Next Article in Journal
Optimization of the Power Conversion Efficiency of CsPbIxBr3−x-Based Perovskite Photovoltaic Solar Cells Using ZnO and NiOx as an Inorganic Charge Transport Layer
Next Article in Special Issue
Special Issue on Critical Metal Occurrence, Enrichment, and Application
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship between Unilateral Leg Extension Strength and Dynamic Balance in Healthy Young Men
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fluid Inclusions and Stable Isotope Geochemistry of Gold Mineralization Associated with Fine-Grained Granite: A Case Study of the Xiawolong Gold Deposit, Jiaodong Peninsula, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 18
10.3390/app12188984
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Genesis and Significance of Late Cretaceous Granitic Magmatism in Xianghualing Tin–Polymetallic Orefield, Nanling Region, South China

by
Zhihui Zhang
1,2,
Bojie Hu
2,*,
Da Zhang
2,
Xiaolong He
2,3,
Jianlin Zou
4,
Xufeng Tian
5 and
Yuanshun Yi
5
1
Development and Research Center, China Geological Survey, Beijing 100037, China
2
School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
3
College of Environment and Resources, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China
4
Hunan Institute of Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, Changsha 410116, China
5
South Hunan Institute of Geology and Survey, Chenzhou 423000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(18), 8984; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app12188984
Submission received: 7 August 2022 / Revised: 29 August 2022 / Accepted: 3 September 2022 / Published: 7 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Critical Metal Occurrence, Enrichment, and Application)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Typical stratiform-like cassiterite–sulfide orebodies formed at 160–150 Ma cut by a steep hydrothermal vein-type orebody were discovered in the Xianghualing tin–polymetallic orefield, which implied a new phase of magmatism and mineralization later than the Late Jurassic stage. Hence, a systematic study of the characteristics and genesis of the concealed Laohuya granite, including U–Pb age, trace elements, Lu–Hf isotopes of zircons, and whole-rock major- and trace-elements, is examined in this paper. The zircon U–Pb dating yielded a Concordia age of 87.75 ± 1 Ma, confirming the existence of Late Cretaceous magmatism in the Xianghualing tin–polymetallic orefield. The Laohuya granite is classified as syenogranite and belongs to the peraluminous, high K calc-alkaline series. It is a highly evolved A2-type granite with εHf(t) values ranging from −14.97 to −7.59 and two-stage model ages (TDM2) ranging from 2939 to 2280 Ma. Combining chronology, petrochemistry, isotopic geochemistry, and previous tectonic studies, we believe that the Laohuya granite originated from the partial melting of a reworked ancient crust composed of TTGs, and its weathered sediments formed in subduction or collision zones at 2.5 Ga, controlled by the reactivation of the Chenzhou–Linwu deep fault in the extensional setting of South China during the Late Cretaceous.

1. Introduction

The Nanling region is the most important tungsten–tin–rare metal metallogenic province in China, and most of the tungsten–tin deposits were formed in the Mesozoic and are closely related to granite [1,2,3]. The mineralization is explosive, mainly divided into two stages at the Late Jurassic stage (165–150 Ma [2]; or 160–150 Ma [3]) and the Cretaceous stage (130–90 Ma, peaking at 100–90 Ma [2,3]). In terms of spatial distribution, there are obvious differences in the metallogenic element assemblages of deposits in the eastern and western segments of the Nanling region. There are many large-scale tungsten-dominated deposits and a few tin-dominated deposits in the eastern segment, such as Shizhuyuan [4,5,6,7], Xihuashan [8,9,10,11], Piaotang [12,13], Taoxikeng [14], Dajishan [15,16,17], and Yaogangxian [18,19]. In addition, there is a series of large-scale tin-dominated deposits in the western segment such as Xianghualing [20,21,22], Furong [23,24], and Xitian [25,26]. According to previous studies, the magmatism related to tungsten–tin mineralization in these orefields or deposits all occurred in the Late Jurassic stage (160–150 Ma).
The Xianghualing tin–polymetallic orefield (XHLOF), located in the middle of the Nanling region (Figure 1, modified from [27]), is representative of large-scale tin–polymetallic deposits and unique independent large-size rare metal deposits [20]. The mineralization in XHLOF is complex with a variety of mineralization types and metallogenic elements. Previous chronological data show that the ages of the metallogenic granites in the XHLOF are concentrated in 160–150 Ma ([22], and the metallogenic ages obtained by molybdenite and mica dating are 161–154 Ma which is basically consistent with the ages of the metallogenic granites [20,21].
During our field investigation of the Laohuya lead–zinc–tin deposit in the north of XHLOF, apart from the stratiform-like cassiterite–sulfide orebody which is the representative mineralization type formed in 160–150 Ma, steep hydrothermal vein-type orebodies containing wolframite, galena and sphalerite were noted. Moreover, the steep hydrothermal vein-type orebody cut through the stratiform-like cassiterite–sulfide orebody, which implies there may have been a new stage of mineralization. Meanwhile, the concealed granite related to mineralization was found by drilling, which provided an opportunity to judge whether there was a new stage of magmatism later than the Late Jurassic stage in XHLOF.
To verify the existence of Late Cretaceous magmatism in XHLOF and constrain its petrogenesis and tectonic setting, we report the data of zircon U–Pb geochronology, zircon trace elements, whole-rock petrochemistry and zircon Lu–Hf isotopes of the Laohuya granite (LG), which also helps to clarify the magma–metallogenic stage and may contribute to the improvement of existing deposit models of the XHLOF in future studies.

