2019 Xu Et Al

Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Earth-Science Reviews
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earscirev
Geochronological and geochemical insights into the tectonic evolution of the T

Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, Sino-Korean Craton
Wang Xua, , Fulai Liua,b,
⁎ ⁎
a
Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100037, China
b
Key Laboratory of Deep-Earth Dynamics of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing 100037, China
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: The Sino-Korean Craton, which is part of the Columbia supercontinent, was originally formed and stabilized by
Sino-Korean Craton the amalgamation of several distinctly different tectonic units during the Paleoproterozoic period. Although the
Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt early tectonic framework of the Sino-Korean Craton remains controversial, the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt
Paleoproterozoic magmatism is accepted to divide the eastern unit of this craton into Archean Nangrim-Liaonan and Longgang blocks. This
Tectonic evolution
orogenic belt is thus the key to revealing the geodynamic processes that occurred during the assemblage and
Oceanic plate subduction
Back-arc basin
breakup of the Paleoproterozoic supercontinent Columbia. Due to late polyphase tectonothermal events (e.g.,
Collisional orogeny subduction of the paleo-Pacific Plate), considerable and continuing controversy has surrounded how this
Paleoproterozoic orogenic belt formed, with models including (1) opening and closing of an intracontinental rift,
(2) collision of a continent–arc–continent system, (3) a rifting–initial ocean formation–oceanic sub-
duction–collision cycle, and (4) opening and closure of a back-arc basin or retro-arc foreland basin.
Here, we synthesize the geochronological, geochemical, and isotopic data on the Paleoproterozoic igneous
rocks in the JLJB. The available data suggest that the Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB lasted from ca.
2200 Ma to ca. 1800 Ma, with five magmatic flare-ups at ca. 2190–2160 Ma, ca. 2160–2110 Ma, ca.
2110–2080 Ma, ca. 2010–1895 Ma and ca. 1875–1850 Ma. These data, in combination with previous studies on
voluminous meta-sedimentary rocks, Archean basement relict slices and granitic leucosomes within the JLJB,
allow us to reconstruct the tectonic evolution of the JLJB based on rock petrogenesis as described below. (1)
During the early stage of northwestward subduction of Paleoproterozoic oceanic plate between the Longgang-
Liaonan-Nangrim Block (i.e., the Eastern Block) and the West Australian Craton (WAC) and/or North Australian
Craton (NAC), strong slab rollback resulted in trench retreat and extension of the overriding plate (i.e., the
Longgang-Liaonan-Nangrim Block) and induced upwelling and decompression melting of asthenospheric mantle
to produce basaltic magma. The overriding Archean continental crust was heated by the underlying basaltic
magma and melted to produce ~2190–2160 Ma aluminous A2-type granites, and minor basaltic magma mixed
with this crustal melt to form ~2180–2160 Ma calc-alkaline, andesitic-rhyolitic tuffs. (2) With ongoing exten-
sion, the overriding plate thinned, and a back-arc basin opened and widened. The asthenospheric mantle that
was metasomatized by limited subduction-related fluids and/or melts began to melt in the spinel-garnet stability
field, and produced ~2160–2110 Ma tholeiitic mafic rocks with the geochemical features of both mid-oceanic
ridge basalt (MORB) and volcanic arcs. (3) Decreased back-arc mafic magmatism suggests that subduction
ceased due to collision between the WAC and/or NAC and the active subduction zone during ~2110–2080 Ma.
After the collision, the subduction polarity reversed, from northwestward to southeastward, forming new sub-
duction initiation in the southeastern margin of the back-arc basin, and this new subduction further resulted in
forearc extension. Decompression melting of the subarc mantle produced basaltic magma, which was metaso-
matized by subducted slab- and ancient sediment-derived melts to form ~2110–2080 Ma mafic rocks with both
calc-alkaline and tholeiitic features. Simultaneously, the overriding continental crust was heated by the basaltic
magma and melted to form ~2110–2080 Ma aluminous A2-type granites. These processes, including opening
and closure of back-arc basin, were accompanied by the deposition of voluminous sedimentary rocks in this
back-arc basin, and the deposition lasted for at least 180 Myr. (4) After the collision between the WAC and/or
NAC, the arc terrane (Nangrim-Liaonan Block + Gyeonggi massif?) and the Longgang Block, the orogeny that
involved Archean basement rocks, Paleoproterozoic sedimentary rocks and associated mafic and granitic in-
trusions began. This process was accompanied by prograde or peak metamorphism and minor magmatism,
⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: wangxu_k@126.com (W. Xu), lfl0225@sina.com (F. Liu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.019
Received 30 January 2019; Received in revised form 6 April 2019; Accepted 11 April 2019
Available online 16 April 2019
0012-8252/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
which produced the ~2000–1895 Ma adakitic granites derived from partial melting of thickened lower crust. (5)
During the late Paleoproterozoic, termination of the collisional orogenic event occurred, as evidenced by strong
postcollisional extension, which generated widespread ~1875–1850 Ma igneous rocks in the JLJB and was
accompanied by a regional partial melting event related to the exhumation of the JLJB. In summary, the five
stages of magmatism, and associated sedimentation and metamorphism in the JLJB record a complete tectonic
cycle, including oceanic plate subduction, back-arc extension, closure of the back-arc basin, collisional orogeny
and postcollisional extension. These processes further support the conclusion that plate tectonic processes in the
Paleoproterozoic period resulted in the amalgamation of microcontinents and arcs to form the Sino-Korean
Craton and the Columbia supercontinent.
1. Introduction opening and closing of a back-arc basin (e.g., Wang et al., 2011; Meng
et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2017b, 2018b, 2018c) or retro-arc foreland basin
The Sino-Korean Craton, which is composed of the North China (Kusky et al., 2016). Undoubtedly, the multiphase Paleoproterozoic
Craton (NCC) and Korean Peninsula, is one of the major Archean cra- magmatism that was widespread within the JLJB (Figs. 2 and 3) pro-
tons in eastern Eurasia (Fig. 1A; Yang et al., 2010). As a part of the vides key clues for reconstructing the complete tectonic history of the
Columbia supercontinent, the Sino-Korean Craton formed and stabi- JLJB. Despite the lack of a record of oceanic plate subduction, as
lized during Paleoproterozoic period (Zhao et al., 2001, 2002, 2012; mentioned above, the accumulated geochronological and geochemical
Zhai and Liu, 2003; Kusky and Li, 2003; Kusky, 2011; Zhai and Santosh, data of the Paleoproterozoic magmatism make such a reconstruction
2011), and this tectonothermal event is undoubtedly recorded in as- feasible (Table 1; e.g., Hao et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2004a, 2004b; Yu
sociated collisional orogenic belts, although the positions and nature of et al., 2007; Meng et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016a, 2017b, 2017c;
these orogenic belts remains controversial, including: (1) the Jiao-Liao- Cheng et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017a, 2018a; Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c).
Ji Belt (JLJB), the Trans-North China Orogen (TNCO) and the Khon- However, no such comprehensive study to reveal the complicated tec-
dalite Belt (KB) (Fig. 1A; Zhao et al., 2002, 2005, 2012), (2) the Liaoji tonic evolution of the JLJB based on geochronological and geochemical
Orogenic Belt, the Jinyu Orogenic Belt and the Fengzhen Orogenic Belt data has been conducted to date.
(Fig. 1B; Zhai and Liu, 2003; Zhai and Santosh, 2011, 2013), and (3) the This paper, for the first time, synthesizes the spatial and temporal
Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB) and the Inner Mongolia-Northern Hebei Orogen distribution and geochronological and geochemical data of the
(IMNHO) (Fig. 1C; Kusky and Li, 2003; Kusky et al., 2007, 2014, 2016; Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB published in the past few
Kusky, 2011). In the three major tectonic frameworks of the Sino- decades. We further link the times of magmatism with petrogenesis and
Korean Craton mentioned above, the JLJB (or Liaoji Orogenic Belt) is tectonic settings and discuss their implications for the overall tectonic
the only Paleoproterozoic orogenic belt that is currently widely ac- evolution processes of the JLJB, including oceanic plate subduction,
cepted (Fig. 1A–C). Therefore, the JLJB is the key to revealing the back-arc extension, back-arc basin closure, collisional orogenesis, and
geodynamic process that occurred during the cratonization of the Sino- postcollisional extension.
Korean Craton and the amalgamation of the Columbia supercontinent.
Recently, major advances in our understanding of the Paleoproterozoic
2. Geological background
tectonic evolution of the Sino-Korean Craton have been achieved fol-
lowing the discovery of eclogite xenoliths in Paleoproterozoic carbo-
2.1. Tectonic framework
natite that record modern-style cold deep oceanic plate subduction in
the central part of the Sino-Korean Craton (Xu et al., 2017a, 2018a).
The Sino-Korean Craton, one of the major Archean cratons in
However, researchers have questioned whether the JLJB records a si-
eastern Eurasia, is tectonically bordered by the Central Asian Orogenic
milar tectonic evolution due to a lack of direct evidence of oceanic plate
Belt to the north, the Su-Lu Orogenic Belt to the southeast, the Qinling-
subduction.
Dabie Orogenic Belt to the south and the Qilian Orogenic Belt to the
The JLJB is traditionally regarded as a Paleoproterozoic orogenic
southwest (Fig. 1B; Zhao et al., 2001; Liu et al., 2004; Xiao et al., 2017).
belt linking the Liaonan-Nangrim Block in southern Liaoning Province
The craton is mainly composed of Archean microcontinents and Me-
and North Korea and the Longgang Block (e.g., Li et al., 2001, 2003,
soproterozoic to Cenozoic cover sequences (e.g., Zhai and Santosh,
2005, 2012; Zhao et al., 2005, 2012), which is one of the ancient cra-
2011). Although the Sino-Korean Craton has been studied for decades,
tonic nuclei in the world (3.8–2.5 Ga, e.g., Liu et al., 1992; Zhao et al.,
its tectonic subdivision remains debated, and three major models for its
2005, 2012; Liu et al., 2007; Zhai and Santosh, 2011; Wan et al., 2015a,
tectonic framework have been proposed. (1) Zhao et al. (2001) divided
2015b). Although previous studies of sedimentation (e.g., Wan et al.,
it into the Western and Eastern blocks, which were sutured along the
2006; Luo et al., 2004, 2008; Wang et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2018),
TNCO at ca. 1.85 Ga. The Western Block is further divided into the
magmatism (e.g., Sun et al., 1993; Faure et al., 2004; Li and Zhao, 2007;
Yinshan and Ordos blocks by the Khondalite Belt (also known as the
Meng et al., 2014; Li and Chen, 2014; Yuan et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
Inner Mongolia Suture Zone, Santosh, 2010), and the Eastern Block is
2016a, 2017b, 2017c; Xu et al., 2017b, 2018b, 2018c, d; Cheng et al.,
divided into the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks by the JLJB
2017; Liu et al., 2018a) and metamorphism (e.g., Zhou et al., 2008a;
(Fig. 1A; Zhao et al., 2005, 2012). (2) Zhai and Liu (2003) also pro-
Tam et al., 2011, 2012a; Liu et al., 2013a; Cai et al., 2017; Zou et al.,
posed three Paleoproterozoic orogenic belts in the similar positions as
2017) attempted to reveal the nature of the JLJB, its complete history of
those described by Zhao et al. (2012), but they are smaller in range.
tectonic evolution remains controversial, and four primary models have
Zhai and Santosh (2011, 2013) further defined them as the Fengzhen
been proposed: (1) opening and closing of a Paleoproterozoic in-
Orogenic Belt, Jinyu Orogenic Belt and Liaoji Orogenic Belt from west
tracontinental rift (e.g., Zhang, 1984; Zhang and Yang, 1988; Luo et al.,
to east (Fig. 1B). (3) Kusky and Li (2003) and Kusky et al. (2007) di-
2004, 2008; Li et al., 2005; Li and Zhao, 2007; Wang et al., 2016a,
vided the Sino-Korean Craton into the Western and Eastern blocks,
2017b); (2) collision of continent–arc–continent system at ca. 1.9 Ga
which were sutured along the Central Orogenic Belt (COB) during the
(e.g., Bai, 1993; Faure et al., 2004; Li and Chen, 2014; Yuan et al.,
Archean period. Subsequently, this craton underwent a Paleoproter-
2015); (3) a Paleoproterozoic rifting–initial ocean for-
ozoic cratonization event along the Inner Monglia-Northern Hebei
mation–subduction–collision cycle (Li et al., 2010, 2012; Zhai and
Orogen (IMNHO) in the north of the Sino-Korean Craton and the JLJB
Santosh, 2011, 2013; Zhao et al., 2012; Zhao and Zhai, 2013); and (4)
in the Eastern Block (Fig. 1C; Kusky et al., 2007, 2014; Kusky, 2011).
163
(caption on next page)
164
Fig. 1. Tectonic subdivision of the Sino-Korean Craton and surrounding orogens. Panel (A) shows that the Sino-Korean Craton can be divided into four micro-blocks
(the Yinshan, Ordos, Longgang and Nangrim blocks) and three Paleoproterozoic orogenic belts [the Khondalite Belt, Trans-North China Orogen (TNCO) and Jiao-
Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB)] (modified from Zhao et al., 2005, 2012). Panel (B) shows the Archean basement rocks and three Paleoproterozoic orogenic belts (the Fengzhen
Orogenic Belt, Jinyu Orogenic Belt and Liaoji Orogenic Belt) in the Sino-Korean Craton (modified from Zhai and Liu, 2003; Zhai and Santosh, 2011, 2013). Panel (C)
shows that the Sino-Korean Craton can be divided into three Archean-Paleoproterozoic micro-blocks (the Western Block, Eastern Block and Nangrim Massif), one
Archean orogenic belt [the Central Orogenic Belt (COB)] and two Paleoproterozoic orogenic belts [the Inner Monglia-Northern Hebei Orogenic Belt (IMNHO) and
Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB)] (modified from Kusky and Li, 2003; Kusky et al., 2007, 2014, 2016). Note: The major difference in three schemes is the tectonic subdivision
of the west part of the Sino-Korean Craton, whereas the Paleoproterozoic JLJB (or Liaoji Orogenic Belt), and the Archean micro-blocks on both sides of this orogenic
belt are widely accepted.
Nevertheless, the Eastern Block represents an Archean basement that is worldwide is that ca. 2.5 Ga magmatism is widely distributed in the
divided into the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks by the Paleo- Longgang Block, implying significant continental crustal growth and
proterozoic JLJB (Fig. 1A–C). reworking in the late Neoarchean (Sun et al., 2012), whereas many
other cratons around the world mainly experienced tectonothermal
2.1.1. Longgang Block events at ca. 2.7 Ga (Wan et al., 2011a, 2014). Although many studies
The Longgang Block is dominated by Neoarchean tonalite-trondh- have focused on the widespread late Neoarchean magmatism in the
jemite-granodiorite (TTG) gneisses, with minor Eo- to Mesoarchean Longgang Block, its petrogenesis and tectonic setting remain debated,
basement rocks (e.g., Wan et al., 2015a; Wang et al., 2016b; Dong et al., with interpretations including (1) magma mixing triggered by mantle
2017). Since ca. 3.8 Ga detrital and magmatic zircons were discovered plume activity (e.g., Yang et al., 2008); (2) slab–wedge interaction re-
in the Caozhuang and Anshan areas, respectively (Liu et al., 1992), the lated to oceanic plate subduction (e.g., Wang et al., 2015, 2017d); and
Longgang Block has become a key unit for studying the evolution of (3) reworking of crustal material during continental collision and
Archean continental crust, and more Archean lithologies of different postcollisional extension (e.g., Wang et al., 2016c).
ages (3.8–2.5 Ga) have since been identified (Song et al., 1996; Wan
et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2017b; Dong et al., 2017). Archean granitoids in 2.1.2. Liaonan-Nangrim Block
the Longgang Block are generally accepted to be products of the re- The Liaonan Block was initially thought to be an Archean gray
working of older continental crust (Wu et al., 2008; Wan et al., 2015a; gneiss terrane (Zhang and Yang, 1988) or metamorphic basement (Shen
Liu et al., 2017b; Dong et al., 2017), except for ca. 2.7 Ga granitoids in et al., 1994). However, recent geochronological and geochemical stu-
western Shandong Province that have high εHf(t) values and were de- dies suggest that the Liaonan Block is composed of Neoarchean plutonic
rived from depleted mantle sources (Wan et al., 2011a, 2014). The gneisses (e.g., biotite-plagioclase gneiss) with minor supracrustal rocks
major difference between the Longgang Block and many other cratons (e.g., amphibolite) (e.g., Lu et al., 2004a; Wang et al., 2017e, 2017f).
Fig. 2. Simplified geological map showing the distribution of Paleoproterozoic magmatism and anataxis in the Liaoji area and the locations of all U–Pb crystallization
age samples based on available isotopic dating results. Details for all samples are listed in Table 1.
165
Fig. 3. Simplified geological map showing the distribution of Paleoproterozoic magmatism and anataxis, and Archean basement rocks in the Jiaobei (A) and Anhui
(B) areas, also showing locations of all U–Pb crystallization age samples based on available isotopic dating results. Details for all samples are listed in Table 1.
Furthermore, the plutonic gneisses are comparable to Neoarchean rocks 2.1.3. Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB)
in the Longgang Block, implying a unified Neoarchean continental The JLJB, a nearly 1200 km-long, northeast-southwest-trending
block (Wang et al., 2017f). orogenic belt, is located in the eastern part of the Eastern Block
Traditionally, the Nangrim Block was thought to be composed of (Fig. 1A; Li et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2005, 2012). This belt mainly
Archean to Paleoproterozoic supracrustal and granitoid rocks, with a consists of greenschist- to amphibolite-facies and rare granulite-facies
single Archean basement unit in North Korea (Zhao et al., 2006, and metasedimentary and metavolcanic successions with associated granitic
references therein). Some late Archean basement rocks indeed exist in and mafic intrusions.
the Nangrim Block (e.g., Zhang et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016a). The metasedimentary and metavolcanic successions, including the
However, recent studies have identified increasing late Paleoproter- Macheonayeong Group in North Korea, the Laoling and Ji’an groups in
ozoic intrusions (Kim et al., 2016; Peng et al., 2016a) and metamorphic southern Jilin, the North and South Liaohe groups in eastern Liaoning,
complexes (Li et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016b), and these lithological the Fenzishan and Jingshan groups in eastern Shandong, and the Wuhe
records are connected to collisional orogeny, postcollisional extension and Fengyang groups in Anhui Province (e.g., Zhao et al., 2012; Liu
or oceanic plate subduction (Kim et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Peng et al., et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2018a; Liu and Cai, 2017; Liao et al., 2016),
2016a; Zhao et al., 2016b). More importantly, the studies on detrital contain a consistent sequence from a basal clastic-rich sequence and a
zircon from sands in rivers running through the Nangrim Block suggest lower bimodal volcanic sequence, through a middle carbonate-rich se-
that this block mainly consists of Paleoproterozoic material and that it quence to an upper pelite-rich sequence (Li et al., 2005; Liu et al.,
may be a Paleoproterozoic unit similar to the JLJB (e.g., Wu et al., 2015a, and references therein). Based on stratigraphy and metamorphic
2007a, 2016). This speculation is also supported by evidence showing history, these sequences are traditionally divided into two zones, which
that the Archean basement rocks in the Nangrim Block have been al- are separated by ductile shear zones and faults (Li et al., 2005). The
tered by Paleoproterozoic tectonothermal events (Zhao et al., 2016a). southern zone, which consists of the Ji’an Group in southern Jilin, the
166
Table 1
Summary of geochronological data on Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt.
No. Sample Satge No. Lithology Mineral assemblage U–Pb age Tuffzirc age Location Analytical References
method
W. Xu and F. Liu
Liaoji area
1 FW01-327 1 Kfs granitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Ms+Tur WMA 2161 ± 12 Ma 2175+14/–31 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Lu et al.
(n = 18) MS) (2004a)
2 FW02-62 5 Porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt WMA 1848 ± 10 Ma 1854+12/–8 Ma Wolongquan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Lu et al.
monzogranite (n = 15) MS) (2004a)
3 FW01-31 5 Amp-Px syenite Kfs+Pl+Amp+Px WMA 1843 ± 23 Ma 1853+25/–6 Ma Kuangdonggou Zircon (LA-ICP- Lu et al.
(n = 9) Pluton MS) (2004a)
4 Lu0007 1 Syenogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl ± Amp+Zr+Ttn+Ap+Mag+Rt+Py WMA 2164 ± 8 Ma 2163+19/–13 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
(n = 7) (SHRIMP) (2004b)
5 Lu1065 1 Syenogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl ± Amp+Zr+Ttn+Ap+Mag+Rt+Py WMA 2158 ± 13 Ma 2166+10/–26 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
(n = 9) (SHRIMP) (2004b)
6 12072 5 Quartz diorite Qtz+Amp+Pl+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ap+Zr WMA 1872 ± 11 Ma 1872+17/–13 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
(n = 8) (SHRIMP) (2005)
7 92015 5 Porphyritic Bt Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Grt+Ms+Sil+Crd WMA 1872 ± 7 Ma 1876+9/–13 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
monzogranite (n = 12) (SHRIMP) (2005)
8 12082 5 Porphyritic Bt Bt+Grt+Ms ± Sil ± Crd WMA 1817 ± 18 Ma (Total n = 2) Shuangcha Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
monzogranite (SHRIMP) (2005)
9 Lu010 5 Porphyritic Bt Bt+Grt+Ms ± Sil ± Crd WMA 1782 ± 38 Ma (Total n = 4) Bahechuan Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
monzogranite (SHRIMP) (2005)
10 LD9822 1 Biotite granite Pl+Kfs+Qtz+Bt WMA 2173 ± 4 Ma 2174+8/–7 Ma Mafeng-longchang Zircon Wan et al.
(n = 10) Pluton (SHRIMP) (2006)
11 LJ005 5 Porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs WMA 1856 ± 31 Ma 1812+21/–11 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao
12 LJ006 5 Porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs WMA 1875 ± 10 Ma 1859+3/–8 Ma Bahechuan Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao
167
13 LJ010 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mag WMA 2166 ± 14 Ma 2171+3/–16 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon Li and Zhao
(n = 5) Pluton (SHRIMP) (2007)
14 LJ035 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mag WMA 2175 ± 13 Ma 2180+13/–9 Ma Jiguanshan Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao
(n = 6) (SHRIMP) (2007)
15 LJ040 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Amp WMA 2143 ± 17 Ma 2079+7/–3 Ma Dafangshen Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao
(n = 3) (SHRIMP) (2007
16 LJ044 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt WMA 2150 ± 17 Ma 2159+8/–3 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao
(n = 5) (SHRIMP) (2007)
17 LJ056 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mag WMA 2176 ± 11 Ma (Total n = 6) Mafeng-longchang Zircon Li and Zhao
Pluton (SHRIMP) (2007)
18 03JH079 5 Syenite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt+Amp+Px+Ttn+Ap+Aln+Zr WMA 1879 ± 17 Ma 1876+14/–11 Ma Kuangdonggou Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 10) Pluton MS) (2007a)
19 03JH080 5 Syenite Bt+Amp+Px+Ttn+Ap+Aln+Zr WMA 1872 ± 14 Ma 1882+11/–25 Ma Kuangdonggou Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 10) Pluton MS) (2007a)
20 03JH082 5 Diorite Amp+Pl+Kfs+Px+Ap+Zr WMA 1870 ± 18 Ma 1885+6/–15 Ma Kuangdonggou Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 8) Pluton MS) (2007a)
21 DD24-1 2 Amphibolite Amp+Pl+Bt+Ap+Mag+Ttn+Zr WMA 2059 ± 22 Ma 2074+26/–33 Ma Mafeng Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yu et al.
(n = 7) MS) (2007)
22 N02 1 Hyalotourmalite Tur+Qtz WMA 2171 ± 5 Ma 2177+7/–9 Ma Jianyi Town Zircon Zhang et al.
(n = 11) (SHRIMP) (2010)
(n = 17) (SHRIMP) (2010)
(n = 5) (SHRIMP) (2010)
25 10JL13 5 Granitic pegmatite Pl+Kfs+Qtz+Ms WMA 1875 ± 10 Ma 1873+12/–13 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 17) MS) (2011)
26 A1102 2 Meta-gabbro Px+Pl+Amp+Bt+Mag+Qtz WMA 2110 ± 31 Ma (Total n = 2) Qianshan Town Zircon Dong et al.
(SHRIMP) (2012)
(continued on next page)
Table 1 (continued)
method
W. Xu and F. Liu
27 NLX02-4 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp WMA 2163 ± 22 Ma 2150+19/–3 Ma Helan Town Zircon Qin (2013)
(n = 4) (SHRIMP)
28 NMY03 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Zr+Ap+Mag WMA 2168 ± 14 Ma 2172+3/–15 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Qin (2013)
(n = 12) MS)
29 NQZ01 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Zr+Ap+Mag WMA 2170 ± 11 Ma 2170+3/–5 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Qin (2013)
(n = 15) MS)
30 NHP01 1 Bt Monzogranitic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Mag+Ttn+Zr+Ap+Hem WMA 2173 ± 20 Ma 2167+7/–6 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Qin (2013)
gneiss (n = 18) MS)
31 NSC01 5 Porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Zr+Ap+Mag+Grt WMA 1877 ± 15 Ma 1877+6/–3 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Qin (2013)
monzogranite (n = 12) MS)
32 LZ02-1 1 Gneiss Kfs+Qtz+Tur+Bt WMA 2189 ± 10 Ma 2201+14/–18 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Li and Chen
(n = 21) MS) (2014)
33 LZ04-1 1 Gneiss Kfs+Qtz WMA 2172 ± 8 Ma 2174+15/–13 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Li and Chen
(n = 24) MS) (2014)
34 LZ19-1 1 Gneiss Kfs+Qtz+Tur WMA 2158 ± 23 Ma 2148+12/–36 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Li and Chen
(n = 9) MS) (2014)
35 DZ73-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Px+Bt+Qtz+Mag WMA 2159 ± 12 Ma 2158+2/–9 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.
(n = 11) MS) (2014)
36 DZ74-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Px+Bt+Qtz+Mag WMA 2144 ± 16 Ma 2143+4/–1 Ma Bahui Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.
(n = 24) MS) (2014)
37 DZ78-1 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp WMA 2161 ± 45 Ma (Total n = 3) Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.
MS) (2014)
38 DZ85-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Px+Bt+Qtz+Mag WMA 2157 ± 17 Ma 2157+3/–2 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.
(n = 6) MS) (2014)
39 DZ91-1 2 Meta-diabase Pl+Amp+Px+Bt+Mag WMA 2161 ± 12 Ma 2160+4/–2 Ma Mafeng Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.
168
(n = 22) MS) (2014)
40 HD-2 1 Granitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Amp+Ep+Mag+Zr+Ap+Ttn+Po WMA 2175 ± 3 Ma 2176+4/–3 Ma Hadabei Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 27) MS) (2015a)
41 SM-1 1 Amp monzogranitic Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Zr+Ttn+Ap WMA 2205 ± 2 Ma 2202+5/–7 Ma Simenzi Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
gneiss (n = 13) MS) (2015a)
42 HP-9 2 Meta-mafic vein WMA 2145 ± 21 Ma 2159+13/–18 Ma In Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 11) MS) (2015a)
43 SC-1 5 Porphyritic Grt-Bt Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Grt+Ms+Sil WMA 1895 ± 2 Ma 1899+1/–9 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
monzogranite (n = 25) MS) (2015b)
44 YK12-1-4 2 Gabbro Pl+Cpx+Amp+Bt+Kfs+Zr+Mag+Ap WMA 2125 ± 6 Ma 2124+12/–11 Ma Pailou Town Zircon Yuan et al.
(n = 16) (CAMECA) (2015)
45 HPX1 1 Gneissic granite Mc+Pth+Pl+Qtz+Hbl+Ep+Mag+Zr+Ttn WMA 2209 ± 12 Ma 2217+9/–24 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Chen et al.
(n = 22) MS) (2016)
46 T02-1 1 Syenogranite Kfs+Pl+Qtz WMA 2169 ± 11 Ma 2163+19/–2 Ma Simenzi Pluton Zircon Song et al.
(n = 6) (SHRIMP) (2016)
47 TW12 1 Monzogranite Kfs+Qtz+Bt WMA 2153 ± 16 Ma 2159+10/–17 Ma Simenzi Pluton Zircon Song et al.
(n = 5) (SHRIMP) (2016)
48 TW11 5 Porphyritic granite Pl+Kfs+Qtz WMA 1835 ± 9 Ma 1832+7/–7 Ma Muniu Pluton Zircon Song et al.
(n = 8) (SHRIMP) (2016)
49 TW13 5 Monzogranite Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt WMA 1867 ± 10 Ma (Total n = 3) Qingchengzi Town Zircon Song et al.
(SHRIMP) (2016)
50 598XLLZ2 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Cpx+Qtz+Ap+Ilm+Mag WMA 2115 ± 3 Ma 2117+4/–6 Ma Qianshan Town Baddeleyite Wang et al.
(n = 13) (CAMECA) (2016a)
51 598XLLZ2 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Cpx+Qtz+Ap+Ilm+Mag UIA 2115 ± 13 Ma (Total n = 3) Qianshan Town Zircon Wang et al.
(CAMECA) (2016a)
52 HP-1 1 Gneissic granite Kfs+Pth+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Amp+Ep+Mag+Zr+Ap+Ttn WMA 2184 ± 2 Ma 2183+1/–7 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 22) MS) (2016)
53 MN-6 1 Gneissic granite Mc+Pth+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Hbl+Ep+Mag+Zr+Ap+Ttn WMA 2200 ± 4 Ma 2199+4/–1 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 20) MS) (2016)

