Next Article in Journal
Iron-Rich Slag-Based Alkali-Activated Materials for Radioactive Waste Management: Characterization and Performance
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Study on the True Triaxial Unloading Mechanical Properties of Cement Tailings Backfill Under Different Intermediate Principal Stresses
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mining Prediction Based on the Coupling of Structural-Alteration Anomalies in the Tsagaankhairkhan Copper–Gold Mine in Mongolia Through the Collaboration of Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data
 
 
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/min15121228
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

Metallogenic Controls of the Jurassic Arc, Xizang: Insights from Geochemistry, Zircon Chronology, Hf Isotopes, and In Situ Trace Elements

by
Peiyan Xu
1,
Yuanchuan Zheng
2,*,
Zengqian Hou
3,
Zhusen Yang
4,*,
Xin Li
5,
Xiaoyan Zhao
4,
Bo Xu
2,
Miao Zhao
4,
Changda Wu
6,
Chang Liu
3 and
Wang Ma
2
1
Cengdu Center, China Geological Survey (Geosciences Innovation Center of Southwest China), Chengdu 610213, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, Frontier Science Center for Deep-time Digital Earth, and School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
3
Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100037, China
4
Institute of Mineral Resources, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100037, China
5
Key Laboratory of Gold Mineralization Processes and Resource Utilization, Ministry of Natural Resources, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Metallogenic Geological Process and Resource Utilization, Shandong Institute of Geological Sciences, Jinan 250013, China
6
College of Resource Environment and Earth Sciences, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2025, 15(12), 1228; https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121228
Submission received: 11 October 2025 / Revised: 8 November 2025 / Accepted: 18 November 2025 / Published: 21 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geology, Geochemistry, Genesis, Modeling, Structure and Exploration of Copper Polymetallic Deposits)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Magma oxidation state and water content are pivotal factors governing porphyry copper mineralization. The Xiongcun deposit, the only super-large porphyry copper deposit (PCD) formed in an oceanic subduction environment in the Gangdese belt, has been the primary focus of prior research, with limited systematic comparisons conducted among Xiongcun, weakly mineralized, and barren igneous rocks across the Jurassic Arc. Furthermore, the interaction between ore-controlling factors and deep-seated magmatic processes remains poorly understood. This study examines Xiongcun volcanic rocks, as well as weakly mineralized and barren volcanic rocks from the Jurassic Arc, with Dazi and Jiamagou samples from the eastern segment of Jurassia Arc (ESJA) and Xiongcun, Chucun, and Qinze samples from the western segment of Jurassia Arc (WSJA). All samples (168.0–184.8 Ma) are predominantly calc-alkaline, which is typical of arc magmas. Zircon Hf isotopic data reveal pronounced E-W variations but minimal N-S differences, dividing the arc into the WSJA and ESJA subzones. The WSJA volcanic rocks exhibit uniform Hf isotopic signatures (εHf(t) = 11.2–16.3) and young crustal model ages (186–500 Ma), whereas the ESJA mantle source region is heterogeneous, reflecting greater retention of ancient crustal material. Compared to the ESJA, new data from WSJA samples display higher zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ ratios (454 vs. 145), lower T(Zr-Ti) values (716 °C vs. 779 °C), and elevated whole-rock Ba/La ratios. These differences suggest that mineralization contrasts between the two segments arise from varying fluid metasomatism in their source regions, leading to divergent magma oxygen fugacity and water content—critical controls on porphyry Cu formation. The WSJA magmas exhibit higher values in both parameters, while the ESJA lacks significant mineralization potential.

1. Introduction

Porphyry Cu deposits (PCDs), as magmatic hydrothermal ore deposits with substantial economic value, are mainly concentrated in magmatic arcs associated with the subduction of oceanic plates like the Andean and Southwest Pacific PCD belts [1,2]. The El Teniente deposit in Chile is in the Andean belt—the largest PCD in the world, with 94.4 Mt copper reserves, double China’s total PCD resources (47 Mt Cu) [3]. Such remarkable volumes explain why PCDs, especially supergiant deposits, constitute primary targets for both scientific study and industrial exploration [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. The Gangdese belt in the southern Tibetan Plateau represents a major metallogenic province shaped by the subduction of the Mesozoic Neo-Tethyan oceanic lithosphere and the Cenozoic Indo-Eurasian continental collision [16]. While magmatic arcs like the Southwest Pacific arc and Andes arc host prolific PCDs, the Gangdese arc exhibits minimal Mesozoic subduction-related occurrences. Currently, only the Jurassic-aged Xiongcun deposit has been identified as a significant example [17].
The oxidation state and water content of magmas play critical roles in controlling porphyry copper mineralization. The oxidation state of magmatic melts significantly affects sulfur concentrations in both melts and released hydrothermal fluids [18,19,20], while water content regulates key parameters including exsolution depth, fluid/melt partition coefficients, and chloride compound abundances in exsolving hydrothermal fluids [21,22,23]. However, existing research has primarily focused on the Xiongcun deposit itself [24,25], with limited systematic comparative studies conducted on Xiongcun and weakly Cu-mineralized and barren magmatic rocks across the Jurassic Arc in the Gangdese belt. In addition, the deep magmatic processes responsible for Jurassic Arc mineralization variations remain poorly understood, which constrains our comprehension of porphyry copper metallogenic models in subduction settings and the regional potential for identifying a second Xiongcun-type deposit.
These scientific issues can be effectively studied by utilizing the Jurassic volcanic arc in the Gangdese belt as a prime natural research site. Through integrated field investigations, this study employs multi-disciplinary approaches encompassing precise geochronological dating, mineralogical analysis, petrographic examination, geochemical characterization, and isotopic tracing. The primary objectives are to (1) systematically document the spatial-temporal evolution of Jurassic magmatism, (2) decipher the magma sources and tectonic environments of the Jurassic Arc, and (3) contrast magma oxygen fugacity and hydration levels across Xiongcun and weakly Cu-mineralized and barren volcanic units, which enables the identification of critical metallogenic controls and their deep-seated magmatic triggers.

2. Geological Setting

2.1. Tectonic Framework

The Lhasa terrane is bounded by the Bangong–Nujiang Suture to the north and the Indus–Yarlung Zangbo Suture to the south (Figure 1A). It can be further divided into three subterranes, namely the northern (NLS), central (CLS), and southern Lhasa subterranes (SLS), according to distinct sedimentary cover sequences and metamorphic basement compositions. The Shiquan–Nam Tso Mélange Zone and the Luobadui–Milashan Fault, respectively, serve as the boundaries separating these subterranes [26,27,28] (Figure 1B). Ref. [29] conducted a comprehensive zircon Hf isotope contour map for granitoid rocks and felsic volcanic rocks, revealing the lithospheric architecture of the Lhasa terrane. Research indicates that the Lhasa terrane consists of a core region featuring an ancient Precambrian microcontinent with some degree of reactivation, flanked by two Phanerozoic terranes that formed more recently on both sides. Both of the newly formed Phanerozoic terranes are characterized by a substantial input of mantle-derived materials.

2.2. Regional Geology

Recent investigations have revealed significant findings regarding Jurassic magmatism in the eastern Gangdese belt. The spatial distribution of these igneous rocks exhibits a distinct west–east orientation, extending through multiple geological units including Karu, Xiongcun, Tangbai, Qulong–Jiama, Cuijiucun–Demingding, etc. (Figure 2). Spanning a longitudinal extent between 88° E and 94° E, this magmatic province forms a continuous Jurassic Arc with a length of approximately 600 km. The structural framework of this arc demonstrates clear segmentation, with the Yadong–Gulu Fault (striking approximately N-S at 90.2° E) serving as the tectonic boundary separating the western (WSJA) and eastern (ESJA) segments [31] (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Within the Jurassic arc, large to supergiant PCDs such as Qulong, Jiama, Tinggong, and Chongjiang (Figure 2) form part of the extensive Gangdese porphyry copper belt [3,10,11,12,29]. These deposits are associated with small-scale Miocene porphyritic intrusions. While Miocene PCDs are widespread in the eastern Gangdese belt, the Xiongcun deposit represents a distinctive Jurassic porphyry Cu-Au system of super-large scale within this tectonic domain (Figure 2). Notably, this deposit occupies a unique position as the sole Jurassic porphyry deposit of such scale in the region, being confined to the WSJA (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The deposit is divided into three distinct ore zones, with the bulk of the ore concentrated in Zone I and Zone II. Zone I is estimated to contain 1.04 million tons of copper (0.48%), 143 tons of gold (0.66 g/t), and 900 tons of silver (4.19 g/t). Zone II, positioned 3.4 km northwest of Zone I, holds 1.34 million tons of copper (0.35%), 76 tons of gold (0.22 g/t), and 194 tons of silver (1.30 g/t) [17]. Current studies have documented additional Jurassic mineralized points beyond Xiongcun, including intrusive bodies and coeval volcanic sequences in the Karu, Tangbai, and Wobu areas [32,33,34]. These lithological units exhibit characteristic Cu mineralization features, manifested by malachite precipitation and secondary Cu oxidation zones, along with pervasive quartz-(chlorite) veinlet alteration assemblages. Significantly, all fertile intrusive and volcanic units occur in the WSJA [34] (Figure 2).
Jurassic volcanic sequences stratigraphically categorized into the Bima and Yeba Formations are hosted by the Gangdese belt (Figure 2). The upper section of the Sangri Group is occupied by the Bima Formation, which conformably overlies the Mamuxia Formation. While the Sangri Group has traditionally been interpreted as Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous in age, with the upper Bima Formation assigned to the Early Cretaceous [35], contemporary studies have revealed significant Jurassic volcanic components within the Bima Formation’s strata, despite it retaining its original nomenclature. Geochronological data indicate that the Jurassic volcanic rocks of the Bima Formation were predominantly formed during the Early to Middle Jurassic, exhibiting a distinct west–east spatial distribution across multiple localities including Chucun, Qinze, Tangbai, Numa, Kangmadang, etc. [36,37,38,39,40]. A subordinate Late Jurassic component has been identified in the western Zedang region [41] (Figure 2).
The Yeba Formation constitutes an important volcanic succession within the eastern Gangdese Jurassic Arc (91° E–93.5° E), exhibiting an east–west trend extending over 250 km (Figure 2). Geochronological studies constrain its emplacement to the Early-Middle Jurassic epoch [31,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. This unit displays a characteristic lithological assemblage comprising volcanic suite and sedimentary interbeds. The volcanic suite is dominated by rhyolitic lavas (rhyolite/andesite) and pyroclastics (tuff/breccia/agglomerate), with subordinate basaltic flows, and its sedimentary interbeds are mainly tuffaceous sediments, carbonate layers, and clastic rocks with minor chert occurrences [44]. Notably, the formation exhibits differential metamorphic grades—rhyolitic rocks typically reach greenschist facies conditions, while basaltic units preserve primary igneous textures. Regionally, these rocks are extensively exposed in the Dazi, Jiamagou–Qulong corridor, Jiacha–Cuijiu-Demingding belt, and southern Gongbujiangda region (Figure 2).

