Next Article in Journal
Iron Isotopes Constrain the Metal Sources of Skarn Deposits: A Case Study from the Han-Xing Fe Deposit, China
Previous Article in Journal
Oxidizing Roasting Behavior and Leaching Performance for the Recovery of Spent LiFePO4 Batteries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/min10110950
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 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

Tectonomagmatic Setting and Cu-Ni Mineralization Potential of the Gayahedonggou Complex, Northern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau, China

by
Namkha Norbu
1,2,
Jinchao Li
3,*,
Yuegao Liu
4,*,
Qunzi Jia
3 and
Huilei Kong
3
1
School of Land Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
2
Shaanxi Provincial Land Engineering Construction Group, Xi’an 710075, China
3
Xi’an Center of China Geological Survey, Xi’an 710054, China
4
CAS Key Laboratory for Experimental Study under Deep-sea Extreme Conditions, Institute of Deep-sea Science and Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Sanya 572000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2020, 10(11), 950; https://doi.org/10.3390/min10110950
Submission received: 19 August 2020 / Revised: 20 October 2020 / Accepted: 21 October 2020 / Published: 25 October 2020
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Gayahedonggou magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposit was recently discovered in the East Kunlun orogenic belt (Northern Tibetan Plateau, China). The mineralization in this region is associated with mafic–ultramafic intrusions. To date, the formation age and metallogenic model of these ore-bearing intrusions have not been studied systematically. In this paper, the petrology, zircon U-Pb chronology, and geochemistry of ore-bearing wehrlite and quartz diorite are investigated. The results show that the zircon U-Pb isotopic age of wehrlite is 419.9 ± 1.5 Ma with an average εHf(t) value of 3.0, indicating that wehrlite originated from a depleted mantle or the asthenosphere. The (La/Yb)N, (La/Sm)N, (Gd/Yb)N, Nb/U, and Ce/Pb ratios of wehrlite are between 3.01–7.14, 1.69–3.91, 1.36–1.51, 2.07–2.93, and 0.55–1.42, respectively, indicating that the parent magma of the wehrlite had been contaminated by the upper crust. The zircon U-Pb isotopic age of quartz diorite is 410.2 ± 3.5 Ma with an average εHf(t) value of 8.0, and the A/CNK and A/NK ratio of quartz diorites ranges from 1.02 to 1.04 and from 2.13 to 2.23, respectively. These features are similar to those of the type I granite, and the quartz diorite was likely derived from the lower crust. Combined with the regional geological evolution, the Gayahedonggou complex formed in a post-collision extensional environment. The pyroxene in the Gayahedonggou complex is mainly clinopyroxene, which is enriched in the CaO content, indicating that the CaO content of the parent magma of the Gayahedonggou complex is high or that the complex has been contaminated by Ca-rich surrounding rocks, which hinders Cu-Ni mineralization.

1. Introduction

Magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposits are an important source of copper and nickel metal. Although most of the world’s large magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposits are known to have formed in large igneous provinces [1,2,3], those that occur in orogenic environments also have considerable metallogenic potential [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. The East Kunlun orogenic belt (EKOB), located in Northwest China (Figure 1), is considered one of the important Cu-Ni mineralization regions in all of Asia in which mafic–ultramafic intrusions are widely distributed. In the last 10 years, some magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposits (such as Xiarihamu, Shitoukengde, Akechukesai, and Binggounan) that formed in orogenic environments have been discovered, and the associated Ni resources reached a total of 1.2 million tons. These Cu-Ni ore bodies occur in small ultramafic intrusions, and the formation age is between 440 and 400 Ma [4,9,10,11,13]; the isotope results show mantle source characteristics [5,6]. There are two views on the metallogenic model of these Cu-Ni deposits. Some researchers hold the view that the Cu-Ni deposits formed in a subducted island arc [10,12,13]. The other view is that the metallogenic environment was post-collision [4,5,14,15]. Given these different perspectives, more case studies are needed on the metallogenic model of the EKOB.
The Gayahedonggou Cu-Ni deposit was discovered by the Sichuan Nuclear Industry Geology Bureau in 2018. Preliminary geological studies suggest that the formation of the deposit is related to ultramafic intrusions at the end of the Early Paleozoic. Presently, the Ni resource reaches a total of 4 million tons, which may have the potential to be a large deposit. However, to date, no dating and isotope research has been performed on this deposit. Thus, geological samples of wehrlite (ore-bearing rock) and quartz diorite were collected from the Gayahedonggou magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposit. The zircon U-Pb isotopic ages of the magmatic intrusions and the petrochemical characteristics of rocks were investigated, and zircon Lu-Hf isotopic determinations were performed. The results provide new evidence for the metallogenic model of the Cu-Ni sulfide deposits in the EKOB.

2. Geology Background

2.1. Regional Geology

The EKOB belongs to the Tethys tectonic domain, which has an extremely complicated geological history [16,17,18,19]. The evolution of the Proto-Tethys began in the Precambrian and ended in the Devonian, during which the ocean basin was subducted in both directions, creating the basic tectonic framework of the EKOB [20,21]. The Paleo-Tethys evolved between the late Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, and voluminous magmatic activity associated with the subducted oceanic crust has been recorded [22,23,24,25]. The evolution of the Neo-Tethys had little influence on the EKOB, and only a few magmatic rocks developed during this period. The north, middle, and south Kunlun faults divide the East Kunlun into the North East Kunlun orogenic belt, the Middle East Kunlun orogenic belt, and the South East Kunlun orogenic belt [26,27,28,29]; the secondary faults in the region generally develop towards the northeast (Figure 1). Regional stratigraphic outcropping is relatively complete and includes the Paleoproterozoic Jinshuikou Group, the Mesoproterozoic Wanbaogou Group, the Cambrian-Ordovician Nachitai Group, the Qimantage Group, the Upper Devonian Maoniushan Formation, the Carboniferous Dagangou Formation, the Siyangjiao Formation, and the Upper Triassic Elashan Formation [30].
The mafic–ultramafic intrusions are mainly distributed north of the Middle Kunlun fault. The Xiarihamu deposit is the largest magmatic Cu-Ni-Co sulfide deposit in the region and the second-largest Ni deposit in China [4,5,12]. The Shitoukengde is a large-scale Cu-Ni deposit [9,16]. The ore-bearing lithologies in the belt are orthopyroxenite, websterite, harzburgite, lherzolite, and dunite, and the area is between 0.012 and 5.8 km2 [4,5,9,13,16]. The surrounding rocks include the Jinshuikou Group and the Tanjianshan Group. Pentlandite, pyrrhotite, and chalcopyrite are the principal ore minerals in the intrusion-hosted sulfide mineralization.

2.2. Geology of the Gayahedonggou Cu-Ni Deposit

The Gayahedonggou Cu-Ni deposit is located in the Middle East Kunlun orogenic belt. The surrounding rock is the Paleoproterozoic Jinshuikou Group (Figure 2), which is the oldest metamorphic rock series in the EKOB and is composed of the Baishahe Formation and the Xiaomiao Formation [31,32]. The Baishahe Formation includes gneiss, amphibolite, and schist, and the Xiaomiao Formation is comprised of schist, gneiss, and marble. The Gayahedonggou complex consists of three mafic–ultramafic intrusions and quartz diorite. Mafic–ultramafic intrusions are comprised of wehrlite, olivine-bearing clinopyroxenite, and gabbro. The Cu-Ni ore is hosted in the wehrlite. Four Cu-Ni ore bodies have been identified. The ore bodies are 50–280 m in length and 9–34 m in thickness, with an average Ni grade of 0.415 wt%.
The typical olivine-bearing clinopyroxenite contains 80% clinopyroxene and 20% olivine. The clinopyroxene and olivine crystals are 1–2 mm and 1–1.5 mm in diameter, respectively. Some pyroxenes have been altered to tremolite, and some olivine has been serpentinized (Figure 3).
Wehrlite is composed of 70% olivine, 28% clinopyroxene, and 2% sulfides. The olivine and clinopyroxene crystals are 1–2 mm and 1 mm in diameter, respectively. The sulfides are pyrrhotite (Po), pentlandite (Pn), and chalcopyrite (Cpy).
Quartz diorite contains 40% plagioclase, 25% quartz, 20% amphibole, and 15% biotite, with a crystal size of 1–2 mm.

