Next Article in Journal
Evolutionary Model of the Sepid-Sarve Manto-Type Copper Mineralization, Doruneh Fault Volcanic-Plutonic Belt (Central Iran Domain, NE Iran): An Integrated Geological, Geochemical, Fluid-Inclusion and Stable O–S Isotope Study
Previous Article in Journal
The Relationship Between Tectono-Magmatism and Gold (Polymetallic) Deposits in the Northeastern Hunan Province, Jiangnan Orogen: Insight from Three-Dimensional Electrical Structures
Previous Article in Special Issue
Geochronology and Geochemistry of the Neoarchean Metabasalt in the Southern Liaoning Province, North China Craton: Implications on Regional Crustal Evolution
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/min15121245
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Zircon U-Pb-Hf Isotopes, Whole-Rock Geochemistry and Sr-Nd Isotopes of Early Neoproterozoic Intrusion in the Erguna Block, NE China: Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications

by
Zhanlong Li
1,2,
Ji Feng
2,
Tianyu Zhao
1,*,
Yang Liu
2,3,
Rui Wang
2,3,
Yanan Zhang
2 and
Fuling Fan
1
1
School of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
2
The Fifth Geological Exploration Institute of Heilongjiang Province, Harbin 150001, China
3
College of Earth Sciences, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2025, 15(12), 1245; https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121245
Submission received: 14 October 2025 / Revised: 17 November 2025 / Accepted: 19 November 2025 / Published: 25 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from the 7th National Youth Geological Congress)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The early crustal evolution of microcontinental fragments in the Central Asian Orogenic Belt remains poorly constrained. Among these fragments, the Erguna Block records extensive Neoproterozoic magmatism that provides key constraints on its tectono-magmatic development in relation to the Rodinia supercontinent cycle. To furthering constrain the Neoproterozoic magmatic evolution of the Erguna Block, an integrated investigation combining petrography, zircon U-Pb and Lu-Hf isotopic analyses, whole-rock geochemistry, and Sr-Nd isotope data was carried out on the newly recognized Fengshuishan intrusion in northern Alongshan. Zircon U-Pb ages of 810 ± 5 Ma and 807 ± 4 Ma were obtained from granitic samples, while the dioritic sample gave an age of 773 ± 2 Ma, representing a major Neoproterozoic magmatic episode. The 810–807 Ma granites show positive zircon εHf(t) (+0.09 to +12.1) and whole-rock εNd(t) (+0.50 to +1.77), suggesting derivation mainly from partial melting of Mesoproterozoic juvenile crust with minor contribution from mantle-derived materials. In contrast, ca. 773 Ma gabbroic diorite exhibits εHf(t) values of −1.23 to +4.3 and an εNd(t) value of +1.33, implying a contribution from an enriched mantle source. These Fengshuishan igneous rocks show A-type geochemical signatures, enriched in Rb, Th, and Pb but depleted in Ba, Sr, and Eu. Integrating these data with regional geological evidence, we infer that the Fengshuishan intrusion formed in an intraplate extensional regime, recording an important phase of crust–mantle interaction during the Neoproterozoic. These results expand the record of Neoproterozoic igneous rocks in the Erguna Block and offer new constraints on its role within the Rodinia supercontinent.

1. Introduction

The Central Asian Orogenic Belt is a large Phanerozoic orogenic system, sandwiched between the Siberian and Baltica cratons to the north and the Tarim and North China cratons to the south. This belt was formed through the accretion of various microcontinents, island arcs, seamounts, and accretionary complexes [1,2,3]. The majority of microcontinents within the Central Asian Orogenic Belt underwent substantial reworking during the formation of supercontinents, such as the Columbia, Rodinia, and Pangea supercontinents [4,5,6,7,8]. These microcontinents may thus provide valuable insights into global supercontinent reconstructions [9,10,11]. Moreover, elucidating their early crustal evolution and compositional characteristics is crucial for understanding their accretionary growth and the tectonic evolution of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt. Rodinia represents a major supercontinent that assembled during the Precambrian [3]. However, the configuration and relative paleoposition of major Neoproterozoic continental fragments across the globe continue to be debated [3,12,13]. Thus, studies on the structure and tectonic history of Neoproterozoic evolution are important for resolving debates about the role of these microcontinents in the formation and fragmentation of the Rodinia supercontinent.
Widespread Neoproterozoic igneous rocks occur in the Erguna Block, which lies on the eastern margin of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt (Figure 1) [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. The spatial characteristics of Neoproterozoic magmatism in this block remain poorly constrained, limiting a full understanding of the nature and evolutionary history of its Precambrian basement. The early Neoproterozoic igneous rocks (>840 Ma) within the Erguna Block are widely interpreted as products of an active continental margin [21,22]. However, the tectonomagmatic environment responsible for the younger Tonian intrusions (ca. 830–740 Ma) remains controversial and has been the focus of ongoing debate [8,15,23,24,25]. The arc model argued that late Neoproterozoic igneous rocks resulted from a long-lived continental arc system [23,24,25], whereas the extensional model considered that they were formed in an extensional environment that eventually led to the breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent [8,15,26]. The tectono-magmatic evolution of the Erguna Block during the Neoproterozoic, and its relationship to the tectonic event associated with aggregation and fragmentation of the Rodinia supercontinent, remain highly debated. Zhang et al. (2022) inferred that the Erguna Block was an isolated Precambrian microcontinent [8]. Wang et al. (2025) suggest that Erguna Block may represent a continental arc developed along the margin of the Yangtze Block [24]. Recent studies suggest possible tectonic linkages among the Erguna Block, Central Mongolia Block, and Tarim Craton prior to the Neoproterozoic [15,16,17,18,19,20,27].
This study presents newly acquired zircon U-Pb-Hf isotopic results, as well as whole-rock major- and trace- element data and Sr-Nd isotopic data from the Neoproterozoic Fengshuishan igneous rocks in the northern Alongshan area of the Erguna Block. The integration of newly acquired and previously reported data provide new insights into the tectonic evolution of the Erguna Block during the early Neoproterozoic. Moreover, the new findings of this study, together with previous research, further confirm the paleogeographic affinity of the Erguna Block within the framework of the Rodinia supercontinent during the early Neoproterozoic. We propose that the Erguna Block originally formed as part of a continental terrane along the margin of Rodinia, showing a tectonic connection with the Tarim Craton, and was subsequently accreted to the Siberian Craton.

2. Geological Background and Samples

The eastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt comprises four main tectonic/geological units, including the Erguna, Xing’an, Songnen, and Jiamusi blocks. The Erguna Block is bounded by the Mesozoic Mongol–Okhotsk suture to the northwest and the Paleozoic Xinlin–Xiguitu–Toudaoqiao suture to the southeast. The Precambrian basement, which consists of the Xinghuadukou and Ergunahe groups, is sporadically distributed in the Erguna Block. These Precambrian units are overlain by Jurassic to Cretaceous volcanic and clastic sequences. Granitoid intrusions of Permian to Cretaceous age are distributed in a NE–SW orientation across the Erguna Block (Figure 1c). The Xinghuadukou Group, together with the Ergunahe and Jiageda formations, constitutes the metamorphic crystalline basement of the Erguna Block and provides a crucial window into the block’s early tectonothermal evolution. The metamorphic supracrustal sequences of the Xinghuadukou Group are widely exposed in this region and mainly consist of metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The Ergunahe Formation is characterized by a volcano–sedimentary assemblage that has undergone greenschist-facies metamorphism.
The newly recognized early Neoproterozoic Fengshuishan intrusion is sporadically exposed in the northern Alongshan region (Figure 1). According to the 1:250,000 Regional Geological Survey Report of the Alongshan Town Sheet in 2003, the Fengshuishan intrusions in the Alongshan area are generally distributed in a NE-trending orientation and occur mostly as irregular bodies. They are characterized by the presence of abundant enclaves derived from the Paleoproterozoic Xinghuadukou Group. Therefore, it is inferred that the formation of the Fengshuishan intrusion postdates that of the Xinghuadukou Group. However, its precise formation age is not constrained by any available geochronological data. In the study area, the Fengshuishan intrusion, comprising granitic gneiss, fine-grained granite, and intermediate rocks, is sporadically distributed and is closely associated with the Xinghuadukou Group. The Fengshuishan intrusion is in fault contact with the Xinghuadukou Group. The basement of the Erguna Block is mainly represented by the Fengshuishan intrusive body and the Xinghuadukou metamorphic sequence.
In this study, granitic and dioritic samples were collected from plutons in the northern Alongshan area (Figure 1). The contact between the granite and diorite is indistinct due to poor exposure. However, as discussed later (Section 4.1), the dioritic rocks were emplaced later than the granitic ones. Zircon U-Pb dating and Lu-Hf isotope analysis were conducted on three representative granitoid samples collected from the Fengshuishan intrusion, comprising two granitic gneisses (FSS02 and FSS03) and one diorite (FSS01). Additionally, eight samples collected near the geochronological sampling sites were subjected to whole-rock geochemical analyses, and their locations are shown in Figure 1c. The granite mainly consists of K-feldspar (30%–35%), plagioclase (25%–30%), and quartz (~20%), with subordinate amounts of biotite (~8%) and hornblende (~5%). Accessory constituents include epidote, zircon, and Fe-Ti oxides. Dioritic rocks, in contrast, contain abundant plagioclase (50%–55%) and hornblende (35%–40%), together with clinopyroxene (10%–15%), biotite (~2%), and minor apatite, zircon, and Fe-Ti oxides. Plagioclase shows variable alteration to epidote and sericite, while biotite displays characteristic pleochroism and partial chloritization.