3. Sampling and Analytical Methods

Based on integrated analysis of existing geological mapping data and the published literature, systematic field investigations and geochronological analyses were conducted. Six distinct volcanic rock assemblages were identified across the study area, representing the major lithological range of Jurassic volcanic rocks from both Bima and Yeba Formations. These assemblages exhibit complete spatial coverage of the Jurassic magmatic arc, including its western and eastern segments (Figure 2). Notably, some Jurassic magmatic rocks (e.g., Numa metamorphic dacite) show substantial post-emplacement alteration, resulting in modified geochemical signatures that preclude reliable geochemical analysis of bulk rock samples.

3.1. Petrological Characteristics for the Jurassic Volcanic Samples

The volcanic rocks in the WSJA include Xiongcun andesitic tuff (XAT), Chucun dacitic crystal tuff (CDCT), Qinze basaltic andesite (QBA), and Numa metadacite (NMD). The volcanic rocks in the ESJA include Dazi rhyolitic crystal tuff (DRCT), and Jiamagou rhyolitic crystal tuff (JRCT) and basalt (JB). The sampling locations are shown in Figure 2. Among these, Xiongcun andesitic tuff forms the volcanic country rock of the Xiongcun deposit. The volcanic rocks that developed in Qinze, Numa, Dazi, and Jiamagou are all barren volcanic rocks.
The Xiongcun andesitic tuff in the WSJA was intruded by Xiongcun metallogenic intrusions. The rock has a dark gray to gray-green color, with a tuffaceous texture (Figure 3D). It contains a small amount of plagioclase and quartz crystal fragments, with the total crystal fragment content accounting for approximately 10%. Accessory minerals include magnetite, zircon, and apatite, which are all cemented by volcanic ash. The Chucun dacitic crystal tuff is located approximately 2 km to the west of the Xiongcun deposit. The rock is light gray to gray-green in color, with a tuffaceous texture. The crystal fragment content is about 30%, primarily composed of quartz and plagioclase, with irregular shapes and sizes (Figure 3E,G). The Qinze basaltic andesite is mostly covered by Quaternary sediments, with discontinuous outcrops visible along the constructed roads (Figure 3A). The rock is dark gray to gray-black in color, with a porphyritic texture and dense massive structure. The total phenocryst content is approximately 25%, mainly consisting of plagioclase and amphibole, while the groundmass is primarily composed of feldspar, mafic minerals, and minor amounts of quartz (Figure 3H). The Numa metamorphosed dacite is grayish-white in color, with a porphyritic texture. The phenocrysts are mainly plagioclase and quartz, and mafic minerals such as biotite exhibit weak oriented arrangements.
The Dazi rhyolitic crystal tuff in the ESJA is grayish-white in color, with a tuffaceous texture. The crystal fragments are primarily composed of quartz, followed by feldspar, and mafic minerals are almost absent in the rock. The Jiamagou rhyolitic crystal tuff has generally undergone phyllitization, with the fresh surface appearing light gray to gray-green (Figure 3C). The crystal fragments are mainly composed of quartz, feldspar, and minor amounts of biotite. Quartz and feldspar fragments exhibit distinct directional stretching. The Jiamagou basalt occurs as thin interlayers within the rhyolitic crystal tuff. The rock is dark gray to gray-black in color, with a dense massive structure (Figure 3F). Microscopic examination reveals a porphyritic texture dominated by elongated plagioclase phenocrysts, with minor amounts of pyroxene and amphibole present as well (Figure 3I). The total phenocryst content is approximately 40%.

3.2. Analytical Methods

Zircon LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating, zircon trace element analysis, zircon Lu-Hf isotopic analysis, and whole rock major and trace element analysis were conducted in this study. Full methodological details are available in the Supplementary Materials.

4. Results

4.1. Zircon LA-ICP-MS U-Pb Ages

Zircons from the Jurassic volcanic rocks predominantly exhibit euhedral to subhedral prismatic morphologies. Cathodoluminescence (CL) imaging commonly reveals distinct oscillatory zoning (Figure 4), with some grains displaying hourglass zoning characteristic of andesitic magmatic zircons [50]. All analyzed zircon grains yield Th/U ratios of 0.5–1.4 (Table S1), consistent with a magmatic origin [51]. Their U-Pb ages are thus interpreted to represent the crystallization age of the host rock. Note that zircon grains exhibiting discordant 207Pb/235U and 206Pb/238U ages (concordance < 90%) or containing older inherited cores were excluded from concordia age calculations and weighted mean age determination.
Twenty-five zircon grains from the Chucun dacitic crystal tuff (CDCT) in the WSJA yield 206Pb/238U ages between 166 Ma and 169 Ma, with a concordant age of 167.9 ± 0.6 Ma and a weighted mean age of 168.0 ± 1.2 Ma (MSWD = 0.1) (Figure 4A). After excluding one discordant point, 28 zircon grains from the Numa metadacite (NMD) show 206Pb/238U ages ranging from 180.0 Ma to 185.2 Ma, producing a concordant age of 183.4 ± 1.1 Ma and a weighted mean age of 183.4 ± 1.1 Ma (MSWD = 0.3) (Figure 4B). The zircon U-Pb concordant age of the Dazi rhyolitic crystal tuff (DRCT) in the ESJA is 184.8 ± 0.8 Ma, with a weighted mean age of 184.8 ± 0.9 Ma (n = 26; MSWD = 1.1) (Figure 4C). A Paleoproterozoic captured zircon grain dated at 1768 Ma is also documented (Table S1). For the Jiamagou rhyolitic crystal tuff (JRCT), the zircon U-Pb concordant age is 171.6 ± 0.9 Ma, corresponding to a weighted mean age of 171.5 ± 0.9 Ma (n = 25; MSWD = 0.9) (Figure 4D).

4.2. Zircon Trace Elements

Apatite inclusions within zircon crystals significantly influence measured light rare earth element (LREE) concentrations [52]. To mitigate contamination from mineral inclusions (e.g., apatite, Ti-Fe oxides), this study exclusively employs zircon analyses with Ti < 50 ppm, La < 0.5 ppm. Additionally, xenocrystic grains and those exhibiting <90% age concordance were systematically excluded. Table S2 presents trace element data for Jurassic magmatic zircons in the Gangdese belt. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns (Figure 5) reveal LREE depletion, heavy rare earth element (HREE) enrichment, prominent positive Ce anomalies, and modest negative Eu anomalies across all analyzed grains. Such signatures indicate crystallization from fractionated melts [51].
Zircon trace element analyses of the CDCT sample (XT16-7-1) in the WSJA (23 valid data points) display Ce4+/Ce3+ ratios between 149 and 675 (average 454), ΔFMQ values from +0.26 to +1.44 (average +1.06), EuN/EuN* ratios of 0.35–0.74 (average 0.49), and T(Zr-Ti) temperatures ranging from 688 °C to 767 °C (average 716 °C). Zircon analyses from two barren DRCT samples (DZ15-6-1, DZ15-6-5) in the ESJA yielded 23 and 24 effective data points, respectively, with Ce4+/Ce3+ ratios of 42–296 (average 155) and 52–294 (average 136), ΔFMQ ranges of +0.32 to +1.29 (average +0.72) and −0.10 to +1.68 (average +0.56), EuN/EuN* ratios of 0.29–0.56 (average 0.44) and 0.33–0.57 (average 0.45), and T(Zr-Ti) temperatures of 709–817 °C (average 773 °C) and 740–834 °C (average 785 °C) (Table S2).

4.3. Zircon Lu-Hf Isotopic Compositions

Table S3 presents the in situ zircon Lu-Hf isotopic data of the Jurassic igneous rocks in the Gangdese belt. In the WSJA, combined analyses of 36 zircon spots from the CDCT (XT16-7-1) and NMD (NM19-2-1) samples yield 176Hf/177Hf ratios of 0.282988–0.283124, εHf(t) values of 11.2–16.3 (average: 13.5), and corresponding TDMC ages of 186–500 Ma. In the ESJA, combined analyses of 29 zircon spots from the DRCT (DZ15-6-1) and JRCT (QLI-2) samples show 176Hf/177Hf ratios of 0.282852–0.283036 and εHf(t) values of 6.6–12.9 (average: 9.6), with TDMC ages of 393–805 Ma.