2. Geological Settings

The Nanling region extends east–west in the midwest segment of Cathaysia Block (Figure 1a). XHLOF is located in the middle section of the Nanling tin–tungsten polymetallic metallogenic belt and the southwestern margin of the Qitianling pluton (Figure 1b). In addition, XHLOF is also located at the intersection between the NE-trending Chenzhou–Linwu deep-seated fault zone and the S–N-trending Leiyang–Linwu fault zone [20].
The structure of the XHLOF is very complex due to the strong activity and superposition of multi-stage structures. The overall tectonic framework is a tectonic-magmatic dome that is dominated by the NS-trending Tongtianmiao dome structure, with NS-trending faults and NE-trending complex linear folds developing on both sides [20]. The Cambrian epimetamorphic rock is in the core of the dome, and the Devonian, Carboniferous, and Triassic strata are on the sides. Faults are developed in the dome which is dominated by the NE-trending and NW-trending faults. These two kinds of faults were mainly formed in the Yanshanian period and are closely related to the magmatism and hydrothermal mineralization in the XHLOF [28]. The ore-bearing strata of the XHLOF are mainly the Cambrian (Є), the Middle Devonian Tiaomajian Formation (D2t), the Middle the Devonian Qiziqiao Formation (D2q), the Upper Devonian Shetianqiao Formation (D3s), and the Upper Devonian Xikuangshan Formation (D3x) [21]. Stratiform-like cassiterite–sulfide orebody often occurs in the unconformity between the Cambrian strata and the Tiaomajian Formation, and this phenomenon exists in both the Xianghualing tin deposit and the Laohuya lead–zinc–tin deposit [28]. The magmatic activity in the XHLOF is relatively intense, and the Laiziling and Jianfengling plutons located in the Cambrian–Devonian strata are the main intrusions exposed on the surface and the main granite related to mineralization [20]. The main lithology of the Laiziling and Jianfengling plutons are biotite granite, and they have obvious vertical lithofacies zoning [29]. In addition, some felsic dykes are exposed on the surface.
In the Laohuya lead–zinc–tin deposit, which is located in the northern part of the XHLOF, no magmatic rocks were found on the surface of the mining area or in the tunnels underground, and the concealed granite (LG) was found by drill hole ZK3001 (Figure 2, modified from [30]). The lithofacies of LG gradually transitioned from the medium-grained granite (Figure 3a) in the deeper part to the fine-grained granite (Figure 3b) in the shallower part with no obvious cross-cutting relationship.

3. Sampling and Analytical Methods

3.1. Sampling

A total of 12 fresh granite samples were collected from drill hole ZK3001. The samples LHY01~LHY06 were medium-grained biotite granites (Figure 3a), and the samples LHY07~LHY12 were fine-grained biotite granites (Figure 3b), which were primarily composed of quartz, K-feldspar, biotite, and plagioclase (Figure 3c,d). Samples LHY01 to LHY12 were collected from depths of 502 m, 510 m, 495 m, 489 m, 480 m, 477 m, 465 m, 463 m, 466 m, 467 m, 468 m, and 469 m, respectively.

3.2. U–Pb Dating and Hf Isotope Analysis of Zircons

Zircon was separated by conventional crushing, flotation, and electromagnetic separation methods in Langfang Geological Exploration Technology Service Co., Ltd., Langfang, China. Target making and cathodoluminescence (CL) photography were completed in Beijing Gaonianlinghang Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China. Zircons were subjected to LA-ICP-MS U–Pb dating and LA-MC-ICP-MS Lu–Hf isotopes analysis at the State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan).
Zircon U–Pb dating and trace elements were performed on a Thermo iCAP RQ ICP-MS with a 193 nm RESOlution S-155 laser-ablation system. Laser ablation conditions were 4 J/cm2 of laser energy, 8 Hz of ablation frequency, and 33 μm of spot diameter. Zircon 91500 was used as an external standard for U–Pb dating. NIST SRM 612 and zirconium (Zr) were used as external standards and internal standards for elemental content calibration, respectively. Data processing was performed using ICPMSDataCal software [31]. IsoplotR [32] was used to calculate the isotope age and draw the Concordia diagram. After completing the zircon U–Pb isotopic analysis described above, in situ Hf isotopic analysis was performed on the tested zircons. The experiments were performed on a multiple receiver plasma mass spectrometer (MC-ICP-MS). Zircon Penglai was used as the reference standard [33].

3.3. Whole-Rock Major- and Trace-Element Analysis

The whole-rock major- and trace-element analyses were completed at the Analytical Laboratory, Beijing Research Institute of Uranium Geology, Beijing, China. Fresh rock samples were pulverized to a powder of less than 200 mesh. The major-and trace-element compositions were determined by an AxiosMax X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer and an ELEMENT XR inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS), respectively. Ferric iron was determined by chemical methods. The analysis accuracy of major elements is better than 5%, and the standard deviation of the measured values of trace elements is less than 10%. More detailed descriptions of these analytical methods can be found in [34,35].

4. Results

4.1. CL Image, Trace-Element Composition and U–Pb Age of Zircon

Zircons are mainly columnar with small inclusions. The CL image is darker with higher Th and U content in zircon, but the zircon can still be seen to have a distinct oscillating ring structure (Figure 4). The Th/U values of zircons vary from 0.23 to 1.59 with an average value of 0.66; 11 of the 16 zircons have Th/U values greater than 0.4, and the other 5 zircons have Th/U values between 0.23–0.36. The zircon U–Pb isotopic analysis data are all on or near the Concordia line (Figure 5), which presents a Concordia age of 87.75 ± 1 Ma (MSWD = 7.8), and the weighted mean age is 85.16 ± 0.57 Ma (MSWD = 4.88).

4.2. Zircon Lu–Hf Isotopes Composition

Zircon grains from sample LHY01, which was used for U–Pb dating, were analyzed for Lu–Hf isotope compositions. The zircon grains have calculated (176Hf/177Hf)i values ranging from 0.282294 to 0.282503 (mean = 0.28244), εHf(t) values ranging from −14.97 to −7.59 (mean = −9.82), and two-stage model ages (TDM2) ranging from 2939 to 2280 Ma (mean = 2479 Ma) which were calculated using a zircon U–Pb age of 87.75 Ma.

4.3. Whole-Rock Chemical Composition

4.3.1. Major Elements Composition

The LG samples have SiO2 contents ranging from 75.1 to 76.3 wt%, Al2O3 contents ranging from 12.7 to 13.4 wt%, K2O contents ranging from 4.6 to 5.9 wt%, Na2O contents ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 wt%, CaO contents ranging from 0.59 to 0.75 wt%, Fe2O3T contents ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 wt%, MgO contents ranging from 0.07 to 0.15 wt%, TiO2 contents ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 wt%, and P2O5 contents ranging from 0.007 to 0.013 wt%. Overall, the LG petrochemical composition shows obvious characteristics of high silicon and alkali contents, higher K2O contents than Na2O contents, and low CaO and P2O5 contents.
According to the TAS diagram (Figure 6a) and the Q-ANOR normative diagram (Figure 6b), the LG belongs to syenogranite. The aluminum saturation index (ASI) range of LG is from 1.06 to 1.23, which belongs to weak–strong peraluminous granite (Figure 6c), and the fine-grained granite generally shows stronger peraluminous characteristics. LG has K2O/Na2O values ranging from 1.34 to 2.02, all of which fall into the high-K calc–alkaline series on the K2O–SiO2 diagram (Figure 6d).