3. Analytical Methods

3.1. Zircon U-Pb Geochronology

Zircons were extracted from each studied sample using conventional separation techniques. Conventional heavy liquid and magnetic techniques were employed to separate zircon grains, which were then picked by hand under a binocular microscope. Cathodoluminescence (CL) images for revealing internal structures were obtained using a Gatan MonoCL4+ detector (Gatan, Inc., United States) attached to a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at the State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan. U-Pb dating and trace element analysis of zircon were performed at the Wuhan SampleSolution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd., Wuhan, China using LA-ICP-MS (Coherent, Germany and Agilent, Janpan). Laser ablation was carried out using a GeolasPro system (Coherent, Germany) equipped with a COMPexPro 102 ArF excimer laser (193 nm wavelength, 200 mJ maximum energy) coupled to a MicroLas optical unit. Ion signals were measured with an Agilent 7900 ICP–MS (Agilent, Janpan). Helium served as the carrier gas, while argon was added as a make-up gas through a T-connector prior to the plasma. A signal-smoothing “wire” device was installed between the ablation cell and the plasma interface to stabilize the ion beam [28]. This study used a laser beam diameter of 35 µm. U-Pb isotope calibration and trace element quantification were conducted using zircon 91500 and NIST SRM610 as external reference materials, respectively. A background signal was collected for 20–30 s before approximately 50 s of sample signal acquisition during each analysis. ICPMSDataCal 10.9 [29,30] was used for data processing and correction of instrumental drift. The software executes offline procedures such as background subtraction, integration of signals, and quantitative calibration for both trace-element and U-Pb datasets. Concordia plotting and age computations were conducted using Isoplot/Ex 3.0 within Microsoft Excel [31]. Analytical accuracy is estimated at ~95%.

3.2. Zircon Lu-Hf Isotopes

In situ Lu-Hf isotope determinations of zircon were performed at the Wuhan Sample Solution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd. (Wuhan, China), using a Neptune Plus multi-collector ICP–MS (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) coupled with a Geolas HD 193 nm ArF excimer laser system (Coherent, Göttingen, Germany). Zircon Hf isotopic compositions were determined from domains previously dated by U-Pb methods. Single-spot laser ablation with a 44 μm beam was employed for analysis, with ~20 s of background acquisition followed by ~50 s of sample ablation. Analytical precision and accuracy were assessed using three well-established zircon standards (Plešovice, 91500, and GJ-1). The 91500 zircon was used as the calibration reference, whereas Plešovice and GJ-1 served as secondary standards to monitor analytical performance. Detailed analytical procedures are described in [32], and the reference Hf isotopic compositions of the materials are available in [33].

3.3. Whole-Rock Geochemistry

About 60 g of fresh, homogeneous rock samples were crushed and ground to <200 mesh using a tungsten carbide mortar for whole-rock major and trace element analyses. Whole-rock major element analyses were performed with the fused glass-bead method. The fusion mixture consisted of lithium tetraborate, lithium metaborate, and lithium fluoride in a ratio of 45:10:5, together with small additions of ammonium nitrate and lithium bromide serving as oxidizing and releasing agents. The samples were fused at 1050 °C for roughly 15 min. Major element abundances were measured on a Rigaku ZSX Primus II (Rigaku, Japan) wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer equipped with a 4.0 kW end-window Rh tube. Instrument calibration employed certified Chinese national standards, including rock (GBW07101–14), soil (GBW07401–08), and stream sediment (GBW07302–12) reference materials. Data were adjusted using the α-coefficient correction procedure, and the relative standard deviation (RSD) for major oxides was typically below 2%.
Trace element analyses of whole-rock powders were conducted using an Agilent 7700e ICP–MS (Agilent, Janpan) housed at Wuhan Sample Solution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd. (Wuhan, China). Following 12 h of drying at 105 °C, approximately 50 mg of <200 mesh sample powder was introduced into a Teflon digestion vessel. Each sample was treated with 1 mL HNO3 and 1 mL HF, sealed in a stainless-steel jacket, and heated at 190 °C for about 24 h to ensure complete dissolution. After cooling, the solution was evaporated to near dryness on a 140 °C hotplate and refluxed once with an additional 1 mL HNO3. Subsequently, 1 mL HNO3, 1 mL Milli-Q water, and 1 mL of internal standard solution containing 1 ppm indium were added, followed by a second digestion at 190 °C for more than 12 h. A volume of 2% HNO3 was added to the final clear solution to make up to 100 g in a polyethylene container before ICP–MS measurement.

3.4. Whole-Rock Sr-Nd Isotopic Analyses

Whole-rock Sr-Nd isotopic measurements were conducted using a Neptune Plus multi-collector ICP–MS (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) at Wuhan Sample Solution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd., Wuhan, China. Instrumental mass bias was corrected following the exponential law, originally proposed for TIMS [34] and widely adopted in MC–ICP–MS isotope determinations. Mass discrimination correction for Sr isotopes was carried out via internal normalization to a 88Sr/86Sr ratio of 8.375209 [30]. Similarly, Nd isotope ratios were corrected via internal normalization to a 146Nd/144Nd ratio of 0.7219 [35].

4. Results

4.1. Zircon U-Pb Geochronology

Zircons in sample FSS02 from the Fengshuishan granite are generally transparent, occurring as subhedral to euhedral grains, with most ranging from 50 to 150 μm in length. Most of the zircons display oscillatory zoning in the cathodoluminescence (CL) images, suggesting a magmatic origin. Table S1 presents the zircon U-Pb geochronological results for the collected samples. Twenty-seven analyses were performed on 27 zircon grains. The analyzed zircons have intermediate Th and U concentrations (82–543 ppm and 61–651 ppm, respectively) and Th/U ratios (0.24–1.08). Four analytical spots were identified as discordant. After excluding four discordant spots, the remaining 23 zircon data points fall along the concordia curve (Figure 2A). Two distinct age groups are identified. A subordinate group of nine analyses yields 206Pb/238U ages ranging from 931 to 903 Ma, yielding a weighted mean of 912 ± 7 Ma (MSWD = 6.1). These zircons show core-rim microstructures (Figure S2). The older age population likely reflects xenocrystic or inherited zircon components. Fourteen concordant spots give a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 810 ± 5 Ma (MSWD = 0.76; Figure 2B), representing the crystallization age of the FSS02 granite.
The analyzed zircons from the FSS03 granite exhibit dominantly transparent, prismatic grains (30–250 μm) with euhedral to subhedral morphology. U-Pb dating of twenty-one spots yielded 206Pb/238U ages spanning 1706–801 Ma. These older age populations show weakly luminescent, irregular CL textures and slight discordance (Figure S2), which are interpreted to reflect inherited zircons derived from the magma source or incorporated xenocrysts assimilated during magma evolution. The youngest sixteen zircon analyses define a consistent age cluster, giving a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 807 ± 4 Ma (MSWD = 1.3; Figure 2C,D). The obtained age is considered to represent the timing of crystallization for the FSS03 granite.
Zircons from the FSS01 diorite are mostly subhedral, ranging from 50 to 200 μm in length and displaying aspect ratios between 1:2 and 2:3. Cathodoluminescence (CL) observations reveal distinct oscillatory and sector zoning features, indicative of a magmatic origin. A total of 21 zircon grains were subjected to analysis, yielding Th concentrations ranging from 106 to 539 ppm and U concentrations between 261 and 1984 ppm. The majority of zircon grains show relatively high Th/U ratios (0.3–0.7), consistent with magmatic zircons. One grain with an anomalously low Th/U ratio of 0.03 gives a 206Pb/238U age of 252 ± 3 Ma. This single 252 Ma analysis shows a very low Th/U ratio and lacks oscillatory zoning (Figure S2), which is likely the product of post-magmatic hydrothermal modification. This zircon grain is clearly different from the others, and the possibility that the sample was mixed during zircon picking cannot be ruled out. Excluding this outlier, the remaining twenty analyses define two age populations (Figure 2E). A subordinate zircon population comprising eight analyses yields a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 816 ± 8 Ma (MSWD = 3). This age likely represents inherited components derived from older crustal sources assimilated during magmatic evolution. The youngest population, composed of twelve concordant analyses, yields a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 773 ± 2 Ma (MSWD = 0.83; Figure 2F), representing the emplacement age of the FSS01 diorite.

4.2. Zircon Lu-Hf Isotopic Data

Representative concordant zircons analyzed for U-Pb ages were subsequently selected for Lu-Hf isotopes. Twelve analyses from sample FSS02 yielded 176Lu/177Hf ratios of 0.000602–0.003160 and 176Hf/177Hf ratios of 0.282281–0.282626 (Table S2). The initial Hf isotopic compositions, recalculated at 810 Ma, display positive εHf(t) values (+0.09 to +12.10), corresponding to two-stage Hf model ages (TDM2) of 1695–938 Ma (Figure 3). Eleven zircon grains from sample FSS03 yielded 176Lu/177Hf ratios of 0.000591–0.001479 and 176Hf/177Hf ratios of 0.282344–0.282453. When calculated at 807 Ma, these analyses give positive εHf(t) values (+1.96 to +6.16), with TDM2 ages of 1575–1311 Ma (Figure 3). For the FSS01 diorite, eleven zircon spots yielded 176Lu/177Hf ratios between 0.000593 and 0.002249 and 176Hf/177Hf ratios of 0.282270–0.282436. Initial values recalculated at 773 Ma show slightly negative to positive εHf(t) signatures (–1.23 to +4.30) and corresponding TDM2 ages of 1749–1402 Ma (Figure 3).

