bohemian massif introduction - geology.cz · atlas of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the...

AtlAsof plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the

Bohemian Massif

IntroductIon

Josef Klomínskýtomáš JarchovskýGovind S. rajpoot

czech Geological Survey

Prague 2010

CZECH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ATLAS of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif

INTRODUCTION Compiled by Josef KlS. Rajpoot

Compiled by

Josef Klomínský Tomáš Jarchovský Govind S. Rajpoot

The Introduction volume is a part of the Atlas of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif which consists of six chapters:

INTRODUCTION 1. BOHEMICUM 2. MOLDANUBICUM 3. SAXOTHURINGICUM 4. LUGICUM 5. BRUNOVISTULICUM AND MORAVOSILESICUM In the Introduction volume are summarized general characteristics of the plutonic rocks and

orthogneisses from a point of view of their composition, age, 3-D shape, zonation, metallogeny and spatial distribution. The territorial chapters 1–5 comprise structured geological parameters of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses located within boundaries of the principal geological zones in the Bohemian Massif. The compilation work was supported by the Radioactive Waste Repository Authority of the Czech Republic (RAWRA) and by the Czech Geological Survey.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following colleagues who have helped in the compilation and correction of this review: A. Dudek, F. Fediuk, M. Chlupáčová, V. Janoušek J. Kotková, M. René, Z. Vejnar, P. Vlašímský, P. Schovánek and S. Vrána. We are grateful for technical assistance to P. Kopecký, M. Toužimský, J. Holeček, M. Fifernová, J. Kušková, J. Karenová, V. Čechová, and L. Richtrová. In spite of the negative view on our work and unrealistic comments we thank also to M. Štemprok and F. V. Holub for their criticism which helped us to improve the original manuscript. * Corresponding author Josef Klomínský, Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 131/3, Prague 1, Czech Republic. Fax (+420) 257 531 376. E-mail address: [email protected]

1

THE ATLAS OF PLUTONIC ROCKS AND ORTHOGNEISSES

IN THE BOHEMIAN MASSIF

INTRODUCTION

Josef Klomínský a*, Tomáš Jarchovský a, Govind S. Rajpoot b

a Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 131/3, Praha 1, b Náchodská 2030, Praha 9, Czech Republic

Contents

FOREWORD................................................................................................................................................ 3 ANATOMY OF THE ATLAS .................................................................................................................. 4

1. TOPOGRAPHY AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAGMATIC BODIES...................... 7

2. NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF PLUTONIC ROCKS ................................ 11 2.1. TERMINOLOGY AND HIERARCHIC CLASSIFICATION....................................................... 11 2.2. COMPOSITIONAL CLASSIFICATION ...................................................................................... 13 2.3. GENETIC CLASSIFICATION...................................................................................................... 15

ALPHABETIC (I-S-M-A) CLASSIFICATION ....................................................................................... 15 ILMENITE-MAGNETITE (I-M) CLASSIFICATION................................................................................ 16 GENETIC CLASSIFICATION OF PLUTONITES BASED ON ZIRCON TYPOLOGY ..................................... 17

2.4. GEOTECTONIC CLASSIFICATION........................................................................................... 18 2.5. CHRONOMETRIC CLASSIFICATION....................................................................................... 19

CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE VOLCANO-PLUTONIC SEQUENCES................................................ 27

3. FORMATIONAL AND HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS OF PLUTONS ..................................... 28

4. PETROCHEMISTRY OF PLUTONITES....................................................................................... 29 CHANGES IN THE GRANITE COMPOSITION OF THE PLUTONS THROUGH TIME .................................. 31

5. 3-D SHAPE, EROSION LEVEL AND DEPTH OF SOLIDIFICATION OF PLUTONIC BODIES............................................................................................................................................. 32

EXO- AND ENDOCONTACTS OF THE GRANITIC PLUTONS ................................................................. 39 INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES OF PLUTONS .............................................. 39

6. ZONATION IN PLUTONITES ........................................................................................................ 41 CAUSES OF ZONED ASYMMETRY ..................................................................................................... 43 RELATIVE HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT MAGNITUDE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLUTONIC PHASES ...... 43

2

TRENDS OF PLUTONIC “REJUVENATION”......................................................................................... 43

7. POSITION OF THE PLUTONS IN THE GEOPHYSICAL FIELD ............................................ 44

8. RELATION OF PLUTONITES TO VOLCANISM ....................................................................... 50

9. MINERALIZATION AND METALLOGENY OF THE PLUTONITES .................................... 51

10. HEAT PRODUCTION OF GRANITES IN THE BOHEMIAN MASSIF.................................. 56

11. PRINCIPLES OF THE ROCK CLASSIFICATION SCHEME ................................................. 60 CHEMICAL PARAMETERS AND STATISTICS ...................................................................................... 62

12. GENERAL REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 64 PLATES 1–6 (PHOTOS OF SELECTED PLUTONIC ROCKS AND ORTHOGNEISSES) ………….….….…. 83 TABLE I CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF THE SELECTED GRANITIC ROCKS OF THE BOHEMIAN MASSIF... 96

The locality map of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif (folded)

3

FOREWORD Granitoids are the most abundant rocks (about 86

vol %) in the Earth´s upper continental crust; Wedepohl 1991). Even now, the proportion of granitoids and associated volcanic rocks present on Earth is low, about 0.1 % of the bulk Earth (Clarke 1996). Like other igneous rocks, they represent probes into the deep planetary interiors and they are closely connected with tectonics and geodynamics (Bonnin 2007). Granitic material (A-type granite) was even found in the meteoritic and lunar samples (Bonnin et al. 2002).

The multiple use of igneous rocks requires an increasingly better knowledge of the composition, internal structure, geometry and depth extent of the individual bodies. Igneous rocks have been quarried for building and sculpture use since pre-historical time (e.g. Rybařík 1994). Very representative set of granite, granodiorite and gabbro polished slabs from the traditional quarrying regions of the Czech part of the Bohemian Massif has been used for flooring and facing of the Prague underground interior (Březinová et al. 1996).

Homogeneity, hardness, compactness and durability of plutonites are favourable not only for the architecture but also for the transport and storage of natural gas, drinking water and for the deposition of industrial highly toxic or radioactive wastes in underground cavities, tunnels and repositories. Háje cavern storage south-west of Prague is the first commercial gas storage in the world constructed in granite. Igneous rocks are used now as a source of many elements (e.g. Ta-granites) utilized in both industry and agriculture. The High Heat Production (HHP) granites have been tested as a source of the dry geothermal energy (e.g. the Soultz hot dry rock project).

A review on the granite origin concepts was published in the Czech literature by Havlena and Pouba (1953). They stressed the conflict between transformists and magmatists in the first half of the last century. In the Czech geological literature Palivcová (1967) and Palivcová et al. (1968, 1989, 2001) highlighted the theory on non magmatic origin of the granitic rocks and summarized main problems of modern granitology.

It was the plutonic concept, which finally prevailed, probably thanks to laboratory experiments (e.g. Tuttle – Bowen 1958). For many years most “plutonic“ geologists (plutonists) seem to have accepted that granitic plutons were emplaced as highly viscous, crystal-rich magmas, and that internal structures such as aligned minerals,

enclaves and schlieren reflect flow of these crystal-rich magmas during emplacement. In the Bohemian Massif the magmatic origin of the Central Bohemian Pluton was strongly advocated by Steinocher (1969). A theory based on the assumption that granitic magmas commonly carry substantial proportions of restite has led some workers (e.g. Chappel et al. 1987) to suggest that restite immixing is a major cause of compositional variation in granitic plutons. Hypotheses proposed to explain the genesis of granitic rocks by magma-mixing processes have been summarized by Janoušek et al. (2004). Many recent field, structural and petrographic studies of volcanic rocks, migmatites and granitic plutons have found evidence which supports the view that granitic intrusions were initiated as crystal-poor silicic liquids rather than largely crystalline magmas (Pitcher 1993).

Clusters of magmatic dykes often associated with volcanic rocks help to locate original volcanoes above the roofs of their deep-seated equivalents – plutonites. In the Bohemian Massif these volcano-plutonic centres are usually eroded but few remnants of calderas are associated with gold and tin mineralization (e.g. Petráčkova hora gold deposit and Cínovec tin-tungsten deposit).

The position of plutonites of a certain age and their composition enable to reconstruct the original continental margins and/or oceanic basins during subduction and/or the lithospheric plate boundaries (Wilson 1989). However, as the geotectonic interpretation of the Bohemian Massif is in part controversial, details of geotectonic setting of individual plutons are not fully clarified (e.g. Matte 1986).

Igneous rocks are ranked among important geological objects in the Bohemian Massif and attract the attention of geologists for more than two centuries. The most common member of this family of rocks – granite – is the major representative of the construction and dimension stones within the territory of the Bohemian Massif. The Jizera-Krkonoše Composite Massif became a study area for well-known textbook on granite tectonics by H. Cloos (1925). In the Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge), the granite is the host rock and a source of the historically well-known tin deposits. Granite weathering e.g. in the Karlovy Vary area gave rise to important deposits of kaolin – material used for famous china production in this region. Mineralised

4

hot springs pour from granites in the same area e.g. in Karlovy Vary, Jáchymov or Teplice v Čechách.

Almost 140 boreholes over 500 m deep were drilled in the Czech Republic into the granitic plutons (Suk and Ďurica 1991). Most of these boreholes are located in the areas of coal and/or gas basins where plutons make part of the crystalline basement (the Carpathian Foredeep, the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin and Central Bohemian Permo-Carboniferous Basins). The deepest borehole hit the granites basement at a depth of 4,500 m (Těšany Těš-1, 25 km SE of Brno). Only a few boreholes were drilled completely into granitic outcrops (Bor borehole – 650 m in the Bor Massif, Milevsko borehole – 625 m in the Milevsko Massif, a set of deep boreholes in the Třebíč Massif, Zlatý Kopec borehole – about 1000 m in the Blatná Massif and Krásno K-25 borehole – 800 m in the Hub Stock). The borehole Cs-1, 1596.6 m deep was drilled into the Cínovec-Krupka Massif in the Erzgebirge (Štemprok 1963). The deepest drill hole into granite within the Bohemian Massif was sunk in the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif. The C-1 well in the Jelenia Góra-Cieplice health resort in Poland (Dowgiałło 2000) was drilled through the medium- to coarse-grained porphyritic granite, often broken up, and mylonitic rock to a depth of 2002.5 m.

Drilling combined with geophysical survey provided sufficient data to construct a contour map of the hidden granite surface of the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Batholith. Several granitic intrusions have been detected by drillings under the Cretaceous and Permian-Carboniferous cover in the central and northern part of the Bohemian Massif. Interior of

granitic intrusions can be studied also in several underground mines and waterworks tunnels in various parts of the Bohemian Massif. These are located e.g. in the Saxothuringicum (the Svornost uranium mine in Jáchymov up to a depth of about 800 m in the Karlovy Vary Massif, the Stannum tin mine in the Krudum Massif, the Cínovec and Krupka tin-tungsten mine in the Cínovec-Krupka Massif), and in the Bohemicum (Bohutín lead-zinc mine over 1,400 m deep in the Bohutín Stock and the Vítkov II uranium mine over 600 m deep in the Bor Massif). In the Příbram Mining District (the Bohemicum) 15 km of the mining openings and galleries were driven into the NW endocontact of the Central Bohemian Pluton. A source of new information on granitoids of the Central Bohemian Pluton offers the underground gas repository near Příbram in depth of over 1,000 metres (Sokol et al. 2000). In the Lugicum, almost 9 kilometres of waterworks tunnels in the western part of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif in depth of up to 200 metres and several kilometres long road tunnel through the Königshain Stock in the Lusatian Composite Batholith in Germany were excavated. In the northern part of the Nasavrky Composite Massif the Křižanovice waterwork tunnel in length of 863 m cut the contact of the Křižanovice Granite and the Křižanovice Tonalite. The longest horizontal profile through the granitic intrusion in the Bohemian Massif is the waterworks Želivka tunnel (the total length of 53 km), which intersects the Central Bohemian Pluton in a length of 23 km at depth of about 100 m (Vejnar et al. 1975 and Mácha et al. 1972).

Anatomy of the atlas

Voluminous magmatic intrusions (mostly granites and granodiorites) and orthogneisses are dominant geological objects in the Bohemian Massif (the Locality map and Tab. 1). Their surface covers over one third of the whole territory (~ 40,000 km2, including the area under the sedimentary cover). These granitic plutons and orthogneisses are one of the principal evidence of the tectonothermal complexity of the Bohemian Massif (Sallmeyer and Urban 1994, Dallmeyer et al. 1995). They represent traces of subduction and/or collision events during the amalgamation processes of the Bohemian Massif. Behrmann and Turner (1997) presumed that the total volume of postectonic Variscan granitoids in the Bohemian Massif (176 000 km3) required 8.8 Ma to segragate from their partially molten substrate.

Individual magmatic bodies are located within and/or at the boundary of its five principal

geological zones (Fig. 1): the Bohemicum, Moldanubicum, Saxothuringicum, Lugicum and Brunovistulicum (including the Moravo-Silesicum). A new subdivision of the pre-Permian rocks of the Bohemian Massif (Chaloupský 1986, 1989, Franke 1989, Matte et al. 1990, Franke and Weber 1995, Franke et al. 2000, Chlupáč et al. 2002 and Cháb et al. 2008) into terranes is based on structural, kinematic and radiometric studies. Igneous activity within these segments of the Bohemian Massif has been summarized by a group of authors in Dallmayer et al. (1995).

Magmatic bodies in the Bohemian Massif are shown as isolated outcrops and/or their clusters of different shapes, sizes and composition in the geological maps of different scales (mostly 1 : 25,000, 1 : 50,000, and 1 : 200,000 and 1 : 500,000, e.g. see the Locality map of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif

5

in the folder). The time span of their ages is at least about 1,800 Ma (isotopically dated between 2,100 and 290 Ma – Early Proterozoic to Permian). The Early Proterozoic to Neoproterozoic and some Early Palaeozoic igneous rocks, transformed to ortogneisses, occur as allochthonous slices incorporated in the Variscan structure of the Bohemian Massif. However, the majority of plutonic rocks are of a late Variscan and late Pan-African (Cambrian-Neoproterozoic) age. Many of them were deeply eroded, tectonically segmented and some of them metamorphosed or transported (see sections on orthogneisses). In some places the Late Variscan intrusions are accompanied by remnants of volcanic ejecta (the Teplice and Walbrich Calderas) and dyke swarms allow speculations on the former presence of the volcanic cones above intruding plutons (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton). According to their size, the magmatic intrusions are classified as batholiths, plutons, massifs, and stocks with own internal lithologic content. Nomenclature of metamorphosed plutons is based mostly on the lithologic composition and locality name (e.g. Selb Orthogneiss, Bítouchov Metagranite).

This review of plutons (its first version has been adopted by Vrána and Štědrá 1997) is organized as a condensed information and database with a unified structure, giving basic characteristics of individual plutonic objects in the form of important parameters, tables of chemical analyses, diagrams, and maps. The text gives information

on regional position, rock types, size and shape, age according to methods of the isotopic dating, lithology of country rocks, contact aureole, zonation, mineralization, heat production and principal references. Dendrograms represent hierarchic infrastructure of the magmatic bodies to show relationship among their individual members, phases and facies. Selection of over 4,421 chemical rock analyses (see Tab. 6) mostly from literature are summarized in tables of individual magmatic bodies showing their statistic parameters mean, maximal, minimal content, quartiles of major oxides) and principal geochemical parameters (defining petrologic classifications) according to Chappell and White (1974), Ishihara (1977), Debon and Le Fort (1983a,b), Middlemost (1994), De La Roche (1980), Cox et al. (1979), Peccerillo and Taylor (1976). These parameters have been used for petrologic classification of the individual rock type root names and qualifiers (see Fig. 24).

A brief attention is given to orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif. They are mostly members of the metamorphic core complexes. These predominantly magmatic gneiss domes are cored by metamorphic rocks, and their geometry is defined by outward-dipping gneissic foliation (e.g. the Svratka Dome, Thaya Dome, Desná and Keprník Dome and Catharine Dome). The description of the orthogneisses due to a multiple mechanism of their origin (Yin 2004) is given in the separate chapter of the territorial sections of this atlas.

Table 1. Areal estimate (in square kilometres) of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif (including the area under the sedimentary cover)

Principal geological zones Plutonic rocks Orthogneisses Total

Bohemicum 4,500 50 4,550

Moldanubicum 9,700 3,400 13,100

Saxothuringicum 4,000 1,000 5,000

Lugicum 4,800 3,800 8,600 Brunovistulicum and Moravosilesicum 6,300 2,000 8,300

Total km2 29,300 10,250 39,550

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following colleagues who have helped in the compilation and correction of this review: A. Dudek, F. Fediuk, M. Chlupáčová, V. Janoušek J. Kotková, M. René, Z. Vejnar, P. Vlašímský, P. Schovánek and S. Vrána. We are grateful for technical assistance to P. Kopecký, M. Toužimský, J. Holeček, M. Fifernová, J. Kušková, J. Karenová, V. Čechová and L. Richtrová.

In spite of the negative view on our work and unrealistic comments we thank also due to M. Štemprok and F. V. Holub for their criticism which helped us to improve this manuscript.

6

Fig. 1. Plutonites and orthogneisses incorporated in this review and principal geological zones (units) of the Bohemian Massif. 1 – Magmatic rocks, 2 – orthogneisses, 3 – boundaries of the principal geological zones: (1) Bohemicum, (2) Moldanubicum, (3) Saxothuringicum, (4) Lugicum, (5) Moravosilesicum and Brunovistulicum, 4 –faults, 5 – state borders.

