南岭寨背和陂头花岗岩基属印支期侵位的岩浆动力学证据及构造意义

文章通过对南岭东段寨背和陂头岩基地质-岩石地球化学特征研究,判明它们的侵位深度(7.5 km)、围岩温度(250℃)及岩浆初始温度(950℃),建立起寨背-陂头岩基的数学计算模型,并计算得出:寨背和陂头花岗岩熔体侵位后,其初始温度降低至结晶温度所需的时间(Δtcol)分别为4.04 Ma(寨背岩基)和3.97 Ma(陂...     

燕山早期花岗岩基印支期侵位的岩浆动力学证据及构造 意义:基于南岭8个岩体侵位年龄计算结果

根据各花岗岩体地质构造特征、有关的热物理参数及主体花岗岩的放射性元素含量,采用简化的立方体数学模型计 算得出:南岭地区8个花岗岩基侵位后,其初始温度降低至结晶温度所需的时间(Δtcol)为3.9(金鸡岭)~5.5 Ma(九峰); 由于结晶潜热释放而使结晶过程延长的时间(ΔtL) 为2.6~3.5 Ma ;花岗岩浆侵位后产生的放射成因热使结晶过程延长的 时间(Δt A)为 5.2(陂头)~45.1 Ma(姑婆山) 。南岭地区 8 个燕山早期花岗岩基的侵位-结晶时差(△t ECTD)为 12.1(陂头) ~52.2 Ma(姑婆山), 结合锆石U-Pb年龄通过反演计算得出其侵位年龄 (tE ) 为194.4 (陂头)~219.3 Ma(九峰)。这为 南岭燕山早期花岗岩基属于印支期侵位提供了重要的岩浆动力学佐证, 揭示出近东西向展布的南岭晚中生代造山带具有印 支期构造格架(以侵位年龄为代表)和燕山早期花岗岩(以锆石 U-Pb 年龄为代表) 的双重特征。     

花岗岩浆侵位与结晶固化时差的研究与构造意义:以南岭骑田岭花岗岩基为例

通过对南岭中段骑田岭花岗岩基地质-岩石地球化学特征研究, 判明了该岩基的侵位深度（5.5 km）、围岩温度（196℃）及岩浆初始温度（950 ℃ ）,建立起骑田岭花岗岩基的数学计算模型,计算得出： 骑田岭花岗岩熔体侵位后,其初始温度降低至结晶温度所需的时间（Δt col） 为4.1 Ma;由于结晶潜热释放而使结晶过程延长的时间（Δt L）为2.6 Ma; 由于骑田岭花岗岩基放射性元素含量 （U-15.3×10-6,Th-51.35×10-6,K2O-5.02%）是世界平均花岗岩放射性元素含量（U-5×10-6,Th-20×10-6,K2O-2.66%）的2~3 倍,骑田岭花岗岩浆侵位后产生的放射成因热使结晶过程延长的时间（Δt A） 为35.4 Ma,远长于世界平均花岗岩计算的Δt A（2.93 Ma） 。因此, 骑田岭花岗岩基的岩浆侵位- 结晶固化时差 （Δt ECTD）为42.1 Ma, 结合锆石U-Pb 年龄值（161 Ma）, 通过反演计算得出骑田岭花岗岩基侵位年龄值（t E ）为203.1 Ma,从而为骑田岭花岗岩基属于印支期侵位提供了重要的岩浆动力学佐证。     

金鸡岭产铀花岗岩体印支期侵位的岩浆动力学证据及其构造意义

通过对南岭西段金鸡岭花岗岩体地质-岩石地球化学特征研究,判明该岩体的侵位深度(7.5km)、围岩温度(270℃)及岩浆初始温度(950℃),建立起金鸡岭花岗岩体的数学计算模型,分别计算得出:金鸡岭花岗岩熔体侵位后,其初始温度降低至结晶温度所需的时间(Δtcol)为3.91Ma;由于结晶潜热释放而使结晶过程延长的时间(ΔtL)为2.92Ma;由于金鸡岭花岗岩体放射性元素含量(U——16.5×10-6,Th——51.3×10-6,K2O——4.82%)是世界平均花岗岩放射性元素含量(U——5×10-6,Th——20×10-6,K2O——2.66%)的3倍左右,金鸡岭花岗岩熔体侵位后产生的放射性成因热使结晶过程延长的时间(ΔtA)为34.5Ma,远长于按世界花岗岩平均放射性元素含量计算的ΔtA*(2.82Ma)。金鸡岭花岗岩体的侵位-结晶时差(ΔtECTD)为41.3Ma,结合锆石U-Pb年龄值(156Ma),通过反演计算得出金鸡岭花岗岩体侵位年龄值(tE)为197.3Ma,从而为该岩体属于印支期侵位提供了重要的岩浆动力学证据。     

南岭花山和姑婆山花岗岩基属印支期侵位:来自花岗岩熔体冷却-结晶和放射成因热计算的依据

通过对南岭西段花山和姑婆山花岗岩基地质-岩石地球化学特征研究,判明它们的侵位深度(5.5km)、围岩温度(196℃)及岩浆初始温度(950℃),建立起花山和姑婆山岩基的数学计算模型,计算得出:花山-姑婆山花岗岩熔体侵位后,其初始温度降低至结晶温度所需的时间(△tco1)分别为4.14 Ma(花山)和4.36Ma(姑婆山...     