3. Sampling and Analytical Methodology

3.1. Sample Descriptions

Two samples (one wehrlite, sample location: 95°19′57.73″ E Long., 36°06′25.03″ N Lat., and one quartz diorite, sample location: 95°19′53.87″ E Long., 36°06′28.53″ N Lat.) with the least alteration were selected from the Gayahedonggou outcrops for zircon laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) U-Pb and Lu-Hf isotopic dating. In addition, eight whole-rock samples, including wehrlite and quartz diorite, were selected for major and trace element analyses.

3.2. Zircon U-Pb and IN SITU Hf Isotope Analyses

Zircon grains were separated from bulk samples by conventional heavy-liquid and magnetic techniques and then purified by hand-picking under a binocular microscope. Representative zircon grains were mounted in epoxy resin and then polished so that the crystals were approximately sectioned in half at the Langfang Regional Geological Survey, Hebei Province, China. Zircon target and cathodoluminescence (CL) images were obtained at the State Key Laboratory of Continental Dynamics of Northwest University, Xi’an, China; zircon U-Pb determinations analysis was carried out by LA-ICP-MS at the Key Laboratory for the Study of Focused Magmatism and Giant Ore Deposits, Xi’an Center of Geological Survey, using a Geolas 2005 excimer ArF laser-ablation system coupled with an Agilent 7700 ICP-MS. Zircon isotopic determinations were obtained with a spot size of 32 μm. The detailed parameters and operating methods of the instrument have been published previously [33]. The content of common lead is low, so no correction for this parameter has been considered [34], and the zircon isotope ratio and age data were analyzed using the Glitter (ver 4.0) program for calculations and processing [35]. Isoplot 3.0 was used for age calculations and concordia plot drawings [36].
Hf isotopes were analyzed over a spot size of 44 μm, and instrumental conditions and data-acquisition procedures were similar to those described by [37]. All of the Hf analyses were carried out on the same spots that were used for U-Pb laser ablation. Zircon GJ-1 was used as the reference standard and yielded a weighted mean 176Lu/177Hf ratio of 0.282030 ± 40 (2SE) [33].

3.3. Major and Trace Element Compositions

Major and trace elements were analyzed at the Western Mineral Resources and Geological Engineering Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education. The major elements were identified by using X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF), following the procedure of [38]. The analytical error is less than 1%. Trace elements were identified using a PQ2 Turbo ICP-MS following the technique of [39]. The precision was generally <5% for trace elements.

4. Analytical Results

4.1. Zircon U-Pb Ages

Representative CL images of zircons from the Gayahedonggou samples are shown in Figure 4. The U-Pb dating results are listed in Table 1. The zircon Th/U ratio of wehrlite is between 0.1 and 0.74, with an average of 0.33 and that of quartz diorite is between 0.27 and 0.70, with an average of 0.51. All the grains exhibit concentric zoning, indicating a magmatic zircon feature. All analyses report concordant U-Pb ages within analytical errors (Figure 4), yielding a concordia age of 419.9 ± 0.8 Ma (mean standard weighted deviation(MSWD) = 0.2) and 410.2 ± 3.5 Ma for the wehrlite and quartz diorite, respectively. These results indicate that wehrlite and quartz diorite formed during the Later Silurian and Early Devonian, respectively.

4.2. Major and Trace Elements

The major and trace element compositions of eight samples from Gayahedonggou are listed in Table 2. The LOI values range from 0.65 to 5.07 wt%, suggesting that several samples have undergone weak post-mineralization alteration. The SiO2, MgO, TiO2, Cr, and Ni contents in wehrlite samples are 31.52–39.70 wt%, 28.98–31.04 wt%, 0.24–0.35 wt%, 942–1394 ppm, and 1989–4438 ppm, respectively. The Mg# value ranges from 0.74 to 0.79, with an average of 0.77, and the m/f Mg2+/(TFe2+ + Mn2+) ratio ranges from 2.84 to 3.75, with a mean value of 3.29. Quartz diorites contain 65.05–65.90 wt% SiO2, 16.71–16.92 wt% Al2O3, 3.70–3.94 wt% Tfe2O3, and 4.96–5.15 wt% (K2O + Na2O). Quartz diorites are characterized by low K2O content but rich CaO and Na2O content. The A/CNK and A/NK ratios of quartz diorites range from 1.02 to 1.04 and from 2.13 to 2.23, respectively.
Chondrite-normalized rare-earth element (REE) patterns and primitive mantle-normalized spidergrams for wehrlite and quartz diorite are illustrated in Figure 5. Quartz diorite and wehrlite show nearly the same pattern. They are strongly enriched in large ion lithophile element(LILEs) (Rb, Th, and K) and depleted in Nb, Ta, and Ti. The total rare-earth element contents (ΣREE) of wehrlite are low, ranging from 14.79 to 22.39 ppm. The (La/Yb)N, (La/Sm)N, (Gd/Yb)N, Nb/U, and Ce/Pb ratios of wehrlite are 3.01–7.14, 1.69–3.91, 1.36–1.51, 2.07–2.93, and 0.55–1.42, respectively. The LREE/HREE and δEu values of quartz diorite are 5.80–6.89 and 0.97–1.06, respectively.

4.3. Zircon Lu-Hf Isotopes

The Lu-Hf isotopes of the selected zircon crystals from the wehrlite and quartz diorite are listed in Table 3. The εHf(t) values for wehrlite range from −0.8 to 4.2, with an average of 3.0. The two-stage model age (TDM2) of peridotite zircons ranges from 1.14 to 1.46 Ga, with an average of 1.24 Ga. One zircon grain from quartz diorite shows an εHf (t) value of −0.8, and the εHf(t) value of the other four grains from quartz diorite is between 5.1 and 9.9, with an average of 8.0. The two-stage model age (TDM2) of quartz diorite zircons ranges from 0.76 to 1.45 Ga, with an average of 1.01 Ga. In the εHf(t) vs. t(Ma) diagram, the data are plotted between the Hf isotopic evolution lines of chondrite and depleted mantle (Figure 6).

5. Discussion

5.1. Source

5.1.1. Wehrlite Source and Crustal Contamination

The average εHf(t) value of the wehrlite from the Gayahedonggou complex is 3.0. Such high εHf(t) values indicate that the Gayahedonggou wehrlite is unlikely to have been derived from the continental lithospheric mantle, which is characterized by εHf(t) values of less than 0 [44]. Consequently, this study concludes that the Gayahedonggou wehrlite was likely derived from a depleted mantle or the asthenosphere. The ratios of elements with similar atomic numbers are not easily affected by the evolution of magmatic rocks; therefore, Th/Yb, Zr/Yb, Nb/U, Ce/Yb, etc., are useful proxies for evaluating the role of upper/lower crustal contamination vs. mantle source enrichment [45,46,47]. In Figure 7a,b, Zr is positively correlated with Th, and the ratios of Th/Yb and Nb/La show a weak positive correlation. Mid-Oceanic Ridge Basalts(MORB) and Oceanic-Island Basalt(OIB)have high, uniform Nb/U ratios of 47 ± 10 [48]. In contrast, the Nb/U ratio of the Gayahedonggou wehrlite is 2.51–2.06, which is similar to the mean values of the continental crust (~9.7) [49]. The average Ce/Pb ratio of the mantle is 25 ± 5, whereas that of the continental crust is <15 [50]. The Ce/Pb ratios of the Gayahedonggou intrusion range from 0.55 to 1.42, which differ from mantle values but are relatively similar to those of the continental crust, suggesting significant crustal contamination.
The values of (La/Nb)PM and (Th/Ta)PM of the upper and lower crusts are markedly different and can be used to identify crustal contamination materials [51]. In Figure 7c, which considers these parameters, the wehrlite data plot towards the upper crust field. In summary, the Gayahedonggou wehrlite originated from a depleted mantle, and the material was added to the original magma through upper-crustal contamination.