7

1. TOPOGRAPHY AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAGMATIC BODIES

Erosional sections (outcrops) of plutonic bodies on the pre-Carboniferous, Permian platform surface of the Bohemian Massif represent approximately 1/3 of its total area (the Locality map of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif – folded and Fig. 1). Late-orogenic plutonism in the Bohemian Massif led to the emplacement of least 176,000 km3 of granitoids. Melt flux through the Moldanubicum may have been as high as 0.2 km/m.y., allowing the estimated volume of granitoids to be segregated by partial anatexis of the continental crust within a time span of approximately 8.8 million years (Behrmann and Tanner 1997). Granites and granodiorites form the largest plutonic bodies covering the area of up to 5,000 km2 (e.g. Eisgarn and Weinsberg types of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith).

Fig. 2. Model of the geological structure of the Czech Republic at depth of 3 km (modified after Suk and Vacek 1984). 1 – basic intrusions, 2 – durbachites, 3 – Brno Composite Batholith, 4 – autochthonous granitoids at depth of 3 km, 5 – granitic intrusions at depth of 3 km, 6 – major faults.

Fig. 3. Model of the geological structure of the Czech Republic at depth of 10 km (modified after Suk and Vacek

1984). 1 – granitic rocks partly intrusive, 2 – anatectic rocks, 3 – Brno Composite Batholith, 4 – faults.

An estimation of the area extent of the plutonic bodies, surficially known at the level of 0 m above sea level, at depth 3 km and 10 km (Figs 2 and 3) made by Suk and Vacek (1984) (according to gravity field and distribution of rock dykes) indicates a considerable change of sub-surface configuration of the Variscan plutons and substantial reduction in the area of the K-Mg-rich durbachite plutons at a depth of 3 km. On the other hand, some additional cupolas of plutonites appear at this level, namely in the Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge), in eastern Bohemia and below the central part of the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin (e.g. the Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton).

Tilting of the Moldanubian Zone towards north is indicated by the difference in the erosion level between the northern and southern part of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith. The southern part of this Batholith shows a deeper section than its northern part. The Mutěnín Stock intruded into Moldanubian crust at a level of –23 ± 4 km and the Babylon Stock was emplaced into the Bohemicum Unit in the west (see the Locality map of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif – folded) at < 12 km depth. Both emplacement depths, together with mineral cooling ages, result in a minimum vertical displacement of 10 km between 340 and 320 Ma. This can be related to the vertical component of movements of the Moldanubian crust along the West Bohemian shear zone (Zulauf et al. 2000).

The composition of the eroded parts or of still present outcrops of plutonic and volcanic bodies is reflected by pebble composition in conglomerates of the Neoproterozoic (Fiala 1948, Dörr et al. 2002), Lower Cambrian (Fiala 1980), Ordovician (Chaloupský 1963) and Lower Carboniferous (Štelcl 1960, Kotková et al. 2007) ages. Plutonic bodies not exposed on the present surface are indicated by drillings, gravity anomalies or xenoliths in the Tertiary volcanics of the České středohoří Mts., Krkonoše Mts. piedmont area and in the Ordovician palaeobasalt diatreme at Otmíč in the centre of the Bohemicum (Fiala 1977, 1983). Most of the plutonic bodies lie in close proximity of important structural or lithologic boundaries (Röhlich and Šťovíčková 1968 and Pokorný et al. 1970). Klomínský and Bernard (1974) suggest the regional

8

displacements of the eastern and western wings of the Bohemian Massif against its core along major NW-SE faults. The separation of the crustal segments is evidenced by the interruption of linear chains of Variscan plutons (e.g. the Krušné hory Mts. Batholith, the Central Bohemian Pluton). The displacement of these segments in north-eastern part of the Bohemian Massif is interpreted in terms of late Variscan tectonic activity in the foreland of the Alpine-Carpathian orogenic belt (Pouba 1969).

The map of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses of the Bohemian Massif (folded) is adapted after Mahel (1973), Chaloupský (1989) and Cháb et al. (2007). This map shows the general shape, size and regional distribution of magmatic bodies and orthogneisses (the coding corresponds to the reference numbers of the individual objects in the territorial sections) included in this review and summarized in the proposal of the Sub-commission for Regional Geological Classification of the Czechoslovak Stratigraphic Commission (sine 1976, Čech et al. 1994), in the Geology of the ČSSR – Bohemian Massif (Mísař et al. 1983) and in the Geological Atlas of the Czech Republic – Stratigraphy (Klomínský 1994a). The plutonic bodies and orthogneisses are described in the territorial sections according to their position within principal geological zones of the Bohemian Massif (Fig. 1) using the subdivision according to Chab et al. (2008) and Chaloupský (1986, 1989):

1. Bohemicum (Bohemian Zone or Teplá-Barrandian Zone). The Bohemicum is the fault-bounded and arc-like unit in the core of the Bohemian Massif with its pre-Mid-Cambrian Barrovian metamorphism. The Teplá-Barrandian segment is composed of a Neoproterozoic basement and it’s Cambrian to Middle Devonian sedimentary cover. According to a new concept of the accretion of the Bohemian Massif (Konopásek and Schulmann 2005) the Bohemicum domain is underlain by the Moldanubian middle crust. These both principal geological zones have been subducted during Lower Carboniferous by Saxothuringian crust. Therefore, it can be speculated that this principal suture in the Bohemian Massif lies now within the southeastern margin of the Saxothuringian and Lusatian domains.

One of the principal characteristics of the Bohemicum interior is the relative scarcity of plutonic rocks (Dudek 1995). The overall positive gravity data indicate that granitoid plutonites there are missing also in deeper crustal levels. The voluminous granitic and mafic intrusions are mostly located along or close to tectonic boundaries of the Bohemicum. They are represented by both the

Cadomian and Variscan plutons and massifs (e.g. the Kdyně Massif, the Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Nasavrky Composite Massif, the Bor Massif).

2. Moldanubicum (Moldanubian Zone) represents a major crystalline segment of the Bohemian Massif. Geological background and definitions of intra-Moldanubian units have been summarized by Finger et al. (2007). The Variscan evolution of the Moldanubian sector in the Bohemian Massif consists of at least two distinct tectonometamorphic phases” – the Moravo-Moldanubian Phase (345–330 Ma) and Bavarian Phase (330–315 Ma).

The Moravo-Moldanubian Phase involved displacement of the Moldanubian segment over the Moravian Zone. The tectonic emplacement of the HP-HT rocks (the Gföhl Unit) was accompanied by intrusion of distinct magnesio-potassic granitoid melts (the 335–338 Ma old Durbachite plutons), which contain components from a strongly enriched lithospheric mantle source (Finger et al. 2007).

The Bavarian Phase (330–315 Ma) represents a fully independent stage of the Variscan orogeny in the Bohemian Massif. It is defined by a significant reheating (LP-HT regional metamorphism combined with voluminous granitic plutonism) and a tectonic remobilisation of crust in the southwestern sector of the Bohemian Massif (Finger et al. 2007).

Three geological subunits can be distinguished in the Moldanubian sector: The Gföhl and Drosendorf metamorphic units, which represent pre-Variscan (Precambrian/Early Palaeozoic) crust, and the Variscan granitoids (e.g. Holub et al. 1995).

The Drosendorf Unit includes the Variegated and Monotonous series (all metamorphic rocks that do not belong to the Gföhl Unit).

The Gföhl Unit consists of the rocks (e.g. granulites and Gföhl Gneiss), which experienced Variscan HP-HT metamorphism and a subsequent rapid exhumation and re-equilibration at mid-crustal level (Finger et al.,2007). According to Finger et al. (2007) two parallel belts of HP-HT rocks (Gföhl unit) are associated with Durbachite intrusions (the western and eastern belt).

According to Fiala et al. (1995) four terranes can be distinguished within the Moldanubicum:

(1) The Gföhl terrane consists of various metaigneous and metasedimentary rocks, which include granulites, eclogites, and peridotites. The lower crustal high-pressure granulites are associated with ultramafics as well as with high-grade gneisses (e.g. the Gföhl Gneiss).

(2) The Drosendorf terrane consists of metasedimentary sequences of problematic protolith

9

age (? Lower Palaeozoic), dominated by sillimanite-biotite (± cordierite) paragneisses (referred to as the Monotonous Group) and with abundant lens-shaped bodies of metaquartzites, marbles and amphibolites (summarily referred to as the Variegated Group). Estimation of the PT conditions of regional metamorphism of the Drosendorf Unit range from 630 to 750 oC and 3–6 kbar (Petrakakis 1997). The Drosendorf Unit starts in tectonostratigrafic sense with either the Dobra Gneiss, the Světlík Orthogneiss, the Stráž Orthogneiss or the Spitz Gneiss (according to different areas and/or authors). Their ages reach up to Early Proterozoic (2110 Ma for the Světlík Orthogneiss, Wendt et al. 1993).

(3) The Ostrong terrane encompasses the polymetamorphic, monotonous, high-grade, migmatitic paragneisses and several leucocratic orthogneisses rich in alkali-feldspar. They form few major bodies or thin intercalations in the paragneisses.

(4) The Bavarian terrane is largely composed of Variscan HT-LP-metamorphic anatexites having migmatite, pearl gneiss, or diatexite character.

The Moldanubicum is characterized by an abundance of Variscan (Carboniferous) granitic rocks (e.g. the Moldanubian Composite Batholith and the K-Mg-rich durbachite massifs). They are intruding in all Moldanubian terranes and/or subunits (e.g. Finger and Clemens 1995, Holub et al. 1995). Granitic intrusions at 338–300 Ma occurred shortly after the thermal peak of the regional metamorphism (ca. 338–340 Ma).

3. Saxothuringicum (the western segment of the Saxo-Thuringian Belt). According to Franke and Stein (2000) the Saxo-Thuringian Belt resulted from SE-ward subduction of a Cambro-Ordovician rift basin under the northern margin of Teplá-Barrandian Zone (Bohemicum). It contains metamorphic rocks of variable grade, which are now exposed in different tectonostratigraphic settings, and were exhumed in different modes, under different thermal regimes. The Neoproterozoic to Palaeozoic polymetamorphic volcano-sedimentary rocks represent some of them. Repeatedly changing tectonic regimes during Neoproterozoic-Phanerozoic evolution resulted in the formation of numerous distinct plutonic-volcanic suites (Tischendorf et al. 1995).

Multiply deformed Neoproterozoic-Early Palaeozoic metagranitoids are a characteristic feature of the Saxothuringian crust. They are represented by orthogneisses, primarily weakly differentiated calc-alkaline granites. Effects of contact metamorphism on their country rocks of

Neoproterozoic to Ordovician age prove their magmatic origin.

The most variegated igneous rocks within the Saxothuringicum undoubtedly were formed during the Variscan orogeny in response to continent-continent collision with crustal stacking and thrusting (e.g. the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Composite Batholith).

4. Lugicum (Sudetes – eastern segment of the Saxothuringian Belt) consists of Neoproterozoic greywackes and granodiorites (in Lusatia) and a mosaic of tectonostratigraphic domains, some of which were folded and metamorphosed before the deposition of Upper Devonian and Lower Carboniferous sediments (Franke et al. 1993, Zelazniewicz and Bankwitz 1995, Franke and Zelazniewicz 2000).

Cadomian intrusions are recorded as spatially coexisting orthogneisses and (meta) granites-granodiorites within medium- and high-grade metamorphic complexes (e.g. the Sněžník Dome, Jizera-Krkonoše Orthogneiss, the Lusatian Composite Batholith).

Variscan igneous rocks (Kryza 1995) are represented by (1) widespread granitic intrusions of Upper Carboniferous age (e.g. the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif, the Strzegom-Sobótka Massif, and the Kłodzko-Złoty Stok Massif) and (2) less frequent Lower Carboniferous tonalites (the Great Tonalite Dyke – Zábřeh Massif), which have formed during a subduction along the continental margin (Štipská et al. 2004).

5. Brunovistulicum and Moravosilesicum comprise foreland units along the eastern margins of the Bohemian Massif (Finger et al. 1989, 2000). This assemblage includes a variety of units including a Cadomian basement and Cambrian to Carboniferous cover sequences. Structural evolution involved Neoproterozoic to Cambrian subduction underneath the Moravo-Silesian basement, Silurian-Devonian extension, Carboniferous plate convergence, post-Variscan extension, and probable effects of Alpine collision (Fritz and Neubauer 1995). Although only a minor part directly exposed at the surface, the plutonites are known from boreholes and geophysical survey to occupy at least one third of the entire basement of the West Carpathian Foredeep (Finger et al. 1995 and Dudek 1995). These Cadomian (Neoproterozoic-Cambrian) igneous rocks comprise the Thaya Dome, the Svratka Massif, the Keprník Orthogneiss, Desná Orthogneiss and the much larger Brno Composite Batholith. To the northeast, some separate plutonic bodies have been defined (e.g. the Olomouc Massif, Vlkoš, Rusava and Jablunkov Plugs).

10

Fig. 4. Lithologic classification of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif. 1 – alkali-feldspar granite, 2 – two-mica to biotite granite (granodiorite), 3 – biotite granite (granodiorite), 4 – durbachite (pyroxene-amphibole-biotite melagranite, syenite and granodiorite), 5 – amphibole-biotite granodiorite, tonalite and quartzdiorite, 6 – gabbro, diorite, 7 – faults, 8 – boundaries of principal geological zones (units), 9 – state borders.

11

2. NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF PLUTONIC ROCKS

Although granitoids are the most abundant rock types in the continental crust, no single classification scheme has achieved widespread use. Part of the problem in granite classification is that the same mineral assemblage, quartz and feldspars with a variety of ferromagnesian minerals, can be achieved by a number of processes (e.g. crustal and mantle derived melts). Because of this complexity, petrologists have relied upon geochemical and petrographic classifications to distinguish between various types of granitoids. Approximately 20 different schemes have evolved over past 30 years (see Barbarin 1999).

2.1. TERMINOLOGY AND HIERARCHIC CLASSIFICATION

The term plutonic rocks approximately covers the ancient term „deep-seated igneous rocks“ of granitic to gabbroic compositions. Terminology and hierarchic classification of plutonic bodies consists of a series of abstract and concrete terms. In the abstract terms (plutonic series, suite, plutonic-magmatic series, plutonic formation or suite, member, phase, facies, variety, batholith, pluton, massif, and stock) general characteristics play an important role depending on the proportion of plutonic bodies in a unit of a higher order. In the concrete terminology local geographic names are taken into account as well as specific features of the plutonic bodies – preferentially their size, form and lithology (e.g. the Kladruby Composite Massif, the Great Tonalite Dyke, the Jizera-Krkonoše Orthogneiss).

The terms of plutonic series, suite, batholith, pluton, massif, and stock (boss) have been summarised by Pitcher (1979), Morehead, Webster English College Dictionary (1998), Glossary of Geology – 4th Edition Jackson (1997), Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (1996) and Webster II New Riverside University Dictionary (1994). Their definitions are summarized as follows:

Plutonic (magmatic) series is a group of different igneous rocks that evolved from the same original material through various metamorphic and magmatic stages until final crystallization ceased.

Plutonic formation or suite is a group of magmatites with notable lithologic features, which may indicate genetic relationship. The age or dating of granites of a single suite need not be the same. According to Hine et al. (1978), suites may be composed of one or more plutons of common chemical, petrographic and field characteristics.

Member is a part of formation or suite of specific lithological character or of only a local extent. Names of members denote parts of a variegated formation or suite of a larger geological extent. The members are usually,

though not obligatorily, called by geographic names.

Phase is a member or its part having a specific petrographic composition, chemical composition, texture and structure.

Facies is a rock differing from the prevailing or normal type (phase) in unessential characteristics (e.g. grain size, size of phenocrysts, ratio of rock-forming minerals).

Variety is a rock differing from the facies in unessential characteristics (e.g. colour, alteration).

Batholith is a large, generally discordant plutonic mass that has more than 100 km2 of surface exposure and not known floor. According to Pitcher (1979) the batholith represents a set of plutons the arrangement of which follows a general rule for magma formation and the mechanism of its emplacement.

Pluton was originally defined by Cloos (1925) as a general term for igneous units (e.g. batholith, laccolith, ethmolith, stock). In the strictest sense, the pluton is a body of igneous rock that has formed beneath the surface of the earth by consolidation from magma. According to Pitcher (1979), a pluton is a body formed by one or several related magmas that were emplaced more or less simultaneously and are bound by a single contact plane.

Massif is defined as a body of intrusive igneous rock of at least 15 to 30 km in diameter occurring as a structurally resistant mass in an uplifted area that may have been a mountain core.

Stock (boss) is a body of plutonic rock that covers less than 100 km2, has steep contacts (generally dipping outward), and although generally discordant may be concordant.

Geographic names are commonly used in detailed descriptions of plutonic bodies.

Terminology and hierarchic classification of plutonic objects of the Bohemian Massif have been suggested, summarized and/or revised by Svoboda et al. (1966, 1964, 1983), Čech et al. (1994), Kouznyetsof (1964), Tomek (1975),

12

Palivcová (1977), Sattran and Klomínský (1970), Klomínský and Dudek (1978), Vejnar (1974), Zoubek (1988), Štemprok (1991), Holub (1997), Holub et al. (1997), Schust and Wasternack (2002).

According to Zoubek (1988) the term “massif” designates single bodies that appear at the denudation level as separate areas occupied by plutonic rocks. The term “pluton” is used according to the same author for composite systems of igneous bodies (massifs, sheets, dykes) related in structure, material composition, genesis and time. Spatially extensive groups of granitoid rocks often of different age, chemical composition and genesis are called plutons in the Czech literature (Svoboda et al. 1983). Within these regional geological units, individual massifs or rock types can be further distinguished. The term “massif” is the most frequent term for magmatic bodies in the Czech literature (Svoboda et al. 1964). The term pluton has, however, a different meaning in the foreign literature (Pitcher 1979). The term pluton, as used in the Czech literature, rather corresponds to the term batholith. Recently, the terms the complex and/or batholith are applied for intricate magmatic bodies, differing in size, showing the complexity in composition, ages, and structure (e.g. the Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex after Holub et al. 1997, the Krušné hory Mts. Batholith after Štemprok 1986, and the South Bohemian Batholith after Gerdes et al. 2000). Some names applied to unexposed hidden plutons, such as the Putim Batholith or Říčany-Kutná Hora Batholith (Tomek 1975), were not later accepted (Čech et al. 1994).