4.3.2. Trace Elements Composition

The LG has high total amounts of rare earth elements (REEs), ranging from 257.61 ppm to 432.39 ppm with an average of 331.84 ppm. The difference between light and heavy rare earth elements is not obvious, and the light rare earth elements are slightly enriched with (La/Yb)N values ranging from 1.77 to 3.47. The depletion of Eu is intense with Eu/Eu* values ranging from 0.005 to 0.018 (Figure 7a). The degrees of tetrad effect (TE1,3) range from 1.04 to 1.18 with an average of 1.11. In the primitive mantle-normalized diagram of trace elements (Figure 7b, normalization values after [36]), it is shown that the large ion lithophile elements (LILEs) and high field-strength elements (HFSEs), such as Rb, U, Th, and Zr are obviously enriched and some elements such as Ba, Sr, P, and Ti are negative.

5. Disscussion

5.1. Genetic Type of Granite

There are various genetic classifications of granitoids [37,38,39,40,41], and the most popular is the I-S-M-A scheme. M-type granite refers to oceanic plagiogranite. The main types developed in the continental plate tectonic setting are I-type (source rocks are unweathered magmatic rocks), S-type (source rocks are sedimentary rocks), and A-type (unique mineral composition which can reflect the extensional tectonic environment) [42].
The source rocks of S-type granites are sedimentary rocks, which suffered from weathering during formation, resulting in Na and Ca loss and Al supersaturation. Therefore, peraluminous is a typical feature of S-type granites. However, the most felsic part of I-type granites can also be peraluminous, which contributed to the boundary between I- and S-type to be delineated at ASI = 1.1 [43]. Additionally, the content and variation characteristics of P2O5 are also key indicators for distinguishing S- and I-type granites. The study on Lachlan Fold Belt granites showed that the content of P2O5 was increased with crystallization differentiation in S-type granites and decreased with crystallization differentiation in weakly peraluminous I-type granites [37]. The A-type granites have specific mineralogical and geochemical criteria that differentiate it from I and S-type granites [44]. In terms of petrochemistry, A-type granites are mainly characterized by high SiO2, high FeOT/MgO, high total alkali content, high K2O/Na2O, high REE (except Eu), Zr, Nb, and Ta abundances, and low CaO, Ba, Sr, and Eu abundances [45,46,47].
In terms of major elements, the LG has the characteristics of strong peraluminum and low CaO content, showing affinities to S-type. However, the extremely low P2O5 content does not conform to the characteristics of S-type, while the P2O5 contents of most of the S-type granites in the Lachlan fold belt were higher than 0.08% [37]. Then, LG may belong to the A-type because strong peraluminum and low CaO content are also characteristics of A-type granite, and the average Al2O3 and P2O5 content of A-type granite are indeed lower than that of S-type granite [37]. Meanwhile, LG has a high FeOT/MgO value, ranging from 7.42 to 15.62 with an average value of 11.03, which also fits the characteristics of A-type granite.
The discrimination of the Na2O–K2O diagram verifies the above inference (Figure 8, [45]). Most of the data points of LG were plotted in the A-type granite area, and a few fell near the boundary between A-type and S-type, far from the I-type area. In terms of trace elements, enrichment of incompatible elements is a distinctive feature of A-type granites [46]. The discriminant diagrams based on Zr–Nb–Ce–Y–Ga show the prominent features of A-type granites for LG (Figure 9), which contribute to the conclusion that LG belongs to A-type granite.
Furthermore, the A-type granitoids can be chemically subdivided into two groups, namely group A1, which has similar element ratios to oceanic island basalts, and group A2 which has similar element ratios to average crust and island arc basalts [48]. While LG was subdivided into group A2 according to the triangle diagram of incompatible elements (Figure 10).

5.2. Petrogenesis of LG

5.2.1. Magmatic Differentiation

The LG has high SiO2 content and a high differentiation index (Di), which indicates its higher degree of differentiation and also explains the differentiation in the data plotted near the region of the highly differentiated I- or S-type granite in Zr–Nb–Ce–Y diagrams (Figure 9). The whole-rock Zr/Hf and Nb/Ta ratios would decrease with increasing magmatic differentiation [49], which makes the two ratios reliable indicators of the degree of granitic magma differentiation [50,51,52,53]. The whole-rock Zr/Hf and Nb/Ta ratios of LG are 13.06~19.93 and 1.89~4.07, respectively, which are distinctly lower and indicate advanced magmatic differentiation.
The low content of rare earth elements, the small ratio of light and heavy rare earth elements, and the increase of negative Eu anomaly are the characteristics of almost all highly fractionated granites [54,55,56]. Moreover, the LG has a distinct feature of REE tetrad effect with an average TE1,3 value greater than 1.1 [49], which resulted from the interaction between the melt and the fluids that appeared after highly fractional crystallization [49,50,57,58].
The low total REE contents and the small ratios between light and heavy REEs of LG indicate fractional crystallization of REE-rich minerals, such as zircon, monazite, epidote, xenotime, etc. The strong depletion of Eu in chondrite-normalized REEs diagrams and the strong depletion of Ba and Sr in primitive mantle-normalized trace element diagrams reflect the fractional crystallization of plagioclase or K-feldspar.

5.2.2. Magmatic Origin

LG has εHf(t) values ranging from −14.97 to −7.59 with an average and a peak around −10 and two-stage model ages (TDM2) ranging from 2939 to 2280 Ma with an average and a peak around 2500 Ma (Figure 11), indicating that the contribution of the crustal source to the magma is dominant. As a comparison, late Jurassic Laiziling granite in the XHLOF has higher εHf(t) values (−4.2 on average) and smaller TDM2 (1.47 Ga on average), which reflects the obvious addition of mantle-derived materials [29]. However, the effect of mantle-derived heat on the magma origin of LG is significant, which can be reflected by a magma temperature as high as 971 °C on average presented by the zircon Ti thermometer (Supplementary Table S2).
The source of A2-type granitoids was believed to originate from subduction or continental collision [48]. The abundant occurrence of ~2.5 Ga detrital zircon indicates that ~2.5 Ga, consistent with the TDM2 age of LG, is an important period for the crustal growth of Cathaysia block [59]. Subduction and collision zones are the main sites for the formation of the juvenile crust [60], which indicates that the source of LG may originate from the subduction or collision zones during ~2.5 Ga. The source discriminant diagram indicates that tonalites and metasediments are the potential sources of LG (Figure 12, [61]). The tonalites are the main component of the TTG, which was the main component of the juvenile crust in the subduction and collision zones and dominated early continental crust [62]. Metasediments could originate from the weathering products of TTG. In addition, the strong depletion of Eu and the enrichment of heavy rare earths indicate that the magma source area is in a stable condition with a large amount of plagioclase and no garnet.
Therefore, we believe that LG originated from partial melting of reworked ancient crust, which consisted of TTGs, and its weathered sediments formed in subduction or collision zones at 2.5 Ga and partial melting might have been caused by the mantle-derived magma beneath the lithosphere in an extensional tectonic setting.