Table 1 (continued)
method
W. Xu and F. Liu
54 LC1 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Mag+Tur+Bt+Zr WMA 2205 ± 6 Ma 2203+12/–4 Ma Mafeng-longchang Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 20) Pluton MS) (2017a)
55 LC26 1 Granitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Mag WMA 2213 ± 6 Ma 2213+8/–5 Ma Mafeng-longchang Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 22) Pluton MS) (2017a)
56 LC110 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Mag WMA 2178 ± 7 Ma 2182+17/–6 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 12) Pluton MS) (2017a)
57 LC126 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Mag WMA 2180 ± 6 Ma 2184+5/–12 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 24) Pluton MS) (2017a)
58 JN1 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1865+4/–13 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
porphyritic granite 1868 ± 9/1848 ± 13 Ma (n = 31) MS) (2017a)
59 JN2 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1866+4/–3 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite 1868 ± 6/1849 ± 13 Ma (n = 42) MS) (2017a
60 JN3 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1870+2/–1 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
61 JN4 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1872 ± 7/1849 ± 9 Ma 1872+2/–7 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 48) MS) (2017a)
62 JN5 5 Flesh-red porphyritic Qtz+Kfs ± Pl+Bt+Grt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1868 ± 7/1849 ± 8 Ma 1862+4/–10 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
Kfs granite (n = 54) MS) (2017a)
63 JN6 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1865 ± 7/1849 ± 9 Ma 1859+3/–7 Ma Longquan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 43) MS) (2017a)
64 JN7 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1869+3/–8 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
65 JN8 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1872+3/–6 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite 1872 ± 7/1850 ± 13 Ma (n = 38) MS) (2017a)
66 LN1 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1863+5/–18 Ma Zhenjiang-yulin Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
169
granite 1867 ± 10/1842 ± 12 Ma (n = 28) Pluton MS) (2017a)
67 LN2 5 Flesh-red porphyritic Qtz+Kfs ± Pl+Bt+Grt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1865+2/–2 Ma Zhenjiang-yulin Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
Kfs granite 1866 ± 6/1846 ± 13 Ma (n = 47) Pluton MS) (2017a)
68 LN3 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1869+5/–7 Ma Jiuliancheng Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
69 LN4 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1865 ± 6/1849 ± 8 Ma 1861+2/–3 Ma Jiuliancheng Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 49) MS) (2017a)
70 LN5 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1864 ± 8/1844 ± 9 Ma 1859+5/–10 Ma Bahechuan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 32) MS) (2017a)
71 LN6 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1866+4/–4 Ma Jiguanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
72 SJZ07-5.1 2 Grt amphibolite Grt+Amp+Pl+Qtz+Fe-Ti Oxide+Ap+Ttn+Zr WMA 2060 ± 32 Ma (Total n = 2) Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
MS) (2017d)
73 SJZ07-2.1 2 Grt amphibolite Grt+Amp+Pl+Qtz+Fe-Ti Oxide+Ap+Ttn+Zr WMA 2167 ± 31 Ma (Total n = 4) Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
MS) (2017d)
74 13LJ11 4 Granitic gneiss Pl+Mc+Qtz+Bt+Ms+Ap+Zr WMA 1892 ± 16 Ma 1888+27/–19 (n = 9) Jianyi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Ren et al.
MS) (2017)
75 NYD-3 1 Granitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Bt+Amp+Mag+Zr+Ttn+Aln+Ap WMA 2180 ± 5 Ma 2182+4/–6 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Teng et al.
(n = 30) Pluton MS) (2017)
76 601SDG1 1 Amp monzogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Mag WMA 2181 ± 6 Ma 2184+3/–4 Ma Mafeng-longchang Zircon Wang et al.
(n = 19) Pluton (CAMECA) (2017b)
77 719FSG1 5 Bt plagiogranite Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt WMA 1891 ± 10 Ma 1891+6/–7 Ma Shimengou Pluton Zircon Wang et al.
(n = 8) (CAMECA) (2017b)
78 16LN13-1 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Bt+Zr WMA 2177 ± 15 Ma 2174+6/–13 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 14) Pluton MS) (2017g)
79 16LN23-1 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Bt+Zr WMA 2177 ± 9 Ma 2178+15/–6 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 22) Pluton MS) (2017g)
80 D1001-B1 1 Bt monzogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt ± Amp+Mag+Zr CA 2185 ± 29 Ma 2189+20/–20 Ma Muniu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 6) MS) (2017h)

Table 1 (continued)
method
W. Xu and F. Liu
81 D1032-B1 4 Granitic diorite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt+Zr CA 1995 ± 18 Ma 1977+24/–35 Ma Huanghuadian Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 6) Town MS) (2017h)
82 D5002-B1 4 Granitic diorite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt+Zr CA 1995 ± 13 Ma 2006+10/–19 Ma Huanghuadian Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 17) Town MS) (2017h)
83 D3208-B1 1 Bt monzogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt ± Amp+Mag+Zr CA 2183 ± 13 Ma 2191+5/–16 Ma Dafangshen Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 11) MS) (2017h)
84 D5132-B1 1 Bt monzogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt ± Amp+Mag+Zr CA 2166 ± 10 Ma 2175+6/–14 Ma Dafangshen Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 15) MS) (2017h)
85 16KD05-4 5 Tur-bearing pegmatite Qtz+Kfs+Tur ± Pl WMA 1842 ± 7 Ma 1844+7/–12 Ma Kuandian County Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 41) MS) (2017)
86 16KD06-1 5 Granitic pegmatite Qtz+Kfs ± Pl ± Tur ± Ms WMA 1864 ± 8 Ma 1865+3/–4 Ma Kuandian County Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 30) MS) (2017)
87 16KD54-2 5 Tur-bearing pegmatite Qtz+Kfs+Tur ± Pl WMA 1876 ± 11 Ma 1874+7/–8 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 28) MS) (2017)
88 16KD66-1 5 Tur-bearing pegmatite Qtz+Kfs+Tur ± Pl WMA 1802 ± 15 Ma 1824+17/–16 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 22) MS) (2017)
89 16KD80-2 5 Tur-bearing pegmatite Qtz+Kfs+Tur+Ms ± Pl WMA 1740 ± 8 Ma 1744+9/–14 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 26) MS) (2017)
90 16SJZ07-8 5 Granitic pegmatite Qtz+Kfs ± Pl ± Tur ± Ms WMA 1871 ± 7 Ma 1873+4/–6 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 37) MS) (2017)
91 TWD15001 1 Rhyolite Kfs+Qtz+Pl+Bt+Tur+Ap+Chl WMA 2179 ± 20 Ma 2160+24/–11 Ma Tianshui Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Bi et al. (2018)
(n = 7) MS)
(n = 10) MS)
170
(n = 17) MS)
94 D1002-2 2 Meta-diabase Pl+Chl+Act+Qtz+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ttn WMA 2133 ± 14 Ma 2132+22/–7 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 11) MS) (2018b)
(n = 12) MS) (2018b)
(n = 18) MS) (2018b)
97 D5048-4 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn WMA 2164 ± 6 Ma 2163+24/–10 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 26) MS) (2018b)
98 16KD68-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Chl+Act+Qtz+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ttn WMA 2188.2 ± 8.5 Ma 2188+4/–16 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 38) MS) (2018c)
99 D9001-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Chl+Act+Qtz+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ttn WMA 2118.6 ± 6.3 Ma 2121+2/–8 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 26) MS) (2018c)
100 D2066-11 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn ± Grt WMA 2083 ± 13 Ma 2087+19/–32 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 7) MS) (2018c
101 SJZ07-5 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn ± Grt WMA 2054-2061 Ma (Total n = 2) Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
MS) (2018c)
102 SJZ11-1 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn ± Grt WMA 2119 ± 19 Ma 2122+10/–21 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 20) MS) (2018c)
103 16KD55-1-1 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn ± Grt WMA 2063 ± 23 Ma 2061+63/–23 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 7) MS) (2018c)
104 D2092-1.2 1 Felsic tuff Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mnz+Ap+Zr+Mag WMA 2174 ± 8 Ma 2174+6/–9 Ma Helan Town Zircon Xu et al.
(n = 17) (SHRIMP) (2019a)
105 D5049-1.5 1 Felsic tuff Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mnz+Ap+Zr+Mag WMA 2170 ± 7 Ma 2174+5/–9 Ma Helan Town Zircon Xu et al.
(n = 18) (SHRIMP) (2019a)
106 16SMT02-1 1 Felsic tuff Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mnz+Ap+Zr+Mag WMA 2174 ± 8 Ma 2167+9/–11 Ma Helan Town Zircon Xu et al.
(n = 18) (SHRIMP) (2019a)
107 16SMT03-1 1 Felsic tuff Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mnz+Ap+Zr+Mag WMA 2168 ± 6 Ma 2169+5/–3 Ma Helan Town Zircon Xu et al.
(n = 17) (SHRIMP) (2019a)

Table 1 (continued)
method
W. Xu and F. Liu
Jiaobei area
108 S0835 5 Meta-diorite Pl+Bt+Amp+Ep WMA 1852 ± 9 Ma 1850+20/–10 Ma Laiyang County Zircon Dong et al.
(n = 13) (SHRIMP) (2010)
109 QX16-1 3 Bt-Amp-bearing Qtz+Pl+Amp+Kfs+Bt WMA 2095 ± 12 Ma 2091+14/–9 Ma Laiyang County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granitic gneiss (n = 22) MS) (2011a)
110 QX2-2 3 Meta-gabbro Cpx+Opx+Pl+Qtz+Amp+Fe-Ti Oxide+Bt+Kfs+Ap+Zr WMA 2102 ± 3 Ma 2101+5/–3 Ma Laiyang County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
(n = 75) MS) (2013)
111 JB09-1 5 Bt-bearing Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt WMA 1801 ± 21 Ma 1804+8/–6 Ma Qixia County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
syenogranite (n = 20) MS) (2014a)
112 JB13-1 1 Bt-bearing Pl+Kfs+Qtz+Bt WMA 2181 ± 12 Ma 2176+14/–6 Ma Qixia County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
monzogranitic gneiss (n = 24) MS) (2014a)
113 CY2-92 1 Alkali-feldspar granite Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Zr+Ap WMA 2193 ± 11 Ma 2194+0/–3 Ma Changyi County Zircon (LA-ICP- Lan et al.
(n = 22) MS) (2015)
114 CY2-43 1 Albite granite Pl+Qtz+Bt+Zr WMA 2171 ± 10 Ma 2173+21/–4 Ma Changyi County Zircon (LA-ICP- Lan et al.
(n = 13) MS) (2015)
115 14LK22 3 Monzogranite Qtz+Pl+Kfs WMA 2110 ± 4 Ma 2108+6/–5 Ma Guocheng Town Zircon Cheng et al.
(n = 26) (SHRIMP) (2017)
116 10-23 3 Monzogranite Qtz+Pl+Kfs WMA 2105 ± 7 Ma 2101+9/–10 Ma Guocheng Town Zircon Cheng et al.
(n = 26) (SHRIMP) (2017)
117 TC02 5 Two-mica Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Ms+Zr+Mnz+Ap+Mag+Ttn WMA 1861 ± 13 Ma 1865+1/–1 Ma Huili Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
leucogranites (n = 17) MS) (2017c)
118 TC15 5 Two-mica Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Ms+Zr+Mnz+Ap+Mag WMA 1870 ± 11 Ma 1867+2/–4 Ma Huili Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
leucogranites (n = 26) MS) (2017c)
119 TC21 5 Ms leucogranite Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Ms+Zr+Mnz+Ap+Mag WMA 1864 ± 7 Ma 1858+14/–10 Ma Huili Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 16) MS) (2017c)
171
120 JB1 5 Flesh-red porphyritic Qtz+Kfs ± Pl+Bt+Grt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1867+2/–2 Ma Taocun Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
Kfs granite 1868 ± 6/1848 ± 14 Ma (n = 41) MS) (2017a)
121 JB2 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1861+3/–13 Ma Taocun Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
122 JB3 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1872 ± 8/1848 ± 7 Ma 1854+16/–4 Ma Qixia County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 48) MS) (2017a)
123 JB4 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1871+2/–17 Ma Nanshu Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
JD1402 1 Geneissic Pl+Kfs+Qtz+Bt+Hbl WMA 2174 ± 8 Ma 2168+15/–16 Ma Xiadian Town Zircon Tian et al.
monzogranite (n = 10) (SHRIMP) (2017a)
Anhui area
124 05SMS-1 3 Granite WMA 2058 ± 8 Ma 2056+24/–17 Ma Shimenshan Town Zircon Guo and Li
(n = 6) (SHRIMP) (2009)
125 BB8 3 Kfs granite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt+Amp+Ap+Ttn+Mag+Zr WMA 2100 ± 14 Ma 2084+11/–9 Ma Daxihe Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 12) MS) (2009)
126 BB13 3 Kfs granite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Ms+Mag+Ap+Zr UIA 2196 ± 190 Ma (Total n = 0) Shimenshan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
MS) (2009)
127 07SMS 3 Kfs granite Qtz+Kfs+Pth+Pl+Ms WMA 2096 ± 9 Ma 2097+10/–13 Ma Shimenshan Town Zircon Wang et al.
(n = 12) (SHRIMP) (2017c)
128 1403FY13-5 3 Granitic gneiss Qtz+Pth+Pl+Amp+Ttn+Ep+Ap WMA 2096 ± 8 Ma 2096+6/–10 Ma Fengyang County Zircon Wang et al.
(n = 6) (SHRIMP) (2017c)
129 14BB19-2 3 Amphibolite Amp+Pl+Cpx+Ttn UIA 2126 ± 37 Ma 2108+9/–22 Ma Fengyang County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
(n = 10) MS) (2018a)
Note: Concordance = 100*(206Pb/238U–age)/(207Pb/206Pb–age). Only the 207Pb/206Pb ages with concordance = 90–105% are chosen for calculation of Tuffzirc ages.
Abbreviation: Ab—Albite; Act—Actinolite; Aln—Allanite; Amp—Amphibole; Ap—Apatite; Bt—Biotite; Chl—Chlorite; Cpx—Clinopyroxene; Crd—Cordierite; Ep—Epidote; Grt—Garnet; Hem—Haematite; Ilm—Ilmenite;
Kfs—K-feldspar; Mag—Magnetite; Mc—Microcline; Mnz—Monazite; Ms—Muscovite; Opx—Orthopyroxene; Pl—Plagioclase; Po—Pyrrhotite; Pth—Perthite; Px—Pyroxene; Py—Pyrite; Rt—Rutile; Qtz—Quartz;
Sil—Sillimanite; Ttn—Titanite; Tur—Tourmaline; Zr—Zircon; CA—Concodia age; UIA—Upper intercept age; WMA—Weighted mean age
Fig. 4. Tectonic evolution models of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt modified according to (A) Li et al. (2005), (B) Bai (1993), (C) Li et al. (2010, 2012) and Zhao et al. (2012),
and (D) Kusky et al. (2016). See text for discussion. Four schematic illustrations correspond to the intracontinental rift opening and closure model (A), the con-
tinent–arc–continent collision model (B), the rift–subduction–collision cycle model (C) and the retro-arc foreland basin opening and closure model (D).
172
South Liaohe Group in eastern Liaoning, and the Jingshan Group in lines of evidence from magmatism and structure, including (1) the
eastern Shandong, is characterized by an anticlockwise pressur- presence of bimodal volcanic assemblages represented by metabasic
e–temperature–time (P–T–t) path, whereas the northern zone, which rocks and metarhyolites (e.g., Sun et al., 1993); (2) the existence of A-
comprises the Laoling Group in southern Jilin, the North Liaohe Group type granites and minor rapakivi rocks (e.g., Zhang and Yang, 1988);
in eastern Liaoning, and the Fenzishan Group in eastern Shandong, (3) late Archean TTG basement gneisses and mafic dike swarms on
records a clockwise P–T–t path (e.g., Li and Liu, 1997; He and Ye, 1998; opposite sides of the JLJB, which are geochemically and geochronolo-
Li et al., 2001; Zhao et al., 2005). However, recent studies on detrital gically similar (e.g., Zhang and Yang, 1988); and (4) the identification
zircons from the sedimentary successions within the JLJB show that of early deformation (D1) related to an extensional event (Li et al.,
both the southern and northern zones have identical age populations of 2005). Based on this evidence, the authors proposed a complete sce-
ca. 2.1 Ga and ca. 2.5 Ga and comparable Hf signatures (c.f., Luo et al., nario for evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji rift system as follows: (1)
2004, 2008; Xie et al., 2014a; Liu et al., 2015a; Wang et al., 2017a; ~2.17–2.05 Ga, an extensional regime developed and induced the
Zhang et al., 2018), suggesting the same sedimentary environment for widespread emplacement of the Liaoji A-type granitoids; (2)
the protoliths of these two zones. Additionally, recent studies on ~2.05–1.90 Ga, a rift basin formed, accompanied by deposition of
medium- and high-pressure metamorphic rocks from the southern zone, meta-sedimentary and metavolcanic successions, including bimodal
including pelitic and mafic granulites in the Ji’an Group (Cai et al., volcanics; (3) ~1.90 Ga, lithospheric uplift produced extensional de-
2017), garnet amphibolite and pelitic granulites in the South Liaohe formation D1; (4) ~1.90–1.87 Ga, a compressive event closed the rift
Group (Liu et al., 2017d, 2019), and (high-pressure) pelitic and mafic basin to form the JLJB; and (5) ~1.87 Ga, exhumation formed asso-
granulites in the Jingshan Group (Tam et al., 2012a; Liu et al., 2013a; ciated rapakivi granite (Fig. 4A). This model is considered consistent
Zou et al., 2017), show a ca. 1.95–1.85 Ga clockwise P–T–t path similar with the anticlockwise P–T–t path of the protoliths in the southern zone
to that of the northern zone, implying that these two zones record the (He and Ye, 1998) and nonmarine origin (Jiang et al., 1997) of a borate
same late Paleoproterozoic tectonothermal event. deposit (Zhao et al., 2005). Recent studies on detrital zircons (e.g., Luo
Voluminous Paleoproterozoic granitic and mafic intrusions asso- et al., 2008), geochemistry (e.g., Yang et al., 2009; Lan et al., 2015;
ciated with the metasedimentary and metavolcanic successions are Wang et al., 2016a, 2017b) and basement rocks (e.g., Wang et al.,
widely distributed in the JLJB (Figs. 2 and 3). Notably, the JLJB un- 2017f) also favor the intracontinental rift opening and closure model.
derwent late polyphase tectonothermal events (e.g., subduction of the
Paleo-Pacific Plate), and some of the associated intrusions are mistaken
2.2.2. Continent–arc–continent collision model
for Paleoproterozoic rocks (e.g., Mesozoic Dandong granite, Li et al.,
Bai (1993) suggested that the JLJB represents an active continental
2004). In summary, the Paleoproterozoic igneous intrusions in the JLJB
margin close to a subduction zone and that this belt underwent oceanic
have ages that are segregated into two main groups. Some intrusions
plate subduction, deposition of volcanic and sedimentary successions,
formed from ca. 2.2–2.1 Ga, are usually deformed, altered or meta-
contraction of the ocean basin, and the collision among a continent (the
morphosed, have various petrogenesis and tectonic settings and are
Longgang Block), the arc, and a second continent (the Nangrim Block)
interpreted to have been emplaced during oceanic plate subduction,
(Fig. 4B). Based on geochemical observations of ca. 2.2–2.1 Ga mafic
including the continental arc (Faure et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2015),
and granitic intrusions, some researchers have proposed that the JLJB
ocean island arc (Ma et al., 2007), back-arc basin (Wang et al., 2011;
represents a continental arc magmatic belt (Faure et al., 2004; Li and
Meng et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c) and retro-arc foreland basin
Chen, 2014; Yuan et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2015a, 2016), and further
(Kusky et al., 2016), or in an intracontinental rift (e.g., Hao et al., 2004;
support the continent-arc-continent collision model. Some studies on
Li and Zhao, 2007; Yang et al., 2009; Lan et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
detrital zircons from sedimentary rocks within the JLJB also favor the
2016a, 2017b). Using the sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe
continent-arc-continent collision model for the JLJB (e.g., Wang et al.,
(SHRIMP) zircon U–Pb dating method, Li and Zhao (2007) further di-
2017a).
vided the ca. 2.2–2.1 Ga granites into two groups: the magnetite mon-
zogranitic gneisses were emplaced in the period of 2176–2166 Ma,
whereas the hornblende/biotite monzogranitic gneisses were emplaced 2.2.3. Rift–subduction–collision cycle model
at 2150–2143 Ma and represent two emplacement phases (Li and Zhao, Li et al. (2010, 2012) and Zhao et al. (2012) focused on HP pelitic
2007). The other, undeformed intrusions predominantly emplaced at granulites in the Jiaobei area (Zhou et al., 2008a; Tam et al., 2011,
ca. 1.88–1.85 Ga have distinct compositions (Section 3.2) that suggest a 2012a), which record a clockwise P–T–t path that is consistent with
postcollisional or postorogenic extensional setting (e.g., Lu et al., subduction and continent-continent collision to transport the pelitic
2004a; Li and Zhao, 2007; Yang et al., 2007a, 2015b, 2017; Liu et al., rocks to a lower crustal depth. These authors thus proposed the fol-
2017a). Notably, a granitic pegmatite sample yielded weighted mean lowing rift–subduction–collision cycle for the JLJB (Fig. 4C): (1) at
207
Pb/206Pb age of 1740 ± 8 Ma (Fig. 5G), and Yang et al. (2017) thus ~2.16–1.91 Ga, intracontinental rifting broke up the Eastern Block into
suggested that the postorogenic extension lasted for at least 130 Myr. the separate Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks and further opened
an incipient ocean and (2) at ~1.91–1.85 Ga, oceanic plate subduction
2.2. Tectonic controversy of the JLJB led to the closure of the ocean basin and subsequent continent-con-
tinent collision to form the JLJB and associated HP pelitic granulites (Li
The JLJB is generally accepted to be a Paleoproterozoic collisional et al., 2010, 2012; Zhao et al., 2012). Similarly, Zhai and Santosh
orogen linking the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks (e.g., Li, (2011, 2013) proposed a rifting-subduction-collision process in the NCC
1997; Li et al., 2001; Lu et al., 2004a; Zhao et al., 2005; Wan et al., after ca. 2.5 Ga. They suggested that the pull-apart stage in probably
2006; Wu et al., 2008; Zhai and Santosh, 2011; Liu et al., 2015a). Al- occurred at 2300–2000 Ma, including the formation of rifts, their ex-
though it has been studied for decades, its tectonic nature remains tension and the generation of ancient remnant ocean basins. Finally, the
debated, and several models have been proposed. oceanic plate subduction and continent-continent collision occurred at
2010–1970 Ma (Zhai and Santosh, 2011). On the basis of nonseismic
2.2.1. Intracontinental rift opening and closure model geophysical data (e.g., gravity data), Peng et al. (2016b) showed that
Zhang (1984) first proposed the intracontinental rift opening and the tectonic boundary between the JLJB and the Longgang Block is a
closure model for the JLJB, and subsequently, many studies have sup- normal fault and a basin-controlling boundary fault and thus inferred
ported this model (e.g., Sun et al., 1993; Peng and Palmer, 1995; Liu the presence of a Paleoproterozoic continental rift. Combining this in-
et al., 1997; Li and Liu, 1997; Li et al., 2001, 2003; Zhai and Liu, 2003; formation with previous studies, Peng et al. (2016b) again proposed a
Hao et al., 2004; Luo et al., 2004). Li et al. (2005) summarized several rift–subduction–collision cycle.
173
(caption on next page)
174
Fig. 5. Histograms of U–Pb ages of Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB. Details of all data used for the plotting are listed in Table 1. Note: Only those data with
concordances between 90% and 105% were chosen for TuffZirc and weighted mean age calculations. The black curve showing the age peak is a kernel density
function (bandwidth = 20 Ma). Based on U–Pb ages, petrology and areas of distribution, five periods of magmatism in the JLJB are identified: ~2190–2160 Ma
gneissic granites and tuffs, ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks, ~2110–2080 Ma granites and mafic rocks, ~2000–1895 Ma granites, and ~1875–1850 Ma granites and
intermediate-alkaline rocks (see text).
2.2.4. Back-arc basin or retro-arc foreland basin opening and closure model references, are listed in Table S2. We note that only 14 of these analyses
Recently, based on geochemical studies of ca. 2.2–2.1 Ga mafic and have relatively high loss on ignition (LOI; 3.01–5.10%) corresponding
granitic intrusions in the JLJB, some researchers have suggested that to alteration, and eight altered analyses are from tuff samples.
these intrusions were formed in a back-arc setting and subsequently However, this paper ignores these very few altered samples because (1)
proposed that the JLJB represents an orogenic belt derived from the they are too few to influence the statistical results and (2) a combina-
opening and closure of a back-arc basin (e.g., Wang et al., 2011; Meng tion of major and immobile trace elements is used for discussing the
et al., 2014; Li et al., 2017a, 2017b; Xu et al., 2017b, 2018b, 2018c). geochemical characteristics.
Some studies on detrital zircons from sedimentary rocks within the Additionally, whole-rock Sm–Nd isotope data from 139 samples are
JLJB also favor the back-arc basin opening and closure model for the presented in Table S3, and their εNd(t) values are recalculated based on
JLJB (e.g., Zhang et al., 2018). However, these studies lack detailed the age peak of a single period of magmatism (see Section 4.1). Simi-
information about the possible subduction system (e.g., position of the larly, 888 recalculated zircon Hf isotope data from 45 samples and their
arc and subduction polarity).
Initially, Kusky and Li (2003) proposed that the Inner Mongolia-
Northern Hebei Orogen (IMNHO), a 1400 km long orogenic belt, re-
presents a nearly E-W arc terrane that collided with the north margin of
the NCC at ca. 2.3 Ga (Fig. 1C). From 2.20–1.85 Ga, this orogen was
converted to an Andean-style convergent margin through subduction
polarity reversal from northwards to southwards, and this process was
recorded by belts of plutonic rocks, accreted meta-sedimentary rocks,
and a possible back-arc basin (Kusky and Li, 2003). Recently, Kusky
et al. (2016) modified this model. The authors found that the horizontal
extent of the tectonic components, including continental margin
magmas and retro-arc foreland sedimentary basins, of the Sino-Korean
Craton during 2.3–1.9 Ga is similar to the components across the pre-
sent-day Andes in South America. Combined with previous geochro-
nological, geochemical and isotopic data, the authors defined the Ordos
and Khondalite belt retro-arc basin, the Hutuo-Wanzi retro-arc basin,
and the Jiao-Liao-Ji retro-arc basin (Fig. 4D). In this model, the
southern subduction of an oceanic plate to the north of the Sino-Korean
Craton formed the Jiao-Liao-Ji retro-arc foreland basin above the Ar-
chean basement in an Andean margin, and this retro-arc basin subse-
quently closed to form the JLJB (Fig. 4D; Kusky et al., 2016).
3. Data sources and geochemical results
3.1. Data sources
In this study, previously published zircon U–Pb ages and whole-rock

