penetrated into the Tarim Basin, its boundaries determined by normal faults with exceptional thicknesses exceeding 6000 meters in the basin’s interior [12,16,17,72]. Furthermore, the reverse faults present within the Cryogenian–Ediacaran and Early Paleozoic strata potentially represent the inverted structure during the rift filling phase [15]. Hence, beyond the sandstone composition and detrital zircon evidence presented in this study, seismographic data and structural–sedimentary patterns could further substantiate the aulacogen model.
On the other hand, the detrital zircon age spectra also suggest that before the initiation of Cryogenian rifting in the Kuruktag region along the northern margin of the Tarim Craton, substantial volcanic activity occurred (culminating at ~720–810 Ma), supplying detritus for the sandstones. This volcanic activity persisted from the pre-Cryogenian until the onset of rift deposition (the Beiyixi Formation), exhibiting geochemical features consistent with subduction to some extent [17]. Consequently, it is plausible that this volcanic activity resulted from marginal subduction, implying that the origin of the continental rifting in the northeastern margin of Tarim could be the subduction-induced extension.

6. Conclusions

Based on field observations, a sandstone petrography analysis, and a zircon U-Pb geochronology of clastic rocks in the southern portion of the Yigezitageshan area, western Kuruktag block, northeastern Tarim, this study arrives at the following conclusions.
  • Clastic rocks characterized by the deltaic plain environment in the western Kuruktag block could be reassigned to the Yukengou Formation according to lithology correlation, maximum depositional age (596.5 ± 4.7 Ma), and paleontological evidence.
  • The sandstones constituting the Yukengou Formation are chiefly composed of feldspathic litharenites, with the detritus derived from dissected magmatic arcs and orogenic wedges. Two main detrital zircon age populations, 1787–2010 Ma and 591–850 Ma, reveal that a substantial portion of the detritus was sourced from Paleoproterozoic and Neoproterozoic materials. In conjunction with the poor textural maturity of the sandstones, it is suggested that the provenance of the Yukengou Formation sandstones can be traced to the crystalline basement and Neoproterozoic magmatic events within the Kuruktag block itself.
  • The lithic fragments and detrital zircon age compositions of the Yukengou Formation sandstones point towards deposition in a rift basin as opposed to a passive continental margin. The protracted continental rifting phase (740–596 Ma) in the Kuruktag area suggests that the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata likely accumulated in an aulacogen basin. The presence of a substantial quantity of Neoproterozoic zircon grains indicates considerable volcanic activity preceding and during Cryogenian rifting, implying that continental rifting along the northeastern margin of Tarim may have been triggered by subduction-induced extension.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/min13070914/s1. Table S1: Framework grain counting results of sandstones from the Yukengou Formation, western Kuruktag block; Table S2: LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb dating results of the basalt from the Yukengou Formation, western Kuruktag block; Table S3: LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb dating results of the sandstone from the Yukengou Formation, western Kuruktag block.

Author Contributions

Methodology: M.S. (Minjia Sun) and Y.C.; formal analysis: M.S. (Minjia Sun), G.L. and Y.C.; investigation: M.S., Z.W., R.G., G.L. and M.S. (Mingming Shi); data curation: G.L. and M.S. (Mingming Shi); writing—original draft, M.S. (Minjia Sun); writing—review and editing, M.S., Z.W., R.G. and Y.C.; funding acquisition: M.S. (Minjia Sun), Z.W. and Y.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Open project of Key Laboratory in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China (2023D04068), the Tianchi Scholarship of Xinjiang, and the Tianchi Doctoral Project of Xinjiang (TCBS202005).

Data Availability Statement

The datasets for this research are provided in Supplementary Tables S1–S3 and can also be accessed on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7987104 (accessed on 30 May 2023)).