4.3. Whole-Rock Geochemistry

Eight representative samples from the Fengshuishan intrusion—comprising six granites and two diorites—were analyzed for whole-rock geochemistry (Table S3). The rocks display substantial compositional variability, with SiO2 contents of 55.75%–78.93%, Al2O3 of 9.37%–20.39%, TiO2 of 0.10%–1.65%, FeOt of 0.90%–9.95%, MgO of 0.03%–3.63%, CaO of 0.23%–4.86%, and P2O5 of 0.01%–0.17%. The total alkali contents (Na2O + K2O = 3.97%–8.35%) place all samples in the subalkaline area on the total alkali–silica (TAS) diagram (Figure 4A). On the K2O–SiO2 diagram (Figure 4B), these samples show medium- to high-K calc-alkaline series affinity. Their Mg# values vary from 18.7 to 50.2 (Figure 4C). The Fengshuishan granitoids range from weakly to strongly peraluminous, with A/CNK ratios of 1.07–3.88, similar to those of S-type granites. In contrast, the FeOt/MgO ratios (2.7–9.1) are markedly higher than the typical values for both S- and I-type granites (2.27 and 2.38, respectively [39]). On the FeOt/(FeOt + MgO)–SiO2 discrimination diagram (Figure 4D), the majority of samples fall into the ferroan field, reflecting geochemical features typical of A-type granites [40].
The analyzed rocks exhibit high total REE concentrations (ΣREE = 323–1303 ppm). Their chondrite-normalized REE distribution patterns are moderately fractionated, with [La/Yb]N ranging between 7 and 20 (Figure 5A). Heavy REE distributions are relatively flat, with [Gd/Yb]N values of 1.0–2.5 and weak Eu anomalies (δEu = 0.97–1.14), ranging from slightly negative to slightly positive. On Primitive mantle–normalized elemental distribution (Figure 5B), these rocks are characterized by Th, Rb, and Pb enrichment, depletion in Ba, Eu, and Sr, and an absence of significant Zr–Hf anomalies.

4.4. Whole-Rock Sr-Nd Isotope

The Sr-Nd isotopic signatures of five whole-rock samples are compiled in Table S3. The granitic samples FSS03-1 and FSS03-3 exhibit 143Nd/144Nd ratios of 0.512218–0.512259 and elevated 87Sr/86Sr ratios of 0.730837–0.791373, yielding initial 143Nd/144Nd ratios between 0.511613 and 0.511638. Their calculated εNd(t) values range from +0.39 to +0.88, corresponding to single-stage Nd model ages (TDM) of 1420–1401 Ma and two-stage model ages (T2DM) of 1352–1318 Ma. Similarly, the granitic samples FSS02-2 and FSS02-3 show 143Nd/144Nd ratios of 0.512194–0.512357 and high 87Sr/86Sr ratios of 0.726208–0.800743, with initial 143Nd/144Nd ratios varying from 0.511632 to 0.511697. The corresponding εNd(t) values (+0.50 to +1.77) yield TDM ages of 1374–1365 Ma and T2DM ages of 1336–1248 Ma. The gabbroic diorite sample (FSS01-1) displays a 143Nd/144Nd ratio of 0.512249 and a high 87Sr/86Sr ratio of 0.778338, with an initial 143Nd/144Nd ratio of 0.511713. It has an εNd(t) value of +1.33, corresponding to a TDM age of 1275 Ma and a T2DM age of 1253 Ma.

5. Discussion

5.1. Neoproterozoic Magmatic Events in the Erguna Block and Adjacent Area

The Neoproterozoic intrusions investigated in this study provide new insights into the magmatism and tectonic evolution of the Erguna Block. The studied intrusions yield zircon U-Pb ages of 810–773 Ma. Furthermore, the presence of inherited zircons in samples FSS02 and FSS01 is interpreted as the result of assimilation of surrounding rocks during magma emplacement. This observation suggests the occurrence of early Neoproterozoic tectono-thermal events in the Erguna Block. This interpretation is supported by previous studies showing that granitoid rocks from the Mangui, Fulin, and Bowuleshan areas record crystallization ages predominantly between 957 and 915 Ma [15,16,19,44]. Although the ca. 810–770 Ma Fengshuishan granitoids in the northern Alongshan region are reported here for the first time, coeval magmatic rocks have been also well recorded throughout the Erguna Block (Figure 6). Integrating our new zircon U-Pb data with previously published datasets reveals that the Erguna Block experienced several phases of Neoproterozoic magmatic activity (Figure 6). As illustrated in Figure 6, zircon U-Pb ages define four principal magmatic episodes at 890 Ma, 835 Ma, 790 Ma, and 735 Ma. Moreover, the detrital zircon age patterns from Neoproterozoic sedimentary rocks in the Erguna Block (Jiageda and Ergunahe groups) also provide additional evidence for extensive Neoproterozoic magmatism, showing distinct age peaks at 794 Ma, 850 Ma, 980 Ma, 1840 Ma, and 2500 Ma [15,20,45]. Based on the integrated geochemical and geochronological features of Neoproterozoic rocks within the Erguna Block, two major magmatic episodes are recognized, occurring at ca. 957–844 Ma and 833–737 Ma, respectively [15,18,21]. The first-stage (957–844 Ma) igneous rocks are dominantly intermediate to acidic in composition, showing I-type arc-like geochemical signatures. The younger magmatic phase (833–737 Ma) is characterized by predominantly felsic compositions, comprising mainly I-type and A-type granitoids that formed within an intracontinental extensional regime [15,18]. Our newly identified Neoproterozoic rocks belong to the second stage of igneous activity.
Like the Erguna Block, the neighboring Jiamusi–Khanka and Songliao blocks are characterized by extensive Neoproterozoic magmatic rocks. In the Songliao Block, magmatic activity was widespread, represented by ca. 954 Ma gneissic syenogranite, ca. 929–911 Ma monzogranite, syenogranite, ca. 916 Ma meta-basaltic andesite, ca. 895 Ma pegmatite, and ca. 850–841 Ma gneissic granodiorite [8,46]. The Jiamusi–Khanka Block records three main magmatic pulses at 757–751 Ma, 898–891 Ma, and 953–920 Ma [19,47,48,49,50]. Collectively, these ages indicate that the Erguna, Jiamusi–Khanka and Songliao blocks experienced comparable Neoproterozoic magmatic processes, suggesting a shared tectono-magmatic evolution. Comparative analysis integrating detrital zircon age spectra, stratigraphic sequences, and thermal histories further demonstrates their close crustal affinity [8].
Minerals 15 01245 g006
Figure 6. Histogram showing the distribution of Neoproterozoic igneous rocks from the Erguna Block (compiled from [8,15,16,17,18,21,23,25,26,27,36,37,38,51,52,53,54] and references therein).
Figure 6. Histogram showing the distribution of Neoproterozoic igneous rocks from the Erguna Block (compiled from [8,15,16,17,18,21,23,25,26,27,36,37,38,51,52,53,54] and references therein).
Minerals 15 01245 g006

