Next Article in Journal
Control of Shear-Zone-Induced Pressure Fluctuations on Gold Endowment: The Giant El Callao District, Guiana Shield, Venezuela
Next Article in Special Issue
Geochemistry and Petrogenesis of Mesoproterozoic Dykes of the Irkutsk Promontory, Southern Part of the Siberian Craton
Previous Article in Journal
Sorption of Differently Charged Gold Nanoparticles on Synthetic Pyrite
Previous Article in Special Issue
Paleoproterozoic Multiple Tectonothermal Events in the Longshoushan Area, Western North China Craton and Their Geological Implication: Evidence from Geochemistry, Zircon U–Pb Geochronology and Hf Isotopes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 8
Issue 10
10.3390/min8100429
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

Petrogenesis and Metallogenic Implications of Neoproterozoic Granodiorite in the Super-Large Shimensi Tungsten-Copper Deposit in Northern Jiangxi, South China

by
Wenfeng Wei
1,2,
Chunkit Lai
3,4,*,
Bing Yan
1,
Xiaoxi Zhu
1,
Shengqiong Song
5 and
Lei Liu
2
1
Institute of Earth Sciences, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Ore Deposit Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang 550081, China
3
Centre of Excellence in Ore Deposits (CODES), University of Tasmania, Tasmania 7001, Australia
4
Faculty of Science, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong BE1410, Brunei
5
Guizhou Land Survey & Plan Institute, Guiyang 550005, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2018, 8(10), 429; https://doi.org/10.3390/min8100429
Submission received: 13 August 2018 / Revised: 26 September 2018 / Accepted: 26 September 2018 / Published: 29 September 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Igneous Rocks: Minerals, Geochemistry and Ore Potential)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The newly discovered Shimensi deposit is a super-large tungsten-copper (W–Cu) deposit with a metal reserve of 742.55 thousand tonnes (kt) W and 403.6 kt Cu. The orebodies are hosted in Mesozoic granites, which intruded the poorly documented Shimensi granodiorite belonging to the Jiuling batholith, the largest intrusion (outcrop > 2500 km2) in South China. Our new SHRIMP (Sensitive High Resolution Ion MicroProbe) zircon dating revealed that the granodiorite at Shimensi (ca. 830–827 Ma) was formed coeval (within analytical uncertainty) or slightly earlier than those in many other places (ca. 819–807 Ma) of the Jiuling batholith. The Neoproterozoic Shimensi granodiorite is peraluminous and high-K calc-alkaline, and contains low P content with no S-type trend (positive P2O5 vs. SiO2 correlation) displayed, thus best classified as peraluminous I-type. The I-type classification is also supported by the zircon REE patterns, largely (93%) positive εHf(t) (−0.87 to 6.60) and relatively low δ18O (5.8–7.7‰). The Neoproterozoic Shimensi granodiorite was formed after the continental arc magmatism (ca. 845–835 Ma), but before the post-collisional S-type granite emplacement (ca. 825–815 Ma) in the Jiangnan Orogen. Therefore, we propose that the Shimensi granodiorite was formed in a collisional/early post-collisional setting. The δ18O increase from the Shimensi granodiorite to many younger (ca. 819–807 Ma) granodiorites (6.0–8.5‰) in the Jiuling batholith probably reflects an increase of supracrustal rock-derived melts with the progress of collision. The Shimensi granodiorite contains low zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ and Eu/Eu*, suggesting a relatively reducing magma that does not favor porphyry Cu–Au mineralization. This left a high background Cu concentration (avg. 196 ppm) in the Neoproterozoic granodiorite, which may have contributed to the Mesozoic W–Cu mineralization, when the granodiorite is intruded and assimilated by the Mesozoic granites.

1. Introduction

Northern Jiangxi in South China is a world-class tungsten province [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], with its total metal resource estimated to be 4.0 million tonnes (Mt). The two super-large tungsten discoveries (Shimensi and Zhuxi) in recent years have highlighted significant potential of future prospecting in this region. Current exploration at the Shimensi W–Cu deposit has delineated a metal reserve of 742.55 thousand tonnes (kt) W at 0.195% and 403.6 kt Cu at 0.378% [8], a figure that is likely to grow with further exploration. Previous research was mainly dedicated to the ore-forming Mesozoic granites [9,10,11], whereas the Proterozoic granodiorite they intruded are rarely studied. Recently, Wei et al. [6] suggested that the copper-rich nature of Shimensi may have been associated with the Proterozoic granodiorite there, into which the Mesozoic granites intruded. In this paper, therefore, we present new data on the petrography, whole-rock geochemistry, together with zircon U–Pb age, trace element and Hf–O isotopes of the Proterozoic granodiorite at Shimensi. With these new data we discuss the petrogenesis and tectonic setting of the Shimensi granodiorite, as well as any metallogenic implications on the Mesozoic W-Cu mineralization.

2. Geological Background

The South China Block (SCB) is composed of the Yangtze block in the northwest, the Cathaysia block in the southeast, and the Jiangnan orogen in between (Figure 1a). The Jiangnan orogen was likely first formed during the Neoproterozoic when extensive arc magmatism occurred [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Basement rocks of the orogen are dominated by Neoproterozoic, greenschist-facies metamorphosed turbidites and minor arc volcanic rocks of the Shuangqiaoshan Group [19]. Extensive magmatism during the Neoproterozoic and Mesozoic in the Jiangnan orogen have generated numerous granitoids in the orogen [1,18].
The Neoproterozoic Jiuling granodiorite batholith in the central Jiangnan orogen is the largest intrusion in South China (outcrop > 2500 km2), and is composed mainly of biotite-rich, cordierite-bearing granodiorite [21]. The granodiorite intruded into the Shuangqiaoshan Group contains high W (27 ppm [22], cf. 1 ppm (avg. continental crust) [23]) and Cu (196 ppm [22], cf. 25 ppm (avg. continental crust) [23]) contents, and previous attempts to date the granodiorite yielded very different ages of ca. 807 ± 7 Ma [24] and 819 ± 9 Ma [25]. The Late Mesozoic porphyritic/fine-grained biotite granite and granite porphyry have emplaced into the Neoproterozoic granodiorite and Shuangqiaoshan Group metamorphic rocks [3,4,6,21], and were zircon U–Pb dated to be Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous (ca. 153–130 Ma) [1,4,6,11]. At Shimensi, both the Neoproterozoic Jiuling granodiorite (locally called the Shimensi granodiorite) and the Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous granites are exposed (Figure 1b), with the latter generally accepted to be W–Cu ore-forming (Figure 2).

3. Sampling and Analytical Methods

Ten representative fresh samples of the Shimensi granodiorite were collected from the adits and drill cores at the Shimensi W–Cu deposit. All the ten samples were analyzed for their whole-rock geochemical compositions, among which three were also analyzed for their zircon U–Pb age, trace element geochemistry and Hf–O isotopes.
This granodiorite is dark gray, medium to coarse-grained and massive. The rocks consist mainly of plagioclase (45–55%), quartz (25–35%) and biotite (15–20%) but no hornblende, as well as minor apatite, zircon and magnetite (Figure 3a–d). These samples are commonly greisen- and sericite-altered.

