Next Article in Journal
Geochemical Signatures and Economic Evaluation of Rare Earth Element Enrichment in the Şahinali Coals, Western Anatolia
Next Article in Special Issue
Late Early Jurassic Continental Arc Magmatism in the Northern Erguna Block: Implications for the Southward Subduction of the Mongol–Okhotsk Ocean
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrothermal–Microbial Controls on Carbonate Diagenesis and Organic Matter Enrichment in a Lacustrine System: Evidence from the Upper Bayingebi Formation, Yin’e Basin
Previous Article in Special Issue
Geophysical Exploration Technology Supports Optimal Selection of Boron Iron Ore Target Areas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/min16020166
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

Geochronology, Geochemistry, and Geological Implications of the Baiyingaolao Formation Volcanic Rocks in the Tulihe Area, Northern Great Xing’an Range, NE China

by
Taotao Wu
1,2,
Cong Chen
2,*,
Yu Fan
3,
Xiangxi Meng
3,
Liangxi Chen
2,
Qingshuang Wang
2 and
Yongheng Zhou
2
1
School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
2
Shenyang Center of China Geological Survey, Shenyang 110034, China
3
Mongolia Zhengyuan Co., Ltd., Shandong Bureau, China Metallurgical Geology Bureau, Jinan 250101, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2026, 16(2), 166; https://doi.org/10.3390/min16020166
Submission received: 29 December 2025 / Revised: 29 January 2026 / Accepted: 30 January 2026 / Published: 31 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from the 7th National Youth Geological Congress)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The northern segment of the Great Xing’an Range, northeastern China, hosts a previously unrecognized near-E–W-trending rhyolite belt in the Tulihe area. We conducted systematic geochronological and geochemical investigations to constrain its formation age, petrogenesis, and regional tectonic significance. Field investigation, petrographic observation, and zircon laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) U–Pb dating indicate that the rhyolite belt was formed during the Early Cretaceous, with emplacement ages directly determined from three samples ranging from 143.8 to 131.5 Ma. Geochemically, the rhyolites yielded high SiO2 contents (74.44–75.88 wt.%), high total alkalis (K2O + Na2O = 8.50–8.99 wt.%), and low MgO contents (0.16–0.55 wt.%). They displayed strong enrichment in light rare earth elements and depletion in high field strength elements, weakly negative Eu anomalies, A/CNK ratios near unity, and relatively high Nb/Ta ratios. Trace element signatures and incompatible element abundances (Zr + Nb + Ce + Y = 193.2–338.3 × 10−6) are mostly consistent with highly fractionated I-type volcanic rocks, rather than S-type or M-type affinities. The geochemical data suggest that the rhyolites were mainly generated by partial melting of a medium- to high-K basaltic lower crust, with minor crustal assimilation and limited mantle input. Tectonically, Early Cretaceous magmatism in the northern Great Xing’an Range was governed by flat-slab subduction and subsequent rollback of the Paleo-Pacific (Izanagi) plate, while the local E–W-trending rhyolite belt was controlled by pre-existing faults, reflecting localized post-orogenic extension consistent with regional NE-trending volcanic belts. The northwest-to-southeast younging trend records asthenospheric upwelling and enhanced crust–mantle interaction induced by slab rollback. These results highlight the petrogenetic and tectonic evolution of medium- to high-K magmatism along the NE Asian continental margin and improve our understanding of Mesozoic volcanism in the Great Xing’an Range.

1. Introduction

Volcanic rocks are fundamental components of the continental lithosphere, recording the transfer of mass and heat from the mantle to the crust and reflecting the dynamic evolution of lithospheric processes. Similarly to granitic rocks, volcanic rocks provide critical constraints on continental crustal growth and regional tectonic evolution [1,2]. During the Mesozoic, a period characterized by profound reorganization of the global tectonic regime, large-scale volcanic activity was widely developed and commonly associated with plate subduction, continental collision, and subsequent extensional processes.
The Great Xing’an Range features extensive exposures of Mesozoic volcanic rocks and represents one of the largest Mesozoic volcanic provinces in northern China, as well as an important polymetallic metallogenic region. Volcanic rocks in this area are dominated by intermediate to felsic compositions, with widespread development of rhyolites and associated pyroclastic rocks, reflecting complex magma evolution processes. Recent zircon U–Pb geochronological studies have established a robust temporal framework for Mesozoic volcanism in the Great Xing’an Range, showing that volcanic activity was mainly concentrated during the Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous and occurred in distinct eruptive stages [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10].
Despite these advances, the petrogenesis and geodynamic controls of Mesozoic volcanic rocks in the Great Xing’an Range remain debated. Many studies have attributed the volcanic activity primarily to subduction and rollback of the Paleo-Pacific plate, with the NE–SW-trending distribution of volcanic belts commonly interpreted as a manifestation of circum-Pacific tectonic influence [3,4,5]. Alternatively, other researchers have emphasized the role of the Mongol–Okhotsk Ocean closure and its subsequent tectonic evolution, suggesting that volcanic rocks formed at different stages may record combined or superimposed effects of both the Mongol–Okhotsk and Paleo-Pacific tectonic systems [7,8]. Consequently, the relative temporal and spatial contributions of these tectonic regimes remain a key unresolved issue in understanding the Mesozoic tectonic evolution of the Great Xing’an Range.
In the Tulihe area of the northern Great Xing’an Range, a previously unrecognized rhyolite belt with a near E–W-trending, bead-like eruptive pattern has been identified, contrasting sharply with the regionally dominant NE–SW-trending volcanic belts. This belt provides new constraints on the spatiotemporal variability of Mesozoic volcanism under a multi-tectonic framework. Based on detailed field investigations and geological mapping, combined with petrographic observations and zircon laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) U–Pb geochronology, this study aims to constrain the formation age, petrogenesis, and tectonic significance of the rhyolite belt, thereby providing new insights into the geodynamic background of Mesozoic volcanism in the northern Great Xing’an Range.

2. Geological Setting and Petrographic Characteristics of Volcanic Rocks

The Great Xing’an Range is situated in the eastern segment of the Xingmeng Orogenic Belt (XMOB), a key component of the Paleo-Asian Ocean domain, bounded by the Siberian and North China cratons (Figure 1a,b) [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Throughout the Phanerozoic, the XMOB underwent a complex tectonic evolution, involving multiple stages of terrane accretion and collisional events [16]. During the Paleozoic, the region was assembled from a series of microcontinental blocks and terranes [20], including the central Mongolia–Erguna block in the northwest, the Xing’an block in the central area, and the Songliao block in the east, separated by the Tayuan–Xiguitu and Hegenshan–Heihe fault systems (Figure 1c) [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29].
In terms of regional tectonics, the study area is located north of the Tayuan–Xiguitu tectonic belt, corresponding to the southeastern segment of the Central Mongolia–Erguna block (Figure 1c). The basement of this block comprises Precambrian metamorphic and intrusive rocks. Metamorphic rocks primarily include amphibolite, gneiss, schist, granulite, and marble [30,31,32,33], whereas the intrusive rocks comprise Paleo- and Neoproterozoic granitoids [34,35]. The overlying cover is dominated by Mesozoic volcanic-sedimentary sequences. The region is structurally controlled by a well-developed fault network, with the Derbugan fault representing a major regional deep-seated fracture, whose subsidiary faults and joint systems collectively define the primary tectonic framework and exert significant control on the distribution of Mesozoic volcanic and magmatic activity.
Mesozoic tectonism and magmatism in the study area were pronounced. According to recent regional geological mapping, medium- to large-scale intrusive bodies are largely absent; only minor outcrops of fine-grained granites, diorites, and small stocks or dikes of andesitic porphyries, syenogranites, and tonalites are present. Stratigraphically, Mesozoic volcanic rocks dominate the exposed sequences, which from bottom to top include (Figure 2):
Middle Jurassic Tamulanguo Formation (J2tm): Composed of continental intermediate–mafic volcanic lavas and pyroclastic rocks, dominated by altered andesites, basaltic andesites, and andesitic breccias. Formation ages range from 179.2 to 165.2 Ma (unpublished data).
Upper Jurassic Manketou’ebo Formation (J3mk): Mainly acidic volcanic pyroclastics and lavas, locally interbedded with minor clastic sediments. Lithologies include rhyolitic breccia tuffs, rhyolitic tuffaceous ignimbrites, and tuffaceous siltstones, with ages of 157–147.3 Ma [36].
Upper Jurassic Manitu Formation (J3mn): Comprises intermediate–mafic lavas with minor pyroclastics, dominated by basaltic andesites and andesitic crystal-rich tuff lavas, aged 157.7–136.0 Ma [37]. The Manketou’ebo and Manitu formations overlap temporally; differentiation relies primarily on lithological assemblages and volcanic facies.
Lower Cretaceous Baiyingaolao Formation (K1b): Dominated by acidic volcanic lavas with minor pyroclastics, mainly rhyolites, ignimbrite-pyroclastic rhyolites, and tuffaceous rhyolitic lavas, with ages concentrated between 131.5 and 143.8 Ma. This formation is the primary focus of the present study.
Lower Cretaceous Meiletu Formation (K1m): Mainly mafic volcanic lavas, including gray-black vesicular to amygdaloidal basaltic andesites and dense basalts, formed in the late Early Cretaceous.

3. Analytical Methods

3.1. Petrographic Observations

Petrographic observations were conducted on polished thin sections of the rhyolite samples using a standard Olympus polarizing microscope. Photomicrographs were captured with a Nikon digital camera under crossed nicols (XN) to document mineral assemblages and textural features. The observations focused on identifying phenocryst and groundmass compositions, flow structures, and porphyritic textures. No XRD or electron microprobe analyses were performed due to the predominantly glassy to fine-grained nature of the rhyolites.