5.1.2. The Source of Quartz Diorite

Generally, there are four types of granite: S-, I-, A-, and M-type granite. A-type granite is generally anhydrous and is characterized by low CaO, Sr, Ti, P, and Ba contents and high Na2O + K2O, Rb, Zr, Ga, and SiO2 contents and Ga/Al ratios [52,53]. I-type granites commonly contain amphibole, apatite, and titanite, with (A/CNK) ratios < 1.1 and Na2O > K2O. Typical S-type granites often contain minerals such as muscovite, cordierite, and garnet, with A/CNK ratios > 1.1 [54]. The MgO and Na2O contents of quartz diorite are relatively high, and the A/CNK and A/NK ratios range from 1.02 to 1.04 and from 2.13 to 2.23, respectively. In the A/CNK-A/NK figure, the data for the quartz diorite samples are plotted within the I-type granite area (Figure 8a). Quartz diorite is composed of plagioclase, amphibole, quartz, and biotite. In Figure 8b, the quartz diorite samples fall in the peraluminous region and the tholeiite to calc-alkaline series region. The aforementioned features correspond to the I-type granite in the EKOB during the same period. Furthermore, a geological field investigation reveals that mafic microgranular enclaves (MMEs), which are considered to have originated from the mixing of lower-crust- and enriched mantle-derived magmas, exist in the quartz diorite samples [55,56]. The Rb/Sr values of quartz diorite are between 0.04 and 0.07, which are significantly lower than the crustal ratio (5.36~6.55) [40]. Moreover, the average εHf(t) of quartz diorite is 8.0; such high εHf(t) values generally reflect the typical characteristics of the mantle. This does not display the features expected of A-type granite based on the major elements; thus, it is unlikely that the quartz diorite was derived from the mantle. Therefore, the quartz diorite was likely derived from the lower crust, which is a mixture of the mantle and the crust magma region.

5.2. Tectonic Setting

It has been confirmed that the EKOB entered the stage of Proto-Tethys evolution in the Cambrian [60,61,62]. Magmatic rocks with ages of 515–436 Ma generally have island arc characteristics, and the lithologies include diorite, andesite, and gabbro. After 428 Ma, A-type and peraluminous granites appeared in large quantities, and the nature of magmatic rocks changed from island arc to intracontinental [63,64]. Moreover, eclogite, which is formed under ultra-high pressure, also provides evidence to support these findings. The formation age of eclogite in the Xiarihamu is 437 ± 3.6 Ma [65], while that in the Wenquan is 451 ± 2 Ma [66]. This indicates that there was a deep subduction event in the EKOB at the end of the early Paleozoic; the collision was completed at approximately 428 Ma (Figure 9a), and the region entered the post-collision extension stage [5,60].
There are two views on the metallogenic model for the late Paleozoic magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposits in the EKOB. One theory is the subduction island arc environment metallogenic model [10,12,13], which posits that the genesis of ore-bearing intrusions was controlled by the Proto-Tethys subduction process. The deep subduction of oceanic crust resulted in the partial melting of the lithospheric mantle and Cu-Ni enrichment and mineralization [13]. However, the Fe3+/∑Fe ratio of Cr-spinel for the Alaskan-type ultramafic intrusions, which is in the arc setting, is >0.3; in contrast, this ratio for the ultramafic in the post-collision, or rift, setting is <0.3 [5]. The Fe3+/∑Fe ratio of Cr-spinel from the Xiarihamu giant Ni-Co deposit in the EKOB is <0.3 [5], indicating that it was not in the arc environment. The other theory is the post-collision extensional environment metallogenic model [4,5,14,15], which is supported by reginal tectonic evolution. The age of the wehrlite of the Gayahedonggou complex is 419.9 ± 0.8 Ma. A high εHf(t) value indicates that the Gayahedonggou complex was likely derived from a depleted mantle or the asthenospheric mantle. In the Th/Yb- Nb/Yb diagram (Figure 10a), wehrlite samples are located at the MORB–OIB evolution line and tend to approach the volcanic arc region, reflecting the influence of subduction components [67]. At the same time, the Th/Nb and Th/Yb ratios are relatively small, which suggests the presence of a large amount of subduction-related fluid in the source region. In the Nb/Zr vs. Th/Zr diagram, the trends of the samples are consistent with that of subduction-fluid metasomatism (Figure 10b). The addition of this subduction-related fluid resulted in the geochemical characteristics of island arc magmatic rocks in the source region, but this does not mean that these intrusions formed in the arc environment [18]. At the end of the late Paleozoic, the Proto-Tethys Ocean completed subduction at approximately 428 Ma, it entered the post-collision extension stage, and slab break-off occurred [5,60].
Some A-type granites with low CaO, MgO, and Sr contents in the EKOB are considered to have formed in the post-collision environment, such as the Nniantang A-type syenogranite (403 ± 2 Ma) [69]. To date, the latest Paleozoic A-type granite reported in the East Kunlun area is the Binggou granite with an age of 391 ± 3 Ma [70]. Thus, the post-collision extension setting appears to have lasted up to approximately 390 Ma. These mafic–ultramafic rocks and those of the Gayahedonggou complex formed at 420 Ma and 410 Ma, respectively. Thus, it is reasonable to posit that the mafic–ultramafic rocks and quartz diorite in the Gayahedonggou complex formed in the post-collision extension setting (Figure 9b).

5.3. Cu-Ni Mineralization Potential

The Cu-Ni deposit in the EKOB formed between the late Early Paleozoic and the early Late Paleozoic. Some Cu-Ni deposits have been discovered in the eastern and western parts of the EKOB. However, no Cu-Ni deposits exist in the central area of the EKOB before the discovery of the Gayahedonggou deposit. Thus, the discovery of the Gayahedonggou deposit indicates that a Cu-Ni metallogenic belt spans 800 km in the EKOB.
Liu et al. (2019a) summarized that the large Cu-Ni deposit in the EKOB shares the following characteristics: (1) the mafic–ultramafic complexes have a broader range of m/f values (m/fmax − m/fmin > 2.5) and higher m/f values (m/fmax > 5.5); (2) the pyroxene in the intrusion is mainly orthopyroxene; and (3) the olivine and the clinopyroxene in mineralized intrusions contain low contents of FeO and CaO [17]. The highest m/f ratio is 3.75 in the Gayahedonggou complex, which is much lower than 5.5. Typically, only the m/f ratio of dunite in the EKOB could reach 5.5. This is consistent with the lack of dunite found in the Gayahedonggou deposit. This reflects the fact that the ultramafic magma in the Gayahedonggou complex is not much stronger than that in the large Cu-Ni deposits in the EKOB. The pyroxene in the Gayahedonggou complex is mainly clinopyroxene, which is enriched in the CaO content, indicating that the CaO content of the parent magma of the Gayahedonggou complex is high or that the complex has been contaminated by Ca-rich surrounding rocks. During the crustal contamination process, the crustal components that promote sulfide saturation were defined as “beneficial crustal contamination”; in contrast, the crustal components that hinder sulfide saturation were defined as “harmful crustal contamination” [71]. The introduction of calcite marble is regarded as typical “harmful crustal contamination”, because it increases the CaO content of the magma, which hinders sulfide saturation [9,72]. High-temperature and high-pressure experiments also show that the contamination of CaCO3 inhibits sulfide saturation of the mafic–ultramafic magma [73]. Meanwhile, the Gayahedonggou complex is characterized by a high CaO feature, which hinders Cu-Ni mineralization.