geochemical and isotopic data are integrated with our new age data to
investigate the geochronological history, petrogenesis, source, and
tectonic implications of the Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB
(Figs. 2 and 3). Our age data for three representative mafic samples
from the Liaoji area (Fig. 2) and the analytical procedures are listed in
Table S1.
This paper collects all 129 U–Pb age samples that provide credible
crystallization ages from the Liaoji, Jiaobei and Anhui areas. Their detailed
information, including sample numbers, lithology, mineral assemblages,
U–Pb ages, locations, analytical methods, and references, is listed in
Table 1. Additionally, the concordances of all U–Pb ages are recalculated
[concordance = 100*(206Pb/238U–age)/(207Pb/206Pb–age)], and only
those with concordances between 90% and 105% are chosen for further
TuffZirc age calculation (Table 1). This criterion is also used in the cal- Fig. 6. Relative probability diagrams for zircon age data obtained from
culation of TuffZirc and weighted mean ages and the plotting of binned Paleoproterozoic post-tectonic magmatic rocks and granitic leucosomes (ana-
frequency histograms for the geochronological outline of these magmatic texis) from the Liaoji and Jiaobei areas. The black curve showing the age peak is
rocks (Fig. 5). a kernel density function (bandwidth = 20 Ma). Age data obtained from post-
tectonic magmas are the same as those reported in Fig. 5. Age data obtained
In terms of whole-rock geochemistry, major and trace element data
from granitic leucosomes were reported by Liu et al. (2014b, 2017e).
for all 393 samples from the JLJB and their details, including areas and
175
Fig. 7. Chemical compositions of magmatic rocks from the JLJB. (A and C) Total alkali versus silica classification diagram (Middlemost, 1994). Line dividing the
alkaline and subalkaline fields is from Miyashiro (1978). Some analyses from ~2140 Ma mafic rocks and ~2170 Ma tuffs have elevated total alkali contents and plot
in the alkaline field, possibly suggesting that Na and K are relatively mobile in these rocks during late alteration and metamorphism (Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c, 2019a).
(B and D) Zr/TiO2 versus Nb/Y classification diagram (Pearce, 1996). Note that almost all whole-rock geochemical analyses from the JLJB belong to the subalkaline
series, except for some posttectonic (~1865 Ma) intermediate-alkaline intrusions and porphyritic leucogranites. (E) Zr versus Y diagram (Ross and Bédard, 2009).
areas and references are listed in Table S4. The third group comprises ~2140 Ma mafic rocks. This group of
rocks has low abundances of SiO2 (Fig. 6A) and considerable variations
3.2. Geochemical results in MgO content (Table S2) and falls into the “transitional” field in the Zr
versus Y diagram (Fig. 6E), suggesting that this diagram probably
The Paleoproterozoic magmatic rocks in the JLJB can be divided cannot classify these rocks (Ross and Bédard, 2009). Furthermore, they
into seven groups according to their distinct geochemical features. belong to the tholeiitic series in the FeOT/MgO versus SiO2 diagram
The first group consists of ~2180 Ma and ~2100 Ma granites. They (not shown, see Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c). This group is also char-
have uniform geochemical compositions and are characterized by high acterized by nearly flat REE patterns (Fig. 7B) with enrichment in Pb
abundances of SiO2 (Fig. 6A) and trace elements, with enrichment in and depletion in Nb, Ta, P, Zr and Ti (Fig. 7G).
light rare earth elements (LREEs), Rb, K, Th and Nd and negative The fourth group consists of ~2000 Ma and ~1895 Ma granites
anomalies in Ba, Nb, Ta, Sr, P, Eu and Ti (Fig. 7A, F). These rocks be- (Fig. 7D, I). This group has high SiO2, and all the rocks are granites
long to the subalkaline series (Fig. 6A, B) and further plot within the (Fig. 6A). They usually have subalkaline and calc-alkaline features,
calc-alkaline field (Fig. 6E). with modest total alkali contents and low abundances of Zr and Y
The second group is composed of ~2170 Ma tuffs. They generally (Fig. 6E). These rocks, compared with those in group 1, have very low
have modest and varying SiO2 contents and belong to the subalkaline contents of trace elements and are characterized by enrichments in Ba,
(Fig. 6A, B) and calc-alkaline series (Fig. 6E). Compared with the first K, Sr, Zr, Hf and Eu and depletions in Th, Nb, Ta, La, Ce, P, Nd, Sm and
group, these rocks have the same trace element patterns but lower trace Ti (Fig. 7D, I).
element concentrations (Fig. 7A, F). The last three groups are all from posttectonic magmatism
176
Fig. 8. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns and primitive mantle (PM)-normalized trace element diagrams for the Paleoproterozoic magmatic rocks in the JLJB. The
chondrite and PM normalization values are from Sun and McDonough (1989). Data sources: E-MORB (enriched mid-oceanic ridge basalt) (Sun and McDonough,
1989).
177
(~1865 Ma). The rocks in group 5 are megaporphyritic granites and represent the first magmatic phase in the JLJB (Fig. 5).
have modest SiO2 contents (Fig. 6A). Group 6 is composed of inter-
mediate-alkaline rocks (e.g., diorite and syenite) that show low and 4.1.2. ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks
variable SiO2 contents (Fig. 6A). Group 7 mainly consists of porphyritic These mafic rocks are dominantly distributed in the Liaoji area
leucogranites with high abundances of SiO2, and the compositions of (Fig. 2) and are composed of metagabbro/diabase and amphibolite
these rocks are granitic (Fig. 6A). Almost all the rocks from this period (Meng et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016a; Xu et al., 2018c). Previous
of magmatism belong to the alkaline series, except for some samples in studies suggest that they formed over a long period from 2188 to
group 5 (Fig. 6A, B). Generally, the abundances and patterns of trace 2059 Ma (Table 1). In this study, 298 reliable analyses from twenty-one
elements in groups 5 and 6 are similar to those in group 1, and only a samples in the Liaoji area give one strong age peak of 2140 Ma, and
few elements have higher contents than those in group 1 (e.g., Pb, P and these ages are mainly concentrated between ca. 2110 and ca. 2160 Ma
Ti) (Fig. 7E, J), whereas compared with groups 5 and 6, group 7 usually (Fig. 5C), implying that the duration of the mafic magmatism was re-
has lower abundances of heavy REEs (HREEs) (Fig. 7E, J). latively limited. However, we notice that the published ages of bad-
deleyites and platy zircons, which are regarded as typical crystalline
4. Discussion minerals in mafic magmatism, yield a very short period of ca.
2125–2110 Ma (Dong et al., 2012; Yuan et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
4.1. Geochronological outline of Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB 2016a). To ascertain whether this speculation is true, three samples of
platy zircons (i.e., 17XW039-1, 17XW053-1 and 17XW055-1) from the
Although the Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB has been Mafeng-Longchang area were collected for dating (Fig. 2). Laser abla-
studied for decades, its geochronological outline is still unclear tion inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) U–Pb
(Table 1). Due to the lack of comprehensive analysis of U–Pb age data, ages of these platy zircons yield three weighted mean ages of
previous studies have been able to draw only some interim conclusions, 2147 ± 15 Ma, 2131 ± 17 Ma and 2136 ± 14 Ma (Fig. 8) and sug-
including (1) the pretectonic granitic and mafic magmatism was con- gest a moderate period for the mafic magmatism. In summary, most
temporaneous (Sun et al., 1993; Li and Chen, 2014); (2) the pretectonic analyses yield U–Pb ages between 2160 and 2110 Ma, suggesting a
granites can be divided into two groups of 2176–2166 Ma and moderate period for the mafic magmatism (Fig. 5C), and we chose the
2150–2143 Ma, and they represent two emplacement phases (Li and age peak of 2140 Ma to calculate εNd(t) values (Table S3). Note that a
Zhao, 2007); (3) the pretectonic (gneissic) granites formed in the period few analyses from amphibolite samples yield weighted mean ages
from approximately 2200–2000 Ma (Zhao et al., 2005); (4) some meta- younger than 2100 Ma (Table 1; 2083–2054 Ma, Yu et al., 2007; Liu
mafic rocks formed at ca. 1880–1870 Ma (Wang et al., 2011); and (5) et al., 2017d; Xu et al., 2018b). Considering the high amphibolite-facies
the pretectonic tuffs from the North Liaohe Group formed from metamorphism experienced by these rocks, we suggest that these ab-
2184–2127 Ma (Bi et al., 2018). In this study, we collect 2533 reliable normally young ages are probably the result of lead loss.
U–Pb crystallization ages (concordance = 90–105%) from 129 samples
from the Liaoji, Jiaobei and Anhui areas to reconstruct the geochro- 4.1.3. ~2110–2080 Ma granites and mafic rocks
nological history of Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB (Table 1; The products of the second granitic magmatic event are mainly
Figs. 2 and 3). In summary, the 2533 analyses yield five different age distributed in the Jiaobei and Anhui areas (Fig. 5H, K). They consist of
peaks (Fig. 5), suggesting that five periods of Paleoproterozoic mag- K-feldspar granite, albite granite and monzogranite, with varying de-
matism occurred in the JLJB as described below. grees of gneissic structure (Yang et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2014a; Cheng
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017c). Seven published age samples give
4.1.1. ~2190–2160 Ma gneissic granites and tuffs weighted mean ages of 2110–2095 Ma and 2058 Ma (Table 1), which
The products of magmatism during this period are large in amount are much younger than the age of the first magmatic event (see Section
and are distributed in the Liaoji area, with a few in the Jiaobei area 4.1.1; Fig. 5A, H and K). However, previous studies have considered
(Figs. 2 and 3). These products can be divided into two groups based on these two events to be the same magmatic phase when reconstructing
lithology: one group represented by the Liaoji granites (Zhang and the tectonic evolution of the JLJB (Yang et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2014a;
Yang, 1988), is mainly composed of monzogranite, syenogranite and Cheng et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017c). This study collects 74 reliable
albite granite, and most of these rocks show gneissic structure (e.g., Lu U–Pb ages from three samples in the Jiaobei area and 49 reliable U–Pb
et al., 2004b; Lan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017g); the other group ages from five samples in the Anhui area, and these results yield age
consists of felsic tuffs (or rhyolite, Bi et al., 2018) and is identified in peaks of 2103 and 2090 Ma, respectively (Fig. 5H, K), suggesting that
only the North Liaohe Group at present (Chen et al., 2017; Bi et al., these granitic rocks formed in a relatively short period of ca.
2018; Xu et al., 2019a). 2110–2080 Ma, and they represent the third magmatic event in the
In terms of granites, 590 reliable analyses from thirty-six samples in JLJB (Fig. 5). We further use the median age 2100 Ma to calculate their
the Liaoji area yield a strong age peak of 2180 Ma, and most of the ages εNd(t) values (Table S3).
are concentrated between 2190 and 2160 Ma (Fig. 5A), which is con- Previous studies also dated a few mafic samples in the Jiaobei and
sistent with 70 U–Pb ages from four samples in the Jiaobei area Anhui areas (Fig. 3; Liu et al., 2013b, 2018a). This study collects 75
(Fig. 5H). Therefore, we regard 2180 Ma as the crystallization age of the reliable U–Pb ages from one mafic sample in the Jiaobei area and 10
granitic magmatism in the recalculation of published εNd(t) values reliable U–Pb ages from one mafic sample in the Anhui area (Table 1).
(Table S3). These analyses yield age peaks of 2101 and 2107 Ma (Fig. 5I, L), re-
In terms of tuffs, three samples from Bi et al. (2018) give weighted spectively, which are similar to the crystallization age of the ~2100 Ma
mean ages of 2184 Ma, 2181 Ma and 2127 Ma and thus suggest a long granites, implying the same period of magmatism.
period of magmatic activity from 2184 to 2127 Ma. Nevertheless, only 6
of the thirty-five reliable analyses (concordance = 90–105%) from 4.1.4. ~2000–1895 Ma granitic rocks
these samples yield single zircon ages younger than 2150 Ma (Fig. 5B). As mentioned above, some igneous rocks show geochemical char-
Moreover, SHRIMP zircon U–Pb ages of four samples yield weighted acteristics that are distinctly different from those of other rocks in the
mean ages from 2174 to 2168 Ma (Xu et al., 2019a). In this paper, 106 JLJB (Fig. 8D, I; Section 3.2). Previous studies usually focused on ear-
reliable ages of seven samples lie mainly between 2180 and 2160 Ma lier granitic and mafic magmatism (Section 4.1.1–4.1.3) and did not
and give a strong age peak at 2170 Ma, which can be regarded as the identify this period of magmatism (Fig. 5). To date, this period of
crystallization age for calculation of εNd(t) values (Table S3). granitic magmatism is reported only in the towns of Huanghuadian
In summary, these granites and tuffs are nearly coeval, and they (Fig. 2, Wang et al., 2017h), Jianyi (Qin, 2013; Ren et al., 2017) and
178
Qingchengzi (Wang et al., 2017b) in the Liaoji area. The rocks are ages concentrate between 1880 and 1840 Ma, except for 8 samples with
granites (Fig. 6A) that have intruded into the first granitic magmatic younger (1835–1740 Ma) or older (1895–1891 Ma) ages (Table 1). We
phase (Fig. 2, e.g., Muniu pluton) and Paleoproterozoic sedimentary integrate 1213 reliable analyses of 46 age samples and subdivide them
successions (Wang et al., 2017h). Zircon U–Pb concordia ages suggest into four groups based on their distributions and rock types (Fig. 5E, F,
that they formed at ca. 1995 Ma (Wang et al., 2017h) and ca. 1892 Ma G and J). All four groups yield similar, strong age peaks of ca.
(Ren et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017b), respectively. This study collects 1875–1862 Ma, and most analyses fall in the age range of
twenty-eight reliable analyses from the Huanghuadian sample and 1875–1850 Ma, consistent with the results from Liu et al. (2017a).
twenty reliable analyses from the Jianyi and Qingchengzi samples. The Therefore, we suggest that the late-stage magmatism in the JLJB was
former sample yields an age peak of approximately 2000 Ma, and the mainly active in the period of 1875–1850 Ma, and we further chose the
latter sample yields an age peak of approximately 1895 Ma. Both ages median age of 1865 Ma for calculation of εNd(t) values (Table S3).
are similar to their TuffZirc and weighted mean ages (Fig. 5D). There- Similar to the late-stage magmatism mentioned above, the late
fore, we consider these ~2000–1895 Ma granites to be the products of Paleoproterozoic granitic leucosomes are also widely distributed in the
the fourth period of Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB (Fig. 5). Liaoji and Jiaobei areas (Table 2; Figs. 2 and 3A). These granitic leu-
cosomes derived from partial melting of the host mafic and pelitic
4.1.5. ~1875–1850 Ma granitoids, intermediate-alkaline rocks and granulites, amphibolites and TTG gneisses are only distributed in the
granitic leucosomes (anatexis) southern zone of the JLJB (i.e., the Ji’an, South Liaohe and Jingshan
The products of late-stage magmatism are mainly distributed in the groups) as irregular layers, lenses and blocks (Liu et al., 2014b, 2017e).
Liaoji area, with minor appearances in the Jiaobei area (Figs. 2 and 3A). Liu et al. (2014b, 2017e) conducted a combined analysis of mineral
They present various rock types, including garnet-biotite-bearing por- inclusions, CL images and LA–ICP–MS U–Pb on anatectic zircons from
phyritic granite, K-feldspar granite, albite granite, syenite, diorite and the granitic leucosome samples. One hundred ninety-four analyses of
pegmatite (Lu et al., 2004a; Yang et al., 2007a; Liu et al., 2014a, 2017a; zircon cores and 120 analyses of zircon rims from eight samples in the
Li et al., 2017c). Liu et al. (2017a) conducted a detailed study on the Liaoji Area reveal 207Pb/206Pb age peaks at ca. 1868 Ma and ca.
mineral morphology and cathodoluminescence (CL) and back-scattered 1841 Ma (Liu et al., 2017e), respectively, whereas 435 analyses of
electron (BSE) images of zircons and monazites from porphyritic zircon cores and 59 analyses of zircon rims from sixteen samples in the
granite samples in the Liaoji and Jiaobei areas and dated the light-gray Jiaobei Area reveal age peaks at ca. 1857 Ma and ca. 1838 Ma (Liu
luminescent cores and dark-gray luminescent rims via 707 zircon ana- et al., 2014b), respectively. They propose that a regional partial melting
lyses from 18 samples and 439 monazite analyses from 10 samples. The event started at ca. 1870 Ma and ended at ca. 1840 Ma in the JLJB. In
dating results reveal that the cores and rims of zircons formed at ca. the present study, we integrate 808 analyses from all 24 granitic leu-
1869 and ca. 1848 Ma, respectively, consistent with those of monazites cosome samples and divide them into two groups based on their dis-
(ca. 1868 Ma and ca. 1847 Ma, respectively). They thus suggest that the tributions (Fig. 6C, D). The two groups yield similar ages peaks of
emplacement of the porphyritic granites started at ca. 1870 Ma and 1861–1856 Ma, and most analyses also fall in the age range of
ended at ca. 1850 Ma. This study collected 46 published age samples 1875–1850 Ma, consistent with the age results from regional post-tec-
from all the rock types listed above. Among them, 38 weighted mean tonic magmatism mentioned above (Fig. 6). Based on the results from
Table 2
Summary of geochronological data from Paleoproterozoic granitic leucosomes related to regional partial melting event in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt.
No. Sample Host rock U-Pb age range of cores WMA of cores U-Pb age range of rims WMA of rims References
Liaoji area
South liaohe group

1 LM1 Grt-Sil-Crd-Bt paragneiss 1878 ± 20~1857 ± 20 Ma 1869 ± 8 Ma 1856 ± 20~1832 ± 20 Ma 1843 ± 10 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
2 LM2 Grt-Sil-Crd-Bt paragneiss 1878 ± 22~1857 ± 25 Ma 1866 ± 9 Ma 1855 ± 20~1832 ± 21 Ma 1839 ± 11 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
3 LM3 Grt-Bt paragneiss 1879 ± 24~1861 ± 21 Ma 1870 ± 8 Ma 1853 ± 20~1828 ± 32 Ma 1843 ± 12 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
4 LM4 Grt-Bt paragneiss 1877 ± 20~1857 ± 22 Ma 1868 ± 9 Ma 1851 ± 22~1827 ± 23 Ma 1838 ± 11 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
Ji'an group
5 JM1 Grt-Sil-(Crd)-Bt paragneiss 1877 ± 26~1858 ± 18 Ma 1865 ± 9 Ma 1853 ± 21~1823 ± 25 Ma 1835 ± 11 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
8 JM4 Grt-Bt paragneiss 1880 ± 21~1857 ± 21 Ma 1870 ± 8 Ma 1855 ± 21~1834 ± 19 Ma 1842 ± 11 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
Jiaobei area
9 HM1 HP mafic granulite 1870 ± 11~1843 ± 20 Ma 1859.6 ± 2.2 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
10 HM2 HP mafic granulite 1869 ± 26~1848 ± 30 Ma 1856.8 ± 4.9 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
11 HM3 HP mafic granulite 1870 ± 21~1845 ± 18 Ma 1856.1 ± 3.1 Ma 1844 ± 19~1829 ± 17 Ma 1837.8 ± 6.8 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
12 MM1 MP mafic granulite 1868 ± 8~1849 ± 23 Ma 1858.2 ± 2.8 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
13 MM2 MP mafic granulite 1869 ± 19~1847 ± 22 Ma 1857.2 ± 4.6 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
14 AM1 OPX-CPX-Amphibolite 1871 ± 21~1847 ± 20 Ma 1860.2 ± 4.8 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
15 AM2 OPX-CPX-Amphibolite 1868 ± 23~1848 ± 13 Ma 1859.6 ± 3.7 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
16 AM3 Qtz-bearing Amphibolite 1867 ± 14~1847 ± 16 Ma 1858.2 ± 2.3 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
17 AM4 Qtz-bearing Amphibolite 1865 ± 9~1848 ± 14 Ma 1857.4 ± 2.2 Ma Liu et al. (2014b
18 TG1 TTG gneisses 1870 ± 10~1852 ± 13 Ma 1860.9 ± 2.2 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
19 TG2 TTG gneisses 1868 ± 9~1846 ± 12 Ma 1859.7 ± 2.7 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
20 MG1 MP pelitic granulite 1865 ± 19~1845 ± 25 Ma 1852.9 ± 3.7 Ma 1843 ± 16~1833 ± 17 Ma 1836.3 ± 6.8 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
23 HG1 HP pelitic granulite 1869 ± 15~1846 ± 9 Ma 1858.7 ± 2.1 Ma 1843 ± 13~1835 ± 9 Ma 1839.9 ± 2.9 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
24 HG2 HP pelitic granulite 1870 ± 12~1847 ± 23 Ma 1857.2 ± 3.7 Ma 1844 ± 20~1820 ± 16 Ma 1835.5 ± 5.3 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
Abbreviation: Grt—Garnet; Sil—Sillimanite; Crd—Cordierite; Bt—Biotite; TTG—tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite; HP—high-pressure; MP—Middle-pressure;