3.2. LA-ICP-MS Zircon U–Pb Dating

Zircon separation, mounting, and cathodoluminescence (CL) imaging for this study were carried out at Nanjing Hongchuang Geological Exploration Technology Service Co., Ltd., Nanjing, China, while U–Pb dating was performed at the Key Laboratory of Continental Collision and Plateau Uplift, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Zircon U–Pb analyses were conducted using a laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (LA-ICP-MS) equipped with a 193 nm excimer laser and a quadrupole ICP-MS. Analyses were conducted under typical operating conditions for zircon U–Pb geochronology, with a spot diameter of ~25 μm. The laser ablation was performed at a repetition rate and energy density appropriate for robust zircon ablation, and helium was used as the carrier gas with argon added prior to introduction into the plasma to optimize transport efficiency and signal stability. The system was optimized using the National Institute of Standards and Technology synthetic silicate glass standard (NIST SRM 612). Plesovice zircon (337 ± 0.37 Ma; [38]) and SL zircon (TIMS concordant age 572.2 ± 0.4 Ma; [39]) were used as external standards for matrix correction. Isotope ratios and elemental concentrations were calculated using the GLITTER ver. 4.0 program [40]. Common Pb corrections were performed using the ComPbCorr#3.17 routine [41]. Concordia plots, age probability diagrams, and weighted mean ages were generated using Isoplot/Ex ver. 3 [42].

3.3. Major, Trace, and Rare Earth Element (REE) Analyses

Ten fresh and unaltered rhyolite samples were selected for major, trace, and rare earth element composition analyses, which were conducted at the Northeast Mineral Resources Supervision and Testing Center, Ministry of Natural Resources, China.
Major element concentrations were determined using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) on fused glass beads, with an analytical precision and accuracy better than 5%. Trace and REE concentrations were measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), achieving analytical precision and accuracy better than 10%.

4. Results

4.1. E–W-Trending Rhyolite Belt and Petrographic Characteristics in the Tulihe Area

This section presents the field occurrence, spatial distribution, and petrographic characteristics of the rhyolite belt investigated in the Tulihe area, based on detailed field surveys, stratigraphic profiling, and trench excavation of a nearly E–W-trending rhyolite belt in the southern part of the Tulihe area, at the northern segment of the Great Xing’an Range, NE China (Figure 2). The rhyolite belt is composed of isolated, island-like acidic volcanic lava, with minor intercalations of pyroclastic rocks, unconformably overlying the Manketou’ebo Formation. The lithology is dominated by purple and grayish rhyolite, ignimbrite-bearing rhyolite, and rhyolitic tuff lava, as well as grayish-white rhyolitic tuff and welded tuff, representing the primary volcanic focus of the Baiyingaolao Formation investigated in this study.
All samples investigated in this study were collected from a rhyolite belt trending approximately E–W in the southern part of the Tulihe area (Figure 2). Samples P11-09 and ZP11-13 collected from the western Tulihe area display similar lithological characteristics. Well-developed flow structures are clearly observed in the outcrop (Figure 3a,b), and these structures are also evident under a microscope (Figure 3c,d). The rocks exhibit a porphyritic texture with prominent flow structures and consist mainly of phenocrysts and a fine-grained groundmass. Phenocrysts account for ~10–15 vol.% of the rocks, dominated by K-feldspar and quartz, with grain sizes generally ranging from 0.5 to 1 mm. The groundmass is mainly composed of microcrystalline feldspar and quartz, forming the flow structures.
Sample TC602, collected from the eastern Tulihe area, shows slightly different petrographic features compared to the western samples. This sample also exhibits a porphyritic texture but is predominantly massive in structure. The rock consists mainly of phenocrysts and groundmass, with phenocrysts accounting for ~15–20 vol.%. The phenocrysts are mainly composed of K-feldspar and quartz, with minor biotite, and range in size from 0.3 to 1.5 mm. The groundmass consists mainly of microcrystalline felsic minerals (Figure 3e,f).

4.2. Zircon U–Pb Ages

Zircon U–Pb dating data for three rhyolite samples from the Tulihe area are listed in Table 1, and concordia diagrams are shown in Figure 4. The zircons are euhedral–subhedral, colorless, and exhibit weak or clear oscillatory growth zoning in the CL images (Figure 4a,c,e). Their Th/U ratios range from 0.73 to 2.30. These zircon characteristics are indicative of magmatic origins [43].
The 28 zircon analyses from sample P11-09 define a coherent concordant cluster (Figure 4a,b), yielding a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 143.8 ± 3.4 Ma (MSWD = 10.9), which is interpreted as the crystallization age of the rhyolite. Individual ages range from 126 ± 3 Ma to 164 ± 4 Ma.
For sample ZP11-13, 23 concordant analyses (Figure 4c,d) yield a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 131.5 ± 1.7 Ma (MSWD = 3.6), representing the crystallization age of this rhyolite, with individual ages between 124 ± 2 Ma and 138 ± 3 Ma.
Sample TC602 yields 23 analyses distributed on or near the concordia (Figure 4e,f), giving a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 134.0 ± 3.9 Ma (MSWD = 10.4), which is taken as the crystallization age of the rhyolite, with individual ages of 120 ± 2 Ma to 148 ± 2 Ma.

4.3. Major, Trace, and Rare Earth Element Analyses

The major, trace, and rare earth elemental data for ten rhyolite samples are summarized in Table 2.

4.3.1. Major Elemental Analyses

The rhyolite samples of the Baiyingaolao Formation are characterized by high SiO2 contents (74.44–75.88 wt%) and Al2O3 contents (12.39–13.57 wt%). The rocks are alkali-rich (Na2O + K2O = 8.50–8.99 wt%) and K-dominated (K2O/Na2O = 1.24–1.73), corresponding to the sub-alkaline series (Figure 5a; [44]). The rocks are deficient in Ca, Mg, and Fe, with CaO ranging from 0.31 to 0.55 wt%, MgO from 0.16 to 0.55 wt%, and total Fe (FeOt) from 0.86 to 1.52 wt%. The alkali ratio index (AR) varies from 2.78 to 3.76, and the Rittmann index (σ) ranges from 2.19 to 2.53, indicating that these rhyolite samples belong to the high-K calc-alkaline series (Figure 5b; [45]). The aluminum saturation index (A/CNK) is 1.01–1.13, classifying the rocks as weakly to moderately peraluminous (Figure 5c; [46]).

4.3.2. Trace and Rare Earth Elemental Analyses

The rhyolite samples of the Baiyingaolao Formation display relatively low total rare earth element (ΣREE) concentrations, ranging from 156.58 × 10−6 to 220.56 × 10−6, except for two samples (TC602b1-4 and TC602b1-5) that show markedly lower ΣREE values. The total light rare earth elements (ΣLREE) range from 146.95 × 10−6 to 206.18 × 10−6, while the total heavy rare earth elements (ΣHREE) range from 9.63 × 10−6 to 14.72 × 10−6. The LREE/HREE ratios vary between 13.46 and 18.82, and the (La/Yb)N values range from 15.92 to 27.37, indicating pronounced fractionation between light and heavy REEs, with clear LREE enrichment and HREE depletion. In the chondrite-normalized REE patterns, most of the samples exhibit strongly right-inclined trends with weakly negative Eu anomalies (δEu = 0.66–0.95; Figure 6a). Primitive mantle-normalized spider diagrams reveal relative enrichment of large-ion lithophile elements (LILEs) such as K, Rb, and U, whereas elements like Ba, Sr, P, and Ti are strongly depleted (Figure 6b). These observations represent the bulk geochemical characteristics of the studied rhyolites and serve as the basis for the petrogenetic interpretations in Section 5.2.

5. Discussion

5.1. Formation Age and Stratigraphic Affiliation

Late Mesozoic volcanic successions are widely developed in the Great Xing’an Range. Traditionally, the volcanic strata have been subdivided into northern and southern segments by the latitude of approximately 47°20′ (Niangzishan–Butahaqi area), with different stratigraphic schemes applied to each segment. In the northern Great Xing’an Range, volcanic strata were previously divided, from bottom to top, into the Tamulangou, Jixiangfeng, Qiyimuchang, Murui, Shangkuli, and Yilekede formations [30,49,50].
Subsequent national stratigraphic revisions aimed to unify Late Mesozoic volcanic stratigraphy, resulting in a revised succession comprising Tamulangou, Manketou’ebo, Manitu, Baiyingaolao, and Meiletu formations [51,52]. Accordingly, the volcanic rocks studied here have been variably assigned either to the Baiyingaolao Formation [5,9,10,53,54,55,56,57,58] or to the Shangkuli Formation in previous studies [7,49,50,54,59,60]. Despite differences in nomenclature, northern and southern Mesozoic volcanic successions show no systematic chronological distinction [61,62].
Lithologically, the Baiyingaolao Formation is dominated by rhyolite and rhyolitic volcaniclastic rocks, locally interlayered with conglomerate, sandstone, and siltstone. The basal sections commonly contain conglomerate and gravel-bearing sandstones, yielding fossil assemblages such as Nestoria leaf branchiopods and the ostracod assemblage Luanpingella postacuminata–Eoparacypris jingshangensis. Based on fossil evidence and lithostratigraphic correlation, the Formation was previously assigned to the Late Jurassic [30,51,63]. However, precise age constraints were lacking.
Recent isotopic dating studies, including 40Ar/39Ar, Rb–Sr, and zircon U–Pb, constrain the formation age to approximately 111–148 Ma, indicating an Early Cretaceous origin [7,34,49,50,53,59,60,64,65]. In this study, zircon 206Pb/238U ages from three rhyolite samples yield weighted mean ages of 143.8 ± 3.4 Ma, 131.5 ± 1.7 Ma, and 134.0 ± 3.9 Ma, respectively. These results confirm the Early Cretaceous formation of the Baiyingaolao volcanic rocks in the Tulihe area to (Figure 7), consistent with regional geochronological data. Therefore, intense volcanic activity occurred during the Early Cretaceous in the northern Great Xing’an Range, temporally coinciding with widespread magmatism and large-scale metallogenic events in eastern China [23,66,67].