5.2. Source Regions and Petrogenesis of the Magmas

5.2.1. ca. 810–807 Ma A-Type Granite

Based on their characteristic petrographic and geochemical traits, granitoid rocks are commonly classified into I-, S-, M-, and A-types [39,55]. Early classification schemes emphasized distinctions in magma source regions [40,42]. In contrast, A-type granitoids are geochemically distinct from S-, I-, and M-types, characterized by higher (K2O + Na2O)/CaO ratios, elevated contents of HFSEs and REEs, and enriched FeOt/MgO and Ga/Al ratios, but depleted in CaO, Cr, Ni, Eu, Sr, and Ba (Table 1). Although A-type granites were initially described as peralkaline [56], late studies have demonstrated that both metaluminous and peraluminous varieties can also belong to the A-type granitoid [57,58]. A-type granites are classified mainly based on their major- and trace-element compositions, but the term does not imply a single petrogenetic mechanism. They may originate from the differentiation of mantle-derived alkaline magmas [59], from partial melting of felsic granitoids under low-pressure and high-temperature conditions [60], or even from partial melting of granulitic residues produced after the melting of metasedimentary rocks [61,62]. Thus, the petrogenesis of A-type granitoids has been attributed to variable sources, including (meta-)sedimentary or (meta-)igneous rocks, or hybrid magmas produced by mixing of both [39,57,63,64].
Although the analyzed samples (FSS02 and FSS03) show relatively high A/CNK ratios (1.10–1.52), suggesting a possible S-type affinity. However, their overall geochemical signatures are more consistent with A-type granites (Figure 7 and Table 1). Furthermore, the lack of Al-rich minerals (garnet and cordierite), together with their low P2O5 contents (<0.1%) and their decrease with increasing SiO2 concentrations, suggests that these rocks are unlikely to be S-type granites. Therefore, their elevated A/CNK ratios may result from post-magmatic alteration, during which alkali elements such as Na and Ca were leached out. In addition, all the studied samples from the Fengshuishan intrusion differ from S-type granites in having high zircon saturation temperatures (818–948 °C; mean = 850 °C), 10,000 × Ga/Al values (2.5–4.5), Zr + Nb + Ce + Y concentrations (270–597 ppm, mean = 427 ppm) and elevated FeOt/MgO ratios, together with weakly fractionated REE patterns ((La/Yb)N = 3.7–18.9) (Figure 7; Table S3). The samples exhibit elevated FeOt/(FeOt + MgO) ratios of 0.74–0.90, comparable to those of ferroan A-type granites [40]. Some samples exhibit low FeOt/MgO ratios, which may be attributed to minor fractionation of Fe-Ti oxides [65]. In the Ga vs. SiO2, Ce vs. 10,000 × Ga/Al and (K2O + Na2O)/CaO vs. Zr + Nb + Y + Ce discrimination diagrams (Figure 7A–C), most samples show A-type granitoid features. Their geochemical signatures closely resemble those of ferroan, calc-alkaline A-type granites.
The generation of A-type granites has been attributed to several petrogenetic mechanisms, such as the partial melting of felsic continental crust possibly influenced by underplated mantle-derived magmas, the fractional crystallization or anatexis of mafic protoliths, and crust–mantle interaction through magma mixing or hybridization [39,42,58,66]. The ca. 810–807 Ma samples show positive zircon εHf(t) values (+0.19 to +12.1) and whole-rock εNd(t) values (+0.88 to +1.86), with T2DM ages of 1695–938 Ma for zircon εHf(t) and 1318–1251 Ma for εNd(t). In contrast to the enriched mantle-derived mafic rocks in the Erguna Block, the ca. 810–807 Ma A-type granites exhibit significantly higher εNd(t) and εHf(t) values, suggesting derivation from juvenile crustal materials rather than an enriched mantle reservoir [15,36]. Moreover, the ca. 810–807 Ma A-type granites show high SiO2 (72.5%–79.4%) and low MgO (0.1%–0.6%), suggesting that they are unlikely to have formed by fractional crystallization of mantle-derived magma, which typically produces high-Mg mafic to andesitic rocks [60,66,67,68,69]. Partial melting of felsic igneous sources incorporating metasedimentary components is generally expected to produce reduced A-type granites [70]. However, our samples record δCe values of 0.97–1.14, indicating comparatively oxidized magmatic conditions and thus arguing against derivation by partial melting of metasedimentary rocks. Although they display weakly to strongly peraluminous characteristics, their geochemical and isotopic features are inconsistent with an S-type affinity. Instead, previous studies have shown that dehydration melting of source rocks similar to juvenile tonalitic compositions can generate peraluminous A-type granites [71]. Moreover, the evolutionary trend of zircon Hf model ages deviates from the reworking trend of pre-Neoproterozoic rocks (Figure 3a), suggesting that these granitoids were not formed by partial melting of Neoarchean–Mesoproterozoic basement materials reported from the Erguna Block. These observations indicate that the granitic magmas originated predominantly from partial melting of Mesoproterozoic juvenile lower crust, with input from mantle-derived components.
Specifically, sample FSS02-3 does not fall within the A-type granite field in Figure 7B. Compared with the other samples, it exhibits shows an extremely silica-rich composition (SiO2 ≈ 79 wt.%), corresponding to ~56% normative quartz (~63% when projected into the Ab–Or–Qtz system) (Table S3). Such a position lies far away from the ternary minimum melt region and cannot be produced by normal fractional crystallization trends in the Ab–Or–Qtz–H2O system (Figure S3) [72]. Instead, the combination of very high SiO2 and strong depletion in Al2O3, CaO, P2O5, Ba, Sr, Zr, and REEs may be characteristic of late-stage silicification and fluid-induced leaching, processes that selectively enrich quartz while removing more soluble components. The smooth, strongly depleted REE pattern further supports an alteration origin rather than a magmatic differentiation trend (Figure 5). Although the sample still shows ferroan affinity and relatively high Ga/Al ratios, these signatures can be preserved during silica addition because Ga and Fe are relatively immobile during hydrothermal alteration. We therefore interpret FSS02-3 as an anomalous silica-enriched, altered sample and exclude it from quantitative petrogenetic modeling of the Fengshuishan A-type granites.
The Fengshuishan A-type granites exhibit negative δEu anomalies, suggesting the presence of plagioclase residues in the magma source region. Their HREE show relatively flat patterns, indicating hornblende dominance in the magma source region. This indicates that pressures were lower than 8 kbar, corresponding to middle–upper crustal depths [60]. In summary, the mineral assemblage in the magma source region of these granites was dominated by hornblende and plagioclase. Consequently, the Fengshuishan A-type intrusion is interpreted to have formed through partial remelting of Mesoproterozoic juvenile crust with input from mantle-derived components at relatively shallow levels of the crust under low-pressure conditions.

5.2.2. ca. 770 Ma Gabbroic Diorites

The ca. 770 Ma gabbroic diorites (FSS01) are characterized by low SiO2 (57.64%–58.94%) and high Al2O3 (18.11%–20.97%) and MgO (2.54%–3.75%). It is widely recognized that the formation of intermediate igneous rocks involves several possible processes, including the following: (1) fractional differentiation of mantle-derived magma [73,74], (2) partial melting of basaltic lower crust [75], and (3) partial melting of a mantle peridotite wedge source modified by slab fluid/melt [76,77]. Diorites formed by fractional crystallization from the mantle show extremely high Mg# values (>60) and low TiO2 contents (<0.5%) [73,78]. However, the Fengshuishan diorites have low Mg# values (34–50) and high TiO2 contents, which are inconsistent with the fractional crystallization model. In contrast, partial melting of the basaltic lower crust is characterized by low MgO contents (<3%) and low Mg# values (<40) [79,80]. The Fengshuishan diorites have variable MgO contents (2.54%–3.75%) and Mg# values (34–50), suggesting that potential mantle material contributes to petrogenetic process. They show variable zircon εHf(t) values (–1.2 to +4.3) and a positive εNd(t) value (+1.33), with T2DM ages of 1749–1402 Ma, suggesting either a mixed source or a heterogeneously enriched mantle source. The absence of mixing indicators—such as bimodal isotopic distributions or magmatic enclaves within the mid-Neoproterozoic intrusions—suggests that a mixed-source origin is unlikely. The ca. 770 Ma gabbroic diorites yield εHf(t) values overlapping those of enriched mantle–derived Neoproterozoic mafic rocks [23,36]. Therefore, the Fengshuishan gabbroic diorites were most likely generated by the partial melting of a subduction-modified enriched mantle source. Previous studies from the Erguna Block indicate the presence of a subduction zone during the Early Neoproterozoic (ca. 1050–880 Ma), which is thought to have been linked to the construction of the Rodinia supercontinent [18]. Therefore, we propose that the source enrichment of the magmas was likely influenced by components derived from previously subducted slab.

5.3. Tectonic Setting

The ca. 810–807 Ma intrusions are A2-type granites that were formed by partial melting of a newly formed or enriched mantle source, suggesting that they formed in an extensional environment (Figure 7C). A-type granitoids, regardless of their magma sources, can form in various geodynamic environments, such as within-plate, post-collisional extension or back-arc environments [59,64,69,81,82,83]. The Ba/Th ratios for Fengshuishan magmatism are 29 to 97 (<300), suggesting that the sources of the magma were not influenced by fluids from the subduction slab [84,85,86]. Coeval mafic magmatism within the Erguna Block has been extensively reported [23,36]. Previous studies indicate that mafic rocks emplaced during the early stages of continental rifting typically display elevated Th/Nb ratios (0.27–0.67), whereas those formed in more advanced rift settings are characterized by lower Th/Nb ratios (<0.11) [87]. For example, ca. 792 Ma metagabbro from the Erguna Massif, characterized by extremely low Th/Nb ratios (0.004–0.0007), likely formed during the late stage of continental extension [36]. Furthermore, extensive volcano–sedimentary successions dominated by bimodal volcanic rocks with elevated δ18O values developed along the northwestern Erguna Block between 790 and 730 Ma [15,45], indicating that this region experienced a pronounced extensional regime at that time. On the tectonic discrimination diagram, the Fengshuishan A-type granites and diorites are classified as “within-plate granites” (Figure 8). Thus, we suggest that the Erguna Block underwent continental rifting during the middle to late Tonian.
Recent investigations suggest a regional tectonic shift from oceanic subduction and arc–continent collision (ca. 1050–844 Ma) to intracontinental rifting (833–737 Ma) during the late Mesoproterozoic to Neoproterozoic within the composite Central Mongolia–Erguna Block [15,18,27,36]. Subduction-related magmatism is thought to have ceased after ca. 844 Ma, followed by the onset of lithospheric extension around 830 Ma [15,18]. A compilation of zircon εHf(t) data for Neoproterozoic magmatism from the Erguna Block is shown in Figure 3b. A temporal evolution of εHf(t) values indicates a rising trend from ca. 1000 to 880 Ma, a marked reduction near 830 Ma, and subsequent rejuvenation. This temporal variation reflects a shift in tectonic regime—from subduction- and collisional-related compression to a later extensional environment [11,92].