南岭西段金鸡岭复式花岗岩基地质及岩浆动力

对南岭西段金鸡岭复式花岩岩基进行的Rb-Sr同位素定年研究，确定Ⅰ阶段黑云母二长花岗岩的等时线年龄为169．5MaⅡ、Ⅲ阶段黑云母花岗岩和二云母花岗岩为150．7Ma，其ISr值分别为0．7163和0．7206，表明该复式岩基属燕山早期。金鸡岭复式花岗岩基岩石属钙碱性系列，从Ⅰ阶段到Ⅱ、Ⅲ阶段表现出有规律的演化特征：岩石由准铝质（Ⅰ），演化为过铝质（Ⅱ）和强过铝质（Ⅲ）；钾长石有序度由0．33（Ⅰ），增高到0．69（Ⅱ）和0．80（Ⅲ）；斜长石油An37（Ⅰ）降低到An26（Ⅱ）和An7(Ⅲ)；黑云母由铁质黑云母（Ⅰ）向铁叶云母（Ⅱ）和铁白云母（Ⅲ）方向演化；氧化物（SiO2,Al2O3,TFeO,MgO,TiO2,CaO)-DI图解上呈良好的线性演化关系；成岩温度逐阶段降低，由745℃（Ⅰ）降低到673℃（Ⅱ）至505℃（Ⅲ）。采用地质地球化学方法估算出金鸡岭岩基的侵位深度约为6．3km，成岩压力为180MPa，具中深成相特征，属S型花岗岩并形成于华南板块内部的碰撞构造环境。     

关于南岭中生代花岗岩侵位年龄与锆石U-Pb年龄的时差问题:与章邦桐教授等讨论

从南岭中生代花岗岩的显微结构特征、花岗岩液相线和固相线的已有实验成果、锆饱和温度信息、花岗岩体几何形态以及它们与围岩的接触关系等角度,提出这些花岗岩中锆石结晶温度较高,其结晶年龄与花岗岩岩浆侵位年龄之间的时差较小,很可能在锆石U-Pb年龄测定的误差范围内,因此,花岗岩中锆石的U-Pb年龄,能近似地代表花岗岩岩浆的侵位年龄。     

Indosinian Emplacement of the Huashan—Guposhan Granite Batholiths in Western Nanling Range:Evidence from Cooling-Crystallization and Radiogenic Heat Calculation of Granite Melt

通过对南岭西段花山和姑婆山花岗岩基地质-岩石地球化学特征研究,判明它们的侵位深度(5.5km)、围岩温度(196℃)及岩浆初始温度(950℃),建立起花山和姑婆山岩基的数学计算模型,计算得出:花山-姑婆山花岗岩熔体侵位后,其初始温度降低至结晶温度所需的时间(△tco1)分别为4.14 Ma(花山)和4.36Ma(姑婆山);由于结晶潜热释放而使结晶过程延长的时间(△tL)为2.67Ma,2.81 Ma;由于花山和姑婆山花岗岩基放射性元素含量(U 13.5×10-6,Th 56.1×10- 6,K2O 5.79％(花山);U13.7×10-6,Th 52.4×10-6,K2O 5.28％(姑婆山))高于世界平均花岗岩放射性元素含量(U5×10-6,Th 20×10-6,K2O 2.66％),花山和姑婆山花岗岩浆侵位后产生的放射成因热使结晶过程延长的时间(△tA)分别为37.6 Ma和45.1 Ma,远长于按世界平均花岗岩放射性元素含量计算得出的△tA(3.17 Ma,花山).花山和姑婆山花岗岩基的侵位-结晶时差(△tECTD)分别为44.41Ma和52.27Ma,结合锆石U-Pb年龄值(162 Ma(花山),163Ma(姑婆山)),通过反演计算得出花山、姑婆山花岗岩基侵位年龄值(tE)分别为206Ma和215Ma,从而为花山-姑婆山花岗岩基属于印支期侵位提供了重要的岩浆动力学佐证.     