4.4. Whole-Rock Major and Trace Elements

Given that total alkalies and certain fluid-mobile elements in volcanic rocks are susceptible to alteration effects, this study employs Zr/TiO2 vs. Nb/Y diagrams and Th vs. Co diagrams as substitutes for the conventional TAS (Total Alkali-Silica) and K2O versus SiO2 diagrams, respectively, to classify rock types and determine magmatic series within the Jurassic Arc.
In the WSJA, three andesitic tuff samples from Xiongcun (XAT) display SiO2 (53.3–57.9 wt.%), MgO (1.88–2.89 wt.%), and TiO2 (0.57–0.91 wt.%) contents, which were plotted as calc-alkaline andesite to basaltic andesite in Zr/TiO2 vs. Nb/Y and Th vs. Co diagrams. Five CDCT samples show higher SiO2 (65.4–68.5 wt.%) with lower MgO (1.89–2.23 wt.%) and TiO2 (0.40–0.46 wt.%), which were classified as calc-alkaline dacite to rhyodacite. Six basaltic andesite samples from Qinze (QBA) contain SiO2 (55.3–57.4 wt.%), MgO (2.99–3.42 wt.%), and TiO2 (0.48–0.52 wt.%), falling within the calc-alkaline basaltic andesite to andesite field. The ESJA features three DRCT samples with exceptionally high SiO2 (75.3–80.6 wt.%), low MgO (0.37–0.65 wt.%), and TiO2 (0.27–0.35 wt.%), indicating high K-to-shoshonitic rhyolite-to-rhyodacite affinities. Eight JB samples exhibit primitive compositions (SiO2: 44.5–50.2 wt.%; MgO: 5.27–8.27 wt.%; TiO2: 0.69–0.77 wt.%) with Mg# of 56–66 and elevated Cr (421–830 ppm), Ni (108–134 ppm), and V (178–203 ppm) contents, and can be consistently plotted in the field of calc-alkaline basalt (Table S4, Figure 6).
The chondrite-normalized REE patterns of all samples are right-sloping, marked by LREE enrichment and HREE depletion, with no significant Eu anomalies. When normalized to primitive mantle values, the samples are systematically enriched in large ion lithophile elements (LILE; e.g., Ba, Rb, U) but depleted in high field strength elements (HFSE; e.g., Nb, Ta, P, Ti), demonstrating typical arc magma affinities (Figure 7).

5. Discussion

5.1. Spatiotemporal Distribution of the Jurassic Arc

The new zircon LA-ICP-MS U-Pb data for four Jurassic magmatic samples in the Gangdese belt yield ages between 168.0 Ma and 184.8 Ma (Figure 4), aligning well with the established age spectrum (151.0–203.2 Ma) documented for 179 Jurassic magmatic rocks in prior studies (see Table S5 for references including [31,34,56]). When integrated with comprehensive data from the literature, these findings demonstrate sustained magmatic activity throughout the Jurassic period in the Gangdese belt, with a prominent temporal cluster occurring between 170 Ma and 185 Ma (Figure 8). Geographically, these Jurassic magmatic formations are spatially confined to 88° E–94° E and 29° N–30° N, constituting an approximately 600 km east–west-trending Jurassic Arc (Figure 1), as previously proposed by [31].
As illustrated in Figure 9A–D, no apparent correlation is observed between the formation ages and whole-rock SiO2 compositions of Jurassic magmatic rocks and their spatial distribution patterns, with continuous variations noted across latitude and longitude. Notably, zircon εHf(t) values reveal distinct longitudinal variations with increasing sample coverage (Figure 9E,F, Table S5), where western Jurassic Arc samples consistently display higher values than their eastern counterparts, indicating more depleted magma sources. In contrast, these values show minimal latitudinal variation except for isolated low values in northern samples. These observations lead us to favor the E-W division scheme proposed by [31], wherein the Jurassic Arc is divided by the N-S-trending Yadong–Gulu Rift (~90.2° E) into western (WSJA) and eastern (ESJA) segments (Figure 1).

5.2. Petrogenesis of the Jurassic Arc Magmatic Rocks

5.2.1. Petrogenesis of the WSJA Magmatic Rocks

The basic volcanic rocks developed in the WSJA mainly include the newly discovered basaltic andesite east of Qinze reported in this study, as well as the previously documented Tangbai basaltic andesite. These samples show the zircon εHf(t) and the whole-rock εNd(t) values ranging from 9.6 to 13.9 and 4.4 to 6.9, respectively ([40], Table S5). The basic intrusive rocks identified in the WSJA mainly include the diabase from the Xiongcun district, the gabbro from Tangbai Village, and the mafic microgranular enclaves (MMEs) from Dongga Town (Figure 2). The zircon εHf(t) values of these samples range from 12.2 to 16.2, and the whole-rock εNd(t) values are 5.3 to 7.7 ([57,58,59], Table S5). The isotopic characteristics of the basic volcanic and intrusive rocks in the WSJA are similar, both showing high positive zircon εHf(t) values (>10) and whole-rock εNd(t) values (>4). This suggests that the source region of these basic magmatic rocks is the depleted mantle.
Including Chucun and Qinze barren volcanic rock, the intermediate-acidic magmatic rocks from the WSJA show depleted zircon Hf isotopic characteristics (εHf(t) > 10, Figure 9E, Table S5). This indicates that these intermediate-acidic magmas originated from depleted mantle-derived mafic magma that underwent the MASH process (melting, assimilation, storage, and homogenization [60]) in the hot zone at the base of the lower crust, forming the initial magma. During their subsequent ascent, these magmas experienced extensive AFC (assimilation and fractional crystallization) processes, which can significantly alter the composition of the magma as it rises through the crust, leading to the formation of various rock types.

5.2.2. Petrogenesis of the ESJA Magmatic Rocks

The currently identified mafic igneous rocks in the ESJA mainly include the newly discovered Yeba Formation basalts in Jiamagou reported in this study, previously reported Yeba Formation basalts and basaltic andesites from the Dazi and Jiacha regions, Bima Formation basalts near Sangri County, as well as gabbros from Cuijiu Village and west of Zedang (Figure 2, Table S5). The zircon εHf(t) values of the Yeba Formation basaltic andesites and basalts range from 0.8 to 11.9, and the whole-rock εNd(t) ranges from 1.6 to 4.4 [44,48,49]. The εNd(t) range of the Bima Formation basalts is 4.6 to 7.0 [36]. The gabbros from Cuijiu Villiage show zircon εHf(t) values of 0.8 to 15.8 [61,62,63], and samples from west of Zedang have values of 11.6 to 16.4 [41]. These data indicate the heterogeneous Nd-Hf isotopic characteristics of the ESJA’s basic rocks, which are not caused by crustal contamination. The evidence is as follows: (1) These basic rocks have relatively low “crustal affinity” elements; for example, the average Th = 1.2 and U = 0.3 for the Jurassic Bima Formation basalts (data from [36]); and the average Th = 1.8 and U = 0.5 for the Yeba Formation basalts (data from this study; [42,44,45,47,48,49,64]), all of which are significantly lower than the recommended average values for the upper crust (Th = 10.5, U = 2.7, [65]), suggesting that crustal contamination is not significant. (2) The (87Sr/86Sr)i ratios remain almost constant, with variations in whole-rock SiO2 and MgO contents (Figure 10), indicating that the magmatic evolution is dominated by fractional crystallization, with weak crustal contamination. In summary, the heterogeneous isotopic characteristics of the basic rocks in the eastern segment are not due to crustal contamination but are more likely a reflection of the heterogeneous nature of the mantle source from which the magmas were derived.
Significantly, the ESJA in the Gangdese belt contains a Precambrian ancient basement, as evidenced by ~1500 Ma granitic gneiss and ~1780 Ma gneiss xenoliths from Dongjiu Village, Nyingchi [66,67], and Paleozoic granites in Jiacha, Lang County, Milin, and Nyingchi with Proterozoic to Archean Nd-Hf isotopic model ages [68,69,70]. These ancient crustal remnants likely contribute to mantle source heterogeneity. Partial melting of heterogeneous mantle forms mafic magmas that undergo MASH processes at the base of the lower crust. During ascent, AFC processes produce intermediate-acidic rocks with zircon Hf and whole-rock Nd isotopic characteristics similar to basic magmas (Table S5).

5.2.3. Tectonic Setting

While distinct magmatic source properties are observed between the WSJA and ESJA, both regions share compositional affinities, categorized as calc-alkaline to high-K calc-alkaline (Figure 6), which are indicative of arc magmatism [71,72].
Previous researchers have proposed two tectonic models to explain the genesis of the Jurassic magmatic arc in the Gangdese belt (hereinafter referred to as the Jurassic Arc): (1) the northward subduction of the Neo-Tethyan oceanic slab [36,40,48,73,74,75,76]; (2) the subduction and rollback of the Bangong-Nujiang oceanic slab [28]. It is worth noting that the magmatic rocks of the Jurassic Arc are widely distributed 250–300 km away from the Bangong–Nujiang suture zone. Considering that the Gangdese belt experienced a shortening of at least 180 km during the Jurassic–Cretaceous period [77], a distance of more than 400 km separated the Jurassic Arc from the Bangong–Nujiang oceanic trench during the Jurassic period, which is considerably greater than the 150–300 km distance observed today between other magmatic arcs and trenches [44]. Very low-angle flat subduction can reach such a distance [78], but the thermal anomaly that flat subduction can cause is very limited [79], and it is unlikely to have caused such large-scale Jurassic magmatism in the Gangdese belt. In fact, the volume of magmatic bodies developed in the southern Lhasa subterrane during the Late Triassic to Jurassic period is significantly larger than that of the northern Lhasa subterrane during the same period [56,73,76]. Additionally, systematic petrological studies conducted on the basalts from the Yeba Formation, the Sangri Group, and Zedang area in the Gangdese belt have demonstrated that from north to south, the addition of slab components to the magma source region gradually increases, indicating an overall southward flow of mantle wedge materials [48], corresponding to the northward subduction of the Neo-Tethys Ocean. In summary, the Jurassic magmatic rocks of the Gangdese Arc were formed in the tectonic setting of the northward subduction of the Neo-Tethys Ocean, and both the WSJA and ESJA share the same tectonic background.

5.3. Key Factors Controlling the Jurassic Cu Mineralization in the Gangdese Belt

The Jurassic copper mineralization in the Gangdese belt shows clear spatial division: while Karu, Tangbai, and Wobu represent weakly mineralized sites, Xiongcun remains the only porphyry copper deposit, all confined to the WSJA with absent counterparts in ESJA [31]. Despite both segments sharing Neo-Tethyan slab subduction contexts, this contrast prompts investigation into mineralization controls. Focusing on the genesis of the Xiongcun deposit, we analyze magmatic parameters including oxygen fugacity and water content to elucidate these segmental differences. Additionally, we aim to reveal how these variations in magmatic parameters are controlled by distinct deep magmatic processes.