6. Conclusions

Important conclusions from this study are as follows:
  • The zircon U-Pb ages of ore-bearing wehrlite and quartz diorite are 419.9 ± 1.5 and 410.2 ± 3.5 Ma, respectively. According to Lu-Hf isotope and geochemical analyses, wehrlite was likely derived from a depleted mantle or the asthenosphere, and the source region of quartz diorite is likely the lower crust.
  • The parental magma of the wehrlite was modified by subduction-related fluids.
  • The Gayahedonggou complex formed in a post-collision extensional environment.
  • The pyroxene in the Gayahedonggou complex is mainly clinopyroxene, which is enriched in the CaO content, indicating that the CaO content of the parent magma of the Gayahedonggou complex is high or that the complex has been contaminated by Ca-rich surrounding rocks, which hinders Cu-Ni mineralization.

Author Contributions

J.L. and N.N. conceived this contribution. N.N., J.L., Y.G.L., and H.K. conducted the field investigation. N.N., J.L., and H.K. performed the zircon U-Pb dating and Lu-Hf isotope analysis. Y.L. and N.N. interpreted all the data. N.N. wrote the original draft of the paper. Q.J. reviewed the original draft of the paper. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the China Geological Survey (DD20160013, 121201011000150005-17).

Acknowledgments

We gratefully thank the Sichuan Institute of Nuclear Geology for their sample collection. Many thanks are expressed to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Many thanks are due to the editorial staff of Minerals.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Xu, Y.G.; Chung, S.L.; Jahn, B.M.; Wu, G.Y. Petrologic and geochemical constraints on the petrogenesis of Permian-Triassic Emeishan flood basalts in southwestern China. Lithos 2001, 58, 145–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tao, Y.; Putirka, K.; Hu, R.Z.; Li, C.S. The magma plumbing system of the Emeishan large igneous province and its role in basaltic magma differentiation in a continental setting. Am. Mineral. 2015, 100, 2509–2517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, Y.G.; Lü, X.B.; Wu, C.M.; Duan, L.; Deng, G.; Wang, H.; Zhu, X.K.; Zeng, H.D.; Wang, P.; Wang, W.; et al. The migration of Tarim plume magma toward the northeast in Early Permian and its significance for the exploration of PGE-Cu-Ni magmatic sulfide deposits in Xinjiang, NW China: As suggested by Sr-Nd-Hf isotopes, sedimentology and geophysical data. Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 72, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Song, X.Y.; Yi, J.N.; Chen, L.M.; Yu, S.Y.; Liu, C.Z.; Dang, X.Y.; Yang, Q.A.; Wu, S.K. The Giant Xiarihamu Ni-Co Sulfide Deposit in the East Kunlun Orogenic Belt, Northern Tibet Plateau, China. Econ. Geol. 2016, 111, 29–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, Y.G.; Li, W.Y.; Jia, Q.Z.; Zhang, Z.W.; Wang, Z.A.; Zhang, Z.B.; Zhang, J.W.; Qian, B. The dynamic sulfide saturation process and a possible slab break-off model for the Giant Xiarihamu magmatic nickel ore deposit in the East Kunlun Orogenic Belt, Northern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China. Econ. Geol. 2018, 113, 1383–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, X.; Zhang, M.; Fu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Li, L.; Tang, Q.; Li, Z. The magmatic intrusive direction constrains from noble gas isotopic compositions: A case study of the Xiarihamu Ni-Cu sulfide deposit in East Kunlun orogenic belt. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2018, 34, 3433–3444. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  7. Feng, Y.Q.; Qian, Z.Z.; Duan, J.; Xu, G.; Ren, M.; Jiang, C. Geochronological and geochemical study of the Baixintan magmatic Ni-Cu sulphide deposit: New implications for the exploration potential in the western part of the East Tianshan nickel belt (NW China). Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 95, 366–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, J.Y.; Lei, H.L.; Ma, C.Q.; Li, J.W.; Pan, Y.M. Geochemical and thermodynamical modeling of magmatic sources and processes for the Xiarihamu sulfide deposit in the eastern Kunlun Orogen, western China. J. Geochem. Explor. 2018, 190, 345–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, Z.W.; Wang, Y.L.; Qian, B.; Liu, Y.G.; Zhang, D.Y.; Lü, P.R.; Dong, J. Metallogeny and tectonomagmatic setting of Ni-Cu magmatic sulfide mineralization, number I Shitoukengde mafic-ultramafic complex, East Kunlun Orogenic Belt, NW China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 96, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jiang, C.Y.; Ling, J.L.; Zhou, W.; Du, W.; Wang, Z.X.; Fan, Y.Z.; Song, Y.F.; Song, Z.B. Petrogenesis of the Xiarihamu Ni-bearing layered mafic-ultramafic intrusion, East Kunlun: Implications for its extensional island arc environment. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2015, 31, 1117–1136. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  11. Qian, Y.; Li, H.R.; Sun, F.Y.; Sun, J.; Wang, G. Zircon U-Pb dating and sulfide Re-Os isotopes of the Xiarihamu Cu-Ni sulfide deposit in Qinghai Province, Northwestern China. Can. J. Earth Sci. 2020, 57, 885–902. [Google Scholar]
  12. Du, W. Study on the Mafic-Ultramafic Rocks of Xiarihamu Nickel Mining Area in East Kunlun. Ph.D. Thesis, Chang’an University, Xi’an, China, 2015. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  13. Li, C.S.; Zhang, Z.W.; Li, W.Y.; Wang, Y.L.; Sun, T.; Ripley, E.M. Geochronology, petrology and Hf–S isotope geochemistry of the newly-discovered Xiarihamu magmatic Ni–Cu sulfide deposit in the Qinghai–Tibet plateau, western China. Lithos 2015, 216–217, 224–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Peng, B.; Sun, F.Y.; Li, B.L.; Wang, G.; Li, S.J.; Zhao, T.F.; Li, L.; Zhi, Y.B. The geochemistry and geochronology of the Xiarihamu II mafic–ultramafic complex, Eastern Kunlun, Qinghai Province, China: Implications for the genesis of magmatic Ni–Cu sulfide deposits. Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 73, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, Z.W.; Wang, Y.L.; Wang, C.Y.; Qian, B.; Li, W.Y.; Zhang, J.W.; You, M.X. Mafic-ultramafic magma activity and copper-nickel sulfide metallogeny during Paleozoic in the Eastern Kunlun Orogenic Belt, Qinghai Province, China. China Geol. 2019, 2, 467–477. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, L.; Sun, F.Y.; Li, B.L.; Li, S.J.; Chen, G.J.; Wang, W.; Yan, J.M.; Zhao, T.F.; Dong, J.; Zhang, D.X. Geochronology, Geochemistry and Sr-Nd-Pb-Hf Isotopes of No. I Complex from the Shitoukengde Ni–Cu sulfide deposit in the Eastern Kunlun Orogen, Western China: Implications for the MAGMATIC source, geodynamic setting and genesis. Acta Geol. Sin. Engl. Ed. 2018, 92, 106–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, Y.G.; Chen, Z.G.; Li, W.Y.; Xu, X.H.; Kou, X.; Jia, Q.Z.; Zhang, Z.W.; Liu, F.; Wang, Y.L.; You, M.X. The Cu-Ni mineralization potential of the Kaimuqi mafic-ultramafic complex and the indicators for the magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposit exploration in the East Kunlun Orogenic Belt, Northern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 2019, 198, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, W.Y.; Wang, Y.L.; Qian, B.; Liu, Y.G.; Han, Y.X. Discussion on formation of magmatic Cu-Ni-Co sulfide deposits in margin of Tarim Block. Earth Sci. Front. 