5.4. Tectonic Evolution of the Erguna Block During Early Neoproterozoic

A succession of major orogenic events occurring between 1300 and 900 Ma led to the final assembly of the Rodinia supercontinent, with most continental masses united by ~900 Ma [93]. The Neoproterozoic represents a key interval in its tectonic evolution, encompassing the final stages of assembly, subsequent crustal growth, lithospheric extension, and eventual breakup [94,95]. The Erguna Block is one of the microcontinental blocks within the Central Asian Orogenic Belt. Owing to the lack of robust paleomagnetic data and indistinct geological ties, the position of the Erguna Block within Rodinia remains contentious, leading to various alternative reconstruction scenarios.
Based on analyses of structural geology and volcano-sedimentary sequences from northeastern China, Zhang et al. (2022) inferred that the Erguna Block was an isolated Precambrian microcontinent [8]. However, extensive Neoproterozoic magmatic and sedimentary records preserved in the Erguna Block provide strong evidence for its paleogeographic position within Rodinia and its breakup process (Figure 6). The spatial and tectonic association between the Erguna Block and the Yangtze Block during the Neoproterozoic, suggests that the Erguna Block represented a marginal fragment of the Rodinia supercontinent [24,36]. Recent studies suggest possible tectonic linkages among the Erguna Block, Central Mongolia Block, and Tarim Craton prior to the Neoproterozoic [15,16,17,18,19,20,27]. This configuration suggests that these blocks formed part of Rodinia along northern Australia [15,17,18,27]. Wen et al. (2017) proposed an alternative model in which the Tarim Craton served as a “missing link” located near the center of the Rodinia supercontinent [96]. On a global scale, the onset of Rodinia rifting (825–820 Ma)—recorded by rift-related magmatism and associated sedimentation in Yangtze Block [97,98]—was preceded by peripheral subduction at least 100 million years earlier, as evidenced by the 980–920 Ma Valhalla accretionary orogeny along the northeastern margin of Laurentia [99]. As mentioned earlier, the Erguna Block underwent a prolonged subduction–collision orogenic process prior to the onset of extensional tectonics. This implies that the interior of the supercontinent was primarily subjected to compressional stress, making synchronous rifting in both the Erguna and Tarim blocks, as well as within the supercontinent interior, unlikely to occur. The Neoproterozoic sedimentary successions identified in the Erguna Block are interpreted to have formed within a large-scale trench–arc–basin system that developed adjacent to the northern margin of the Yangtze Craton [24]. The 810–770 Ma Fengshuishan A-type granitoids newly identified in the Erguna Block provide strong evidence for regional lithospheric extension and rifting activity, aligning with previous interpretations that Neoproterozoic (885–740 Ma) intracontinental rift-related magmatism also developed within the Erguna and Tarim blocks [15,17,18,36,100]. Accordingly, the pervasive rift-related magmatism in the Erguna Block—likely tied to its rifting away from the Tarim Craton—could signify lithospheric extension processes driven by the disintegration of the Rodinia supercontinent (Figure 9).
Recent investigations have identified a late Neoproterozoic (697–628 Ma) supra-subduction-zone (SSZ) ophiolitic mélange belt along the Ali River in the central Erguna Block [21] accompanied by diamictite successions of the Wolegen Group in the Chalukou ore district, including quartz–chlorite schists dated at 685 ± 5 Ma [27]. Comparable ophiolitic mélanges of ca. 670 Ma and ca. 627 Ma have been documented from the Enganepe zone in the Polar Urals (Russia) [101] and the Baikal–Muya zone in Siberia [102], respectively, both interpreted to represent SSZ back-arc environments. Late Neoproterozoic–Cambrian ophiolitic belts are extensively developed from the Salair Ridge and Kuznetsk Alatau through southern Tuva to the Erguna Block, defining an intra-oceanic arc–back-arc and subduction–accretion system. This system is interpreted to represent the early stage of amalgamation between the Erguna Block and the Siberian Craton in the late Neoproterozoic to early Cambrian [15,21].

6. Conclusions

  • The Fengshuishan intrusion in the Erguna Block was emplaced during the early Neoproterozoic (810–773 Ma), representing an important magmatic event in the region.
  • The 810–807 Ma Fengshuishan granites belong to the A2-type granite and are interpreted to have formed mainly through partial melting of Mesoproterozoic juvenile lower crust with limited mantle contribution. In contrast, the ca. 770 Ma gabbroic diorites originated from the partial melting of an enriched mantle source.
  • Geochemical, isotopic, and tectonic evidence indicates that the Fengshuishan intrusion formed within an intracontinental extensional or continental rift setting, associated with the early fragmentation of the Rodinia supercontinent.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/min15121245/s1, Table S1: Zircon U-Pb dating results of the Fengshuishan intrusion in the Erguna Block; Table S2: Zircon Lu-Hf isotope data of the Fengshuishan intrusion in the Erguna Block; Table S3: Whole-rock major, trace elements and Sr-Nd isotopic results of the Fengshuishan intrusion in the Erguna Block; Figure S1: Rock photographs and photomicrographs of the samples; Figure S2: Cathodoluminescence (CL) images of representative zircons of the studied rocks; Figure S3: Tuttle and Bowen Q–Ab–Or diagram for the samples [72].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.L. and T.Z.; data curation, J.F.; methodology, J.F.; formal analysis, Y.Z.; visualization, Y.L. and F.F.; writing original draft preparation, Z.L. and J.F.; investigation, Z.L. and R.W.; resources, J.F.; writing—review and editing, Z.L. and T.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Heilongjiang Geological Survey under grant number YBZQ [2023] 21.

Data Availability Statement

All datasets generated or analyzed in this research are included within the article.

Acknowledgments

The constructive feedback provided by the three anonymous reviewers significantly enhanced the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors affirm that they have no financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence the results or interpretations of this work.