3D shape typology of igneous objects was suggested by many geologists (e.g. H. Cloos, E. Raguin, R. Kettner) but no general terminology was internationally accepted yet They introduced the terms of the batholith, pluton, massif, sill, laccolith, lopolith and stock to describe more or less their shape rather than size.

Their structural levels within the crust also control the shape of the plutonic intrusions. In the surface level: caldera’s volcano, feeder radial and ring dykes, and domes. Subvolcanic 1–4 km-deep level: ring complex, cone sheets, and dyke swarms. Intermediate 7–15 km level (at the brittle and ductile boundary): mixed cumulate-liquid rapakivi granite batholiths, and in 15–30 km plutonic level mafic and intermediate layered lopoliths.

Due to an absence of unified, codified and internationally accepted terminology, four principal terms (stock (pipe and plug), massif,

pluton and batholith) have been applied in this review as root terms of the plutonic bodies of the Bohemian Massif. They represent the geological objects with increasing capacity to accommodate smaller bodies and/or rock types. These terms are solely based on size of their map surface in square kilometres. The 2D shape and size of the plutonic body can be usually well described by its outcrops in the map rather than from its 3D shape. The area of their outcropso or erosion level has been arbitrarily chosen according to their description in the reference books.

Stock (plug) with the area of less than 30 km2. Massif with the area from 30 to 1,000 km2. Pluton with the area from 1,000 to 3,000 km2. Batholith with the area over 3,000 km2. Compositional, spatial and time complexity,

usually indicated by clusters of the magmatic intrusions is stressed by a qualifier (term) COMPOSITE (a substitute term for the complex, e.g. the Meissen Composite Massif, the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith).

Terminology of the metamorphosed igneous bodies – orthogneisses is based on local geographic names and root names of the main rock types or their dominant composition (e.g. the Bítouchov Metagranite, Bíteš Gneiss, Keprník Orthogneiss).

In each of the plutonic bodies a few to numerous intrusive phases can be distinguished. They form the elementary members of plutons. Each intrusive phase can be represented by one or several rock types (facies and/or varieties). Granitoid types are distinguished by features of their petrographic and geochemical autonomy and features of demarcation within the individual tectonomagmatic units (series or suits).

Homogeneity of the fabric (grainsize, colour and texture of the rock) and modal composition (within a certain range of variation) are the most important features for macroscopic field identification of the granitoid types.

Sharp contacts between a relatively older granitoid type and a relatively younger one are the most obvious features of intrusive demarcation of contacts between two granitoid types. Sharp contacts and abrupt changes of the position of contact planes between two granitoid types and the partly angular shape of granitoid enclaves indicate, that the relatively older granitoid must have reached the state of brittle failure during its cooling. These indications of rate of cooling and crosscutting of dykes of a younger granitoid also indicate a temporal hiatus between the intrusions. The features of intrusive demarcation directly

13

indicate the autonomous character of the type-related magma intrusion within a pluton (massif or stock). Chilled margins can indicate a significant time difference between individual rock types (e.g. marginal facies of the Liberec

Granite at the contact with the older Tanvald Granite in the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif). They are generally characterized by a reduced grain-size and limited thickness along the endocontact of the intrusion.

2.2. COMPOSITIONAL CLASSIFICATION

The material composition of the plutonites can be characterized in terms of petrography, mineralogy or chemistry. In general, they are subdivided according to the IUGS classification into granites (monzogranite and syenogranite), granodiorites, monzonites, syenites, quartz diorites, diorites, gabbros and ultramafics. The composition of the plutonic rocks of the Bohemian Massif has been summarized in several monographs and many papers (e.g. Svoboda et al. 1966, Kouznyetsof 1964, Vejnar, 1974, Palivcová 1977, Klomínský and Sattran 1978, Klomínský and Dudek 1978, Cambel et al. 1980, Hejtman 1984, Förster and Tischendorf 1996, Siebel et al. 1995, 1997, Breiter and Sokol 1997, Förster et al. 1999 and Cháb et al. 2008).

On the basis of petrography, granitic bodies of the Bohemian Massif are divided into five major groups (Klomínský and Dudek 1978):

1. Alkali-feldspar granites and leucogranites (two-mica and so-called poly-mica Li-granites)

2. Biotite and two-mica granites 3. Biotite and two-mica granodiorites 4. Tonalites and amphibole-biotite

granodiorites 5. Durbachites (pyroxene-amphibole-biotite

mela-granite and granodiorite). This division (Fig. 4) is compatible with the

IUGS classification for the granite, granodiorite and tonalite field fields. Only the durbachite group represents petrographically very heterogeneous

field comprising dark (mela) variety of the granite, quartz syenite, syenite, quartz monzonite and granodiorite of the IUGS classification (Le Maitre et al. 2002).

These classes of rocks characterize an average composition of the main phases (types) of plutonic bodies of larger regional extent. The internal structure of the individual bodies is, however, much more complex in composition and this complexity are not directly proportional to the size of the body. Small massifs and stocks often show petrographic composition spanning across several fields of the IUGS classification diagram. As an example, the Bohutín Stock of 1 km in diameter has the same range in petrographic composition as the whole tonalite-granodiorite suite of the Central Bohemian Pluton.

Composition of rock-forming minerals and accessory minerals has been studied by Dudek (1954), Fediuková (1963), Tischendorf et al. (1969), Pivec (1970), Fediuk (1972), Neužilová (1973), Vejnar (1973, 1974), Kodymová and Vejnar (1974), Poubová (1974), Minařík (1975), Fiala et al. (1976), Minařík and Povondra (1976), Cimbálníková et al. (1977), Pivec (1982), Jiránek (1983), Minařík et al. (1988), Stone et al. (1997), Frýda and Breiter (1995), Buda et al. (2004) and others.

Buda et al. (2004) distinguished the calc-alkaline Mg biotite in durbachites and peraluminous Fe-biotite in the Moldanubian Composite Batholith.

14

Fig. 5. I-A-S-type classification of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif.

15

2.3. GENETIC CLASSIFICATION

Alphabetic (I-S-M-A) classification

Genetic classifications of granitoids are based on chemical as well as mineralogical composition of the rocks. Chappel and White (1974, 1987) subdivided plutonites into S-types originated from sedimentary rocks and I-types, which originated from older magmatites and their source material was never involved in weathering process. I-type granites, contain amphibole, an alumina-deficient mineral, and yield metaluminous to slightly peraluminous (ASI < 1.1). Two subtypes are recognized low temperature I-type contains abundant inherited zircon, and high-temperature I-type lacks inherited zircon.

S-type granites are basically peraluminous with Alumina Saturation Index (ASI) higher than 1.1 (Clements 2003). Two main subtypes are recognized: (a) two-mica leucogranite representing pure crustal melts of thermal minimum composition, (b) cordierite- or garnet-bearing granitoids explained as retaining a strong Al-rich restite component (Chappel et al. 1987, Bonin 2007).

A-granites have been originally defined as relatively dry (anhydrous), and they have high contents of alkali metals (either sodiun or potassium) and most high field strength trace elements. They are associated with a variety of different mineralization types (e.g. Sn, F, Nb, Ta, Au, Fe, U, and rare earth elements). A-type granites are commonly associated with mafic and intermediate rocks, which constitute a compositionally expanded association with real unity (Bonin 2007). They are likely to form through mineral fractionation, not partial melting, of mafic magmas, even in absence of significant amounts of H2O (Bonin et al. 2002).

Differences between I-types and S-types are explained by Chappel and White (1974) by the loss of sodium and calcium and by the enrichment in aluminium in the source rocks (sediments) of the S-type plutonites. Low oxygen fugacity indicated by a low Fe3+/Fe2+ ratio in S-types is explained by the reducing role of carbon and hydrocarbons originally present in sediments, which have undergone metamorphism and partial melting. I/S classification of plutonites can be correlated with their metallogenic potential. Some sulphide deposits of base metals including copper and molybdenum are spatially related to I-type plutonites (oxidized-type granites), whereas greisen tin deposits are associated with S-type plutonites (reduced type granites). The genesis of oxidized-type (magnetite series) and

reduced-type (ilmenite series) granites is attributed to a difference in SO2 contents and SO2/H2S ratios in their source magmas (Takagi and Tsukimura 1997).

The I-S classification of the Bohemian plutons has been applied by Klomínský et al. (1981), Jakeš and Pokorný (1983), Palivcová et al. (1989) and Malý and Suk (1989), and critically revised by Holub (2002). Genetic classification of Variscan granitoids of the Bohemian Massif has been summarized by René (1995).

I-S classification of the Bohemian plutonites (Fig. 5) is based on statistics of sodium, corundum, diopside content, alumina ratio and state of oxidation (Klomínský et al. 1981). Most of the Palaeozoic granites in the Bohemian Massif are of the S-type or I/S types. Granitoids of the tonalite series of the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Nasavrky Composite Massif and Brno Composite Batholith are typical I-type granitoids. Also some bodies in western Bohemia are grouped within the I-type. Förster et al. (1997) used the I-S-A granite classification for discrimination of the Erzgebirge/ Krušné hory Mts. granites. According to Breiter (2009) S-type granites appear only in the western and central part of the Erzgebirge/Krušné hory Mts. Batholith. A-type granites and volcanites are distributed irregularly through the whole Erzgebirge/Krušné hory Mts. Batholith (e.g. Krásno, Podlesí, Krupka, Sadisdorf, Gottesberg stocks and/or pipes).

Van Breemen et al. (1982) described in the Bohemian Massif the belt of diorite-tonalite-granodiorite plutons (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton) often hornblende-bearing and inferred to be I-types and a group of two-mica granite plutons (the Moldanubian Composite Batholith) that are very likely S-type (Liew and Hofmann 1988). Also Jakeš and Pokorný (1983) state that S-type plutonites are present in the Moldanubian Composite Batholith, the Krušné hory Mts. Batholith, Lusatian Composite Batholith and Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif. In addition, they correlate the Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif, the Kynžvart Massif (part of the Lesný-Lysina Massif) and the Říčany Massif with A-type granites. According to Malý and Suk (1989) the most of granitoids of the Brno Composite Pluton belongs to I-type plutonites. But in general the plutonic rocks of the Bohemian Massif cannot be assigned unambiguously to certain type of the I/S classification (Holub 1997, Malý and Suk 1989).

16

Finger et al. (1997) distinguished five genetic groups of Variscan granitoids in Central Europe according to their typology and age relationships:

1. Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous “Cordilleran” I-type granitoids (ca. 370–340 Ma). These Early Variscan granitoids are mainly tonalites and granodiorites (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Nasavrky Composite Massif). In terms of existing models, they can be interpreted as volcanic arc granitoids, related to the early Variscan subduction. Model involves mantle sources.

2. Early Carboniferous deformed S-type granite/migmatite assemblage (ca. 340 Ma). These occur in the footwall of thick thrust in southern Bohemia (Gföhl Nappe) and seem to represent a phase of water-present, syn-collisional crustal melting related to nappe stacking.

3. Late Viséan and early Namurian S-type and high-K, I-type granitoids (ca. 340–310 Ma). These granitoids are mainly granitic in composition and particularly abundant along the central axis of the orogen (Moldanubian Zone). These granitoids have been formed through high-T fluid absent melting of the lower crust. Enriched mantle melts interacted with some crustal magmas on a local scale to form durbachites. Partial melting events in the middle crust produced a number of high-T/low-P, S and I-type diatexites and some S-type granite magmas. According to Förster et al. (1999) the late-collision Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge) granites (ca 325–318 Ma) were emplaced at shallow crustal levels in the

Variscan metamorphic basement shortly after large-scale extension caused by orogenic collapse. These granites comprise mildly peraluminous transitional I-S types and strongly peraluminous S-type rocks.

4. Post-collisional, epizonal I-type granodiorites and tonalites (ca. 310–290 Ma). Such late I-type granitoids could be related to renewed subduction along the fold belt flank and/or to extensional decompression melting near the crust/mantle boundary.

5. Late Carboniferous to Permian leucogranites (ca. 300–250 Ma). Many of these rocks are similar to subalkaline A-type granites. Potential sources for this final stage of plutonism could be melt-depleted lower crust or lithospheric mantle.

According to Henk et al. (2000) the large volume of Viséan S-type and high-K2O I-type granitoids (durbachites) in the Moldanubicum are mainly products of intracrustal anatexis (e.g. Gerdes et al 1998). They are generally characterized by a crustal chemical and isotopic signature, as opposed to the pre-Viséan Variscan granites, which include several primitive calc-alkaline I-type magmas (Janoušek et al. 1995). They are often associated with migmatites (diatexites), some of which may have been newly produced in the contact aureoles of the granites, but others appear to be slightly older than the granites (Finger and Clements 1995). In the Moldanubian Composite Batholith, high formation temperatures of almost 900oC, at probable pressures of 5–7 kbar, have been inferred for some of the Viséan granite magmas, e.g. the prominent Weinsberg Granite (Henk et al. 2000).

Ilmenite-magnetite (I-M) classification

Ishihara (1977) emphasized the role of crustal carbon in the origin of the ilmenite series and the role of carbon-free protoliths the origin of the magnetite series. He empirically concluded that the presence of magnetite or ilmenite in granitoids has an importance in metallogeny. Molybdenum and base metals including porphyry copper ores are associated with magnetite series granites whereas tin deposits of the greisen type are characteristic of ilmenite-series ones. All granites of magnetite series can be defined as I types but the ilmenite series includes granitoids of both I types and S types.

According to Takagi and Tsukimura (1997) the genesis of oxidized-type (magnetite series) and reduced-type (ilmenite series) granites is attributed to a difference in SO2 contents and SO2/H2S ratios in their source magmas. When the magma contains 250 to 1,700 ppm SO2 as the dominant sulphurous

species, SO2 oxidizes iron silicates to crystallize 0.2 to 1.5 modal percent of magnetite. This produces oxidized-type granites. In contrast, when the magmas contain H2S as the dominant sulphurous spacies and its SO2 content is below 250 ppm, no or only traces of magnetite will crystallize. This produces reduced-type granites.

In this review, data on modal magnetite and ilmenite contents from 40 Bohemian plutonic bodies of Variscan and pre-Variscan age were used for the application of the I-M classification. The data used can be subdivided into three groups: group 1 contains prevalent magnetite, or its distinct prevalence over ilmenite. Group 2 is characterised by the presence of ilmenite and the absence of magnetite. Group 3 includes granitoids with ilmenite and magnetite in equal amounts. The map distribution of magnetite – and ilmenite – type

17

granitoids regardless of their geological age is classified into two regions. Most of the ilmenite granitoids lie in the western part whereas magnetite granites are situated in the eastern part of the Bohemian Massif (e.g. the Nasavrky Composite Massif).

Majority of the late Variscan granitoids in the Bohemian Massif is classified as the ilmenite series. Early Variscan granitoids belong to the magnetite series (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton).

Cadomian plutonites are represented in both granitoid series.

The distribution of magnetite and ilmenite granites in the Bohemian Massif often spatially coincides with the distribution of specific ore associations. The tin mineralization is restricted to the north-western part of the Bohemian Massif, i.e. to the region of ilmenite granites. On the other hand, this type of mineralization is almost missing in the eastern and central part of the Bohemian Massif, where magnetite granites prevail.

Genetic classification of plutonites based on zircon typology

Another genetic classification of plutonites was elaborated by Pupin and Turco (1972) and Pupin (1980). It is based on zircon grain typology and on empirical results of the correlation with geochemical and petrographic characteristics of different granite types (Fig. 6). The shape of zircon is a function of chemical composition of magma, its temperature

and water content. Bipyramid (211) is frequently formed in a low-alkaline or Al-rich environment. Bipyramid (101), on the other hand, originates in a high-alkaline or Al-depleted environment. Bipyramid (301) is linked within alkaline, K-rich environment.

Fig. 6. Zircon genetic classification (Pupin) of the plutonites of the Bohemian Massif (after Kodymová 1984). IA – agpaicity index, IT – temperature index, 1 – granitoids originated from crustal rocks, 2,3 – granitoids originated by mixing of different portions of the mantle and crustal rocks, 4 – granitoids generated from mantle rocks, 5 – Krušné hory-Smrčiny Batholith (OIG – Older Igneous Complex, YIC – Younger Igneous Complex), 6 – Moldanubian Composite Batholith, 7 – Ultrapotassic plutonites (Durbachites), 8 – Central Bohemian Pluton (CBP), 9 – Dyje (Thaya) Composite Massif, 10 – Brno Composite Pluton, 11 – individual plutonic bodies in the Bohemicum and Lugicum, 12 – S-I type demarcation line. G – granite, Gr – granodiorite, T – tonalite, S – syenite, Tr – trondhjemite.

18

From the morphologic analysis of zircon crystals Pupin (1980) derives the so-called Agpaicity Index I.A. (Al vs. Alkali ratio) and an index of their crystallization temperature (I.T).

Pupin (1980) states that zircon populations reflect both the generation conditions and magma temperature and deuteric and postmagmatic processes never influence them.

Pupin distinguishes three petrographically and petrochemically different groups with the use of IA/IT diagram (Fig. 6):

1. Granites prevailingly of crustal origin (1, 3) 2. Hybrid granites of mixed crust-mantle origin

(2, 3) 3. Granites of prevailingly mantle origin (4). This classification is comparable with the genetic

division into I- and S-granites of Chappel and White

(1987). The first group (trends 1 and 2 in the diagram in Fig. 6) coincides with S-granites. Second group (3) includes both I- and S-granites contaminated by the granitization of the host rocks of sedimentary origin or the mantle rocks; the third group (4) can be correlated exclusively with I-granites (Fig. 6).