5.3. Two Mesozoic Stages of Magmatism and Mineralization in XHLOF

5.3.1. Genetic Type of Zircon

The zircon of the LG has high Th and U content, which is similar to the hydrothermal zircons from wolframite-bearing quartz veins of the Nanling region [63], but both the obvious oscillatory ring structure and the high Th/U ratios, which presented an average of 0.66 while those hydrothermal zircons have Th/U ratios ranging from 0 to 0.45, are characteristics of typical magmatic zircon. The hydrothermal zircon in the Nanling tungsten-bearing quartz vein was formed in the hydrothermal fluid which has a low temperature, so the Th/U ratio is low [63]. The zircon Ti thermometer calculations for zircons from LG gave an average temperature of 971 °C, which strongly proves that these zircons are not hydrothermal zircon.
The zircon type discrimination diagram shows that the zircons from LG are neither the typical magmatic zircons nor the typical hydrothermal zircons (Figure 13, [64]), indicating that these zircons belong to transition-type zircon. The high Th and U contents of zircons in LG should be attributed to the highly evolved nature of magma evolution, which indicates the zircon age represents the age of the end of magmatic emplacement.

5.3.2. Two Mesozoic Stages of Magmatism in XHLOF

The Jianfengling and Laiziling plutons are representative intrusions of the XHLOF and are also the main metallogenic granites. The ages of the deep coarse-grained biotite granite and the shallow albite granite of the Laiziling pluton are 155 ± 2 Ma (MSWD = 0.77) [29] and 150.88 ± 0.55 Ma (MSWD = 0.77) [28]. The zircon U–Pb weighted mean age of the Jianfengling biotite granite is 160.7 ± 2.2 Ma (MSWD = 0.8) [65]. The weighted mean age of zircons from the concealed biotite granite in the Xianghualing tin deposit is 150.37 ± 0.94 Ma (MSWD = 0.113) [28]. The metallogenic ages ranged from 161 Ma to 154 Ma using molybdenite Re-Os dating and mica Ar–Ar dating [20,21]. The above data indicate that the magmatism related to the mineralization in the XHLOF mainly took place during 160–150 Ma.
The zircon U–Pb dating yielded a Concordia age of 87.75 ± 1 Ma for the concealed granite in the Laohuya deposit, which is completely different from the existing age data. According to the observed cut-through relationship that the steep hydrothermal vein-type orebody cut through the stratiform-like cassiterite–sulfide orebody (Figure 14), this paper suggests that another magmatic–metallogenic activity may exist in the XHLOF, which is represented by the Late Cretaceous LG and the steep hydrothermal vein-type orebody.
Even extended to the entire Nanling region, the Late Jurassic stage is the main stage of tungsten–tin-related magmatism and mineralization, which is also concentrated in the 160–150 Ma range and is fully consistent with the XHLOF, such as the Qianlishan intrusion and the adjacent Shizhuyuan tungsten–polymetallic deposit [4,5,6,7], the Qitianling intrusion [24] and related Furong tin deposit [23], the Yaogangxian intrusion [19] and the related tungsten deposit [18], the Xihuashan intrusion [8,10] and the related tungsten deposit [9], and the Taoxikeng intrusion and the related tungsten deposit [14]. Deposits formed during the Cretaceous stage (130–90 Ma) include the Jiepailing tin deposit (91–89 Ma, [17,66]), the Shanhu tin deposit [67], and the Yanbei tin deposit (133–130 Ma, [68]). Among these, the Jiepailing is the closest to the XHLOF in distance, which is about 70 km east of the XHLOF. The chronological data of the two phases in the XHLOF and the Nanling area are highly consistent, which indicates that the magmatism of the Late Cretaceous stage in the XHLOF is reasonable, and it is the product of the same specific tectonic setting in the Nanling region.
In the XHLOF, the structural and stratigraphic conditions in the Late Cretaceous were basically the same as those in the Late Jurassic, and the magmatism in the Late Cretaceous was also highly evolved A-type granitic magmatism that was similar to the magmatism relating to tin–polymetallic mineralization in Late Jurassic, which probably contributed to another tungsten–tin polymetallic metallogenic system with the Late Cretaceous granitoid as the metallogenic center.

5.3.3. Possible Tectonic Setting for Cretaceous Stage

A series of 160–150 Ma A-type intrusive rocks related to tin–polymetallic mineralization are distributed near the Chenzhou–Linwu deep-seated fault zone, , called the NNE-trending A-type granite belt, where the XHLOF is located [69]. The involvement of mantle material has been demonstrated by the Sr–Nd isotopic signature of high εNd(t) values and low tDM model age values. Thus these granites were interpreted as the product of crust–mantle interaction due to the upwelling of the asthenosphere mantle along the Chenzhou–Linwu deep-seated fault zone in the post-orogenic setting [70]. Meanwhile, the R1-R2 diagram also gives the post-orogenic discrimination result for the Late Cretaceous LG (Figure 15, [71]). During the Cretaceous, a large-scale lithospheric extension occurred in the South China Block, controlling a series of NE- or NNE-trending pull-apart basins and metamorphic core complexes [72,73,74,75], as well as a series of Cretaceous tin deposits, such as the Yinyan tin deposit along the southeast coast of China [76].
We suggest that the dynamic significance of such an extensional tectonic setting to the Late Cretaceous magmatism in the XHLOF may be similar to that of the Late Jurassic stage. The extensional setting in the Late Cretaceous may lead to the reactivation of the Chenzhou–Linwu deep fault, resulting in crust–mantle interactions and the formation of granitic magmas within the crust. The difference is that the significance of crust–mantle interaction for magmatism is mainly reflected in providing heat, while mantle-derived materials are less involved in granitic magmatism.