WMA—Weighted mean age.
179
these studies, the post-tectonic magmatism was accompanied by re- of magmatism in these Archean basement rocks in the Eastern Block:
gional partial melting related to granulite facies metamorphism in the (1) ~3.3–3.0 Ga, (2) ~2.9 Ga, (3) ~2.7 Ga, and (4) ~2.5 Ga (c.f., Kusky
JLJB. et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2008; Wan et al., 2014, Wan
et al., 2015a, 2015b; Dong et al., 2017). These periods of magmatism
4.2. Crustal growth, basement reworking and magma source can thus be used to constrain significant Archean continental crustal
growth in the Eastern Block.
Prior to discussing the tectonic evolution of the JLJB, an under- Generally, zircon Hf isotopes are considered an effective tool for
standing of the early crustal evolution history and evaluating the source investigating crustal generation, basement reworking and magma
of the Paleoproterozoic magmatic suites (Figs. 5 and 10; ca. sources (e.g., Yang et al., 2007b; Collins et al., 2011; He et al., 2018).
2.20–1.80 Ga) in the JLJB is necessary. Note that a regional magmatic The published zircon Hf isotope data of the Paleoproterozoic magmatic
gap between ~2.45 and ~2.20 Ga has been identified in the Eastern suites, including εHf(t) values and Hf crust model ages (TDMC), are
Block (e.g., Wan et al., 2015b; Xu et al., 2019b, and references therein). presented in Table S4 and Fig. 9A. Unlike their uniform major and trace
The basement rocks, which recorded crustal growth history and were element compositions (Figs. 7 and 8), the pretectonic intermediate-
recycled to produce part of the Paleoproterozoic magmatic suites in the acidic magmatism represented by ~2180 Ma granites, ~2170 Ma tuffs
JLJB, should thus be Archean (dominantly ≥ 2.50 Ga), and previous and ~2100 Ma granites shows considerable variation in zircon Hf iso-
studies have successfully established the main geochronological periods tope compositions with εHf(t) values of –8.21–5.70, –9.11–8.57 and
Fig. 9. Cathodoluminescence (CL) images and zircon U–Pb concordia diagrams for three representative mafic samples (A—17XW039-1, B—17XW053-1 and
C—17XW055-1) from the Mafeng-Longchang area, Liaodong Peninsula. The diameters of all red circles represent 25 μm for U–Pb age analyses. Note: Only those data
with concordances between 90% and 105% were chosen for TuffZirc and weighted mean age calculations.
180
–5.09–6.19, respectively (Fig. 10A). Fig. 10A also shows that the TDMC products of post-tectonic magmatism, i.e., ~1865 Ma megaporphyritic
Hf crustal model ages of both the ~2180 Ma and ~2100 Ma granites are granites (mostly εHf(t) = –5.42–3.50, TDMC = 2.9–2.3 Ga) and
mainly distributed between 2.8 Ga and 2.5 Ga, corresponding to the ~1865 Ma intermediate-alkaline rocks (εHf(t) = –3.89–3.41,
Neoarchean and that zircons from three samples (JB13-1, Liu et al., TDMC = 2.7–2.3 Ga) (Fig. 10A). Additionally, the zircons from coeval
2014a; CY2-43/92, Lan et al., 2015) of the ~2180 Ma granites mostly Bt-bearing syenogranites (JB09-1) show more radiogenic Hf isotope
have TDMC of 3.2–3.0 Ga, corresponding to the Mesoarchean. However, compositions with εHf(t) values in the range of -7.11 to -2.96 and Hf
these results do not mean that the Paleoproterozoic granitic rocks were crustal model ages of 2.9–2.7 Ga (Table S4). Although the real sources
formed by reworking of Mesoarchean to Neoarchean crustal basement of the posttectonic magmatic rocks are complex, including (1) early
because these granitic rocks were probably generated from the mixing Paleoproterozoic sedimentary rocks (e.g., Liaohe Group; Yang et al.,
of crust-derived felsic magma and mantle-derived mafic magma, (e.g., 2015b; Liu et al., 2017a), (2) early Paleoproterozoic magmatic suites
Yang et al., 2015a), and at least part of their Hf crust model ages (TDMC) (e.g., ~2180 Ma granites; Liu et al., 2017a), and (3) hybrids between
may thus be hybrids that reflect an average age of a mixed source rather crust-derived magma and mantle-derived magma (Yang et al., 2007a),
than specific crust-forming events (Hawkesworth and Kemp, 2006; the results described above suggest that these rocks were mainly de-
Kemp et al., 2006). Importantly, a few zircons from ~2180 Ma and rived from the reworking of a Neoarchean crustal component with a
~2100 Ma granites have high positive εHf(t) values of 5.70–5.42 and minor contribution from early Paleoproterozoic juvenile material.
6.19–4.41, respectively, which represent Hf crustal model ages of Fig. 10B shows the whole-rock Nd isotope compositions, including
2.4 Ga and 2.4–2.3 Ga, respectively (Table S4 and Fig. 10A), suggesting εNd(t) values and two-stage Nd model ages, of the Paleoproterozoic
a minor contribution from juvenile material (or depleted mantle). The magmatic suites in the JLJB. Similar to the zircon Hf isotope data, the
~2170 Ma tuffs have relatively scattered Hf isotope compositions with limited whole-rock Nd isotope data present useful information about
TDMC of 3.3–2.2 Ga. A few zircons have low εHf(t) values of -9.11 to basement reworking and magma sources. Generally, the pretectonic
-8.42 and high TDMC of 3.3 Ga, implying that minor Paleoarchean magmatic rocks have even and scattered Nd isotope compositions with
crustal basement may have been involved in the formation of the εNd(t) values and two-stage Nd model ages of -5.63–3.03 and
~2170 Ga tuffs, whereas some zircons have high εHf(t) values of 3.3–2.4 Ga for ~2180 Ma granites, -2.62–3.39 and 2.8–2.3 Ga for
4.85–8.57 and low TDMC of 2.4–2.2 Ga, suggesting an increasing con- ~2170 Ma tuffs, -3.18–5.44 and 2.8–2.1 Ga for ~2140 Ma mafic rocks,
tribution of juvenile material (Fig. 10A). Unlike the intermediate-acidic -12.13–2.29 and 3.5–2.4 Ga for ~2100 Ma granites and -0.85–3.77 and
magmatism, the pretectonic mafic magmatism represented by 2.6–2.2 Ga for ~2100 Ma mafic rocks, respectively. The posttectonic
~2140 Ma mafic rocks dominantly shows high εHf(t) values from 4.61 magmatic rocks have relatively narrow and uniform Nd isotope com-
to 9.62 and low TDMC from 2.4 to 2.1 Ga, suggesting that these mafic positions with εNd(t) values and Nd model ages of -5.02 to -1.50 and
rocks were mainly derived from depleted mantle material and that 2.8–2.5 Ga for ~1865 Ma megaporphyritic granites, -2.58 to -1.80 and
minor ancient crust was involved in their generation by assimilation 2.6–2.5 Ga for ~1865 Ma intermediate-alkaline rocks and -6.27 to -4.02
(Xu et al., 2018b). In contrast, the ~2100 Ma mafic rocks also have and 2.9–2.7 Ga for ~1865 Ma porphyritic leucogranites, respectively
considerable variation in Hf isotopes with εHf(t) values of -6.17–8.43, (Table S3 and Fig. 10B).
which were interpreted as metasomatism by melts derived from sub- In summary, both zircon Hf and whole-rock Nd isotopes show that
ducted ancient sediments (Liu et al., 2018a). The zircon Hf isotope the pretectonic magmatic suites were mainly derived from various de-
compositions are usually relatively narrow and uniform for the grees of mixing of Paleoproterozoic juvenile materials (or depleted
Fig. 10. (A) εHf(t) versus t(U–Pb age) and TDMC (Hf) histogram and (B) εNd(t) versus t(age peak) and TDM2 (Nd) histogram for the Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the
JLJB. Data sources: Depleted mantle (DM) (147Sm/144Nd = 0.2137, 143Nd/144Nd = 0.51315, Liew and Hofmann, 1988; 176Lu/177Hf = 0.03842,
176
Hf/177Hf = 0.28325, Griffin et al., 2000); Chondritic uniform reservoir (CHUR) (147Sm/144Nd = 0.1967, 143Nd/144Nd = 0.512638, Wasserburg et al., 1981;
176
Lu/177Hf = 0.0332, 176Hf/177Hf = 0.282772, Blichert-Toft and Albarède, 1997); Crust (Upper crust (UC), 147Sm/144Nd = 0.118, Jahn and Condie, 1995; Average
crust (AC), 176Lu/177Hf = 0.015, Griffin et al., 2002). Legend is the same as in Fig. 6.
181
mantle) and Archean crust, suggesting important continental crustal gneissic granites. (1) The varying REE contents can indeed be explained
growth and reworking, whereas the posttectonic magmatic suites were by fractionation of accessory minerals (e.g., monazite, allanite, apatite
mainly generated from reworking of the Neoarchean-early and zircon, Xu et al., 2019a), and they are possibly highly fractionated
Paleoproterozoic crustal component, implying strong basement re- granites (Fig. 11B). Note that they clearly deviate from the trend de-
working. fined by fractional I/S-type granites (Fig. 11C) and belong to fractional
A-type granite because the 10000*Ga/Al ratio increases and Zr content
4.3. Petrogenesis and tectonic evolution decreases during fractional crystallization of I- and S-type granites (Wu
et al., 2017). (2) The A-type granite is generally accepted to have a
4.3.1. ~2190–2160 Ma magmatic suites and slab rollback during the early higher temperature than other types of granites (e.g., I- and S-type
stage of subduction granites, Clemens et al., 1986; King et al., 1997, 2001). The ~2180 Ma
The interval from 2190–2160 Ma marks an important period of gneissic granites show high Zr saturation temperatures with a peak at
basement reworking in the JLJB (Section 4.2), and two types of mag- approximately 858 °C, which is similar to that of average A-type granite
matic suites are identified in this period: (1) ~2180 Ma gneissic gran- (839 °C) and higher than those of unfractionated (781 °C) and fractio-
ites and (2) ~2170 Ma felsic tuffs (Fig. 5). nated (764 °C) I-type granites (King et al., 1997). Because the
~2180 Ma gneissic granites do not contain inherited zircons (e.g., Yang
4.3.1.1. ~2180 Ma gneissic granites. Although the ~2180 Ma gneissic et al., 2015a; Li et al., 2017a; Wang et al., 2017b, 2017g, 2017h), their
granites have been studied for decades, their petrogenesis (i.e., genetic Zr saturation temperatures thus represent minimum estimates of tem-
type, magma source and tectonic environment) remains debated. perature (Miller et al., 2003), suggesting that their initial temperature
On the basis of several diagnostic elements and ratios (i.e., Zr, Nb, was greater than 858 °C. Therefore, the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites in
Ce, Y, Ga/Al, FeOT/MgO and (K2O+Na2O)/CaO) proposed by Whalen the JLJB cannot be highly fractionated I-type granites. (3) The samples,
et al. (1987), previous studies predominantly suggest that the which contain calcic amphibole (e.g., HD-7, Yang et al., 2015a), show
~2180 Ma gneissic granites in the JLJB are A-type granites (Li et al., different geochemical features from other ~2180 Ma gneissic granites
2004, 2017a, 2017b; Lan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017b, 2017g; Liu (Fig. 8A, F; e.g., extremely low abundances of trace elements), probably
et al., 2018b). Recently, based on petrographic, mineralogical and suggesting different magma sources or petrogenesis. In addition, pre-
geochemical investigations (e.g., mafic microgranular enclaves, calcic vious studies have shown that the A-type granites are not strictly an-
amphibole and boron-rich features), Yang et al. (2015a) proposed that hydrous and that suite-specific enclaves indeed exist in A-type granites
these gneissic granites are highly fractionated I-type granites rather (e.g., aluminous A-type granites in the Lachlan Fold Belt, King et al.,
than A-type granites, and this opinion is further supported by Chen 1997). Therefore, we conclude that the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites
et al. (2016) and Xu et al. (2019a). Several lines of evidence, however, from the JLJB are fractionated aluminous A2-type granites rather than
argue against a highly fractionated I-type nature for the ~2180 Ma highly fractionated I-type granites (Fig. 11).
Fig. 11. Selected diagrams for the genetic types of the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites and the ~2100 Ma granites in the JLJB. (A) A/NK versus A/CNK classification
diagram (Maniar and Piccoli, 1989); (B) Nb/Ta versus Zr/Hf diagram (Wu et al., 2017) with lines of Zr/Hf = 26 (Bau, 1996), Nb/Ta = 5 (Ballouard et al., 2016), Zr/
Hf = 38 and Nb/Ta = 17 (Wu et al., 2017); (C) Zr versus 10000*Ga/Al discrimination diagram (Whalen et al., 1987) with the ranges of fractionated A- and I/S-type
granites after Wu et al. (2017); (D) Binned frequency histograms of TZr(°C) with calculation of Zr saturation temperatures (TZr) after Watson and Harrison (1983) and
Miller et al. (2003); average TZr of A-type, fractionated I-type and unfractionated I-type granites after King et al. (1997); black curve showing Zr saturation
temperature peak is a kernel density function (bandwidth = 10 °C); and (E) A1 and A2 subgroup discrimination diagram (Eby, 1992). In summary, all these features
suggest that the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites and the ~2100 Ma granites in the JLJB are highly fractionated, aluminous A2-type granites.
182
In terms of magma source, most studies suggest that these gneissic et al., 2017; Bi et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2019a). These felsic tuffs, from
granites were mainly derived from partial melting of Archean felsic andesite to rhyolite, are calc-alkaline in composition (Fig. 7). Due to
basement (Liu et al., 2014a; Lan et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017a, 2017b; their considerable variations in Hf isotopes (εHf(t) = -9.11–8.57,
Wang et al., 2017g; Teng et al., 2017) with minor contributions of ju- TDMC = 3.3–2.2 Ga), Bi et al. (2018) proposed that the felsic tuffs were
venile mafic crustal material (Hao et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2015a). mainly derived from a Meso-Neoarchean juvenile mafic lower crustal
Recently, Wang et al. (2017b) proposed that these gneissic granites source, with minor addition of ancient crustal material. However, these
originated from Archean subcontinental lithospheric mantle and that felsic tuffs have a relatively low proportion of zircons with depleted Hf
crustal material was involved in their generation in the form of con- isotopes. The Paleoproterozoic juvenile mafic crustal rocks thus may be
tamination. These authors present evidence that the Nd isotopes of the too depleted (see Fig. 10 in Xu et al., 2019a), whereas the evolved
~2180 Ma gneissic granites are similar to those of evolutionary Ar- Meso-Neoarchean juvenile mafic lower crust may be too radiogenic
chean subcontinental lithospheric mantle (SCLM) (data from Wu et al., (Fig. 10A) to produce these felsic tuffs. Note that the ~2170 Ma felsic
2005) but are less radiogenic than those of the Archean granites (Wang tuffs have trace element features that are similar to the ~2180 Ma
et al., 2017b). Based on Nd isotopic data from mantle-derived mafic gneissic granites (Fig. 8A, F), suggesting a predominant Archean crustal
rocks, Wu et al. (2005) proposed that the mantle beneath the NCC was source, as mentioned above. Moreover, these felsic tuffs show geo-
depleted in the Archean. However, these authors did not identify the chemical compositions (e.g., 17 of 24 samples have
source (e.g., SCLM or depleted asthenospheric mantle) of the mafic SiO2 = 59.17–69.8%; Table S2; Fig. 7A, B, F, G) and isotopic compo-
rocks, and the Nd isotopic features of the Archean SCLM are still un- sitions (see Figs. 10 and 11 in Xu et al., 2019a) that are intermediate
clear. The similar Nd isotopic compositions between the ~2180 Ma between those of the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites and the ~2140 Ma
gneissic granites and these mafic rocks can lead to only the conclusion mafic rocks, suggesting that the tuffs were probably produced by
that the granites were probably derived from the partial melting of mixing between felsic magma from Archean basement rocks and a
Archean mafic rocks. In addition, the Archean felsic basement rocks lesser amount of Paleoproterozoic mafic magma from the depleted
(e.g., TTG) in the Eastern Block actually show considerable variation in mantle (Xu et al., 2019a). Before the petrogenetic investigation of these
Nd isotope compositions (Wan et al., 2015b), which overlap with those felsic tuffs, a key to supporting the intracontinental rift opening and
of the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites, suggesting a possible genetic rela- closure model was the lack of calc-alkaline igneous associations (e.g.,
tion (not shown). Based on their coeval, associated mafic counterparts, Zhao et al., 2005, 2012), whereas the ~2170 Ma felsic tuffs show re-
Bonin (2007) suggested that A-type granites more likely come from lative enrichments in large ion lithophile elements (LILEs) and negative
mantle-derived magma. Nonetheless, this derivation is not the case in anomalies in high field strength elements (HFSEs) (Fig. 8F), which are
the JLJB because the Hf and Nd isotope compositions of the ~2180 Ma common features of trace element partitioning in continental arc an-
gneissic granites in the JLJB are more radiogenic than those of the desite (Xu et al., 2019a). Thus, the tuffs are assumed to be typical calc-
nearly coeval, mantle-derived mafic rocks (Fig. 10; i.e., ~2140 Ma alkaline volcanic rocks related to a continental arc (Bi et al., 2018; Xu
mafic rocks). Recently, convincing genetic modeling of some ~2180 Ma et al., 2019a).
gneissic granites with highly radiogenic isotopes (εNd(t) = -5.44 to In summary, the ~2190–2160 Ma magmatic suites represent the
-4.47, εHf(t) = -8.12 to -3.38, Table S2) suggests that these rocks were early stage of the Paleoproterozoic tectonothermal event (Fig. 5). One
derived from partial melting of Archean crustal rocks at high tem- possible scenario is that these magmatic suites formed in a continental
perature and low pressure (T > 850 °C and P < 4 kbar, Lan et al., rift (e.g., Li et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2005, 2012; Wang et al., 2016a,
2015). Lee and Morton (2015) also showed that high-silica granites 2017b). In this scenario, the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites were mainly
(SiO2 > 70%) are predominantly formed in shallow (< 10 km) magma derived from partial melting of Archean continental crust triggered by
chambers (Table S2, 101 of 103 ~2180 Ma gneissic granite samples mantle upwelling during extension, whereas the arc-like features of the
have SiO2 = 70.4–78.3%). Combining this information with published ~2170 Ma felsic tuffs were probably inherited from pre-existing arc-
studies showing that aluminous A2-type granites are probably produced derived rocks (e.g., Neoproterozoic igneous rocks in the Jiangnan
by partial melting of continental crust under high-temperature condi- Orogen, Zheng et al., 2008). However, this possibility is contradicted by
tions (e.g., Eby, 1992; King et al., 1997), we suggest that the ~2180 Ma the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks in the JLJB, which show different geo-
gneissic granites in the JLJB were generated by partial melting of Ar- chemical characteristics from those of typical intracontinental rifts
chean crustal rocks with minor contributions from juvenile mafic rocks (Section 4.3.2; Xu et al., 2018c). Additionally, the associated Paleo-
(i.e., ~2140 Ma mafic rocks; Section 4.2). proterozoic sedimentary rocks in the JLJB show intimate affinity to an
Because the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites are A-type granites, pre- active continental margin (e.g., Wang et al., 2017a, 2018a; Meng et al.,
vious studies overwhelmingly support the viewpoint that they were 2017a; Li et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). Therefore, because these
formed in a continental rift and further favor the intracontinental rift felsic rocks represent the first stage of magmatism related to oceanic
opening and closure model (Section 2.2.1; Li et al., 2005; Zhao et al., plate subduction in the JLJB (Xu et al., 2019b), the speculation that the
2005, 2012; Lan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017b; Liu et al., 2018b). ~2190–2160 Ma magmatic suites have a genetic relationship to mantle
However, note that the geochemical compositions of granitic magmas upwelling during the early stage of subduction is reasonable (Fig. 14A).
reflect the compositions of their source rocks, temperature-pressure Due to the increasing subduction rate resulting from vertical slab roll-
conditions of melting and magmatic evolutionary process rather than back, the trench retreats and the overriding plate is extended (Niu et al.,
tectonic setting (Frost et al., 2001; Wu et al., 2007b). Therefore, all we 2003; Gerya, 2011). The extension of the overriding plate induces de-
know about the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites is that they were produced compression melting of asthenospheric mantle, producing mafic mag-
by partial melting of Archean crustal material with minor contributions matism (Gerya et al., 2008; Gerya, 2011). This mafic magma pools
of juvenile mafic rocks at high temperature and low pressure, corre- beneath and heats the overlying Archean continental crust. Due to the
sponding to an extensional setting with mantle upwelling (e.g., con- continuous input of heat, the continental crust begins to melt, produ-
tinental rift and back-arc extension) (Wu et al., 2007b). cing the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites, and some mafic materials si-
multaneously participate in the formation of the ~2170 Ma felsic tuffs.
4.3.1.2. ~2170 Ma felsic tuffs
The Paleoproterozoic felsic tuffs, which are currently believed to be 4.3.2. ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks and back-arc extension
distributed mainly in the northern segment of the JLJB, were identified Although most of the unique ~2140 Ma mafic rocks in the JLJB
through regional geological investigations thirty years ago (e.g., Zhang show relatively homogeneous geochemical compositions (Figs. 7 and
and Yang, 1988). Recently, several researchers have conducted con- 8), their petrogenesis and tectonic settings have been debated for the
tinuous geochronological and geochemical studies on these rocks (Chen past three decades. The most important arguement is that these mafic
183
rocks show enriched MORB (E-MORB)-like patterns of trace element usually higher than those of typical subduction zone basalts (Tatsumi
partition with some arc-like characteristics, such as negative anomalies and Eggins, 1995). (3) These mafic rocks show MORB-like trace ele-
in Nb, Ta, P and Ti (Fig. 8B, G; see also Fig. 7 of Xu et al., 2018b). ment patterns (Fig. 8B, G) and plot in the MORB field rather than the
Early reports of these mafic rocks emphasized their close association volcanic arc field in the discrimination diagrams (Fig. 12B; See also Xu
with widespread intermediate-acidic igneous rocks (e.g., ~2180 Ma et al., 2018b, 2018c). All these features suggest that the ~2140 Ma
gneissic granites) and considered that they were bimodal assemblages mafic rocks do not represent a typical magmatic arc belt, as suggested
formed in an intracontinental extensional setting (e.g., a rift, Zhang and by some authors (e.g., Faure et al., 2004; Li and Chen, 2014; Yuan et al.,
Yang, 1988; Sun et al., 1993, 1996; Li, 1994; Yu et al., 2007). Sun et al. 2015). The intracontinental rift model seems to be an alternative model
(1993) proposed that they have geochemical features similar to those of (e.g., Wang et al., 2016a). Xu et al. (2018c), however, compared the
modern continental flood basalt and thus suggested their possible as- geochemical features of the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks with those of mafic
sociation with a mantle plume. Recently, the rifting hypothesis was rocks related to continental rifts, including modern rifts and those as-
elaborated by Wang et al. (2016a), who documented the geochemical sociated with the breakup of supercontinents (Fig. 12), recognized the
similarity between the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks in the JLJB and some geochemical differences resulting from differences in the mantle source
other nearly coeval sill swarms in the central part of the Sino-Korean and tectonic setting and suggested that these mafic rocks in the JLJB
Craton and proposed an intracontinental rift system throughout the would not have formed in an intracontinental rift (Fig. 12; Xu et al.,
NCC. Furthermore, Wang et al. (2016a) suggested that these mafic 2018c). Recently, Kusky et al. (2016) proposed that the JLJB represents
rocks were generated by partial melting of ancient SCLM and that the a retro-arc foreland basin that was formed above the Archean basement
arc-like trace element features were inherited from Archean subduc- of the Eastern Block (Fig. 1C; see fig. 26 in Kusky et al., 2016). How-
tion-related rocks. Other authors incorporated arc-like features into the ever, because (1) the formation of ~2180 Ma A-type granites requires
dynamics of plate subduction, and these ~2140 Ma mafic rocks thus extension and mantle upwelling (Section 4.3.1), (2) the early stage of
have been associated with a continental arc (Faure et al., 2004; Li and felsic magmatism (~2190–2160 Ma) resulted from partial melting of
Chen, 2014; Yuan et al., 2015), an island arc (Ma et al., 2007; Gao et al., Archean basement rocks and almost completely ceased during the for-
2017) and back-arc extension (Wang et al., 2011; Meng et al., 2014; Xu mation of the ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks (Fig. 5A, B, C, and H), and
et al., 2017b, Xu et al., 2018b). (3) the ~2110–2080 Ma granites and mafic rocks related to fore-arc
All the research implies that the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks are the key extension (see details in Section 4.3.4) may not form in an
to determining the early tectonic evolution of the JLJB. Regardless of
the specific explanations, there seems to be widespread agreement that
these mafic rocks have arc-like features. These features have been re-
garded as modifications induced by subduction agents (e.g., Meng et al.,
2014; Yuan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016a), although they are po-
tentially ascribed to plate subduction, inheritance from metasomatized
SCLM, or contamination by felsic continental crust. Additionally, their
inhomogeneous Hf and Nd isotope compositions (Fig. 10) have been
considered to be inherited from mantle sources rather than from crustal
contamination. However, Xu et al. (2018b) identified felsic crustal en-
claves in these mafic rocks and further proposed that crustal con-
tamination played an important role in the generation of the mafic
rocks through qualitative simulation using Nd isotope and trace ele-
ments; this study suggested that the slight depletion in some HFSEs in
the least-contaminated samples corresponds to limited metasomatism
from subduction-related fluids and/or melts.
Additionally, another consensus states that the ~2140 Ma mafic
rocks were derived from partial melting of SCLM, consistent with the
observation that melt generation occurred in the spinel-garnet stability
field (i.e., within the extent of the lithosphere, Li and Chen, 2014; Yuan
et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016a). Given that widespread Neoarchean
magmatism was produced by a mantle plume (Zhao et al., 2001; Yang
et al., 2008) or oceanic plate subduction (Wang et al., 2015, 2017d),
either low-degree melts from the asthenosphere or subduction-derived/
supercritical fluids enriched in incompatible elements (e.g., LREEs)
(McKenzie, 1989; Kepezhinskas et al., 1997; Kessel et al., 2005; Chu
et al., 2009) modified the SCLM and markedly elevated the LREE/HREE
ratios. However, the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks exhibit an E-MORB-like
REE pattern with relatively low LREE/HREE ratios (Fig. 8B). Thus,
these rocks were more likely derived from depleted asthenospheric
Fig. 12. (A) Lu/Hf versus Sm/Nd and (B) Zr versus Zr/Y diagrams showing that
mantle, as Xu et al. (2018b) suggested.
the geochemical features of the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks in the JLJB differ from
As mentioned above, the most controversial topic is the tectonic
those of modern rifts and the breakup of supercontinents but are similar to
setting (e.g., volcanic arc) in which the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks formed. those of rocks from back-arc settings. WPB—within-plate basalt; MORB—mid-
Although these mafic rocks display some arc-like features (Fig. 8G) and oceanic ridge basalt; IAB—island arc basalt. Data sources: PM (primitive
probably have undergone various degrees of modification from sub- mantle), OIB (oceanic island basalt), E-MORB (enriched mid-oceanic ridge
duction-related fluids and/or melts (Yuan et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2018a; basalt) and N-MORB (normal mid-oceanic ridge basalt) (Sun and McDonough,
Xu et al., 2018b), several lines of evidence argue against their formation 1989); SCLM (subcontinental lithospheric mantle) (McDonough, 1990); LC
by typical arc magmatism. (1) Most of these mafic rocks are tholeiitic (lower crust) and UC (upper crust) (Rudnick and Gao, 2014); mafic rocks from
(Yuan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016a; Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c), modern rifts (http://georoc.mpch-mainz.gwdg.de/georoc/); mafic rocks from
whereas typical arc basalts are dominantly calc-alkaline. (2) The in- the breakup of supercontinents (Li et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2012a); mafic rocks
compatible element (e.g., Nb and Zr) abundances in these rocks are from the Sumisu and Torishima back-arc rifts (Fryer et al., 1990).
184
intracontinental setting, we suggests that a more reasonable hypothesis explain the age distribution of detrital zircons in the sedimentary rocks
is that the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks with MORB-like trace element pat- in the JLJB well, but their age distribution also does not constrain the
terns and arc-like features formed in a back-arc basin setting (Fig. 12B; subduction polarity (Wang et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2018). An ar-
e.g., Fryer et al., 1990; Floyd et al., 1991; Taylor and Martinez, 2003). gument proposed by Xu et al. (2018c) that the mafic rocks in the
With trench retreat resulting from slab rollback, the overriding plate southern segment of the JLJB experienced enhanced metasomatism by
continued to extend and thin. As mentioned above, the magmatism that subduction-related fluids and/or melts probably supports the north-
occurred from ~2160–2110 Ma consisted mainly of mafic rocks with ward subduction model (Xu et al., 2018c), although their higher U/Th
minor granites (Fig. 5), suggesting that the overriding continental li- ratios possibly also reflect the behavior of fluid and/or melts during
thosphere (including crust and mantle) was probably too thin for high higher-grade metamorphism.
granitic melt productivity. Finally, the asthenospheric mantle upwelled Recently, Kusky et al. (2016) proposed that the southward sub-
further and melted by decompression in the spinel-garnet stability field duction of oceanic plate to the north of the IMNHO formed an Andean-
to produce the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks (Fig. 15B). style convergent margin in the north margin of the Sino-Korean Craton
during 2.3–1.9 Ga, and this subduction system resulted in the formation
4.3.3. Subduction polarity and continental arc of Jiao-Liao-Ji retro-arc basin (Fig. 4D). Moreover, this model ade-
As mentioned above, the ~2190–2110 Ma magmatism in the JLJB is quately explains the formation of ~2190–2160 Ma magmatic suits re-
related to oceanic plate subduction and back-arc extension. However, lated to continental arc (Section 4.3.1; Kusky et al., 2016). As men-
the polarity of the subducting Paleoproterozoic oceanic plate has been a tioned in Sections 4.1, 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, the early stage of felsic
continual topic of debate, with diverse proposals including double- magmatism (~2190–2160 Ma) derived from partial melting of Archean
sided subduction (Yuan et al., 2015), southward subduction (Faure basement rocks almost completely ceased during ~2160–2110 Ma
et al., 2004; Li and Chen, 2014; Lee et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Oh (Fig. 5A, B, C, and H), and the formation of ~2160–2110 Ma mafic
et al., 2018) and northward subduction (Peng et al., 2014; Cho et al., rocks related to back-arc extension (Fig. 15B) required trench retreat
2017; Wang et al., 2017a; Li et al., 2017a; Xu et al., 2018c; Zhang et al., resulting from slab rollback. With slab rollback, the arc magma should
2018). move north simultaneously, because the arc-trench distance decreases
Yuan et al. (2015) emphasized that both the ~2.20–1.80 Ga mag- strongly with slab dip (Perrin et al., 2018). Therefore, a considerable
matism and metamorphism, which are recorded on the southern margin amount of Paleoproterozoic arc magma related to southward subduc-
of the Longgang Block and the northern margin of the Nangrim Block, tion should be present in the Longgang Block (Fig. 1C). Notably, the
can support a double subduction system between these two blocks, but Longgang Block is dominated by Eo- to Neoarchean basement rocks
no evidence of early oceanic crust (> 2.2 Ga) and associated (e.g., Yang et al., 2008; Wan et al., 2015a, 2015b; Dong et al., 2017;
~2.2–2.1 Ga magmatism in the northern margin of the Nangrim Block Wang et al., 2015, 2017d, and references therein), and the associated
has been found to date. The southward subduction model is mainly arc magma has not yet been found. From this perspective, the south-
supported by several lines of evidence: (1) mafic rocks related to sub- ward subduction of the oceanic plate to the north of the IMNHO may
duction are recorded in the marble series representing the Southern have resulted in the formation of the Ordos and Khondalite belt retro-
Block (Faure et al., 2004); (2) the ~2.2–2.0 Ga arc-derived mafic rocks arc basin and Hutuo-Wanzi retro-arc basin (Kusky et al., 2016), but the
of the Liaohe Group are distributed in the margin of the Nangrim Block opening of Jiao-Liao-Ji back-arc basin is more likely related to another
(Li and Chen, 2014); (3) tholeiitic mafic rocks related to forearc ex- subduction system (see below).
tension are distributed only to the north of the calc-alkaline andesitic Another problem that is closely related to subduction polarity and
volcanic rocks representing the continental arc (Chen et al., 2016); and remains to be solved is the location of the continental arc. Zhao et al.
(4) ~1900–1800 Ma postcollisional granitoids are widespread in the (2006) first reported late Archean rocks in the Imjingang Belt of North
Nangrim and northern Gyeonggi massifs (Oh et al., 2018). These ar- Korea (ca. 2636–2538 Ma). Subsequently, Zhang et al. (2016) and Zhao
guments are clearly contradicted by recent geological investigations. et al. (2016a) acquired coeval late Archean samples from the Nangrim
(1) The marble series belongs to the Liaohe Group in the JLJB (e.g., Block (ca. 2567–2514 Ma). Previous studies on detrital zircons from
Wang et al., 2017a) rather than to the Southern Block (i.e., Nangrim sands in several rivers running through the Nangrim Block show the
Block). (2) There is no evidence to prove the unique deposition of the main age peak at approximately 1.8 Ga corresponding to postcollisional
Liaohe Group on the margin of the Nangrim Block, and it probably extension (Section 4.3.6), and these ~1.8 Ga detrital zircons have Ar-
formed in a back-arc setting (Xu et al., 2018c). (3) Tholeiitic mafic chean Hf model ages, suggesting derivation from recycled Archean
rocks related to back-arc extension (Meng et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2018b, material (Wu et al., 2007a, 2007c, 2016). Recently, Wang et al. (2017e,
2018c) are widely distributed in the Liaodong Peninsula (Fig. 2; Sun 2017f) identified two major episodes of crustal growth at ~2.7 Ga and
et al., 1993; Wang et al., 2017g; Xu et al., 2018c). (4) The postcolli- ~2.5 Ga in the Liaonan Block. All of the above studies suggest that the
sional granitoids are related to cratonization of the NCC (Yang et al., Nangrim-Liaonan Block (+Gyeonggi massif?) has an Archean crustal
2007a; Liu et al., 2017a) rather than to oceanic plate subduction. All of evolution similar to that of the Longgang Block and that these blocks
the above studies imply that the present geological evidence does not belong to a single Archean basement (Zhao et al., 2006, 2016a; Wu
support the southward or double-sided subduction models for the JLJB. et al., 2007a, 2007c, 2016; Wang et al., 2017f). Therefore, Paleopro-
Therefore, northward subduction resulting in back-arc extension in the terozoic oceanic plate subduction should have resulted in back-arc ex-
JLJB seems to be a more robust model. tension, as represented by ~2140 Ma mafic rocks (Section 4.3.2), be-
Several previous studies have suggested the northward subduction tween the Nangrim-Liaonan Block (+Gyeonggi massif?) and the
of an oceanic plate (Peng et al., 2014; Cho et al., 2017; Wang et al., Longgang Block (Fig. 15B). Recent investigations of paleomagnetics and
2017a; Li et al., 2017a; Tian et al., 2017b; Xu et al., 2018c; Zhang et al., large igneous provinces suggested that the eastern (-northern) margin
2018). Peng et al. (2014) showed that northwest-directed subduction of the Sino-Korean Craton has a close connection with the West Aus-
resulted in the formation of the Korean arc and subsequent regional tralian Craton (WAC) and/or North Australian Craton (NAC) during the
(ultra-) high-temperature/high-pressure ((U)HT/HP) granulite-facies Paleoproterozoic-Mesoproterozoic period (ca. 1.78–1.40 Ga) to form a
metamorphism. Undoubtedly, the formation of HP pelitic granulite part of the Columbia supercontinent (Zhang et al., 2012b, 2017; Xu
requires tectonic processes (e.g., subduction and continent-continent et al., 2014). Considering that the Nangrim Block rather than the
collision) to transport the pelitic rocks to middle-lower crustal depths Longgang Block has undergone extensive late Paleoproterozoic colli-
(e.g., Zhao et al., 2012; Tam et al., 2012a; Xu et al., 2018b), but the HP sional orogeny and postcollisional extension (Section 4.3.8; c.f., Zhao
granulite-facies metamorphism should not be used to infer the sub- et al., 2006, 2016b; Wu et al., 2007a, 2007c, 2016; Wan et al., 2015a;
duction polarity. A subduction-related environment seems able to Wang et al., 2015, 2017d; Li et al., 2016), the speculation that the
185
Nangrim Block (+Gyeonggi massif?) represents the disappeared arc and younger age peak at approximately 2100 Ma (Fig. 5H, K) should be
terrane is reasonable because these rocks underwent strong tectonic associated with another tectonothermal event.
compression between the Longgang Block and the WAC and/or NAC Yang et al. (2009) suggested that these ~2100 Ma granites with
during ~2000–1900 Ma (Section 4.3.6; Fig. 15D). In this scenario, the various isotopic compositions were derived from partial melting of ju-
tectonic model of northward (or northwestward) subduction of the venile lower crust with minor contribution of ancient crustal material,
oceanic plate between the WAC and/or NAC and the Nangrim-Liaonan whereas Wang et al. (2017c) supported a contrary viewpoint that their
Block (an arc terrane) is reasonable (Fig. 15A, B). source was the Archean felsic crust (i.e., ~2.5 Ga TTG gneisses; see also
Cheng et al., 2017) and that minor coeval mafic crustal materials were
4.3.4. ~2110–2080 Ma granites and mafic rocks and initiation of the involved in their formation. Notably, these ~2100 Ma granites have the
closure of the back-arc basin same geochemical and isotopic compositions as the ~2180 Ma gneissic
Although the magmatism in this period has been identified based on granites (Figs. 7, 8C, H and 10). Therefore, these rocks are also highly
zircon U–Pb ages, it is generally incorporated into the early stage of fractionated, aluminous A2-type granites (Fig. 11) derived from partial
magmatism (i.e., ~2180 Ma; Section 4.1.3; Yang et al., 2009; Liu et al., melting of Archean crustal material with minor contributions of juve-
2011a; Cheng et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017c). Obviously, the strong nile mafic rocks at high temperature and low pressure, as discussed in
Table 3
Summary of the depositional ages of meta-sedimentary rocks in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt.
Rock type Group Formation Depositonal age Method References
Laoling and Ji'an groups