The Pupin classification was applied to the plutonic rocks of the Bohemian Massif by Kodymová (1984), Kodymová and Štemprok (1993). Despite the fact that zircon populations of only selected plutonites were studied, these results are in good agreement with the I-S classification of the plutonites in the Bohemian Massif (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).

2.4. GEOTECTONIC CLASSIFICATION

P. E. Eskola, E. Wegmann, H. H. Read and A. Buddington studied space-time relations between the regional metamorphism, rock deformation, production and emplacement of granites. This led them to postulating of the categories of epitectonic, mesotectonic and catatectonic plutons. Their classification is better known as epi-, meso-, and cata-zonal plutons and characterizes the differences in plasticity of the intruding bodies and the country rocks. According to Pitcher (1979), it also reflects lithologic differences, relative position of the emplacement process and regional metamorphism. As a consequence of such relations, granite may be an end product of progressive regional ultra metamorphism. According to Gerdes et al. (2000) the example of such congruence, between the granite emplacement and the peak of the regional metamorphism, is generation of the Eisgarn and Weinsberg Granites in the Moldanubian Composite Batholith (Fig. 7).

On the basis of energetic disharmony and/or harmony of intrusions and their country rocks, the following types are distinguished (White et al. 1974):

Granites and metagranites of regional aureoles, surrounded by concentric zones of progressive static metamorphism.

Granites of contact aureoles, with thermal aureoles hundreds of meters wide, overprint all zones of any regional metamorphism older than the granite emplacement.

Subvolcanic granites with narrow contact aureoles (tens of metres) associated with volcanites (rhyolites, dacites, less commonly also andesites or the respective ash tuffs and ignimbrites).

Contact metamorphism associated with the plutonites in the Bohemian Massif has been studied mainly as the mineral assemblage within their thermal aureoles and according to affects of the interaction (partial melting) between granitoid magma and country rocks (e.g. Fiala 1958, Krupička 1968, Vejnar 1980, 1990, Oberc-Dziedzic 1985, Cháb and Žáček 1994). Thermo-barometry has been applied to estimate temperatures and pressures in time of the emplacement and crystallization of plutons (e.g. Souček 1987, Losos et al. 1988).

Granites of regional aureoles contain sillimanite, andalusite and cordierite but mostly lack kyanite. Their mineral assemblage is close to that of the ambient regionally metamorphosed country rocks. This indicates that these granites originated through partial melting of sediments afected by high/grade metamorphism in proximity of their present location. Most plutonite bodies in the Bohemian Massif are grouped among the granites of contact aureoles. Granites of regional aureoles (harmonic plutons) occur primarily in the regions of high-grade metamorphism. Their typical examples are the Moldanubian Composite Batholith and small bodies such as the Olešnice Massif in the Orlické hory Mts.

Subvolcanic plutonites (disharmonic plutons) intruding into their own volcanic ejecta are known from the Eastern Krušné hory Mts. Composite Pluton (the Cínovec and Krupka Massifs), the Nasavrky Composite Massif (the Křižanovice Granite) and from the Jílové Volcanic Belt (Jílové Alaskite-Trondhjemite).

Breiter and Sokol (1997) defined four groups of Variscan granitoids located in different geotectonic environment:

19

Group of tonalite-granite plutons located at major block boundaries (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton and the Nasavrky Composite Massif).

Group of granodiorite-granite plutons within consolidated crystalline blocks (e.g. the Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif, the Moldanubian Composite Batholith and the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif). This group corresponds temporally to the culminating post-orogenic magmatic stage of the Variscan Orogeny.

Group of acidic volcano-plutonic complexes linked with late Variscan extensional tectonics in the eastern Krušné hory Mts.

Group of granodiorites with a primitive chemistry (e.g. the Čistá Massif and the Štěnovice Stock).

Specific group are Variscan ultrapotassic magmatic rocks (mostly quartz melasyenites to

melagranites), which are characterized by high content of MgO, K2O, Cr, Ni, Rb, Cs, U, and Th. According to Verner et al. (2006) in the Bohemian Massif, these plutons comprise two rock groups differing in assemblages of mafic minerals: (1) amphibole-biotite rocks dominated by the durbachite series (mostly K-feldspar-phyric melasyenites to melagranites) are the most widespread, and (2) biotite-two pyroxene rocks (mostly quartz melasyenites, e.g. the Jihlava Massif). Verner et al. (2006) demonstrate that in spite of the similar age and geochemical characteristics of these intrusions, kinematic setting, and material transfer processes during emplacement vary not only from one pluton to another, but also within a single body.

2.5. CHRONOMETRIC CLASSIFICATION

The geological life of the granitic plutons consists of the events beginning by the birth of granite magma, its differentiation, mixing, act of intrusion, emplacement, stopping and cooling below the magmatic temperature, radiothermal heating and eventually reheating by a younger intrusion or regional metamorphism under different P-T conditions. These events can be differentially registered in radiogenic isotope composition of the rock-forming and accessory minerals. For decoding of the isotope timing of the magmatic intrusions and orthogneisses is necessary to know:

1. Model age for different isotopic systems in different rock-forming minerals for different closing temperatures.

2. Thermal field of the regional metamorphism around plutons.

3. Time difference between the pluton emplacement and regional metamorphism.

4. Heat production of plutons (e.g. uranium, thorium and potassium content).

Closing temperatures of the individual isotopic systems in rocks and their minerals are given below (Harland et al. 1989):

> 800 C U-Pb and Pb-Pb in zircon 650 > 800 C Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr isochrone for

crystalline rocks > 550 C Rb-Sr in muscovite 320 ± 40 C Rb-Sr in biotite 500-550 C K-Ar in amphibole 530 ± 40 C Ar-Ar in amphibole 280 40 C K-Ar in biotite ~ 350 C K-Ar in muscovite 280 ± 40 C Ar-Ar in biotite ~350 C Rb-Sr in K-feldspar. Composite data set of K-Ar – Rb-Sr – U-Pb

ages for the individual granitic bodies is widely used for the modelling of their thermal regime, the cooling history and source depth of the Bohemian plutons (e.g. Zulauf et al. 1997, Gerdes et al. 2000). An example of this model is shown in Fig. 7 which presents two schematic end-member scenarios for the granite generation in the Moldanubian Composite Batholith after Gerdes et al. (2000).

20

Fig. 7. Two schematic end-members scenarios for the Carboniferous HT-LP metamorphism and granite generation in the Moldanubian Composite Batholith (after Gerdes et al. 2000). WbG –Weinsberg Granite, RbP – Rastenberg Pluton, EsG – Eisgarn Granite. Number 1 and 2 indicate P-T data of the country rocks at time of granite emplacement (0.36–0.5 GPa, ca. 600C and 0.23–0.35 GPa, < 510C).

Sm-Nd isotopic results for late-and post-tectonic granitoids of the Bohemian Massif indicate that the source of the granites contained well-mixed material from a range of formations of different age. Two-stage Nd model ages (TDM) of the granitoids are in the range 1.1–1.7 Ga.

The field relationship of the plutonic rocks in the Czech part of the Bohemian Massif (Fig. 8) has been summarized by Klomínský (1994b).

The present state of the emplacement ages of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif is mainly based on the U-Pb isotopic dating of zircon (Fig. 9). It allows their chronostratigraphic classification, i.e. division of magmatites into different age groups referring to different geological periods (Fig. 10). However, the radiometric dating of the Bohemian Massif plutonites contains data obtained from different laboratories, different methods (e.g. Rb-Sr, K-Ar, Sm-Nd, U-Pb, Pb-Pb and Ar-Ar) applied to either rocks or minerals. Therefore, this mosaic is of a variable degree of reliability for the classification of the individual bodies according to their age. Isotopic measurements checked by biostratigraphic dating of the surrounding sediments are the most important. The degree of reliability of other radiometric data depends on the closing temperature values of the individual systems: the higher the closing temperature, the higher the reliability of the chronostratigraphic classification. In practice there are some other factors controlling the isotope systems. According

to Kempe and Belyatsky (1994) all granites of the Younger and Older Igneous Complex in the Krušné hory Mts. Composite Batholith give approximately the same Rb-Sr age. It is a result of alteration by Li-F granite-related fluids effecting whole-rock isochronal age.

The problems of age determination of the Bohemian Massif plutonites have been addressed since the beginning of their systematic scientific study (Šmejkal 1964, Šmejkal and Melková 1969, Šmejkal and Vejnar 1965, Dudek and Melková 1975, Bergner et al. 1988). Through long time periods, much knowledge, often contradictory, has been gathered on the relative ages of the individual rock types and on their relation to the biostratigraphically dated country rocks. The traditional division into the Variscan (Hercynian) and pre-Variscan (pre-Hercynian) plutonites is based primarily on geochronological data (Pb-Pb, U-Pb zircon, K-Ar whole rock, biotite or hornblende and, less commonly, Rb-Sr whole-rock methods), direct (chronostratigraphic) and indirect (structural) criteria. Only in a few cases is the age of the plutonites verified by the biostratigraphic dating of their country rocks (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Eastern Krušné hory Mts. Pluton and Zloty Stock Massif). Most plutonites of the Bohemian Massif are Palaeozoic in age.

A review of radiometric ages was compiled by Dubanský (1984) and Klomínský (1994b) for the Czech part of the Bohemian Massif. The basic

21

division of the Bohemian plutonites into Variscan (Hercynian) and pre-Variscan (pre-Hercynian), or even Cadomian (Precambrian) plutonites, was specified in more detail (e.g. Klomínský and Dudek 1978, Dudek 1979, Suk et al. 1984, Dörr et al. 1998, 2000).

According to Suk et al. (1984), Bohemian Massif plutonites can be divided into:

Metagranites of Neoproterozoic up to Palaeozoic age in metamorphosed regions. Plutonites linked with the Cadomian Orogeny. Plutonites linked with the Variscan Orogeny. Plutonites within the Tertiary Volcanic Ohře (Eger) Rift (not referred to in this review). Many radiometric analyses using the K-Ar, Rb-

Sr, Ar-Ar and U-Pb methods were carried out and/or summarised by Šmejkal and Vejnar (1965), Haake (1972), Besang et al. (1976), van Breemen et al. (1982), Gerstenberger et al. (1983), Gorochov et al. (1983), Köhler et al. (1986), Scharbert (1987), Bergner et al. (1988), Teufel (1988), Pin et al. (1988), Scharbert and Veselá (1990), Gerstenberger (1989), Holl et al. (1989), Liew et al. (1989), Kreuzer et al. (1989, 1991, 1992), Kröner et al. (1989, 1994, 2001), Wendt et al. (1993), Oliver et al. (1993), Dörr et al. (1995, 1998), Kennan et al. (1999) Tichomirova et al. (2001), Marheine et al. (2002), and Schulmann et al. (2005). A selection of the most important radiometric analyses of intrusive rocks from the Bohemian Massif was compiled by Bergner et al.

(1988) and Cháb et al. (2008). Ages of Polish granitoids were summarized by Wiszniewska, et al. (2007) and Mazur et al. (2007). Age data from magmatic rocks of the western margin of the Bohemian Massif have been compiled by Klein et al. (2008) and Finger et al. (2009).

The age determinations from Late-Variscan granites in the Erzgebirge were compiled by Romer et al. (2007) and Förster and Romer (2009). Granites and primary tin mineralization in Erzgebirge were dated using conventional U-Pb dating of uraninite inclusions in mica, Rb-Sr dating of inclusions in quartz, Re-Os dating of molybdenite and chemical Th-U-Pb dating of uraninite (Romer et al. 2007).

The age of most plutonic rocks lying partly or completely outside the territory of the Czech Republic is determined by the Rb-Sr method (isochrones) applied to rock samples (Köhler and Müller-Sohnius 1986). Rb-Sr analyses have been made also in the case of several magmatites lying exclusively on the Czech territory (e.g. the Nasavrky Composite Massif (Scharbert 1987), and the Blatná Granodiorite of the Central Bohemian Pluton (Bendl and Vokurka 1989). U-Pb and Pb-Pb analyses of zircon and Nd-Sm isotopic analyses of rocks are available from majority of the plutonic intrusions and orthogneisses of the Bohemian Massif (e.g. Kröner et al. 1994, Kröner and Hegner 1998, Siebel et al. 1995).

The plutons in the Bohemian Massif intruding the palaeontologically dated sedimentary sequences

Carboniferous sediments (300–311 Ma up to 360 Ma) Cínovec Massif Krupka Massif Meissen Massif Złoty Stok Massif

Devonian sediments (~ 400 Ma) Markersbach Stock Žulová Massif Central Bohemian Pluton: Marginal Granite, Blatná Granodiorite Nasavrky Composite Massif: Skuteč Granodiorite Milevsko Massif: Čertovo břemeno Granodiorite

Silurian sediments (~ 428 Ma) Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif

Ordovician sediments (~ 470 Ma) Strzegom Massif Smrčiny-Fichtelgebirge Composite Massif Říčany Massif

Cambrian sediments (~ 500 Ma) Königshain and Stolpen Stocks.

22

A typical feature of regional metamorphism in the Bohemian Massif is its polymetamorphic character, because the products of the younger high-temperature Variscan orogeny ( 335 Ma)-periplutonic metamorphism are usually course of Cadomian metamorphism and domal one of the Variscan metamorphism. The latter is associated with regional migmatitization in the periphery of both the Central Bohemian Pluton and the Moldanubian Composite Batholith. Both metamorphic events display a regular and complete sequence of phases from the syntectonic dynamic metamorphism up to the phase of retrograde alterations.

The peak temperatures have most likely exceeded 750 °C and may locally have been higher than 800 °C during Variscan regional metamorphism.

Plutonic bodies of the Bohemian Massif intruded across all the zones of regional metamorphism. But in case of pre-Variscan plutons, the metamorphic isograds even crosscut these bodies. At the level of the present Earth’s surface however, the majority of plutons penetrate only through one

metamorphic zone, or they are intruded along metamorphic zone boundaries. Only exceptionally some plutons crosscut more than two metamorphic isograds (facies). In these respect, the largest span is displayed by the Blatná Granodiorite in the Central Bohemian Pluton, penetrating through the unmetamorphosed Palaeozoic rocks of the Barrandian as well as the Moldanubian paragneisses, i.e. amphibolite facies of low pressures (sillimanite-almandine subfacies). About one half of the Central Bohemian pluton is clearly younger than regional metamorphism of the country rocks. 25 % displays signs of the contemporaneous emplacement with the peak of Variscan metamorphism in their surroundings (e.g. the Weinsberg Granite). Another 25 % of plutons (Cadomian in age) have been affected by regional metamorphism of the greenschist (e.g. the Brno Composite Pluton, the Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton) up to the amphibolite facies (e.g. orthogneisses in the Bohemicum and Saxothuringicum, Lugicum and Moldanubicum).

23

Fig. 8. Field relationship of the plutonic rocks in the Czech part of the Bohemian Massif (Klomínský 1994b).

24

List of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Czech part of the Bohemian Massif (see Fig. 8)

1 – Sázava Tonalite 2 – Blatná Granodiorite 3 – Marginal Granite 4 – Klatovy Granodiorite 5 – Červená Granodiorite 6 – Nýrsko Granite 7 – Kozlovice Granite 8 – Těchnice Granodiorite 9 – Něčín Granodiorite 10 – Kozárovice

Granodiorite 11 – Požáry Trondhjemite 12 – Maršovice Granodiorite 13 – Sedlčany Granodiorite 14 – Čertovo břemeno

Granodiorite 15 – Tábor Syenite 16 – Říčany Granite 17 – Jevany Granite 18 – Ondřejov Tonalite 19 – Benešov Granodiorite 20 – Milevsko Dyke Swarm 21 – Mirovice Orthogneiss 22 – Jílové Volcanic Belt 23 – Neratovice Gabbro 24 – Hoštice Granodiorite 25 – Tis Granite 26 – Bechlín Diorite 27 – Čistá Granodiorite 28 – Černá Kočka Granite 29 – Todice Gabbro 30 – Petrovice Gabbro 31 – Bohutín Tonalite 32 – Lešetice Granodiorite 33 – Štěnovice Granodiorite 34 – Benešovice Granite 35 – Milevo Granodiorite 36 – Prostiboř Granodiorite 37 – Sedmihoří 1 Granite 38 – Sedmihoří 2 Granite 39 – Merklín Granodiorite 40 – Drnovka Granite 41 – Kdyně Metatonalite 42 – Všepadly Granodiorite 43 – Orlovice Gabbro 44 – Poběžovice Gabbro 45 – Podolsko Orthogneiss 46 – Drahotín Gabbro 47 – Babylon Granite 48 – Rozvadov Granite 49 – Bärnau Granite 50 – Bor Redwitzite 51 – Bor 1 Granite

52 – Bor 2 Granite 53 – Weissenstadt-

Marktleuthen Granite 54 – Zinn Granite 55 – Selb Granite 56 – Core Granite 57 – Marginal Granite 58 – Selb Orthogneiss 59 – Loket Granite 60 – Nejdek Granite 61 – Kfely Granite 62 – Eibenstock Granite 63 – Blauenthal Granite 64 – Kynžvart-Žandov

Granite 65 – Red Orthogneiss 66 – Fláje Granite 67 – Moldava Granite 68 – Loučná Granite

Porphyry 69 – Teplice Rhyolite 70 – Cínovec Granite 71 – Preisselberg Granite 72 – Roztoky Volcanic

Centre 73 – Doupov Volcanic

Centre 74 – Mariánské Lázně

Complex 75 – Stolpen Granite 76 – Lužice Granodiorite 77 – Königshain Granite 78 – Rumburk Granite 79 – Jizera-Krkonoše

Orthogneiss 80 – Liberec Granite 81 – Tanvald Granite 82 – Nový Hrádek Granite 83 – Olešnice-Kudowa

Granite and Granodiorite

84 – Špičák Gabbro 85 – Orlica-Sněžník

Orthogneiss 86 – Zábřeh Tonalite 87 – Žulová Granite 88 – Strzelin Granite 89 – Keprník Orthogneiss 90 – Šumperk Granite 91 – Lukavice

Metavolcanites 92 – Žumberk Granite 93 – Křižanovice Granite

94 – Švihov Quartz diorite 95 – Skuteč Tonalite 96 – Všeradov Granite 97 – Benátky-Babákov

Porphyry 98 – Ransko Gabbro 99 – Chvaletice Granite 100 – Stvořidla Granite 101 – Číměř and Zvůle

Granite 102 – Eisgarn Granite 103 – Weinsberg Granite 104 – Mauthausen Granite 105 – Freistadt Granodiorite 106 – Rastenberg

Granodiorite 107 – Dobra Orthogneiss 108 – Gföhl Orthogneiss 109 – Třebíč Granodiorite 110 – Svratka Metagranite 111 – Tasovice Granite 112 – Znojmo Quartz diorite 113 – Doubravice

Granodiorite 114 – Blansko Granodiorite 115 – Královo Pole

Granodiorite 116 – Veverská Bítýška

Granodiorite 117 – Hlína Granite 118 – Tetčice Granodiorite 119 – Kounice Granodiorite 120 – Granodiorite 121 – Krumlovský les

Granodiorite 122 – Vedrovice

Granodiorite 123 – Olbramovice

Granodiorite 124 – Jablunkov Gabbro 125 – Rusava Gabbro 126 – Dražovice Gabbro 127 – Lubná Granite 128 – Slavkov Tonalite 129 – Stupava Granodiorite 130 – Ždánice Tonalite 131 – Nikolčice

Granodiorite 132 – Mušov Diorite 133 – Mikulov Granite

25

Fig. 9. Diagram of the emplacement ages of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif.