3.1. Whole-Rock Geochemical Analyses

The least altered/weathered representative samples were milled to 200-mesh and then sent to the ALS Laboratory (Guangzhou, China) for major and trace element analyses. Whole-rock major element compositions were determined using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry. The samples were mixed with lithium tetraborate and fused (1100 °C for 15 min) inside a platinum crucible into glass discs, which were then analyzed by XRF spectrometry. The analytical precisions were better than ±0.01%, as estimated from repeated analyses of the standards GSR-1 and GSR-3. Trace element concentrations were measured by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), using the method introduced by Liang and Grégoire [27]. Approximately 50 mg of powdered sample was dissolved in 1 mL of distilled HF and 1 mL of HNO3 in a Teflon-lined stainless-steel bomb. The sealed bombs were then placed in an oven and heated to 190 °C for 24 h. After cooling, the bombs were heated on a hot plate and evaporated to dryness. The residue was then re-dissolved by adding HNO3, and the bombs were re-sealed and heated at 140 °C for 5 h. The final solutions were transferred into plastic bottles and diluted before the analysis. Two standards (GSR-1, GSR-3) were used to monitor the analytical quality, and the analytical precisions were ≤5% for trace elements.

3.2. SHRIMP Zircon U–Pb Dating

Zircon U–Pb geochronology was performed with SHRIMP-II at the Beijing SHRIMP Center of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. Zircons from the rock samples were mounted (epoxy) with the TEMORA (zircon standard sample collection point, a town in the north-east of the Riverina area of New South Wales) zircon standard, and then polished down to half of their thickness to expose their core. The zircon texture and internal structure were studied under the microscope (transmitted-/reflected-light) and cathodoluminescence (CL) imaging. Analysis conditions include 4.5 nA current, 10 kV O2− beam at a 25 μm spot size. Ratios of the U–Th–Pb isotopes were calibrated relative to the TEMORA zircon (206Pb/238U = 0.0668, corresponding to an age of 417 Ma; [28]). The absolute U–Th–Pb contents were determined relative to the SL13 zircon standard (U = 238 ppm, corresponding to 572 Ma; [29]). Procedures of analysis and data processing follow those outlined in Williams [30]. The 204Pb-method was used to correct the common Pb in the measured Pb isotope compositions. Corrections were negligible and insensitive to how the common Pb composition was chosen, and an average crustal composition [31] that approximates the mineral age was assumed. Data processing was performed with the SQUID 1.03 (an isotope geochronology software) and the Isoplot/Ex2.49 program of Ludwig [32]. Individual analysis uncertainties and the mean ages were reported at 1σ level and 95% confidence level, respectively.

3.3. SHRIMP Analysis of Zircon Oxygen Isotopes

The O-isotope analysis was performed on the U–Pb dated spots using SHRIMP II and a multi-collector (with Cs+ primary beam) at the Beijing SHRIMP Center. Conditions and procedures of the analysis follow those outlined in Ickert et al. [33]. Individual analysis uncertainties were reported at 1σ level, and corrections for instrumental mass fractionation and detector gains were performed by referencing to the TEMORA zircon standard.

3.4. LA-MC-ICP-MS Analysis of Zircon Hf Isotopes

The Hf-isotope analysis was performed on the SHRIMP analyzed zircon spots at the Wuhan Sample Solution Analytical Technology Co. Ltd. (Wuhan, China), using a GeolasPro 193 nm ArF Excimer laser ablation system coupled to a multi-collector (MC)-ICP-MS. Analytical conditions include 44 μm laser beam size, 10 Hz repetition rate and 8 J/cm2 energy density.
Ratios of Yb and Hf isotopes were normalized, respectively, to 172Yb/173Yb = 1.35274 and 179Hf/177Hf = 0.7325 [34], using an exponential law for mass fractionation. Routine run of the 91,500 zircon standard yielded a weighted mean 176Hf/177Hf = 0.282306 ± 31 (2σ), consistent with the recommended value (0.282306 ± 10 (2σ); [35]). The εHf(t) values were calculated by using the decay constant of 1.867 × 10−11 [35] and the chondritic uniform reservoir values (CHUR, 176Lu/177Hf = 0.0336, 176Hf/177Hf = 0.282785; [36]). Initial 176Hf/177Hf and εHf(t) values were calculated with the corresponding 206Pb/238U ages. The mantle extraction model (TDM) age was calculated by using the initial zircon 176Hf/177Hf at the time of crystallization (apparent 206Pb/238U age) by using 176Hf/177Hf = 0.28325 and 176Lu/177Hf = 0.0384 for the bulk earth [36], and 176Lu/177Hf = 0.015 for the average crust [37].

3.5. LA-ICP-MS Analysis of Zircon Trace Element Geochemistry

The zircon trace element compositions were measured at the Wuhan Sample Solution Analytical Technology Co. Ltd., using a GeolasPro 193 nm ArF Excimer laser ablation system coupled with an Agilent 7700× Quadrupole ICP–MS (equipped with an ion-counting system). All the analyses were carried out with a 44 μm beam diameter, 5 Hz repetition rate, and 8 J/cm2 beam energy. Procedures and conditions of the analysis follow those outlined in Liu et al. [38]. NIST SRM-610 was used as an external standard during the analysis session. The offline selection, time-drift correction, background and analytical signal integration, and quantitative trace element calibration were conducted using GLITTER [39].

4. Results

4.1. Whole-Rock Geochemistry

Geochemical compositions of the Shimensi granodiorite samples are shown in Table 1. The rocks contain 66.4–69.4 wt % SiO2, 13.7–16.2 wt % Al2O3, 1.40–1.92 wt % MgO, 4.14–5.40 wt % Fe2O3T, and 3.0–5.2 wt % K2O. Loss on ignition (LOI) is below 3 wt % and shows no correlation with mobile element (e.g., K) contents, thus it is assumed that alteration influence on the latter is minimal. The rocks are high-K calc-alkaline and peraluminous, with A/CNK (molar Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O + K2O)) of 1.3–1.9. On the Harker diagrams (Figure 4), the TiO2, Fe2O3T, MgO, CaO, and Al2O3 contents are negatively correlated with SiO2.
The samples exhibit similar total rare earth element (REE) contents (129–171 ppm) and consistent REE patterns. In the chondrite-normalized REE diagram (Table 2, Figure 5), the granodiorite samples are light REE (LREE) enriched, with mild LREE/HREE fractionation ((La/Yb)N = 6.3–9.2) and slightly negative Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.47–0.68; Eu/Eu* = EuN/(SmN × GdN)1/2; [40]). In the primitive mantle-normalized multi-element diagram (Figure 6), the samples are enriched in large ion lithophile elements (LILEs, e.g., Rb and K) and depleted in high-strength field elements (HFSEs, e.g., Nb, Ta, Zr and Hf) with negative Ba, Nb–Ta and Ti anomalies.