5.3.1. Factors Controlling Magmatic Fertibility of the Jurassic Arc

Magma Oxygen Fugacity
The preferential incorporation of Ce4+ over Ce3+ during zircon crystallization, attributed to their comparable charge and ionic radius with Zr4+, establishes the Ce4+/Ce3+ ratio as a reliable proxy for parental magma oxygen fugacity [52]. Notably, magmas from the Chuquicamata–El Abra porphyry copper belt in northern Chile display elevated Ce4+/Ce3+ ratios (>300), demonstrating that zircon ratios exceeding this threshold serve as critical geochemical markers for porphyry copper deposit formation potential.
This article presents two representative samples from two distinct zones (WSJA and ESJA), integrated with published zircon trace element data for Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt. Figure 11A shows that zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ ratios consistently exceed 300 in Xiongcun volcanic country rocks and weakly Cu-mineralized volcanic country rocks of the WSJA, in contrast to the predominantly lower ratios (<300) observed in magmatic zircons from the ESJA. The study, utilizing the latest zircon oxybarometer [19], reveals that the average oxygen fugacity (ΔFMQ) is +1.52 for Xiongcun volcanic rocks, +1.00 for weakly Cu-mineralized volcanic rocks, and +0.74 for barren volcanic rocks in the ESJA (Figure 11B). This systematic decrease in both zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ ratios and ΔFMQ values from Xiongcun to weakly mineralized WSJA volcanic country rocks and finally to barren ESJA volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt demonstrates that magma oxygen fugacity plays a critical role in mineralization within the Jurassic Arc igneous rocks. Compared to the WSJA, the arc magmas in the ESJA generally exhibit lower oxygen fugacity (Figure 11). This study attributes the difference in oxygen fugacity to the incorporation of more reduced ancient crustal material during the MASH process experienced by the ESJA magma source region.
Magma Water Content
The Ti concentration in zircons associated with rutile or Ti-bearing phases shows a strong temperature dependence, making the zircon Ti thermometer a widely used tool for magma temperature estimation [80]. This method is contingent upon the activities of silicon and titanium within the host magma. Considering the saturation points of quartz and rutile, [80] enhanced the calculation formula to log (ppm Ti-in-zircon) = 5.711 − 4800/T(K) − log αSiO2 + log αTiO2. Given that the Jurassic Arc igneous rocks in question are silica-saturated or supersaturated rocks, αSiO2 is assigned a value of 1. In silicic melts, the activity of αTiO2 is generally found to be between 0.6 and 0.9 [81]. The presence of titanium-rich minerals, such as sphene, in the Jurassic Arc rocks suggests a relatively high activity for TiO2 during zircon crystallization, thus αTiO2 is set at 0.7 [24,25,56].
The zircon Ti thermometer application reveals Jurassic Arc magmas formed at 600–850 °C (Figure 12A). Since dehydration melting of oceanic crust producing abundant granitic magma requires temperatures above 850 °C [82], this indicates hydrous melting was the dominant partial melting mechanism in the magma source of Jurassic Arc. The T(Zr-Ti) values of WSJA systematically exhibit lower temperatures compared to ESJA (Figure 12A), which may be attributed to a greater amount of fluid addition in the magma source region of the WSJA. Additionally, water-rich melts preferentially crystallize hornblende over plagioclase, generating residual melts with Yb depletion but preserved Eu content, where the zircon (Eu/Eu*)/YbN ratio effectively tracks magma water content [19]. As shown in Figure 12B, WSJA magmatic zircons display higher (Eu/Eu*)/YbN values than their ESJA counterparts, demonstrating systematically higher water content in WSJA magmas. It is noteworthy that Figure 12 illustrates that the Xiongcun volcanic rocks are characterized by the lowest zircon T(Zr-Ti) values, whereas the weakly mineralized volcanic country rocks show slightly higher values. The barren volcanic rocks, however, are marked by significantly higher zircon T(Zr-Ti) values and lower zircon (Eu/Eu*)/YbN ratios. This trend reflects decreasing magma water content from Xiongcun to weakly mineralized to barren rocks, emphasizing water content’s pivotal role in forming the super-large porphyry Cu deposit in the Jurassic Arc.

5.3.2. Differences in Deep Magmatic Processes Between the WSJA and ESJA

As proposed earlier, the WSJA magmas generally exhibit lower T(Zr-Ti) values compared to those in the ESJA, which may be attributed to greater overall fluid influx in the source region of the WSJA. The geochemical evidence from whole-rock data provides additional validation: the Th/Yb vs. Ba/La plot distinctly highlights that the WSJA magma source region underwent more extensive fluid metasomatism than its ESJA counterpart (Figure 13). This enhanced metasomatic process effectively hydrated the mantle wedge, generating magma through partial melting with notably higher water content. Importantly, the elevated oxygen fugacity observed in WSJA magmas may also be linked to substantial fluid influx. Previous research suggests that slab-derived fluids capable of transporting oxidized species like CO2 and H2O into the mantle wedge can elevate the oxidation state of the metasomatized mantle [83,84]. Experimental petrology confirms this mechanism, demonstrating that hydrous calc-alkaline magmas are more prone to evolving into high oxygen fugacity magmas [85]. In addition, the recent pioneering work of [86,87] has proposed that magma evolution can significantly promote the extraction of Cu by fluid from magma and thus the formation of a giant Cu deposit. This explains the difference in the degree of fractionation of the magmatic rocks and ore formation potential across the Jurassic Arc.
The whole-rock Ba/La ratios systematically decrease from the Xiongcun deposit across weakly mineralized zones to barren magmas (Figure 13A). This geochemical pattern reflects progressively diminishing fluid input from the source region, directly correlating with reduced magma water content and oxygen fugacity (Figure 12). The consistent relationship between these parameters unequivocally demonstrates that both magma hydration and oxidation states play a pivotal role in forming the super-large PCDs within the Jurassic Arc.