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments and suggestions greatly improved this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Xiao, S.; Bao, H.; Wang, H.; Kaufman, A.J.; Zhou, C.; Li, G.; Yuan, X.; Ling, H. The Neoproterozoic Quruqtagh Group in eastern Chinese Tianshan: Evidence for a post-Marinoan glaciation. Precambrian Res. 2004, 130, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Duan, J.; Xia, D.; An, S. Deepwater sedimentation and sedimentotectono paleogeography of the NeoproterozoicEarly Palaeozoic aulacogen in Kuruktag, Xingjiang. China 2005, 79, 7, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  3. Gao, L.Z.; Wang, Z.Q.; Xu, Z.Q.; Yang, J.S.; Zhang, W. A new evidence from zircon SHRIMP U-Pb dating of the Neoproterozoic diamictite in Quruqtagh area, Tarim basin, Xinjiang, China. Geol. Bull. China 2010, 29, 205–213, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  4. Xu, B.; Jian, P.; Zheng, H.; Zou, H.; Zhang, L.; Liu, D. U–Pb zircon geochronology and geochemistry of Neoproterozoic volcanic rocks in the Tarim Block of northwest China: Implications for the breakup of Rodinia supercontinent and Neoproterozoic glaciations. Precambrian Res. 2005, 136, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Li, Z.X.; Evans, D.A.D.; Halverson, G.P. Neoproterozoic glaciations in a revised global palaeogeography from the breakup of Rodinia to the assembly of Gondwanaland. Sediment. Geol. 2013, 294, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Xu, B.; Xiao, S.; Zou, H.; Chen, Y.; Li, Z.; Song, B.; Liu, D.; Zhou, C.; Yuan, X. SHRIMP zircon U–Pb age constraints on Neoproterozoic Quruqtagh diamictites in NW China. Precambrian Res. 2009, 168, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Zhang, C.L.; Ye, X.T.; Ernst, R.E.; Zhong, Y.; Zhang, J.; Li, H.K.; Long, X.P. Revisiting the Precambrian evolution of the Southwestern Tarim terrane: Implications for its role in Precambrian supercontinents. Precambrian Res. 2019, 324, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, H.; Chen, Y.; Ripley, E.M.; Li, C.; Deng, X.; Yue, S.; Zheng, Z.; Fu, B. Isotope and trace element studies of the Xingdi II mafic–ultramafic complex in the northern rim of the Tarim Craton: Evidence for emplacement in a Neoproterozoic subduction zone. Lithos 2017, 278–281, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wei, Z.; Guo, R.; Sun, M.; Lü, B.; Guo, Y.; Hu, X. The depositional environment and tectonic setting of Nanhuan Altungol Formation in the Quruqtagh area, northern margin of Tarim. Chin. J. Geol. 2017, 52, 58–78, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  10. Wei, Z.; Guo, R.Q.; Sun, M.J.; Lü, B.; Jin, J.B.; Wang, H.P.; Wang, M.Y. Changes of detrital composition of sandstones from the Nanhua System, Quruqtagh area: Implications on their provenance and the evolution of basin. Acta Sedimentol. Sin. 2017, 35, 264–278, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  11. Shen, W.; Zhu, X.; Xie, H.; Wang, X.; He, Y. Tectonic–sedimentary evolution during initiation of the Tarim Basin: Insights from late Neoproterozoic sedimentary records in the NW basin. Precambrian Res. 2022, 371, 106598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shi, K.; Liu, B.; Jiang, W.; Gao, X.; Liu, S.; Shen, Y. Sedimentary and evolutionary characteristics of Sinian in the Tarim Basin. Pet. Res. 2017, 2, 264–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wu, H.X.; Zhang, F.Q.; Dilek, Y.; Chen, H.L.; Wang, C.Y.; Lin, X.-B.; Cheng, X.G.; Zhu, K.Y. Mid–Neoproterozoic collision of the Tarim Craton with the Yili–Central Tianshan Block towards the final assembly of Supercontinent Rodinia: A new model. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2022, 228, 103989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yi, Z.; Guo, Z.; Wei, G. A two-stage plume-induced rifting in the Neoproterozoic North Tarim: Evidence from detrital zircon study and seismic interpretation. Tectonophysics 2022, 838, 229503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ren, R.; Guan, S.-W.; Zhang, S.-C.; Wu, L.; Zhang, H.-Y. How did the peripheral subduction drive the Rodinia breakup: Constraints from the Neoproterozoic tectonic process in the northern Tarim Craton. Precambrian Res. 2020, 339, 105612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, L.; Guan, S.; Zhang, S.; Yang, H.; Jin, J.