6. Conclusions

(1)
Zircon U–Pb dating of the Laohuya syenogranite yielded a Concordia age of 87.75 ± 1 Ma, indicating that not only the well-known stage of the Late Jurassic (160–150 Ma), but also two stages of magmatism, Late Jurassic and Late Cretaceous, existed in the Xianghualing tin–polymetallic orefield.
(2)
Laohuya granite can be defined as a highly fractionated, high-K calc–alkaline, peraluminous A2-type granite.
(3)
Laohuya granite originated from partial melting of reworked ancient crust, which consisted of TTGs and its weathered sediments formed in subduction or collision zones at 2.5 Ga.
(4)
The extensional setting of South China in the Late Cretaceous might have led to the reactivation of the Chenzhou–Linwu deep fault and then the upwelling of mantle-derived magma, resulting in the partial melting of ancient crust to form the Laohuya granite.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/app12188984/s1, Table S1: LA-ICP-MS U–Pb isotopic compositions of zircons from the Laohuya granite; Table S2: Trace-elements (ppm) compositions of zircons from the Laohuya granite; Table S3: Whole-rock major-elements (wt%) and trace-elements (ppm) compositions of the Laohuya granite; Table S4: LA-MC-ICP-MS Lu–Hf isotopic compositions of zircons from the Laohuya granite.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.Z. and B.H.; methodology, Z.Z.; software, Z.Z. and B.H.; validation, Z.Z. and B.H.; formal analysis, Z.Z. and B.H.; investigation, Z.Z., B.H., X.H., J.Z., X.T. and Y.Y.; resources, Z.Z.; data curation, Z.Z. and B.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.Z. and B.H.; writing—review and editing, D.Z.; visualization, Z.Z.; supervision, Z.Z.; project administration, Z.Z. and D.Z.; funding acquisition, Z.Z. and D.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by projects of the China Geological Survey (Number DD20221692, 1212011220737, 121201004000150015, DD20190570).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this study can be obtained upon request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kuidong Zhao and his team members from China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) for their help in the experimental analysis, and also thanks for the constructive comments from the two reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hua, R. Differences between Rock-forming and Related Ore-forming Times for the Mesozoic Granitoids of Crust Remelting Types in the Nanling Range, South China, and Its Geological Significance. Geol. Rev. 2005, 51, 633–639, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  2. Mao, J.; Xie, G.; Guo, C.; Chen, Y. Large-scale tungten-tin mineralization in the Nanling region, South China: Metallogenic ages and corresponding geodynamic processes. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2007, 23, 2329–2338, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  3. Mao, J.; Cheng, Y.; Chen, M.; Pirajno, F. Major types and time–space distribution of Mesozoic ore deposits in South China and their geodynamic settings. Miner. Depos. 2013, 48, 267–294. [Google Scholar]
  4. Zhao, Z.; Bao, Z.; Zhang, B.; Xiong, X. Crust-mantle interaction and its contribution to the Shizhuyuan superlarge tungsten polymetallic mineralization. Sci. China Ser. D: Earth Sci. 2001, 44, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yin, J.; Kim, S.J.; Lee, H.K.; Itay, T. K–Ar ages of plutonism and mineralization at the Shizhuyuan W–Sn–Bi–Mo deposit, Hunan Province, China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2002, 20, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lu, H.-Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, C.; Xu, Y.; Li, H. Mineralization and Fluid Inclusion Study of the Shizhuyuan W-Sn-Bi-Mo-F Skarn Deposit, Hunan Province, China. Econ. Geol. 2003, 98, 955–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yuan, J.; Hou, Q.; Yang, Z.; Jiang, H.; Hu, Z.; Yu, T. Distribution and mobilization of Sn in silicate minerals from the Mesozoic Shizhuyuan W-dominated polymetallic deposit, South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 101, 595–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Guo, C.; Chen, Y.; Zeng, Z.; Lou, F. Petrogenesis of the Xihuashan granites in southeastern China: Constraints from geochemistry and in-situ analyses of zircon UPbHfO isotopes. Lithos 2012, 148, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hu, R.-Z.; Wei, W.-F.; Bi, X.-W.; Peng, J.-T.; Qi, Y.-Q.; Wu, L.-Y.; Chen, Y.-W. Molybdenite Re–Os and muscovite 40Ar/39Ar dating of the Xihuashan tungsten deposit, central Nanling district, South China. Lithos 2012, 150, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, Q.L.; Li, X.H.; Lan, Z.W.; Guo, C.L.; Yang, Y.N.; Liu, Y.; Tang, G.Q. Monazite and xenotime U-Th-Pb geochronology by ion microprobe: Dating highly fractionated granites at Xihuashan tungsten mine, SE China. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2013, 166, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, J.-H.; Peng, J.-T.; Hu, R.-Z.; Bi, X.-W.; Zhao, J.-H.; Fu, Y.-Z.; Shen, N.-P. Garnet geochemistry of tungsten-mineralized Xihuashan granites in South China. Lithos 2013, 177, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. He, Z.; Xu, X.; Zou, H.; Wang, X.; Yu, Y. Geochronology, petrogenesis and metallogeny of Piaotang granitoids in the tungsten deposit region of South China. Geochem. J. 2010, 44, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, X.; Ni, P.; Jiang, S.; Zhao, K.; Wang, T. Origin of ore-forming fluid in the Piaotang tungsten deposit in Jiangxi Province: Evidence from helium and argon isotopes. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2010, 55, 628–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Guo, C.; Mao, J.; Bierlein, F.; Chen, Z.; Chen, Y.; Li, C.; Zeng, Z. SHRIMP U–Pb (zircon), Ar–Ar (muscovite) and Re–Os (molybdenite) isotopic dating of the Taoxikeng tungsten deposit, South China Block. Ore Geol. Rev. 2011, 43, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ni, P.; Huang, J.; Wang, X.; Jiang, S.; Ling, H. Infrared fluid inclusion microthermometry on coexisting wolframite and quartz from Dajishan tungsten deposit, Jiangxi province, China. Geochim. Et Cosmochim. Acta 2006, 70, A444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liu, X.; Xing, H.; Zhang, D. Fluid focusing and its link to vertical morphological zonation at the Dajishan vein-type tungsten deposit, South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2014, 62, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, X.; Xing, H.; Zhang, D. The mechanisms of the infill textures and its implications for the five-floor zonation at the Dajishan vein-type tungsten deposit, China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 65, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Peng, J.; Zhou, M.-F.; Hu, R.; Shen, N.; Yuan, S.; Bi, X.; Du, A.; Qu, W. Precise molybdenite Re–Os and mica Ar–Ar dating of the Mesozoic Yaogangxian tungsten deposit, central Nanling district, South China. Miner. Depos. 2006, 41, 661–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, W.; Ni, P.; Wang, G.; Yang, Y.; Pan, J.; Wang, X.; Chen, L.; Fan, M. A possible linkage between highly fractionated granitoids and associated W-mineralization in the Mesozoic Yaogangxian granitic intrusion, Nanling region, South China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2020, 193, 104314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yuan, S.; Peng, J.; Shen, N.; Hu, R.; Dai, T. 40Ar-39Ar Isotopic Dating of the Xianghualing Sn-polymetallic Orefield in Southern Hunan, China and Its Geological Implications. Acta Geol. Sin. 2007, 81, 278–286. [Google Scholar]