26

Fig. 10. Chronometric map of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif. 1–3 – zircon and monazite ages according to Finger et al. (2008).

27

Chronostratigraphy of the volcano-plutonic sequences

Tertiary (Miocene-Palaeocene) magmatic rocks (not discussed in this review) form several volcanic centres mainly along the so-called Ohře rift. Primarily extrusive and effusive alkali basalts and trachytes represent them. Small stocks of alkaline igneous rocks (theralites, essexites and rongstockites) occur rarely in the centre of the Doupovské hory Mts. Volcanic Centre and in the core of the Roztoky Volcanic Caldera. The Osečná Polzenite Subvolcanic Centre in the Česká Lípa area (the Osečná Centre) also belongs to this age category.

Permian igneous rocks are abundant in the Intrasudetic, Krkonoše Piedmont and Mnichovo Hradiště basins. Plutonites form smaller granite massifs and stocks (Strzegom Massif, Cínovec-Krupka Massif, Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif and Zelezniak Stock). Permian age of the youngest bodies of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith is still considered hypothetical (e.g. the Nákolice Granite – 296 ± 31 Ma, subvolcanic felsic dykes – 295 ± 5 Ma, Rb-Sr whole rock and subvolcanic dacitic/andesitic Dehetník dykes, approx. 270 Ma (Ar-Ar).

The single evaporation SHRIMP ages of zircon 297 ± 8 Ma is confirmed by Kempe et al. (2004) from rhyolite stocks and dykes in the endo-exocontact of the Eibenstock Granite, the Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif.

Upper Carboniferous magmatic rocks are arranged into a ring following the roughly circular contour of the Bohemian Massif. They are represented by several volcanic centres (e.g. the Mnichovo Hradiště Basin, Teplice Rhyolite Caldera, Walbrzych Caldera in Poland and the porphyry extrusion within the Karlovy Vary Massif) the Smrčiny Composite Massif, the Older Igneous Complex of the Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge) Batholith, and by many massifs and stocks chiefly of the Eisgarn type in the Moldanubian Composite Batholith, Žumberk Granite of the Nasavrky Composite Massif, the Žulová Massif and the Meissen Composite Massif. The Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif and granitic bodies in Poland (e.g. Sobotka Massif – Mt. Sleza) also fall into this age category.

Finger et al. (2009) proposed that the mid-Carboniferous (from 315 to 325 Ma) in the Fichtelgebirge/Erzgebirge Batholith and the Moldanubian Composite Batholith belong to one coherent and cogenetic, ca. 400 km long plutonic megastructure – the Saxo-Danubian Granite Belt.

Lower Carboniferous magmatic rocks lack volcanic component completely. They occur in large outcrops over a relatively consistent area of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith (Weinsberg Granite Pluton) and of most types and bodies of the Central Bohemian Pluton (Sázava Tonalite, Požáry Trondhjemite, Blatná Granodiorite). Lower Carboniferous granitic rocks are known from the Bor Massif and the Kladruby Composite Massif, the Skuteč type of the Nasavrky Composite Massif and tonalites of the Hrubý Jeseník Mts. (e.g. the Great Tonalite Dyke).

Devonian magmatic rocks are represented by metabasalts in the Nízký Jeseník Mts. The Čistá Massif (Košler et al. 1993, 1995) the Mirotice and Staré Sedlo Orthogneisses (Košler et al. 1996), the Benešov Massif, Popovice Orthogneiss and Podolsko Orthogneiss may be considered their plutonic equivalents.

Ordovician or Cambro-Ordovician magmatic rocks are represented mainly by metagranites (dynamically metamorphosed plutonites). These are the Orlice-Sněžník Orthogneiss, Krkonoše-Jizera. Orthogneiss, the Münchberg Orthogneiss, and plutons such as the Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton, the Chvaletice Massif, the Rumburk Granite (the Lusatian Composite Batholith) and the Stod Massif. Similar Early Palaeozoic emplacement ages of ~480 Ma for granitoid rocks have also been reported from the Gföhl Gneiss in Moldanubicum. Volcanic rocks of the Cambro-Ordovician age are known mostly from the Barrandian area (e.g. the Křivoklát-Rokycany Zone and the Strašice Zone).

Neoproterozoic to Lower Cambrian magmatic rocks form basic massifs and stocks on one hand and spatially extensive plutons of granodiorite and tonalite composition on the other hand (e.g. The Lusatian Composite Batholith, the Brno Composite Pluton, the Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge) Orthogneisses (“granite-gneisses”) and the Thaya (Dyje) Massif as well as volcano-plutonic complexes such as the Kdyně Massif, and the Neratovice Massif).

Neoproterozoic age (552 ± 11 Ma) has been also confirmed for the Stráž Orthogneiss in the Moldanubian Zone (Košler et al. 1996).

Neoproterozoic magmatites (Vendian-Rifean) are represented by volcanites and as well as by granitoids. The Jílové Volcanic Belt and the Všeradov Granite in the Železné hory Mts. contains plutonites (alkali-feldspar granites and trondhjemites) of the similar age. Neoproterozoic ages of granitic rocks are well documented in the

28

Lusatian Composite Batholith where the Pulsnitz and Radeberg-Löbau Complexes show the age in range of 587–540 Ma (U-Pb zircon).

Most of these Neoproterozoic-Lower Cambrian rocks of the magmatic origin crop out in the Moldanubian Zone and correlate with leucocratic two-mica and biotite granites. The largest bodies are represented by the Gföhl Orthogneiss (partly Cambrian-Ordovician in age). Smaller outcrops (less than 30 sq. km) are formed by the Hluboká, Choustník, Svratka, and Blaník orthogneisses. Some of the bodies mentioned also contain relict

metagranites, which document their intrusive character (Zikmund 1983).

Moldanubian orthogneisses show a high chronological span. The oldest rocks of the magmatic origin found so far in the Bohemian Massif are tonalitic-dioritic orthogneisses in the Moldanubian Zone pointing at intrusion ages of 2060 ± 12 Ma to 2104 ± Ma for these rocks (the Světlík Gneiss). The Dobra Gneiss exhibits an emplacement age of 1377 ± 10 Ma (Gebauer and Friedl 1994).

3. FORMATIONAL AND HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS OF PLUTONS Formational analysis allows geological correlations among plutonites on the basis of their material composition and tectonic setting in time and space. An analysis of petrographic, chemical composition and textural characteristics of plutonites is necessary for the definition of relationships among individual bodies but also among their parts. This analysis shows some geotectonic and metallogenetic implications. Recognition of these relations is the basis for the so-called formational analysis of plutonites defined by Kouznyetsof (1964) and applied to the Bohemian Massif by Afanasyef et al. 1977, Palivcová (1977) and Palivcová et al. (1968, 1978, 1989), Sattran and Klomínský (1970), Klomínský and Dudek (1978), Tauson et al. (1977), Holub (1991), Breiter and Sokol (1997), Holub et al. (1997), Janoušek et al. (2004), Hanžl and Melichar (1997) and others using the field, petrological and geochemical data. Results of these classifications led to grouping of individual rock types and bodies into genetic successions, groups, suites, and formations of plutons or batholiths. Hierarchical analysis, defining common characters of plutonic generations, families and their members, is a more advanced form of formational analysis of plutonites. Internal relations between individual components and an estimation of their share on the total material variability of plutonic bodies allow their comparison at the same level of hierarchical importance.

The history of formational analysis of the individual plutonic bodies in the Bohemian Massif can be demonstrated on the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith (see the Bohemicum Fig. 1.1. and 1.3.). A .descriptive rock typology by Kodym and Suk (1960) has been later modified by many attempts to set the formational analysis of the Batholith (Svoboda et al. 1964; Steinocher, 1969; Vejnar, 1974, Kodymová and Vejnar 1974;

Tauson et al. 1979, Afanasyef et al. 1977, Klomínský and Sattran 1970; Palivcová et al. 1968, 1978, 1989, Tomek 1975; Rajlich and Vlašímský 1975, Holub 1991, Holub et al. 1997, and Janoušek et al. 2000). In the following text there are several examples of the formational and/or hierarchical analyses of plutons (see also the Bohemicum Fig. 1.1 and 1.3.).

According to Holub et al. (1997) seven compositional and genetic groups can be distinguished among plutonic rocks of the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith:

Calc-alkaline group represented by gabbroic to dioritic and tonalitic rocks and Sázava type,

Ca-rich acid granitoids (Požáry and Nečín types),

High-K group of shoshonitic and high-K calc-alkaline rocks (the Kozárovice, Těchnice, Blatná, Marginal, Červená and Nýrsko types),

Ultrapotassic group (“durbachites” of the Čertovo břemeno and Tábor types), High-K, high-Mg granites (the Sedlčany,

Zbonín, Říčany types) The peraluminous granodiorites (the Kozlovice,

Maršovice and Kosova Hora types), The group of leucogranites of the polygenetic

origin. These genetic groups can be attributed to three

major pulses of the plutonic activity: I – calc-alkaline group, II – high-K group, III – ultrapotassic, the high-K, high-Mg granitoids and probably the peraluminous granodiorites (Holub et al. 1997).

The Central Bohemian Composite Batholith comprises according to Janoušek et al. (2000) five granitoid suites: Sázava suite (Sázava and Požáry intrusions), Blatná suite (the Blatná and Kozárovice intrusions with the Červená facies), Čertovo břemeno suite (Sedlčany, Čertovo břemeno and Tábor intrusions), Říčany suite

29

(Říčany intrusion) and Maršovice suite (Maršovice, Kozlovice and Kosova Hora intrusions).

Grouping of the granitic rocks in the Weinsberg Composite Pluton (Moldanubian Composite Batholith) into the Weinsberg, Mauthausen and Eisgarn Groups was applied by Koller (2000).

Granitoids of the Desná Unit in the Silesicum were classified according to field criteria, petrological and geochemical data into the tonalite, granite and leucogranite suites (Hanžl et al. 2007).

According to the concept of Finger et al. (1997, 2009) Variscan granites in the Bohemian Massif form on basis of the synchronicity of geochronological data and similarity of granite types at least five independent magmatic systems with individual tectonothermal backgrounds:

1. A “North Variscan Granite Belt” with ca. 330 to 350 Ma I-type granite and granodiorite plutons.

2. A “Central Bohemian Granite Belt” with ca. 360 to 335 Ma I-type tonalites and granodiorites.

3. A “Durbachite Plutons” with 335 to 340 Ma high-K to shoshonitic (mela)granites, granodiorites and syenites/monzonites.

4. Saxo-Danubian Granite Belt with 330 to 310 Ma of the Moldanubian and Saxothuringian granites of batholithic dimensions.

5. Sudetic Granite Belt with ~315 to 300 Ma I-type granodiorites, I/S- and S-type granites.

According to Siebel et al. (2008) in the western wing of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith granites in the Bavarian Terrane (high Ca-Sr-Y granites) and the Ostrong Terrane (low Ca-Sr-Y granites) define two distinct granite types, which formed at about the same time but from different source materials in two compositionally distinct Variscan basement units separated by the Pfahl Shear Zone.

Sattran and Klomínský (1970) defined in a group of petrometallogenic series of the Bohemian Massif four principal granitic series (see Tab. 4 and Fig. 20):

1. The Sn-W series represented by the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Composite Batholith and highly differentiated granites of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith (e.g. the Landštejn Granite).

2. the “transitional” W-Mo series represented by the OIC of the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Composite Batholith and the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif

3. The “transitional” Mo-Au series represented by the Bor, Kladruby, Čistá, Žulová Massifs, and Štěnovice Stock.

4. The Au series represented by tonalites and granodiorites of the Central Bohemian Pluton and the Nasavrky Composite Massif

.

4. PETROCHEMISTRY OF PLUTONITES Geochemistry and petrochemical variability of

the Bohemian Massif plutons have been studied and summarised by Sattran and Klomínský (1970), Vejnar (1974), Vlašímský (1975). Rajlich and Vlašímský (1983), Holub et al. (1997), Steinocher (1969), Štemprok and Škvor (1974), Tauson et al. (1977), Klomínský and Dudek (1978), Jarchovský and Štemprok (1979), Cambel et al. (1980), Čadková et al. (1984, 1985), Tischendorf (1989), Liew et al. (1989), Štemprok (1991), Breiter et al. (1991), Holub (1991), Jelínek and Dudek (1993), Bowes and Košler (1993), Breiter (1994), Breiter and Sokol

(1997) Holub et al. (1997), Siebel et al. (1999), Breiter et al. (1999) and Janoušek et al. (2000, 2004). These studies are based on large data sets of major and trace elements and have been focused mainly on the geotectonic, metallogenic, genetic implications, and formational and hierarchic classifications of plutons. The most complete geochemical database of the granitic rocks (2174 rock samples) and orthogneisses (586 rock samples) has been summarized (Fig. 11) by the Czech Geological Survey (Gürtlerová 2004).

30

Fig. 11. Regional distribution of granitoid samples in the geochemical database of the Czech Geological Survey (Gürtlerová 2004). The granitoids (red) and orthogneisses (blue).

Fig. 12. AFM (atomic ratios) and Ab-Q-Or (normative ratios) diagrams of the Bohemian Massif plutonites of the Cadomian (A, B) and Variscan (C, D) age. Green – tonalites, yellow – granodiorites, red – granites, blue – durbachites.

Petrochemical variability of the plutonites of the Bohemian Massif was demonstrated by Klomínský and Dudek (1978) in a data set of chemical analyses of the major oxides representing the majority of the Bohemian plutonites. Data on average composition of the individual plutons and massifs are

summarized in ternary diagrams AFM, and Ab-Q-Or (Fig. 12). The distribution areas of petrochemical data dispersion for the main petrographic types (two-mica and biotite granites, biotite granodiorites, tonalites and biotite-amphibole and durbachites) of the groups of Variscan (C, D) and pre-Variscan plutonites (A, B) are shown in Fig. 12.

According to Klomínský and Dudek (1978) the granite-granodiorite and the tonalite series may be distinguished in both Variscan and pre-Variscan plutonites, the latter particularly showing remarkable compositional differences.

All Variscan plutons in the Bohemian Massif have a calc-alkaline composition. As is shown in Fig. 12. C, it is impossible to eliminate the interference with the alkali-feldspar series, which is represented by auto-metamorphosed granites (the youngest group of Variscan plutonites). The field of ultrapotassic (durbachite) plutons is completely offset of the main differentiation trend (Fig. 12 C, D). Their specific position argues for their different source and genesis. Some granites in a field of limited extent represent one end-member of the genetic series while the other end- member is represented by the group of tonalites and related diorites and gabbros in a field of a much wider range. The group of biotite granodiorites overlaps the field of granites and has a limited extent. The diagram shows a certain gap between the granite (granodiorite) and tonalite fields. This discontinuity in the dispersion fields

31

may indicate differences in time and spatial distribution of chemically distinct groups of Variscan plutonites.

In the Q-Ab-Or diagram (Fig. 12 D), most of the Variscan granites are concentrated in its centre between the cotectic lines corresponding to 0.5 and 5 MPa of the Q-Or-Ab-H2O system (e.g. the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Batholith, the Moldanubian Composite Batholith). The position of biotite granodiorites (yellow) closer to the Ab-Q side again indicates closer relations of this granite group. Ultrapotassic (durbachite) plutons are represented by an isolated field clearly shifted toward the Or apex (Fig. 12 D). Its specific chemical position is indicated by the notable prevalence of potassium over sodium.

Data dispersion fields of the material composition of the pre-Variscan plutonites are characterized by a

different tectonic position relative to their Variscan equivalents in both the Q-Ab-Or and the AFM diagrams (Fig. 12 A, B). This is true in particular for tonalities and granodiorites, the fields of which are distinctly shifted towards the Ab apex and the F apex, respectively. It indicates the sodic character of the pre-Variscan plutonites. Some Variscan and pre-Variscan plutonites also differ in the mafic mineral content (colour index). Tonalites of pre-Variscan plutonites are obviously more leucocratic than the corresponding Variscan types. The granites are more leucocratic, too. Chemical reflection of this difference cannot be demonstrated clearly in the ternary diagrams, it is, however, well defined when Niggli’s differentiation diagrams are used (Cambel et al. 1980).