References

  1. Windley, B.F.; Alexeiev, D.; Xiao, W.; Kröner, A.; Badarch, G. Tectonic Models for Accretion of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt. JGS 2007, 164, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Xiao, W.J.; Li, J.L.; Song, D.F.; Han, C.M.; Wan, B.; Zhang, J.E.; Ao, S.J.; Zhang, Z.Y. Structural Analyses and Spatio-Temporal Constraints of Accretionary Orogens. Earth Sci. 2019, 44, 1661–1687. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhao, G.; Wang, Y.; Huang, B.; Dong, Y.; Li, S.; Zhang, G.; Yu, S. Geological Reconstructions of the East Asian Blocks: From the Breakup of Rodinia to the Assembly of Pangea. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2018, 186, 262–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dong, Y.; Sun, S.; Santosh, M.; Hui, B.; Sun, J.; Zhang, F.; Cheng, B.; Yang, Z.; Shi, X.; He, D.; et al. Cross Orogenic Belts in Central China: Implications for the Tectonic and Paleogeographic Evolution of the East Asian Continental Collage. Gondwana Res. 2022, 109, 18–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jian, P.; Kröner, A.; Jahn, B.; Windley, B.F.; Shi, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, F.; Miao, L.; Tomurhuu, D.; Liu, D. Zircon Dating of Neoproterozoic and Cambrian Ophiolites in West Mongolia and Implications for the Timing of Orogenic Processes in the Central Part of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt. Earth Sci. Rev. 2014, 133, 62–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, B.; Li, Y.; Tian, Y.; Wang, Y.; Peng, J. Linking∼1.4–0.8 Ga Volcano-Sedimentary Records in Eastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt with Southern Laurentia in Supercontinent Cycles. Gondwana Res. 2022, 105, 416–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wu, Z.; Yang, X.; Ma, Y.; Sun, S.; Han, X.; Zheng, Y.; Li, S. A Synthesis of Geochemistry of Mesozoic Igneous Rocks in NE China and Tectonic Superposition and Transformation of the Easternmost Central Asian Orogenic Belt. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2022, 227, 105032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, L.; Wang, Z.; Xu, B.; Zou, H.; Zhao, P.; Zhang, H. Neoproterozoic–Early Cambrian Igneous and Sedimentary Sequences in the Songliao Block, NE China: Records of Rodinia Supercontinent Evolution in Eastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt. Precambrian Res. 2022, 381, 106865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bradley, D.C. Secular Trends in the Geologic Record and the Supercontinent Cycle. Earth Sci. Rev. 2011, 108, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhu, X.; Wang, B.; Sun, Z.; Liu, J.; He, Z.; Zhong, L. Detrital Zircon Ages of the Mesoproterozoic Metasedimentary Rocks in the Southern Yili Block: Implications for Tectonic Affinities of the Microcontinents in SW Central Asian Orogenic Belt. Precambrian Res. 2020, 350, 105926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhao, T.; Cawood, P.A.; Zi, J.-W.; Wang, K.; Feng, Q.; Tran, D.M.; Trinh, H.D.; Dang, C.M.; Nguyen, Q.M. Locating the Yangtze Block in Nuna: Constraints from Age and Isotopic Data from Paleoproterozoic Sedimentary Rocks in the Phan Si Pan Zone, Northwest Vietnam. Precambrian Res. 2023, 397, 107193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moore, D.H.; Betts, P.G.; Hall, M. Fragmented Tasmania: The Transition from Rodinia to Gondwana. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 2015, 62, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Unrug, R.; Castaing, C.; Feybesse, J.L.; Gresse, P.G.; Powell, M.C.; Sadowski, G.R.; Tack, L. The geodynamic map of Gondwana Supercontinent Assembly (IGCP Project 288: Gondwanaland Sutures and Fold Belts). In Geological Society of Australia Abstracts; Geological Society of Australia: Townsville, Australia, 1998; Volume 50, pp. 63–64. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zhao, S.; Zhang, J.; Li, J.; Xu, W.; Qu, J.; Liu, J.; Zheng, R.; Ge, M. Titanite LA-ICP-MS U-Pb Dating of the Neoproterozoic Granites in the Erguna Massif and Their Geological Significance. Acta Geol. Sin. 2020, 94, 757–767, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  15. Feng, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Li, L.; Jiang, L.; Zhou, J.; Li, W.; Ma, Y. Reconstruction of Rodinia Supercontinent: Evidence from the Erguna Block (NE China) and Adjacent Units in the Eastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt. Precambrian Res. 2022, 368, 106467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ge, W.-C.; Chen, J.-S.; Yang, H.; Zhao, G.-C.; Zhang, Y.-L.; Tian, D.-X. Tectonic Implications of New Zircon U–Pb Ages for the Xinghuadukou Complex, Erguna Massif, Northern Great Xing’an Range, NE China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2015, 106, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gou, J.; Sun, D.-Y.; Ren, Y.-S.; Liu, Y.-J.; Zhang, S.-Y.; Fu, C.-L.; Wang, T.-H.; Wu, P.-F.; Liu, X.-M. Petrogenesis and Geodynamic Setting of Neoproterozoic and Late Paleozoic Magmatism in the Manzhouli–Erguna Area of Inner Mongolia, China: Geochronological, Geochemical and Hf Isotopic Evidence. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2013, 67–68, 114–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, H.; Li, Y.; Wan, Z.; Lai, C.-K. Early Neoproterozoic Tectonic Evolution of the Erguna Terrane (NE China) and Its Paleogeographic Location in Rodinia Supercontinent: Insights from Magmatic and Sedimentary Record. Gondwana Res. 2020, 88, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yang, H.; Ge, W.; Zhao, G.; Bi, J.; Wang, Z.; Dong, Y.; Xu, W. Zircon U–Pb Ages and Geochemistry of Newly Discovered Neoproterozoic Orthogneisses in the Mishan Region, NE China: Constraints on the High-Grade Metamorphism and Tectonic Affinity of the Jiamusi–Khanka Block. Lithos 2017, 268–271, 16–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhao, S.; Xu, W.; Tang, J.; Li, Y.; Guo, P. Timing of Formation and Tectonic Nature of the Purportedly Neoproterozoic Jiageda Formation of the Erguna Massif, NE China: Constraints from Field Geology and U–Pb Geochronology of Detrital and Magmatic Zircons. Precambrian Res. 2016, 281, 585–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Feng, Z.; Liu, Y.; Li, L.; She, H.; Jiang, L.; Du, B.; Liu, Y.; Li, W.; Wen, Q.; Liang, C. Subduction, Accretion, and Collision during the Neoproterozoic-Cambrian Orogeny in the Great Xing’an Range, NE China: Insights from Geochemistry and Geochronology of the Ali River Ophiolitic Mélange and Arc-Type Granodiorites. Precambrian Res. 2018, 311, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Khain, E.; Kröner, A.; Gibsher, A.; Fedotova, A. The Fate of Rodinia in the Light of the Discovery of ca. 1000 Ma Old Ophiolites in the Central Asian Orogenic Belt of Siberia. Gondwana Res. 2001, 4, 656–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, K.; Li, Y.; Xiao, W.; Zhang, H.; Bai, X.; Zheng, J.; Brouwer, F.M. An 807–763 Ma Continental Arc Records Crust-Mantle Interaction in the Erguna Block during the Breakup of Rodinia. Precambrian Res. 2025, 426, 107833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, K.; Li, Y.; Xiao, W.; Zhang, H.; Wang, G.; Zheng, J.; Bai, X.; Yang, G.; Zhang, G.; Brouwer, F.M. An Arc Terrane Separated from the Yangtze Craton during Rodinia Breakup: Insights from Neoproterozoic Sedimentary Successions of the Erguna Block, Northeast China. Precambrian Res. 2024, 410, 107497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, J.; Li, J.; Zhao, S.; Ge, M.; Che, Y. A Late Neoproterozoic to Early Paleozoic Accretionary Orogenic Belt in the Eastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt: Evidence from the Irshi Ophiolite Mélange in the Middle Segment of the Great Xing’an Range. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2023, 251, 105657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gou, J.; Sun, D.; Deng, C.; Feng, Z.; Tang, Z. Petrogenesis of the Neoproterozoic Xinlin Ophiolite, Northern Great Xing’an Range, Northeastern China: Implications for the Evolution of the Northeastern Branch of the Paleo-Asian Ocean. Precambrian Res. 2020, 350, 105925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, Z.-Z.; Qin, K.-Z.; Li, G.-M.; Jin, L.-Y.; Song, G.-X. Neoproterozoic and Early Paleozoic Magmatic Records from the Chalukou Ore District, Northern Great Xing’an Range, NE China: Implications for Tectonic Evolution and Mesozoic Mo Mineralization. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2018, 165, 96–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hu, Z.; Zhang, W.; Liu, Y.; Gao, S.; Li, M.; Zong, K.; Chen, H.; Hu, S. “Wave” Signal-Smoothing and Mercury-Removing Device for Laser Ablation Quadrupole and Multiple Collector ICPMS Analysis: Application to Lead Isotope Analysis. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 1152–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. 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]
  30. Liu, Y.; Hu, Z.; Gao, S.; Günther, D.; Xu, J.; Gao, C.; Chen, 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]
  31. Ludwig, K.R. User’s Manual for IsoPlot 3.0. A Geochronological Toolkit Microsoft Excel; Berkeley Geochronology Center Special Publication; Berkeley Geochronology Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Zhang, W.; Hu, Z. Estimation of Isotopic Reference Values for Pure Materials and Geological Reference Materials. At. Spectrosc. 2020, 41, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Russell, W.A.; Papanastassiou, D.A.; Tombrello, T.A. Ca Isotope Fractionation on the Earth and Other Solar System Materials. Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 1978, 42, 1075–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lin, J.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Hu, Z. Calibration and Correction of LA-ICP-MS and LA-MC-ICP-MS Analyses for Element Contents and Isotopic Ratios. Solid Earth Sci. 2016, 1, 5–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tang, J.; Xu, W.-L.; Wang, F.; Wang, W.; Xu, M.-J.; Zhang, Y.-H. Geochronology and Geochemistry of Neoproterozoic Magmatism in the Erguna Massif, NE China: Petrogenesis and Implications for the Breakup of the Rodinia Supercontinent. Precambrian Res. 2013, 224, 597–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, Q. Tectonic evolution of Rodinia: Evidence from Neoproterozoic magmatism in northern Greater Khingan. Master’s Thesis, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China, 2024; pp. 3017–3047, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  38. Xue, Y. Neoproterozoic Sedimentary Formations and Magmatism in Eastern Songnen Massif: Constraints on Basement Composition and Tectonic Attribution. Master’s Thesis, Jilin University, Jilin, China, 2024. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  39. Whalen, J.B.; Currie, K.L.; Chappell, B.W. A-Type Granites: Geochemical Characteristics, Discrimination and Petrogenesis. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1987, 95, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Frost, B.R.; Barnes, C.G.; Collins, W.J.; Arculus, R.J.; Ellis, D.J.; Frost, C.D. A Geochemical Classification for Granitic Rocks. J. Petrol. 2001, 42, 2033–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Middlemost, E.A.K. Naming Materials in the Magma/Igneous Rock System. Earth Sci. Rev. 1994, 37, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Frost, C.D.; Frost, B.R. On Ferroan (A-Type) Granitoids: Their Compositional Variability and Modes of Origin. J. Petrol. 2011, 52, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sun, S.S.; McDonough, W.F. Chemical and Isotopic Systematics of Oceanic Basalts: Implications for Mantle Composition and Processes. Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 1989, 42, 313–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wu, F.Y.; Sun, D.Y.; Ge, W.C.; Zhang, Y.B.; Grant, M.L.; Wilde, S.A.; Jahn, B.M. Geochronology of the Phanerozoic Granitoids in Northeastern China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2011, 41, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, Y.H.; Xu, W.L.; Tang, J.; Wang, F.; Xu, M.J.; Wang, W. Age and Provenance of the Ergunahe Group and the Wubinaobao Formation, Northeastern Inner Mongolia, NE China: Implications for Tectonic Setting of the Erguna Massif. Int. Geol. Rev. 2014, 56, 653–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, Z.; Xu, W.; Pei, F.; Wang, F.; Guo, P. Geochronology and Geochemistry of Early Paleozoic Igneous Rocks of the Lesser Xing’an Range, NE China: Implications for the Tectonic Evolution of the Eastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt. Lithos 2016, 261, 144–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yang, H.; Xu, W.; Sorokin, A.A.; Ovchinnikov, R.O.; Ge, W. Geochronology and Geochemistry of Neoproterozoic Magmatism in the Bureya Block, Russian Far East: Petrogenesis and Implications for Rodinia Reconstruction. Precambrian Res. 2020, 342, 105676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yang, H.; Ge, W.; Bi, J.; Wang, Z.; Tian, D.; Dong, Y.; Chen, H.-J. The Neoproterozoic-Early Paleozoic Evolution of the Jiamusi Block, NE China and Its East Gondwana Connection: Geochemical and Zircon U–Pb–Hf Isotopic Constraints from the Mashan Complex. Gondwana Res. 2018, 54, 102–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yang, Y.; Liang, C.; Neubauer, F.; Zheng, C.; Zhou, J.; Xu, X. A Review of Neoproterozoic to Early Palaeozoic Rocks of the Jiamusi–Khanka Massif, NE China: A Rifted Fragment from the Siberian Craton? Int. Geol. Rev. 2023, 65, 1289–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, S.; Liu, B. Characteristics of U-Pb Chronology and Geochemistry of Neoproterozoic Granitic Gneiss in Dongfengjingyingsuo of Yichun Area. Glob. Geol. 2014, 33, 780–786, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  51. Sun, D.Y.; Gou, J.; Wang, T.H.; Ren, Y.S.; Liu, Y.J.; Guo, H.Y.; Liu, X.M.; Hu, Z.C. Geochronological and Geochemical Constraints on the Erguna Massif Basement, NE China–Subduction History of the Mongol–Okhotsk Oceanic Crust. Int. Geol. Rev. 2013, 55, 1801–1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Li, G.; Jiang, S.; Bagas, L.; Ji, G.; Liu, Y. Discovery of Neoproterozoic Highly Fractionated Syenogranite in the Southwestern Part of the Erguna Massif in NE China and Its Geological Implication. Int. Geol. Rev. 2021, 63, 1863–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lu, S.; Li, C.; Alam, M.; Song, Z.; Zhu, X.; Fu, A.; Yang, W. Geochronology and Geochemistry of the Neoproterozoic–Mesozoic Intrusive Rocks in the Xinlin Area, Northeastern China: New Constraints on the Tectonic Evolution of the Erguna Block. Front. Earth Sci. 2025, 12, 1514658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Luan, J.-P.; Xu, W.-L.; Wang, F.; Wang, Z.-W.; Guo, P. Age and Geochemistry of Neoproterozoic Granitoids in the Songnen–Zhangguangcai Range Massif, NE China: Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2017, 148, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chappell, B.W.; White, A.J.R. I- and S-Type Granites in the Lachlan Fold Belt. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. Earth Sci. 1992, 83, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  56. Loiselle, M.C.; Wones, D.R. Characteristics and Origin of Anorogenic Granites. Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs. 1979, 11, 468. [Google Scholar]