  21. Yuan, S.; Peng, J.; Hu, R.; Li, H.; Shen, N.; Zhang, D. A precise U–Pb age on cassiterite from the Xianghualing tin-polymetallic deposit (Hunan, South China). Miner. Depos. 2008, 43, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, H.; Wu, J.-H.; Evans, N.J.; Jiang, W.-C.; Zhou, Z.-K. Zircon geochronology and geochemistry of the Xianghualing A-type granitic rocks: Insights into multi-stage Sn-polymetallic mineralization in South China. Lithos 2018, 312–313, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  23. Yuan, S.; Peng, J.; Hao, S.; Li, H.; Geng, J.; Zhang, D. In Situ LA-MC-ICP-MS and ID-TIMS U–Pb geochronology of cassiterite in the giant Furong tin deposit, Hunan Province, South China: New constraints on the timing of tin–polymetallic mineralization. Ore Geol. Rev. 2011, 43, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhao, K.; Jiang, S.; Yang, S.; Dai, B.; Lu, J. Mineral chemistry, trace elements and Sr–Nd–Hf isotope geochemistry and petrogenesis of Cailing and Furong granites and mafic enclaves from the Qitianling batholith in the Shi-Hang zone, South China. Gondwana Res. 2012, 22, 310–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhou, H.; Shao, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Liu, J. In-Situ Major and Trace Elements Analysis for Garnets from the Xitian Orefield, SE China: Implications for Skarn-type Mineralization. Acta Geol. Sin. —Engl. Ed. 2017, 91, 253–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cao, J.; Wu, Q.; Yang, X.; Deng, X.; Li, H.; Kong, H.; Xi, X. Geochemical factors revealing the differences between the Xitian and Dengfuxian composite plutons, middle Qin-Hang Belt: Implications to the W–Sn mineralization. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 118, 103353. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhao, P.; Yuan, S.; Mao, J.; Yuan, Y.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, D.; Shuang, Y. Constraints on the timing and genetic link of the large-scale accumulation of proximal W–Sn–Mo–Bi and distal Pb–Zn–Ag mineralization of the world-class Dongpo orefield, Nanling Range, South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 95, 1140–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lai, S. Research on Mineralization of the Xianghualing Tin Polymetallic Deposit, Hunan Province, China. Ph.D. Thesis, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, China, 2014. (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhu, J.; Wang, R.; Lu, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, W.; Xie, L.; Zhang, R. Fractionation, Evolution, Petrogenesis and Mineralization of Laiziling Granite Pluton, Southern Hunan Province. Geol. J. China Univ. 2011, 17, 381–392, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  30. Yao, W.; Wang, Q.; Qu, L.; Zou, J. Geological characteristics and the ore prediction of Sanhexu tin-polymetallic mining district in Xianghualing, Hunan province. Contrib. Geol. Miner. Resour. Res. 2020, 35, 292–298, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Y.; Gao, S.; Hu, Z.; Gao, C.; Zong, K.; Wang, D. Continental and Oceanic Crust Recycling-induced Melt-Peridotite Interactions in the Trans-North China Orogen: U–Pb Dating, Hf Isotopes and Trace Elements in Zircons from Mantle Xenoliths. J. Petrol. 2009, 51, 537–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vermeesch, P. IsoplotR: A free and open toolbox for geochronology. Geosci. Front. 2018, 9, 1479–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, X.; Long, W.; Li, Q.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Yang, Y.; Chamberlain, K.R.; Wan, D.; Guo, C.; Wang, X.; et al. Penglai Zircon Megacrysts: A Potential New Working Reference Material for Microbeam Determination of Hf-O Isotopes and U–Pb Age. Geostand. Geoanalytical Res. 2010, 34, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, M.; Zhang, D.; Di, Y.; Lai, S.; Chen, L.; Zhou, Z.; Zhu, R.; Qin, J.; Zhu, Y. Protracted extraction of high-silica melts from an upper-crustal magma reservoir recorded by the Wuchagou volcanic rocks in central Great Xing’an Range, NE China. Lithos 2022, 422–423, 106752. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ullah, Z.; Khan, A.; Faisal, S.; Zafar, T.; Li, H.; Farhan, M. Petrogenesis of peridotites in the Dargai Complex ophiolite, Indus Suture Zone, Northern Pakistan: Implications for two stages of melting, depletion, and enrichment of the Neo-Tethyan mantle. Lithos 2022, 426–427, 106798. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sun, 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]
  37. Chappell, B.W.; White, A.J.R. I- and S-type granites in the Lachlan Fold Belt. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. : Earth Sci. 1992, 83, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pearce, J.A.; Harris, N.B.W.; Tindle, A.G. Trace Element Discrimination Diagrams for the Tectonic Interpretation of Granitic Rocks. J. Petrol. 1984, 25, 956–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Barbarin, B. A review of the relationships between granitoid types, their origins and their geodynamic environments. LITHOS 1999, 46, 605–626. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bonin, B. A-type granites and related rocks: Evolution of a concept, problems and prospects. Lithos 2007, 97, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chappell, B.W.; Bryant, C.J.; Wyborn, D. Peraluminous I-type granites. Lithos 2012, 153, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Abdel-Karim, A.-A.; Azer, M.; Sami, M. Petrogenesis and tectonic implications of the Maladob ring complex in the South Eastern Desert, Egypt: New insights from mineral chemistry and whole-rock geochemistry. Int. J. Earth Sci. 2021, 110, 53–80. [Google Scholar]