4.2. Zircon U–Pb Ages

Zircons from the Shimensi granodiorite are colorless and transparent, 50 to 200 μm long with aspect ratios of 1:1–3:1. Under CL imaging, all measured zircons have well-developed oscillatory zoning with no residual cores or metamorphic rims (Figure 7). The zircons have varying Th contents (16–339 ppm) and low to medium U contents (124–665 ppm), with most Th/U ratios clustering between 0.13–0.73 (Table 3). All these textural and geochemical features suggest a magmatic origin for the zircons [42].
Nine spot analyses on 9 zircons from sample SMS-2 yielded 206Pb/238U ages of 811 ± 13 Ma to 852 ± 14 Ma and a weighted mean age of 830 ± 13 Ma (MSWD = 1.6, Figure 8). The seven analyzed zircons (808 ± 12 Ma to 840 ± 12 Ma) from sample SMS-12 yielded a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 827 ± 10 Ma (MSWD = 1.1; Figure 8). The four zircons analyzed (809 ± 15 Ma to 841 ± 15 Ma) from sample SMS-23 yielded a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 828 ± 14 Ma (MSWD = 1.03) (Figure 8).
Therefore, we suggest that the granodiorite was emplaced during ca. 827 to 830 Ma.

4.3. Zircon Hf–O Isotopes

A total of 15 Hf-O isotope measurements were conducted on 15 zircon grains (Table 4). Zircon δ18O values vary from 5.8‰ to 7.7‰ (mean: 6.8‰) (Figure 9). The zircon εHf(t) values vary from −0.87 to 6.60 (mean: 2.98), of which 93% are positive (Figure 9).

4.4. Zircon Trace Element Compositions

All the zircons analyzed have similar ranges of U and Th concentrations (108 to 1019 ppm and 31 to 1928 ppm, respectively) and Th/U ratios (0.08 to 1.89, mostly <0.6) (Table 5). Tungsten concentration of the zircons ranges from 0 to 14,294 ppm (average 2718 ppm).
Chondrite-normalized zircon REE patterns for all the samples are featured by distinct depletion of LREEs ((La/Yb)N = 0.000002–0.014807), positive Ce and negative Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.01–0.13; mean = 0.07) (Table 5; Figure 10), typical of igneous origin [44,45]. Due to the relatively low zircon La and Pr concentrations (Table 5), and to the susceptibility of contamination by tiny inclusions of minerals or melt [45], the Ce4+/Ce3+ values (instead of the conventional La–Pr interpolation) were adopted. Ce4+/Ce3+ values of the zircons were calculated using the lattice-strain model proposed by Ballard et al. [46] and Trail et al. [47] (Table 5; Figure 10). The Shimensi granodiorite samples have zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ values of 4.05 to 128.64 (average 38.84).

5. Discussion

5.1. Age and Geochemistry of the Shimensi Granodiorite

Prior to this study, there are only two published ages for the Jiuling granodiorite batholith (i.e., 807 ± 7 Ma and 819 ± 9 Ma; [24,25]). The three Shimensi granodiorite age data we obtained (830–827 Ma) are coeval (within analytical uncertainty) or slightly older than the previously reported ages of the Jiuling granodiorite.
Geochemistry of the Neoproterozoic Shimensi granodiorite is very different from the Mesozoic Shimensi granites. Although both belong to high-K calc-alkaline series, the Neoproterozoic granodiorite is considerably less fractionated (SiO2 < 70 wt %), and contains higher MgO (>0.75 wt %), Fe2O3T (>4 wt %) and TiO2 (>0.5 wt %) than the Mesozoic intrusions. Many Neoproterozoic Shimensi granodiorite samples are also more peraluminous than the Mesozoic Shimensi granites (Figure 11). In terms of zircon trace element compositions, those of the Neoproterozoic granodiorite contain similar Ce/Ce* but lower Eu/Eu* than their Mesozoic granite counterparts (Figure 12). This indicates that the Neoproterozoic granodiorite is less fractionated than the Mesozoic granites, and that both rock types were formed under similar reducing conditions. In the whole-rock chondrite-normalized REE diagram, the Neoproterozoic granodiorite is less fractionated ((La/Yb)N < 9.2) and contains higher total REE contents (>129 ppm) than the Mesozoic granites (Figure 5). In the primitive mantle-normalized multi-element diagram, the Neoproterozoic granodiorite is more enriched in HFSEs (e.g., Ti, Dy, Y, Ho, Yb and Lu), and with less distinctive negative Sr anomaly than the Mesozoic granites (Figure 6).
Although strongly peraluminous, as indicated by the presence of biotite and cordierite and by the A/NK vs. A/CNK diagram (Figure 11), the Neoproterozoic granodiorite samples do not show an S-type trend in the P2O5 vs. SiO2 diagram (Figure 4f). In fact, I-type granites can also be peraluminous [48]. In the zircon chondrite-normalized REE diagrams (Figure 6 and Figure 13), the Neoproterozoic granodiorite contains lower REE contents than the Mesozoic Shimensi granites and the average granitoid, but similar REE contents (and higher Eu/Eu*) than the average dolerite [49]. The Neoproterozoic granodiorite datapoints also fall inside/close to the average dolerite field in Figure 12. This suggests that the granodiorite was likely derived from a doleritic source rock, and is thus most likely I-type. The facts that the granodiorite lacks inherited zircons (Figure 7; Table 3), and contains relatively low zircon δ18O (5.8–7.7‰; mean: 6.8‰), and mostly (93%) positive zircon εHf(t) values, all demonstrate its peraluminous I-type affinity.

5.2. Petrogenesis and Metallogenic Implications of the Shimensi Granodiorite

In the Jiangnan Orogen, the Shimensi granodiorite (830–827 Ma) was formed after the continental arc-type Jianxichong volcano-sedimentary rocks (845–835 Ma; [50]), and before the post-collisional S-type granites in the region (825–815 Ma; [51]). Therefore, we propose that the Shimensi granodiorite was formed in a collisional/early post collisional setting, as also supported by various tectonic discrimination diagrams (Figure 14). The δ18O increase from the Shimensi granodiorite (5.8–7.7‰) to the younger (819–807 Ma) granodiorite (6.0–8.5‰) in the Jiuling batholith shows an increase of supracrustal rock-derived melts with the progress of collision (Figure 9).
At Shimensi, the Neoproterozoic granitoids contain comparable Ce4+/Ce3+ and Eu/Eu* values with their Mesozoic counterparts, which are much lower than those of typical porphyry Cu ore-forming intrusions in South China (Figure 15). This shows that the Neoproterozoic Shimensi granodioritic magma is probably too reduced to generate any significant porphyry Cu mineralization. This is consistent with the fact that no ca. 830 to 827 Ma Cu deposits were discovered in the region. In fact, all the Neoproterozoic Cu–Au deposits discovered in the eastern Jiangnan Orogen are much older (1.01–0.98 Ga), and are VMS-type hosted in mafic volcanic rocks [20]. We propose that the lack of porphyry Cu mineralization may have left a high background Cu content (avg. 196 ppm, cf. 80 ppm for the Mesozoic unaltered/unmineralized Shimensi granites) in the Neoproterozoic Shimensi granodiorite, which contributed to the Mesozoic Shimensi W–Cu mineralization while the granodiorite was intruded and assimilated. The assimilation is clearly evidenced by the occurrence of Proterozoic inherited zircons (827 Ma, 829 Ma and 833 Ma) in the Mesozoic Shimensi granites [6], which are closely coeval with the Neoproterozoic granodiorite. Nevertheless, whether (and how much of) the Cu in the granodiorite contributed to the Mesozoic W-Cu mineralization at Shimensi will require further investigation.