2020, 27, 276–293. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, X.; Wei, J.H.; Fu, L.B.; Huizenga, J.M.; Santosh, M.; Chen, J.J.; Wang, D.Z.; Li, A.B. Multi-stage crustal melting from Late Permian back-arc extension through Middle Triassic continental collision to Late Triassic post-collisional extension in the East Kunlun Orogen. Lithos 2020, 360–361, 105446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, J.Y.; Ma, C.Q.; Xiong, F.H.; Liu, B.; Li, J.W.; Pan, Y.M. Early Paleozoic high-Mg diorite-granodiorite in the eastern Kunlun Orogen, western China: Response to continental collision and slab break-off. Lithos 2014, 210–211, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dong, Y.P.; He, D.F.; Sun, S.S.; Liu, X.M.; Zhou, X.H.; Zhang, F.F.; Yang, Z.; Cheng, B.; Zhao, G.C.; Li, J.H. Subduction and accretionary tectonics of the East Kunlun orogen, western segment of the Central China Orogenic System. Earth Sci. Rev. 2018, 186, 231–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Huang, H.; Niu, Y.L.; Nowell, G.; Zhao, Z.D.; Yu, X.H.; Zhu, D.C.; Mo, X.X.; Ding, S. Geochemical constraints on the petrogenesis of granitoids in the East Kunlun Orogenic belt, northern Tibetan Plateau: Implications for continental crust growth through syn-collisional felsic magmatism. Chem. Geol. 2014, 370, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shao, F.L.; Niu, Y.L.; Liu, Y.; Chen, S.; Kong, J.J.; Duan, M. Petrogenesis of Triassic granitoids in the East Kunlun Orogenic Belt, northern Tibetan Plateau and their tectonic implications. Lithos 2017, 282–283, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Xia, R.; Wang, C.M.; Qing, M.; Li, W.L.; Carranza, E.J.M.; Guo, X.D.; Ge, L.S.; Zeng, G.Z. Zircon U–Pb dating, geochemistry and Sr–Nd–Pb–Hf–O isotopes for the Nan’getan granodiorites and mafic microgranular enclaves in the East Kunlun Orogen: Record of closure of the Paleo-Tethys. Lithos 2015, 234–235, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liang, Y.Y.; Xia, R.; Shan, X.Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhao, E.Q.; Guo, W.H. Geochronology and geochemistry of ore-hosting rhyolitic tuff in the Kengdenongshe polymetallic deposit in the Eastern Segment of the East Kunlun Orogen. Minerals 2019, 9, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Bian, Q.T.; Li, D.H.; Pospelov, I.; Yin, L.M.; Li, H.S.; Zhao, D.S.; Chang, C.F.; Luo, X.Q.; Gao, S.L.; Astrakhantsev, O. Age, geochemistry and tectonic setting of Buqingshan ophiolites, North Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2004, 23, 577–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhao, X.; Fu, L.B.; Wei, J.H.; Bagas, L.; Santosh, M.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, D.H.; Zhou, H.Z. Late Permian back-arc extension of the eastern Paleo-Tethys Ocean: Evidence from the East Kunlun Orogen, Northern Tibetan Plateau. Lithos 2019, 340–341, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, C.Y.; Zhang, Z.W.; Zhang, C.J.; Chen, C.H.; Li, Y.; Qian, B. Constraints on sulfide saturation by crustal contamination in the Shitoukengde Cu-Ni deposit, East Kunlun orogenic belt, northern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China. Geosci. J. 2020, 8, 356–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guo, X.Z.; Lü, X.B.; Jia, Q.Z.; Li, J.C.; Kong, H.L. Fluid Inclusions and S–Pb Isotopes of the Reshui Porphyry Mo Deposit in East Kunlun, Qinghai Province, China. Minerals 2019, 9, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Ding, Q.F.; Jiang, S.Y.; Sun, F.Y. Zircon U–Pb geochronology, geochemical and Sr–Nd–Hf isotopic compositions of the Triassic granite and diorite dikes from the Wulonggou mining area in the Eastern Kunlun Orogen, NW China: Petrogenesis and tectonic implications. Lithos 2014, 205, 266–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, Y.J.; Genser, J.; Neubauer, F.; Jin, W.; Ge, X.H.; Handler, R.; Takasu, A. 40Ar/39Ar mineral ages from basement rocks in the Eastern Kunlun Mountains, NW China, and their tectonic implications. Tectonophysics 2005, 398, 199–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. He, D.F.; Dong, Y.P.; Liu, X.M.; Yang, Z.; Sun, S.S.; Cheng, B.; Li, W. Tectono-thermal events in East Kunlun, Northern Tibetan Plateau: Evidence from zircon U–Pb geochronology. Gondwana Res. 2016, 30, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yuan, H.L.; Gao, S.; Dai, M.N.; Zong, C.L.; Günther, D.; Fontaine, G.H.; Liu, X.M.; Diwu, C.R. Simultaneous determinations of U–Pb age, Hf isotopes and trace element compositions of zircon by excimer laser-ablation quadrupole and multiple-collector ICP-MS. Chem. Geol. 2008, 247, 100–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Andersen, T. Correction of common lead in U–Pb analyses that do not report 204Pb. Chem. Geol. 2002, 192, 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, Y.S.; Gao, S.; Hu, Z.C.; Gao, C.G.; Zong, K.Q.; Wang, D.B. 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. 2010, 51, 537–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ludwig, K. Mathematical–statistical treatment of data and errors for 230Th/U geochronology. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2003, 52, 631–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wu, F.Y.; Li, X.H.; Zheng, Y.F.; Gao, S. Lu-Hf isotopic systematics and their applications in petrology. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2007, 23, 185–220. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhou, B.; Dong, Y.P.; Zhang, F.F.; Yang, Z.; Sun, S.S.; He, D.F. Geochemistry and zircon U-Pb geochronology of granitoids in the East Kunlun Orogenic Belt, northern Tibetan Plateau: Origin and tectonic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2016, 130, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, X.H.; Li, Z.X.; Zhou, H.W.; Liu, Y.; Kinny, P. U-Pb zircon geochronology, geochemistry and Nd isotopic study of Neoproterozoic bimodal volcanic rocks in the Kangdian Rift of South China: Implications for the initial rifting of Rodinia. Precambrian Res. 2002, 113, 135–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Boynton, W.V. Chapter 3—Cosmochemistry of the Rare Earth Elements: Meteorite Studies. Dev. Geochem. 1984, 2, 63–114. [Google Scholar]
  41. McDonough, W.F.; Sun, S.S. The composition of the Earth. Chem. Geol. 1995, 120, 223–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Blichert, T.J.; Albarède, F. The Lu-Hf isotope geochemistry of chondrites and the evolution of the mantle-crust system. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1997, 148, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Amelin, Y. Meteorite phosphates show constant 176Lu decay rate since 4557 million years ago. Science 2005, 310, 839–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Griffin, W. The Hf isotope composition of cratonic mantle: LAM-MC-ICPMS analysis of zircon megacrysts in kimberlites. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2000, 64, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Campbell, I.H.; Griffiths, R.W. The evolution of the mantle’s chemical structure. Lithos 1993, 30, 389–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Macdonald, R.; Rogers, N.; Fitton, J.; Black, S.; Smith, M. Plume-lithosphere interactions in the generation of the basalts of the Kenya Rift, East Africa. J. Petrol. 