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, C. Neoproterozoic stratigraphic framework of the Tarim Craton in NW China: Implications for rift evolution. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2018, 158, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhou, X.; Liu, W.; Wu, G.; Damian Nance, R.; Chen, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Yan, W.; Zhao, Y. The latest Neoproterozoic basaltic and siliciclastic rocks and tectonic implications in the Tarim Craton, NW China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2022, 232, 105148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Han, Y.; Zhao, G.; Sun, M.; Eizenhöfer, P.R.; Hou, W.; Zhang, X.; Liu, D.; Wang, B.; Zhang, G. Paleozoic accretionary orogenesis in the Paleo-Asian Ocean: Insights from detrital zircons from Silurian to Carboniferous strata at the northwestern margin of the Tarim Craton. Tectonics 2015, 34, 334–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, C.L.; Zou, H.B.; Li, H.K.; Wang, H.Y. Tectonic framework and evolution of the Tarim Block in NW China. Gondwana Res. 2013, 23, 1306–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. He, J.; Zhu, W.; Ge, R. New age constraints on Neoproterozoic diamicites in Kuruktag, NW China and Precambrian crustal evolution of the Tarim Craton. Precambrian Res. 2014, 241, 44–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gao, Z.J. The Precambrian Geology in Northern Xinjiang. Number Sixth; Geological Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1993. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  22. Gao, Z.J.; Lin, W.X.; Lu, S.N. Preliminary analysis of the sedimentary features of Qurugtagh Group in Qurugtagh area, Xinjiang region. Bull. Shenyang Inst. Geol. Min. Res. Chin. Acad. Geol. Sci. 1982, 15, 29. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  23. XBGMR (Xinjiang Bureau of Geology and Mineralogy Resources). Stratigraphy of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region; China University of Geosciences Press: Wuhan, China, 1999; pp. 2–19. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  24. Lu, S.; Li, H.; Zhang, C.; Niu, G. Geological and geochronological evidence for the Precambrian evolution of the Tarim Craton and surrounding continental fragments. Precambrian Res. 2008, 160, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Luo, Z.W.; Xu, B.; He, J.Y. U-Pb Detrital Zircon Age Constraints on the Neoproterozoic Tereeken Glaciation in the Quruqtagh Area, Northwestern China. Acta Sci. Nat. U Pekin. 2016, 52, 467–474, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yan, Z.; Wang, T. Neoproterozoic volcanic rocks in the southern Quruqtagh of northwest China: Geochemistry, zircon geochronology and tectonic implications. Acta Geol. Sin. Engl. Ed. 2013, 87, 118–130. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yang, E.L.; Wu, P.; Lü, X.B.; Wu, C.M.; Liu, W.; Chao, X.F. Dating of the basal Cambrian in the Kuruktag area of the Tarim craton: LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb age of tuffs. Acta Geol. Sin. 2021, 95, 3256–3265, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhu, H. Age Determination of Neoproterozoic in the Area of the Xinjiang Area; Jilin University: Changchun, China, 2018; (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, C.H. The Qingbaikou System of Xingditag in Xinjiang, and Its Lower and Upper Boundaries. Xinjiang Geol. 1983, 1, 75–79, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  30. Dickinson, W.R.; Suczek, C.A. Plate tectonics and sandstone compositions. Aapg Bull. 1979, 63, 2164–2182. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dickinson, W.R. Interpreting provenance relations from detrital modes of sandstones. Proven. Arenites 1985, 148, 333–361. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ingersoll, R.V.; Bullard, T.F.; Ford, R.L.; Grimm, J.P.; Pickle, J.D.; Sares, S.W. The effect of grain size on detrital modes: A test of the Gazzi-Dickinson point-counting method. J. Sediment. Res. 1984, 54, 103–116. [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, Y.S.; Hu, Z.C.; Gao, S.; Gunther, D.; Xu, J.; Gao, C.G.; Chen, H.H. In situ analysis of major and trace elements of anhydrous minerals by LA-ICP-MS without applying an internal standard. Chem. Geol. 2008, 257, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Andersen, T. Correction of common lead in U–Pb analyses that do not report 204 Pb. Chem. Geol. 2002, 192, 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vermeesch, P.; Resentini, A.; Garzanti, E. An R package for statistical provenance analysis. Sediment. Geol. 2016, 336, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dickinson, W.R.; Gehrels, G.E. Use of U–Pb ages of detrital zircons to infer maximum depositional ages of strata: A test against a Colorado Plateau Mesozoic database. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2009, 288, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Folk, R.L. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks; Hemphill Publishing Company: Austin, TX, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ge, R.; Zhu, W.; Wilde, S.A.; He, J.; Cui, X. Synchronous crustal growth and reworking recorded in late Paleoproterozoic granitoids in the northern Tarim craton: In situ zircon U-Pb-Hf-O isotopic and geochemical constraints and tectonic implications. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 2015, 127, 781–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ge, R.; Zhu, W.; Wu, H.; He, J.; Zheng, B. Zircon U–Pb ages and Lu–Hf isotopes of Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks in the Korla Complex, NW China: Implications for metamorphic zircon formation and geological evolution of the Tarim Craton. Precambrian Res. 2013, 231, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Guo, Y.; Zhao, G.; Guo, R.; Han, Y.; Liu, Q.; Wei, Z.; Zhou, N.; Ju, P.; Song, Z. Metamorphism and geochronology of garnet mica schists from the Kuluketage area: Implications for reconstructions of the Tarim Craton in supercontinent Columbia. Precambrian Res. 2022, 379, 106806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guo, Y.; Zhao, G.; Guo, R.; Han, Y.; Wei, Z.; Zhou, N.; Ju, P. Late Paleoproterozoic orogenic evolution of the northern Tarim Craton, NW China: Insights from phase equilibrium modeling and zircon U-Pb geochronology of metapelitic granulite in the Kuluketage area. Gondwana Res. 2022, 106, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sun, M.; Guo, R.; Palati, A. Metamorphism and U⁃ Pb dating of Al⁃ rich gneisses in Quruqtagh, Xinjiang. Xinjiang Geol. 2015, 33, 449, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  43. Lei, R.; Wu, C.; Chi, G.; Chen, G.; Gu, L.; Jiang, Y. Petrogenesis of the Palaeoproterozoic Xishankou pluton, northern Tarim block, northwest China: Implications for assembly of the supercontinent Columbia. Int. Geol. Rev. 2012, 54, 1829–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Long, X.; Yuan, C.; Sun, M.; Xiao, W.; Zhao, G.; Zhou, K.; Wang, Y.; Hu, A. The discovery of the oldest rocks in the Kuluketage area and its geological implications. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2011, 54, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shu, L.S.; Deng, X.L.; Zhu, W.B.; Ma, D.S.; Xiao, W.J. Precambrian tectonic evolution of the Tarim Block, NW China: New geochronological insights from the Quruqtagh domain. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2011, 42, 774–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, C.L.; Li, H.K.; Santosh, M.; Li, Z.X.; Zou, H.B.; Wang, H.; Ye, H. Precambrian evolution and cratonization of the Tarim Block, NW China: Petrology, geochemistry, Nd-isotopes and U–Pb zircon geochronology from Archaean gabbro-TTG–potassic granite suite and Paleoproterozoic metamorphic belt. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2012, 47, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lü, B. Geochronology and Petrogenesis of Neoproterozoic Granitoid in Quruqtagh, Xinjiang; Xinjiang University: Xinjiang, China, 2017; (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  48. Ge, R.; Zhu, W.; Wilde, S.A. Mid-Neoproterozoic (ca. 830-800 Ma) metamorphicP-Tpaths link Tarim to the circum-Rodinia subduction-accretion system. Tectonics 2016, 35, 1465–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Ge, R.; Zhu, W.; Zheng, B.; Wu, H.; He, J.; Zhu, X. Early Pan-African magmatism in the Tarim Craton: Insights from zircon U–Pb–Lu–Hf isotope and geochemistry of granitoids in the Korla area, NW China. Precambrian Res. 2012, 212–213, 117–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, C.; Li, X.; Li, Z.; Lu, S.; Ye, H.; Li, H. Neoproterozoic ultramafic–mafic-carbonatite complex and granitoids in Quruqtagh of northeastern Tarim Block, western China: Geochronology, geochemistry and tectonic implications. Precambrian Res. 2007, 152, 149–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, C.L.; Li, Z.X.; Li, X.H.; Ye, H.M. Neoproterozoic mafic dyke swarms at the northern margin of the Tarim Block, NW China: Age, geochemistry, petrogenesis and tectonic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2009, 35, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, C.L.; Yang, D.S.; Wang, H.Y.; Takahashi, Y.; Ye, H.M. Neoproterozoic mafic-ultramafic layered intrusion in Quruqtagh of northeastern Tarim Block, NW China: Two phases of mafic igneous activity with different mantle sources. Gondwana Res. 2011, 19, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, H.; Guo, R.; Zhu, Z.; Jin, J.; Wang, M.; Wei, Z.; Lü, B. Genesis and geological significances of Nanhua granitic volcanic-intrusive complexes in Quruqtagh on the northern margin of the Tarim block, China. Chin. J. Geol. 2016, 51, 239–261, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, C.L.; Ye, X.T.; Li, H.K. The latest Neoproterozoic igneous activity on the northern margin of the Tarim Craton. Geol. Bull. China 2014, 33, 606–613, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhao, P.; Chen, Y.; Zhan, S.; Xu, B.; Faure, M. The Apparent Polar Wander Path of the Tarim block (NW China) since the Neoproterozoic and its implications for a long-term Tarim–Australia connection. Precambrian Res. 2014, 242, 39–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yan, Z.; Wang, T. Tectonic setting of Neoproterozoic Beiyixi Formation in Quruqtagh area, Xinjiang: Evidence from geochemistry of clastic rocks. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2011, 27, 1785–1796, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yan, Z.; Wang, T.; Guo, X. Provenance of Neoproterozoic rocks in Quruqtagh area, Xinjiang: Evidence from detrital zircon geochronology. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2011, 27, 121–132, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  58. Sun, J.; He, J.; Tao, X.; Guo, S.; Pan, X.; Zhao, K.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, J. Stratigraphic correlation and sedimentology of the Ediacaran succession in the Tarim Basin, NW China: Implications for paleogeographic reconstruction and hydrocarbon exploration. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2023, 247, 105607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Garzanti, E. The Himalayan Foreland Basin from collision onset to the present: A sedimentary–petrology perspective. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2019, 483, 65–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Garzanti, E.; Doglioni, C.; Vezzoli, G.; Ando, S. Orogenic belts and orogenic sediment provenance. J. Geol. 2007, 115, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Garzanti, E.; Vermeesch, P.; Padoan, M.; Resentini, A.; Vezzoli, G.; Andò, S. Provenance of Passive-Margin Sand (Southern Africa). J. Geol. 2014, 122, 17–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhang, B.S.; Wei, Y.S.; Garzanti, E.; Wang, C.S.; Chen, X.; Pan, W.Y.; Liu, Q.S. Sedimentologic and stratigraphic constraints on the orientation of the Late Triassic northern Indian passive continental margin. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2019, 533, 109234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cawood, P.A.; Hawkesworth, C.J.; Dhuime, B. Detrital zircon record and tectonic setting. Geology 2012, 40, 875–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Hu, X.M.; Garzanti, E.; Wang, J.G.; Huang, W.T.; An, W.; Webb, A.A.G. The timing of India-Asia collision onset—Facts, theories, controversies. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 160, 264–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zheng, B.H.; Zhu, W.B.; Ge, R.F.; Wu, H.L.; He, J.W.; Lu, Y.Z. Proterozoic tectonic evolution of the Tarim Craton: New insights from detrital zircon U-Pb and Lu-Hf isotopes of metasediments in the Kuruktag area. Precambrian Res. 2020, 346, 105788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wei, Z.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Fan, X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, C.; Jiebu, G. Discovery of Vestige Sedimentary Archives of the India-Asia Collision in the Eastern Yarlung Zangbo Suture Zone. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2020, 125, e2019JB018192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Korsch, R.; Adams, C.; Black, L.; Foster, D.; Fraser, G.; Murray, C.; Foudoulis, C.; Griffin, W. Geochronology and provenance of the Late Paleozoic accretionary wedge and Gympie Terrane, New England Orogen, eastern Australia∗. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 2009, 56, 655–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cawood, P.; Nemchin, A. Provenance record of a rift basin: U/Pb ages of detrital zircons from the Perth Basin, Western Australia. Sediment. Geol. 2000, 134, 209–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Keller, G.R.; Stephenson, R.A. The Southern Oklahoma and Dniepr-Donets aulacogens: A comparative analysis. In 4-D Framework of Continental Crust; Geological Society of America Memoirs: Boulder, CO, USA, 2007; pp. 127–143. [Google Scholar]
  70. Khudoley, A.; Rainbird, R.; Stern, R.; Kropachev, A.; Heaman, L.; Zanin, A.; Podkovyrov, V.; Belova, V.; Sukhorukov, V. Sedimentary evolution of the Riphean–Vendian basin of southeastern Siberia. Precambrian Res. 2001, 111, 129–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Stein, S.; Stein, C.A.; Elling, R.; Kley, J.; Keller, G.R.; Wysession, M.; Rooney, T.; Frederiksen, A.; Moucha, R. Insights from North America’s failed Midcontinent Rift into the evolution of continental rifts and passive continental margins. Tectonophysics 2018, 744, 403–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ren, R.; Guan, S.; Wu, L.; Zhu, G. Evolution of the Neoproterozoic rift basins and its implication for oil and gas exploration in the Tarim Basin. Pet. Res. 2018, 3, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 13 00914 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Simplified tectonic map of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt and surrounding cratons (modified after [18]); (b) simplified geological map of the Kuruktag block, northeastern Tarim Craton (modified after [19]); (c) geological map of the westernmost part of the Kuruktag block. 1. Paleoproterozoic magmatism; 2. Tonian magmatism; 3. Cryogenian magmatism; 4. Paleozoic magmatism; 5. Paleoproterozoic Xingditage Group; 6. Tonian strata; 7. Cryogenian Beiyixi Formation; 8. Cryogenian Zhaobihsan Formation; 9. Cryogenian Aletonggou Formation; 10. Cryogenian Teruiaiken Formation; 11. Ediacaran Yukengou Formation (i.e., Clastic Member in this study); 12. Ediacaran Shuiquan Formation (i.e., Carbonate Member); 13. geological boundary; 14. angular unconformity; 15. thrust fault; 16. normal fault; 17. strike–slip fault; 18. inferred fault; 19. ductile shear zone; 20. décollement; 21. attitude of bed; 22. attitude of cleavage; 23. geological section and location; 24. sample location.
Figure 1. (a) Simplified tectonic map of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt and surrounding cratons (modified after [18]); (b) simplified geological map of the Kuruktag block, northeastern Tarim Craton (modified after [19]); (c) geological map of the westernmost part of the Kuruktag block. 1. Paleoproterozoic magmatism; 2. Tonian magmatism; 3. Cryogenian magmatism; 4. Paleozoic magmatism; 5. Paleoproterozoic Xingditage Group; 6. Tonian strata; 7. Cryogenian Beiyixi Formation; 8. Cryogenian Zhaobihsan Formation; 9. Cryogenian Aletonggou Formation; 10. Cryogenian Teruiaiken Formation; 11. Ediacaran Yukengou Formation (i.e., Clastic Member in this study); 12. Ediacaran Shuiquan Formation (i.e., Carbonate Member); 13. geological boundary; 14. angular unconformity; 15. thrust fault; 16. normal fault; 17. strike–slip fault; 18. inferred fault; 19. ductile shear zone; 20. décollement; 21. attitude of bed; 22. attitude of cleavage; 23. geological section and location; 24. sample location.