  57. Eby, G.N. The A-Type Granitoids: A Review of Their Occurrence and Chemical Characteristics and Speculations on Their Petrogenesis. Lithos 1990, 26, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Collins, W.J.; Beams, S.D.; White, A.J.R.; Chappell, B.W. Nature and Origin of A-Type Granites with Particular Reference to Southeastern Australia. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1982, 80, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eby, G.N. Chemical Subdivision of the A-Type Granitoids: Petrogenetic and Tectonic Implications. Geology 1992, 20, 641–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Patiño Douce, A.E. Generation of Metaluminous A-Type Granites by Low-Pressure Melting of Calc-Alkaline Granitoids. Geology 1997, 25, 743–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Huang, H.-Q.; Li, X.-H.; Li, W.-X.; Li, Z.-X. Formation of High 18O Fayalite-Bearing A-Type Granite by High-Temperature Melting of Granulitic Metasedimentary Rocks, Southern China. Geology 2011, 39, 903–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Carvalho, B.B.; Bartoli, O.; Cesare, B.; Satish-Kumar, M.; Petrelli, M.; Kawakami, T.; Hokada, T.; Gilio, M. Revealing the Link between A-Type Granites and Hottest Melts from Residual Metasedimentary Crust. Geology 2023, 51, 845–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xin, Y.; Li, J.; Ratschbacher, L.; Zhao, G.; Zhang, Y.; Dong, S.; Xia, X.-P.; Yu, Y. Early Devonian (415–400 Ma) A-Type Granitoids and Diabases in the Wuyishan, Eastern Cathaysia: A Signal of Crustal Extension Coeval with the Separation of South China from Gondwana. GSA Bull. 2020, 132, 2295–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhao, T.; Cawood, P.A.; Zi, J.W.; Wang, K.; Feng, Q.; Tran, D.M.; Trinh, H.D.; Dang, C.M.; Nguyen, Q.M. Positioning the Yangtze Block within Nuna: Constraints from Paleoproterozoic Granitoids in North Vietnam. Precambrian Res. 2023, 391, 107059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhao, X.-F.; Zhou, M.-F.; Li, J.-W.; Wu, F.-Y. Association of Neoproterozoic A- and I-Type Granites in South China: Implications for Generation of A-Type Granites in a Subduction-Related Environment. Chem. Geol. 2008, 257, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Condie, K.C.; Pisarevsky, S.A.; Puetz, S.J.; Roberts, N.M.W.; Spencer, C.J. A-Type Granites in Space and Time: Relationship to the Supercontinent Cycle and Mantle Events. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2023, 610, 118125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xu, J.; Xia, X.P.; Wang, Q.; Spencer, C.J.; He, B.; Lai, C.K. Low-δ18O A-Type Granites in SW China: Evidence for the Interaction between the Subducted Paleotethyan Slab and the Emeishan Mantle Plume. GSA Bull. 2022, 134, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ye, X.T.; Zhang, C.L.; Wang, Q.; Wang, G.D. Subduction Initiation of Proto-Tethys Ocean and Back-Arc Extension in the Northern Altun Mountains, Northwestern China: Evidence from High-Mg Diorites and A-Type Rhyolites. Lithos 2020, 376–377, 105748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhao, T.; Cawood, P.A.; Zi, J.W.; Wang, K.; Feng, Q.; Nguyen, Q.M.; Tran, D.M. Early Paleoproterozoic Magmatism in the Yangtze Block: Evidence from Zircon U-Pb Ages, Sr-Nd-Hf Isotopes and Geochemistry of ca. 2.3 Ga and 2.1 Ga Granitic Rocks in the Phan Si Pan Complex, North Vietnam. Precambrian Res. 2019, 324, 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dall’Agnol, R.; de Oliveira, D.C. Oxidized, Magnetite-Series, Rapakivi-Type Granites of Carajás, Brazil: Implications for Classification and Petrogenesis of A-Type Granites. Lithos 2007, 93, 215–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Misra, S.; Reinhardt, J.; Wilson, A.H. Petrochemical Evolution of the White Mfolozi Granite Pluton: Evidence for a Late Palaeoarchaean A-Type Granite from the SE Kaapvaal Craton, South Africa. Lithos 2017, 286, 480–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tuttle, O.F.; Bowen, N.L. Origin of Granite in the Light of Experimental Studies in the System NaAlSi3O8-KAlSi3O8-SiO2-H2O; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 1958; Volume 74, pp. 1–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Grove, T.L.; Elkins-Tanton, L.T.; Parman, S.W.; Chatterjee, N.; Montener, O.; Gaetani, G.A. Fractional Crystallization and Mantle-Melting Controls on Calc-Alkaline Differentiation Trends. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2003, 145, 515–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Annen, C.; Blundy, J.D.; Sparks, R.S.J. The Genesis of Intermediate and Silicic Magmas in Deep Crustal Hot Zones. J. Petrol. 2006, 47, 505–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jung, S.; Hoernes, S.; Mezger, K. Synorogenic Melting of Mafic Lower Crust: Constraints from Geochronology, Petrology and Sr, Nd, Pb and O Isotope Geochemistry of Quartz Diorites (Damara Orogen, Namibia). Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2022, 143, 551–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Carmichael, I.S. The Andesite Aqueduct: Perspectives on the Evolution of Intermediate Magmatism in West-Central (105–99 W) Mexico. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2002, 143, 641–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Parman, S.W.; Grove, T.L. Harzburgite Melting with and without H2O: Experimental Data and Predictive Modeling. J. Geophys. Res.-Solid Earth 2004, 109, B02201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tatsumi, Y.; Ishizaka, K. Origin of High-Magnesian Andesites in the Setouchi Volcanic Belt, Southwest Japan, I. Petrographical and Chemical Characteristics. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1982, 60, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rapp, R.P. Amphibole-out Phase Boundary in Partially Melted Metabasalt, Its Control over Liquid Fraction and Composition, and Source Permeability. J. Geophys. Res-sol. Ea. 1995, 100, 15601–15610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rapp, R.P.; Watson, E.B. Dehydration Melting of Metabasalt at 8–32 Kbar: Implications for Continental Growth and Crust-Mantle Recycling. J. Petrol. 1995, 36, 891–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhao, T.; Cawood, P.A.; Wang, K.; Zi, J.-W.; Feng, Q.; Nguyen, Q.M.; Tran, D.M. Neoarchean and Paleoproterozoic K-Rich Granites in the Phan Si Pan Complex, North Vietnam: Constraints on the Early Crustal Evolution of the Yangtze Block. Precambrian Res. 2019, 332, 105395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tiwana, J.K.; Kaur, P.; Chaudhri, N. Association of A- and I-type Granitoids in the Central Aravalli Orogen, Rajasthan: Implications for the Neoproterozoic Tectonic Evolution of North-west India. Geol. J. 2022, 57, 3267–3291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, X.; Yao, X.; Wang, S.; Zhu, X.; Wang, J.; Wang, C. Intraplate Extension of the Indochina Plate Deduced from 26 to 24 Ma A-Type Granites and Tectonic Implications. Int. Geol. Rev. 2019, 61, 1691–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Brenan, J.M.; Shaw, H.F.; Ryerson, F.J.; Phinney, D.L. Mineral-Aqueous Fluid Partitioning of Trace Elements at 900 °C and 2.0 GPa: Constraints on the Trace Element Chemistry of Mantle and Deep Crustal Fluids. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 1995, 59, 3331–3350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Devine, J.D. Petrogenesis of the Basalt-Andesite-Dacite Association of Grenada, Lesser Antilles Island Arc, Revisited. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 1995, 69, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Liu, K.; Mo, X.; Wang, S.; Zhao, Z.; He, X.; Yu, T. Geological Significance of Neoproterozoic Intrusive Rocks in the South Section of the Ailaoshan Orogenic Belt, SW China: Insights from Petrology, Geochemistry, and Geochronology. Minerals 2023, 13, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sun, S.Q.; Wang, Y.L.; Zhang, C.J. Discrimination of the Tectonic Settings of Basalts by Th, Nb and Zr. Geol. Rev. 2003, 49, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
  88. 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]
  89. Harris, N.B.W.; Pearce, J.A.; Tindle, A.G. Geochemical Characteristics of Collision-Zone Magmatism. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 1986, 19, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pearce, J.A. Trace Element Characteristics of Lavas from Destructive Plate Boundaries. In Orogenic Andesites and Related Rocks; Thorpe, R.S., Ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1982; pp. 528–548. [Google Scholar]
  91. Pearce, J.A.; Norry, M.J. Petrogenetic Implications of Ti, Zr, Y, and Nb Variations in Volcanic Rocks. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1979, 69, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Liu, H.; McKenzie, N.R.; Colleps, C.L.; Chen, W.; Ying, Y.; Stockli, L.; Sardsud, A.; Stockli, D.F. Zircon Isotope–Trace Element Compositions Track Paleozoic–Mesozoic Slab Dynamics and Terrane Accretion in Southeast Asia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2022, 578, 117298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Li, X.H.; Li, W.X.; Li, Z.X.; Liu, Y. 850–790 Ma Bimodal Volcanic and Intrusive Rocks in Northern Zhejiang, South China: A Major Episode of Continental Rift Magmatism during the Breakup of Rodinia. Lithos 2008, 102, 341–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Condie, K. Continental Growth During Formation of Rodinia at 1.35-0.9 Ga. Gondwana Res. 2001, 4, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Roberts, N.M.W.; Slagstad, T. Continental Growth and Reworking on the Edge of the Columbia and Rodinia Supercontinents; 1.86–0.9 Ga Accretionary Orogeny in Southwest Fennoscandia. Int. Geol. Rev. 2015, 57, 1582–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wen, B.; Evans, D.A.D.; Li, Y.X. Neoproterozoic Paleogeography of the Tarim Block: An Extended or Alternative “Missing-Link” Model for Rodinia? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2017, 458, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Huang, C.C.; Zou, H.; Chen, H.F.; Pirajno, F.; Lan, Z.W.; Yu, H.D.; Xiao, B.; Liu, C.M.; Wu, J.H.; Zhong, Y.J.; et al. The Last Neoproterozoic Rift Magmatism on the Western Margin of Yangtze Block, South China: New Insights of Marinoan Onset from Low-δ18O Magmatic Events. Precambrian Res. 2023, 390, 107037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wang, X.C.; Li, X.H.; Li, W.X.; Li, Z.X. Ca. 825 Ma Komatiitic Basalts in South China: First Evidence For> 1500 C Mantle Melts by a Rodinian Mantle Plume. Geology 2007, 35, 1103–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cawood, P.A.; Strachan, R.A.; Pisarevsky, S.A.; Gladkochub, D.P.; Murphy, J.B. Linking Collisional and Accretionary Orogens during Rodinia Assembly and Breakup: Implications for Models of Supercontinent Cycles. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2016, 449, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wang, B.; Shu, L.; Liu, H.; Gong, H.; Ma, Y.; Mu, L.; Zhong, L. First Evidence for ca. 780 Ma Intra-Plate Magmatism and Its Implications for Neoproterozoic Rifting of the North Yili Block and Tectonic Origin of the Continental Blocks in SW of Central Asia. Precambrian Res. 2014, 254, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Scarrow, J. The Late Neoproterozoic Enganepe Ophiolite, Polar Urals, Russia: An Extension of the Cadomian Arc? Precambrian Res. 2001, 110, 255–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kröner, A.; Fedotova, A.A.; Khain, E.V.; Razumovskiy, A.A.; Orlova, A.V.; Anosova, M.O.; Perelyaev, V.I.; Nekrasov, G.E.; Liu, D.Y. Neoproterozoic Ophiolite and Related High-Grade Rocks of the Baikal–Muya Belt, Siberia: Geochronology and Geodynamic Implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2015, 111, 138–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 15 01245 g001
Figure 1. (a) Simplified tectonic framework map of Northeast China; (b) Distribution of Neoproterozoic igneous rocks in the Erguna Block; (c) Geological map of the Alongshan region [14].
Figure 1. (a) Simplified tectonic framework map of Northeast China; (b) Distribution of Neoproterozoic igneous rocks in the Erguna Block; (c) Geological map of the Alongshan region [14].
Minerals 15 01245 g001
Minerals 15 01245 g002
Figure 2. Zircon U-Pb concordia and weighted average diagrams from studied samples (A) FSS02 (B) FSS02 (C) FSS03; (D) FSS03; (E) FSS01; (F) FSS01.
Figure 2. Zircon U-Pb concordia and weighted average diagrams from studied samples (A) FSS02 (B) FSS02 (C) FSS03; (D) FSS03; (E) FSS01; (F) FSS01.
Minerals 15 01245 g002
Minerals 15 01245 g003
Figure 3. (a) Zircon εHf(t)–age scatter diagrams of the Pre- and Neoproterozoic magmatic records in the Erguna Block; (b) Zircon εHf(t)–age scatter diagrams of the Neoproterozoic magmatic records in the Erguna Block (data from [8,14,17,18,20,23,36,37,38]).
Figure 3. (a) Zircon εHf(t)–age scatter diagrams of the Pre- and Neoproterozoic magmatic records in the Erguna Block; (b) Zircon εHf(t)–age scatter diagrams of the Neoproterozoic magmatic records in the Erguna Block (data from [8,14,17,18,20,23,36,37,38]).
Minerals 15 01245 g003
Minerals 15 01245 g004
Figure 4. (A) K2O + Na2O vs. SiO2 diagram [41]; (B) SiO2 vs K2O diagram [41]; (C) Mg# vs. SiO2; (D) FeOT/(FeOT + MgO) vs. SiO2 diagram [42].
Figure 4. (A) K2O + Na2O vs. SiO2 diagram [41]; (B) SiO2 vs K2O diagram [41]; (C) Mg# vs. SiO2; (D) FeOT/(FeOT + MgO) vs. SiO2 diagram [42].
Minerals 15 01245 g004
Minerals 15 01245 g005
Figure 5. (A) Chondrite-normalized rare earth element (REE) patterns and (B) primitive mantle–normalized multi-element diagrams for the studied samples. The normalization values are from [43].
Figure 5. (A) Chondrite-normalized rare earth element (REE) patterns and (B) primitive mantle–normalized multi-element diagrams for the studied samples. The normalization values are from [43].
Minerals 15 01245 g005
Minerals 15 01245 g007
Figure 7. (A) Ga vs. SiO2 diagram [58]; (B) (K2O +Na2O)/CaO vs. Zr + Nb + Ce + Y diagram [39]; (C) Ce vs. 10,000 Ga/Al diagram [39]; (D) Nb-Y-Ce diagram [59].
Figure 7. (A) Ga vs. SiO2 diagram [58]; (B) (K2O +Na2O)/CaO vs. Zr + Nb + Ce + Y diagram [39]; (C) Ce vs. 10,000 Ga/Al diagram [39]; (D) Nb-Y-Ce diagram [59].
Minerals 15 01245 g007
Minerals 15 01245 g008
Figure 8. (A) Ta vs. Yb tectonic discrimination diagram [88]; (B) Rb/30-Hf-Ta*3 tectonic discrimination diagram [89]; (C) Ti vs. Zr discrimination diagram [90], IAB-Island Arc Basalts, WPB- Within-Plate Basalts; (D) Zr/Y vs. Zr discrimination diagram [91].
Figure 8. (A) Ta vs. Yb tectonic discrimination diagram [88]; (B) Rb/30-Hf-Ta*3 tectonic discrimination diagram [89]; (C) Ti vs. Zr discrimination diagram [90], IAB-Island Arc Basalts, WPB- Within-Plate Basalts; (D) Zr/Y vs. Zr discrimination diagram [91].
Minerals 15 01245 g008
Minerals 15 01245 g009
Figure 9. (A) Schematic cross-sectional tectonic model of Central Mongolia-Erguna Block during late Tonian (ca. 830–740 Ma); CC = Continental Crust; SCLM = Sub-continental Lithospheric Mantle; DMM = Depleted MORB Mantle; Red and green symbols represent magma, and the line segments indicate extensional faults. (B) Paleogeographic reconstruction of Central Mongolia-Erguna Block in Rodinia supercontinent during late Tonian (ca. 830–740 Ma).
Figure 9. (A) Schematic cross-sectional tectonic model of Central Mongolia-Erguna Block during late Tonian (ca. 830–740 Ma); CC = Continental Crust; SCLM = Sub-continental Lithospheric Mantle; DMM = Depleted MORB Mantle; Red and green symbols represent magma, and the line segments indicate extensional faults. (B) Paleogeographic reconstruction of Central Mongolia-Erguna Block in Rodinia supercontinent during late Tonian (ca. 830–740 Ma).
Minerals 15 01245 g009
Table 1. Geochemical index supporting the A-type granite classification for the Fengshuishan granitic rocks.
Table 1. Geochemical index supporting the A-type granite classification for the Fengshuishan granitic rocks.
IndexTypical A-Type CharacteristicObservation in Fengshuishan Granites
FeOt/(FeOt + MgO)>0.7 (ferroan affinity)0.74–0.90
High SiO2 content>70%74–79%
10,000·Ga/Al>2.62.6–4.5 (except one 2.35)
Zr + Nb + Ce + Y (ppm)>350406–597 (except one 270)
P2O5Low P2O50.01–0.11
FeOT>1.00%1.69%–3.15% (except one 0.93)
Zr saturation temperature (°C)>800 °C818–948 °C
REE patternLow La/Yb and negative Eu anomaly(La/Yb)n = 4.5–7.8; Eu/Eu* = 0.37–0.69
Tectonic discrimination Intraplate/post-collisional fieldsWithin-plate field
Eu/Eu* = 2 × EuN / (SmN + GdN).
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