2001, 42, 877–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Pearce, J. Geochemical fingerprinting of oceanic basalts with applications to ophiolite classification and the search for Archean oceanic crust. Lithos 2008, 100, 14–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hofmann, A.W. Chemical differentiation of the Earth: The relationship between mantle, continental crust, and oceanic crust. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1988, 90, 297–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Campbell, I.H. Implications of Nb/U, Th/U and Sm/Nd in plume magmas for the relationship between continental and oceanic crust formation and the development of the depleted mantle. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2002, 66, 1651–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Furman, T.; Bryce, J.; Karson, J.; Iotti, A. East African Rift System (EARS) Plume Structure: Insights from Quaternary Mafic Lavas of Turkana, Kenya. J. Petrol. 2004, 45, 1069–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Neal, C.R.; Mahoney, J.J.; Chazey, W.J., III. Mantle Sources and the highly variable role of continental lithosphere in basalt petrogenesis of the Kerguelen Plateau and Broken Ridge LIP: Results from ODP Leg 183. J. Petrol. 2002, 43, 1177–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. White, A.; Chappell, B. Granitoid types and their distribution in the Lachlan Fold Belt, Southeastern Australia. Geol. Soc. Am. 1983, 159, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Whalen, J.; Currie, K.; Chappell, B. A-type granites: Geochemical characteristics, discrimination and petrogenesis. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1987, 95, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sylvester, P. Post-collisional strongly peraluminous granites. Lithos 1998, 45, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, H.W.; Luo, Z.H.; Mo, X.X.; Zhang, X.T.; Wang, J.; Wang, B.Z. SHRIMP ages of Kayakedengtage complex in the East Kunlun Mountains and their geological implications. Acta Petrol. Mineral. 2006, 25, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  56. Li, Y.J.; Wei, J.H.; Santosh, M.; Li, H.; Liu, H.W.; Niu, M.W.; Liu, B. Anisian granodiorites and mafic microgranular enclaves in the eastern Kunlun Orogen, NW China: Insights into closure of the eastern Paleo-Tethys. Geol. J. 2020, 55, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maniar, P.; Piccoli, P. Tectonic discrimination of granitoids. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1989, 101, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Peccerillo, A.; Taylor, S. Geochemistry of Eocene Calc-alkaline volcanic rocks from the Kastamonu Area, Northern Turkey. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1976, 58, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Middlemost, E.A.K. Magmas and Magmatic Rocks: An Introduction to Igneous Petrology; Office of Scientific and Technical Information: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  60. Meng, F.C.; Zhang, J.X.; Cui, M.H. Discovery of Early Paleozoic eclogite from the East Kunlun, Western China and its tectonic significance. Gondwana Res. 2013, 23, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, J.Y.; Qian, Y.; Li, H.R.; Sun, J.L.; Yang, X.M.; Chen, B.; Fan, X.Z. The Late Ordovician granitoids in the East Kunlun Orogenic Belt, Northwestern China: Petrogenesis and constraints for tectonic evolution of the Proto-Tethys Ocean. Int. J. Earth Sci. 2019, 109, 1439–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhou, W.X.; Li, H.Q.; Chang, F.; Lv, X.B. The Early Silurian Gabbro in the Eastern Kunlun Orogenic Belt, Northeast Tibet: Constraints on the Proto-Tethyan ocean closure. Minerals 2020, 10, 794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, B.; Ma, C.Q.; Jiang, H.A.; Guo, P.; Zhang, J.Y.; Xiong, F.H. Early Paleozoic tectonic transition from ocean subduction to collisional orogeny in the Eastern Kunlun region: Evidence from Huxiaoqin Mafic rocks. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 2093–2106. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  64. Dong, G.C.; Luo, M.F.; Mo, X.X.; Zhao, Z.D.; Dong, L.Q.; Yu, X.H.; Wang, X.; Li, X.W.; Huang, X.F.; Liu, Y.B. Petrogenesis and tectonic implications of early Paleozoic granitoids in East Kunlun belt: Evidences from geochronology, geochemistry and isotopes. Geosci. Front. 2018, 9, 1383–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, G. Metallogenesis of nickel deposits in Eastern Kunlun Orogenic Belt Qinghai Province. Ph.D. Thesis, Jinlin University, Changchun, China, 2014. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  66. Jia, L.H.; Meng, F.C.; Feng, H.B. Eclogite-facies peak fluid activity: Evidence from the British East Kunlun eclogite rock veins. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2014, 30, 2339–2350. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  67. Pearce, J.A.; Petae, D.W. Tectonic Implications of the Composition of Volcanic ARC Magmas. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1995, 23, 251–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kepezhinskas, P.; McDermott, F.; Defant, M.; Hochstaedter, A.; Drummond, M.; Hawkesworth, C.; Koloskov, A.; Maury, R.; Bellon, H. Trace element and SrNdPb isotopic constraints on a three-component model of Kamchatka Arc petrogenesis. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1997, 61, 577–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chen, J.J.; Fu, L.B.; Wei, J.H.; Selby, D.; Zhang, D.H.; Zhou, H.Z.; Zhao, X.; Liu, Y. Proto-Tethys magmatic evolution along northern Gondwana: Insights from Late Silurian–Middle Devonian A-type magmatism, East Kunlun Orogen, Northern Tibetan Plateau, China. Lithos 2020, 356–357, 105304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Liu, B.; Ma, C.Q.; Pan, G.; Zhang, J.Y.; Xiong, F.H.; Jian, H.; Jiang, H.A. Discovery of the Middle Devonian A-type granite from the Eastern Kunlun Orogen and its tectonic implications. Earth Sci. J. China Univ. Geosci. 2013, 38, 947–962. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Liu, Y.G.; Lü, X.B.; Ruan, B.X.; Liu, X.; Liu, S.; Jing, F.; Deng, G.; Wang, H.; Zeng, H.D.; Wang, P.; et al. A comprehensive information exploration model for magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposits in Beishan, Xinjiang. Miner. Depos. 2019, 38, 644–666. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Liu, Y.G.; Li, W.Y.; Lü, X.B.; Liu, Y.R.; Ruan, B.X.; Liu, X. Sulfide saturation mechanism of the poyi magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposit in Beishan, Xinjiang, Northwest China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 91, 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Liu, Y.G.; Wang, L.P.; Mei, S.H.; Li, W.Y.; Kohlstedt, D.L.; Zhang, Z.W. Experimental discrimination of typical “benificail crustal contamination” and “harmful crustal contamination” during the sulfide saturation process of magmatic Cu-Ni-PGE deposit. In Proceedings of the 9th National Symposium on Mineralization Theory and Prospecting Methods, Nanjing, China, 13–16 December 2019; Volume 78. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
Minerals 10 00950 g001 550
Figure 1. Geological map of the East Kunlun orogenic belt (EKOB). 1. Qimantage Group; 2. Wanbaogou Group; 3. Jinshuikou Group; 4. Nachitai Group; 5. Mafic–ultramafic intrusion; 6. Cu-Ni sulfide ore deposit; 7. Fault; 8. Longitude and latitude.