6. Conclusions

(1)
In the Gangdese belt, Jurassic magmatic rocks show a continuous temporal distribution, peaking at 170–185 Ma. These rocks are spatially concentrated within the longitudinal range of 88° E–94° E and the latitudinal range of 29° N–30° N. Zircon Hf isotopic data reveal significant E–W variations but minimal N–S differences, allowing the Jurassic Arc to be subdivided into WSJA and ESJA subzones.
(2)
The mafic volcanic rocks in both WSJA and ESJA derive from depleted mantle, but ESJA’s source shows heterogeneity due to ancient crustal remnants. Intermediate-acidic rocks formed via MASH at the lower crust base and AFC process during ascent. Both subzones developed in an arc setting linked to Neo-Tethyan Oceanic slab subduction.
(3)
The mineralization differences between WSJA and ESJA stem from varying fluid metasomatism in their source regions, leading to contrasts in magma oxygen fugacity and water content—key factors controlling porphyry Cu deposit formation. WSJA magmas show higher values in both, while ESJA lacks significant mineralization potential.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/min15121228/s1. Analytical methods. Zircon U-Pb dating and trace element analyses, in-situ zircon Lu-Hf isotopes and whole rock major and trace elements; Table S1. Zircon LA-ICP-MS U-Pb data for the Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt; Table S2. Zircon trace element data for the Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt; Table S3. The in-situ zircon Lu-Hf isotopic data for the Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt; Table S4. The whole-rock major and trace element data for the Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt; Table S5. Summary of rock types, sample classifications, locations, zircon U-Pb ages, and Sr-Nd-Hf isotopic data of Jurassic Arc magmatic rocks in the Gangdese belt. References [88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.H., Y.Z. and Z.Y.; investigation, Z.H., Z.Y., P.X., X.Z., M.Z., C.W., C.L. and W.M.; resources, P.X., Z.Y. and Y.Z.; data curation, X.L. and B.X.; writing—original draft, P.X.; writing—review and editing, Y.Z. and Z.Y.; supervision, Z.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants U2344204 and 42402112), the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research (Grant 2021QZKK0302), the Central Guidance Fund for Local Science and Technology Development Projects (Grant XZ202301YD0030C), and China Geological Survey Projects (Grants DD202402028, DD202402030).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely acknowledge Yang Zhiming and Huang Yong for their invaluable assistance in sample collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sillitoe, R.H. A Plate Tectonic Model for the Origin of Porphyry Copper Deposits. Econ. Geol. 1972, 67, 184–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Richards, J.P. Tectono-Magmatic Precursors for Porphyry Cu-(Mo-Au) Deposit Formation. Econ. Geol. 2003, 98, 1515–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yang, Z.M.; Cooke, D.R. Porphyry copper deposits in China. SEG Spec. Publ. 2019, 22, 133–187. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cooke, D.R.; Hollings, P.; Walshe, J.L. Giant porphyry deposits: Characteristics, distribution, and tectonic controls. Econ. Geol. 2005, 100, 801–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Leng, C.B.; Zhang, X.C.; Zhong, H.; Hu, R.Z.; Zhou, W.D.; Li, C. Re-Os molybdenite ages and zircon Hf isotopes of the Gangjiang porphyry Cu-Mo deposit in the Tibetan Orogen. Miner. Deposita 2013, 48, 585–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sun, W.D.; Huang, R.F.; Li, H.; Hu, Y.B.; Zhang, C.C.; Sun, S.J.; Zhang, L.P.; Ding, X.; Li, C.Y.; Zartman, R.E.; et al. Porphyry deposits and oxidized magmas. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 65, 97–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zeng, Y.C.; Chen, J.L.; Xu, J.F.; Lei, M.; Xiong, Q.W. Origin of Miocene Cu-bearing porphyries in the Zhunuo region of the southern Lhasa subterrane: Constraints from geochronology and geochemistry. Gondwana Res. 2017, 41, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sun, X.; Lu, Y.J.; McCuaig, T.C.; Zheng, Y.Y.; Chang, H.F.; Guo, F.; Xu, L.J. Miocene Ultrapotassic, High-Mg Dioritic, and Adakite-like Rocks from Zhunuo in Southern Tibet: Implications for Mantle Metasomatism and Porphyry Copper Mineralization in Collisional Orogens. J. Petrol. 2018, 59, 341–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, H.Y.; Wu, C. Metallogenesis and major challenges of porphyry copper systems above subduction zones. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2020, 63, 899–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hou, Z.Q.; Yang, Z.M.; Wang, R.; Zheng, Y.C. Further discussion on porphyry Cu-Mo-Au deposit formation in Chinese mainland. Earth Sci. Front. 2020, 27, 20–44, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, R.; Zhu, D.C.; Wang, Q.; Hou, Z.Q.; Yang, Z.M.; Zhao, Z.D.; Mo, X.X. Porphyry mineralization in the Tethyan orogen. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2020, 63, 2042–2067, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zheng, Y.C.; Wu, C.D.; Tian, S.H.; Hou, Z.Q.; Fu, Q.; Zhu, D.C. Magmatic and structural controls on the tonnage and metal associations of collision-related porphyry copper deposits in southern Tibet. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 122, 103509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, C.H.; Qiu, C.X.; Wang, L.Q.; Feng, J.; Wu, S.S.; Wang, Y.Y. Application of ASTER Remote Sensing Data to Porphyry Copper Exploration in the Gondwana Region. Minerals 2023, 13, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hao, H.D.; Park, J.W.; Zheng, Y.C.; Hwang, J. Role of chalcophile element fertility in the formation of the eastern Tethyan post-collisional porphyry Cu deposits. Miner. Deposita 2024, 59, 1579–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gao, K.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L.K.; Xu, P.Y.; Yang, Y.; Wu, J.Y.; Li, Y.X.; Sun, M.; Su, W.P. Significance of Adakitic Plutons for Mineralization in Wubaduolai Copper Deposit, Xizang: Evidence from Zircon U-Pb Age, Hf Isotope, and Geochemistry. Minerals 2025, 15, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yin, A.; Harrison, T.M. Geologic evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2000, 28, 211–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tang, J.X.; Lang, X.H.; Xie, F.W.; Gao, Y.M.; Li, Z.J.; Huang, Y.; Ding, F.; Yang, H.H.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Q.; et al. Geological characteristics and genesis of the Jurassic No. I porphyry Cu-Au deposit in the Xiongcun district, Gangdese porphyry copper belt, Tibet. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 70, 438–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zajacz, Z.; Candela, P.A.; Piccoli, P.M.; Sanchez-Valle, C. The partitioning of sulfur and chlorine between andesite melts and magmatic volatiles and the exchange coefficients of major cations. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2012, 89, 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Loucks, R.R.; Fiorentini, M.L.; Henríquez, G.J. New magmatic oxybarometer using trace elements in zircon. J. Petrol. 2020, 61, egaa034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Xu, B.; Shen, Y.; Wang, L. In Situ Mineralogical Constraints on Magmatic Process for Porphyry Deposits in the Upper Crust: A Case from Tongchang–Chang’anchong Porphyry Deposits, SW China. Minerals 2023, 13, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Botcharnikov, R.E.; Holtz, F.; Behrens, H. Solubility and fluid-melt partitioning of H2O and Cl in andesitic magmas as a function of pressure between 50 and 500 MPa. Chem. Geol. 2015, 418, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Loucks, R.R.; Henríquez, G.J.; Fiorentini, M.L. Zircon and whole-rock trace element indicators of magmatic hydration state and oxidation state discriminate copper ore-forming from barren arc magmas. Econ. Geol. 2024, 119, 511–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, Z.X.; Zheng, Y.C.; Xu, B.; Hou, Z.Q.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, A.P.; Wang, L.; Wu, C.D.; Guo, Q.F. Mechanisms of fluid degassing in shallow magma chambers control the formation of porphyry deposits. Am. Mineral. 2024, 109, 2073–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xie, F.W.; Tang, J.X.; Lang, X.H.; Ma, D. The different sources and petrogenesis of Jurassic intrusive rocks in the southern Lhasa subterrane, Tibet: Evidence from the trace element compositions of zircon, apatite, and titanite. Lithos 2018, 314–315, 447–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, X.L.; Liang, H.Y.; Zhang, J.; Sotiriou, P.; Huang, W.T.; Ren, L.; Zhang, L.; Zou, Y.Q. Geochemical characteristics and magma fertility for the Jurassic arc rocks in the Gangdese belt, Tibet. Ore Geol. Rev. 2019, 115, 103169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hou, Z.Q.; Mo, X.X.; Yang, Z.M.; Wang, A.J.; Pan, G.T.; Qu, X.M.; Nie, F.J. Metallogeneses in the Collisional Orogen of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: Tectonic Setting, Tempo-Spatial Distribution and Ore Deposit Types. Geol. China 2006, 33, 340–351, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  27. Pan, G.T.; Mo, X.X.; Hou, Z.Q.; Zhu, D.C.; Wang, L.Q.; Li, G.M.; Zhao, Z.D.; Geng, Q.R.; Liao, Z.L. Spatial-temporal framework of the Gangdese Orogenic Belt and its evolution. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2006, 22, 521–533, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhu, D.C.; Zhao, Z.D.; Niu, Y.L.; Mo, X.X.; Chung, S.L.; Hou, Z.Q.; Wang, L.Q.; Wu, F.Y. The Lhasa Terrane, Record of a microcontinent and its histories of drift and growth. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2011, 301, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hou, Z.Q.; Duan, L.F.; Lu, Y.J.; Zheng, Y.C.; Zhu, D.C.; Yang, Z.M.; Yang, Z.S.; Wang, B.D.; Pei, Y.R.; Zhao, Z.D.; et al. Lithospheric architectures of the Lhasa Terrane and its control on ore deposits in Himalayan–Tibetan orogen. Econ. Geol. 2015, 110, 1541–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wu, C.D.; Zheng, Y.C.; Xu, B.; Hou, Z.Q.; Chai, P.; Li, X.; Zhang, L.Y.; Wang, Z.X.; Wang, L.; Shen, Y. Ultrapotassic enclaves in the Miocene adakitic granitoids, southern Tibet: Direct evidence for collision-related crust-mantle interaction and its implications. Lithos 2023, 442–443, 107052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hou, Z.Q.; Yang, Z.M.; Lu, Y.J.; Kemp, A.; Zheng, Y.C.; Li, Q.Y.; Tang, J.X.; Yang, Z.S.; Duan, L.F. A genetic linkage between subduction- and collision-related porphyry Cu deposits in continental collision zones. Geology 2015, 43, 247–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zou, Y.Q.; Chen, X.L.; Huang, W.T.; Zhang, J.; Liang, H.Y.; Xu, J.F.; Chen, L. Identification of an Early–Middle Jurassic oxidized magmatic belt, south Gangdese, Tibet, and geological implications. Sci. Bull. 2017, 62, 888–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, X.H.; Lang, X.H.; Tang, J.X.; Deng, Y.L.; Cui, Z.W. Early–Middle Jurassic (182–170 Ma) Ruocuo adakitic porphyries, southern margin of the Lhasa terrane, Tibet: Implications for geodynamic setting and porphyry Cu-Au mineralization. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2019, 173, 336–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xu, P.Y.; Yang, Z.S.; Zheng, Y.C.; Hou, Z.Q.; Xu, B.; Wu, C.D.; Zhao, X.Y.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, L.Y.; Liu, C. The spatiotemporal distribution, petrogenesis, and key ore-forming factors of the Jurassic magmatic arc in the Gangdese belt, Tibet. Ore Geol. Rev. 2025, 186, 106865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhu, D.C.; Mo, X.X.; Niu, Y.L.; Zhao, Z.D.; Wang, L.Q.; Liu, Y.S.; Wu, F.Y. Geochemical investigation of Early Cretaceous igneous rocks along an east-west traverse throughout the central Lhasa terrane, Tibet. Chem. Geol. 2009, 268, 298–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kang, Z.Q.; Xu, J.F.; Wilde, S.A.; Feng, Z.H.; Chen, J.L.; Wang, B.D.; Fu, W.C.; Pan, H.B. Geochronology and geochemistry of the Sangri Group Volcanic Rocks, Southern Lhasa Terrane: Implications for the early subduction history of the Neo-Tethys and Gangdese Magmatic Arc. Lithos 2014, 200–201, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ma, X.X.; Xu, Z.Q.; Chen, X.J.; Meert, J.G.; He, Z.Y.; Liang, F.H.; Meng, Y.K.; Ma, S.W. The origin and tectonic significance of the volcanic rocks of the Yeba Formation in the Gangdese magmatic belt, South Tibet. J. Earth Sci. 2017, 28, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, X.L.; Richards, J.P.; Liang, H.Y.; Zou, Y.Q.; Zhang, J.; Huang, W.T.; Ren, L.; Wang, F.Y. Contrasting arc magma fertilities in the Gangdese belt, Southern Tibet: Evidence from geochemical variations of Jurassic volcanic rocks. Lithos 2019, 324–325, 789–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lang, X.H.; Wang, X.H.; Deng, Y.L.; Tang, J.X.; Xie, F.W.; Zhou, Y.; Huang, Y.; Li, Z.; Yin, Q.; Jiang, K. Early Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Xiongcun district, southern Lhasa subterrane, Tibet: Implications for the tectono-magmatic events associated with the early evolution of the Neo-Tethys Ocean. Lithos 2019, 340–341, 166–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lang, X.H.; Deng, Y.L.; Wang, X.H.; Tang, J.X.; Yin, Q.; Xie, F.W.; Yang, Z.Y.; Li, Z.; He, Q.; Li, L.; et al. Geochronology and geochemistry of volcanic rocks of the Bima Formation, southern Lhasa subterrane, Tibet: Implications for early Neo-Tethyan subduction. Gondwana Res. 2020, 80, 335–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, L.L.; Liu, C.Z.; Wu, F.Y.; Ji, W.Q.; Wang, J.G. Zedong terrane revisited: An intra-oceanic arc within Neo-Tethys or a part of the Asian active continental margin? J. Asian Earth Sci. 2014, 80, 34–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dong, Y.H.; Xu, J.F.; Zeng, Q.G.; Wang, Q.; Mao, G.Z.; Li, J. Is