5.2. Petrogenesis

The genesis of rhyolite is commonly explained by three end-member mechanisms: (1) extensive fractional crystallization of mantle-derived mafic magma [68,69], (2) partial melting of continental crustal materials [70,71], and (3) magma mixing between crustal and mantle-derived melts [72,73,74]. In the study area, coeval intermediate to mafic volcanic rocks of the Meiletu Formation are limited in distribution and much smaller in exposure than the Baiyingaolao rhyolites [63], indicating that large-scale mantle-derived mafic magmatism was absent. Consequently, extreme fractional crystallization of mantle-derived basaltic magma is considered unlikely.
The studied rhyolites show geochemical features typical of crust-derived felsic volcanic rocks, including high silica (SiO2 = 74.44–75.88 wt.%) and total alkalis (Na2O + K2O = 8.50–8.99 wt.%), low MgO (0.16–0.55 wt.%) and transition metals (Cr = 5.92–12.70 × 10−6; Co = 1.04–2.35 × 10−6; Ni = 0.02–0.45 × 10−6), and enrichment in LREE ((La/Yb)N = 15.92–27.37) coupled with depletion in HFSE (Nb, Ta), indicative of a dominant crustal contribution.
The rhyolites exhibit relatively high K2O contents (4.77–5.70 wt.%) and elevated K2O/Na2O ratios (1.24–1.73), consistent with a high-K calc-alkaline series, which cannot be explained by fractional crystallization alone and suggests a K-rich lower crustal source [70]. Primitive mantle-normalized trace element patterns show enrichment in Rb and K, with depletion in Ba, Sr, and Ti (Figure 6b), resembling low Ba–Sr rhyolites in the Great Xing’an Range [48,49,75,76].
As volcanic equivalents of granitic rocks, rhyolites can be classified into M-, S-, I-, and A-type based on source characteristics [77,78,79]. The studied rhyolites clearly show a crustal origin, excluding M-type affinity. Several geochemical indicators argue against S-type magmatism: A/CNK = 1.01–1.13 (metaluminous to weakly peraluminous), δEu = 0.66–0.95, Nb/Ta > 14, and absence of garnet and muscovite. These features support a highly fractionated I-type magma, potentially with minor crustal assimilation.
Considering the extremely high differentiation indices (DI = 94.47–95.28), discrimination based on the total abundance of incompatible elements (Zr + Nb + Ce + Y) is more appropriate, as it is less sensitive to fractional crystallization [80]. The studied rhyolites yield incompatible element contents of 193.2–338.3 × 10−6, below the threshold for A-type volcanic rocks (>350 × 10−6), and consistently plot within the highly fractionated I-type fields on both (K2O + Na2O)/CaO versus (Zr + Nb + Ce + Y) and FeOt/MgO versus (Zr + Nb + Ce + Y) diagrams (Figure 8).
In summary, the Tulihe rhyolites are highly fractionated I-type volcanic rocks, formed by the partial melting of a relatively young, K-rich mafic lower crust, with minor depleted mantle input.

5.3. Tectonic Setting

As discussed above, the Baiyingaolao Formation rhyolites were primarily generated by the partial melting of juvenile lower crust, with additional input from lithospheric mantle components. Within an extensional lithospheric setting, mantle-derived mafic magmatism is commonly considered a potential heat source for crustal anatexis, although direct evidence for coeval mafic magmas is limited in the study area [23]. Localized asthenospheric upwelling related to lithospheric thinning and possible removal of the dense lower lithosphere may have elevated the geothermal gradient, thereby promoting partial melting of the lower crust. This petrogenetic feature indicates significant crust–mantle interaction during the Early Cretaceous in the northern Great Xing’an Range.
Regionally, the synchronous development of A-type granites, bimodal volcanic associations, and metamorphic core complexes suggests that the area was dominated by an extensional tectonic regime during this period [81,82,83,84,85,86]. Comparable tectono-magmatic characteristics are widely recognized across Northeast China and other tectonic domains of eastern China, including the North China, Yangtze, and South China cratons, indicating that Early Cretaceous extension was a regionally pervasive geodynamic process [5,87,88,89].
Tectonic discrimination diagrams further constrain the setting of the Baiyingaolao rhyolites. In the Nb vs. Y and Rb vs. (Y + Nb) diagrams (Figure 9a,b), all analyzed samples plot predominantly within the fields of volcanic arc granites (VAG) and post-collisional granites (post-COLG). This geochemical signature reflects a transitional tectonic environment from subduction-modified lithosphere to post-orogenic/extensional regimes, rather than typical anorogenic intraplate magmatism [90].
Late Mesozoic magmatism in the northern Great Xing’an Range persisted for approximately 40 Myr and exhibits a predominantly NNE-trending linear distribution. The magmatic assemblage is dominated by high-K calc-alkaline felsic rocks and lacks geochemical features typical of ocean-island basalts (OIB) or continental flood basalts, indicating that a mantle plume model is unlikely [3,4]. Post-orogenic extension following closure of the Mongol–Okhotsk Ocean contributed locally, but Early Cretaceous igneous rocks are widespread, suggesting that Mongol–Okhotsk closure alone cannot fully explain the regional magmatic evolution [8,35,53,91,92,93,94,95,96,97].
Integrating regional geochronological constraints, magmatic assemblages, and spatial distribution patterns, Early Cretaceous extensional in the Great Xing’an Range is most plausibly linked to the Paleo-Pacific tectonic domain, particularly the subduction of the Izanagi Plate and subsequent slab rollback. Slab rollback is inferred to have induced lithospheric thinning and extensional deformation, facilitating asthenospheric upwelling and localized removal of the dense lower lithosphere in a delamination-like manner. This process likely promoted partial melting of both the lithospheric mantle and juvenile lower crust, generating widespread felsic magmatism during the Early Cretaceous [5,6,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101].
The near E–W-trending rhyolite belt in the study area, which contrasts with the regionally dominant NE-trending volcanic belts, is interpreted to reflect localized structural control by pre-existing faults (e.g., the Derbugan Fault). This belt is therefore regarded as a localized tectono-magmatic response superimposed on the regional extensional regime (Figure 10) [85,86,90,101].
In summary, Early Cretaceous magmatism in Northeast China is interpreted to be closely associated with lithospheric extension driven by Paleo-Pacific flat-slab rollback. Localized delamination-like removal of the dense lower lithosphere and associated asthenospheric upwelling provided the thermal and material conditions necessary for partial melting of the lithospheric mantle and lower crust, resulting in widespread felsic magmatism (Figure 10).

6. Conclusions

  • The newly identified E–W-trending rhyolite belt in the Tulihe area represents a previously unrecognized structural feature and was formed during the Early Cretaceous (131.5–143.8 Ma). The geochemical data indicate that these rhyolites are highly evolved, fractionated I-type volcanic rocks, providing new constraints on the petrogenesis of Mesozoic volcanism in the northern Great Xing’an Range.
  • The rhyolites were predominantly generated by the partial melting of juvenile, medium- to high-K lower crust, accompanied by minor assimilation of older crustal materials and subordinate lithospheric mantle input, consistent with geochemical signatures observed in major, trace, and rare earth elements.
  • Early Cretaceous magmatism in the northern Great Xing’an Range was mainly controlled by flat subduction of the Paleo-Pacific (Izanagi) plate and subsequent slab rollback. The formation of the E–W-trending rhyolite belt was localized by pre-existing fault systems, representing a secondary tectono-magmatic response within the regional extensional regime, which is compatible with the dominant NE-trending volcanic belts at a broader scale.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.W. and C.C.; formal analysis, C.C.; funding acquisition, C.C. and Y.Z.; investigation, T.W., Y.F. and X.M.; methodology, T.W. and C.C.; supervision, C.C.; visualization, L.C. and Q.W.; writing—original draft, T.W. and C.C.; and writing—review and editing, T.W. and C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Deep Earth Probe and Mineral Resources Exploration—National Science and Technology Major Project (No. 2025ZD1008708), the Liaoning Provincial Joint Science and Technology Program (Natural Science Foundation—General Program, Nos. 2025-MSLH-693 and 2025-MSLH-703), the Northeast Geological Science and Technology Innovation Center Regional Innovation Fund (No. 2-QCJJ2022-39), and the China Geological Survey project (No. DD202309008). Part of this work was carried out during the period of a scholarship funded by the China Scholarship Council (CSC No. 202508570016).

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the findings of this study, including zircon U–Pb ages and whole-rock geochemical data, are provided in the tables within the main text of the article.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate anonymous reviewers for the critical and constructive comments and suggestions. We also deliver special thanks to the laboratory staff for their support during the zircon LA-ICP-MS U–Pb dating.

Conflicts of Interest

Yu Fan and Xiangxi Meng are employees of China Metallurgical Geology Bureau. The paper reflects the views of the scientists and not the company.