Amphibolite; Grt-bearing gneiss Ji'an 2.10–1.98 Ga VI Lu et al. (2006)
Meta-sandstone Laoling 2.5–2.2 Ga & 2.0–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Lu et al. (2006)
Grt-bearing gneiss/schist Ji'an and Laoling 2.10–1.95 Ga YDZ and MA Liu et al. (2015a)
Gneiss, mica schist, phyllite, meta-sandstone, amphibolite Laoling 2.04–1.90 Ga YDZ and MA Meng et al. (2017a)
Meta-sandstone, meta-greywacke, meta-claystone, shale Ji'an 2.03–1.91 Ga YDZ and MA Meng et al. (2017b)
Amphibolite; Felsic gneiss; Bt-Pl gneiss Ji'an 2.18 Ga VI Meng et al. (2017c)
Leptynite, paragneiss Ji'an Mayihe 2126–1940 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Paragneiss Ji'an Huangchagou 2100–1944 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Paragneiss, mica schist Ji'an Dadongcha 1950–1900 Ma YDZ & MA? Zhang et al. (2018)
Meta-sandstone Laoling Dataishan 2178–1899 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Marble Laoling Zhenzhumen 2083–1910 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Mica schist, meta-sandstone Laoling Huashan 1990–1899 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Mica schist, quartzite Laoling Linjiang 1957–1899 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Phyllite Laoling Dalizi 1940–1899 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
N. Liaohe and S. Liaohe groups

Granitic rocks N. and S. Liaohe 2.16–1.85 Ga DP and MI Lu et al. (2004a)
Mica schist, gneiss N. and S. Liaohe 2.05–1.93 Ga YDZ and MA Luo et al. (2004)
Bt gneiss N. Liaohe Li'eryu > 2.18 Ga VI Wan et al. (2006)
Quartzite N. Liaohe Gaixian < 2.02 Ga YDZ Wan et al. (2006)
Grantites N. and S. Liaohe < 2.14 Ga DP Li and Zhao (2007)
Mica schist, gneiss N. and S. Liaohe 2.1–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Luo et al. (2008)
Grt-bearing gneiss/schist N. and S. Liaohe 2.05–1.95 Ga YDZ and MA Liu et al. (2015a)
Tur-bearing leptynite S. Liaohe 2.2 Ga VI Li et al. (2015a)
Sandstone, mica schist, phyllite S. Liaohe 2.0–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Li et al. (2015b)
Grt amphibolite S. Liaohe Li'eryu > 2.15 Ga MI Liu et al. (2017d)
Mica schist, quartzite, meta-sandstone, slate, gneiss, amphibolite N. Liaohe 2.04–1.90 Ga YDZ and MA Meng et al. (2017a)
Gneiss, amphibolite, leptynite S. Liaohe 2.19 Ga VI Meng et al. (2017d)
Granite S. Liaohe Dashiqiao > 2.16 Ga MI Tian et al. (2017b)
Paragneiss S. Liaohe Li'eryu < 2.05 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2017a)
Paragneiss, quartzite S. Liaohe Gaojiayu < 2.07 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2017a)
Paragneiss, marble S. Liaohe Dashiqiao < 2.04 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2017a)
Mica schist S. Liaohe Gaixian < 1.92 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2017a)
Leptynite, gneiss S. Liaohe 2.14–1.95 Ga YDZ and MA Wang et al. (2017i)
Gneiss, mica schist, Qtz schist S. Liaohe 2.0–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Liu et al. (2018b)
Meta-sandstone S. Liaohe Gaixian < 2.15 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2018b)
Meta-sandstone S. Liaohe Gaixian < 1.86Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2018b)
Meta-mafic rocks N. Liaohe > 2.13 Ga MI Xu et al. (2018b)
Felsic tuffs N. Liaohe Li'eryu 2.17 Ga VI Xu et al. (2019a)
Fenzishan and Jingshan groups

Qtz schist Fenzishan 2.2–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Wan et al. (2006)
Gneiss Jingshan 2.2–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Wan et al. (2006)
Qtz schist Fenzishan 2.1–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Xie et al. (2014a)
Gneiss Fenzishan and Jingshan < 2.1 Ga YDZ Liu et al. (2015a)
Wuhe group
Granite, TTG gneisses Wuhe Neoarchean ? Wang et al. (2013)
Marble Wuhe Neoarchean YDZ? Liu et al. (2017f)
Marble, quartzite, Qtz schist Wuhe 2.16–2.10 Ga YDZ and MI Liu et al. (2018a)
Abbreviation: Grt—Garnet; Bt—Biotite; Pl—Plagioclase; Qtz—Quartz; Tur—Tourmaline; TTG—tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite; DP—Depositional provenance

(crystallization age of magmatic rocks as the provenance of sedimentary rocks; older than the depositional age of sedimentary rocks); YDZ—Youngest detrital zircon
age [e.g., the youngest single grain detrital zircon age and the youngest graphical detrital zircon age (Dickinson and Gehrels, 2009); older than the depositional age of
sedimentary rocks]; VI—Volcanic intercalation (approximate the depositional age of sedimentary rocks); MI—Magmatic intrusion (crystallization age of magmatic
intrusions intruding into the sedimentary rocks; younger than the depositional age of sedimentary rocks); MA—Metamorphic age of the sedimentary rocks (younger
than the depositional age of sedimentary rocks).
186
Section 4.3.1. Combining this information with the small range of dis- similar to those of forearc tholeiitic basalts in the Izu-Bonin-Mariana
tribution compared to that of the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites, we system (Reagan et al., 2010) and were derived from partial melting of
propose an event comprising relatively small-scale lithospheric exten- the subarc mantle wedge metasomatized by melts originating from
sion and mantle upwelling during ~2110–2080 Ma. We note that subducted ancient sediments; (2) Group 2 samples have transitional to
coeval mafic rocks (~2100 Ma, Fig. 5I, L) are also distributed in the calc-alkaline affinities and were generated by partial melting of subarc
Jiaobei and Anhui areas where the ~2100 Ma granites are found. Liu depleted mantle metasomatized by subduction-derived melts (Liu et al.,
et al. (2018a) divided these mafic rocks into two groups based on their 2018a). The petrogenesis of the ~2100 Ma granites and coeval mafic
geochemical nature: (1) Group 1 samples show geochemical features rocks in the southern part of the JLJB thus suggests that they probably
Fig. 13. Relative probability diagrams for detrital zircon age data obtained from Paleoproterozoic meta-sedimentary rocks related to the opening and closure of the
back-arc basin. Note: Only the 207Pb/206Pb ages with concordance = 90–105% are chosen for plots of binned frequency diagrams. Data presented in G–I are modified
from Liu et al. (2015a). Data sources: (A) Laoling Group (Lu et al., 2006; Meng et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2018); (B) Ji’an Group (Lu et al., 2006; Meng et al., 2017b;
Zhang et al., 2018); (C) North Liaohe Group (Luo et al., 2004, 2008); (D) South Liaohe Group (Luo et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2017a, 2017i); (E) Fenzishan Group (Wan
et al., 2006; Xie et al., 2014a); and (F) Jingshan Group (Wan et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2011b).
187
formed in a forearc extensional environment. In this scenario, the controversial (e.g., Lu et al., 2006; Li and Zhao, 2007; Xie et al., 2014a;
subarc mantle that was metasomatized by subduction-derived melts Liu et al., 2015a, 2017d; Wang et al., 2017a; Tian et al., 2017b; Xu
(from sediments and/or oceanic crust) upwelled and heated the con- et al., 2018b).
tinental crust to produce the ~2100 Ma A-type granites during the Early studies used K–Ar, Rb–Sr, and Sm–Nd whole-rock isochron
forearc extension resulting from slab rollback (Fig. 15C). and conventional single-grain zircon evaporation method suggested
Note that the early stage of mafic magmatism related to back-arc that these meta-sedimentary rocks were deposited at Paleoproterozoic
extension (i.e., ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks) in the JLJB weakened and (e.g., 2.3–1.9 Ga for the Liaohe Group in Liaodong Peninsula, Zhang
even ceased during ~2110–2080 Ma (Fig. 5C). This process, resulting and Yang, 1988; Bai, 1993; 2.49–2.38 Ga for the Jingshan and Fen-
from the termination of subduction and slab rollback, suggests that zishan groups in Jiaobei area, Wang, 1995) or Neoarchean (e.g., Wuhe
positively buoyant terranes (i.e., WAC and/or NAC as mentioned Group in Anhui area, ABGMR, 1987). However, these dating methods
above) have collided with the active subduction zone in front of the arc are sensitive to late tectonothermal events, and thus do not provide
terrane (i.e., Nangrim-Liaonan Block) in this period (Fig. 15C, e.g., reliable ages. Recent studies mainly used the three methods listed
Gerya, 2011). After the collision, the subduction polarity reversed, from below for constraining the depositional age of these meta-sedimentary
northwestward to southeastward, forming a new subduction zone in the rocks in the JLJB. (1) YDZ and MA method: The minimum peak age or
northwestern part of the arc terrane (Fig. 15C). Therefore, this stage of single grain age of detrital igneous zircons and the maximum peak age
subduction-related magmatism resulting in ~2100 Ma granites and of metamorphic zircons represent the maximum and minimum de-
mafic rocks in the southern part of the back-arc basin should represent positional ages, respectively. (2) VI method: The crystallization age of
the initiation of southeastward subduction and the beginning of the volcanic intercalation approximates the depositional age of meta-sedi-
closure of the back-arc basin (Fig. 15C). In addition, as mentioned in mentary rocks. (3) MI method: The crystallization age of magmatic
Section 2.1.3, the JLJB is conventionally divided into the southern zone intrusion intruding into the meta-sedimentary rocks is older than the
with high-grade metamorphism (i.e., high amphibolite to granulite fa- depositional age of meta-sedimentary rocks.
cies) and the northern zone with low-grade metamorphism (i.e., This study collects all estimated depositional ages of these meta-
greenschist to amphibolite facies), similarly suggesting the possible sedimentary rocks, including the Laoling, Ji’an, North Liaohe, South
southward subduction of an oceanic plate in the back-arc basin Liaohe, Fenzishan, Jingshan and Wuhe groups (Table 3). Because the
(Fig. 15C). youngest single grain age is probably spurious and not reproducible
(Dickinson and Gehrels, 2009), the maximum depositional age esti-
4.3.5. Revisiting the depositional age and environment of Paleoproterozoic mated using this method is unreliable (e.g., Wang et al., 2017a). In
meta-sedimentary rocks summary, the YDZ and MA method suggests that most of these meta-
As mentioned above, voluminous meta-sedimentary rocks exist in sedimentary rocks were deposited after 2.1 Ga, and the range of esti-
the JLJB (Section 2.1.3; e.g., Li et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2015a, and re- mated ages depends on different samples (Table 3). Undoubtedly, most
ferences therein). Although these meta-sedimentary rocks have been analyses yield two major age peaks of ca. 2.55–2.40 and ca. 2.2–2.0 Ga
studied for decades, their depositional age and environment remains (Fig. 13), suggesting that the detrital material within the JLJB was
Fig. 14. (A) Y versus Sr/Y (Martin, 1999), (B) YbN versus (La/Yb)N (Drummond and Defant, 1990), and (C) Ba–Rb–Sr (after Tarney and Jones, 1994) diagrams for the
Paleoproterozoic (~2000 and ~1895 Ma) adakitic granites showing the trace element characteristics similar to those of adakites and high Ba–Sr granitoids; (D) SiO2
versus MgO (after Wang et al., 2006) diagram for these adakitic granites, suggesting the possible origin by partial melting of thickened lower crust; (E) Zr/Sm–Nb/Ta
(Foley et al., 2002) diagram for adakitic granites in the JLJB. Experimental melts of partial melting of eclogite and amphibolite are from Foley et al. (2002).
188
mainly derived from basement rocks on both sides of the JLJB (e.g., Wang et al., 2017h; Ren et al., 2017).
Longgang Block, Liu et al., 2015a) and Paleoproterozoic magmatism Adakitic rocks can be generated from partial melting of subducted
related to subduction (Fig. 5; e.g., Liaoji granitoids, Li and Zhao, 2007; oceanic crust (Defant and Drummond, 1990); mixing of subducted slab-
Luo et al., 2008). Therefore, the early stage of Paleoproterozoic mag- derived melt and mantle wedge-derived melt (Danyushevsky et al.,
matism formed before the sedimentation of most sedimentary rocks. 2008); fractional crystallization of water-rich, mantle-derived arc
Although most of the “so-called” volcanic rocks (e.g., amphibolite, magma (Roderíguez et al., 2007); partial melting of delaminated lower
leptynite and felsic gneiss, Lu et al., 2006; Wan et al., 2006; Li et al., crust (Wang et al., 2006); and partial melting of newly underplated or
2015a; Meng et al., 2017c, 2017d) have not been proven, the crystal- thickened crust (Atherton and Petford, 1993; Muir et al., 1995). Pre-
lization age of identifiable volcanic intercalations (i.e., felsic tuffs in the vious studies suggest that the Paleoproterozoic adakitic granites in the
North Liaohe Group) indicates that at least some of the meta-sedi- JLJB were formed in (1) a subduction-related arc setting (Wang et al.,
mentary rocks were deposited at ca. 2.17 Ga (Table 3; Section 4.1.1; Xu 2017b, 2017h) and were produced by partial melting of subducted
et al., 2019a). On the other hand, although most gneissic granites are in oceanic crust with significant contribution from sediments (Wang et al.,
tectonic contact with the meta-sedimentary rocks (e.g., Li and Zhao, 2017b), or (2) a syn-collisional setting (Qin, 2013; Ren et al., 2017) and
2007, and references therein), recent investigations revealed the in- were generated by partial melting of thickened lower crust (Ren et al.,
trusive contacts of some granitic and mafic rocks with the meta-sedi- 2017).
mentary rocks, suggesting that protoliths of some meta-sedimentary Generally, adakitic rocks produced from partial melting of a sub-
rocks were deposited before 2.1Ga (Wang et al., 2013; Liu et al., ducted slab and delaminated lower crust should have relatively low
2018a), 2.13 Ga (Xu et al., 2018b), 2.15 Ga (Liu et al., 2017d), or even SiO2 contents and high MgO contents because of extensive melt-rock
prior to 2.16 Ga (Tian et al., 2017b). In conclusion, based on these interactions when passing through the mantle (e.g., Xiao et al., 2004;
studies, most sedimentary sequences in the JLJB were deposited at ca. Martin et al., 2005; Moyen, 2009). In contrast, in a plot of SiO2 versus
2.17–1.95 Ga (Table 3). MgO, the JLJB adakitic granites lie in the field of thickened crust-de-
In terms of the depositional environment, Luo et al. (2008) noticed rived adakitic rocks and exhibit higher SiO2 contents and lower MgO
that the North and South Liaohe groups have the same age distributions contents than those produced by partial melting of a subducted slab and
of detrital zircons (Fig. 13) and suggested that the basement rocks delaminated lower crust (Fig. 14D). Note that these adakitic granites
underneath the two groups belong the same Archean continental block, have low HREE and Y contents, indicating that they formed in the
which underwent Paleoproterozoic rifting, accompanied by the em- garnet stability field above ca. 1.0 GPa, and their relatively low Nb/Ta
placement of 2.2–2.1 Ga magmatic rocks and the deposition of the ratios suggest a rutile-free source below ca. 1.5 GPa (Fig. 14E, Xiong
North and South Liaohe groups. However, recent studies on detrital et al., 2005). The pressure condition of partial melting for these adakitic
zircons (Wang et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018a; Xu granites is thus constrained to a range from 1.0 to 1.5 GPa (30–50 km),
et al., 2019b) and geochemistry (Li et al., 2015b; Meng et al., 2017a, consistent with the pressure condition of HP granulite-facies peak me-
2017b; Liu et al., 2018b) suggested that the protoliths of these meta- tamorphism in the JLJB (ca. 1.0–1.66 GPa; e.g., Tam et al., 2012b; Liu
sedimentary rocks were deposited in an active continental margin, et al., 2013a; Cai et al., 2017; Zou et al., 2017), implying a crustal
consistent with our model mentioned above. In our model, because source (Fig. 14E). All these features suggest that the ~2000–1995 Ma
most meta-sedimentary rocks were deposited at ca. 2.17–1.95 Ga, they adakitic granites in the JLJB should have been derived from partial
should have formed during the processes of opening and closure of melting of thickened lower crust.
back-arc basin (Fig. 15A–C), and this model also explains why the The widespread Paleoproterozoic metamorphic rocks that exhibit
northern and southern zones (Section 2.1.3) have similar geochemical metamorphic ages of ca. 1960–1800 Ma in the Nangrim Block (e.g.,
features and identical age populations of detrital zircons (Xu et al., Zhao et al., 2016a), the JLJB (Liaoji area, Cai et al., 2017; Liu et al.,
2018c). 2017d; Jiaobei area, Zhou et al., 2008a; Tam et al., 2011, 2012a,
Notably, the detrital igneous zircons of some meta-sedimentary 2012b; Liu et al., 2013a; Zou et al., 2017, 2018; Anhui area, Liu et al.,
rocks yield an age range of ca. 2000–1900 Ma (Table 3; e.g., Gaixian 2009), and the central part of the Sino-Korean Craton (Tang and
Formation, Wang et al., 2018b; Huashan, Linjiang, Dalizi and Da- Santosh, 2018, and references therein) are generally accepted to have
dongcha formations, Zhang et al., 2018), consistent with the timing of witnessed the Paleoproterozoic cratonization of the NCC (e.g., Zhao
collisional orogeny. According to Zhang et al. (2018), the protoliths of et al., 2001, 2002, 2005). Previous studies considered that all these
these meta-sedimentary rocks were probably deposited in a foreland ages, which are mainly distributed from ca. ~1900–1800 Ma, represent
basin. However, detailed studies must be designed in the future to test the peak metamorphism ages (e.g., high-pressure granulite-facies me-
the validity of this hypothesis. tamorphism, Zhou et al., 2008a; Liu et al., 2009, 2013a). However,
recent studies on high-grade metamorphic rocks suggest that the timing
4.3.6. ~2000–1895 Ma adakitic granites and collisional orogeny of the peak metamorphism ranges from 1.96–1.90 Ga, whereas the
As mentioned in Section 3.2, one type of granite shows geochemical ~1.90–1.80 Ga ages represent the timing of exhumation and cooling of
features that are distinctly different from those of other granites in the the metamorphic rocks (e.g., Liu et al., 2017d, 2019; Zou et al., 2017,
JLJB (e.g., low REE concentrations, Fig. 8D, I) and has scattered ages of 2018). This conclusion is also supported by a case study of the Heng-
~2000 Ma (Wang et al., 2017h) and ~1895 Ma (Wang et al., 2017b; shan complex in the central part of the Sino-Korean Craton because
Ren et al., 2017) (Fig. 5D). These granites are characterized by high metamorphic zircons mainly grow during the uplift and cooling process
SiO2 (72.54–75.14 wt.%), Al2O3 (14.90–16.17 wt.%), Ba (505–2043 (Wei et al., 2014).
ppm) and Sr (287–1022 ppm) concentrations, low Y (1.24–4.50 ppm) In summary, the nearly coeval adakitic granites (~2000–1895 Ma)
and HREE (e.g., Yb = 0.12–0.48 ppm) concentrations, high Sr/Y and prograde or peak metamorphism (~1960–1900 Ma) represent
(117–497) ratios, and a lack of pronounced negative Eu anomalies collisional orogeny in this period (Fig. 15D).
(Table S2), similar to the features of typical adakites (Fig. 14A, B;
Defant and Drummond, 1990) and high Ba–Sr granitoids (Fig. 14C; 4.3.7. Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks were involved in collisional
Tarney and Jones, 1994). Considering that high Ba–Sr granitoids are orogeny: evidence from Archean basement relic slices within the JLJB
usually enriched in potassium (e.g., Na2O/K2O ≤ 1.0) and have highly The JLJB is widely accepted to represent a Paleoproterozoic orogen
fractionated REE patterns (e.g., La/Yb ≥ 30–40) (c.f., Fowler et al., between the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks (Fig. 1; e.g., Zhao
2001; Qian et al., 2003; Fowler et al., 2008; Peng et al., 2013), the et al., 2005; Zhai and Santosh, 2011; Kusky et al., 2016). However,
classification of these JLJB granites (mostly Na2O/K2O = 1.3–2.8, La/ some different perspectives about whether the Archean micro-blocks on
Yb = 14–34) as adakitic granites is reasonable (Wang et al., 2017b; both sides of the JLJB were involved in the Paleoproterozoic orogeny
189
Fig. 15. Conceptual diagram illustrating the tectonic evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt involving (A) ~2190–2160 Ma slab rollback during the early stage of
subduction, (B) ~2160–2110 Ma back-arc extension, (C) ~2110–2080 Ma initiation of closure of back-arc basin, (D) ~2000–1895 Ma collisional orogeny, and (E)
~1875–1850 Ma postcollisional extension. WNC—West Australian Craton; NAC—North Australian Craton
190
Table 4
Summary of geochronological data from Archean basement rocks in the Jiaobei area.
No. Sample Lithology (or mineral assemblage) Crystallization age Archean metamorphic age Paleoproterozoic metamorphic age Analytical method References
W. Xu and F. Liu
1 SL127 Qtz-Kfs leucosome UIA 2514 ± 23 Ma SIMS Faure et al. (2003)

