Some key issues in reconstructions of Proterozoic supercontinents

Discovery of Paleoproterozoic rapakivi granite on the northern margin of the Yangtze block and its geological significance

“…These events may match the global collisional orogenic and amalgamation events in relation to the formation of the Columbia supercontinent [13,69,70], the rapid growth of continental crust [71,72], and activities of super-mantle plumes [73]. Studies on Paleoproterozoic tectonic magmatic events are relatively few in the Yangtze block, but in recent years, more Paleoproterozoic records of geological events have been described and discussions about the evolution of the geological events, global tectonic setting and their significance have been taken place.…”

Correlations between the North China Craton and the Indian Shield: Constraints from regional metallogeny

“…A large number of graphite deposits occurred in the Fenzishan Group in the Jiaoliao belt, the Jining Group in the Fengzhen belt, and the upper Lushan Group in the Jinyu belt. In contrast, only minor volumes of superior-type BIF (Yuanjiachun) occurred in the Lanxian Group in Wutai-Lvliang (Zhao et al, 2006a;Wang, 2007;Zhai, 2010;Tang et al, 2012;Zhai and Santosh, 2013).…”

“…1.76 Ga-aged porphyry Mo-Cu deposits (Zhaiwa) in the eastern Qinling Molybdenum Belt in central China possibly formed in a Paleoproterozoic continental arc, which is coeval with the peak eruption period (1.78 to 1.75 Ga) of the Xiong'er Group volcanic rocks (Deng et al, 2013). Mesoproterozoic rifts in LangshaneDaqingshan and ZhongtiaoeYuxi are potential sites of SEDEXetype PbeZneCueFe ore-deposits, such as Dongshengmiao in Langshan and Lanchuan in the west of Henan Province, which are hosted in a sandstone/fine-grained sandstone/calcic fine-grained sandstone sequence and are considered to be related to extensional processes in the NCC (Shen et al, 2005(Shen et al, , 2006Zhao et al, 2006a;Shi et al, 2010;Zhai, 2010;Zhang et al, 2010).…”

The 1420Ma Indiavaí Mafic Intrusion (SW Amazonian Craton): Paleomagnetic results and implications for the Columbia supercontinent

“…The existence of a Paleo-to Mesoproterozoic supercontinent has been postulated by various authors, although its configuration is still a matter of debate, partly due to the scarcity of paleomagnetic data (Rogers, 1996;Meert, 2002;Rogers and Santosh, 2002;Zhao et al, 2002Zhao et al, , 2004Zhao et al, , 2006Pesonen et al, 2003;Kusky et al, 2007;BispoSantos et al, 2008;Hou et al, 2008;Johansson, 2009;Evans and Mitchell, 2011). Several names are attributed to this supercontinentNena, Nuna, Paleopangea, Columbia, among others (Gower et al, 1990;Hoffman, 1997;Piper, 2000;Rogers and Santosh, 2002).…”

“…Two different configurations for the Laurentia-Baltica connection have been proposed in Columbia supercontinent, one of which juxtaposes southeastern Greenland to western Baltica (Zhao et al, 2002(Zhao et al, , 2004Hou et al, 2008;Johansson, 2009), and the other one places eastern Greenland next to northern Baltica (Hoffman, 1988;Buchan et al, 2000;Karlstrom et al, 2001;Pesonen et al, 2003;Zhao et al, 2006;Salminen and Pesonen, 2007;Bispo-Santos et al, 2008;Lubnina et al, 2010;Pisarevsky and Bylund, 2010;Evans and Mitchell, 2011). Paleomagnetic data favor the latter model, suggesting Laurentia and Baltica drifted together since 1800 Ma up to at least 1270 Ma ago (Salminen and Pesonen, 2007;Lubnina et al, 2010;Pisarevsky and Bylund, 2010;Evans and Mitchell, Gondwana Research 22 (2012) .…”