Minerals 13 00914 g001
Minerals 13 00914 g002 550
Figure 2. Field photographs of sedimentary structures of the clastic rocks and carbonate rocks in the southern portion of the Yigezitageshan area, western Kuruktag. (a) Convolute bedding; (b) ripples; (c) load casts; (d) raindrop and hail imprints; (e) conglomerate; (f) stromatolites in dolomite.
Figure 2. Field photographs of sedimentary structures of the clastic rocks and carbonate rocks in the southern portion of the Yigezitageshan area, western Kuruktag. (a) Convolute bedding; (b) ripples; (c) load casts; (d) raindrop and hail imprints; (e) conglomerate; (f) stromatolites in dolomite.
Minerals 13 00914 g002
Minerals 13 00914 g003 550
Figure 3. Microphotographs of the lithic sandstones from the Yigezitageshan area. (a) Lithic fragments, including clay-bearing siliceous rocks, mudstones, and siltstones; (b) lithic fragments, including volcanic rocks and metamorphic rocks; (c) lithic fragments, including volcanic rocks, metamorphic rocks, and sedimentary rocks; (d) lithic fragments dominated by volcanic rocks. Q—quartz (Qm—monocrystalline; Qp—polycrystalline); K—potassium feldspar; P—plagioclase; L—lithic fragments (Lv—volcanic; Ls—sedimentary; Lm—metamorphic).
Figure 3. Microphotographs of the lithic sandstones from the Yigezitageshan area. (a) Lithic fragments, including clay-bearing siliceous rocks, mudstones, and siltstones; (b) lithic fragments, including volcanic rocks and metamorphic rocks; (c) lithic fragments, including volcanic rocks, metamorphic rocks, and sedimentary rocks; (d) lithic fragments dominated by volcanic rocks. Q—quartz (Qm—monocrystalline; Qp—polycrystalline); K—potassium feldspar; P—plagioclase; L—lithic fragments (Lv—volcanic; Ls—sedimentary; Lm—metamorphic).
Minerals 13 00914 g003
Minerals 13 00914 g004 550
Figure 4. (a) The classification diagram [37] of the Yukengou Formation sandstones from the Yigezitageshan area; (b) QFL diagram [31]; (c) Ls-Lm-Lv diagram [31]. The light grey data points represent the Cryogenian strata [10]; the black data points represent the Yukengou Formation sandstones (this study). Q—quartz; F—feldspar; L—lithic fragment; Lv—volcanic lithic; Ls—sedimentary lithic; Lm—metamorphic lithic.
Figure 4. (a) The classification diagram [37] of the Yukengou Formation sandstones from the Yigezitageshan area; (b) QFL diagram [31]; (c) Ls-Lm-Lv diagram [31]. The light grey data points represent the Cryogenian strata [10]; the black data points represent the Yukengou Formation sandstones (this study). Q—quartz; F—feldspar; L—lithic fragment; Lv—volcanic lithic; Ls—sedimentary lithic; Lm—metamorphic lithic.
Minerals 13 00914 g004
Minerals 13 00914 g005 550
Figure 5. CL images of representative zircons showing ablation points (red numbers) and U-Pb isotope ages (white numbers). (a) Zircons from the basalt (PM03-24ZK); (b) Zircons from the sandstone (PM03-30ZK).
Figure 5. CL images of representative zircons showing ablation points (red numbers) and U-Pb isotope ages (white numbers). (a) Zircons from the basalt (PM03-24ZK); (b) Zircons from the sandstone (PM03-30ZK).