2 SL136 Gneissic mignatite UIA 2715 ± 39 Ma SIMS Faure et al. (2003)
3 C4 Amphibolite WMA 2530 ± 17 Ma WMA1852 ± 37 Ma SHRIMP Zhang et al. (2003)
4 02SD25 TTG gneiss WMA 2692 ± 14 Ma LIA 1720 ± 290 Ma LA-ICP-MS Tang et al. (2007)
5 02SD35 TTG gneiss WMA 2691 ± 12 Ma LIA 1767 ± 140 Ma LA-ICP-MS Tang et al. (2007)
6 03SD03 TTG gneiss WMA 2696 ± 10 Ma LA-ICP-MS Tang et al. (2007)
7 03SD06 Amphibolite WMA 2506 ± 18 Ma WMA 1769 ± 60 Ma LA-ICP-MS Tang et al. (2007)
8 S0130-2 TTG gneiss WMA 2906 ± 12 Ma 2501 Ma SHRIMP Jahn et al. (2008)
9 CF92-34 TTG gneiss WMA 2707 ± 4 Ma Jahn et al. (2008)
10 S0123-1 TTG gneiss WMA 2726 ± 12 Ma 2499 Ma Jahn et al. (2008)
11 S0129-1 TTG gneiss WMA 2721 ± 9 Ma WMA 2487 ± 11 Ma Jahn et al. (2008)
12 SD6 Amp-Pl gneiss WMA 1865 ± 3 Ma SHRIMP Zhou et al. (2008b)
13 SD8 Bt-Pl gneiss WMA 2535 ± 7 Ma SHRIMP Zhou et al. (2008b)
14 QX13-3 Tonalitic gneiss WMA 2548 ± 12 Ma WMA 2504 ± 16 Ma WMA 1863 ± 41 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a, 2011b)
15 QX44-1 Tonalitic gneiss WMA 2738 ± 23 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a. 2011b)
16 QX49-1 Tonalitic gneiss WMA 2909 ± 19 Ma WMA 2513 ± 32 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a, 2011b)
17 QX66-1 Tonalitic gneiss WMA 2564 ± 12 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a, 2011b)
18 QX27-2 Bt-Amp granitic gneiss WMA 2544 ± 15 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a, 2011b)
19 08JB06-4 HP mafic granulite WMA 2638 ± 22 Ma WMA 1956 ± 41 Ma SHRIMP Tam et al. (2011)
20 QX69-1 Bt-bearing granitic gneiss WMA 2522 ± 55 Ma WMA 2510 ± 54 Ma 1861~1857 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2013)
21 QX19-1b Bt-bearing monzogranitic gneiss WMA 2702 ± 51 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2013)
22 10SD19-2 Amphibolite WMA 2555 ± 11 Ma 2506~2459 Ma 1948 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2013)
23 10SD10-1 Bt-Pl gneiss WMA 2618 ± 24 Ma WMA 1893 ± 11 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2013)
24 10SD11-1 Tonalitic gneiss UIA 2887 ± 30 Ma UIA 2526 ± 14 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2013)
25 10SD26-1 Granodioritic gneiss UIA 2573 ± 12 Ma UIA 2493 ± 14 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2013)
191
26 08QX16 Anatectic TTG WMA 2912 ± 6 Ma WMA 2488 ± 9 Ma CAMECA Wang et al. (2014)
27 08QX26 Amphibolite WMA 2484 ± 7 Ma CAMECA Wang et al. (2014)
28 10SD10-2 Grt-bearing amphibolite WMA 2546 ± 12 Ma WMA 2458 ± 9 Ma WMA 1916 ± 27 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
& 1823~1808 Ma
29 10SD19-7 Grt-bearing amphibolite WMA 2559 ± 10 Ma WMA 2522 ± 11 Ma 1926~1836 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
30 10SD27-9 Grt-bearing amphibolite WMA 2473 ± 20 Ma WMA 1838 ± 25 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
31 10SD13-2 Amphibolite WMA 2588 ± 16 Ma WMA 2469 ± 30 Ma WMA 1917 ± 26 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
& 1854 ± 12 Ma
32 10SD12-3 Bt-Pl gneiss 2412 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
33 10SD20-1 Granodioritic gneiss WMA 2710 ± 14 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
34 10SD14-1 Granodioritic gneiss WMA 2865 ± 18 Ma WMA 2518 ± 9 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
35 10SD16-1 Trondhjemitic gneiss WMA 2526 ± 23 Ma WMA 2501 ± 16 Ma 1849 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
36 10SD18-1 Granodioritic gneiss WMA 2712 ± 12 Ma WMA 2503 ± 11 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
37 10SD21-1 Granodioritic gneiss WMA 2745 ± 12 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
38 S1102 Gneissic tonalite WMA 2906 ± 22 Ma WMA 2471 ± 16 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
40 S0901 Gneissic high-Si trondhjemite WMA 2918 ± 8 Ma WMA 2495 ± 8 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
41 S1101 Gneissic high-Si trondhjemite WMA 2873 ± 12 Ma WMA 2473 ± 37 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
42 QX1262 Gneissic diorite 2880 Ma WMA 2461 ± 10 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
43 QX1267 Gneissic trondhjemite WMA 2933 ± 16 Ma WMA 2472 ± 15 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
45 S1212 Gneissic high-Si trondhjemite WMA 2902 ± 17 Ma 2480 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
46 S1209 Gneissic quartz diorite WMA 2915 ± 9 Ma 2466 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
49 Z2965-102 Amphibolite WMA 2484 ± 23 Ma LIA 1834 ± 83 Ma LA-ICP-MS Shan et al. (2015)
50 Z2965-98 Bt-Pl gneiss WMA 2496 ± 7 Ma LIA 1887 ± 90 Ma LA-ICP-MS Shan et al. (2015)
51 Z2967-45 Amphibolite UIA 2457 ± 34 Ma LIA 1900 ± 240 Ma LA-ICP-MS Shan et al. (2015)
52 Z2967-56 Bt-Pl gneiss WMA 2503 ± 8 Ma LIA 1667 ± 230 Ma LA-ICP-MS Shan et al. (2015)
Abbreviation: Qtz—Quartz; Kfs—K-feldspar; Pl—Plagioclase; Amp—Amphibole; Bt—Biotite; Ep—Epidote; Grt—Garnet; TTG—tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite; HP—high-pressure; UIA—Upper intercept age;
have been reported (Fig. 1A, B; c.f. Zhai and Santosh, 2011, 2013; Zhao
et al., 2005, 2012). In the tectonic subdivision of the Sino-Korean
Craton reported by Zhai and Santosh (2011, 2013), the Liaoji orogenic
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
belt (i.e., JLJB) predominantly consists of Paleoproterozoic material,
and Archean material only exists in the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
References
blocks (Fig. 1B). In contrast, other researchers suggested that the JLJB
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
contains some Archean basement relic slices that are mainly distributed
in the Jiaobei area (Fig. 1A; e.g., Zhao et al., 2005, 2012). Undoubtedly,
the direct solution is to investigate the possible lithological records
related to Paleoproterozoic orogeny within these Archean basement
Analytical method
rocks.
This study collects 62 U–Pb age samples from Archean basement
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
rocks in the Jiaobei area (Fig. 3A). Their detailed information, in-
cluding sample numbers, lithology (or mineral assemblages), crystal-
lization and metamorphic ages, analytical methods and references, is
listed in Table 4. Most samples record Archean crystallization ages with
age peaks of ca. 2.90, ca. 2.70, and ca. 2.55–2.50 Ga, and late Archean-
Paleoproterozoic metamorphic age
early Paleoproterozoic (ca. 2510–2470 Ma) metamorphic ages, which

are similar to the Longgang-Liaonan Block (e.g., Yang et al., 2008;
Wang et al., 2017f; Wang et al., 2019; Wan et al., 2011b, 2015b, and
references therein). Although the Nangrim Block is mainly composed of
late Paleoproterozoic material (Section 2.1.2), it has been proven to be
a pre-existing Archean basement that was probably replaced by a late
Paleoproterozoic basement (e.g., Wu et al., 2007a, 2016; Zhu et al.,
2019). Zircon U–Pb age data of Archean basement rocks (e.g., Zhang
et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016a), and Hf isotope data of Paleoproterozoic
detrital zircons from river sands (Wu et al., 2007a, 2016) and Paleo-
proterozoic zircon xenocrysts from Triassic kimberlites (Zhu et al.,
Archean metamorphic age
2019) reveal that this pre-existing Archean basement is mainly com-

prised of ca. 2.9 and ca. 2.5 Ga rocks. Therefore, a reasonable hypoth-
esis is that the Archean basement rocks in the Jiaobei area are derived
from the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks. It should be noted that
most of these Archean basement rocks also record Paleoproterozoic
2494 Ma
metamorphic ages (ca. 1.95–1.75 Ga) in addition to the Archean crys-

tallization and metamorphic ages (Table 4), and these Paleoproterozoic
metamorphic ages are highly consistent with the timing of regional
metamorphism related to collisional orogeny (ca. 1.96–1.80 Ga, Section
4.3.6, e.g., Liu et al., 2015a, 2015c, 2019, and references therein). In
10 Ma
10 Ma
12 Ma
9 Ma
7 Ma
6 Ma
7 Ma
4 Ma
7 Ma
4 Ma
Crystallization age
addition, some Archean basement rocks in the Jiaobei area record the
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
late Paleoproterozoic partial melting event that is related to post-

2904
2726
2722
2729
2531
2534
2512
2508
2506
2508
orogenic extension (e.g., TG1, Liu et al., 2014b). Based on the findings
from these studies, the Archean micro-blocks (i.e., Longgang and
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
Liaonan-Nangrim blocks) on both sides of the JLJB, as well as the Pa-

leoproterozoic sedimentary-volcanic successions and associated
granitic and mafic rocks in the JLJB, were also involved in the Paleo-
Bt-bearing tonalitic gneiss (Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt)
proterozoic orogenic process to form the JLJB (e.g., Wu et al., 2013,

2014).
4.3.8. ~1875–1850 Ma igneous rocks, granitic leucosomes and

Lithology (or mineral assemblage)
postorogenic extension
LIA—Lower intercept age; WMA—Weighted mean age.
Late Paleoproterozoic igneous rocks are widespread in the NCC, not

Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt+Amp
Pl+Qtz+Amp+Bt+Kfs
Pl+Qtz+Amp+Bt+Kfs
Pl+Qtz+Amp+Bt+Kfs
Pl+Qtz+Amp+Bt+Kfs
only in the JLJB but also in the central part of the Sino-Korean Craton.
Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt+Ep
Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt+Ep
Tang and Santosh (2018) reviewed this stage of magmatism and sug-
Qtz+Pl+Bt+Kfs
Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt
gested that these rocks formed in various postorogenic settings (Tang

and Santosh, 2018, and references therein). In the JLJB, the coeval
magmatism represented by undeformed porphyritic granite, inter-
mediate-alkaline plutons (e.g., syenite and diorite), leucogranite and
pegmatite, which have intrusion ages of 1875–1850 Ma (Table 1;
Fig. 5E, F, G and J), occurred in the Liaoji and Jiaobei areas. As men-
tioned above, these ~1865 Ma igneous rocks were mainly produced by
Table 4 (continued)
the partial melting of ancient crustal rocks (Fig. 10; e.g., Yang et al.,
08QX03
08QX04
JN1318
JN1322
JN1323
JN1325
JN1320
JN1315
JN1317
JN1324
Sample
2015b; Li et al., 2017c; Liu et al., 2017a), whereas a small amount of