there a Neo-Tethys’ subduction record earlier than arc volcanic rocks in the Sangri Group? Acta Petrol. Sin. 2006, 22, 661–668, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  43. Geng, Q.R.; Pan, G.T.; Wang, L.Q.; Zhu, D.C.; Liao, Z.L. Isotopic geochronology of the volcanic rocks from the Yeba Formation in the Gangdise zone, Xizang. Sediment. Geol. Tethy. Geol. 2006, 26, 1–7, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhu, D.C.; Pan, G.T.; Chung, S.L.; Liao, Z.L.; Wang, L.Q.; Li, G.M. SHRIMP Zircon Age and Geochemical Constraints on the Origin of Lower Jurassic Volcanic Rocks from the Yeba Formation, Southern Gangdese, South Tibet. Int. Geol. Rev. 2008, 50, 442–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huang, F.; Xu, J.F.; Chen, J.L.; Kang, Z.Q.; Dong, Y.H. Early Jurassic volcanic rocks from the Yeba Formation and Sangri Group: Products of continental marginal arc and intra-oceanic arc during the subduction of Neo-Tethys Ocean? Acta Petrol. Sin. 2015, 31, 2089–2100, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  46. Xiong, Q.W.; Chen, J.L.; Xu, J.F.; Huang, F.; Chen, X.F.; Zeng, Y.C.; Lei, M. LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb geochronology, geochemical characteristics and genetic study of Yeba Formation lavas in Demingding area, southern Tibet. Geol. Bull. Chin. 2015, 34, 1645–1655, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  47. Ma, X.X.; Xu, Z.Q.; Meert, J.; Santosh, M. Early Jurassic intra—Oceanic arc system of the Neotethys Ocean: Constraints from andesites in the Gangdese magmatic belt, south Tibet. Isl. Arc 2017, 26, 12202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wei, Y.Q.; Zhao, Z.D.; Niu, Y.L.; Zhu, D.C.; Liu, D.; Wang, Q.; Hou, Z.Q.; Mo, X.X.; Wei, J.C. Geochronology and geochemistry of the Early Jurassic Yeba Formation volcanic rocks in southern Tibet: Initiation of back-arc rifting and crustal accretion in the southern Lhasa Terrane. Lithos 2017, 278–281, 477–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, Z.C.; Ding, L.; Zhang, L.Y.; Wang, C.; Qiu, Z.L.; Wang, J.G.; Shen, X.L.; Deng, X.Q. Sequence and petrogenesis of the Jurassic volcanic rocks (Yeba Formation) in the Gangdese arc, southern Tibet: Implications for the Neo-Tethyan subduction. Lithos 2018, 312–313, 72–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kostov, I. Zircon morphology as a crystallogenetic indicator. Krist. Und Tech. 1973, 8, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hoskin, P.W.O.; Schaltegger, U. The composition of zircon and igneous and metamorphic petrogenesis. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2003, 53, 27–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ballard, J.R.; Palin, J.M.; Campbell, I.H. Relative oxidation states of magmas inferred from Ce(IV)/Ce(III) in zircon: Application to porphyry copper deposits of northern Chile. Contrib. Miner. Petrol. 2002, 144, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sun, S.S.; McDonough, W.F. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts: Implications for mantle composition and processes. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 1989, 42, 313–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Winchester, J.; Floyd, P. Geochemical discrimination of different magma series and their differentiation products using immobile elements. Chem. Geol. 1977, 20, 325–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hastie, A.R.; Kerr, A.C.; Pearce, J.A.; Mitchell, S.F. Classification of altered volcanic island arc rocks using immobile trace elements: Development of the Th-Co discrimination diagram. J. Petrol. 2007, 48, 2341–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, R.; Tafti, R.; Hou, Z.Q.; Shen, Z.C.; Guo, N.; Evans, N.J.; Jeon, H.; Li, Q.Y.; Li, W.K. Across-arc geochemical variation in the Jurassic magmatic zone, Southern Tibet: Implication for continental arc-related porphyry Cu-Au mineralization. Chem. Geol. 2017, 451, 116–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lang, X.H.; Wang, X.H.; Tang, J.X.; Deng, Y.L.; Cui, Z.W.; Yin, Q.; Xie, F.W.; Yang, Q.Y. Composition and age of Jurassic diabase dikes in the Xiongcun porphyry copper-gold district, southern margin of the Lhasa terrane, Tibet, China: Petrogenesis and tectonic setting. Geol. J. 2017, 53, 1973–1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xu, B.; Hou, Z.Q.; Zheng, Y.C.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, L.M.; Yang, Y.; Han, Y.W.; Zhen, G.; Wu, C.D. Jurassic Hornblende Gabbros in Dongga, Eastern Gangdese, Tibet: Partial Melting of Mantle Wedge and Implications for Crustal Growth. Acta Geol. Sin. 2017, 91, 545–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Qiu, J.S.; Wang, R.Q.; Zhao, J.L.; Yu, S.B. Petrogenesis of the Early Jurassic gabbro-granite complex in the middle segment of the Gangdese belt and its implications for tectonic evolution of Neo-Tethys: A case study of the Dongga pluton in Xigaze. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2015, 31, 3569–3580, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  60. Hildreth, W.; Moorbath, S. Crustal contributions to arc magmatism in the Andes of Central Chile. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1988, 98, 455–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shui, X.F.; He, Z.Y.; Klemd, R.; Zhang, Z.M.; Lu, T.Y.; Yan, L.L. Early Jurassic adakitic rocks in the southern Lhasa sub-terrane; southern Tibet: Petrogenesis and geodynamic implications. Geol. Mag. 2017, 155, 132–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, Y.F.; Qiu, J.S.; Wang, R.Q.; Xu, H.; Hong, Y.F. Petrogenesis of the Early Jurassic-Eocene composite pluton in Siborongqu, Gyaca County, eastern segment of the Gangdese belt, and its tectonic implications. Acta Geol. Sin. 2019, 93, 3020–3046, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xu, W.; Zhu, D.C.; Wang, Q.; Weinberg, R.F.; Wang, R.; Li, S.M.; Zhang, L.L.; Zhao, Z.D. Constructing the Early Mesozoic Gangdese crust in southern Tibet by hornblende-dominated magmatic differentiation. J. Petrol. 2019, 60, 515–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zeng, Z.C.; Liu, D.M.; Zeren, Z.X.; Nima, C.R. Geochemistry and tectonic setting of lavas in the Yeba Formation in the eastern part of the Gangdise belt. J. Jilin Univ. (Earth Sci. Ed.) 2009, 39, 435–445, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rudnick, R.L.; Gao, S. Composition of the continental crust. Treatise Geochem. 2003, 3, 1–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lin, Y.H.; Zhang, Z.M.; Dong, X.; Shen, K.; Lu, X. Precambrian evolution of the Lhasa terrane, Tibet: Constraint from the zircon U-Pb geochronology of the gneisses. Precambrian Res. 2013, 237, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dong, X.; Zhang, Z.M.; Niu, Y.L.; Tian, Z.L.; Zhang, L.L. Reworked Precambrian metamorphic basement of the Lhasa terrane, southern Tibet: Zircon/titanite U-Pb geochronology, Hf isotope and geochemistry. Precambrian Res. 2020, 336, 105496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ji, W.Q.; Wu, F.Y.; Chung, S.L.; Liu, C.Z. Identification of Early Carboniferous Granitoids from Southern Tibet and Implications for Terrane Assembly Related to the Paleo-Tethyan Evolution. J. Geol. 2012, 120, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dong, X.; Zhang, Z.M.; Liu, F.; He, Z.Y.; Lin, Y.H. Late Paleozoic intrusive rocks from the southeastern Lhasa terrane, Tibetan Plateau, and their Late Mesozoic metamorphism and tectonic implications. Lithos 2014, 198–199, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dong, X.; Zhang, Z.M. Cambrian granitoids from the southeastern Tibetan Plateau: Research on petrology and zircon Hf isotope. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2015, 31, 1183–1199, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  71. Pearce, J.A.; Peate, D.W. Tectonic implications of the composition of volcanic arc magmas. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1995, 23, 251–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hawkesworth, C.J.; Turner, S.P.; McDermott, F.; Peate, D.W.; Calsteren, P.V. U-Th isotopes in arc magmas: Implications for element transfer from the subducted crust. Science 1997, 276, 551–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Chu, M.F.; Chung, S.L.; Song, B.; Liu, D.Y.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Pearson, N.J.; Ji, J.Q.; Wen, D.J. Zircon U-Pb and Hf isotope constraints on the Mesozoic tectonics and crustal evolution of southern Tibet. Geology 2006, 34, 745–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ji, W.Q.; Wu, F.Y.; Chung, S.L.; Li, J.X.; Liu, C.Z. Zricon U-Pb geochronology and Hf isotopic constraints on petrogenesis of the Gangdese batholith, southern Tibet. Chem. Geol. 2009, 262, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Guo, L.S.; Liu, Y.L.; Liu, S.W.; Cawood, P.A.; Wang, Z.H.; Liu, H.F. Petrogenesis of Early to Middle Jurassic granitoid rocks from the Gangdese belt, Southern Tibet: Implications for early history of the Neo-Tethys. Lithos 2013, 179, 320–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, C.; Ding, L.; Zhang, L.Y.; Kapp, P.; Pullen, A.; Yue, Y.H. Petrogenesis of Middle–Late Triassic volcanic rocks from the Gangdese belt, southern Lhasa terrane: Implications for early subduction of Neo-Tethyan oceanic lithosphere. Lithos 2016, 262, 320–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Murphy, M.A.; Yin, A.; Harrison, T.M.; Duerr, S.B.; Chen, Z.; Ryerson, F.J.; Kidd, W.S.F.; Wang, X.; Zhou, X. Did the Indo-Asian collision alone create the Tibetan plateau? Geology 1997, 25, 719–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tatsumi, Y. The subduction factory: How it operates in the evolving earth. GSA Today 2005, 15, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gutscher, M.A. Andean subduction styles and their effect on thermal structure and interplate coupling. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2002, 15, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ferry, J.M.; Watson, E.B. New thermodynamic models and revised calibrations for the Ti-in-zircon and Zr-in-rutile thermometers. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2007, 154, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hayden, L.A.; Watson, E.B. Rutile saturation in hydrous siliceous melts and its bearing on Ti-thermometry of quartz and zircon. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2007, 258, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Collins, W.J.; Huang, H.Q.; Jiang, X.Y. Water-fluxed crustal melting produces Cordilleran batholiths. Geology 2016, 44, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kelley, K.A.; Cottrell, E. Water and the oxidation state of subduction zone magmas. Science 2009, 325, 605–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Yang, C.M.; Xu, Y.G.; Xia, X.P.; Yang, J.H.; Huang, X.L.; Spencer, C.J.; Sun, J.F.; Cui, Z.X.; Li, M.J.; Zhang, W.F.; et al. Mantle induced hydration and oxidation of intracontinental granite sources in the North China Craton. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2025, 651, 119177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ulmer, P.; Kaegi, R.; Müntener, O. Experimentally derived intermediate to silica-rich arc magmas by fractional and equilibrium crystallization at 1.0 GPa: An evaluation of phase relationships, compositions, liquid lines of descent and oxygen fugacity. J. Petrol. 2018, 59, 11–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yuan, S.D.; Williams-Jones, A.E.; Bodnar, R.J.; Zhao, P.L.; Zajacz, Z.; Chou, I.M.; Mao, J.W. 2025. The role of magma differentiation in optimizing the fluid-assisted extraction of copper to generate large porphyry-type deposits. Sci. Adv. 2025, 11, eadr8464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Zhao, P.L.; Zajacz, Z.; Tsay, A.; Chu, X.; Cheng, Q.M.; Yuan, S.D. The partitioning behavior of Mo during magmatic fluid exsolution and its implications for Mo mineralization. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2022, 339, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yu, C.; Yang, Z.M.; Zhou, L.M.; Zhang, L.L.; Li, Z.Q.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, J.Y.; Chen, W.Y.; Suo, M.S. Impact of laser focus on accuracy of U-Pb dating of zircons by LA-ICPMS. Miner. Deposits. 2019, 38, 21–28, (in Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Horstwood, M.S.A.; Košler, J.; Gehrels, G.; Jackson, S.E.; McLean, N.M.; Paton, C.; Pearson, N.J.; Sircombe, K.; Sylvester, P.; Vermeesch, P.; et al. Community-Derived Standards for LA-ICP-MS U-(Th-)Pb Geochronology-Uncertainty Propagation, Age Interpretation and Data Reporting. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 2016, 40, 311–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Paton, C.; Woodhead, J.D.; Hellstrom, J.C.; Hergt, J.M.; Maas, R. Improved laser ablation U-Pb zircon geochronology through robust downhole fractionation correction. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2010, 11, Q0AA06. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhou, L.M.; Wang, R.; Hou, Z.Q.; Li, C.; Zhao, H.; Li, X.W.; Qu, W.J. Hot Paleocene-Eocene Gangdese arc: Growth of continental crust in southern Tibet. Gondwana Res. 2018, 62, 178–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Fisher, C.M.; Vervoort, J.D.; Hanchar, J.M. Guidelines for reporting zircon Hf isotopic data by LA-MC-ICPMS and potential pitfalls in the interpretation of these data. Chem. Geol. 2014, 363, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. 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. Plešovice zircon—A new natural reference material for U-Pb and Hf isotopic microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 2008, 249, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Yin, Q.; Lang, X.; Cui, Z.; Yan, Z.; Wang, X. Geology and geochemistry constraints on the genesis of the No. 2 porphyry copper-gold deposit in the Xiongcun district, Gangdese porphyry copper belt, Tibet, China. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2017, 15, 477–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lang, X.H.; Guo, W.B.; Wang, X.H.; Deng, Y.L.; Yang, Z.Y.; Xie, F.W.