6. Conclusions

In this study, it is found that granodioritic magmatism in the Shimensi area may have commenced around or slightly earlier than many other places in the Jiuling batholith. Whether this represents two separated magmatic phas or one long continuous magmatism is still unknown. The Shimensi granodiorite is best classified as peraluminous I-type formed in a collisional/early post-collisional setting. The lower zircon δ18O in the Shimensi granodiorite than many younger granodiorites in the Jiuling batholith shows an increase of supracrustal rock-derived melts with the collision progressed. The low Ce4+/Ce3+ and Eu/Eu* values of the Shimensi granodiorite suggested a relatively reduced formation environment, which did not favor porphyry-related Cu–Au mineralization and left a high background Cu concentration in the granodiorite. Whether this high Cu background had contributed to the Mesozoic W–Cu mineralization when the granodiorite was intruded and partially assimilated will require further investigation.

Author Contributions

W.W. contributed significantly to the data analyses and wrote the manuscript. C.L. wrote the manuscript. B.Y. helped perform the analysis with constructive discussions. X.Z. and L.L. drew the figures. S.S. helped perform the literature search.

Funding

National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, 2014CB440902), National key research and development program (2017YFC0601505) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41203034; No. 41303030; No. 41673054).

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, 2014CB440902), National key research and development program (2017YFC0601505) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41203034; No. 41303030; No. 41673054). Field work was supported by the Jiangxi No. 916 Geological Team.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mao, J.W.; Xiong, B.K.; Liu, J.; Pirajno, F.; Cheng, Y.B.; Ye, H.S.; Song, S.W.; Dai, P. Molybdenite Re/Os dating, zircon U–Pb age and geochemistry of granitoids in the Yangchuling porphyry W–Mo deposit (Jiangnan tungsten ore belt), China: Implications for petrogenesis, mineralization and geodynamic setting. Lithos 2017, 286–287, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dai, P.; Mao, J.W.; Wu, S.H.; Xie, G.Q.; Luo, X.H. Multiple dating and tectonic setting of the Early Cretaceous Xianglushan W deposit, Jiangxi Province, South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 95, 1161–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhang, Y.; Gao, J.F.; Ma, D.S.; Pan, J.Y. The role of hydrothermal alteration in tungsten mineralization at the Dahutang tungsten deposit, South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 95, 1008–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Song, W.L.; Yao, J.M.; Chen, H.Y.; Sun, W.D.; Lai, C.K.; Xiang, X.K.; Luo, X.H.; Jourdan, F. A 20 my long-lived successive mineralization in the giant Dahutang W–Cu–Mo deposit, South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 95, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Song, W.L.; Yao, J.M.; Chen, H.Y.; Sun, W.D.; Ding, J.Y.; Xiang, X.K.; Zuo, Q.S.; Lai, C.K. Mineral paragenesis, fluid inclusions, H–O isotopes and ore-forming processes of the giant Dahutang W–Cu–Mo deposit, South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 99, 115–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wei, W.F.; Shen, N.P.; Yan, B.; Lai, C.K.; Yang, J.H.; Gao, W.; Liang, F. Petrogenesis of ore-forming granites with implications for W-mineralization in the super-large Shimensi tungsten-dominated polymetallic deposit in northern Jiangxi Province, South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 95, 1123–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pan, X.F.; Hou, Z.Q.; Zhao, M.; Chen, G.H.; Rao, J.F.; Li, Y.; Wei, J.; Ouyang, Y.P. Geochronology and geochemistry of the granites from the Zhuxi W-Cu ore deposit in South China: Implication for petrogenesis, geodynamical setting and mineralization. Lithos 2018, 304–307, 155–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xiang, X.K.; Wang, P.; Sun, D.M.; Zhong, B. Isotopic geochemical characteristics of the Shimensi tungsten-polymetallic deposit in northern Jiangxi province. Acta Geosci. Sin. 2013, 34, 263–271. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  9. Yuan, S.D.; Williams-Jones, A.E.; Mao, J.W.; Zhao, P.L.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, D.L. The origin of the Zhangjialong tungsten deposit, South China: Implications for W–Sn mineralization in large granite batholiths. Ecol. Geol. 2018, 113, 1193–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mao, Z.H.; Liu, J.J.; Mao, J.W.; Deng, J.; Zhang, F.; Meng, X.Y.; Xiong, B.K.; Xiang, X.K.; Luo, X.H. Geochronology and geochemistry of granitoids related to the giant Dahutang tungsten deposit, middle Yangtze River region, China: Implications for petrogenesis, geodynamic setting, and mineralization. Gondwana Res. 2015, 28, 816–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wei, W.F.; Yan, B.; Shen, N.P.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Xiang, X.K. Muscovite 40Ar/39Ar Age and H-O-S Isotopes of the Shimensi Tungsten Deposit (Northern Jiangxi Province, South China) and Their Metallogenic Implications. Minerals 2017, 7, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hu, R.Z.; Zhou, M.F. Multiple Mesozoic mineralization events in South China—An introduction to the thematic issue. Miner. Depos. 2012, 47, 579–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hu, R.Z.; Bi, X.W.; Jiang, G.H.; Chen, H.W.; Peng, J.T.; Qi, Y.Q.; Wu, L.Y.; Wei, W.F. Mantle-derived noble gases in ore-forming fluids of the granite-related Yaogangxian tungsten deposit, Southeastern China. Miner. Depos. 2012, 47, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hu, R.Z.; Fu, S.L.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, M.F.; Fu, S.H.; Zhao, C.H.; Wang, Y.J.; Bi, X.W.; Xiao, J.F. The giant South China Mesozoic low-temperature metallogenic domain: Reviews and a new geodynamic model. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2017, 137, 9–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhou, M.F.; Gao, J.F.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, W.W. Introduction to the special issue of Mesozoic W-Sn deposits in South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 10, 432–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xie, G.Q.; Mao, J.W.; Bagas, L.; Fu, B.; Zhang, Z.Y. Mineralogy and titanite geochronology of the Caojiaba W deposit, Xiangzhong metallogenic province, southern China: implications for a distal reduced skarn W formation. Miner. Depos. 2018, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xie, G.Q.; Mao, J.W.; Li, W.; Fu, B.; Zhang, Z.Y. Granite-related Yangjiashan tungsten deposit, southern China. Miner. Depos. 2018, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hu, R.Z.; Chen, W.T.; Xu, D.R.; Zhou, M.F. Reviews and new metallogenic models of mineral deposits in South China: An introduction. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2017, 137, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, B.; Gu, H.O.; Chen, Y.J.; Sun, K.K.; Chen, W. Lithium isotope behaviour during partial melting of metapelites from the Jiangnan Orogen, South China: Implications for the origin of REE tetrad effect of F-rich granite and associated rare-metal mineralization. Chem. Geol. 2018, 483, 372–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gong, X.D.; Yan, G.S.; Ye, T.Z.; Zhu, X.Y.; Li, Y.S.; Zhang, Z.H.; Jia, W.B.; Yao, X.F. A study of ore-forming fluids in the Shimensi tungsten deposit, Dahutang tungsten polymetallic ore field, Jiangxi Province, China. Acta Geol. Sin. (Engl. Ed.) 2015, 89, 822–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, Q.; Zhang, R.Q.; Gao, J.F.; Lu, J.J.; Wu, J.W. In-situ LA-ICP-MS trace element analyses of scheelite and wolframite: Constraints on the genesis of veinlet-disseminated and vein-type tungsten deposits, South China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 99, 166–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zuo, Q.S. Analysis on the geological conditions and the assessment of the further ore-finding foreground from Dahutang to Liyangdou metallogenic region in the western part of Jiulingshan, Jiangxi Province. Resour. Environ. Eng. 2006, 20, 348–353. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  23. Hans Wedepohl, K. The composition of the continental crust. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1995, 59, 1217–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhao, J.H.; Zhou, M.F.; Zheng, J.P. Constraints from zircon U–Pb ages, O and Hf isotopic compositions on the origin of Neoproterozoic peraluminous granitoids from the Jiangnan Fold Belt, South China. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2013, 166, 1505–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, X.H.; Li, Z.X.; Ge, W.; Zhou, H.; Li, W.; Liu, Y.; Wingate, M.T.D. Neoproterozoic granitoids in South China: Crustal melting above a mantle plume at ca. 825 Ma? Precambrian Res. 2003, 12, 45–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sun, K.K.; Chen, B. Trace elements and Sr-Nd isotopes of scheelite: Implications for the W-Cu-Mo polymetallic mineralization of the Shimensi deposit, South China. Am. Mineral. 2017, 102, 1114–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liang, Q.; Grégoire, D.C. Determination of trace elements in twenty six Chinese geochemistry reference materials by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. Geostand. Newsl. J. Geostand. Geoanal. 2000, 24, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Black, L.P.; Kamo, S.L.; Allen, C.M.; Aleinikoff, J.N.; Davis, D.W.; Korsch, R.J.; Foudoulis, C. TEMORA 1: A new zircon standard for Phanerozoic U–Pb geochronology. Chem. Geol. 2003, 200, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Claoué-Long, J.C.; Compston, W.; Roberts, J.; Fanning, C.M. Two Carboniferous ages: A comparison of SHRIMP zircon dating with conventional zircon ages and 40Ar/39Ar analyses. In Geochronology, Time Scales and Global Stratigraphic Correlation; Special Publication, 54; Berggren, W.A., Kent, D.V., Aubry, M.-P., Hardenbol, J., Eds.; SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology): Broken Arrow, OK, USA, 1995; pp. 3–21. [Google Scholar]
  30. Williams, I.S. U-Th-Pb geochronology by ion microprobe. Rev. Econ. Geol. 1998, 7, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cumming, G.L.; Richards, J.R. Ore lead isotope ratios in a continuously changing earth. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1975, 28, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ludwig, K.R. Users Manual for Isoplot/Ex (rev. 2.49): A Geochronological Toolkit for Microsoft Excel; Berkeley Geochronology Center Special Publication: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ickert, R.B.; Hiess, J.; Williams, I.S.; Holden, P.; Ireland, T.R.; Lanc, P.; Schram, N.; Foster, J.J.; Clement, S.W. Determining high precision, in situ, oxygen isotope ratios with a SHRIMP II: Analyses of MPI-DING silicate-glass reference materials and zircon from contrasting granites. Chem. Geol. 2008, 257, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chu, N.C.; Taylor, R.N.; Chavagnac, V.; Nesbitt, R.W.; Boella, R.M.; Milton, J.A.; German, C.R.; Bayon, G.; Burton, K. Hf isotope ratio analysis using multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry: An evaluation of isobaric interference corrections. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2002, 17, 1567–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Woodhead, J.; Hergt, J.; Shelley, M.; Eggins, S.; Kemp, R. Zircon Hf-isotope analysis with an excimer laser, depth profiling, ablation of complex geometries, and concomitant age estimation. Chem. Geol. 2004, 209, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bouvier, A.; Vervoort, J.D.; Patchett, P.J. The Lu-Hf and Sm-Nd isotopic composition of CHUR: Constraints from unequilibrated chondrites and implications for the bulk composition of terrestrial planets. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2008, 273, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Griffin, W.L.; Wang, X.; Jackson, S.E.; Pearson, N.J.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Xu, X.; Zhou, X. Zircon chemistry and magma mixing, SE China: In-situ analysis of Hf isotopes, Tonglu and Pingtan igneous complexes. Lithos 2002, 61, 237–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, Y.S.; Hu, Z.C.; Gao, S.; Günther, D.; Xu, J.; Gao, C.G.; Chen, H.H. In situ analysis of major and trace elements of anhydrous minerals by LA-ICP-MS without applying an internal standard. Chem. Geol. 2008, 257, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Griffin, W.L.; Powell, W.J.; Pearson, N.J.; O’Reilly, S.Y. GLITTER: Data reduction software for laser ablation ICP-MS. In Laser Ablation-ICP-MS in the Earth Sciences; Mineralogical Association of Canada Short Course Series; Sylvester, P., Ed.; Mineralogical Association of Canada: Quebec City, QC, Canada, 2008; Volume 40, pp. 204–207. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoskin, P.W.O.; Schaltegger, U. The composition of zircon and igneous and metamorphic petrogenesis. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2003, 53, 27–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sun, S.S.; McDonough, W.F. Chemical and isotopic systematics of ocean basalts: Implications for mantle composition and processes. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 1989, 42, 313–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hoskin, P.; Black, L.P. Metamorphic zircon formation by solid-state recrystallization of protolith igneous zircon. J. Metamorph. Geol. 2000, 18, 423–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, X.L.; Zhou, J.C.; Wan, Y.S.; Kitajima, K.; Wang, D.; Bonamici, C.; Qiu, J.S.; Sun, T. Magmatic evolution and crustal recycling for Neoproterozoic strongly peraluminous granitoids from southern China: Hf and O isotopes in zircon. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2013, 366, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Whitehouse, M.J.; Platt, J.P. Dating high-grade metamorphism—Constraints from rare-earth elements in zircon and garnet. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2003, 145, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dilles, J.H.; Kent, A.J.R.; Wooden, J.L.; Tosdal, R.M.; Koleszar, A.; Lee, R.G; Farmer, L.P. Zircon compositional evidence for sulfur-degassing from ore-forming arc magmas. Econ. Geol. 2015, 110, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ballard, J.R.; Palin, M.J.; Campbell, I.H. Relative oxidation states of magmas inferred from Ce(IV)/Ce(III) in zircon: Application to porphyry copper deposits of northern Chile. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2002, 144, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Trail, D.; Bruce Watson, E.; Tailby, N.D. Ce and Eu anomalies in zircon as proxies for the oxidation state of magmas. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2012, 97, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chappell, B.W.; White, A.J.R. Two contrasting granite types: 25 years later. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 2001, 48, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Belousova, E.; Griffin, W.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Fisher, N. Igneous zircon: Trace element composition as an indicator of source rock type. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2002, 143, 602–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhao, G.C. Jiangnan Orogen in South China: Developing from divergent double subduction. Gondwana Res. 2015, 27, 1173–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, G.G.; Ni, P.; Zhu, A.D.; Wang, X.L.; Li, L.; Hu, J.S.; Liu, W.H.; Huang, B. 1.01–0.98Ga mafic intra-plate magmatism and related Cu-Au mineralization in the eastern Jiangnan orogen: Evidence from Liujia and Tieshajie basalts. Precambrian Res. 2018, 309, 6–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. 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]