mantle materials may have been involved in the formation of the in-
termediate-alkaline plutons (Yang et al., 2007a). As in the central part
of the Sino-Korean Craton, there is widespread agreement that these
No.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
rocks in the JLJB correspond to a postorogenic environment (Yang
192
et al., 2007a, 2015b, 2017; Liu et al., 2017a). mafic counterparts are the products of partial melting of subarc
Notably, coeval igneous rocks are also widespread in the Nangrim mantle metasomatized by subducted slab- and ancient sediment-
Block (Wu et al., 2007a, 2007c, 2016; Peng et al., 2016a). Peng et al. derived melts. They formed in a forearc extensional setting related
(2016a) suggested that they were mainly derived from partial melting to the initiation of the closure of the back-arc basin.
of continental crustal materials and formed in a continental arc setting (4) The protoliths of voluminous meta-sedimentary rocks within the
related to subduction, based on the information that (1) JLJB were mainly deposited during the opening and closure of the
~1900–1840 Ma is the same time as the metamorphic ages in the JLJB back-arc basin from ca. 2170-1950 Ma.
and (2) coeval mantle-derived magma probably existed in the Nangrim (5) The ~2000–1895 Ma adakitic granites were derived from partial
Block. However, recent detailed studies on high grade meta-pelitic melting of thickened lower crust. They, together with the coeval
rocks in the JLJB constrain the peak metamorphism to ca. (~1960–1900 Ma) regional prograde or peak metamorphism, re-
1950–1900 Ma, with isothermal decompression at ca. 1900–1850 Ma present the Paleoproterozoic orogeny that formed the JLJB. In ad-
and subsequent near isobaric cooling during ca. 1850–1800 Ma (e.g., dition to the Paleoproterozoic sedimentary-volcanic successions
Zou et al., 2018, 2019). In addition, the mantle-derived magma should and associated mafic and granitic intrusions, the Archean basement
be related to mantle upwelling during postorogenic extension (Yang rocks were also involved in the collisional orogeny.
et al., 2007a, 2015b). Therefore, the widespread ~1900–1800 Ma ig- (6) The widespread 1874–1850 Ma magmatism and coeval retrograde
neous rocks in the Nangrim Block also correspond to postorogenic ex- metamorphism that was accompanied by the regional partial
tension. melting event suggest that the Eastern Block underwent postcolli-
As mentioned in Section 4.1.5, the ca. 1875–1850 Ma granitic leu- sional extension in the late Paleoproterozoic era.
cosomes related to the regional partial melting event are widely dis-
tributed in the Liaoji and Jiaobei areas (Table 2; Figs. 2 and 3A; Liu Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
et al., 2014b, 2017e). Liu et al. (2014b, 2017e) studied these granitic doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.019.
leucosomes in detail, and proposed that a regional Paleoproterozoic
partial melting event occurred during the post-peak granulite facies Acknowledgements
retrograde stage related to the exhumation of the JLJB based on several
lines of evidence as described below. (1) In the pelitic and mafic mig- We thank Chaohui Liu for assistance during the field work, Wen
matite samples, the matrix minerals cordierite and plagioclase are Zhang for help with compilation of detrital zircons age data of meta-
stable in their host migmatites, and felsic minerals (e.g., Qtz, Kfs and sedimentary rocks. We thank many colleagues for carrying out much
Ab) have textures typical of crystallization from melts and occur as more research than can be presented here. We are extremely grateful to
inclusions in anatectic zircons, suggesting that the generation of partial Editor Arturo Gomez-Tuena and two anonymous reviewers for their
melting and crystallization of the melts occurred below decompression constructive comments and suggestions, which enhanced the present
reactions (i.e., Grt + Sil + Qtz = crd; Grt + Cpx + Qtz = Opx + Pl) in manuscript. This study was financially supported by the National
the cordierite and plagioclase stability field. (2) The granitic leuco- Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 41430210, 41890833), and
somes display crystallization ages of ca. 1875–1850 Ma (Fig. 6C, D), Basic Scientific Foundation of CAGS (Grant YYWF201703).
similar to the timing of the post-peak isothermal decompression stage of
various granulite facies rocks (Liu et al., 2014b, 2017e). Therefore, the References
widely distributed granitic leucosomes in the JLJB should be derived
from late Paleoproterozoic decompression melting. Anhui Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources (LBGMR), 1987. Regional Geology of
In summary, the coeval (ca. 1875–1850 Ma) magmatism, retrograde Anhui Province. Geological Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 1–650.
Atherton, M.P., Petford, N., 1993. Generation of sodium-rich magmas from newly un-
metamorphism and partial melting event suggest that the JLJB and derplated basaltic crust. Nature 362, 144–146.
Nangrim Block both underwent postorogenic extension after ~1900 Ma Bai, J., 1993. The Precambrian Geology and Pb–Zn Mineralization in the Northern Margin
(Fig. 15E). of North China Platform. Geological Publishing House, Beijing in Chinese with
English abstract.
Ballouard, C., Poujol, M., Boulvais, P., Branquet, Y., Tartèse, R., Vigneresse, J.L., 2016.
5. Conclusions Nb–Ta fractionation in peraluminous granites: a marker of the magmatic-hydro-
thermal transition. Geology 44, 231–234.
Bau, M., 1996. Controls on the fractionation of isovalent trace elements in magmatic and
A detailed synthesis of the geochronology, geochemistry, and Lu–Hf aqueous systems: evidence from Y/Ho, Zr/Hf, and lanthanide tetrad effect. Contrib.
and Sm–Nd isotopes of the Paleoproterozoic igneous rocks, in combi- Mineral. Petrol. 123 (3), 323–333.
nation with associated meta-sedimentary rocks, Archean basement re- Bi, J.H., Ge, W.C., Xing, D.H., Yang, H., Dong, Y., Tian, D.X., Chen, H.J., 2018.
Palaeoproterozoic meta-rhyolite and meta-dacite of the Liaohe Group, Jiao-Liao-Ji
lict slices and granitic leucosomes within the JLJB, allows us to re-
Belt, North China Craton: petrogenesis and implications for tectonic setting.
construct the tectonic evolution of the JLJB and draw the following Precambrian Res. 314, 306–324.
conclusions. Blichert-Toft, J., Albarède, F., 1997. The Lu–Hf isotope geochemistry of chondrites and
the evolution of the mantle—crust system. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 148, 243–258.
Bonin, B., 2007. A-type granites and related rocks: Evolution of a concept, problems and
(1) The ~2190–2160 Ma gneissic granites are aluminous A2-type prospects. Lithos 97, 1–29.
granites generated by the partial melting of Archean crustal mate- Cai, J., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Meng, E., Wang, W., Yang, H., Ji, L., Liu, L.S., 2017.
rials, whereas the ~2180–2160 Ma felsic tuffs are calc-alkaline Discovery of granulite-facies metamorphic rocks in the Ji’an area, northeastern
Jiao–Liao–Ji Belt, North China Craton: metamorphic P–T evolution and geological
andesite-rhyolites that were produced by mixing of crust-derived implications. Precambrian Res. 303, 626–640.
felsic and mantle-derived mafic magmas. These rocks represent the Chen, B., Li, Z., Wang, J.L., Zhang, L., Yan, X.L., 2016. Liaodong Peninsula ~2.2 Ga
early stage of northwestward subduction of the oceanic plate be- magmatic event and its geological significance. J. Jilin Univ. (Earth Sci. Ed.) 46 (2),
303–320 in Chinese with English abstract.
tween the Nangrim-Liaonan Block and the WAC and/or the NAC. Chen, J.S., Xing, D.H., Liu, M., Li, B., Yang, H., Tian, D.X., Yang, F., Wang, Y., 2017.
(2) In terms of trace element partitioning, the ~2160–2110 Ma tho- Zircon U–Pb chronology and geological significance of felsic volcanic rocks in the
leiitic mafic rocks show MORB-like patterns and some arc-like Liaohe Group from the Liaoyang area, Liaoning Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9),
2792–2810 (in Chinese with English abstract).
characteristics instead of features related to intracontinental rifts or
Cheng, S.B., Liu, Z.J., Wang, Q.F., Feng, B., Wei, X.L., Liu, B.Z., Qin, L.Y., Zhao, B.J., Shui,
typical volcanic arcs. These rocks were derived from decompression P., Xu, L., Wang, J.P., 2017. SHRIMP zircon U–Pb dating and Hf isotope analyses of
melting of depleted asthenospheric mantle in the spinel-garnet the Muniushan Monzogranite, Guocheng, Jiaobei Terrane, China: implications for the
tectonic evolution of the Jiao–Liao–Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res.
stability field during continuous back-arc extension.
301, 36–48.
(3) The ~2110–2080 Ma aluminous A2-type granites were also derived Cho, M., Kim, T., Yang, S.Y., Yi, K., 2017. Paleoproterozoic to Triassic crustal evolution of
from partial melting of ancient crustal materials, and their coeval the Gyeonggi Massif, Korea: tectonic correlation with the North China craton. In:
193
Law, R.D., Thigpen, J.R., Merschat, A.J., Stowell, H.H. (Eds.), Linkages and microcontinents in the Beishan orogen of the southern Central Asian Orogenic Belt.
Feedbacks in Orogenic Systems: Geological Society of America Memoir. 213. pp. Earth Sci. Rev. 185, 1–14.
165–197. Jahn, B.M., Condie, K.C., 1995. Evolution of the Kaapvaal Craton as viewed from geo-
Chu, Z.Y., Wu, F.Y., Walker, R.J., Rudnick, R.L., Pitcher, L., Puchtel, I.S., Yang, Y.H., chemical and Sm-Nd isotopic analyses of intracratonic pelites. Geochim. Cosmochim.
Wilde, S.A., 2009. Temporal evolution of the lithospheric mantle beneath the Eastern Acta 59, 2239–2258.
North China Craton. J. Petrol. 50, 1857–1898. Jahn, B.m., Liu, D., Wan, Y., Song, B., Wu, J., 2008. Archean crustal evolution of the
Clemens, J.D., Holloway, J.R., White, A.J.R., 1986. Origin of an A-type granite: experi- Jiaodong Peninsula, China, as revealed by zircon SHRIMP geochronology, elemental
mental constraints. Am. Mineral. 71 (3-4), 317–324. and Nd-isotope geochemistry. Am. J. Sci. 308, 232–269.
Collins, W.J., Belousova, E.A., Kemp, A.I.S., Murphy, J.B., 2011. Two contrasting Jiang, S.Y., Palmer, M.R., Peng, Q.M., Yang, J.H., 1997. Chemical and stable isotopic
Phanerozoic orogenic systems revealed by hafnium isotope data. Nat. Geosci. 4, compositions of Proterozoic metamorphosed evaporites and associated tourmalines
333–337. from the Houxianyu borate deposit, eastern Liaoning, China. Chem. Geol. 135,
Danyushevsky, L.V., Falloon, T.J., Crawford, A.J., Tetroeva, S.A., Leslie, R.L., Verbeeten, 189–211.
A., 2008. High-Mg adakites from Kadavu Island Group, Fiji, southwest Pacific: evi- Jiang, N., Guo, J.H., Fan, W.B., Hu, J., Zong, K.Q., Zhang, S.Q., 2016. Archean TTGs and
dence for the mantle origin of adakite parental melts. Geology 36, 499–502. sanukitoids from the Jiaobei terrain, North China craton: insights into crustal growth
Defant, M.J., Drummond, M.S., 1990. Derivation of some modern arc magmas by melting and mantle metasomatism. Precambrian Res. 281, 656–672.
of young subducted lithosphere. Nature 347, 662–665. Kemp, A.I., Hawkesworth, C.J., Paterson, B.A., Kinny, P.D., 2006. Episodic growth of the
Dickinson, W.R., Gehrels, G.E., 2009. Use of U–Pb ages of detrital zircons to infer max- Gondwana supercontinent from hafnium and oxygen isotopes in zircon. Nature 439,
imum depositional ages of strata: a test against a Colorado Plateau Mesozoic data- 580–583.
base. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 288, 115–125. Kepezhinskas, P., McDermott, F., Defant, M.J., Hochstaedter, A., Drummond, M.S., 1997.
Dong, C.Y., Wang, S.J., Liu, D.Y., Wang, J.G., Xie, H.Q., Wang, W., Song, Z.Y., Wan, Y.S., Trace element and Sr–Nd–Pb isotopic constraints on a three-component model of
2010. Late Palaeoproterozoic crustal evolution of the North China Craton and for- Kamchatka Arc petrogenesis. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 61, 577–600.
mation time of the Jinshan Group: constraints from SHRIMP U–Pb zircon dating of Kessel, R., Schmidt, M.W., Ulmer, P., Pettke, T., 2005. Trace element signature of sub-
meta-intermediate-basic intrusive rocks in eastern Shandong Province. Acta Petrol. duction-zone fluids, melts and supercritical liquids at 120–180 km depth. Nature 437,
Sin. 27 (6), 1699–1706 in Chinese with English abstract. 724–727.
Dong, C.Y., Ma, M.Z., Liu, S.J., Xie, H.Q., Liu, D.Y., Li, X.M., Wan, Y.S., 2012. Middle Kim, J.N., Han, R.Y., Zhao, L., Li, Q.L., Kim, S.S., 2016. Study on the petrographic and
Paleoproterozoic crustal extensional regime in the North China Craton: new evidence SIMS zircon U-Pb geochronological characteristics of the magmatic rocks associated
from SHRIMP zircon U–Pb dating and whole-rock geochemistry of meta-gabbro in the with the Jongju and Cholsan REE deposits in northern Korean Peninsula. Acta Petrol.
Anshan-Gongchangling area. Acta Petrol. Sin. 28 (9), 2785–2792 in Chinese with Sin. 32 (10), 3123–3138 in Chinese with English abstract.
English abstract. King, P.L., White, A.J.R., Chappell, B.W., Allen, C.M., 1997. Characterization and Origin
Dong, C.Y., Wan, Y.S., Xie, H.Q., Nutman, A.P., Xie, S.W., Liu, S.J., Ma, M.Z., Liu, D.Y., of Aluminous A-type Granites from the Lachlan Fold Belt, Southeastern Australia. J.
2017. The Mesoarchean Tiejiashan-Gongchangling potassic granite in the Anshan- Petrol. 38, 371–391.
Benxi area, North China Craton: origin by recycling of Paleo- to Eoarchean crust from King, P.L., Chappell, B.W., Allen, C.M., White, A.J.R., 2001. Are A-type granites the high-
U–Pb–Nd–Hf–O isotopic studies. Lithos 290, 116–135. temperature felsic granites? Evidence from fractionated granties of the Wangrah
Drummond, M.S., Defant, M.J., 1990. A model for Trondhjemite-Tonalite-Dacite Genesis Suite. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 38, 371–391.
and crustal growth via slab melting: Archean to modern comparisons. J. Geophys. Kusky, T.M., 2011. Geophysical and geological tests of tectonic models of the North China
Res. 95, 21503–21521. Craton. Gondwana Res. 20, 26–35.
Eby, G.N., 1992. Chemical subdivision of the A-type granitoids petrogenetic and tectonic Kusky, T.M., Li, J.H., 2003. Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolution of the North China
implications. Geology 20, 641–644. Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 22, 383–397.
Faure, M., Lin, W., Monié, P., Le Breton, N., Poussineau, S., Panis, D., Deloule, E., 2003. Kusky, T.M., Li, J.H., Santosh, M., 2007. The Paleoproterozoic North Hebei orogen: North
Exhumation tectonics of the ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic rocks in the Qinling China Craton's collisional suture with the Columbia supercontinent. Gondwana Res.
orogen in east China: new petrological-structural-radiometric insights from the 12, 4–28.
Shandong Peninsula. Tectonics 22 (3), 1018–1040. Kusky, T.M., Li, X.Y., Wang, Z.S., Fu, J.M., Ze, L., Zhu, P.M., 2014. Are Wilson Cycles
Faure, M., Lin, W., Monié, P., Bruguier, O., 2004. Palaeoproterozoic arc magmatism and preserved in Archean cratons? A comparison of the North China and Slave cratons.
collision in Liaodong Peninsula (north-east China). Terra Nova 16, 75–80. Can. J. Earth Sci. 51, 297–311.
Floyd, P.A., Kelling, G., Gökçen, S.L., Gökçen, N., 1991. Geochemistry and tectonic en- Kusky, T.M., Polat, A., Windley, B.F., Burke, K.C., Dewey, J.F., Kidd, W.S.F., Maruyama,
vironment of basaltic rocks from the Misis ophiolitic mélange, south Turkey. Chem. S., Wang, J.P., Deng, H., Wang, Z.S., Wang, C., Fu, D., Li, X.W., Peng, H.T., 2016.
Geol. 89, 263–280. Insights into the tectonic evolution of the North China Craton through comparative
Foley, S., Tiepolo, M., Vannucci, R., 2002. Growth of early continental crust controlled by tectonic analysis: a record of outward growth of Precambrian continents. Earth Sci.
melting of amphibolite in subduction zones. Nature 417, 837–840. Rev. 162, 387–432.
Fowler, M.B., Henney, P.J., Darbyshire, D.P.F., Greenwood, P.B., 2001. Petrogenesis of Lan, T.G., Fan, H.R., Yang, K.F., Cai, Y.C., Wen, B.J., Zhang, W., 2015. Geochronology,
high Ba–Sr granites: the Rogart pluton, Sutherland. J. Geol. Soc. 158. mineralogy and geochemistry of alkali-feldspar granite and albite granite association
Fowler, M.B., Kocks, H., Darbyshire, D.P.F., Greenwood, P.B., 2008. Petrogenesis of high from the Changyi area of Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt: implications for Paleoproterozoic rifting of
Ba–Sr plutons from the Northern Highlands Terrane of the British Caledonian eastern North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 266, 86–107.
Province. Lithos 105, 129–148. Lee, C.T.A., Morton, D.M., 2015. High silica granites: terminal porosity and crystal set-
Frost, B.R., Barnes, C.G., Collins, W.J., Arculus, R.J., Ellis, D.J., Frost, C.D., 2001. A tling in shallow magma chambers. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 409, 23–31.
geochemical classification for granitic rocks. J. Petrol. 42, 2033–2048. Lee, B.C., Oh, C.W., Yengkhom, K.S., Yi, K., 2014. Paleoproterozoic magmatic and me-
Fryer, P., Taylor, B., Langmuir, C.H., Hochstaedter, A.G., 1990. Petrology and geo- tamorphic events in the Hongcheon area, southern margin of the Northern Gyeonggi
chemistry of lavas from the Sumisu and Torishima backarc rifts. Earth Planet. Sci. Massif in the Korean Peninsula, and their links to the Paleoproterozoic orogeny in the
Lett. 100, 161–178. North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 248, 17–38.
Gao, B.S., Dong, Y.S., Li, F.Q., Wang, P.S., Gan, Y.C., Chen, M.S., Tian, Z.H., 2017. Li, S.Y., 1994. The bimodal volcanic rocks and magma evolution in Liaoji paleo-rift. J.
Petrogenesis of the Li’eryu Formation of the South Liaohe Group in the Changchun Univ. Earth Sci. 24 (2), 143–147 in Chinese with English abstract.
Huanghuadian area, Liaodong Peninsula. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2725–2742 in Li, Z., Chen, B., 2014. Geochronology and geochemistry of the Paleoproterozoic meta-
Chinese with English abstract. basalts from the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton: implications for petrogenesis
Gerya, T.V., 2011. Future directions in subduction modeling. J. Geodyn. 52, 344–378. and tectonic setting. Precambrian Res. 255, 653–667.
Gerya, T.V., Connolly, J.A.D., Yuen, D.A., 2008. Why is terrestrial subduction one-sided? Li, S.Z., Liu, Y.J., 1997. Paleoproterozoic sedimentary assemblages of the Jiao-Liao-Ji
Geology 36, 43–46. Belt: geochronology and sequences. Northwest. Geol. 18 (3), 28–35 in Chinese with
Griffin, W.L., Pearson, N.J., Belousova, E., Jackson, S.E., Achterbergh, E.v., O’Reilly, S.Y., English abstract.
Shee, S.R., 2000. The Hf isotope composition of cratonic mantle: LAM-MC-ICPMS Li, S.Z., 1997. Palaeoproterozoic geotectonic problems of the Jiao-Liao massif: evolu-
analysis of zircon megacrysts in kimberlites. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 64, tionism and mobilism. Northwest. Geol. 18 (3), 28–35 in Chinese with English ab-
133–147. stract.
Griffin, W.L., Wang, X., Jackson, S.E., Pearson, N.J., O'Reilly, S.Y., Xu, X.S., Zhou, X.M., Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., 2007. SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology of the Liaoji granitoids:
2002. Zircon chemistry and magma mixing, SE China: in-situ analysis of Hf isotopes, constraints on the evolution of the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji belt in the Eastern
Tonglu and Pingtan igneous complexes. Lithos 61, 237–269. Block of the North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 158, 1–16.
Guo, S.S., Li, S.G., 2009. SHRIMP zircon U–Pb ages for the Paleoproterozoic meta- Li, S.Z., Han, Z.Z., Liu, Y.J., Yang, Z.S., Ma, R., 2001. Regional metamorphism of the
morphic-magmatic events in the southeast margin of the North China Craton. Sci. Liaohe Group: implications for continental dynamics. Geol. Rev. 47, 9–18 in Chinese
China Ser. D Earth Sci. 52, 1039–1045 in Chinese with English abstract. with English abstract.
Hao, D.F., Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Han, Z.Z., Zhao, G.T., 2004. Origin and its con- Li, S.Z., Hao, D.F., Han, Z.Z., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., 2003. Paleoproterozoic deep processes
straint to tectonic evolution of Paleoproterozoic granitoids in the eastern Liaoning and tectono-thermal evolution in Jiao-Liao Massif. Acta Geol. Sin. 77 (3), 328–340 in
and Jilin province, North China. Acta Petrol. Sin. 20, 1409–1416 in Chinese with Chinese with English abstract.
English abstract. Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Wu, F.Y., Liu, J.Z., Hao, D.F., Han, Z.Z., Luo, Y., 2004.
Hawkesworth, C.J., Kemp, A.I., 2006. Evolution of the continental crust. Nature 443, Mesozoic, not Paleoproterozoic SHRIMP U-Pb zircon ages of two Liaoji granites,
811–817. eastern block, North China craton. Int. Geol. Rev. 46, 162–176.
He, G.P., Ye, H.W., 1998. Two type of early Proterozoic metamorphism in the eastern Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Han, Z.Z., Luo, Y., Hao, D.F., Xia, X.P., 2005. Deformation
Liaoning to southern Jilin and their tectonic implication. Acta Petrol. Sin. 14, history of the Paleoproterozoic Liaohe assemblage in the Eastern Block of the North
152–162 in Chinese with English abstract. China Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 24, 659–674.
He, Z.Y., Klemd, R., Yan, L.L., Zhang, Z.M., 2018. The origin and crustal evolution of Li, X.H., Li, W.X., Li, Z.X., Liu, Y., 2008. 850–790 Ma bimodal volcanic and intrusive rocks
194
in northern Zhejiang, South China: a major episode of continental rift magmatism with English abstract.
during the breakup of Rodinia. Lithos 102, 341–357. Liu, Y.C., Wang, C.C., Zhang, P.G., Groppo, C., Rolfo, F., Wang, A.D., 2015b. Granulite
Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Zhang, J., Sun, M., Zhang, G.W., Dai, L.M., 2010. Facies Metamorphism,Partial Melting and Metasomatism in the Wuhe Complex at the
Deformation history of the Hengshan–Wutai–Fuping Complexes: implications for the Southeastern Margin of the North China Block. J. Earth Sci. Environ. 37 (1), 1–11 in
evolution of the Trans-North China Orogen. Gondwana Res. 18, 611–631. Chinese with English abstract.
Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Santosh, M., Liu, X., Dai, L.M., Suo, Y.H., Tam, P.Y., Song, M.C., Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Wang, F., Liu, C.H., Yang, H., Liu, J.H., Cai, J., Shi, J.R., 2015c. P–T–t
Wang, P.C., 2012. Paleoproterozoic structural evolution of the southern segment of paths of the multiple metamorphic events of the Jiaobei terrane in the southeastern
the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 200–203, 59–73. segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB), in the North China Craton: impication for
Li, Z., Chen, B., Liu, J.W., Zhang, L., Yang, C., 2015a. Zircon U–Pb ages and their im- formation and evolution of the JLJB. Acta Petrol. Sin. 31 (10), 2889–2941 (in Chinese
plications for the South Liaohe Group in the Liaodong Peninsula, Northeast China. with English abstract).
Acta Petrol. Sin. 31 (6), 1589–1605 in Chinese with English abstract. Liu, F.L., Liu, C.H., Itano, K., Iizuka, T., Cai, J., Wang, F., 2017a. Geochemistry, U–Pb
Li, Z., Chen, B., Wei, C.J., Wang, C.X., Han, W., 2015b. Provenance and tectonic setting of dating, and Lu–Hf isotopes of zircon and monazite of porphyritic granites within the
the Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks from the Liaohe Group, Jiao-Liao-Ji Jiao-Liao-Ji orogenic belt: implications for petrogenesis and tectonic setting.
Belt, North China Craton: insights from detrital zircon U–Pb geochronology, whole- Precambrian Res. 300, 78–106.
rock Sm-Nd isotopes, and geochemistry. J. Asian Earth Sci. 111, 711–732. Liu, S.W., Wang, M.J., Wan, Y.S., Guo, R.R., Wang, W., Wang, K., Guo, B.R., Fu, J.H., Hu,
Li, Q.L., Zhao, L., Zhang, Y.B., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., Han, R.H., 2016. F.Y., 2017b. A reworked ∼3.45 Ga continental microblock of the North China
Zircon–titanite–rutile U–Pb system from metamorphic rocks of Jungshan "Group" in Craton: constraints from zircon U–Pb–Lu–Hf isotopic systematics of the Archean
Korea: implications of tectono-thermal events from Paleoproterozoic to Mesozoic. Beitai-Waitoushan migmatite-syenogranite complex. Precambrian Res. 303,
Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 (10), 3019–3032 in Chinese with English abstract. 332–354.
Li, C., Li, Z., Yang, C., 2017a. Palaeoproterozoic granitic magmatism in the northern Liu, P.H., Cai, J., Zou, L., 2017d. Metamorphic P–T–t path and its geological implication
segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt: implications for orogenesis along the Eastern Block of the Sanjiazi garnet amphibolites from the northern Liaodong Penisula, Jiao-Liao-Ji
of the North China Craton. Int. Geol. Rev. 60, 217–241. belt:Constraints on phase equilibria and zircon U–Pb dating. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9),
Li, C., Chen, B., Li, Z., Yang, C., 2017b. Petrologic and geochemical characteristics of 2649–2674 in Chinese with English abstract.
Paleoproterozoic monzogranitic gneisses from Xiuyan-Kuandian area in Liaodong Liu, F.L., Liu, L.S., Cai, J., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Liu, C.H., Liu, J.H., 2017e. A widespread
Peninsula and their tectonic implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (3), 963–977 in Paleoproterozoic partial melting event within the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China
Chinese with English abstract. Craton: zircon U-Pb dating of granitic leucosomes within pelitic granulites and its
Li, Y.L., Zhang, H.F., Guo, J.H., Li, C.F., 2017c. Petrogenesis of the Huili Paleoproterozoic tectonic implications. Precambrian Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2017.
leucogranite in the Jiaobei Terrane of the North China Craton: a highly fractionated 10.017.
albite granite forced by K-feldspar fractionation. Chem. Geol. 450, 165–182. Liu, Y.C., Zhang, P.G., Wang, C.C., Groppo, C., Rolfo, F., Yang, Y., Li, Y., Deng, L.P., Song,
Li, Z., Chen, B., Yan, X., 2018. The Liaohe Group: an insight into the Paleoproterozoic B., 2017f. Petrology, geochemistry and zirconology of impure calcite marbles from
tectonic evolution of the Jiao–Liao–Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. the Precambrian metamorphic basement at the southeastern margin of the North
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2018.01.009. China Craton. Lithos 290–291, 189–209.
Liao, X., Zhang, X.H., Kim, S.H., Park, U., Jong, C., 2016. Detrital zircon U–Pb ages of the Liu, C.H., Zhao, G.C., Liu, F.L., Cai, J., 2018a. The southwestern extension of the Jiao-
Machollyong Group in Korean Peninsula: regional correlation and tectonic implica- Liao-Ji belt in the North China Craton: geochronological and geochemical evidence
tions. Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 (10), 2981–2992 in Chinese with English abstract. from the Wuhe Group in the Bengbu area. Lithos 304–307, 258–279.
Liew, T.C., Hofmann, A.W., 1988. Precambrian crustal components, plutonic associations, Liu, J., Zhang, J., Liu, Z.H., Yin, C.Q., Zhao, C., Li, Z., Yang, Z.J., Dou, S.H., 2018b.
plate environment of the Hercynian Fold Belt of central Europe: indications from a Nd Geochemical and geochronological study on the Paleoproterozoic rock assemblage of
and Sr isotopic study. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 98, 129–138. the Xiuyan region: new constraints on an integrated rift-and-collision tectonic process
Liu, C.H., Cai, J., 2017. Provenance and depositional age of the Baiyunshan Formation of involving the evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian
the Fengyang Group in the Wuhe Complex: constraints from zircon U–Pb age and Res. 310, 179–197.
Lu–Hf isotopic studies. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2867–2880 in Chinese with English Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Tian, Z.H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Wang, F., 2019. Petrological and geochro-
abstract. nological evidence for Paleoproterozoic granulite-facies metamorphism of the South
Liu, D.Y., Nutman, A.P., Compston, W., Wu, J.S., Shen, Q.H., 1992. Remnants of > 3800 Liaohe Group in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. https://
Ma crust in the Chinese part of the Sino-Korean Craton. Geology 20, 339–342. doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2019.03.002.
Liu, J.L., Liu, Y.J., Chen, H., Sha, D.M., Wang, H.C., 1997. The inner zone of the Liaoji Lu, X.P., Wu, F.Y., Lin, J.Q., Sun, D.Y., Zhang, Y.B., Guo, C.L., 2004a. Geochronological
paleorift: its early structural styles and structural evolution. J. Asian Earth Sci. 15, successions of the early Precambrian granitic magmatism in southern Liaodong
19–31. Peninsula and its constraints on tectonic evolution of the North China Craton. Chin. J.
Liu, F.L., Xu, Z.Q., Liou, J.G., Song, B., 2004. SHRIMP U–Pb ages of ultrahigh-pressure Geol. 39 (1), 123–138 in Chinese with English abstract.
and retrograde metamorphism of gneisses, south-estern Sulu terrane, eastern China. Lu, X.P., Wu, F.Y., Zhang, Y.B., Zhao, C.B., Guo, C.L., 2004b. Emplacement age and
J. Metamorph. Geol. 22, 315–326. tectonic setting of the Paleoproterozoic Liaoji granites in Tonghua area, southern
Liu, D.Y., Wan, Y.S., Wu, J.S., Wilde, S.A., Zhou, H.Y., Dong, C.Y., Yin, X.Y., 2007. Jilin province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 20 (3), 381–392 in Chinese with English abstract.
Eoarchean rocks and zircons in the North China Craton. In: van Kranendonk, M., Lu, X.P., Wu, F.Y., Guo, J.H., Yin, C.J., 2005. Late Paleoproterozoic granitic magmatism
Smithies, R.H., Bennett, V. (Eds.), Earth's Oldest Rocks. 15. Elsevier Series and crustal evolution in the Tonghua region, northeast China. Acta Petrol. Sin. 21 (3),
‘Developments in Precambrian Geology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 251–273. 721–736 in Chinese with English abstract.
Liu, Y.C., Wang, A.D., Rolfo, F., Groppo, C., Gu, X.F., Song, B., 2009. Geochronological Lu, X.P., Wu, F.Y., Guo, J.H., Wilde, S.A., Yang, J.H., Liu, X.M., Zhang, X.O., 2006. Zircon
and petrological constraints on Palaeoproterozoic granulite facies metamorphism in U–Pb geochronological constraints on the Paleoproterozoic crustal evolution of the
southeastern margin of the North China Craton. J. Metamorph. Geol. 27, 125–138. Eastern block in the North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 146, 138–164.
Liu, J.H., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Ding, Z.J., 2011a. Polyphase magmatic and me- Luo, Y., Sun, M., Zhao, G.C., Li, S.Z., Xu, P., Ye, K., Xia, X.P., 2004. LA–ICP–MS U–Pb
tamorphic events from Early Precambrian metamorphic basement in Jiaobei area: zircon ages of the Liaohe Group in the Eastern Block of the North China Craton:
evidence from the zircon U–Pb dating of TTG and granitic gneisses. Acta Petrol. Sin. constraints on the evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt. Precambrian Res. 134, 349–371.
27 (4), 943–960 in Chinese with English abstract. Luo, Y., Sun, M., Zhao, G.C., Li, S.Z., Ayers, J.C., Xia, X.P., Zhang, J.H., 2008. A com-
Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Wang, F., Liu, J.H., 2011b. U–Pb dating of zircons from Al-rich parison of U-Pb and Hf isotopic compositions of detrital zircons from the North and
paragneisses of Jingshan Group in Shandong peninsula and its geological sig- South Liaohe Groups: constraints on the evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North
nificance. Acta Petrol. Mineral. 30 (5), 829–843 (in Chinese with English abstract). China Craton. Precambrian Res. 163, 279–306.
Liu, J.H., Liu, F.L., Ding, Z.J., Liu, C.H., Yang, H., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Meng, E., 2013. The Ma, L.J., Cui, Y.C., Liu, J.L., Zhang, J.B., 2007. Geochemical characteristics and the
growth, reworking and metamorphism of early Precambrian crust in the Jiaobei tectonic setting of amphibolites of the North Liaohe Group in Liaodong area. J.
terrane, the North China Craton: constraints from U–Th–Pb and Lu–Hf isotopic sys- Shanxi Univ. 30 (4), 515–524 in Chinese with English abstract.
tematics, and REE concentrations of zircon from Archean granitoid gneisses. Maniar, P.D., Piccoli, P.M., 1989. Tectonic discrimination of granitoids. Geol. Soc. Am.
Precambrian Res. 224, 287–303. Bull. 101, 635–643.
Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Liu, C.H., Wang, F., Liu, J.H., Yang, H., Cai, J., Shi, J.R., 2013a. Martin, H., 1999. The adakitic magmas: modern analogues of Archaean granitoids. Lithos
Petrogenesis, P–T–t path, and tectonic significance of high-pressure mafic granulites 46, 411–429.
from the Jiaobei terrane, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 233, 237–258. Martin, H., Smithies, R.H., Rapp, R., Moyen, J.F., Champion, D., 2005. An overview of
Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Wang, F., Liu, J.H., Cai, J., 2013b. Petrological and geochronological adakite, tonalite–trondhjemite–granite (TTG), and sanukitoid: relationship and some
preliminary study of the Xiliu ~2.1Ga meta-gabbro from the Jiaobei terrane, the implications for crustal evolution. Lithos 79, 1–24.
southern segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt in the North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. McDonough, W.F., 1990. Constraints on the composition of the continental lithospheric
29 (7), 2371–2390 in Chinese with English abstract. mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 101, 1–18.
Liu, J.H., Liu, F.L., Ding, Z.J., Liu, P.H., Guo, C.L., Wang, F., 2014a. Geochronology, McKenzie, D., 1989. Some remarks on the movement of small melt fractions in the
petrogenesis and tectonic implications of Paleoproterozoic granitoid rocks in the mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 95, 53–72.
Jiaobei Terrane, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 255, 685–698. Meng, E., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Liu, C.H., Yang, H., Wang, F., Shi, J.R., Cai, J., 2014.
Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Liu, J.H., Meng, E., Cai, J., Shi, J.R., 2014b. U–Pb dating of Petrogenesis and tectonic significance of Paleoproterozoic meta-mafic rocks from
zircons from granitic leucosomes in migmatites of the Jiaobei Terrane, southwestern central Liaodong Peninsula, northeast China: evidence from zircon U–Pb dating and
Jiao–Liao–Ji Belt, North China Craton: constraints on the timing and nature of partial in situ Lu–Hf isotopes, and whole-rock geochemistry. Precambrian Res. 247, 92–109.
melting. Precambrian Res. 245, 80–99. Meng, E., Wang, C.Y., Li, Y.G., Li, Z., Yang, H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Jin, M.Q., 2017a. Zircon
Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Liu, C.H., Cai, J., 2015a. Progresses and overviews of vo- U–Pb–Hf isotopic and whole-rock geochemical studies of Paleoproterozoic metase-
luminous meta-sedimentary series within the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji orogenic/ dimentary rocks in the northern segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, China: implications
mobile belt, North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 31 (10), 2816–2846 in Chinese for provenance and regional tectonic evolution. Precambrian Res. 298, 472–489.
195
Meng, E., Wang, C.Y., Li, Z., Li, Y.G., Yang, H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Jin, M.Q., 2017b. Song, B., Nutman, A.P., Liu, D.Y., Wu, J.S., 1996. 3800 to 2500 Ma crustal evolution in
Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks of the Ji'an Group and their significance for the Anshan area of Liaoning Province, northeastern China. Precambrian Res. 78,
the tctonic evolution of the noorthern segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China 79–94.
Craton. Geol. Mag. 155, 149–173. Song, Y.H., Yang, F.C., Yan, G.L., Wei, M.H., Shi, S.S., 2016. SHRIMP U–Pb ages and Hf
Meng, E., Wang, C.Y., Yang, H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Li, Y.G., 2017c. Paleoproterozoic meta- isotopic compositions of Paleoproterozoic granites from the eastern part of Liaoning
volcanic rocks in the Ji’an Group and constraints on the formation and evolution of Province and their tectonic significance. Acta Geol. Sin. 90 (10), 2620–2636 in
the northern segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, China. Precambrian Res. 294, 133–150. Chinese with English abstract.
Meng, E., Wang, C.Y., Liu, C.H., Shi, J.R., Li, Y.G., 2017d. Geochronology, petrogenesis Sun, S.S., McDonough, W.F., 1989. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts:
and constraints on regional tectonic evolution of the meta-volcanic Rocks in implications for mantle composition and processes. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 42,
Southeastern Liaodong Peninsula. J. Jilin Univ. (Earth Sci. Ed.) 47, 1589–1619 in 313–413.
Chinese with English abstract. Sun, M., Armstrong, R.L., Lambert, R.S.J., Jiang, C.C., Wu, J.H., 1993. Petrochemistry and
Middlemost, E.A.K., 1994. Naming materials in the magma/igneous rock system. Earth Sr, Pb and Nd isotopic geochemistry of the paleoproterozoic kuandian complex, the
Sci. Rev. 37, 215–224. eastern liaoning province, china. Precambrian Res. 62, 171–190.
Miller, C.F., Mcdowell, S.M., Mapes, R.W., 2003. Hot and cold granites? Implications of Sun, M., Zhang, L.F., Wu, J.H., 1996. The origin of the early Proterozoic Kuandian
zircon saturation temperatures and preservation of inheritance. Geology 31, Complex: evidence from geochemistry. Acta Geol. Sin. 70 (3), 207–222 in Chinese
529–532. with English abstract.
Miyashiro, A., 1978. Nature of alkalic volcanic rock series. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 66, Sun, J.F., Yang, J.H., Wu, F.Y., Wilde, S.A., 2012. Precambrian crustal evolution of the
91–104. eastern North China Craton as revealed by U–Pb ages and Hf isotopes of detrital
Moyen, J.F., 2009. High Sr/Y and La/Yb ratios: the meaning of the “adakitic signature”. zircons from the Proterozoic Jing’eryu Formation. Precambrian Res. 200–203,
Lithos 112, 556–574. 184–208.
Muir, R.J., Weaver, S.D., Bradshaw, J.D., Eby, G.N., Evans, J.A., 1995. The Cretaceous Tam, P.Y., Zhao, G.C., Liu, F.L., Zhou, X.W., Sun, M., Li, S.Z., 2011. Timing of meta-
separation point batholith, New Zealand: granitiod magmas formed by melting of morphism in the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt: new SHRIMP U–Pb zircon dating
mafic lithosphere. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 152, 689–701. of granulites, gneisses and marbles of the Jiaobei massif in the North China Craton.
Niu, Y.L., O'Hara, M.J., Pearce, J.A., 2003. Initiation of subduction zones as a con- Gondwana Res. 19, 150–162.
sequence of lateral compositional buoyancy contrast within the lithosphere: a pet- Tam, P.Y., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Li, S.Z., Iizuka, Y.Y., Ma, G.S.K., Yin, C.Q., He, Y.H., Wu,
rological perspective. J. Petrol. 44, 851–866. M.L., 2012a. Metamorphic P–T path and tectonic implications of medium-pressure
Oh, C.W., Lee, B.C., Yi, S.-B., Ryu, H.I., 2018. Correlation of Paleoproterozoic igneous and pelitic granulites from the Jiaobei massif in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton.
metamorphic events of the Korean Peninsula and China; Its implication to the tec- Precambrian Res. 220–221, 177–191.
tonics of Northeast Asia. Precambrian Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres. Tam, P.Y., Zhao, G.C., Zhou, X.W., Sun, M., Guo, J.H., Li, S.Z., Yin, C.Q., Wu, M.L., He,
2018.03.010. Y.H., 2012b. Metamorphic P–T path and implications of high-pressure pelitic gran-
Pearce, J.A., 1996. A user's guide to basalt discrimination diagrams. In: Wyman, D.A. ulites from the Jiaobei massif in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Gondwana
(Ed.), Trace Element Geochemistry of Volcanic Rocks. Applications for Massive Res. 22, 104–117.
Sulphide Exploration Geological Association of Canada, pp. 77–113 Short Course Tang, L., Santosh, M., 2018. Neoarchean-Paleoproterozoic terrane assembly and Wilson
Notes. cycle in the North China Craton: an overview from the central segment of the Trans-
Peng, Q.M., Palmer, M.R., 1995. The Palaeoproterozoic boron deposits in eastern North China Orogen. Earth Sci. Rev. 182, 1–27.
Liaoning, China: a metamorphosed evaporite. Precambrian Res. 72, 185–197. Tang, J., Zheng, Y.F., Wu, Y.B., Gong, B., Liu, X., 2007. Geochronology and geochemistry
Peng, T.P., Wilde, S.A., Fan, W.M., Peng, B.X., 2013. Late Neoarchean potassic high Ba–Sr of metamorphic rocks in the Jiaobei terrane: constraints on its tectonic affinity in the
granites in the Taishan granite–greenstone terrane: petrogenesis and implications for Sulu orogen. Precambrian Res. 152, 48–82.
continental crustal evolution. Chem. Geol. 344, 23–41. Tarney, J., Jones, C.E., 1994. Trace element geochemistry of orogenic igneous rocks and
Peng, P., Wang, X.P., Windley, B.F., Guo, J.H., Zhai, M.G., Li, Y., 2014. Spatial dis- crustal growth models. J. Geol. Soc. 151, 855–868.
tribution of ~1950–1800 Ma metamorphic events in the North China Craton: im- Tatsumi, Y., Eggins, S., 1995. Subduction Zone Magmatism. Blackwell Science,
plications for tectonic subdivision of the craton. Lithos 202–203, 250–266. Cambridge, pp. 1–211.
Peng, P., Wang, C., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., 2016a. A preliminary study on the rock series Taylor, B., Martinez, F., 2003. Back-arc basin basalt systematics. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
and tectonic environment of the ~1.9 Ga plutonic rocks in DPR Korea. Acta Petrol. 210, 481–497.
Sin. 32 (10), 2993–3018 in Chinese with English abstract. Teng, D.W., Wang, Y.K., Hao, X.J., Liu, Z.H., Zhu, K., 2017. Petrogenesis of Liaoji granites
Peng, C., Xue, L.F., Zhu, M., Chai, Y., Liu, W.Y., 2016b. The location and evolution of the in Yongdian area of Liaoning and their constraints on tectonic evolution of Liao–Ji
tectonic boundary between the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt and the Longgang mobile belt. Global Geology 36 (4), 1100–1115 in Chinese with English abstract.
Block, northeast China. Precambrian Res. 272, 18–38. Tian, R.C., Li, D.P., Hou, J.H., Zhu, D.C., Li, J.J., Tian, J.P., Zhang, P.P., Guo, R.P., Huang,
Perrin, A., Goes, S., Prytulak, J., Rondenay, S., Davies, D.R., 2018. Mantle wedge tem- Y.B., 2017a. Zircon U–Pb dating, Hf isotope composition and tectono-magmatic
peratures and their potential relation to volcanic arc location. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. evolutionary significance the Paleoproterozoic Monzogranite in Changyi Area,
501, 67–77. Eastern Shandong. Acta Geol. Sin. 91 (12), 2710–2726 in Chinese with English ab-
Qian, Q., Chung, S.L., Lee, T.Y., Wen, D.J., 2003. Mesozoic high-Ba-Sr granitoids from stract.
North China: geochemical characteristics and geological implications. Terra Nova 15, Tian, Z.H., Liu, F.L., Windley, B.F., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Liu, C.H., Wang, W., Cai, J., Xiao,
272–278. W.J., 2017b. Polyphase structural deformation of low-to medium-grade metamorphic
Qin, Y., 2013. Geochronological Constraints in the Tectonic Evolution of the Liao-ji rocks of the Liaohe Group in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Orogenic Belt, North China Craton:
Paleoproterozoic rift zone. Ph. D. Dissertation. College of earth science, Jilin correlations with tectonic evolution. Precambrian Res. 303, 641–659.
University, Changchun (in Chinese with English abstract). Wan, Y.S., Song, B., Liu, D.Y., Wilde, S.A., Wu, J.S., Shi, Y.R., Yin, X.Y., Zhou, H.Y., 2006.
Reagan, M.K., Ishizuka, O., Stern, R.J., Kelley, K.A., Ohara, Y., Blichert-Toft, J., Bloomer, SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology of Palaeoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks in
S.H., Cash, J., Fryer, P., Hanan, B.B., Hickey-Vargas, R., Ishii, T., Kimura, J.I., Peate, the North China Craton: evidence for a major Late Palaeoproterozoic tectonothermal
D.W., Rowe, M.C., Woods, M., 2010. Fore-arc basalts and subduction initiation in the event. Precambrian Res. 149, 249–271.
Izu-Bonin-Marianan system. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 11. https://doi.org/10. Wan, Y.S., Liu, D.Y., Wang, S.J., Yang, E.X., Wang, W., Dong, C.Y., Zhou, H.Y., Du, L.L.,
1029/2009GC002871. Yang, Y.H., Diwu, C.R., 2011a. ∼2.7Ga juvenile crust formation in the North China
Ren, Y.W., Wang, H.C., Kang, J.L., Chu, H., Tian, H., 2017. Paleoproterozoic magmatic Craton (Taishan-Xintai area, western Shandong Province): further evidence of an
events in the Hupiyu area in Yingkou, Liaoning Province and their geological sig- understated event from U–Pb dating and Hf isotopic composition of zircon.
nificance. Acta Geol. Sin. 91 (11), 2456–2472 in Chinese with English abstract. Precambrian Res. 186, 169–180.
Roderíguez, C., Sellés, D., Dungan, M., Langmuir, C., Leeman, W., 2007. Adakitic dacites Wan, Y.S., Liu, D.Y., Wang, W., Song, T.R., Kroner, A., Dong, C.Y., Zhou, H.Y., Yin, X.Y.,
formed by intracrustal crystal fractionation of water-rich parent magmas at Nevado 2011b. Provenance of Meso- to Neoproterozoic cover sediments at the Ming Tombs,
de Longaví| Volcano (36.2°S; Andean SouthernVolcanic Zone, Central Chile). J. Beijing, North China Craton: an integrated study of U–Pb dating and Hf isotopic
Petrol. 48, 2033–2061. measurement of detrital zircons and whole-rock geochemistry. Gondwana Res. 20,
Ross, P.S., Bédard, J.H., 2009. Magmatic affinity of modern and ancient subalkaline 219–242.
volcanic rocks determined from trace-element discriminant diagrams. Can. J. Earth Wan, Y.S., Liu, D.Y., Nutman, A., Zhou, H.Y., Dong, C.Y., Yin, X.Y., Ma, M.Z., 2012.
Sci. 46, 823–839. Multiple 3.8-3.1 Ga tectono-magmatic events in a newly discovered area of ancient
Rudnick, R.L., Gao, S., 2014. The composition of the continental crust. In: Holland, H.D., rocks (the Shengousi Complex), Anshan, North China Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci.
Turekian, K.K. (Eds.), The Crust, Treatise on Geochemistry. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 54–55, 18–30.
1–51. Wan, Y.S., Xie, S.W., Yang, C.H., Kröner, A., Ma, M.Z., Dong, C.Y., Du, L.L., Xie, H.Q., Liu,
Santosh, M., 2010. Assembling North China Craton within the Columbia supercontinent: D.Y., 2014. Early Neoarchean (∼2.7 Ga) tectono-thermal events in the North China
the role of double-sided subduction. Precambrian Res. 178, 149–167. Craton: a synthesis. Precambrian Res. 247, 45–63.
Shan, H.X., Zhai, M.G., Oliveira, E.P., Santosh, M., Oliveira, E.P., Wang, F., 2015. Wan, Y.S., Ma, M.Z., Dong, C.Y., Xie, H.Q., Xie, S.W., Ren, P., Liu, D.Y., 2015a.
Convergent margin magmatism and crustal evolution during Archean-Proterozoic Widespread late Neoarchean reworking of Meso- to Paleoarchean continental crust in
transition in the Jiaobei terrane: zircon U–Pb ages, geochemistry, and Nd isotopes of the Anshan-Benxi area, North China Craton, as documented by U–Pb–Nd–Hf–O iso-
amphibolites and associated grey gneisses in the Jiaodong complex, North China topes. Am. J. Sci. 315, 620–670.
Craton. Precambrian Res. 264, 98–118. Wan, Y.S., Liu, D.Y., Dong, C.Y., Xie, H.Q., Kröner, A., Ma, M.Z., Liu, S.J., Xie, S.W., Ren,
Shen, B.F., Luo, H., Han, G.G., Dai, X.Y., Jin, W.S., Hu, X.D., Li, S.B., Bi, S.Y., 1994. P., 2015b. Formation and evolution of archean continental crust of the North China
Archean Geology and Mineralization of Northern Liaoning and Southern Jilin Craton. In: Zhai, M.G. (Ed.), Precambrian Geology of China. Springer, pp. 59–136.
Province. Geological Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 1–255 in Chinese with English Wang, P.C., 1995. Relationships between the Jingshan Group and the Fenzishan Group in
abstract. the Jiaobei area. Reg. Geol. China 1, 15–20 in Chinese with English abstract.
196
Wang, Q., Wyman, D.A., Xu, J.F., Zhao, Z.H., Jian, P., Xiong, X.L., Bao, Z.W., Li, C.F., Bai, formation in the North China Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 24, 523–545.
Z.H., 2006. Petrogenesis of Cretaceous adakitic and shoshonitic igneous rocks in the Wu, F.Y., Yang, J.H., Wilde, S.A., Liu, X.M., Guo, J.H., Zhai, M.G., 2007a. Detrital zircon
Luzong area, Anhui Province (eastern China): implications for geodynamics and U–Pb and Hf isotopic constraints on the crustal evolution of North Korea.
Cu–Au mineralization. Lithos 89, 424–446. Precambrian Res. 159, 155–177.
Wang, H.C., Lu, S.N., Chu, H., Xiang, Z.Q., Zhang, C.J., Liu, H., 2011. Zircon U–Pb age Wu, F.Y., Li, X.H., Yang, J.H., Zheng, Y.F., 2007b. Discussions on the petrogenesis of
and tectonic setting of meta-basalts of Liaohe Group in Helan area, Liaoyang, granites. Acta Petrol. Sin. 23 (6), 1217–1238.
Liaoning Province. J. Jilin Univ. (Earth Sci. Ed.) 41 (5), 1322–1334 (in Chinese with Wu, F.Y., Han, R.H., Yang, J.H., Wilde, S.A., Zhai, M.G., Park, S.C., 2007c. Initial con-
English abstract). straints on the timing of granitic magmatism in North Korea using U–Pb zircon
Wang, A.D., Liu, Y.C., Santosh, M., Gu, X.F., 2013. Zircon U–Pb geochronology, geo- geochronology. Chem. Geol. 238, 232–248.
chemistry and Sr–Nd–Pb isotopes from the metamorphic basement in the Wuhe Wu, F.Y., Zhang, Y.B., Yang, J.H., Xie, L.W., Yang, Y.H., 2008. Zircon U-Pb and Hf iso-
Complex: implications for Neoarchean active continental margin along the south- topic constraints on the Early Archean crustal evolution in Anshan of the North China
eastern North China Craton and constraints on the petrogenesis of Mesozoic grani- Craton. Precambrian Res. 167, 339–362.
toids. Geosci. Front. 4, 57–71. Wu, M.L., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Bao, Z.A., Tam, P.Y., He, Y.H., 2013. Tectonic affinity and
Wang, W., Zhai, M.G., Li, T.S., Santosh, M., Zhao, L., Wang, H.Z., 2014. Archean- reworking of the Archaean Jiaodong Terrane in the Eastern Block of the North China
Paleoproterozoic crustal evolution in the eastern North China Craton: zircon Craton: evidence from LA–ICP–MS U–Pb zircon ages. Geol. Mag. 151, 365–371.
U–Th–Pb and Lu–Hf evidence from the Jiaobei terrane. Precambrian Res. 241, Wu, M.L., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Li, S.Z., Bao, Z.A., Tam, P.Y., Eizenhöefer, P.R., He, Y.H.,
146–160. 2014. Zircon U-Pb geochronology and Hf isotopes of major lithologies from the
Wang, W., Liu, S.W., Santosh, M., Wang, G.H., Bai, X., Guo, R.R., 2015. Neoarchean intra- Jiaodong Terrane: implications for the crustal evolution of the Eastern Block of the
oceanic arc system in the Western Liaoning Province: implications for early North China Craton. Lithos 190–191, 71–84.
Precambrian crustal evolution in the Eastern Block of the North China Craton. Earth Wu, F.Y., Li, Q.L., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., Han, R.H., 2016. Crustal growth and evolution of
Sci. Rev. 150, 329–364. the Rangnim Massif, northern Korean Peninsula. Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 (10), 2933–2947
Wang, X.P., Peng, P., Wang, C., Yang, S.Y., 2016a. Petrogenesis of the 2115 Ma Haicheng in Chinese with English abstract.
mafic sills from the Eastern North China Craton: implications for an intra-continental Wu, F.Y., Liu, X.C., Ji, W.Q., Wang, J.M., Yang, L., 2017. Highly fractionated granites:
rifting. Gondwana Res. 39, 347–364. recognition and research. Sci. China Earth Sci. 60, 1201–1219 in Chinese with
Wang, W., Zhai, M.G., Wang, S.J., Santosh, M., 2016b. Neoarchean crustal evolution in English abstract.
western Shandong Province of the North China Craton: the role of 2.7–2.6 Ga mag- Xiao, L., Rapp, P.R., Xu, J.F., 2004. The role of deep processes controls on variation of
matism. Precambrian Res. 285, 170–185. compositions of adakitic rocks. Acta Petrol. Sin. 20 (2), 219–228 in Chinese with
Wang, C., Song, S.G., Niu, Y.L., Wei, C.J., Su, L., 2016c. TTG and potassic granitoids in the English abstract.
Eastern North China craton: making neoarchean upper continental crust during Xiao, W., Windley, B.F., Han, C.M., Liu, W., Wan, B., Zhang, J.E., Ao, S.J., Zhang, Z.Y.,
micro-continental collision and post-collisional extension. J. Petrol. 57, 1775–1810. Song, D.F., 2017. Late Paleozoic to early Triassic multiple roll-back and oroclinal
Wang, F., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Cai, J., Schertl, H.P., Ji, L., Liu, L.S., Tian, Z.H., 2017a. In bending of the Mongolia collage in Central Asia. Earth Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.
situ zircon U–Pb dating and whole-rock geochemistry of metasedimentary rocks from 1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.020.
South Liaohe Group, Jiao-Liao-Ji orogenic belt: constraints on the depositional and Xie, S.W., Wang, S.J., Xie, H.Q., Liu, S.J., Dong, C.Y., Ma, M.Z., Liu, D.Y., Wan, Y.S.,
metamorphic ages, and implications for tectonic setting. Precambrian Res. 303, 2014a. SHRIMP U–Pb dating of detrital zircons from the Fenzishan Group in eastern
764–780. Shandong, North China craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 30 (10), 2989–2998 in Chinese with
Wang, X.P., Peng, P., Wang, C., Yang, S.Y., Söderlund, U., Su, X.D., 2017b. Nature of three English abstract.
episodes of Paleoproterozoic magmatism (2180 Ma, 2115 Ma and 1890 Ma) in the Xie, S.W., Xie, H.Q., Wang, S.J., Kröner, A., Liu, S.J., Zhou, H.Y., Ma, M.Z., Dong, C.Y.,
Liaoji belt, North China with implications for tectonic evolution. Precambrian Res. Liu, D.Y., Wan, Y.S., 2014b. Ca. 2.9 Ga granitoid magmatism in eastern Shandong,
298, 252–267. North China Craton: zircon dating, Hf-in-zircon isotopic analysis and whole-rock
Wang, C.C., Liu, Y.C., Zhang, P.G., Zhao, G.C., Wang, A.D., Song, B., 2017c. Zircon U–Pb geochemistry. Precambrian Res. 255, 538–562.
geochronology and geochemistry of two types of Paleoproterozoic granitoids from Xiong, X.L., Adam, J., Green, T.H., 2005. Rutile stability and rutile/melt HFSE parti-
the southeastern margin of the North China Craton: constraints on petrogenesis and tioning during partial melting of hydrous basalt: implications for TTG genesis. Chem.
tectonic significance. Precambrian Res. 303, 268–290. Geol. 218, 339–359.
Wang, W., Cawood, P.A., Liu, S., Guo, R., Bai, X., Wang, K., 2017d. Cyclic formation and Xu, H.R., Yang, Z.Y., Peng, P., Meert, J.G., Zhu, R.X., 2014. Paleo-position of the North
stabilization of Archean lithosphere by accretionary orogenesis: constraints from TTG China craton within the supercontinent Columbia: constraints from new paleomag-
and potassic granitoids, North China Craton. Tectonics 36, 1724–1742. netic results. Precambrian Res. 255, 276–293.
Wang, W., Yang, H., Ji, L., 2017e. The identification of the Neoarchean 2.52~2.46Ga Xu, C., Kynicky, J., Tao, R., Liu, X., Zhang, L., Pohanka, M., Song, W., Fei, Y., 2017a.
tectono-thermal events from the Liaonan terrain and its geological significance. Acta Recovery of an oxidized majorite inclusion from Earth's deep asthenosphere. Sci. Adv.
Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2775–2784 (in Chinese with English abstract). 3, e1601589.
Wang, M.J., Liu, S.W., Fu, J.H., Wang, K., Guo, R.R., Guo, B.R., 2017f. Neoarchean DTTG Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Liu, C.H., 2017b. Petrogenesis and geochemical characteristics of the
gneisses in southern Liaoning Province and their constraints on crustal growth and North Liaohe metabasic rocks, Jiao-Liao-Ji orogenic belt and their tectonic sig-
the nature of the Liao-Ji Belt in the Eastern Block. Precambrian Res. 303, 183–207. nificance. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2743–2757 in Chinese with English abstract.
Wang, X.J., Liu, J.H., Ji, L., 2017g. Zircon U–Pb chronology, geochemistry and their Xu, C., Kynicky, J., Song, W., Tao, R., Lu, Z., Li, Y., Yang, Y., Pohanka, M., Galiova, M.V.,
petrogenesis of Paleoproterozoic monzogranitic gneisses in Kuandian area, eastern Zhang, L., Fei, Y., 2018a. Cold deep subduction recorded by remnants of a
Liaoning Province, Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), Paleoproterozoic carbonated slab. Nat. Commun. 9, 2790. https://doi.org/10.1038/
2689–2707 (in Chinese with English abstract). s41467-018-05140-5.
Wang, P.S., Dong, Y.S., Li, F.Q., Gao, B.S., Gan, Y.C., Chen, M.S., Xu, W., 2017h. Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Tian, Z.H., Liu, L.S., Ji, L., Dong, Y.S., 2018b. Source and petrogenesis of
Paleoproterozoic granitic magmatism and geological significance in Huanghuadian Paleoproterozoic meta-mafic rocks intruding into the North Liaohe Group: implica-
area, eastern Liaoning Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2708–2724 (in Chinese with tions for back-arc extension prior to the formation of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North
English abstract). China Craton. Precambrian Res. 307, 66–81.
Wang, F., Liu, J.H., Liu, C.H., 2017i. Detrital zircon U–Pb geochronology of metasedi- Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Santosh, M., Liu, P.H., Tian, Z.H., Dong, Y.S., 2018c. Constraints of
mentary rocks from the Li'eryu Formation of the South Liaohe Group in Sanjiazi area, mafic rocks on a Paleoproterozoic back-arc in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China
the South Liaoning Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2785–2791 (in Chinese with Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 166, 195–209.
English abstract). Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Wang, F., Santosh, M., Dong, Y.S., 2019a. Paleoproterozoic tectonic
Wang, C.Y., Meng, E., Yang, H., Liu, C.H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Li, Y.G., 2018a. Geochronological evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton: geochemical and isotopic
and petrogenetic constraints on the regional tectonic evolution of the Guanghua evidence from ca. 2.17 Ga felsic tuff. Geol. J. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.3380.
Group in northeastern Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, China. Precambrian Res. 305, 427–443. Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Tian, Z.H., Cai, J., Wang, W., Ji, L., 2019b. Paleoproterozoic
Wang, F., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Liu, L.S., Tian, Z.H., 2018b. Redefinition of the transition in tectonic regime recorded by the Eastern Block of the North China
Gaixian Formation of the South Liaohe Group: evidence from the detrital zircon U-Pb Craton: evidence from detrital zircons of the Langzishan Formation, Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt.
geochronology of metamorphosed sandstone in Huanghuadian-Suzigou area, the Int. Geol. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/00206814.2019.1594413.
southern Liaoning Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 34 (4), 1219–1228 in Chinese with Yang, J.H., Wu, F.Y., Xie, L.W., Liu, X.M., 2007a. Petrogenesis and tectonic implications
English abstract. of Kuangdonggou syenites in the Liaodong Peninsula, east North China Craton:
Wang, W., Liu, F.L., Ji, L., Santosh, M., 2019. Geochronology and geochemistry of the constraints from in-situ zircon U–Pb ages and Hf isotopes. Acta Petrol. Sin. 23,
Neoarchean Lulong Complex in the eastern Hebei Province, North China Craton: 263–276 in Chinese with English abstract.
implications on regional crustal evolution. Precambrian Res. 323, 102–125. Yang, J.H., Wu, F.Y., Wilde, S.A., Xie, L.W., Yang, Y.H., Liu, X.M., 2007b. Tracing magma
Wasserburg, G.J., Jacobsen, S.B., DePaolo, D.J., McCulloch, M.T., Wen, T., 1981. Precise mixing in granite genesis: in situ U–Pb dating and Hf-isotope analysis of zircons.
determination of Sm/Nd ratios, Sm and Nd isotopic abundances in standard solu- Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 153, 177–190.
tions. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 45, 2311–2323. Yang, J.H., Wu, F.Y., Wilde, S.A., Zhao, G.C., 2008. Petrogenesis and geodynamics of Late
Watson, E.B., Harrison, T.M., 1983. Zircon saturation revisited: temperature and com- Archean magmatism in eastern Hebei, eastern North China Craton: geochronological,
position effects in a variety of crustal magma types. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 64, geochemical and Nd-Hf isotopic evidence. Precambrian Res. 167, 125–149.
295–304. Yang, D.B., Xu, W.L., Pei, F.P., Wang, Q.H., 2009. Petrogenesis of the Paleoproterozoic K-
Wei, C.J., Qian, J.H., Zhou, X.W., 2014. Paleoproterozoic crustal evolution of the feldspar granites in Bengbu Uplift: constraints from petro-geochemistry, zircon U–Pb
Hengshan-Wutai-Fuping redion, North China Craton. Geosci. Front. 5, 485–497. dating and Hf isotope. Earth Sci. J. China Univ. Geosci. 34 (1), 148–164.
Whalen, J.B., Currie, K.L., Chappell, B.W., 1987. A-type granites: geochemical char- Yang, J.H., O'Reilly, S., Walker, R.J., Griffin, W., Wu, F.Y., Zhang, M., Pearson, N., 2010.
acteristics, discrimination and petrogenesis. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 95, 407–419. Diachronous decratonization of the Sino-Korean craton: geochemistry of mantle xe-
Wu, F.Y., Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Sun, D.Y., 2005. Nd isotopic constraints on crustal noliths from North Korea. Geology 38, 799–802.
197
Yang, M.C., Chen, B., Yan, C., 2015a. Petrogenesis of Paleoproterozoic gneissic granites 2018. Geochemistry, zircon U-Pb dating and tectonic implications of the
from Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt of North China Craton and their tectonic implications. J. Earth Palaeoproterozoic Ji’an and Laoling groups, northeastern Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North
Sci. Environ. 37 (5), 31–51 in Chinese with English abstract. China Craton. Precambrian Res. 314, 264–287.
Yang, M.C., Chen, B., Yan, C., 2015b. Petrological, geochronological, geochemical and Sr- Zhao, G.C., Zhai, M.G., 2013. Lithotectonic elements of Precambrian basement in the
Nd-Hf isotopic constraints on the petrogenesis of the Shuangcha Paleoproterozoic North China Cration: review and tectonic implications. Gondwana Res. 23,
megaporphyritic granite in the southern Jilin Province: tectonic implications. Acta 1207–1240.
Petrol. Sin. 31 (6), 1573–1588 in Chinese with English abstract. Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Sun, M., 2001. Archean blocks and their bound-
Yang, M.C., Chen, B., Yan, C., 2016. Paleoproterozoic gneissic granites in the Liaoji aries in the North China Craton: lithological, geochemical, structural and P–T path
Mobile belt, North China Craton: implications for tectonic setting. In: Zhai, M.G., constraints and tectonic evolution. Precambrian Res. 107, 45–73.
Zhao, Y., Zhao, T.P. (Eds.), Main Tectonic Events and Metallogeny of the North China Zhao, G.C., Cawood, P.A., Wilde, S.A., Sun, M., 2002. Review of global 2.1–1.8 Ga oro-
Craton. Springer, pp. 155–180. gens: implications for a pre-Rodinia supercontinent. Earth Sci. Rev. 59, 125–162.
Yang, H., Wang, W., Liu, J.H., 2017. Zircon U–Pb dating and its geological significance of Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Wilde, S.A., Li, S.Z., 2005. Late Archean to Paleoproterozoic evo-
granitic pegmatites from the Kuandian and Sanjiazi area in eastern Liaoning lution of the North China Craton: key issues revisited. Precambrian Res. 136,
Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2675–2688 in Chinese with English abstract. 177–202.
Yu, J.J., Yang, D.B., Feng, H., Lan, X., 2007. Chronology of amphibolite protolith in Zhao, G.C., Cao, L., Wilde, S., Sun, M., Choe, W., Li, S.Z., 2006. Implications based on the
Haicheng of southern Liaoning: evidence from LA–ICP–MS zircon U–Pb dating. Glob. first SHRIMP U–Pb zircon dating on Precambrian granitoid rocks in North Korea.
Geol. 26 (4), 391–396 in Chinese with English abstract. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 251, 365–379.
Yuan, L., Zhang, X., Xue, F., Han, C., Chen, H., Zhai, M., 2015. Two episodes of Zhao, G.C., Cawood, P.A., Li, S.Z., Wilde, S.A., Sun, M., Zhang, J., He, Y.H., Yin, C.Y.,
Paleoproterozoic mafic intrusions from Liaoning province, North China Craton: pet- 2012. Amalgamation of the North China Craton: key issues and discussion.
rogenesis and tectonic implications. Precambrian Res. 264, 119–139. Precambrian Res. 222–223, 56–76.
Zhai, M.G., Liu, W.J., 2003. Palaeoproterozoic tectonic history of the North China craton: Zhao, L., Zhang, Y.B., Yang, J.H., Han, R.Y., Kim, J.N., 2016a. Archean rocks at the
a review. Precambrian Res. 122, 183–199. southeastern margin of the Rangnim massif, northern Korean Peninsula, and their
Zhai, M.G., Santosh, M., 2011. The early Precambrian odyssey of North China Craton: a response to Paleoproterozoic tectonothermal event. Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 (10),
synoptic overview. Gondwana Res. 20, 6–25. 2948–2964 in Chinese with English abstract.
Zhai, M.G., Santosh, M., 2013. Metallogeny of the North China Craton: link with secular Zhao, L., Zhang, Y.B., Wu, F.Y., Li, Q.L., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., Choi, W.J., 2016b.
changes in the evolving Earth. Gondwana Res. 24, 275–297. Paleoproterozoic high temperature metamorphism and anatexis in the northwestern
Zhang, Q.S., 1984. Geology and Metallogeny of the Early Precambrian in China. Jilin Korean Peninsula: constraints from petrology and zircon U–Pb geochronology. Acta
People’s Publishing House, Changchun, pp. 66–70 in Chinese with English abstract. Petrol. Sin. 32 (10), 3045–3069 in Chinese with English abstract.
Zhang, Q.S., Yang, Z.S., 1988. Early Crust and Mineral Deposits of Liaodong Peninsula, Zheng, Y.F., Wu, R.X., Wu, Y.B., Zhang, S.B., Yuan, H., Wu, F.Y., 2008. Rift melting of
China. Geological Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 1–575 (in Chinese with English juvenile arc-derived crust: geochemical evidence from Neoproterozoic volcanic and
abstract). granitic rocks in the Jiangnan Orogen, South China. Precambrian Res. 163, 351–383.
Zhang, X.O., Cawood, P.A., Wilde, S.A., Liu, R., Song, H., Li, W., Snee, L.W., 2003. Zhou, X.W., Zhao, G.C., Wei, C.J., Geng, Y.S., Sun, M., 2008a. EPMA U–Th–Pb monazite
Geology and timing of mineralization at the Cangshang gold deposit, north-western and SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology of high-pressure pelitic granulites in the
Jiaodong Peninsula, China. Mineral. Deposita 38, 141–153. Jiaobei massif of the North China Craton. Am. J. Sci. 308, 328–350.
Zhang, Y.F., Liu, J.D., Xiao, R.G., Wang, S.Z., Wang, J., Bao, D.J., 2010. The hyalo- Zhou, J.B., Wilde, S.A., Zhao, G.C., Zheng, C.Q., Jin, W., Zhang, X.Z., Cheng, H., 2008b.
tourmalites of Houxianyu borate deposit in eastern Liaoning: zircon features and SHRIMP U-Pb zircon dating of the Neoproterozoic Penglai Group and Archean
SHRIMP dating. Earth Sci. J. China Univ. Geosci. 35, 985–999 in Chinese with gneisses from the Jiaobei Terrane, North China, and their tectonic implications.
English abstract. Precambrian Res. 160, 323–340.
Zhang, S.H., Zhao, Y., Santosh, M., 2012a. Mid-Mesoproterozoic bimodal magmatic rocks Zhu, Y.S., Yang, J.H., Wang, H., Wu, F.Y., 2019. A Palaeoproterozoic basement beneath
in the northern North China Craton: implications for magmatism related to breakup the Rangnim Massif revealed by the in situ U–Pb ages and Hf isotopes of xenocrystic
of the Columbia supercontinent. Precambrian Res. 222–223, 339–367. zircons from Triassic kimberlites of North Korea. Geol. Mag. https://doi.org/10.
Zhang, S.H., Li, Z.X., Evans, D.A.D., Wu, H.C., Li, H.Y., Dong, J., 2012b. Pre-Rodinia 1017/S0016756818000900.
supercontinent Nuna shaping up: a global synthesis with new paleomagnetic results Zou, Y., Zhai, M.G., Santosh, M., Zhou, L., Zhao, L.G., Lu, J.S., Shan, H.X., 2017. High-
from North China. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 353–354, 145–155. pressure pelitic granulites from the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton: a complete
Zhang, X.H., Wang, H.Z., Park, H.N., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., 2016. Basement affinity of the P–T path and its tectonic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 134, 103–121.
Kwanmo Massif, Korean Peninsula: evidence from zircon U–Pb geochronology and Zou, Y., Zhai, M.G., Santosh, M., Zhou, L.G., Zhao, L., Lu, J.S., Liu, B., Shan, H.X., 2018.
petro-geochemistry of the Undokdong meta-intrusive complex. Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 Contrasting P–T–t paths from a Paleoproterozoic metamorphic orogen: petrology,
(10), 2965–2980 in Chinese with English abstract. phase equilibria, zircon and monazite geochronology of metapelites from the Jiao-
Zhang, S.H., Zhao, Y., Li, X.H., Ernst, R.E., Yang, Z.Y., 2017. The 1.33–1.30 Ga Yanliao Liao-Ji belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 311, 74–97.
large igneous province in the North China Craton: Implications for reconstruction of Zou, Y., Zhai, M., Zhou, L., Zhao, L., Lu, J., Wang, Y., Shan, H., 2019. Relics of a
the Nuna (Columbia) supercontinent, and specifically with the North Australian Paleoproterozoic orogen: new petrological, phase equilibria and geochronological
Craton. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 465, 112–125. studies on high-pressure pelitic granulites from the Pingdu-Laiyang areas, southwest
Zhang, W., Liu, F.L., Cai, J., Liu, C.H., Liu, J.H., Liu, P.H., Liu, L.S., Wang, F., Yang, H., of the Jiaobei terrane, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 322, 136–159.
198