Changes in the granite composition of the plutons through time

The most significant systematic change in granitic composition in the Bohemian Massif in time is that of the Na content of the large batholiths, with Na being most abundant in the Cadomian and Lower Palaeozoic (Caledonian?) granites, and lowest in the Upper Palaeozoic (Variscan) granites. This evolution in Na content is probably coupled with the change from garnet to plagioclase dominance in the source regions of the granites, with Na being lower in those granites that were derived from plagioclase-bearing source regions. The two distinct patterns, dominated by either garnet or plagioclase in the source, are obviously related to depth of partial melting, with the plagioclase-bearing sources

occurring at shallower levels than the garnet-bearing sources. The latter would have resided at depths greater than 45 km, and probably greater than 60 km.

The second systematic change is the variation in K, Th and U contents in granites from depletion in the Cadomian and Lower Palaeozoic granites, to strong enrichment in the Upper Palaeozoic granites. It can indicate again their source at a shallower depth. Finally, some Variscan and pre-Variscan igneous rocks differ from each other in their colour index. Tonalites of the Cadomian age are notably lower in mafic components than Variscan ones (Klomínský and Dudek 1978).

32

5. 3-D SHAPE, EROSION LEVEL AND DEPTH OF SOLIDIFICATION OF PLUTONIC BODIES

Morphogenesis and tectonic setting of the postkinematic intrusions was studied by Vigneresse (1995a, b). According to Trzebski et al. (1997) this author distinguished three regimes of regional deformation as controls of granite emplacement: (a) compression, (b) extension and (c) shear deformation. According to Trzebski et al. (1997) several authors suggested late- to postkinematic granite emplacement in transpressional and transtensional shear zones. Vigneresse (1995a) pointed out the following characteristics of shear-induced granite emplacement:

(a) Association with major strike-slip faults, (b) elliptical shape at outcrop level, (c) subvertical shear plane and horizontal shear-related lineations, (d) steep pluton walls controlled by the shear plane, (e) pluton floor with depth 5 ± 2 km and a single root with depths 6–12 km and (f) volume > 15,000 km3.

In contrast, granites intruded into extentional structures are (a) very thin (< 3 km), (b) with subhorizontal foliation planes, (c) volume >1,500 km3 and (d) several root zones with depths 5–6 km.

Geophysical investigations reveal that many granitoid plutons possess a tabular shape: either laccolithic (convex roof and straight floor) or, lopolithic (straight roof and concave foor) or phacolithic (biconvex) shape Dietl and Koyi (2008). Despite their differences in emplacement level and tectonic setting, the development of lensoidal shapes of all these plutons can be described as a three-stages process (l.c). In the first stage a vertical dyke is established, where magma is transported upward until it reaches a horizontal unconformity along which the magma then – in second stage – speads laterally to form sill. In the third stage additional magma ascends through the feeder dyke to be emplaced into the sill, which inflates due to the magma overpressure by doming of the roof and/or depression of the floor of the growing pluton. According to Dietl and Koyi (2008) these three stages are incremental processes and intimately entangled with each other, in particular in the case of composite plutons which consist of several magma banches.

According to Cruden (2006) granite plutons are emplaced as tabular to wedge-shaped bodies with thicknesses ranging from 1 to 10 km. They are fed

by one or more vertical conducts, but the bulk of magma flow at the emplacement level is horizontal. The role of their lateral displacement in creating space diminishes with decreasing ductility of the wall rocks.

3-D shape analysis of plutonic bodies in the Bohemian Massif is based primarily on geophysical (gravity and seismic) models but also on detailed studies of the outer contacts and the petrographic composition of the magmatic intrusions (e.g. the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif by Cloos 1925 and Watzenauer 1935 – Fig. 13, the Abertamy Redwitzite by Kovaříková et al. 2005, the Smrčiny-Fichtelgebirge Composite Massif by Hecht et al. 1997, and the Oberpfalz Composite Massif by Trzebski et al. 1997). Ethmolithic and/or sheet-like shape with a flat roof and/or floor as inclined sheets have been suggested for many plutons (e.g. the Karlovy Vry Massif, the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif, the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Milevsko Massif, the Třebíč Massif, Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton and the Oberpfalz Composite Massif). On the other hand, some granitic stocks have been modelled as sub-vertical cigar-like bodies (e.g. the Čistá Massif, the Bohutín Stock, the Štěnovice Stock). The roof morphology of some plutonic bodies has been traced according to position and size of the country rock enclaves and rafts (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton) The roof shape of plutons has been mapped in detail by drilling and geophysical survey only in the Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge) Composite Batholith with the aim to determine first of all the subsurface extension and form of the major granite cupolas (e.g. Krupka Massif in the eastern Krušné hory Mts. and minute stocks in the Western Krušné hory Mts. Pluton – e.g. the Hub Stock in Jarchovský 2006, see fig. 14).

The crystalline schists of almost the whole Krušné hory Mts. area are underlain by large bodies of granitic rocks, which, at a number of places, were found to be seated at relatively shallow depths (Watznauer 1954). The extension of post-Carboniferous denudation of the late Variscan plutons was estimated by Sattran (1957), at the maximum of 1,500 m, based on the material removal in the Krušné hory Mts. crystalline rocks.

Models of the shape and thickness of the Karlovy Vary Massif (about 10 km), the Lusatian Composite Batholith (over 10 km), Krkonoše-

33

Jizera Composite Massif (4 to 10 km) and Jizera Orthogneiss (up to 6 km) have been suggested by

Jeliński et al. (1963) and Sedlák et al. (2007).

Fig. 13. Examples of the vertical sections across some granitic intrusions in the Bohemian Massif.

A. Longitudinal profile across the assymetric ethmolith model of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif (modified according to Watznauer 1935). 1 – Krkonoše-Jizera granites, 2 – Tanvald Granite, 3 – crystalline rocks.

B. Geological model of the Krudum Massif along NNW-SSE gravity profile (modified according to Švancara et al.2000). 1 – mica-schists and phyllites, 2 – Mariánské Lázně Basic Complex, 3 – Karlovy Vary Granites.

C. Geological model of the Krudum Massif along NW-SE gravity profile (modified according to Blecha et al., 2009).

1 – paraautochthon, 2 – mica-schists and phyllites, 3 – Mariánské Lázně Basic Complex, 4 – granites of the YIC, 5 – granites of the OIC.

D. Geological model of the Bor Massif along the N-S gravity profile (modified according to Trzebski et al., 1997). 1 –

crystalline rocks, 2 – basic complexes, 3 – Bor granites. E. Geological model of the Karlovy Vary Massif along the N-W-SE gravity profile (modified according to Hofmann et

al. 2003). 1 – crystalline rocks, 2 – Karlovy Vary granites. F. Interpretative block-diagram of theŘíčany Massif internal structure (modified according to Trubač et al. 2009).

1 – strongly porphyritic granite, 2 – weakly porphyritic granite, 3 – K-feldspar foliation, 4 – inferred magma flow direction, 5 – magnetic lineation, 6 – broad gradational contact.

34

The shape and the extension of the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith were discussed by Kettner (1930a,b), Orlov (1935) Dudek and Fediuk 1957, Kodym and Suk (1958) and Marek and Palivcová (1968). According to the existing views it may be assumed that the contacts of the Central Bohemian Pluton (a principal member of the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith, see the Bohemicum) are in general approximately vertical or dip steeply towards the SE (especially in the northern part of the Pluton) or to the NW (mainly in its southern part). In the Příbram mining district the Central Bohemian Pluton penetrated to its present-day level along a pre-existing tectonic lineament. Its boundary with the Proterozoic and the Palaeozoic sediments of the Teplá-Barrandian basin dips therefore very steeply to the SE to a depth exceeding 1,500 m (Dudek and Fediuk 1956). In general, the abyssal character of the Central Bohemian Pluton increases from N to S and from W to E. In the northern and northwestern part of the Pluton, thermal contact metamorphism prevails and on the endocontact porphyritic facies of granodiorites considered to be typical of shallow depth plutons often appears (Dudek and Fediuk 1957, Kodym and Suk 1958). Towards east and south gneissic rocks and migmatites occur at the contacts with increasing frequency and the migmatite aureole continues to widen.

The original thickness of the Palaeozoic and Proterozoic sediments in the roof of the Central Bohemian Pluton is estimated at the value of 2,000 ± 500 m (Dudek and Suk 1965). According to Zoubek (1960) this Pluton is a shallow intrusion 1,500–600 m below the original surface. The depth reached by individual intrusions of the Central Bohemian Pluton (CBP) was summarised by Dudek and Suk (1965) in the interval, from 1,000 m for the Říčany and Marginal Granite (northern part of CBP) and up to 4,000–5,000 m for the Červená Granodiorite (southern part of CBP).

In the Bohemicum, Krupička (1950) states that in the central part of the Jílové Volcanic Belt there may be assumed a depth difference of approximately 1,200 m over 10 km along SSW direction with rocks of gradually showing more deep-seated character ranging from effusive types in the north to marked intrusive types in the south.

Magmatic stopping as an important emplacement mechanism of Variscan plutons has been studied by Žák et al. (2006) using the evidence from roof pendants in the Central Bohemian Pluton. The presence of numerous roof

pendants, stopped blocks and discordant intrusive contacts in the Central Bohemian Pluton suggests that magmatic stopping was a widespread process during its final construction. They argue that extensive magmatic stopping may, in general, be an important mechanism of final construction of upper-crustal plutons. Magmatic stopping is also likely to significantly modify preserved structural patterns around plutons and obscure the evidence for earlier emplacement processes due to removal of large parts of structural aureoles. The magmatic stopping may have significantly contributed as a large-scale exchange process to vertical recycling and downward transport of crustal material within magma plumbing systems in the crust during Variscan orogeny, similarly to Mesozoic Andean and Cordilleran plutonic systems (Žák et al. 2006).

Fig. 14. The Hub and Schnöd Stocks (the Krásno Stock) – longitudial section and isohypses of the granite surface under the gneiss country rocks (according to Jarchovský 2006). 1 – gneiss, 2 –

greisen and gneiss breccia, 3 – leucocratic granite, partly altered, 4 – leucocratic granite, 5 – Li-F granite, 6 – fault.

The depth relief of the granitoid plutons of the Moldanubicum has been studied by Dudek and Suk (1965). Subsurface topography of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith roof was modelled by Mottlová and Suk (1970) and Suk and Weiss (1975) on the basis of mapping of the periplutonic metamorphism and gravity measurements. The maximum real width of the periplutonic migmatite zones fluctuates from several hundred meters up to 1 km, so that it may be assumed that their occurrences indicate the presence of granitic rocks in proximity or at a depth not exceeding that width on the average.

35

Another important criterion may be found in the extension of dyke rocks whose space distribution in the Moldanubicum is almost always linked with the granitoid massifs and the area closely adjoining their contact. In spite of this regularity, the extension of dykes reaches in places considerably beyond the surface occurrences of the plutons and thus can indicate the subsurface extension of the latter.

In the Moldanubian Composite Batholith, a number of preserved islets and rafts of crystalline schists are found. Together with shape and position of the Batholith, they bring evidence that only its apical part was laid bare. The depth reached by individual intrusions of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith was summarised by Dudek and Suk (1965) in the interval from 1,000 m for the Eisgarn Granite and up to 8,000 m for the Schärding Granite (in situ anatectic granite). According to Gerdes et al. (2000) the Eisgarn Pluton intruded into the higher level of the Moldanubian crust than the Weinsberg Pluton further to the south.

The estimated volume of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith of around 80,000 km3 was estimated from its average thickness of about 8 km (Gerdes et al. 2000a).

Ethmolithic delimitation and flat tabular shape

of plutonic bodies has been interpreted by Dobeš and Pokorný (1988) and Bubeníček (1968) from regional gravity profiles mostly in the durbachite bodies (e.g. the Milevsko Massif and the Třebíč Massif). On the other hand the durbachite intrusion of the Jihlava Massif is reported as a steeply dipping tabular intrusion (Verner et al. 2006).

At least two durbachite intrusions (the Milevsko and Třebíč massifs) in the Moldanubicum are relatively thin sheets according to gravity survey and indications of the underlying country rocks.

3-D shape of the Milevsko Massif was modelled by Dobeš and Pokorný (1988) according to the gravity survey as a thin ethmolitic sheet in the western part and as a deep root in the eastern segment of the intrusion (Fig. 15).

Houzar and Novák (1998) interpreted several “windows” of metamorphics of Drosendorf and Gföhl units within the Třebíč Massif. Drillings through the Milevsko Massif hit the Blatná Granodiorite at depth of 450 m in its western part (Hamtilová 1971).

The Želnava (Knížecí stolec) Massif shape is interpreted by Verner et al. (2006) as a ring complex with numerous durbachite cone-sheets around the central homogenous massif.

Interactive gravity modelling of the 3-D shape, subsurface extent and basal morphology of the late-Variscan granites was carried out by Trzebski et al. (1997) in the north-western Bohemian Massif (Fig. 16). For the subsurface shaping two gravity methods were used: the Linsser filtering and the 2.5-D density modelling. At depth, granites show steep- and flat-sided, wedge-like plutons, which are generally elongated, in north-northwest-south-southeast direction (Trzebski et al. 1997). The maximum basal depths between 3 and 10 km occur along the root zones indicated by high gravity magnitudes (Fig. 16).

Fig. 15. Isolines depth plots of the basal morphology (in km scale) of the Milevsko Massif (Čertovo břemeno Granodiorite) according to Dobeš and Pokorný (1988).

36

Table 2. Geometrical parameters of the granitic plutons in the northwestern Bohemian Massif (after Trzebski et al. 1997).

Granite type Surface Max. depth Volume (km2) (km) (km3)

Leuchtenberg 140 10 2,900 Falkenberg 58 4 470 Steinwald/Friedenfels 64 7 550 Flossenbürg 60 5 780 Bärnau 40 8 320 Waidhaus/Rozvadov 250 9 2,100 Bor 370 7 2,500 Mitterteich 126 5 990 Kynžvart 66 7 880 Total: 11,490

Fig. 16. Isoline depth plots of the basal morphology of plutons in the northwestern part of the Bohemian Massif (after Trzebski et al. 1997).

The western- and easternmost granites (e.g. Leuchtenberg, Bor) are deeply eroded (east-sided basal asymmetry), whereas the granites in the central part (e.g. Falkenberg, Rozvadov) are greatly buried in the metamorphic host rocks and show a west-sided basal asymmetry (Trzebski et al. 1997).

According to Madel (1975) the Flossenbürg Granite in the Oberpfalz Composite Massif is a NW-SE trending laccolith of more than 500 m thickness, having a rather steep contact at its SW margin, and gently dipping towards the NW underneath the Falkenberg Granite.

37

The Leuchtenberg Granite most probably has the shape of a nearly vertical sheet with an approximate width of some 3 km. The shape of the Falkenberg Granite is approximately that of a horizontal plate which has solidified at a depth of approximately 9–12 km with an assumed original thickness of about 9 km, 3 km of which having

now been removed by erosion (Zulauf, Maier and Stöckhert 1997). The Falkenberg Granite cooling rate to 400 and 350 °C lasted over approximately 6 and 15 Ma, respectively (Zulauf, Maier and Stöckhert 1997).

Fig. 17. Map of the depth (in km) of the floor of the Smrčiny (Fichtelgebirge) Composite Massif (adapted after Hecht et al. 1997).A – outline of the surface outcrops, B – fault.

The shape and thickness of the Smrčiny (Fichtelgebirge) Composite Massif (Fig. 17) has been modelled by Hecht et al. (1997). The OIC unit (Wiessenstadt-Marktleuthen Granite) is thin, except on its eastern site (6 km). The average depth of the floor is approximately 2–3 km. In YIC, (the Central Massif) presents a great thickness averaging 6–7 km. The satellite stocks of the YIC (the Waldstein and Kornberg Stocks) have a restricted thickness of less than 2 km.

According to Siebel et al. (1997b), the late Variscan granitoids of the NW Bohemian Massif, the Bor, Falkenberg, Flossenbürg, Bärnau and Waidhaus-Rozvadov granites can be modelled, using gravity data, as steeply inclined slab- and wedge-like bodies with thickness between 4 and 8 km (average depths of 6 km), whereas the granites of the Smrčiny (Fichtelgebirge) Composite Massif extend to 2–8 km below the surface. The basal depths of the older granites (Bor, Leuchtenberg) show the lowest thickness (< 4 km). The geometry of the Variscan granites in the Oberpfalz was estimated as laccolithic or sheet-like bodies (in volumes more than 15,000 km3) with average thickness of 4–5 km dipping slightly to the east.

The Eibenstock-Karlovy Vary Massif is a laccolith 10–15 km thick according to gravity data (Šrámek and Mrlina 1997, Polanský 1973, and Švancara et al. 2000). Blecha et al. (2009)

interpret the shape of this granite massif as a continuous desk whose floor is horizontal (or subhorizontal) and varies along its whole extention about a depth of 10 km. According to Hofmann et. al. (2003) the Karlovy Vary Massif has a maximum depth of 13 km with volume of 20, 000 km3 this body is characterized by a saw-like lower boundary shown in Fig. 13E.

The tabular ethmolitic shape of the Čistá-Jesenice Composite pluton is also indicated according to its subhorizontal contacts with country rocks (Smetana 1927, Klomínský and Sattran 1965). A steeply inclined wedge-like ethmolith of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif has been interpreted from the gravity data (Klomínský 1969 and Sedlák et al. 2007). The tabular model of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif below the Izera Metamorphic complex constructed Michniewitz et al. (2006) also according to the geophysical data.

In general, the tabular shape of the plutons in the Bohemian Massif is accepted in the majority of granite studies.