Figure 1. Geological map of the East Kunlun orogenic belt (EKOB). 1. Qimantage Group; 2. Wanbaogou Group; 3. Jinshuikou Group; 4. Nachitai Group; 5. Mafic–ultramafic intrusion; 6. Cu-Ni sulfide ore deposit; 7. Fault; 8. Longitude and latitude.
Minerals 10 00950 g001
Minerals 10 00950 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Simplified geological map of the Gayahedonggou Cu-Ni deposit. (b) Cross sections of 00-00’ in Figure 2a (modified from Sichuan Institute of Nuclear Geology, 2019). 1. Quaternary; 2. Jinshuikou Group; 3. Quartz diorite; 4. Gabbro; 5. Wehrlite; 6. Sulfide mineralization; 7. Fault; 8. Drill core; 9. Sample location.
Figure 2. (a) Simplified geological map of the Gayahedonggou Cu-Ni deposit. (b) Cross sections of 00-00’ in Figure 2a (modified from Sichuan Institute of Nuclear Geology, 2019). 1. Quaternary; 2. Jinshuikou Group; 3. Quartz diorite; 4. Gabbro; 5. Wehrlite; 6. Sulfide mineralization; 7. Fault; 8. Drill core; 9. Sample location.
Minerals 10 00950 g002
Minerals 10 00950 g003 550
Figure 3. Hand specimens and photomicrographs of typical lithofacies from the Gayahedonggou Cu-Ni deposit. (a) Olivine-bearing clinopyroxenite; (b) Wehrlite; (c) Interstitial sulfide aggregates between the olivine crystals; (d) Wehrlite, disseminated sulfide structure; (e,f) Disseminated sulfides hosted in wehrlite from drill core ZK0004. Mineral abbreviations: Ol = olivine, Cpx = clinopyroxene, Pn = pentlandite, Po = pyrrhotite, and Cpy = chalcopyrite.
Figure 3. Hand specimens and photomicrographs of typical lithofacies from the Gayahedonggou Cu-Ni deposit. (a) Olivine-bearing clinopyroxenite; (b) Wehrlite; (c) Interstitial sulfide aggregates between the olivine crystals; (d) Wehrlite, disseminated sulfide structure; (e,f) Disseminated sulfides hosted in wehrlite from drill core ZK0004. Mineral abbreviations: Ol = olivine, Cpx = clinopyroxene, Pn = pentlandite, Po = pyrrhotite, and Cpy = chalcopyrite.
Minerals 10 00950 g003
Minerals 10 00950 g004 550
Figure 4. Concordia diagrams for zircon laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) U-Pb dating for the Gayahedonggou Wehrlite (a) and Quartz diorite (b).
Figure 4. Concordia diagrams for zircon laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) U-Pb dating for the Gayahedonggou Wehrlite (a) and Quartz diorite (b).
Minerals 10 00950 g004
Minerals 10 00950 g005 550
Figure 5. Primitive mantle-normalized trace element spider diagram and chondrite-normalized REE diagram (primitive mantle data after [40,41]).
Figure 5. Primitive mantle-normalized trace element spider diagram and chondrite-normalized REE diagram (primitive mantle data after [40,41]).
Minerals 10 00950 g005
Minerals 10 00950 g006 550
Figure 6. Zircon εHf(t) value versus zircon U-Pb age for the Gayahedonggou wehrlite and quartz diorite.
Figure 6. Zircon εHf(t) value versus zircon U-Pb age for the Gayahedonggou wehrlite and quartz diorite.
Minerals 10 00950 g006
Minerals 10 00950 g007 550
Figure 7. Plots of selected trace elements for evaluating contamination processes of the Gayahedonggou wehrlite. Figure 7c is modified from [51]. (a) Nb/La-Th/Yb; (b) Zr/Th; (c) (La/Nb)PM-(Th/Ta)PM diagrams for the Gayahedonggou wehrlite.
Figure 7. Plots of selected trace elements for evaluating contamination processes of the Gayahedonggou wehrlite. Figure 7c is modified from [51]. (a) Nb/La-Th/Yb; (b) Zr/Th; (c) (La/Nb)PM-(Th/Ta)PM diagrams for the Gayahedonggou wehrlite.
Minerals 10 00950 g007
Minerals 10 00950 g008 550
Figure 8. A/CNK-A/NK (a) and SiO2-K2O (b) diagrams for the Gayahedonggou quartz diorite. The fields are similar magmatic rocks in the EKOB (these data come from geological maps (1:50,000, 1:250,000)). Figure 8a is modified from [57]; Figure 8b is modified from [58,59].
Figure 8. A/CNK-A/NK (a) and SiO2-K2O (b) diagrams for the Gayahedonggou quartz diorite. The fields are similar magmatic rocks in the EKOB (these data come from geological maps (1:50,000, 1:250,000)). Figure 8a is modified from [57]; Figure 8b is modified from [58,59].
Minerals 10 00950 g008
Minerals 10 00950 g009 550
Figure 9. Geological evolution in the EKOB between 510 and 390 Ma. (a) The Proto - Tethys Ocean subducted between 510 and 428 Ma.; (b) The post-collision extension setting between 428 and 390 Ma.
Figure 9. Geological evolution in the EKOB between 510 and 390 Ma. (a) The Proto - Tethys Ocean subducted between 510 and 428 Ma.; (b) The post-collision extension setting between 428 and 390 Ma.
Minerals 10 00950 g009
Minerals 10 00950 g010 550
Figure 10. Nb/Yb-Th/Yb (a) and Th/Zr-Nb/Zr (b) diagrams. Figure 10a is modified from [47] and Figure 10b is modified from [68].
Figure 10. Nb/Yb-Th/Yb (a) and Th/Zr-Nb/Zr (b) diagrams. Figure 10a is modified from [47] and Figure 10b is modified from [68].
Minerals 10 00950 g010
Table
Table 1. LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb dating results of wehrlite and quartz diorite.
Table 1. LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb dating results of wehrlite and quartz diorite.
SampleSample No.(×10−6)Th/UIsotope RatioAge (Ma)
PbThU207Pb/206Pb1σ207Pb/235U1σ206Pb/238U1σ207Pb/206Pb1σ207Pb/235U1σ206Pb/238U1σ
WehrliteGYH01-18345910390.440.05550.00110.51400.01020.06720.00074324542174194
GYH01-2461815810.310.05800.00150.53950.01400.06750.00085285743894215
GYH01-3381055000.210.05440.00150.50440.01370.06720.00083896141594195
GYH01-413252116970.310.05690.00210.52750.01930.06720.000948881430134195
GYH01-59634312410.280.05570.00120.51490.01050.06710.00074384542274194
GYH01-6682888560.340.05630.00130.52510.01180.06760.00074655142984224
GYH01-721664728130.230.05520.00150.51330.01350.06750.00084205842194215
GYH01-8421075660.190.05770.00230.53080.02020.06670.000951884432134165
GYH01-9544616200.740.05520.00150.50840.01390.06680.00084196141794175
GYH01-10562696970.390.05430.00170.50340.01500.06720.000838467414104195
GYH01-11763689520.390.05410.00120.50240.01110.06730.00073765041384204
GYH01-12462105980.350.05550.00280.51240.02570.06690.0011433110420174186
GYH01-1312752716130.330.05570.00120.51480.01110.06700.00074404842274184
GYH01-14511546650.230.05600.00140.51960.01270.06730.00084535542594205
GYH01-15613887310.530.05480.00150.51100.01400.06760.00084056141994225
GYH01-16562127090.300.05340.00260.49630.02390.06750.0010344107409164216
GYH01-17732429480.260.05500.00120.51230.01110.06760.00074104942074224
GYH01-1811051113810.370.05520.00130.50980.01160.06700.00074205141884184
GYH01-199226612110.220.05510.00120.51080.01120.06730.00074154941984204
GYH01-2014748219150.250.05640.00240.52180.02190.06710.001046893426154196
GYH01-21592967330.400.05490.00140.51250.01290.06770.00084105642094225
GYH01-2213253416740.320.05480.00120.50960.01070.06750.00074044741874214
GYH01-23744339030.480.05490.00120.51080.01120.06750.00074074941984214
GYH01-2418581623240.350.05470.00180.51150.01680.06780.000940072419114235
GYH01-25197115324150.480.05450.00180.50340.01650.06700.000839272414114185
GYH01-26381944760.410.05490.00160.51010.01440.06740.000840962419104205
GYH01-27763579820.360.05590.00130.51820.01190.06720.00074485142484204
GYH01-289454211400.480.05500.00110.51110.01000.06740.00074124441974204
GYH01-29683188600.370.05530.00130.51230.01180.06730.00074225142084204
GYH01-3012555415910.350.05370.00210.49720.01890.06720.000935885410134195
GYH01-3114826619970.130.05470.00180.50850.01650.06740.000840072417114215
GYH01-3210814714530.100.05440.00160.50570.01480.06750.000838665416104215
GYH01-3315848020370.240.05550.00190.51890.01750.06780.000943375424124235