2019 Xu Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Xu Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Xu Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geochronological and geochemical insights into the tectonic evolution of the T

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

(caption on next page)

(continued on next page)

(continued on next page)

(continued on next page)

(caption on next page)

3. Data sources and geochemical results

3.1. Data sources

In this study, previously published zircon U–Pb ages and whole-rock

South liaohe group

Abbreviation: Grt—Garnet; Sil—Sillimanite; Crd—Cordierite; Bt—Biotite; TTG—tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite; HP—high-pressure; MP—Middle-pressure;

Laoling and Ji'an groups

N. Liaohe and S. Liaohe groups

Fenzishan and Jingshan groups

Abbreviation: Grt—Garnet; Bt—Biotite; Pl—Plagioclase; Qtz—Quartz; Tur—Tourmaline; TTG—tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite; DP—Depositional provenance

1 SL127 Qtz-Kfs leucosome UIA 2514 ± 23 Ma SIMS Faure et al. (2003)

early Paleoproterozoic (ca. 2510–2470 Ma) metamorphic ages, which

2019) reveal that this pre-existing Archean basement is mainly com-

metamorphic ages (ca. 1.95–1.75 Ga) in addition to the Archean crys-

late Paleoproterozoic partial melting event that is related to post-

Liaonan-Nangrim blocks) on both sides of the JLJB, as well as the Pa-

proterozoic orogenic process to form the JLJB (e.g., Wu et al., 2013,

4.3.8. ~1875–1850 Ma igneous rocks, granitic leucosomes and

Late Paleoproterozoic igneous rocks are widespread in the NCC, not

gested that these rocks formed in various postorogenic settings (Tang

2015b; Li et al., 2017c; Liu et al., 2017a), whereas a small amount of

rocks in the JLJB correspond to a postorogenic environment (Yang

You might also like