  43. Chappell, B.W.; White, A.J.R. Two Contrasting Granite Types. Pac. Geol. 1974, 8, 173–174. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yang, J.-H.; Wu, F.-Y.; Chung, S.-L.; Wilde, S.A.; Chu, M.-F. A hybrid origin for the Qianshan A-type granite, northeast China: Geochemical and Sr–Nd–Hf isotopic evidence. Lithos 2006, 89, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Collins, W.J.; Beams, S.D.; White, A.J.R.; Chappell, B.W. Nature and origin of A-type granites with particular reference to southeastern Australia. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1982, 80, 189–200. [Google Scholar]
  46. Whalen, J.B.; Currie, K.L.; Chappell, B.W. A-type granites: Geochemical characteristics, discrimination and petrogenesis. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1987, 95, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Eby, G.N.; Kochhar, N. Geochemistry and petrogenesis of the Malani igneous suite, north Peninsular INDIA. J. Geol. Soc. India 1990, 36, 109–130. [Google Scholar]
  48. Eby, G.N. Chemical subdivision of the A-type granitoids:Petrogenetic and tectonic implications. Geology 1992, 20, 641–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Irber, W. The lanthanide tetrad effect and its correlation with K/Rb, Eu/Eu*, Sr/Eu, Y/Ho, and Zr Hf of evolving peraluminous granite suites. Geochim. Et Cosmochim. Acta 1999, 63, 489–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bau, M. Controls on the fractionation of isovalent trace elements in magmatic and aqueous systems: Evidence from Y/Ho, Zr/Hf, and lanthanide tetrad effect. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1996, 123, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dostal, J.; Kontak, D.J.; Gerel, O.; Shellnutt, J.G.; Fayek, M. Cretaceous ongonites (topaz-bearing albite-rich microleucogranites) from Ongon Khairkhan, Central Mongolia: Products of extreme magmatic fractionation and pervasive metasomatic fluid: Rock interaction. Lithos 2015, 236, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ballouard, C.; Branquet, Y.; Tartese, R.; Poujol, M.; Boulvais, P.; Vigneresse, J.L. Nb-Ta fractionation in peraluminous granites: A marker of the magmatic-hydrothermal transition. Geology 2016, 44, E395–E395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wu, F.; Liu, X.; Ji, W.; Wang, J.; Yang, L. Highly fractionated granites: Recognition and research. Sci. China-Earth Sci. 2017, 60, 1201–1219. [Google Scholar]
  54. Miller, C.F.; Mittlefehldt, D.W. Extreme fractionation in felsic magma chambers: A product of liquid-state diffusion or fractional crystallization? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1984, 68, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sami, M.; Ntaflos, T.; Farahat, E.S.; Mohamed, H.A.; Hauzenberger, C.; Ahmed, A.F. Petrogenesis and geodynamic implications of Ediacaran highly fractionated A-type granitoids in the north Arabian-Nubian Shield (Egypt): Constraints from whole-rock geochemistry and Sr-Nd isotopes. Lithos 2018, 304–307, 329–346. [Google Scholar]
  56. Chen, Y.; Chen, B.; Duan, X.; Sun, H. Origin of highly fractionated peraluminous granites in South China: Implications for crustal anatexis and evolution. Lithos 2021, 402–403, 106145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Masuda, A.; Akagi, T. Lanthanide tetrad effect observed in leucogranites from China. Geochem. J. 1989, 23, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Monecke, T.; Kempe, U.; Trinkler, M.; Thomas, R.; Dulski, P.; Wagner, T. Unusual rare earth element fractionation in a tin-bearing magmatic-hydrothermal system. Geology 2011, 39, 295–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yu, J.-H.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Wang, L.; Griffin, W.L.; Zhang, M.; Wang, R.; Jiang, S.; Shu, L. Where was South China in the Rodinia supercontinent?: Evidence from U–Pb geochronology and Hf isotopes of detrital zircons. Precambrian Res. 2008, 164, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moyen, J.F.; Laurent, O.; Chelle-Michou, C.; Couzinié, S.; Vanderhaeghe, O.; Zeh, A.; Villaros, A.; Gardien, V. Collision vs. subduction-related magmatism: Two contrasting ways of granite formation and implications for crustal growth. Lithos 2017, 277, 154–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Laurent, O.; Martin, H.; Moyen, J.F.; Doucelance, R. The diversity and evolution of late-Archean granitoids: Evidence for the onset of “modern-style” plate tectonics between 3.0 and 2.5 Ga. Lithos 2014, 205, 208–235. [Google Scholar]
  62. Laurent, O.; Björnsen, J.; Wotzlaw, J.-F.; Bretscher, S.; Pimenta Silva, M.; Moyen, J.-F.; Ulmer, P.; Bachmann, O. Earth’s earliest granitoids are crystal-rich magma reservoirs tapped by silicic eruptions. Nat. Geosci. 2020, 13, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, X.; Chen, J.; Ren, M. Hydrothermal zircon geochronology: Age constraint on Nanling Range tungsten mineralization (Southeast China). Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 74, 63–75. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hoskin, P.W.O. Trace-element composition of hydrothermal zircon and the alteration of Hadean zircon from the Jack Hills, Australia. Geochim. Et Cosmochim. Acta 2005, 69, 637–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Xuan, Y.; Yuan, S.; Yuan, Y.; Mi, J. Zircon U_Pb age, geochemistry and petrogenesis of Jianfengling pluton in southern Hunan Province. Miner. Depos. 2014, 33, 1379–1390, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  66. Xie, L.; Wang, R.C.; Che, X.D.; Huang, F.F.; Erdmann, S.; Zhang, W.L. Tracking magmatic and hydrothermal Nb-Ta-W-Sn fractionation using mineral textures and composition: A case study from the late Cretaceous Jiepailing ore district in the Nanling Range in South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 78, 300–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, D.; Zhao, K.D.; Wang, B.D.; Cheng, K.D.; Luo, X.L.; Zhang, W.; Li, Q.; Jiang, S.Y. Cretaceous granitic magmatism and mineralization in the Shanhu W-Sn ore deposit in the Nanling Range in South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 126, 103758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Liu, P.; Mao, J.W.; Lehmann, B.; Peng, L.L.; Zhang, R.Q.; Wang, F.Y.; Lu, G.A.; Jiang, C.Y. Cassiterite U–Pb dating of the lower Cretaceous Yanbei tin porphyry district in the Mikengshan volcanic basin, SE China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2021, 134, 104151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gilder, S.A.; Gill, J.; Coe, R.S.; Zhao, X.X.; Liu, Z.W.; Wang, G.X.; Yuan, K.R.; Liu, W.L.; Kuang, G.D.; Wu, H.R. Isotopic and paleomagnetic constraints on the Mesozoic tectonic evolution of south China. J. Geophys. Res.