The depth extent of some granitic plutons in the Bohemian Massif according to gravity data has been calculated by Šrámek and Mrlina (1997): Karlovy Vary Massif 10–15 km, Smrčiny Composite Massif 6–8 km, Lesný-Lysina (Kynžvart) 3–4 km, Čistá-Jesenice Composite

38

Pluton 6–8 km, Bor Massif 6–8 km, Kladruby Massif 2–4 km, Rozvadov Composite Massif 6–7 km, Kdyně Massif 3–5 km, Drahotín Stock 0.5 km, Poběžovice Massif, 2 km, Babylon Stock 3 km, Sedmihoří Stock 8–10 km, Štěnovice Stock 6–8 km, Klatovy Massif 3 km, Central Bohemian Pluton 3–5 km, Prášily Massif 5 km. The Žulová Massif has been modeled according to gravity anomaly up to depth of 3.3 to 5–6 km (Zachovalová et al. 2002). The Cambrian plutons and related dykes in western part of the Bohemicum intruded at levels of 5–9 km, most of them synkinematically within dextral, transtensional ENE-WSW trending shear zones (Zulauf, Maier and Stöckhert 1997 and Zulauf et. al., 2002).

Subsurface shaping of granites in seismic reflection patterns was studied on the subsurface extent of the Oberpfaltz Composite Massif (Trzebski et al. 1997). The greatest thickness partly exceeding depths of < 9 km was traced in the Falkenberg Granite. In contrast, the Leuchtenberg Granite reaches maximum depths les than 4.3 km.

According to seismic sounding data (Bankwitz and Bankwitz 1994) the recognizable granite bodies extend down to 2 km (Eichigt Massif), 2.5 km (Altenberg Stock), 4–12 km (Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif). The most probable shape of

the Variscan granites in Krušné hory Mts.-Erzgebirge is laccolithic, not the batholithic one. Seismic reflection lamination of the Eibenstock Massif points to an interfingering pattern between granite and gneiss (Bankwitz and Bankwitz 1994). The depth of emplacement of the post-tectonic vertical granites in Krušné hory Mts.-Erzgebirge was about 2–4 km from the surface (Thomas et al. 1991).

The depth of intrusion of Variscan granitic plutons in the Bohemian Massif has been estimated by Dudek et al. (1991) using various pT thermometers and barometers according to published data on distribution of albite in coexisting plagioclase and K-feldspar in granites (locally also the muscovite-andalusite association).

Main granitoid bodies intruded successively under changing pT conditions in connection with the gradual erosion of the mountain chain. The distribution of four depths categories of granitoids is shown on the Fig. 18. The last intrusions are of subvolcanic type and solidified not deeper than 2 km (Dudek et al. 1991).

The Variscan intrusions had been brought out to the surface by erosion already in Late Carboniferous/Permian times, and were subsequently covered by Permian and Mesozoic sediments.

Fig. 18. Expected depth of intrusion of Variscan granitic plutons in the Bohemian Massif (adapted after Dudek et al. 1991). 1 – < 2.5 km, 2 – to 7 km, 3 – to 10 km, 4 – to 15 km.

39

Exo- and endocontacts of the granitic plutons

Many types of contacts between the granitic plutons and their surroundings have been described as a result of material and structural interaction between magma and country rocks. Intrusive contacts of plutonites contain a variegated mineral assemblage in both endo- and exocontacts depending on their dip angles and volatile component contents in the granitic melt. A typical pegmatite (Stockscheider) greisens, and greisenization and tourmalinization are products of tin-bearing granites. Granitic breccia pipes of alkali-feldspar Li-mica granite, pegmatite, greisen and topaz-quartzolite (e.g. the Sneckenstein Rock, Mühlleithen, Geyer, Seiffen, Sadisdorf, Sachsenhöhe, Altenberg, Krupka, Krásno Stocks) often with tin mineralization are related to YIC (Younger Igneous Complex) granites of the Krušné hory Mts. Batholith. Intense greisenization and selective tourmalinization is also reported from the exocontact of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif (Klomínský and Táborský 2003, Klomínský et al. 2004). According to Tischendorf (1989), the breccia pipes in the Krušné hory Mts. Batholith seem to be genetically multiphase activated “valves of pressure release” for fluids generated in connection with periodic crystallization processes of granitic magma. Mechanism of the breccia formation is interpreted as fluid explosive process connected with hydro fracturing and decompression before and during granite emplacement in a subvolcanic crustal level (Seltmann 1990).

Finger-like, foliation-concordant intrusions of plutonites into country rocks are common (e.g. the Rozvadov Composite Massif and the Lalling

Stock in Bavaria), ten centimetres up to several tens to hundreds of meters thick, in sub-vertical (Kettnerová 1920, the Žampach profile – the Central Bohemian Pluton) as well as subhorizontal arrangement (Smetana 1927, the Žihle profile – the Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton).

Contact planes of the plutonites of the Central Bohemian Pluton (e.g. the Marginal Granite), dipping inwards to their surface outcrops have been detected infrequently in the underground mining works of the Příbram mining district. Uncommon contact plane between two granite intrusions – the Liberec and Tanvald Granite (the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif) has been described by Klomínský Ed. (2006). The alkali-feldspar Tanvald Granite is intruded by the calc-alkaline Liberec Granite with effects of the thermal metamorphism, partial melting and mylonitization (pseudotachylites) of the Tanvald Granite (see Plate 6-b).

Two spacially separated outcrops of the Tanvald granite in the exocontact of the Liberec granite in the western part of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif comprise relics of the former size of Tanvald Massif. Its substantial part has been destructed by the magmatic erosion into the rafts, and xenoliths by intrusive activity of the younger Liberec granite. This unusual fenomenon of the magmatic canibalism in the Bohemian Massif is documented by the Tanvald and Liberec granite relationship, contrast in their magmatic fabric, and the Tanvald granite lithological and geochemical internal zonation (Klomínský et al. 2009).

Internal structure and depositional features of plutons

Depositional (layered) plutons and contrasting sheeted plutons may represent two end-members of granitic intrusions characterized by replenishment. In the depositional plutons, replenishment of felsic and mafic material would have occurred rapidly enough to maintain a single active chamber, which was capable of undergoing at least partial homogenization. In sheeted plutons, earlier injections would have crystallized almost completely prior to new replenishments, so that felsic and mafic injections can be recognized as individual intrusions (Wiebe and Collins 1998).

Sheeted plutons are characterized by compositional differences between individual sheets. Many sheeted plutons contain sheet-like

masses of mafic to intermediate enclaves, which represent according to Wiebe and Collins (1998) the input of higher temperature, more mafic magma during crystallization of the granitic plutons. Stratigraphic relations, preserved in depositional sequences, suggest that the plutons formed from many separate pulses of crystal-poor granitic magmas with lesser input of more mafic magmas.

Commonly, sub-concordant rafts of country rock and mafic to intermediate enclaves, separate some sheets. This is often described as ”ghost stratigraphy” (Pitcher 1970).

Depositional plutons are characterized by sheet-like bodies which are marked generally by a

40

relatively sharp, although irregular, base and a gradational or hybrid top. These distinctive features of these depositional portions of plutons allow them to be distinguished from sheeted intrusion, which usually preserve mutual intrusive contacts and “dyke-sill” relations of different magma types (e.g. Breiter 2005).

Interior of the granitic plutons of the Bohemian Massif has been hitherto studied by the means of geological, petrologic, geochemical, structural and geophysical mapping of their surface outcrops (e.g. the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif, the Čistá Massif, the Třebíč Massif, the Jihlava Massif, the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif, the Fláje Massif, the Oberpfalz Composite Massif, the Rozvadov Composite Massif). Deep parts of plutons have been investigated by means of single bore holes (e.g. Cínovec Cs-1 borehole, by Štemprok and Šulcek 1969, the C-1 well in the Jelenia Góra – Cieplice, by Dowgiałło 2000), or by a network of deep drillings (Třebíč Massif), and the underground workings in the Příbram ore mines at the depth up to 1800 m (e.g. the Bohutín Stock). Mapping of many granitic plutons in the Bohemian Massif shows that only a layer of granite several hundreds of metres (100–500 m) thick can be studied due to relatively flat topography.

Material and structural anisotropy have been tested with the use of multivariate trend-surface analysis and factor analysis in the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Composite Massif, the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif, the Central Bohemian Pluton, Štěnovice Stock, Fláje Massif, Benešov Massif, Stolpen Stock (e.g. Rajlich and Vlašímský 1983, Sattran 1960, Klomínský 1969). The results have contributed to the discrimination of palimpsest (relict) textures (ghost stratigraphy) preserved in the granitic rocks due to selective assimilation of the country rocks due to the magmatic stopping and/or granitic – basic magma mixing in studies of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif, Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif, Bohutín Stock, Cínovec Massif and Hub and Schnöd Stocks (Klomínský 1969, Jarchovský 1994, Štemprok and Šulcek 1969).

According to these studies the Central Bohemian Pluton (Vlašímský et al. 1992) and Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif can represent typical sheeted plutons in sense of Wiebe and Collins classification (1998). Depositional plutons are less frequent in the Bohemian Massif (e.g.

OIC of the Karlovy Vary Massif, Čistá Massif, Štěnovice and Bohutín Stocks).

Magmatic flow and fracture fabrics of some plutons in the Bohemian Massif have been studied by Cloos (1925), Beneš (1971, 1974a, b), Klomínský (1969), Suk (1973), Schust (1967), Máška (1954) and recently Žák, Schulmann and Hrouda (2005), Žák et al (2006), and Verner et al. (2006) mostly applying the AMS technique.

Structural criteria of the plutonic rocks were first applied by Beneš (1974a, b) to classification of plutons in the Bohemian Massif according to the degree of the homogeneity and entropy of their fabric. The most important structural element is flow fabric defined by planar parallel orientation of tabular minerals (feldspars, micas and hornblendes), by planar parallel orientation of aplitic and biotitic schlieren and xenoliths and lineation manifested by parallel orientation of long axes of the feldspar phenocrysts.

Dominant planar parallel fabric is developed in the Čistá Granodiorite, Benešov Granodiorite, Červená Granodiorite and in the marginal part of the Čertovo břemeno Melagranite.

Definite plan-parallel fabric (defined planar alignment of tabular minerals in the groundmass or of phenocrysts) is exhibited by the Sázava Tonalite, Blatná Granodiorite, Skuteč Granodiorite, Třebíč Melagranite (durbachite), Weinsberg Granite, Zvůle (Landštejn) Granite, Jizera Granite, and in the Loket Granite.

Distinct plan-parallel fabric is manifested by poorly defined planar parallel orientation of tabular minerals in the groundmass and by distinct planar and/ linear orientation of feldspar phenocrysts. This structural type is mostly complemented by distinct orientation of inclusions and in places also of mafic schlieren. It is developed in durbachites of the Třebíč Massif and the Milevsko Massif, in the Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif (e.g. Schust 1967), Číměř Granite, Bor Granite and Kladruby Granodiorite.

Indistinct plan-parallel fabric is developed in the Žumberk Granite, Marginal Granite (the Central Bohemian Pluton), Liberec Granite, Říčany Granite, Požáry Trondhjemite, Mrákotín Granite, Freistadt Granodiorite, and Karlovy Vary Granite.

According to Beneš (1971) and Cloos (1925) plutons in the Bohemian Massif show a very close genetic relationship between the flow fabric and fracture fabric, as well as conformity of the fabric planes in country rocks. These conclusions have been disputed e.g. by Žák et al. (2007).

41

Plutons usually imitate the internal structure of the country rocks and adopt in slightly modified form their main fracture pattern. Application of the AMS method in the structural mapping of the Central Bohemian Pluton (Žák et al. 2006) revealed multiple magmatic fabric and lateral variation and magnetic fabric intensity in case of the Sázava Tonalite. The central part of this intrusion yields prolate shapes of the AMS ellipsoid and a low degree of anisotropy with preserved steep magnetic lineation, whereas, along the intrusion margins, oblate AMS ellipsoids are associated with a high degree of anisotropy (Žák et al. 2006). Similarly the AMS method has been applied for recognition of the foliations parallel to the margin of the Jihlava Massif (Verner et al. 2006).

According to Žák and Klomínsky (2007) the magmatic structures in the Jizera and Liberec granites preserve field evidence for localized magmatic differentiation, multiphase laminar flow and other physical processes that operated in crystal-rich granitic magma after the chamber-scale dynamic mixing and hybridisation. The formation of mafic schlieren presumably involved gravitational settling, velocity gradient flow sorting, and interstitial melt escape within the crystal mush along flow rims. The schlieren geometry indicates that the flowing, mobile magma utilized a network of small-scale weaker channel-like domains through the high-strength

crystal framework and that the bulk laminar magma flow in the channels was partitioned into flow laminae to produce schlieren cross-beds. Žák et al. (2007) combined the AMS technique and K-feldspar phenocrysts orientation in mapping of the magmatic anisotropy in the Jizera Granite (the Jizera-Krkonoše Composite Massif).

A post-emplacement change in position – tilting of plutons has been recorded only rarely on the territory of the Bohemian Massif. This type of movement can be most easily identified in elongated sills and bodies of large areal extent (e.g. the Jílové Volcanic Zone, the Moldanubian Composite Batholith). The tilting effect is revealed by a notable difference in the level of erosion at opposite parts of their surface outcrops. Möbus (1956) reported tilting of the Lusatian Composite Batholith to the northwest, which caused a deeper erosion of the intrusion in the southeast. Northeastern extension of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith represents the apical part of this large intrusion. Deeper portions of the Batholith are exposed farther to the south and southwest in the present erosion section (Dudek and Suk 1965, Dudek et al. 1991, Scharbert, Breiter and Frank 1997 – Ar-Ar cooling ages). Based on the distribution of andalusite, sillimanite, and cordierite, the deepest erosion section of the Eisgarn Composite Pluton is exposed in its southern part (D´Amico et al. 1981, Novotný 1986).

6. ZONATION IN PLUTONITES Zonal character is a typical feature of most of the

magmatic bodies. It is reflected in compositional changes in direction from the margins to the centre of ntrusions. The zonation pattern of granitic plutons is generally discussed in terms of normal or reverse zonation. Most granitic intrusions are normally zoned from a more mafic margin towards a more differentiated core. Popular hypotheses to explain normal zoning in plutons are fractional crystallization, assimilation, sidewall crystallisation, thermo-gravitational separation or vapour-phase transport. In some cases reverse zoning exists which has been attributed mainly to sequential intrusions of more mafic magmas or to several stages of crystallisation and upwelling of more fractionated magmas (Hecht et al. 1997).

Zoned plutons are often composed of a number of successively differentiated phases with the younger phases intruding into the older phases. If spatial

compositional zonation is considered, it is generally discussed in relation to the surface contour of the pluton or sometimes with respect to a third dimension given by distinct outcrop geomorphology. Zonation of plutons has been studied in this sense by Klomínský (1963, 1965, 1969) in the Čistá Massif, the Štěnovice Stock, and the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif, by Janoušek et al. (1997) and Trubač et al. (2008) in the Říčany Massif, by Dudek (1957) in the Sedmihoří Stock, by Sattran (1960) in the Fláje Massif, by Madel (1975) in the Oberfaltz Composite Massif, by Fediuk and René (1996) in the Kladruby Massif, by Jarchovský (1994) in the Schnöd and Hub Stocks and by Breiter and Koller (2000) in the Eisgarn Composite Pluton (the Eisgarn Massif and Zvůle Stock).

42

Fig. 19. Zonal patterns of some granitic bodies (in the map projection) of the Bohemian Massif (adapted after Klomínský 1994). 1 – Zonation pattern from older phase to younger phase is shown in colours from older phase (1) to youngest phase (4).

According to Hecht et al. (1997) the internal zonation patterns of the OIC (Older Intrusive Complex) and YIC (Younger Intrusive Complex) in the Smrčiny (Fichtelgebirge) Composite Massif are asymmetrical and cannot be simply classified as normal or reverse with respect to the exposed granite outline. Important additional information can emerge if the compositional zoning of granite bodies is regarded with relation to their root zones, as reflected by the granite shape at depth.

Zonation symmetry and the character of contacts between the individual phases define various genetic types of zonation. Hence, zoned plutons formed through in-situ differentiation of a single magmatic pulse can be recognized (e.g. the Štěnovice Stock) as well as granitic bodies composed of phases representing individual intrusive pulses from a common source (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton). Asymmetrical zoned plutons in particular may serve as a tool for the identification of regional tectonic regime. Correlation of radiometric ages of the individual intrusive phases with the displacement magnitude of their centres may reflect the rate of tectonic processes in the time of the intrusion or during the post-intrusion deformation of the plutons.

The classification of pluton zonation after Nozawa and Tainosho (1990) is based upon the cross-section of the individual phases in a surface outcrop (Klomínský 1994, see Fig. 19).

1. Bull’s eye plutons

a) With normal zonation (e.g. Sedmihoří Stock, Štěnovice Stock)

b) With reverse zonation (e.g. Mutěnín Stock)

c) With normal asymmetry (e.g. Čistá Massif, Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif).

2. Nested plutons

a) With concentric zonation (e.g. Kladruby Composite Massif)

b) The “stuffed bag” type (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton)

c) With irregular (complex) zonation (e.g. the Smrčiny Composite Massif)

d) With chain zonation (the Kdyně-Neukirchen Massif and the Stod Massif).

Possible explanation of the (reverse) zoning is formation by:

43

a) Mixing (including assimilation and/or periodic influx of fresh, little-fractionated magma into the centre of the intrusion)

b) Emplacement of granite in several separate batches possibly associated with cauldron subsidence, or

c) Emplacement of an essentially single pulse of magma from deeper level of a magma chamber with vertical compositional gradient.

Concentric zonation is a prominent feature of post-tectonic granitic plutons. Bodies with normal zonation are related to a pre-heated and thicker crust. Reverse zonation is related to shallow processes in a thin crust (Nozawa and Tainosho 1990).

Asymmetrical zoned plutons are of the greatest importance for tectonic implications. The highest number of asymmetrical plutons lies in the western and northern Bohemia. Among these, the Kladruby Composite Massif is the most notable one.