References

  1. Zheng, J.P.; Sun, M.; Zhao, G.C.; Robinson, P.T.; Wang, F.Z. Elemental and Sr–Nd–Pb isotopic geochemistry of Late Paleozoic volcanic rocks beneath the Junggar Basin, NW China: Implications for the formation and evolution of the basin basement. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2007, 29, 778–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wang, Y.J.; Yuan, C.; Long, X.P.; Sun, M.; Xiao, W.J.; Zhao, G.C.; Cai, K.D.; Jiang, Y.D. Geochemistry, zircon U–Pb ages and Hf isotopes of the Paleozoic volcanic rocks in the northwestern Chinese Altai: Petrogenesis and tectonic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2011, 42, 969–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, F.; Zhou, X.H.; Zhang, L.C.; Ying, J.F.; Zhang, Y.T.; Wu, F.Y.; Zhu, R.X. Late Mesozoic volcanism in the Great Xing’an Range (NE China): Timing and implications for the dynamic setting of NE Asia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 251, 179–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, J.H.; Ge, W.C.; Wu, F.Y.; Wilde, S.A.; Yang, J.H.; Liu, X.M. Large—Scale Early Cretaceous volcanic events in the northern Great Xing’an Range, Northeastern China. Lithos 2008, 102, 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, J.H.; Gao, S.; Ge, W.C.; Wu, F.Y.; Yan, J.H.; Wilde, S.A.; Li, M. Geochronology of the Mesozoic volcanic rocks in the Great Xing’an Range, Northeastern China: Implications for subduction—Induced delamination. Chem. Geol. 2010, 276, 144–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Meng, E.; Xu, W.L.; Yang, D.B.; Qiu, K.F.; Li, C.H.; Zhu, H.T. Zircon U–Pb chronology and geochemistry of Mesozoic volcanic rocks from the Lingquan Basin in Manzhouli area, and its tectonic implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2011, 27, 1209–1226, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  8. Xu, W.L.; Wang, F.; Pei, F.P.; Meng, E.; Tang, J.; Xu, M.J.; Wang, W. Mesozoic tectonic regimes and regional ore—Forming background in NE China: Constraints from spatial and temporal variations of Mesozoic volcanic rock associations. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 339–353, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  9. Han, S.J.; Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, H.; Zhao, G.C.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, Y.L. Geochronology and geochemistry of late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous volcanic rocks in the southern Great Xing’an Range, NE China: Constraints for late Mesozoic tectono—Magmatic evolution. Int. Geol. Rev. 2021, 63, 1366–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pan, B.B.; Huang, H.; Zhang, Z.C. The incomplete crystal–melt separation of volcanic–plutonic complex in the southern Great Xing’an Range, NE China. Chem. Geol. 2025, 696, 123096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jahn, B.M.; Wu, F.Y.; Chen, B. Granitoids of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt and continental growth in the Phanerozoic. Earth Environ. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. 2000, 91, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bussien, D.; Gombojav, N.; Winkler, W.; Quadt, A. The Mongol—Okhotsk Belt in Mongolia—An appraisal of the geodynamic development by the study of sandstone provenance and detrital zircons. Tectonophysics 2011, 510, 132–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wu, T.T.; Xue, C.J.; Zhou, Y.H.; Chai, L.; Wang, Q.S.; Bao, Q.Z. Genesis of the Ulaan silver–lead–zinc deposit in Northeast Mongolia: Constraints from S and Pb isotopes, together with U–Pb and Rb–Sr geochronology. Ore Geol. Rev. 2024, 173, 106262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jahn, B.M.; Wu, F.Y.; Chen, B. Massive granitoid generation in Central Asia: Nd isotope evidence and implication for continental growth in the Phanerozoic. Episodes 2000, 23, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, J.Y. Permian geodynamic setting of Northeast China and adjacent regions: Closure of the Paleo—Asian Ocean and subduction of the Paleo—Pacific Plate. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2006, 26, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sengör, A.M.C.; Natal’in, B.A.; Burtman, V.S. Evolution of the Altaid tectonic collage and Paleozoic crustal growth in Eurasia. Nature 1993, 364, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xiao, W.J.; Windley, B.F.; Hao, J.; Zhai, M.G. Accretion leading to collision and the Permian Solonker suture, Inner Mongolia, China: Termination of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt. Tectonics 2003, 22, 1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhao, P.; Jia, Z.H.; Xu, B.; Xu, Y.; Sukhbaatar, T.; Appel, E.; Chen, Y. Late Triassic initial closure of the Mongol—Okhotsk Ocean in the western segment: Constraints from sedimentological, detrital zircon ages and paleomagnetic evidence. Gondwana Res. 2024, 125, 110–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, X.X.; Coe, R.S.; Zhou, Y.X.; Wu, H.R.; Wang, J. New paleomagnetic results from northern China: Collision and suturing with Siberia and Kazakhstan. Tectonophysics 1990, 181, 43–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wu, F.Y.; Ye, M.; Zhang, S.H. The geodynamic model of the Manzhouli–Suifenhe geoscience transect. J. Earth Sci. 1995, 20, 535–539, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  21. Wu, F.Y.; Sun, D.Y.; Li, H.M. Zircon U–Pb ages for the basement rocks of the Songliao Basin. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2000, 45, 656–660, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  22. Wu, F.Y.; Sun, D.Y.; Li, H.M.; Wang, X.L. The nature of basement beneath the Songliao Basin in NE China: Geochemical and isotopic constraints. Phys. Chem. Earth A 2001, 26, 793–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wu, F.Y.; Lin, J.Q.; Wilde, S.A.; Zhang, X.O.; Yang, J.H. Nature and significance of the Early Cretaceous giant igneous event in Eastern China. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2005, 233, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhou, J.B.; Wilde, S.A.; Zhang, X.Z.; Zhao, G.C.; Zheng, C.Q.; Wang, Y.J.; Zhang, X.H. The onset of Pacific margin accretion in NE China: Evidence from the Heilongjiang high-pressure metamorphic belt. Tectonophysics 2009, 478, 230–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhou, J.B.; Wilde, S.A.; Zhao, G.C.; Zhang, X.Z.; Zheng, C.Q.; Wang, H. Pan-African metamorphic and magmatic rocks of the Khanka Massif, NE China: Further evidence regarding their affinity. Geol. Mag. 2010, 147, 737–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhou, J.B.; Wilde, S.A.; Zhao, G.C.; Zhang, X.Z.; Zheng, C.Q.; Wang, H.; Zeng, W.S. An intriguing dilemma: Was the easternmost segment of the Central Asian orogenic belt derived from Gondwana? J. Geodyn. 2010, 50, 300–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhou, J.B.; Wilde, S.A.; Zhao, G.C.; Zhang, X.Z.; Zheng, C.Q.; Wang, H. New SHRIMP U–Pb zircon ages from the Heilongjiang high-pressure belt: Constraints on the Mesozoic evolution of NE China. Am. J. Sci. 2010, 310, 1024–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhou, J.B.; Wilde, S.A.; Zhang, X.Z.; Zhao, G.C.; Liu, F.L.; Qiao, D.W.; Ren, S.M.; Liu, J.H. A N1300 km late Pan-African metamorphic belt in NE China: New evidence from the Xing’an block and its tectonic implications. Tectonophysics 2011, 509, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, H.; Ge, W.C.; Zhao, G.C.; Yu, J.J.; Zhang, Y.L. Petrogenesis and tectonic implications of Early Permian–Late Triassic granitic magmatism in the Jiamusi–Khanka Massif, eastern segment of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt (CAOB): Geochronological, geochemical and Hf isotopic evidence. Gondwana Res. 2014, 27, 1509–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. IMBGMR (Inner Mongolian Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources). Regional Geology of Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region; Geological Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1991; pp. 1–726. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  31. HBGMR (Heilongjiang Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources). Regional Geology of Heilongjiang Province; Geological Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1993; pp. 347–418. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  32. Badarch, G.; Cunningham, W.D.; Windley, B.F. A new terrane subdivision for Mongolia: Implications for the Phanerozoic crustal growth of Central Asia. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2002, 21, 87–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, J.J.; Tang, W.L.; Fu, C.; Chen, Z.; Orolmaa, D.; Oyuntuya, N.; Delgersaikhan, A.; Enkhbat, T.; Dang, Z.C.; Zhao, Z.L.; et al. The division of metallogenic belts in Sino-Mongolian border area. Geol. Bull. China 2016, 35, 461–487, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. Tang, J. Geochronology and Geochemistry of the Mesozoic Igneous Rocks in the Erguna Massif, NE China: Constraints on the Tectonic Evolution of the Mongol-Okhotsk Suture Zone. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2016; pp. 1–189, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu, K.; Wu, T.T.; Liu, J.L.; Bao, Q.Z.; Du, S.Y. Geochronology and geochemistry of volcanic rocks in Manketou’ebo Formation of Tulihe area, northern Da Hinggan Mountains. Geol. China 2018, 45, 367–376, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wu, T.T.; Zhou, Y.H.; Chen, C.; Liu, K.; Bao, Q.Z.; Wu, D.T.; Chai, L. Geochronology and geochemistry of the Early Cretaceous basalt in the Genhe area, northern Great Xing’an Range and geological implications. Geol. Explor. 2018, 54, 1270–1281, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  38. Sláma, J.; Košler, J.; Condon, D.J.; Crowley, J.L.; Gerdes, A.; Hanchar, J.M.; Horstwood, M.S.A.; Morris, G.A.; Nasdala, L.; Norberg, N.; et al. Plesovice zircon—A new natural reference material for U–Pb and Hf isotopic microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 2008, 249, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Black, L.P.; Kamo, S.L.; Allen, C.M.; Aleinikoff, J.N.; Davis, D.W.; Korsch, R.J.; Foudoulis, C. TEMORA 1: A new zircon standard for Phanerozoic U–Pb geochronology. Chem. Geol. 2003, 200, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. van Achterbergh, E.; Ryan, C.G.; Griffin, W.L. GLITTER: On-line Interactive Data Reduction for the Laser Ablation ICP-MS Microprobe. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference, Cambridge, MA, USA, 22–27 August 1999; p. 305. [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. Ludwig, K.R. User’s Manual for Isoplot 3.00: A Geochronological Toolkit for Microsoft Excel; No. 4; Berkeley Geochronology Center Special Publication: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003; 70p. [Google Scholar]