GYH01-3417171821520.330.05500.00110.51030.01040.06730.00074134541974204
GYH01-3516057520800.280.05250.00220.48540.01950.06710.000930591402134196
GYH01-369937412690.290.05580.00140.51750.01290.06720.00084455542494205
Quartz dioriteGYH02-1221542600.590.05630.00270.51100.02380.06590.0010462103419164116
GYH02-2171132310.490.05600.00330.53530.03110.06930.0012453127435214327
GYH02-3201172370.500.05760.00330.52310.02920.06590.0011513121427194117
GYH02-4201662360.700.05710.00350.52240.03130.06630.0012495130427214147
GYH02-516871970.440.05530.00370.48860.03240.06410.0012424144404224007
GYH02-6221552600.590.05420.00510.49650.04620.06650.00173772004093141510
GYH02-715761880.400.05580.00290.51200.02590.06660.0010442111420174166
GYH02-8191122330.480.05390.00340.49050.03030.06600.0012368135405214127
GYH02-916951950.490.05480.00370.47000.03140.06220.0012405146391223897
GYH02-10211382580.530.05570.00300.51240.02740.06680.0011438117420184177
GYH02-1116922030.450.05560.00270.50680.02450.06620.0010434106416174136
GYH02-12191202390.500.05540.00260.50160.02320.06570.0010427102413164106
GYH02-13221682630.640.05550.00290.48810.02500.06380.0010431113404173996
GYH02-14171022190.470.05480.00290.50550.02670.06690.0011403116415184187
GYH02-15191082360.460.05480.00200.50660.01820.06710.000940480416124185
GYH02-1623843110.270.05450.00290.49260.02590.06560.0011390116407184106
GYH02-1717982110.460.05560.00510.48970.04410.06390.00164351934053039910
GYH02-1815781880.420.05560.00230.50490.02070.06590.000943690415144116
GYH02-19271993220.620.05820.00230.52740.02050.06570.000953785430144105
GYH02-20191292360.550.05610.00270.49510.02320.06410.0010454103408164006
GYH02-21211422570.550.05390.00360.48410.03180.06510.0012368144401224077
GYH02-22181082310.470.05590.00640.51570.05780.06700.00204462364223941812
GYH02-2314931800.520.05600.00480.50780.04270.06580.0015452180417294119
GYH02-24201392490.560.05560.00280.49570.02410.06470.0010434106409164046
Table
Table 2. Major elements (%) and trace elements (10−6) of wehrlite and quartz diorite.
Table 2. Major elements (%) and trace elements (10−6) of wehrlite and quartz diorite.
Rock TypeWehrliteQuartz Diorite
Sample No.a1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8
Sample LocationZK0004 72–85 mE 95°19′53.87″, N 36°06′28.53″
SiO239.7031.6734.3637.1631.5265.6865.0565.90
TiO20.280.350.310.260.240.580.590.59
Al2O32.6314.319.142.5712.1616.7616.7116.92
MnO0.140.090.080.100.060.060.070.07
MgO30.0928.9831.0430.4729.591.551.791.60
CaO3.223.122.692.851.974.714.734.81
Na2O0.350.470.320.200.373.964.043.96
K2O0.130.200.200.100.521.011.111.00
P2O50.030.030.050.030.040.140.140.14
Tfe2O319.2016.3416.3621.2317.863.703.943.81
LOI3.793.785.074.505.000.720.930.65
Total99.5699.3499.6299.4799.3398.8799.1099.45
La2.372.854.662.154.1510.7811.619.31
Ce5.586.269.314.878.6224.2324.9520.81
Pr0.740.801.040.630.992.943.092.63
Nd3.463.563.722.843.6411.6212.2110.57
Sm0.870.890.750.800.772.762.712.48
Eu0.220.300.210.190.210.870.880.86
Gd0.960.950.740.900.812.612.782.43
Tb0.160.170.110.140.120.390.390.38
Dy1.050.860.760.950.642.022.062.11
Ho0.210.190.140.190.150.390.380.42
Er0.650.530.380.510.471.131.111.20
Tm0.080.080.060.070.070.150.170.16
Yb0.530.530.440.480.451.031.001.18
Lu0.080.070.070.070.070.160.160.16
Y6.305.924.665.384.2612.5711.7812.53
Rb5.455.485.594.6526.8117.8418.279.85
Ba39.9145.9748.3926.7989.07122.62134.1698.98
Th0.881.091.980.771.743.353.912.82
U0.300.390.640.280.760.520.510.47
Ta0.090.100.150.090.210.460.430.48
Nb0.880.961.680.701.575.525.525.45
Sr39.7053.0951.6930.4538.80242.32241.11225.10
Zr21.6327.5239.2619.3726.96219.41228.90237.11
Hf0.600.740.780.540.564.484.795.10
Pb4.0311.347.823.606.065.896.045.68
Ga3.7416.589.633.7413.3118.6918.2517.90
Zn64.21214.52102.5268.44152.4044.0443.2240.82
K2O + Na2O0.480.670.520.300.894.975.154.96
K2O/Na2O0.370.430.630.501.410.260.270.25
A/CNK0.402.151.620.462.561.041.021.04
A/NK3.6714.4612.305.8810.382.202.132.23
ΣREE16.9618.0422.3914.7921.1661.0863.5054.70
ΣLREE13.2414.6619.6911.4818.3853.2055.4546.66
ΣHREE3.723.382.703.312.787.888.058.04
LREE/HREE3.564.347.293.476.616.756.895.80
(La/Yb)N3.013.637.143.026.227.067.835.32
(La/Sm)N1.712.013.911.693.392.462.692.36
(Gd/Yb)N1.461.451.361.511.452.042.241.66
δEu0.730.990.850.680.810.980.971.06
δCe1.010.980.981.000.991.020.981.00
m/f3.083.503.752.843.28---
Nb/U2.932.462.632.502.07---
Ce/Pb1.380.551.191.351.42---
Note: LOI = Loss on ignition; A/CNK = Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O + K2O); A/NK = Al2O3/(Na2O + K2O); m/f = Mg2+/(TFe2+ + Mn2+); LREE = light rare-earth element; HREE = heavy rare-earth element.
Table
Table 3. Zircon Hf isotopic compositions of wehrlite and quartz diorite.
Table 3. Zircon Hf isotopic compositions of wehrlite and quartz diorite.
SampleAnalysis Spott(Ma)176Yb/177Hf176Lu/177Hf176Hf/177Hf2σ(176Hf/177Hf)iεHf(t)2σTDM1(Ma)TDM2(Ma)
WehrliteGYH01-54190.0045610.0001480.2826230.0000290.282623.91.08721157
GYH01-64220.0097250.0003380.2824890.0000610.28249−0.82.210621458
GYH01-84160.0089860.0002950.2825210.0000340.282520.21.210161389
GYH01-94170.0293680.0007310.2826200.0000440.282613.61.68901174
GYH01-134180.0081100.0002530.2826160.0000290.282613.61.08831173
GYH01-184180.0147750.0004430.2826000.0000260.282603.00.99101213
GYH01-194200.0102670.0003620.2826000.0000360.282603.01.39091212
GYH01-274200.0080420.0003180.2825830.0000470.282582.41.69311248
GYH01-334230.0098520.0003210.2826290.0000340.282634.21.28671143
GYH01-344200.0123240.0003980.2825940.0000330.282592.81.19181225
Quartz dioriteGYH02-24320.041420.0010940.2827843.7584 × 10−50.2827769.61.3666803
GYH02-124100.0399930.001050.282673.80829 × 10−50.2826625.11.38261071
GYH02-164100.0436830.0011530.2827314.29311 × 10−50.2827227.21.5742937
GYH02-184110.04830.0012380.2828083.84727 × 10−50.2827989.91.3634764
GYH02-234110.0312460.0007920.2825013.28299 × 10−50.282495−0.81.110581446
λ = 1.867 × 10−11/a; (176Lu/177Hf) CHUR = 0.0332 [42]; (176Hf/177Hf)CHUR, 0 = 0.282772 [43]; (176Lu/177Hf)DM = 0.0384, (176Hf/177Hf)DM = 0.28325 [44]; fs = fLu/Hf; fDM = [(176Lu/177Hf)DM/(176Lu/177Hf) CHUR] − 1.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Norbu, N.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Jia, Q.; Kong, H. Tectonomagmatic Setting and Cu-Ni Mineralization Potential of the Gayahedonggou Complex, Northern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau, China. Minerals 2020, 10, 950. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10110950

AMA Style

Norbu N, Li J, Liu Y, Jia Q, Kong H. Tectonomagmatic Setting and Cu-Ni Mineralization Potential of the Gayahedonggou Complex, Northern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau, China. Minerals. 2020; 10(11):950. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10110950

Chicago/Turabian Style

Norbu, Namkha, Jinchao Li, Yuegao Liu, Qunzi Jia, and Huilei Kong. 2020. "Tectonomagmatic Setting and Cu-Ni Mineralization Potential of the Gayahedonggou Complex, Northern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau, China" Minerals 10, no. 11: 950. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10110950

APA Style

Norbu, N., Li, J., Liu, Y., Jia, Q., & Kong, H. (2020). Tectonomagmatic Setting and Cu-Ni Mineralization Potential of the Gayahedonggou Complex, Northern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau, China. Minerals, 10(11), 950. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10110950

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