-Solid Earth 1996, 101, 16137–16154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhu, J.; Chen, J.; Wang, R.; Lu, J.; Xie, L. Early Y anshanian NE Trending Sn/W-Bearing A-Type Granites in the Western-Middle Part of the Nanling Mts Region. Geol. J. China Univ. 2008, 14, 474–484, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  71. Batchelor, R.A.; Bowden, P. Petrogenetic interpretation of granitoid rock series using multicationic parameters. Chem. Geol. 1985, 48, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Faure, M.; Sun, Y.; Shu, L.; Monie, P.; Charvet, J. Extensional tectonics within a subduction-type orogen. The case study of the Wugongshan dome (Jiangxi Province, southeastern China). Tectonophysics 1996, 263, 77–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Faure, M.; Lin, W.; Sun, Y. Doming in the southern foreland of the Dabieshan (Yangtse block, China). Terra Nova 1998, 10, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, J.H.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Dong, S.W.; Johnston, S.T. Cretaceous tectonic evolution of South China: A preliminary synthesis. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2014, 134, 98–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Liu, J.L.; Ni, J.L.; Chen, X.Y.; Craddock, J.P.; Zheng, Y.Y.; Ji, L.; Hou, C.R. Early Cretaceous tectonics across the North Pacific: New insights from multiphase tectonic extension in Eastern Eurasia. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2021, 217, 103552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hu, P.C.; Zhu, W.G.; Zhong, H.; Zhang, R.Q.; Zhao, X.Y.; Mao, W. Late Cretaceous granitic magmatism and Sn mineralization in the giant Yinyan porphyry tin deposit, South China: Constraints from zircon and cassiterite U–Pb and molybdenite Re-Os geochronology. Miner. Depos. 2021, 56, 743–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 12 08984 g001 550
Figure 1. Distribution map of granitic intrusions and major tungsten–tin deposits in the Nanling region. (a) Tectonic map of South China; (b) Geological map of Nanling region.
Figure 1. Distribution map of granitic intrusions and major tungsten–tin deposits in the Nanling region. (a) Tectonic map of South China; (b) Geological map of Nanling region.
Applsci 12 08984 g001
Applsci 12 08984 g002 550
Figure 2. Geological sketch map of Laohuya mining area.
Figure 2. Geological sketch map of Laohuya mining area.
Applsci 12 08984 g002
Applsci 12 08984 g003 550
Figure 3. Hand specimens (a,b) and microscope (c,d) photographs of LG. Bi: biotite; Kfs: K-feldspar; Pl: plagioclase; Q: quartz.
Figure 3. Hand specimens (a,b) and microscope (c,d) photographs of LG. Bi: biotite; Kfs: K-feldspar; Pl: plagioclase; Q: quartz.
Applsci 12 08984 g003
Applsci 12 08984 g004 550
Figure 4. CL images for zircons from LG. The circles and numbers represent the positions and numbers of the laser ablation points for zircon U-Pb dating, respectively.
Figure 4. CL images for zircons from LG. The circles and numbers represent the positions and numbers of the laser ablation points for zircon U-Pb dating, respectively.
Applsci 12 08984 g004
Applsci 12 08984 g005 550
Figure 5. LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb Concordia age and weighted mean age of the LG.
Figure 5. LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb Concordia age and weighted mean age of the LG.
Applsci 12 08984 g005
Applsci 12 08984 g006 550
Figure 6. Classification diagrams for LG. (a)—TAS diagram; (b)—Diagram of classification of intrusive rocks (2—alkali feldspar granite; 3a—syenogranite; 3b—monzogranite); (c)—Diagram of aluminum saturation; (d)—K2O-SiO2 diagram.
Figure 6. Classification diagrams for LG. (a)—TAS diagram; (b)—Diagram of classification of intrusive rocks (2—alkali feldspar granite; 3a—syenogranite; 3b—monzogranite); (c)—Diagram of aluminum saturation; (d)—K2O-SiO2 diagram.
Applsci 12 08984 g006
Applsci 12 08984 g007 550
Figure 7. Chondrite-normalized REE pattern (a) and primitive mantle-normalized multi-element diagram (b) for the LG.
Figure 7. Chondrite-normalized REE pattern (a) and primitive mantle-normalized multi-element diagram (b) for the LG.
Applsci 12 08984 g007
Applsci 12 08984 g008 550
Figure 8. Na2O-K2O discrimination diagram of the LG.
Figure 8. Na2O-K2O discrimination diagram of the LG.
Applsci 12 08984 g008
Applsci 12 08984 g009 550
Figure 9. Discrimination diagrams to distinguish A-type granitoids. FG—fractionated felsic granites; OGT—unfractionated M-, I- and S-type granites.
Figure 9. Discrimination diagrams to distinguish A-type granitoids. FG—fractionated felsic granites; OGT—unfractionated M-, I- and S-type granites.
Applsci 12 08984 g009
Applsci 12 08984 g010 550
Figure 10. Triangle diagrams for distinguishing group A1 and group A2 granitoids.
Figure 10. Triangle diagrams for distinguishing group A1 and group A2 granitoids.
Applsci 12 08984 g010
Applsci 12 08984 g011 550
Figure 11. εHf(t) and TDM2 distribution histograms of zircons from LG.
Figure 11. εHf(t) and TDM2 distribution histograms of zircons from LG.
Applsci 12 08984 g011
Applsci 12 08984 g012 550
Figure 12. Ternary diagram for distinguishing the potential sources of granite.
Figure 12. Ternary diagram for distinguishing the potential sources of granite.
Applsci 12 08984 g012
Applsci 12 08984 g013 550
Figure 13. Discrimination diagrams of magmatic zircon and hydrothermal zircon.
Figure 13. Discrimination diagrams of magmatic zircon and hydrothermal zircon.
Applsci 12 08984 g013
Applsci 12 08984 g014 550
Figure 14. Photos of the cut-through relationship between the steep sulfide-bearing quartz vein and the stratiform-like cassiterite–sulfide orebody in the Laohuya mining area.
Figure 14. Photos of the cut-through relationship between the steep sulfide-bearing quartz vein and the stratiform-like cassiterite–sulfide orebody in the Laohuya mining area.
Applsci 12 08984 g014
Applsci 12 08984 g015 550
Figure 15. R1-R2 diagram of major granitoid associations of in an orogenic cycle.
Figure 15. R1-R2 diagram of major granitoid associations of in an orogenic cycle.
Applsci 12 08984 g015
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, Z.; Hu, B.; Zhang, D.; He, X.; Zou, J.; Tian, X.; Yi, Y. Genesis and Significance of Late Cretaceous Granitic Magmatism in Xianghualing Tin–Polymetallic Orefield, Nanling Region, South China. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8984. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app12188984

AMA Style

Zhang Z, Hu B, Zhang D, He X, Zou J, Tian X, Yi Y. Genesis and Significance of Late Cretaceous Granitic Magmatism in Xianghualing Tin–Polymetallic Orefield, Nanling Region, South China. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(18):8984. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app12188984

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Zhihui, Bojie Hu, Da Zhang, Xiaolong He, Jianlin Zou, Xufeng Tian, and Yuanshun Yi. 2022. "Genesis and Significance of Late Cretaceous Granitic Magmatism in Xianghualing Tin–Polymetallic Orefield, Nanling Region, South China" Applied Sciences 12, no. 18: 8984. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app12188984

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