  43. Belousova, E.A.; Griffin, W.L.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Fisher, N.I. Igneous zircon: Trace element composition as an indicator of source rock type. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2002, 143, 602–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Le Maitre, R.W. (Ed.) A Classification of Igneous Rocks and Glossary of Terms; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1989; 193p. [Google Scholar]
  45. Peccerillo, A.; Taylor, D.R. Geochemistry of Eocene calc-alkaline volcanic rocks from the Kastamonu Area, Northern Turkey. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1976, 58, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Maniar, P.D.; Piccoli, P.M. Tectonic discrimination of granitoids. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1989, 101, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Taylor, S.R.; McLennan, S.M. The Continental Crust: Its Composition and Evolution; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1985; 312p. [Google Scholar]
  48. Boynton, W.V. Geochemistry of the rare earth elements: Meteorite studies. In Rare Earth Element Geochemistry; Henderson, P., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1984; pp. 63–114. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang, J.H. Chronological Framework of Mesozoic Volcanic Rocks in the Great Xing’an Range. Master’s Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2006. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang, J.H. Geochronology and Geochemistry of Mesozoic Volcanic Rocks in the Great Xing’an Range. Ph.D. Thesis, China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China, 2009. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  51. IMBGMR (Inner Mongolian Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources). Stratigraphy of Rocks in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; China University of Geosciences Press: Beijing, China, 1996. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  52. Shao, J.D.; Tan, Q.; Wang, H.; Zhang, M.; He, H.Y. Mesozoic stratigraphic characteristics and discussion on the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary in the Great Xing’an Range. Geol. Resour. 2011, 20, 4–11, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  53. Gou, J.; Sun, D.Y.; Zhao, Z.H.; Ren, Y.S.; Zhang, X.Y.; Fu, C.L.; Wang, X.; Wei, H.Y. Zircon LA–ICPMS U–Pb dating and petrogenesis of rhyolite in Baiyingaolao Formation from the southern Manzhouli, Inner Mongolia. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2010, 26, 333–344, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  54. Ying, J.F.; Zhou, X.H.; Zhang, L.C.; Wang, F.; Zhang, Y.T.; Wu, F.Y. Geochronological framework of Mesozoic volcanic rocks in the Great Xing’an Range, NE China, and their geodynamic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2010, 39, 786–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fang, H.W. Characteristics and Tectonic Setting of the Volcanic Rocks from Mesozoic Baiyingaolao Formation in Wuchagou area, Middle of Daxing’anling. Master’s Thesis, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China, 2010; pp. 1–62. [Google Scholar]
  56. Dong, Y.; Ge, W.C.; Yang, H.; Zhao, G.C.; Wang, Q.H.; Zhang, Y.L.; Su, L. Geochronology and geochemistry of Early Cretaceous volcanic rocks from the Baiyingaolao Formation in the central Great Xing’an Range, NE China, and its tectonic implications. Lithos 2014, 205, 168–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Si, Q.L.; Cui, T.R.; Wang, E.D.; Ding, S. Zircon U-Pb dating and petrogenesis of the Baiyingaolao Formation rhyolites in Chaihe area, Great Xing’an Range. J. NE Univ. Nat. Sci. 2016, 37, 412–415, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  58. Tan, H.Y.; He, Z.H.; Chen, F.; Du, Y.D.; Ren, Z.H. Zircon U-Pb ages and geochemical characteristics of volcanic rocks in Baiyingaolao Formation of Suolun area within central Da Hinggan Mountains and their tectonic implications. Geol. Bull. China 2017, 36, 893–908, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  59. Gou, J.; Sun, D.Y.; Liu, Y.J.; Ren, Y.S.; Zhao, Z.H.; Liu, X.M. Geochronology, petrogenesis, and tectonic setting of Mesozoic volcanic rocks, southern Manzhouli area, Inner Mongolia. Int. Geol. Rev. 2013, 55, 1029–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jing, J.H.; Yang, H.; Ge, W.C.; Dong, Y.; Ji, Z.; Yan, J.; Bi, J.H.; Zhou, H.Y. Early Cretaceous crust-mantle interaction linked to rollback of the Palaeo-Pacific flat-subducting slab: Constraints from the intermediate-felsic volcanic rocks of the northern Great Xing’an Range, NE China. Geol. Mag. 2021, 158, 1617–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Deng, C.Z.; Sun, D.Y.; Li, G.H.; Lu, S.; Tang, Z.Y.; Gou, J.; Yang, Y.J. Early Cretaceous volcanic rocks in the Great Xing’an Range: Late effect of a flat-slab subduction. J. Geodyn. 2019, 124, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhou, X.H.; Ying, J.F.; Zhang, L.C.; Wang, F.; Guo, F. Geochemical records of post-collisional extension in the East Asian Orogenic Belt: Age and source characteristics of late Mesozoic volcanic rocks. Bull. Miner. Petrol. Geochem. 2007, 26, 45, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  63. Yang, Y.J.; Yang, X.P.; Jiang, B.; Wang, Y.; Pang, X.J. Spatio-temporal distribution of Mesozoic volcanic strata in the Great Xing’an Range: Response to the subduction of the Mongol-Okhotsk Ocean and Paleo-Pacific Ocean. Earth Sci. Front. 2022, 29, 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lu, S.; Wang, K.Y.; Zhao, H.L.; Deng, C.Z. Geochronology and geochemistry of late Mesozoic volcanic rocks in the Wenkutu area, Great Xing’an Range, China. Geol. J. 2018, 54, 1343–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sun, J.G.; Zhang, Y.; Xing, S.W.; Zhang, Z.J.; Bai, L.A.; Ma, Y.B.; Liu, Y.S. Genetic types, metallogenic ages, and geodynamic background of endogenic molybdenum deposits along the eastern margin of the Xing’an–Mongolia Orogenic Belt. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2012, 28, 1317–1332, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  66. Li, B.; Wang, T.; Tong, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Q.D.; Zhang, J.J. Spatial & temporal distribution and tectonic settings of magmatic-hydrothermal ore deposits in the eastern Central Asia Orogenic Belt. J. Jilin Univ. Earth Sci. Ed. 2017, 47, 305–343, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jiang, S.H.; Zhang, L.L.; Liu, Y.F.; Liu, C.H.; Kang, H.; Wang, F.X. Metallogeny of the Xing-Meng Orogenic Belt and some related problems. Miner. Depos. 2018, 37, 671–711, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lee, C.T.A.; Bachmann, O. How important is the role of crystal fractionation in making intermediate magmas? Insights from Zr and P systematic. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2014, 393, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Soesoo, A. Fractional crystallization of mantle-derived melts as a mechanism for some I-type granite petrogenesis: An example from Lachlan Fold Belt, Australia. J. Geol. Soc. 2000, 157, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. 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]
  71. Gao, S.; Rudnick, R.L.; Yuan, H.L.; Liu, X.M.; Liu, Y.S.; Xu, W.L.; Ling, W.L.; Ayers, J.; Wang, X.C.; Wang, Q.H. Recycling lower continental crust in the North China craton. Nature 2004, 432, 892–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kemp, A.I.S.; Wormald, R.J.; Whitehouse, M.J.; Price, R.C. Hf isotopes in zircon reveal contrasting sources and crystallization histories for alkaline to peralkaline granites of Temora, Southeastern Australia. Geology 2005, 33, 797–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Konopelko, D.; Biske, G.; Seltmann, R.; Eklund, O.; Belyatsky, B. Hercynian post-collisional A-type granites of the Kokshaal Range, Southern Tien Shan, Kyrgyzstan. Lithos 2007, 97, 140–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pankhurst, M.J.; Schaefer, B.F.; Turner, S.P.; Argles, T.; Wade, C.E. The source of A-type magmas in two contrasting settings: U-Pb, Lu-Hf and Re-Os isotopic constraints. Chem. Geol. 2013, 351, 175–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ge, W.C.; Lin, Q.; Sun, D.Y.; Wu, F.Y.; Yuan, Z.K.; Li, W.Y.; Chen, M.Z.; Yin, C.X. Geochemical study on the genesis of two types of Mesozoic rhyolites in the Great Xing’an Range. Earth Sci.–J. China Univ. Geosci. 2000, 25, 172–178, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  76. Patiño Douce, A.E.; Beard, J.S. Dehydration–melting of biotite gneiss and quartz amphibolite from 3 to 15 kbar. J. Petrol. 1995, 36, 707–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Whalen, J.B. Geochemistry of an island-arc plutonic suite: The Uasilau-YauYau intrusive complex, New Britain, P.N.G. J. Petrol. 1985, 26, 603–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Whalen, I.B.; Currie, K.L.; Chappell, B.W. A-type granites: Geochemical characteristics, discrimination and petrogenesis. Contrib. Miner. Petrol. 1987, 95, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chappell, B.W.; White, A.J.R. I- and S-type granites in the Lachlan Fold Belt. Earth Planet. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 1992, 83, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. 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]
  81. Meng, Q.R.; Hu, J.M.; Jin, J.Q.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, D.F. Tectonics of the late Mesozoic wide extensional basin system in the China–Mongolia border region. Basin Res. 2003, 15, 397–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wu, F.Y.; Sun, D.Y.; Li, H.M.; Jahn, B.M.; Wilde, S.A. A-type granites in northeastern China: Age and geochemical constraints on their petrogenesis. Chem. Geol. 2002, 187, 143–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, W.; Siebel, W.; Li, X.J.; Büchl, A.; Hoernes, S. Petrogenesis of the Linxi granitoids, northern Inner Mongolia of China: Constraints on basaltic underplating. Chem. Geol. 2005, 219, 5–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, T.; Guo, L.; Zheng, Y.D.; Donskaya, T.; Gladkochub, D.; Zeng, L.S.; Li, J.B.; Wang, Y.B.; Mazukabzov, A. Timing and processes of late Mesozoic mid-lower-crustal extension in continental NE Asia and implications for the tectonic setting of the destruction of the North China Craton: Mainly constrained by zircon U–Pb ages from metamorphic core complexes. Lithos 2012, 154, 315–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ji, Z.; Ge, W.C.; Meng, Q.A.; Wan, C.B.; Yang, H.; Zhang, Y.L.; Dong, Y.; Jin, X. Early Cretaceous adakitic lavas and A-type rhyolites in the Songliao Basin, NE China: Implications for the mechanism of lithospheric extension. Gondwana Res. 2019, 71, 28–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ji, Z.; Meng, Q.A.; Wan, C.B.; Zhu, D.F.; Ge, W.C.; Zhang, Y.L.; Yang, H.; Dong, Y.; Jing, Y. Generation of late Mesozoic felsic volcanic rocks in the Hailar Basin, northeastern China in response to overprinting of multiple tectonic regimes. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 15854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Zhou, X.M.; Li, W.X. Origin of Late Mesozoic igneous rocks of southeastern China: Implications for lithosphere subduction and underplating of mafic magmas. Tectonophysics 2000, 326, 269–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Qian, S.P.; Ren, Z.Y.; Richard, W.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.H.; Hong, L.B.; Ding, X.L.; Wu, Y.D. Petrogenesis of Early Cretaceous basaltic lavas from the North China Craton: Implications for cratonic destruction. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2017, 122, 1900–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wu, F.Y.; Yang, J.H.; Xu, Y.G.; Wilde, S.A.; Walker, R.J. Destruction of the North China Craton in the Mesozoic. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2019, 47, 173–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pearce, J.A. Sources and settings of granitic rocks. Episodes 1996, 19, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fan, W.M.; Guo, F.; Wang, Y.J.; Lin, G. Late Mesozoic calc-alkaline volcanism of post-orogenic extension in the northern Da Hinggan Mountains, northeastern China. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2003, 121, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Parfenov, L.M.; Berzin, N.A.; Khanchuk, A.I.; Badarch, G.; Belichenko, V.G.; Bulgatov, A.N.; Dril, S.I.; Kirillova, G.L.; Kuz’min, M.I.; Nokleberg, W.J.; et al. A model for the formation of orogenic belts in Central and Northeast Asia. Tikhookeanskaya Geol. 2003, 22, 7–41. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  93. Tomurtogoo, O.; Windley, B.F.; Kröner, A.; Badarch, G.; Liu, D.Y. Zircon age and occurrence of the Adaatsag ophiolite and Muron shear zone, central Mongolia: Constraints on the evolution of the Mongol-Okhotsk ocean, suture and orogen. J. Geol. Soc. 2005, 162, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sui, Z.M.; Ge, W.C.; Wu, F.Y.; Yuan, Z.K.; Li, W.Y.; Chen, M.Z. Zircon U–Pb ages, geochemical characteristics, and petrogenesis of Jurassic granitoid rocks in the northeastern Great Xing’an Range. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2007, 23, 461–480, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  95. Miao, L.C.; Zhang, F.Q.; Zhu, M.S.; Liu, D.Y.; Fan, W.M.; Shi, Y.R.; Xie, H.Q. Zircon SHRIMP U–Pb dating of metamorphic complexes in the conjunction of the Greater and Lesser Xing’an Ranges, NE China: Timing of formation and metamorphism and tectonic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2014, 114, 634–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Li, Y.; Ding, L.L.; Xu, W.L.; Wang, F.; Tang, J.; Zhao, S.; Wang, Z.J. Geochronology and geochemistry of middle Jurassic muscovite granite in the Sunwu area: Constraints on the closure timing of the Mongol–Okhotsk Ocean. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2015, 31, 56–66, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  97. Li, Y. Geochronology and Geochemistry of Mesozoic igneous Rocks in the Xing’an Block: Constraints on the Evolution of the Mongol–Okhotsk Tectonic System. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2018. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  98. Yu, J.J.; Wang, F.; Xu, W.L.; Gao, F.H.; Pei, F.P.; Yang, D.B.; Zhao, Q.G. Early Jurassic mafic magmatism in the Lesser Xing’an–Zhangguangcai Range, NE China, and its tectonic implications: Constraints from zircon U–Pb chronology and geochemistry. Lithos 2012, 142–143, 256–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Guo, F.; Li, H.X.; Fan, W.M.; Li, J.Y.; Zhao, L.; Huang, M.W.; Xu, W.L. Early Jurassic subduction of the Paleo-Pacific Ocean in NE China: Petrologic and geochemical evidence from the Tumen mafic intrusive complex. Lithos 2015, 224–225, 46–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Martin, H.; Smithies, R.H.; Rapp, R.; Moyen, J.-F.; Champion, D. An overview of adakite, tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite (TTG), and sanukitoid: Relationships and some implications for crustal evolution. Lithos 2005, 79, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ji, Z. Geochronology and Geochemistry of Mesozoic Volcanic Rocks in the Hailar–Tamtsag Basin. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2019. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
Minerals 16 00166 g001
Figure 1. (a) Map showing the location of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt (modified from [11]). (b) Schematic map of northeast Asia showing the Mongol–Okhotsk suture zone, which extends from central Mongolia to the present-day Sea of Okhotsk (modified from [12]). (c) Geological map of the China–Mongolia border region showing the location of Figure 2 (modified from [13]).
Figure 1. (a) Map showing the location of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt (modified from [11]). (b) Schematic map of northeast Asia showing the Mongol–Okhotsk suture zone, which extends from central Mongolia to the present-day Sea of Okhotsk (modified from [12]). (c) Geological map of the China–Mongolia border region showing the location of Figure 2 (modified from [13]).
Minerals 16 00166 g001
Minerals 16 00166 g002
Figure 2. Geological map of the Tulihe area.
Figure 2. Geological map of the Tulihe area.
Minerals 16 00166 g002
Minerals 16 00166 g003
Figure 3. Outcrop and photomicrographs of rhyolites from the Tulihe area. (a,b) Outcrop photographs showing well-developed flow structures.(c,d) Photomicrographs taken under crossed nicols (XN) showing a porphyritic texture, with phenocrysts set in a groundmass displaying flow structures. (e,f) Photomicrographs taken under crossed nicols (XN) showing a porphyritic texture. Abbreviations: Kfs, K-feldspar; Qz, quartz; and Bt, biotite.
Figure 3. Outcrop and photomicrographs of rhyolites from the Tulihe area. (a,b) Outcrop photographs showing well-developed flow structures.(c,d) Photomicrographs taken under crossed nicols (XN) showing a porphyritic texture, with phenocrysts set in a groundmass displaying flow structures. (e,f) Photomicrographs taken under crossed nicols (XN) showing a porphyritic texture. Abbreviations: Kfs, K-feldspar; Qz, quartz; and Bt, biotite.
Minerals 16 00166 g003
Minerals 16 00166 g004
Figure 4. LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb concordia diagrams of rhyolites from the Tulihe area. (a,c,e) Concordia diagrams and (b,d,f) weighted mean age diagrams for samples P11-09 (a,b), ZP11-13 (c,d), and TC602 (e,f).
Figure 4. LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb concordia diagrams of rhyolites from the Tulihe area. (a,c,e) Concordia diagrams and (b,d,f) weighted mean age diagrams for samples P11-09 (a,b), ZP11-13 (c,d), and TC602 (e,f).
Minerals 16 00166 g004
Minerals 16 00166 g005
Figure 5. Geochemical classification diagrams for volcanic rocks of the Baiyingaolao Formation: (a) Na2O + K2O versus SiO2 (after [44]), (b) K2O versus SiO2 (after [45]), and (c) A/NK [molar ratio Al2O2/(Na2O + K2O)] versus A/CNK [molar ratio Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O + K2O)] (after [46]).
Figure 5. Geochemical classification diagrams for volcanic rocks of the Baiyingaolao Formation: (a) Na2O + K2O versus SiO2 (after [44]), (b) K2O versus SiO2 (after [45]), and (c) A/NK [molar ratio Al2O2/(Na2O + K2O)] versus A/CNK [molar ratio Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O + K2O)] (after [46]).
Minerals 16 00166 g005
Minerals 16 00166 g006
Figure 6. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns (a) and primitive mantle-normalized multi-element patterns (b) of rocks from the Tulihe area. Chondrite- and primitive mantle-normalized data are from [47,48].
Figure 6. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns (a) and primitive mantle-normalized multi-element patterns (b) of rocks from the Tulihe area. Chondrite- and primitive mantle-normalized data are from [47,48].
Minerals 16 00166 g006
Minerals 16 00166 g007
Figure 7. Histogram showing the age distribution of igneous rocks from the Great Xing’an Range (bin width = 1.0 Ma, n = 438; data are from references [4,5,7,9,10,34,35,36,37,49,50,53,59,60,64,65]).
Figure 7. Histogram showing the age distribution of igneous rocks from the Great Xing’an Range (bin width = 1.0 Ma, n = 438; data are from references [4,5,7,9,10,34,35,36,37,49,50,53,59,60,64,65]).
Minerals 16 00166 g007
Minerals 16 00166 g008
Figure 8. Discrimination diagrams of (K2O + Na2O)/CaO versus (Zr + Nb + Ce + Y) (a) and FeOt/MgO versus (Zr + Nb + Ce + Y) (b) for volcanic rocks from the Tulihe area ((a,b), adapted from Ref. [80]). A = A-type granite field (typical of A-type geochemical signature); FG = fractionated felsic granites (strongly fractionated fields); OGT = unfractionated or other granite types (I-, S- and M-type granites not strongly fractionated).
Figure 8. Discrimination diagrams of (K2O + Na2O)/CaO versus (Zr + Nb + Ce + Y) (a) and FeOt/MgO versus (Zr + Nb + Ce + Y) (b) for volcanic rocks from the Tulihe area ((a,b), adapted from Ref. [80]). A = A-type granite field (typical of A-type geochemical signature); FG = fractionated felsic granites (strongly fractionated fields); OGT = unfractionated or other granite types (I-, S- and M-type granites not strongly fractionated).
Minerals 16 00166 g008
Minerals 16 00166 g009
Figure 9. (a) Nb vs. Y and (b) Rb vs. (Y + Nb) diagrams [90] for the Baiyingaolao Formation rhyolites from the Tulihe area. Abbreviations: ORG = ocean ridge granite, WPG = intraplate granite, VAG = volcano arcgranite, syn-COLG = syn-collisional granite, and post-COLG = post-collisional granite. Boundary lines indicate discrimination fields for different granite tectonic settings (after [90]).
Figure 9. (a) Nb vs. Y and (b) Rb vs. (Y + Nb) diagrams [90] for the Baiyingaolao Formation rhyolites from the Tulihe area. Abbreviations: ORG = ocean ridge granite, WPG = intraplate granite, VAG = volcano arcgranite, syn-COLG = syn-collisional granite, and post-COLG = post-collisional granite. Boundary lines indicate discrimination fields for different granite tectonic settings (after [90]).
Minerals 16 00166 g009
Minerals 16 00166 g010
Figure 10. Proposed geodynamic model for Early Cretaceous magmatism in the northern Great Xing’an Range (modified after [101]). Abbreviations: GXR, Great Xing’an Range; SLB, Songliao Basalt; and EHJP, eastern Heilongjiang and Jilin Province. The schematic model illustrates Paleo-Pacific plate subduction and slab rollback, regional lithospheric extension, asthenospheric upwelling, and possible localized removal of the dense lower lithosphere beneath the continental interior. The E–W-trending Tulihe rhyolite belt is interpreted as a structurally controlled, local manifestation superimposed on the regional extensional framework. The model is conceptual and not to scale.
Figure 10. Proposed geodynamic model for Early Cretaceous magmatism in the northern Great Xing’an Range (modified after [101]). Abbreviations: GXR, Great Xing’an Range; SLB, Songliao Basalt; and EHJP, eastern Heilongjiang and Jilin Province. The schematic model illustrates Paleo-Pacific plate subduction and slab rollback, regional lithospheric extension, asthenospheric upwelling, and possible localized removal of the dense lower lithosphere beneath the continental interior. The E–W-trending Tulihe rhyolite belt is interpreted as a structurally controlled, local manifestation superimposed on the regional extensional framework. The model is conceptual and not to scale.