  53. Zhang, H.; Ling, M.X.; Liu, Y.L.; Tu, X.L.; Wang, F.Y.; Li, C.Y.; Liang, H.Y.; Yang, X.Y.; Arndt, N.T.; Sun, W.D. High oxygen fugacity and slab melting linked to Cu mineralization: Evidence from Dexing porphyry copper deposits, Southeastern China. J. Geol. 2013, 121, 289–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Deng, J.H.; Yang, X.Y.; Li, S.; Gu, H.L.; Mastoi, A.S.; Sun, W.D. Partial melting of subducted paleo-Pacific plate during the early Cretaceous: Constraint from adakitic rocks in the Shaxi porphyry Cu–Au deposit, Lower Yangtze River Belt. Lithos 2016, 262, 651–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, N.; Chen, Y.J.; Pirajno, F.; Gong, H.J.; Mao, S.-D.; Ni, Z.Y. LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb dating, trace element and Hf isotope geochemistry of the Heyu granite batholith, eastern Qinling, central China: Implications for Mesozoic tectono-magmatic evolution. Lithos 2012, 142–143, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 08 00429 g001a 550Minerals 08 00429 g001b 550
Figure 1. Geologic maps of the (a) Jiangnan Orogen (modified after Song et al. [4]); and (b) Shimensi W-Cu orefield (modified after Gong et al. [20]).
Figure 1. Geologic maps of the (a) Jiangnan Orogen (modified after Song et al. [4]); and (b) Shimensi W-Cu orefield (modified after Gong et al. [20]).
Minerals 08 00429 g001aMinerals 08 00429 g001b
Minerals 08 00429 g002 550
Figure 2. NE-trending cross-section of the Shimensi deposit, showing the three tungsten ore types: Veinlets-disseminated, breccias and veins (modified after Sun and Chen [26]).
Figure 2. NE-trending cross-section of the Shimensi deposit, showing the three tungsten ore types: Veinlets-disseminated, breccias and veins (modified after Sun and Chen [26]).
Minerals 08 00429 g002
Minerals 08 00429 g003 550
Figure 3. Hand specimen photo and photomicrographs of the Shimensi granodiorite. (a) Hand specimen photo of sample SMS-14; (b) Photomicrograph of sample SMS-12, showing a quartz vein crosscutting the moderately sericite-altered granodiorite; (c) Photomicrograph of sample SMS-15, showing that biotite is partly muscovite- and chlorite-altered with accessory apatite; (d) Photomicrograph of sample SMS-23, which comprises plagioclase, quartz, biotite and muscovite with accessory zircon. Bi = biotite; Mus = muscovite; Pl = plagioclase; Qz = quartz; Chl = chlorite; Ap = apatite; Mt = magnetite; Zr = zircon.
Figure 3. Hand specimen photo and photomicrographs of the Shimensi granodiorite. (a) Hand specimen photo of sample SMS-14; (b) Photomicrograph of sample SMS-12, showing a quartz vein crosscutting the moderately sericite-altered granodiorite; (c) Photomicrograph of sample SMS-15, showing that biotite is partly muscovite- and chlorite-altered with accessory apatite; (d) Photomicrograph of sample SMS-23, which comprises plagioclase, quartz, biotite and muscovite with accessory zircon. Bi = biotite; Mus = muscovite; Pl = plagioclase; Qz = quartz; Chl = chlorite; Ap = apatite; Mt = magnetite; Zr = zircon.
Minerals 08 00429 g003
Minerals 08 00429 g004a 550Minerals 08 00429 g004b 550
Figure 4. Harker diagrams for the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Figure 4. Harker diagrams for the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Minerals 08 00429 g004aMinerals 08 00429 g004b
Minerals 08 00429 g005 550
Figure 5. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns of the Shimensi granodiorite. Normalization values are from Sun and McDonough [41]. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Figure 5. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns of the Shimensi granodiorite. Normalization values are from Sun and McDonough [41]. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Minerals 08 00429 g005
Minerals 08 00429 g006 550
Figure 6. Primitive mantle-normalized multi-element diagrams of the Shimensi granodiorite. Normalization values are from Sun and McDonough [41]. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Figure 6. Primitive mantle-normalized multi-element diagrams of the Shimensi granodiorite. Normalization values are from Sun and McDonough [41]. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Minerals 08 00429 g006
Minerals 08 00429 g007 550
Figure 7. CL images of representative zircons from the Neoproterozoic Shimensi granodiorite. Yellow numbers (from top to bottom) denote the U–Pb age, δ18O and εHf(t), respectively. Red circles show the analysis spots.
Figure 7. CL images of representative zircons from the Neoproterozoic Shimensi granodiorite. Yellow numbers (from top to bottom) denote the U–Pb age, δ18O and εHf(t), respectively. Red circles show the analysis spots.
Minerals 08 00429 g007
Minerals 08 00429 g008 550
Figure 8. SHRIMP zircon U–Pb concordia diagram of the Shimensi granodiorite.
Figure 8. SHRIMP zircon U–Pb concordia diagram of the Shimensi granodiorite.
Minerals 08 00429 g008
Minerals 08 00429 g009 550
Figure 9. εHf(t) vs. δ18O for the zircons from the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6]. Jiuling batholith data are from Zhao et al. [24], Li et al. [25], Wang et al. [43].
Figure 9. εHf(t) vs. δ18O for the zircons from the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6]. Jiuling batholith data are from Zhao et al. [24], Li et al. [25], Wang et al. [43].
Minerals 08 00429 g009
Minerals 08 00429 g010 550
Figure 10. Chondrite-normalized zircon REE patterns of the Shimensi granodiorite. Chondrite normalization values are from Sun and McDonough [41]. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Figure 10. Chondrite-normalized zircon REE patterns of the Shimensi granodiorite. Chondrite normalization values are from Sun and McDonough [41]. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Minerals 08 00429 g010
Minerals 08 00429 g011 550
Figure 11. A/CNK vs. A/NK diagram. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Figure 11. A/CNK vs. A/NK diagram. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Minerals 08 00429 g011
Minerals 08 00429 g012 550
Figure 12. Zircon trace element correlations for the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6]. Data of the zircons from different igneous rock types are from [49].
Figure 12. Zircon trace element correlations for the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6]. Data of the zircons from different igneous rock types are from [49].
Minerals 08 00429 g012
Minerals 08 00429 g013 550
Figure 13. Chondrite-normalized averaged zircon REE patterns for the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6]. Data of the zircons from different igneous rock types are from [49].
Figure 13. Chondrite-normalized averaged zircon REE patterns for the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6]. Data of the zircons from different igneous rock types are from [49].
Minerals 08 00429 g013
Minerals 08 00429 g014 550