Li, Z.; Feng, J.; Zhao, T.; Liu, Y.; Wang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, F. Zircon U-Pb-Hf Isotopes, Whole-Rock Geochemistry and Sr-Nd Isotopes of Early Neoproterozoic Intrusion in the Erguna Block, NE China: Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications. Minerals 2025, 15, 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121245

AMA Style

Li Z, Feng J, Zhao T, Liu Y, Wang R, Zhang Y, Fan F. Zircon U-Pb-Hf Isotopes, Whole-Rock Geochemistry and Sr-Nd Isotopes of Early Neoproterozoic Intrusion in the Erguna Block, NE China: Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications. Minerals. 2025; 15(12):1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121245

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zhanlong, Ji Feng, Tianyu Zhao, Yang Liu, Rui Wang, Yanan Zhang, and Fuling Fan. 2025. "Zircon U-Pb-Hf Isotopes, Whole-Rock Geochemistry and Sr-Nd Isotopes of Early Neoproterozoic Intrusion in the Erguna Block, NE China: Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications" Minerals 15, no. 12: 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121245

APA Style

Li, Z., Feng, J., Zhao, T., Liu, Y., Wang, R., Zhang, Y., & Fan, F. (2025). Zircon U-Pb-Hf Isotopes, Whole-Rock Geochemistry and Sr-Nd Isotopes of Early Neoproterozoic Intrusion in the Erguna Block, NE China: Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications. Minerals, 15(12), 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121245

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