Minerals 16 00166 g010
Table 1. LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb data of rhyolites from the Tulihe area.
Table 1. LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb data of rhyolites from the Tulihe area.
Sample No.232Th238U232Th/238U207Pb/206Pb±1σ207Pb/235U±1σ206Pb/238U±1σ208Pb/232Th±1σ206Pb/238U±1σ
(×10−6)(×10−6)Age (Ma)
P11-09-01331.97261.061.2716230.04860.002840.137210.007950.020480.000330.006520.000131312
P11-09-03333.05278.051.1978060.048530.00350.156130.011120.023340.000430.007290.000191493
P11-09-04302.28266.691.1334510.051350.003470.164330.010960.023210.000420.007430.000191483
P11-09-05162.88174.070.9357160.078720.008540.226990.023950.020920.000620.008760.000441283
P11-09-06753.43551.851.365280.053360.002990.178960.009920.024330.000410.008260.000151553
P11-09-07304.86262.951.1593840.05130.003480.157040.010520.022210.000390.00740.000181422
P11-09-08703.27401.251.7526980.052110.003170.158810.009560.022110.000370.007460.000141412
P11-09-09166.84175.150.9525550.053490.0050.167180.015420.022680.000480.007840.000271453
P11-09-10409.05298.61.3698930.052150.003340.166470.010550.023160.00040.007160.000161483
P11-09-11543.78241.412.2525160.053010.003740.162210.011320.02220.00040.007550.000141423
P11-09-12634.3532.461.1912630.055020.002180.170910.006760.022540.000330.007960.000131442
P11-09-13582.59394.51.4767810.046250.004560.156210.01520.02450.000540.007270.000241563
P11-09-14321.34231.921.3855640.057320.005820.162820.016220.020610.000510.007520.000251323
P11-09-15246.35174.751.4097280.051860.00550.14920.015610.020870.000480.0070.000231333
P11-09-16406.9267.951.5185670.04920.003150.153550.009740.022640.000380.007190.000151442
P11-09-17223.62165.81.3487330.051760.005970.15220.017330.021340.00050.006710.000241363
P11-09-18318.64255.831.2455150.053880.003910.168110.012050.022640.000420.00780.00021443
P11-09-19408.98301.541.3563040.057380.003510.176130.010630.022270.000390.008180.000181422
P11-09-20782.18339.872.3014090.055260.006280.186470.020810.024490.000650.008290.000261564
P11-09-21636.66372.771.7079160.053870.002880.164170.00870.022110.000360.007730.000141412
P11-09-22608.9374.251.6269870.050870.002830.161710.008910.023070.000370.007560.000141472
P11-09-23211.22207.91.0159690.049070.004730.169660.016170.025090.000510.00790.000261603
P11-09-24561.03400.071.402330.055920.002990.193960.010280.025170.000410.008940.000161603
P11-09-25259.09216.381.1973840.049930.007180.176860.025120.02570.00070.008260.000331644
P11-09-26330.87264.331.2517310.062620.00610.169880.016190.019680.000490.00780.000281263
P11-09-27226.53196.891.1505410.053470.00430.174820.013910.023720.000450.008110.000221513
P11-09-29605.23303.491.9942340.048980.004330.159510.013920.023630.000490.007430.000191513
P11-09-30284.75160.031.7793540.117810.006790.424130.023660.026120.000540.010030.000241534
ZP11-13-01444.98337.471.3185760.048590.002290.136030.006370.020310.00030.006920.000121302
ZP11-13-02362.82288.31.2584810.049470.004680.130820.012160.019180.000430.007340.000231223
ZP11-13-03606.23392.891.5430020.04860.001860.140050.005370.02090.000290.006730.000091332
ZP11-13-04263.26216.731.2146910.049030.003670.146570.010840.021680.00040.007560.000191383
ZP11-13-05241.12245.220.983280.048450.0030.137040.008410.020520.000340.007320.000171312
ZP11-13-06394.47346.981.1368670.048550.003220.13270.008680.019830.000350.007210.000171272
ZP11-13-07267.28250.371.067540.0490.00320.140940.009090.020860.000360.007050.000171332
ZP11-13-09629.2376.991.669010.049090.001780.144310.005240.021330.000290.006840.000091362
ZP11-13-10479.86333.141.4404150.04920.003530.141890.010040.020920.000390.00620.000151332
ZP11-13-11292.53250.371.1683910.0570.003830.164240.010890.020910.000380.006510.000171332
ZP11-13-12446.48306.431.4570370.048780.002190.140180.006260.020850.00030.006790.000111332
ZP11-13-13674.8418.021.6142770.04870.003360.132930.009030.01980.000360.006340.000141262
ZP11-13-14694.98347.282.0012090.059080.003280.158630.008710.019480.000320.005020.00011242
ZP11-13-15317.37248.921.2749880.048570.002510.136240.007020.020350.00030.006680.000111302
ZP11-13-16236.23204.871.1530730.048820.003050.142430.008840.021170.000340.00730.000151352
ZP11-13-17299.65260.491.1503320.048570.002440.139460.006970.020830.000310.006890.000121332
ZP11-13-18349.14293.831.1882380.049440.003380.136050.009180.019960.000360.00650.000161272
ZP11-13-19746.15492.121.5161950.048590.001960.133850.005390.019980.000290.006540.00011282
ZP11-13-20373.75247.631.5093080.060150.00410.170070.01140.020510.000390.007480.000171312
ZP11-13-22676.27400.531.6884380.048640.003230.140640.009230.020970.000370.006790.000141342
ZP11-13-23239.8221.751.0813980.048760.003330.138070.009340.020540.000350.006890.000161312
ZP11-13-24468.73347.81.34770.050340.002650.148710.007770.021430.000340.00740.000141372
ZP11-13-25243.39198.991.2231270.057270.003120.171520.009290.021730.000350.007130.000151372
TC602-01417.14416.71.0010560.048740.00240.129630.006320.01930.000290.006790.000141232
TC602-02246.79311.850.7913740.048560.002340.153210.00730.022890.000340.007620.000181462
TC602-031074.62862.051.2465870.048420.001880.128930.004980.019320.000270.006740.000111232
TC602-04513.02542.060.9464270.048970.00250.127190.006430.018840.000290.007020.000151202
TC602-05756.85575.471.3151860.05040.002630.147320.007580.021210.000330.007660.000141352
TC602-06364.19422.150.8627030.048690.002610.133120.007070.019840.00030.0070.000161272
TC602-07624.48591.531.0557030.049220.002410.127530.006180.01880.000280.006820.000141202
TC602-08422.24390.341.0817240.063460.00390.185570.011220.021220.000380.005970.000171352
TC602-09862.03589.581.4621090.066760.00340.189880.009490.020640.000350.006820.000141302
TC602-10533.08553.750.9626730.048730.002990.146810.008880.021860.000370.008140.000191392
TC602-111373.5929.431.4777870.04920.002710.145430.007910.021450.000340.00680.000131372
TC602-12922.8491.381.8779760.04860.004030.150120.012270.022410.000430.007010.000171433
TC602-13760.64438.871.7331780.048880.002850.156930.00910.023290.000350.008060.000131482
TC602-141643.76917.61.7913690.048960.002050.153820.006390.022790.000330.008310.000121452
TC602-15857.03641.121.336770.048790.00310.145570.009120.021650.000370.006830.000161382
TC602-161016.99542.521.8745670.082550.002780.250250.008350.0220.000320.00820.000121402
TC602-17377.05365.751.0308950.048620.003250.150310.009960.022430.000370.007550.000181432
TC602-18830.96681.431.2194360.05070.003230.154640.009730.022130.000380.005610.000141412
TC602-191513.08723.522.0912760.050380.003050.148450.008860.021380.000360.006930.000131362
TC602-20319.33396.760.8048440.048890.003680.150.011150.022260.000410.007750.000241423
TC602-21290.61397.30.7314620.048880.00370.154550.011560.022940.000420.008440.000271463
TC602-241216.79681.131.7864280.04910.002640.134910.007170.019930.000310.007710.000131272
TC602-25642.49535.781.1991680.04910.003940.15330.012110.022650.000450.007280.000231443
Table 2. Major (wt%) and trace (10−6) element compositions of rhyolites from the Tulihe area.
Table 2. Major (wt%) and trace (10−6) element compositions of rhyolites from the Tulihe area.
SamplesP11-3P11-9-1P11-9-2P11-9-3P11-9-4TC602b1-1TC602b1-2TC602b1-3TC602b1-4TC602b1-5
SiO274.4475.3575.5275.8875.8875.2975.1675.2375.4075.33
Na2O3.843.733.663.733.693.363.283.293.853.81
MgO0.210.190.160.170.160.190.170.200.200.55
Al2O312.9412.7812.4712.3912.7413.4313.5613.5713.4313.36
P2O50.050.080.060.050.060.060.060.060.040.04
K2O5.094.914.954.775.025.295.545.704.795.07
CaO0.550.540.480.480.450.420.310.400.330.43
TiO20.220.210.210.200.210.180.160.170.150.16
MnO0.030.030.030.030.030.010.010.010.030.02
Fe2O31.191.081.091.021.060.710.910.760.800.71
FeO0.450.540.540.360.400.310.220.180.220.27
LOI0.430.610.560.370.510.440.580.440.390.35
Total100.04100.03100.04100.03100.03100.03100.04100.02100.03100.05
FeOt1.521.511.521.281.350.951.040.860.940.91
Mg#12.1311.169.5211.7410.5716.6814.0618.8017.5537.70
K2O + Na2O8.938.648.618.508.718.658.828.998.648.88
K2O/Na2O1.331.321.351.281.361.571.691.731.241.33
DI94.6394.5695.0295.2895.2294.7795.0895.1395.2794.47
A/NK1.091.121.101.101.111.191.191.171.171.14
A/CNK1.011.031.021.021.031.121.131.101.111.07
SI1.951.821.541.701.551.931.681.982.035.29
AR3.643.553.603.763.542.882.792.783.543.47
σ432.532.302.272.192.312.312.412.502.302.44
Hf4.944.834.924.865.174.064.354.324.164.17
Ta0.740.900.640.801.190.920.840.860.850.68
Li37.2039.4045.7047.5041.705.876.616.206.585.59
Be5.195.335.375.475.222.602.862.712.382.73
Sc16.2015.3015.5016.1017.5017.9020.7019.2020.6021.20
Co1.201.311.431.601.632.351.121.161.041.14
Ni0.110.020.280.070.030.400.450.230.260.12
Mo1.702.082.171.812.023.312.612.322.451.87
Cs8.118.859.248.768.525.015.375.604.444.94
Th9.8711.9010.4013.7013.809.1811.5011.5012.0010.40
U4.784.874.765.224.719.323.584.674.354.39
Ba697.00721.00680.00695.00690.00821.00768.00755.00718.00760.00
Cr5.926.3210.2012.207.898.2212.707.946.679.55
Cu2.090.812.202.474.031.842.452.073.322.14
Ga19.0019.1018.5019.0019.1016.7017.9017.7018.0017.10
Nb14.1014.0013.4013.8014.1013.2013.9013.4013.6013.30
Pb28.4030.5030.6031.9031.8017.3039.8020.0014.8016.40
Rb189.00188.00185.00184.00190.00160.00171.00168.00150.00152.00
Sr57.3064.3057.4057.8061.90119.00107.00110.0092.10105.00
V10.9012.3010.7010.5014.7012.9012.5010.809.6512.30
Zn42.1039.1040.0040.9040.7011.2013.1011.009.9010.40
Zr209.00209.00202.00201.00205.00153.00152.00155.00155.00150.00
Y19.4017.8018.0021.4017.2014.0012.7012.909.6810.60
La50.8047.6048.7048.7046.7039.2061.3039.409.379.76
Ce95.8087.5090.9091.3085.1073.2086.6070.3018.6019.30
Pr11.5010.8011.0011.4010.608.108.477.612.132.12
Nd40.3037.1037.7039.1038.1026.7027.2024.907.357.44
Sm6.445.855.706.375.824.084.113.671.421.45
Eu1.341.301.331.311.261.241.121.070.770.76
Gd5.535.055.125.585.103.744.043.531.291.32
Tb0.680.630.600.680.620.460.450.410.200.19
Dy3.503.253.233.763.412.302.132.151.501.53
Ho0.600.560.560.630.570.440.400.390.300.31
Er1.671.521.551.671.491.261.081.110.901.01
Tm0.270.270.250.280.250.240.210.220.200.19
Yb1.891.641.891.861.711.661.511.591.441.63
Lu0.240.240.240.260.220.220.210.230.200.19
∑REE220.56203.31208.77212.90200.95162.84198.83156.5845.6747.20
∑LREE206.18190.15195.33198.18187.58152.52188.80146.9539.6440.83
∑HREE14.3813.1613.4414.7213.3710.3210.039.636.036.37
LREE/HREE14.3414.4514.5313.4614.0314.7818.8215.266.576.41
LaN/YbN18.1219.5717.3717.6518.4115.9227.3716.714.394.04
δEu0.670.710.740.660.690.950.830.901.711.65
δCe0.920.890.910.900.890.940.800.920.970.98
Sm/Nd0.160.160.150.160.150.150.150.150.190.19
Rb/Sr3.302.923.223.183.071.341.601.531.631.45
Ti/Y67.9770.7169.9256.0173.1877.0675.5178.9892.8790.47
Ti/Zr6.316.026.235.966.147.056.316.575.806.39
Nb/Ta19.0515.5620.9417.2511.8514.3516.5515.5816.0019.56
Zr/Hf42.3143.2741.0641.3639.6537.6834.9435.8837.2635.97
La/Sm7.898.148.547.658.029.6114.9110.746.606.73
Cr/Ni53.82300.9536.43184.85246.5620.5528.2234.5225.6579.58
Ba/Sr12.1611.2111.8512.0211.156.907.186.867.807.24
Mg# = 100 × (Mg/40)/(MgO/40 + 0.8998 × Fe2O3t/72).
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