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, K. Petrogenesis and tectonic implications of the ore-bearing porphyries in the Xiongcun district: Constraints from geochronology and geochemistry. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2019, 35, 2105–2123, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  96. Qu, X.M.; Xin, H.B.; Xu, W.Y. Petrogenesis of the ore-hosting volcanic rocks and their contribution to mineralization in Xiongcun superlarge Cu-Au Deposit, Tibet. Acta Geol. Sin. 2007, 81, 964–971, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  97. Tafti, R. Metallogeny, Geochronology and Tectonic Setting of the Gangdese Belt, Southern Tibet, China. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  98. Zou, J.Q.; Yu, H.X.; Wang, B.D.; Huang, F.; Zeng, Y.C.; Huang, W.L.; Wen, Y.Q.; Zhang, Z.; Fan, Z.C.; Tan, R.Y. Petrogenesis and geological implications of Early Jurassic granodiorites in Renqinze area, central part of the southern Lhasa subterrane. Earth Sci. 2018, 43, 2795–2810, (in Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Xu, B.; Hou, Z.Q.; Zheng, Y.C.; Wang, R.; He, M.Y.; Zhou, L.M.; Wang, Z.X.; He, W.Y.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, Y. In situ elemental and isotopic study of diorite intrusions: Implication for Jurassic arc magmatism and porphyry Cu-Au mineralization in southern Tibet. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 90, 1063–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Shu, C.T.; Long, X.P.; Wang, Q.; Yuan, C. Mixing of Early Jurassic crustal and mantle-derived magmas induced by subduction of the Neo-Tethyan Ocean: Evidence from the Dongga dioritic pluton, South Tibet. Geochimica 2018, 47, 478–490, (in Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Meng, Y.K.; Xu, Z.Q.; Xu, Y.; Li, R.H.; Sun, J.B.; Zhang, K.H. The determination of the Early Jurassic magmatism in the middle Gangdese Batholith, Southern Tibet and its tectonic significance. Acta Geol. Sin. 2018, 92, 1196–1215, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  102. Ji, W.Q.; Wu, F.Y.; Liu, C.Z.; Chung, S.L. Geochronology and petrogenesis of granitic rocks in Gangdese batholith, southern Tibet. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2009, 52, 1240–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Meng, Y.K.; Dong, H.W.; Cong, Y.; Xu, Z.Q.; Cao, H. The early-stage evolution of the Neo-Tethys ocean: Evidence from granitoids in the middle Gangdese batholith, southern Tibet. J. Geodyn. 2016, 94–95, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, H.F.; Xu, W.C.; Guo, J.Q.; Zong, K.Q.; Cai, H.M.; Yuan, H.L. Zircon U-Pb and Hf isotopic composition of deformed granite in the southern margin of the Gangdese belt, Tibet: Evidence for early Jurassic subduction of Neo-Tethyan oceanic slab. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2007, 23, 1347–1353, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  105. Yang, Z.M.; Hou, Z.Q.; Xia, D.X.; Song, Y.C.; Li, Z. Relationship between Western Porphyry and mineralization in Qulong copper deposit of Tibet and its enlightenment to further exploration. Miner. Deposits 2008, 27, 28–36, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  106. Dong, X.; Zhang, Z.M. Genesis and tectonic significance of the Early Jurassic magmatic rocks from the southern Lhasa terrane. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 1933–1948, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  107. Wang, L.; Zeng, L.S.; Gao, L.E.; Tang, S.H.; Hu, G.Y. Remnant Jurassic intra-oceanic arc system in Southern Tibet: Geochemistry and tectonic implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2012, 28, 1741–1754, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  108. Shui, X.F.; He, Z.Y.; Zhang, Z.M.; Lu, T.Y. Magma origin of Early Jurassic tonalites in the eastern Gangdese magmatic belt, southern Tibet and its implications for the crustal evolution of the Lhasa terrane. Acta Geol. Sin. 2016, 90, 3129–3152, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  109. Chen, W.; Ma, C.Q.; Bian, Q.J.; Hu, Y.Q.; Long, T.C.; Yu, S.L.; Chen, D.M.; Tu, J.H. Evidences from geochemistry and zircon U-Pb geochronology of volcanic rocks of Yeba Formation in Demingding area, the east of middle Gangdise, Tibet. Geol. Sci. Technol. Inf. 2009, 28, 31–40, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
Minerals 15 01228 g001
Figure 1. (A) Tectonic framework map of the Tibetan Plateau (after [30]; the topographic base is from https://www.gebco.net); (B) simplified geological map of the Lhasa terrane illustrating magmatic rock distribution from Late Triassic to Miocene (after [29]). Dashed lines indicate Jurassic arc borders.
Figure 1. (A) Tectonic framework map of the Tibetan Plateau (after [30]; the topographic base is from https://www.gebco.net); (B) simplified geological map of the Lhasa terrane illustrating magmatic rock distribution from Late Triassic to Miocene (after [29]). Dashed lines indicate Jurassic arc borders.
Minerals 15 01228 g001
Minerals 15 01228 g002
Figure 2. Simplified geological map of eastern Gangdese belt, Tibet (after [25]). Detailed data in the literature for Jurassic magmatic rocks are listed in Table S5.
Figure 2. Simplified geological map of eastern Gangdese belt, Tibet (after [25]). Detailed data in the literature for Jurassic magmatic rocks are listed in Table S5.
Minerals 15 01228 g002
Minerals 15 01228 g003
Figure 3. Field photographs, hand specimens, and microphotographs of Jurassic volcanic rocks from the Gangdese belt are presented as representative samples. (A) Field photograph of basaltic andesite from the Bima Formation in east of Qinze (QBA); (B) field outcrop photo of weakly phyllitized basalt from the Yeba Formation in Dazi County; (C) field outcrop photo of phyllitized rhyolitic crystal tuff from the Yeba Formation in Jiamagou (JRCT); (D) hand specimen photo of andesitic tuff in Xiongcun district (XAT); (E) hand specimen photo of Chucun dacitic crystal tuff (CDCT); (F) hand specimen photo of Jiamagou basalt (JB); (G) microphotograph of Chucun dacitic crystal tuff; (H) microphotograph of basaltic andesite in east of Qinze; (I) microphotograph of Jiamagou basalt. Abbreviations: Qtz—quartz; Pl—plagioclase; Am—amphibole; Px—pyroxene.
Figure 3. Field photographs, hand specimens, and microphotographs of Jurassic volcanic rocks from the Gangdese belt are presented as representative samples. (A) Field photograph of basaltic andesite from the Bima Formation in east of Qinze (QBA); (B) field outcrop photo of weakly phyllitized basalt from the Yeba Formation in Dazi County; (C) field outcrop photo of phyllitized rhyolitic crystal tuff from the Yeba Formation in Jiamagou (JRCT); (D) hand specimen photo of andesitic tuff in Xiongcun district (XAT); (E) hand specimen photo of Chucun dacitic crystal tuff (CDCT); (F) hand specimen photo of Jiamagou basalt (JB); (G) microphotograph of Chucun dacitic crystal tuff; (H) microphotograph of basaltic andesite in east of Qinze; (I) microphotograph of Jiamagou basalt. Abbreviations: Qtz—quartz; Pl—plagioclase; Am—amphibole; Px—pyroxene.
Minerals 15 01228 g003
Minerals 15 01228 g004
Figure 4. CL images of typical zircon grains and U-Pb concordia plots for (A) Chucun dacitic crystal tuff, (B) Numa metadacite, (C) Dazi rhyolitic crystal tuff, and (D) Jiamagou rhyolitic crystal tuff. Red dashed circles mark U-Pb analytical spots. “Mean” denotes 206Pb/238U age.
Figure 4. CL images of typical zircon grains and U-Pb concordia plots for (A) Chucun dacitic crystal tuff, (B) Numa metadacite, (C) Dazi rhyolitic crystal tuff, and (D) Jiamagou rhyolitic crystal tuff. Red dashed circles mark U-Pb analytical spots. “Mean” denotes 206Pb/238U age.
Minerals 15 01228 g004
Minerals 15 01228 g005
Figure 5. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns for zircons from (A) Chucun dacitic crystal tuff and (B) Dazi rhyolitic crystal tuff in the Gangdese belt, normalized to [53] values.
Figure 5. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns for zircons from (A) Chucun dacitic crystal tuff and (B) Dazi rhyolitic crystal tuff in the Gangdese belt, normalized to [53] values.
Minerals 15 01228 g005
Minerals 15 01228 g006
Figure 6. The Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt are characterized using (A) Zr/TiO2 vs. Nb/Y diagram [54] and (B) Th vs. Co diagram [55] for the Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt. All relevant Jurassic literature references are provided in Table S5.
Figure 6. The Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt are characterized using (A) Zr/TiO2 vs. Nb/Y diagram [54] and (B) Th vs. Co diagram [55] for the Jurassic volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt. All relevant Jurassic literature references are provided in Table S5.
Minerals 15 01228 g006
Minerals 15 01228 g007
Figure 7. Chondrite- and primitive mantle-normalized patterns (REE and trace elements) are shown for (A,B) Xiongcun andesitic tuff, (C,D) Chucun dacitic crystal tuff, and Qinze basaltic andesite in the WSJA and (E,F) Dazi rhyolitic crystal tuff and Jiamagou basalt in the ESJA. Normalization references follow [53].
Figure 7. Chondrite- and primitive mantle-normalized patterns (REE and trace elements) are shown for (A,B) Xiongcun andesitic tuff, (C,D) Chucun dacitic crystal tuff, and Qinze basaltic andesite in the WSJA and (E,F) Dazi rhyolitic crystal tuff and Jiamagou basalt in the ESJA. Normalization references follow [53].
Minerals 15 01228 g007
Minerals 15 01228 g008
Figure 8. Zircon age population for the Gangdese belt’s Jurassic igneous rocks. All relevant Jurassic literature references are provided in Table S5.
Figure 8. Zircon age population for the Gangdese belt’s Jurassic igneous rocks. All relevant Jurassic literature references are provided in Table S5.
Minerals 15 01228 g008
Minerals 15 01228 g009
Figure 9. Geospatial distribution patterns of the Gangdese belt’s Jurassic Arc magmatic rocks. In panels (A,B), zircon U-Pb age is plotted against longitude/latitude; in (C,D), whole-rock SiO2 content is plotted against longitude/latitude; and in (E,F), zircon εHf(t) is plotted against longitude/latitude. All relevant Jurassic literature references are provided in Table S5.
Figure 9. Geospatial distribution patterns of the Gangdese belt’s Jurassic Arc magmatic rocks. In panels (A,B), zircon U-Pb age is plotted against longitude/latitude; in (C,D), whole-rock SiO2 content is plotted against longitude/latitude; and in (E,F), zircon εHf(t) is plotted against longitude/latitude. All relevant Jurassic literature references are provided in Table S5.
Minerals 15 01228 g009
Minerals 15 01228 g010
Figure 10. (A) (87Sr/86Sr)i vs. SiO2 diagram for basic magmatic rocks from ESJA; (B) (87Sr/86Sr)i vs. MgO diagram for basic magmatic rocks from ESJA. Data from the literature are cited from [36,44,48,49].
Figure 10. (A) (87Sr/86Sr)i vs. SiO2 diagram for basic magmatic rocks from ESJA; (B) (87Sr/86Sr)i vs. MgO diagram for basic magmatic rocks from ESJA. Data from the literature are cited from [36,44,48,49].
Minerals 15 01228 g010
Minerals 15 01228 g011
Figure 11. Variations in oxygen fugacity of Jurassic Arc volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt are illustrated in (A) as zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ ratios versus longitude and in (B) as zircon ΔFMQ values versus longitude. Data in the literature for the Xiongcun deposit, the weakly Cu-mineralized WSJA volcanic country rocks, and the barren WSJA volcanic rocks are cited from [38]; The data for barren ESJA volcanic rocks are from [37].
Figure 11. Variations in oxygen fugacity of Jurassic Arc volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt are illustrated in (A) as zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ ratios versus longitude and in (B) as zircon ΔFMQ values versus longitude. Data in the literature for the Xiongcun deposit, the weakly Cu-mineralized WSJA volcanic country rocks, and the barren WSJA volcanic rocks are cited from [38]; The data for barren ESJA volcanic rocks are from [37].
Minerals 15 01228 g011
Minerals 15 01228 g012
Figure 12. Variations in water content of Jurassic Arc volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt are illustrated in (A) as zircon T(Zr-Ti) values versus longitude and in (B) as zircon 104 × (Eu/Eu*)/YbN ratios versus longitude. Data in the literature for the Xiongcun deposit, the weakly Cu-mineralized WSJA volcanic country rocks, and the barren WSJA volcanic rocks are cited from [38]; The data for barren ESJA volcanic rocks are from [37]. To summarize, the mineralization differences between the WSJA and ESJA of the Gangdese belt stem mainly from contrasting magma properties—specifically oxygen fugacity and water content. The eastern segment’s magmas exhibit relatively lower oxygen fugacity and water content, resulting in reduced mineralization potential.
Figure 12. Variations in water content of Jurassic Arc volcanic rocks in the Gangdese belt are illustrated in (A) as zircon T(Zr-Ti) values versus longitude and in (B) as zircon 104 × (Eu/Eu*)/YbN ratios versus longitude. Data in the literature for the Xiongcun deposit, the weakly Cu-mineralized WSJA volcanic country rocks, and the barren WSJA volcanic rocks are cited from [38]; The data for barren ESJA volcanic rocks are from [37]. To summarize, the mineralization differences between the WSJA and ESJA of the Gangdese belt stem mainly from contrasting magma properties—specifically oxygen fugacity and water content. The eastern segment’s magmas exhibit relatively lower oxygen fugacity and water content, resulting in reduced mineralization potential.
Minerals 15 01228 g012
Minerals 15 01228 g013
Figure 13. (A,B) Th/Yb ratios versus Ba/La ratios diagrams for magmatic rocks in the WSJA and ESJA. For data aggregation from the literature, see Table S5.
Figure 13. (A,B) Th/Yb ratios versus Ba/La ratios diagrams for magmatic rocks in the WSJA and ESJA. For data aggregation from the literature, see Table S5.
Minerals 15 01228 g013
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