辽东半岛印支期侵入岩侵入机制与岩浆大陆动力学演化

辽东半岛广泛分布印支期侵入岩,作为研究辽东半岛印支期陆内造山作用的客观实体,意义重大.概述了印支期侵入岩地质特征、岩石化学及地球化学特征,总结出岩浆演化趋势由超基性→基性→中性→酸性→碱性.提出了岩浆源区性质为幔源、壳幔混源、壳源3种类型.总结了造山初期至造山早期伸展机制下席状侵位,造山主期穹隆式及穿刺式侵位,造山后构造崩塌被动侵位3种侵位机制模式及岩浆大陆动力学演化过程.     

辽宁庄河地区花岗岩侵位机制及岩浆动力学的初步探讨——以光明山花岗岩复式岩体为例

运用岩浆动力学原理探讨庄河地区光明山花岗岩复式岩体岩浆侵位的驱动力、上升通道、通道最小临界宽度和定位过程,指出光明山花岗岩复式岩体是由其岩浆在区域挤压力的作用下,沿由深大断裂所提供的最小临界宽度呈脉状上侵,并在地壳浅部以岩墙扩张的形式定位而成.     

对“燕山早期花岗岩基印支期侵位的岩浆动力学证据及构造意义: 基于南岭8个岩体侵位年龄计算结果”的质疑

     基于构造学、岩石学和矿床学的地质事实,本文认为南岭地区燕山早期同造山花岗岩的岩浆形成、侵位和结晶在一 个很短的时间段内完成,其时间可以用锆石U-Pb年龄代表。因此, 章邦桐等（2014） 一文的结论应该是不成立的。     

Reply to the comment by F. Tornos et al.

We welcome the discussion of our paper by Tornos et al. The epithermal character of the Hiendelaencina veins might have been an assumption in the early to mid 1980s, however, this early idea has been reaffirmed after many years of research involving fieldwork and mineralogical, sulphur isotopes, and fluid inclusions studies. The same applies to the alleged extensional frame, a tectonic episode now well documented not only in central Spain (Spanish Central System: Doblas 1987; Doblas et al. 1988; Doblas 1991) but in France (French Central Massif: Ménard and Molnar 1988; Malavieille et al. 1990; Munoz et al. 1992).The deposits are hosted by metamorphic rocks and the nearest volcanic outcrops to Hiendelaencina are those of Atienza (andesites; some 12 km northward). This is the reason why the relationships between the Atienza volcanics and the Hiendelaencina veins were initially regarded as obscure. These Stephanian-Permian volcanic outcrops are only local evidence of the late Variscan magmatism, which in the case of Hiendelaencina remained concealed. It is evident that the geologic environments of Hiendelaencina and Atienza are very different (see Discussion, p. 88 of the paper). As a direct consequence of this, the local structural conditions led to contrasted expressions of the late Variscan magmatism i.e. subaereal at Atienza and hypabyssal at Hiendelaencina.     

Comments to the article by Verner et al.: Magmatic history and geophysical signature of a post-collisional intrusive center

Verner and co-authors (Int J Earth Sci (2009) 98:517–532) published geological and structural model of evolution and emplacement of the Plöckenstein pluton in the border area of Austria, Germany and Czech Republic. They used data of other authors, giving no reference as to their source, for interpretations without any discussion of the already published results.     

Reply to Molina-Garza et al. (2019) “Discussion of: Ortega-Flores et al. (2018) provenance analysis of Oligocene sandstone from the Cerro Pelón area,southern Gulf of Mexico”

ABSTRACT

The origin of the Oligocene turbidites from the Cerro Pelón area in south Gulf Mexico proposed by Ortega-Flores et al. (2018) is in disagree with the interpretations made by Molina-Garza et al. (2019), which main criticism is based on U-Pb ages of detrital zircons from the matrix of a conglomerate unit, which they refer to as ‘Nanchital Conglomerate’, as well as on the presence of limestone, gabbros, and mafic protolith-derived clasts. Molina-Garza et al. (2019) basically interpret the Nanchital Conglomerate as Miocene in age, which was sourced mainly from metamorphic complexes including their sedimentary covers located to the west and south of the Cerro Pelón area. For some reason, Molina-Garza et al. (2019) suppose that the Nanchital Conglomerate should have the same provenance sources that the Oligocene turbidites from Cerro Pelón area, reported by Ortega-Flores et al. (2018). Based on the foregoing, we strongly disagree with Molina-Garza et al. (2019) considering that, from the beginning, they intend to compare two units of different age. Additionally, the scarce data reported from both the matrix and the clasts of the Nanchital Conglomerate are not determinant for interpreting the provenance of this conglomeratic unit and subsequently, to consider the same rock sources from the Oligocene through Miocene time.