Minerals 13 00914 g005
Minerals 13 00914 g006 550
Figure 6. U-Pb concordia diagrams and U-Pb age spectra of detrital zircons. (a) U-Pb concordia diagram of zircon ages for the basalt; (b) U-Pb concordia diagram of zircon ages for the sandstone from the newly identified Yukengou Formation, western Kuruktag block (this study); (c) U-Pb age spectra (pink curve) and histogram plot (green bar) of detrital zircons from the Yukengou Formation, central Kuruktag block [15]; (d) U-Pb age spectra and histogram plot of detrital zircons from the newly identified Yukengou Formation, western Kuruktag block (this study).
Figure 6. U-Pb concordia diagrams and U-Pb age spectra of detrital zircons. (a) U-Pb concordia diagram of zircon ages for the basalt; (b) U-Pb concordia diagram of zircon ages for the sandstone from the newly identified Yukengou Formation, western Kuruktag block (this study); (c) U-Pb age spectra (pink curve) and histogram plot (green bar) of detrital zircons from the Yukengou Formation, central Kuruktag block [15]; (d) U-Pb age spectra and histogram plot of detrital zircons from the newly identified Yukengou Formation, western Kuruktag block (this study).
Minerals 13 00914 g006
Minerals 13 00914 g007 550
Figure 7. Cumulative probability curves of sandstones from different levels of the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata, Kuruktag block. CA-DA denotes the difference between the measured crystallization age for a detrital zircon grain and the depositional age of the succession [63]. The detrital zircon ages of sandstones from the Beiyixi Formation, the base of the Aletonggou Formation, the top of the Aletonggou Formation, and the Yukengou Formation (central Kuruktag block) are from studies by He [20] and Ren [15]. The depositional ages for these formations are 730 Ma, 680 Ma, 660 Ma, and 596 Ma, respectively. The cumulative probability curves of sandstones from the Yukengou Formation, newly discovered in the western Kuruktag block and Tonian Paergangtage Group [65], are presented for comparative purposes. A—convergent basin; B—collisional basin; and C—extensional basin. “Trench” refers to the cumulative probability curve of trench sandstones from Terra Australis Orogen [67]; “Rift” refers to the cumulative probability curve of sandstones from Perth Basin (rift basin) [68].
Figure 7. Cumulative probability curves of sandstones from different levels of the Cryogenian–Ediacaran strata, Kuruktag block. CA-DA denotes the difference between the measured crystallization age for a detrital zircon grain and the depositional age of the succession [63]. The detrital zircon ages of sandstones from the Beiyixi Formation, the base of the Aletonggou Formation, the top of the Aletonggou Formation, and the Yukengou Formation (central Kuruktag block) are from studies by He [20] and Ren [15]. The depositional ages for these formations are 730 Ma, 680 Ma, 660 Ma, and 596 Ma, respectively. The cumulative probability curves of sandstones from the Yukengou Formation, newly discovered in the western Kuruktag block and Tonian Paergangtage Group [65], are presented for comparative purposes. A—convergent basin; B—collisional basin; and C—extensional basin. “Trench” refers to the cumulative probability curve of trench sandstones from Terra Australis Orogen [67]; “Rift” refers to the cumulative probability curve of sandstones from Perth Basin (rift basin) [68].
Minerals 13 00914 g007
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

Sun, M.; Wei, Z.; Guo, R.; Liu, G.; Shi, M.; Cheng, Y. First Identification of the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation in the Western Kuruktag Block, Northeastern Tarim, and Its Implications for Neoproterozoic Rift Basin Evolution. Minerals 2023, 13, 914. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13070914

AMA Style

Sun M, Wei Z, Guo R, Liu G, Shi M, Cheng Y. First Identification of the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation in the Western Kuruktag Block, Northeastern Tarim, and Its Implications for Neoproterozoic Rift Basin Evolution. Minerals. 2023; 13(7):914. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13070914

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Minjia, Zhen Wei, Ruiqing Guo, Guiping Liu, Mingming Shi, and Yuanfeng Cheng. 2023. "First Identification of the Ediacaran Yukengou Formation in the Western Kuruktag Block, Northeastern Tarim, and Its Implications for Neoproterozoic Rift Basin Evolution" Minerals 13, no. 7: 914. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13070914

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