Figure 14. (a) Nb vs. Y; (b) Ta vs. Yb tectonic discrimination diagrams (after Pearce et al. [52]) for the Shimensi granodiorite. VAG, volcanic arc granite; ORG, ocean ridge granite; WPG, within plate granite; syn-COLG and post-COLG, syn- and post-collision granite; COLG, collision granite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Figure 14. (a) Nb vs. Y; (b) Ta vs. Yb tectonic discrimination diagrams (after Pearce et al. [52]) for the Shimensi granodiorite. VAG, volcanic arc granite; ORG, ocean ridge granite; WPG, within plate granite; syn-COLG and post-COLG, syn- and post-collision granite; COLG, collision granite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6].
Minerals 08 00429 g014
Minerals 08 00429 g015 550
Figure 15. Zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ vs. Eu/Eu* for the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6]. Data source of major porphyry Cu deposits in South China: Dexing [53], Shaxi [54], Dabaoshan [55].
Figure 15. Zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ vs. Eu/Eu* for the Shimensi granodiorite. Data of the ore-related Mesozoic Shimensi granites are from Wei et al. [6]. Data source of major porphyry Cu deposits in South China: Dexing [53], Shaxi [54], Dabaoshan [55].
Minerals 08 00429 g015
Table
Table 1. Major element contents of the Shimensi granodiorite (wt %).
Table 1. Major element contents of the Shimensi granodiorite (wt %).
SampleSiO2TiO2Al2O3Fe2O3TMnOMgOCaONa2OK2OP2O5LOITotalA/CNK
SMS-166.70.6715.605.400.091.921.021.614.550.152.01100.051.7
SMS-269.40.6014.505.140.081.810.661.823.030.182.60100.001.9
SMS-2066.40.6316.204.900.091.741.962.583.670.151.3399.801.4
SMS-2268.60.5315.154.140.081.481.572.603.970.141.4899.931.3
SMS-1268.70.5214.754.140.081.401.542.343.900.142.0999.921.4
SMS-1468.50.5814.704.830.081.701.281.883.710.162.50100.051.6
SMS-1567.90.6314.854.910.091.691.361.803.870.142.72100.101.5
SMS-2366.40.6315.454.910.091.741.762.053.720.142.3099.581.5
SMS-2569.40.6213.705.050.091.741.361.963.680.161.4699.371.4
SMS-2668.90.5214.354.140.081.400.741.765.200.131.9199.291.5
Table
Table 2. Trace element contents of the Shimensi granodiorite (ppm).
Table 2. Trace element contents of the Shimensi granodiorite (ppm).
SampleSMS-1SMS-2SMS-20SMS-22SMS-12SMS-14SMS-15SMS-23SMS-25SMS-26
Rb430274230429357309313303304457
Sr95.592.9143.0173.0139.5139.0126.0147.092.2103.5
Zr210209204180183197224215217162
Nb11.510.710.69.711.09.810.610.910.98.6
Ba458.0315.0428.0392.0323.0394.0389.0389.0318.0382.0
La32.226.733.031.930.530.634.432.730.827.0
Ce65.552.565.962.760.460.168.665.662.354.2
Pr7.716.157.957.387.187.228.268.027.556.50
Nd28.121.528.925.925.926.429.429.227.223.1
Sm6.124.746.535.675.585.826.556.356.235.19
Eu0.990.711.371.210.961.141.211.090.940.97
Gd6.034.586.195.265.235.476.556.146.034.92
Tb0.930.730.980.790.800.821.040.960.960.79
Dy5.664.515.684.524.974.676.165.685.934.59
Ho1.180.931.160.880.970.851.261.141.240.94
Er3.212.643.232.492.512.263.563.063.432.64
Tm0.460.400.490.360.380.350.520.430.540.42
Yb2.862.713.142.342.272.273.182.793.302.49
Lu0.440.410.480.350.370.340.490.410.520.40
Y30.6025.1030.9023.9025.2022.4034.2029.5032.4025.20
Hf5.65.75.44.85.05.65.85.95.94.3
Ta1.11.11.01.01.30.90.91.01.00.7
W43100121831797972131
Th14.213.313.514.715.512.114.714.513.912.0
U3.04.13.13.54.83.84.72.84.22.2
ΣREE161.39129.21165.00151.75148.02148.31171.18163.57156.97134.15
LaN/YbN7.66.67.19.29.19.17.37.96.37.3
Eu/Eu*0.500.470.660.680.540.620.560.530.470.59
Table
Table 3. SHRIMP zircon U–Pb data of the Shimensi granodiorite.
Table 3. SHRIMP zircon U–Pb data of the Shimensi granodiorite.
Spot206Pbc (%)U (ppm)Th (ppm)232Th/238U206Pb* (ppm)207Pb*/206Pb*1σ (%)207Pb*/235U1σ (%)206Pb*/238U1σ (%)206Pb/238U Age (Ma)
SMS-2, mean = 830 ± 13 Ma, MSWD = 1.6, n = 9
10.08341950.2941.30.0659 1.31.2792.20.14081.7849 ± 14
20.11245250.1128.80.0646 1.91.2202.60.13691.8827 ± 14
30.39157660.4318.70.0636 3.01.2133.60.13842.0835 ± 16
40.12293440.1535.70.0692 1.91.3492.60.14141.8852 ± 14
50.006503390.5478.90.0668 1.01.3011.90.14121.7851 ± 13
60.01286410.1533.30.0665 1.91.2412.60.13541.7819 ± 13
70.00332460.1438.20.0668 1.41.2342.30.13401.9811 ± 14
8--4042290.5947.00.0666 1.31.2452.20.13561.7820 ± 13
90.16292370.1333.70.0643 1.81.1882.50.13401.7811 ± 13
SMS-12, mean = 827 ± 10 Ma, MSWD = 1.1, n = 7
10.02337450.1438.70.0660 1.41.2162.10.1336 1.6808 ± 12
20.21221750.3526.00.0658 2.11.2392.70.1365 1.7825 ± 13
30.00665680.1177.20.0660 0.91.2301.80.1352 1.6817 ± 12
40.021931360.7322.90.0679 2.11.2962.70.1385 1.7836 ± 13
5--306390.1335.70.0667 1.51.2522.20.1361 1.6823 ± 12
60.23567870.1668.00.0655 1.31.25820.1393 1.5840 ± 12
7--225290.1326.70.0682 2.91.3013.30.1383 1.6835 ± 13
SMS-23, mean = 828 ± 14 Ma, MSWD = 1.03, n = 4
10.01292390.1434.70.06881.51.3162.30.13871.7837 ± 14
2--124530.4414.80.06662.31.28130.13941.9841 ± 15
30.3163880.5618.80.05844.21.0774.60.13371.9809 ± 15
4--328160.0538.40.06691.31.2552.20.13621.7823 ± 13
* radiogenic portions.
Table
Table 4. Zircon Hf–O isotope data of the Shimensi granodiorite.
Table 4. Zircon Hf–O isotope data of the Shimensi granodiorite.
Spot176Yb/177Hf2σ176Lu/177Hf2σ176Hf/177Hf2σt (Ma)εHf(t)fLu/HfTDM1 (Ma)TDM2 (Ma)δ18O (‰)±‰
SMS-2
10.091007 0.0018005 0.0019188 0.0000235 0.2824591 0.0000194 8496.60 −0.94 115013186.1 0.2
20.040921 0.0002453 0.0008791 0.0000037 0.2823405 0.0000181 8272.51 −0.97 128415585.9 0.2
30.082770 0.0004998 0.0018237 0.0000159 0.2823742 0.0000202 8353.35 −0.95 126915126.2 0.2
40.077641 0.0018125 0.0016481 0.0000423 0.2823591 0.0000196 8523.28 −0.95 128415297.7 0.3
60.082227 0.0001336 0.0016951 0.0000073 0.2823409 0.0000205 8191.91 −0.95 131215905.8 0.2
70.058475 0.0005013 0.0011958 0.0000071 0.2822939 0.0000223 8110.34 −0.96 136116826.8 0.2
80.052659 0.0038467 0.0010774 0.0000726 0.2823535 0.0000203 8202.71 −0.97 127315407.7 0.2
SMS-12
10.100158 0.0006790 0.0021757 0.0000104 0.2824024 0.0000184 8083.59 −0.93 124014767.7 0.2
30.060693 0.0016232 0.0012169 0.0000264 0.2823903 0.0000202 8173.87 −0.96 122614657.0 0.2
50.072390 0.0005023 0.0015484 0.0000135 0.2823876 0.0000183 8233.73 −0.95 124014797.7 0.1
60.087255 0.0009749 0.0018199 0.0000227 0.2822507 0.0000203 840−0.87 −0.95 144517827.4 0.2
70.055225 0.0009956 0.0011990 0.0000351 0.2823362 0.0000193 8352.33 −0.96 130115757.6 0.2
SMS-23
10.069315 0.0001253 0.0014777 0.0000064 0.2823042 0.0000175 8371.11 −0.96 135616545.9 0.2
20.075810 0.0006502 0.0017100 0.0000095 0.2824312 0.0000201 8415.56 −0.95 118413776.4 0.3
40.067762 0.0013936 0.0015192 0.0000307 0.2824150 0.0000210 8234.71 −0.95 120014176.6 0.1
Table
Table 5. LA-ICP-MS zircon trace element contents of the Shimensi granodiorite (ppm).
Table 5. LA-ICP-MS zircon trace element contents of the Shimensi granodiorite (ppm).
SpotThUWLaCePrNdSmEuGdTbDyHoErTmYbLuEu/Eu*Ce4+/Ce3+Ce/Ce*
SMS-2
16316900.00232.50.060.843.130.3828.6311.2114860.9829465.786311180.1231.3751.22
2392330.20.10150.950.181.823.870.0727.6911.7415861.6629765.976071100.024.491.69
3572232120.08942.170.071.493.450.2729.5312.5817370.2835581.637811490.0817.966.60
44127835090.99733.030.442.453.140.2228.4613.1218775.8436983.408091430.0717.101.10
6392633.780.04050.450.010.572.350.0523.8510.9616063.0831169.266341300.029.425.38
71733208.6511.954336.33.4918.208.350.4139.5713.6416059.8227959.675441150.0715.101.35
81182190.112.95478.681.6011.3012.300.2062.5320.3924388.0340782.447331490.024.050.96
SMS-12
1452105560.05370.560.051.113.420.0429.4512.2115863.7230366.416221170.015.812.60
319281019142945.312018.702.1510.905.180.4520.588.9713356.1228064.856131100.1327.291.33
5354624980.30314.180.301.642.080.2323.1010.7115260.9230168.906181320.1052.313.34
649411101643.53588.100.894.914.540.3732.6014.1518469.1933573.856971370.0923.531.10
73129527881.22504.270.663.193.610.2927.0211.413951.7925053.604881020.0916.801.14
SMS-23
13624414.40.18740.770.070.742.640.0425.5211.9415460.7728563.065921090.02128.641.62
2501080.060.00991.310.051.373.710.2429.3610.5613454.2726659.595681110.07101.7314.17
414291187231.16774.620.704.644.020.2627.4211.5115560.4129065.356341110.08127.041.23