Wu, T.; Chen, C.; Fan, Y.; Meng, X.; Chen, L.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, Y. Geochronology, Geochemistry, and Geological Implications of the Baiyingaolao Formation Volcanic Rocks in the Tulihe Area, Northern Great Xing’an Range, NE China. Minerals 2026, 16, 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16020166

AMA Style

Wu T, Chen C, Fan Y, Meng X, Chen L, Wang Q, Zhou Y. Geochronology, Geochemistry, and Geological Implications of the Baiyingaolao Formation Volcanic Rocks in the Tulihe Area, Northern Great Xing’an Range, NE China. Minerals. 2026; 16(2):166. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16020166

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Taotao, Cong Chen, Yu Fan, Xiangxi Meng, Liangxi Chen, Qingshuang Wang, and Yongheng Zhou. 2026. "Geochronology, Geochemistry, and Geological Implications of the Baiyingaolao Formation Volcanic Rocks in the Tulihe Area, Northern Great Xing’an Range, NE China" Minerals 16, no. 2: 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16020166

APA Style

Wu, T., Chen, C., Fan, Y., Meng, X., Chen, L., Wang, Q., & Zhou, Y. (2026). Geochronology, Geochemistry, and Geological Implications of the Baiyingaolao Formation Volcanic Rocks in the Tulihe Area, Northern Great Xing’an Range, NE China. Minerals, 16(2), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16020166

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