Xu, P.; Zheng, Y.; Hou, Z.; Yang, Z.; Li, X.; Zhao, X.; Xu, B.; Zhao, M.; Wu, C.; Liu, C.; et al. Metallogenic Controls of the Jurassic Arc, Xizang: Insights from Geochemistry, Zircon Chronology, Hf Isotopes, and In Situ Trace Elements. Minerals 2025, 15, 1228. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121228

AMA Style

Xu P, Zheng Y, Hou Z, Yang Z, Li X, Zhao X, Xu B, Zhao M, Wu C, Liu C, et al. Metallogenic Controls of the Jurassic Arc, Xizang: Insights from Geochemistry, Zircon Chronology, Hf Isotopes, and In Situ Trace Elements. Minerals. 2025; 15(12):1228. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121228

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Peiyan, Yuanchuan Zheng, Zengqian Hou, Zhusen Yang, Xin Li, Xiaoyan Zhao, Bo Xu, Miao Zhao, Changda Wu, Chang Liu, and et al. 2025. "Metallogenic Controls of the Jurassic Arc, Xizang: Insights from Geochemistry, Zircon Chronology, Hf Isotopes, and In Situ Trace Elements" Minerals 15, no. 12: 1228. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121228

APA Style

Xu, P., Zheng, Y., Hou, Z., Yang, Z., Li, X., Zhao, X., Xu, B., Zhao, M., Wu, C., Liu, C., & Ma, W. (2025). Metallogenic Controls of the Jurassic Arc, Xizang: Insights from Geochemistry, Zircon Chronology, Hf Isotopes, and In Situ Trace Elements. Minerals, 15(12), 1228. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121228

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