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wei, W.; Lai, C.; Yan, B.; Zhu, X.; Song, S.; Liu, L. Petrogenesis and Metallogenic Implications of Neoproterozoic Granodiorite in the Super-Large Shimensi Tungsten-Copper Deposit in Northern Jiangxi, South China. Minerals 2018, 8, 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/min8100429

AMA Style

Wei W, Lai C, Yan B, Zhu X, Song S, Liu L. Petrogenesis and Metallogenic Implications of Neoproterozoic Granodiorite in the Super-Large Shimensi Tungsten-Copper Deposit in Northern Jiangxi, South China. Minerals. 2018; 8(10):429. https://doi.org/10.3390/min8100429

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wei, Wenfeng, Chunkit Lai, Bing Yan, Xiaoxi Zhu, Shengqiong Song, and Lei Liu. 2018. "Petrogenesis and Metallogenic Implications of Neoproterozoic Granodiorite in the Super-Large Shimensi Tungsten-Copper Deposit in Northern Jiangxi, South China" Minerals 8, no. 10: 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/min8100429

APA Style

Wei, W., Lai, C., Yan, B., Zhu, X., Song, S., & Liu, L. (2018). Petrogenesis and Metallogenic Implications of Neoproterozoic Granodiorite in the Super-Large Shimensi Tungsten-Copper Deposit in Northern Jiangxi, South China. Minerals, 8(10), 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/min8100429

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