2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.lithos.2007.07.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A 1.78 Ga large igneous province in the North China craton: The Xiong'er Volcanic Province and the North China dyke swarm

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
149
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 356 publications
(153 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
2
149
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The Columbia supercontinent was likely transformed to an extensional setting at 1.75 to 1.6 Ga as indicated by the occurrence of mafic dyke swarms, anorthosites, rapakivi granites, and intracontinental rift basins (e.g. Zhao et al 2004Zhao et al , 2009Peng et al 2008). In the western Yangtze Block, the Dongchuan Group with a zircon U-Pb age of 1,742±13 Ma has been considered to have formed in a continental rift basin (Hua 1990b;Wu et al 1990;Zhao et al 2010).…”
Section: Possible Link To the Columbia Supercontinentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Columbia supercontinent was likely transformed to an extensional setting at 1.75 to 1.6 Ga as indicated by the occurrence of mafic dyke swarms, anorthosites, rapakivi granites, and intracontinental rift basins (e.g. Zhao et al 2004Zhao et al , 2009Peng et al 2008). In the western Yangtze Block, the Dongchuan Group with a zircon U-Pb age of 1,742±13 Ma has been considered to have formed in a continental rift basin (Hua 1990b;Wu et al 1990;Zhao et al 2010).…”
Section: Possible Link To the Columbia Supercontinentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The TSM syenogranite has similar initial 87 Sr/ 86 Sr values to those of the amphibolites of the Taihua Group at 120 Ma (Ni et al, 2012;X.S. Xu et al, 2009) and those of the volcanic rocks from the Xiong'er Group (He et al, 2010;Peng et al, 2008;Wang et al, 2010), but lower than those of the gneiss and quartz schists from the Taihua Group (Huang and Wu, 1990) (Fig. 7A).…”
Section: Petrogenesismentioning
confidence: 77%
“…1B) (Mao et al, 2010). The mafic intrusions in this region, dominated by mafic dykes or stocks, were mainly emplaced the Archean metamorphic rocks during Mesoproterozoic (Peng et al, 2008), and sporadically during late Mesozoic (Wang et al, 2008). The late Mesozoic mafic rocks are mainly composed of dolerite and diorite with minor lamprophyre, with SHRIMP zircon U-Pb ages of~128 Ma (Wang et al, 2008).…”
Section: Geological Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of these, the lower subgroup of the original Taihua Group [12,13] (which disintegrated from the Taihua Complex), the Dengfeng Complex [14,15] and the Angou Group [16] developed in Neoarchean, whereas the upper subgroup of the Taihua Group [12], the Songshan [17,18], Xiong'er Group and the Tietonggou Formation were formed in Paleoproterozoic [19].…”
Section: Geological Setting and Sample Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the minimum depositional age of the Tietonggou Formation can be constrained by the formation age of the Xiong'er Group. In the last three decades, there has been considerable debate over the petrogenesis and tectonic settings of the Xiong'er volcanic rocks, however available SHRIMP and LA-ICPMS U-Pb zircon age data indicate that the Xiong'er Group formed at 1.80-1.75 Ga [19,[21][22]. Although minor ~1.45 Ga felsic volcanic rocks are reported in Xiong'er Group, which possibly represent a later magmatic activity in the southern NCC [22].…”
Section: Deposition Time Of the Tietonggou Formationmentioning
confidence: 99%