Causes of zoned asymmetry

In erosion sections (surface outlines), most of the zoned plutons have a relatively symmetrical fabric. However, there are bodies with a strong zonation asymmetry. Its causes lie in regional tectonic processes controlling the emplacement and in situ differentiation of plutons. Two models of the zonation pattern were suggested by Hecht et al. (1997) in the Smrčiny-Fichtelgebirge Composite Massif. Both models show a drift of individual intrusions from north to south, towards the root zone, as a result of increasing degree of magmatic. differentiation.

A systematic progressive migration of the centres of the individual plutonic phases may result either from a relative movement of the source zone beneath the intruding plutons, or from progressive transport

of the region with plutons over stable source areas of magma. The former case can be explained by subduction mechanism or by plunging of lithospheric plates; the latter can be explained by the presence of nappes. In these cases, the individual magmatic pulses intersect the older pulses and intrude in the terminal or marginal parts of a gradually tilting stock. During lateral relaxation of the orogene margin the arc structure displays a ductile relaxation away from the magmatic axis. Therefore, the intruding plutons rotate in direction away from this axis. Zonal asymmetry of plutons is thus caused by their lateral tilting and may show asymmetry both in shape and in composition across the eroded cross-section from roof to root.

Relative horizontal displacement magnitude of the individual plutonic phases

The size of surface exposures of zoned plutons in the Bohemian Massif varies significantly, ranging from 1 km2 (e.g. the Bohutín Stock) to several hundreds up to more than 1,000 of square km (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton a principal member of the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith). The systematic displacement of the centres of their lithological phases is of different magnitudes and is probably related to both the pluton size and the time interval between the individual plutonic phases.

Gastil et al. (1991) estimated the magnitudes of the horizontal displacement at one to several kilometres per 1 Ma according to published data. Based on this assumption, symmetrical zoned intrusions such as the Sedmihoří Stock have a specific importance: it is obvious that the intrusion velocity was either high with scarce opportunity for lateral migration from a deep-seated source, or there was no displacement in the time of the intrusion.

Trends of plutonic “rejuvenation”

Asymmetrical zoned plutons of Variscan age southwest of the Labe (Elbe) lineament, i.e. in the Bohemicum and the Moldanubicum, show a uniform rejuvenation trend indicating a systematic movement of the centres of their lithological phases to the north and northwest. On the other hand, asymmetrical zoned plutons of pre-Variscan age east of the Labe (Elbe) lineament are rejuvenated in the direction to the south and southeast.

Zoned Variscan plutons of the Bohemian Massif contain information on the direction and rate of the

displacement of the Earth’s crust into which they intruded 375 Ma to 296 Ma ago (Klomínský 1994a). In the western Bohemia, the trend of the asymmetrical zonation (rejuvenation) of plutons is directed prevailingly towards north and northwest. During the Lower Carboniferous, these movements were in order of several tens of kilometres. Design of the plutonic zonation from the times of the Upper Carboniferous and Lower Permian indicates a significant decrease in velocity of all subhorizontal movements and, eventually, their entire cessation

44

(Klomínský 1994). The Variscan collision of lithospheric plates is documented by plutons of different ages on the present surface, which are related to different tectonic regimes of the Variscan orogeny. Collision zone is marked by syn-collision plutons (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton) whereas the post-orogenic plutons (Upper Carboniferous-

Lower Permian) are concentrated at greater distances in the northern margin of the Bohemian Massif (Krušné hory Mts. and Smrčiny Mts. areas).

Metallogenetic importance of the zoned plutons is obvious from the fact that the concentration of ore mineralization increases in the direction of their rejuvenation.

7. POSITION OF THE PLUTONS IN THE GEOPHYSICAL FIELDOverall geophysical pattern of the Czech part of

the Bohemian Massif has been summarized by Buday et al. (1969), Ibrmajer and Suk (1989), Bližkovský et al. (1985), Bucha and Bližkovský (1994), Šafanda (2004), Bielik et al. (2006)) and in Oberpfalz by Casten et al. (1997) and Trzebski et al. (1997).

Interactive gravity modelling of the 3-D shape, subsurface extent and basal morphology of the granitic bodies in the Bohemian Massif were used by Marek and Palivcová (1968), Mottlová (1971), Mottlová and Suk (1970), Tomek (1975, 1976), Polanský (1973), Klomínský and Dudek (1978), Bernard et al. (1976), Dobeš and Pokorný (1988), Trzebski et al. (1997), Šrámek and Mrlina (1997), Siebel et al. (1997b), Hecht et al. (1997), Švancara, et al. (200), Sedlák et al. (2007), Sedlák et al. (2009) and Bucha et al. (2009). Position of the magmatites in the gravity and geomagnetic fields of the Bohemian Massif is summarized by Pokorný (1997), Šalanský (1983, 1989, 1995 and Šalanský and Gnojek (2002) respectively. These plutonic bodies occur mostly above the slopes between the elevations and depression of the Moho-relief. The homogeneous positive regional gravity field is typical for pre-Variscan intrusions (i.e. the Lusatian Composite Batholith, the Brno Composite Batholith and the Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton). On the other hand Variscan (Upper Carboniferous) plutons are located within areas of highly negative regional gravity anomalies (Fig. 20). These magmatic bodies show a large vertical extent (up to 15 km) and crop out within area > 20 μgal (Polanský 1973). The Devonian-Lower Carboniferous plutons and massifs are located in gravity gradient zones, between the zones of regional positive gravity anomalies and the negative ones (within the interval –20 to –10 mlg (i.e. the Central Bohemian Pluton (a member of the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith, see Bohemicum) and the Nasavrky Composite Massif). According to the outstanding gravity gradient south of the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith (see Bohemicum) the granitic rocks of the

Moldanubian Composite Batholith are expected at relatively shallow depth (Motlová and Suk 1970).

According to density measurements and gravity anomalies in the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith (see Bohemicum) its assumed batholitic character is not probable (Marek and Palivcová 1968).

The distribution of the positive and negative gravity fields in the form of total Bouguer anomalies, residual gravity anomalies and partly also „regional“ anomalies coincides very well with the distribution of certain groups of Variscan mineral associations and with the distribution of Variscan plutonites of special chemistry (Bernard et al. 1976).

According to Šalanský (2002) the regional geomagnetic field of the Bohemian Massif shows a similar pattern as the gravity field. Regional geomagnetic elevations, as far as they correspond to the regional gravity positive zones, indicate usually the presence of mafic rocks at various depths. Northern part of the Central Bohemian Pluton corresponds to a many kilometres long geomagnetic anomalous belt, where the Sázava Tonalite, Požáry Trondhjemite, and Marginal Granite are frequently manifesting distinct magnetization. Similar relations are obvious in the Nasavrky Composite Massif, partly in the Brno Composite Pluton and in other plutonic bodies. The Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Batholith and Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif occur predominantly on background of low and/or high geomagnetic elevations. At the surface their granitic rocks contains strongly magnetized, magnetite-bearing horizons indicating the presence of subhorizontal layering (Gnojek and Šťovíčková 1974). Magnetic stratification has been recognized between the high-magnetic Liberec Granite (in the foot-wall) and the low-magnetic Jizera Granite (in the hanging-wall) of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif (Klomínský et al. 2006). Magnetic anomalies of this character can be recognized in the endocontact zone of the Kirchberg Massif, as well as within the western part of the Krkonoše-Jizera

45

Composite Massif, the Čistá Massif and the Sedmihoří Stock. An anomalous magnetization (Bartošek et al. 1969) caused by accessory magnetite and showing concentric zoning has often been found in small granitic massifs and stocks (e.g. the Čistá Massif, Štěnovice Stock, Fláje Massif).

Petrophysical properties of the Brno Composite Pluton and their tectonic implications have been studied by Hrouda and Rejl (1973) and Hrouda (1999).

Radioactivity of rocks and results of regional airborne survey of the Czech territory have been studied by Matolín (1970), Fiala et al. (1983), Manová and Matolín (1995), Chlupáčová et al.

(1989). Radioactivity of rocks is characterized by following parameters: gamma dose rate of rocks Da (nGy.h-1), mass concentration of potassium (% K), uranium (ppm eU), and thorium (ppm eTh). Manová and Matolín (1995) compiled the map of the gamma dose rate of rocks of the Czech Republic on scale 1 : 500,000. The map shows values between 6 to 245 nGy.h-1, with a mean value of 65.6 ± 19 nGy.h-1. The gamma dose rate of rocks Da can be recalculated to total radioactivity using the equation 8.69 Gy.h-1 = 1μR.h. Variscan igneous rocks belong to the rocks with the highest radioactivity. Radioactivity parameters of the main igneous rocks and orthogneisses are listed in Table 3.

46

Fig. 20. Distribution of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the gravity field of the Bohemian Massif.

47

Table 3. Radioactivity parameters of the main igneous rocks and orthogneisses of the Bohemian Massif, adapted according to Manová and Matolín (1995), Just (1991) and Hanák et al. (2008).A = 0.081 (K2O%) + 0.261 (U ppm) + 0.072 (Th ppm) in µW . m-3.

Batholith / Pluton / Massif / Stock Th (ppm) U (ppm) K (%) A

Central Bohemian Composite Batholith

Čertovo břemeno Melagranite 39.4 15.2 5.20 7.25

Tábor Melasyenite 30.4 9.8 5.20 5.21

Sedlčany Granodiorite 34.6 13.3 4.50 6.35

Dehetník Granodiorite 31.4 8.7 4.20 4.90

Sedlec Granodiorite 22.2 9.7 3.70 4.45

Říčany and Kšely Granite 24.2 5.2 4.30 3.48

Kozlovice Granodiorite 13.4 3.4 2.50 2.08

Kosova Hora and Maršovice Granodiorite 14.6 4.8 3.40 2.61

Benešov Granodiorite 21.0 6.3 4.00 3.51

Central Bohemian Pluton

Sázava Tonalite North 19.7 5.5 3.30 3.15

Sázava Tonalite South 18.1 6.1 3.30 3.19

Blatná Granodiorite 18.2 6.1 3.30 3.20

Červená Granodiorite 24.2 4.9 3.90 3.37

Těchnice Granodiorite North 34.0 7.5 4.30 4.78

Klatovy Granodiorite 1.3 4.1 16.70 2.76

Těchnice Granodiorite South 19.7 5.5 3.30 3.15

Marginal Granite 24.4 4.7 3.10 3.25

Požáry Trondhjemite 11.5 2.6 2.40 1.72

Igneous rocks in the roof of the CBP

Jílové Volcanic belt (granites) 22.0 3.7 3.50 2.90

Jílové Volcanic belt (granodiorites) 10.2 17.2 3.07 5.49

Jílové Volcanic belt (tonalites) 8.7 2.3 1.62 1.37

Jílové Volcanic belt (syenites) 55.6 12.3 5.20 7.65

Jílové Volcanic belt (metatonalites) 3.3 1.0 0.61 0.55

Mirotice Orthogneiss 6.0 2.5 1.50 1.22

Staré Sedlo Orthogneiss 13.0 4.4 1.62 2.22

Bor Massif

(Bor I Granite) 22.2 7.1 3.98 3.80

(Bor II Granite) 13.8 8.6 3.79 3.58

Kladruby Composite Massif

Sedmihoří Stock 11.2 4.3 3.50 2.25

Štěnovice Stock 14.5 4.3 2.00 2.34

Kdyně Composite Massif

Diorites and tonalites 12.5 4.1 1.50 2.10

Stod Massif

Merklín Granodiorite 8.2 3.7 1.90 1.73

Drnov granite 12.3 4.1 2.10 2.14

Poběžovice Massif (diorites) 11.4 4.2 1.80 2.07

Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton

Tis Granite 11.2 4.5 3.77 2.33

Tis Granite 10.6 4.1 3.82 2.19

Tis Granite (Mutějovice) 7.3 3.8 3.50 1.84

48

Čistá Massif 11.2 4.5 3.77 2.33

Hůrky Fenite 50.1 15.5 3.10 7.89

Lower Vltava Composite Massif 1.20

Hoštice Stock 5.1 2.7 1.41 3.78

Chotělice Massif 24.1 7.0 2.57 3.79

Chvaletice Massif (granity) 16.8 6.4 2.90 2.58

Nasavrky Composite Massif Granodiorites 13.8 4.7 2.40 2.43 Tonalites 8.7 2.3 1.92 1.40 Diorites 4.1 1.6 0.63 0.77

Hlinsko Granite 5.9 2.0 4.50 1.37

Skuteč Granodiorite 19.0 8.0 3.30 3.75

Žumberk Granite 22.0 5.5 4.35 3.41

Křižanovice Tonalite 11.7 6.5 2.50 2.76

Křižanovice Granite 21.0 6.0 4.35 3.47

Polom Massif 13.7 2.3 2.40 1.80

Hanov Orthogneiss 5.6 1.5 1.40 0.92

Moldanubian Composite Batholith

Eisgarn Composite Pluton

Eisgarn Granite s.l. 25.0 6.7 4.37 3.94

Ševětín Massif (light facies) 18.1 9.3 4.08 4.10

Melechov Massif

Stvořidla Granite 2.4 5.1 4.00 1.88

Lipnice Granite 46.9 7.5 4.71 5.73

Kouty Granite 22.7 6.1 4.63 3.64

Melechov Granite 2.7 11.2 3.70 3.46

Číměř Granite 20.5 7.8 3.40 3.81

Mrákotín Granite 15.5 7.5 3.80 3.42

Weinsberg Composite Pluton

Weinsberg Granite 26.4 5.8 3.85 3.75

Ultrapotassic Plutonites

Třebíč Massif 30.9 10.5 4.92 5.40

Třebíč Massif (syenites) 44.3 14.1 5.18 7.31

Třebíč Massif (leucogranites) 18.9 6.3 4.36 3.40

Jihlava Massif 30.6 5.2 4.60 4.00

Rastenberg Massif 25.0 8.0 4.00 4.24

Želnava Massif 36.8 16.9 5.75 7.56

Mutěnín Stock 5.4 1.1 1.60 0.82

Gföhl Orthogneiss 13.6 5.1 3.70 2.65

Podolsko Orthogneiss 20.4 7.9 3.80 3.87

Smrčiny-Krušné hory Batholith 26.5 20.1 3.60 7.45

Selb Granite 24.8 6.6 4.04 3.87

Western Krušné hory Composite Pluton 7.4 32.0 4.34 9.26

Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif 7.5 21.9 3.38 6.55

Eibenstock Granite 14.0 12.0 3.40 4.44

Kirchberg Massif 40.0 15.0 3.80 7.11

Krudum Massif 7.5 23.4 3.35 6.94

Kynžvart Massif 14.0 9.0 4.00 3.72

49

Eastern YIC Granites 31.9 12.6 4.80 6.00

Fláje Massif (granites) 9.8 8.5 3.67 3.26

Fláje Massif (porphyry) 7.8 6.9 4.79 2.81

Teplice Rhyolite 37.3 10.6 4.04 5.79

Cínovec-Krupka Massif

Krupka Granite 39.8 16.8 3.86 7.56

Cínovec Granite 43.2 17.8 3.80 8.06

Krušné hory Mts. Orthogneisses

Inner Red Orthogneiss 8.5 2.8 3.70 1.69

Outer Red Orthogneiss 6.4 9.3 3.90 3.25

Lusatian Composite Batholith

West Lusatian Granodiorite 12.0 2.9 3.05 1.90

East Lusatian Granodiorite 14.9 3.8 2.58 2.29

Rumburk Granite 10.6 4.3 3.43 2.20

Krkonoše-Jizera Orthogneiss 7.4 5.1 3.35 2.17

Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif

Tanvald Granite 6.9 8.1 3.40 2.92

Jizera Granite 20.4 5.2 3.53 3.14

Liberec Granite 29.4 10.2 3.49 5.07

Olešnice-Kudowa Massif (dark facies) 16.3 4.4 2.93 2.58

Nový Hrádek Stock 15.3 2.9 3.65 2.19

Great Tonalite Dyke 6.8 2.3 2.38 1.31

Litice Massif 37.5 8.2 3.90 5.17

Javorník Massif 22.4 6.3 3.24 3.54

Brno Composite Batholith

Brno Composite Pluton

Diorites 0.6 0.3 0.83 0.20

Krumlovský les Granodiorite 10.9 2.0 3.24 1.61

Réna Granite 14.6 2.3 2.99 1.92

Kounice Granodiorite 10.1 1.4 2.38 1.31

Vedrovice Granodiorite 7.4 2.1 2.76 1.34

Tetčice Granodiorite 10.8 1.4 3.32 1.45

Královo Pole Granodiorite 6.5 1.0 2.33 0.95

Veverská Bítýška Granodiorite 10.5 1.1 3.14 1.33

Red granites (Tetčice suite) 21.7 2.2 4.10

Blansko Granodiorite 5.1 0.9 1.84 0.77

Slavkov Massif

Slavkov Tonalite 2.5 0.2 1.76 0.40

Ždánice Massif

Ždánice Tonalite 2.1 2.1 2.48 0.93

Lubná Massif

Lubná Granite 25.0 3.9 3.56 3.13

Strachotín (Mikulov) Massif 4.0 0.8 3.05 0.79

Stupava Massif 2.8 0.6 2.89 0.63

Svratka Massif 3.7 1.2 0.56 0.63

Bíteš Gneiss 4.4 1.4 1.43 0.81

Jablunkov Massif 6.9 2.2 1.60 1.22

Žulová-Strzelin Massif (tonalites) 10.7 2.4 2.55 1.63

Šumperk Massif 20.8 2.6 3.44 2.48

Rudná Stock 21.0 4.4 2.79 2.90

50

8. RELATION OF PLUTONITES TO VOLCANISM Petrologists and volcanologists still face the

problem whether large volumes of plutons may have intruded with no volcanic association and, similarly, whether large volumes of volcanic material may have extruded on the Earth’s surface without their intrusive counterpart. Geological coincidence between volcanic and intrusive processes is generally accepted, but plutonic rocks and volcanics within a single province are always separated only on basis of their different age. According to Thorpe and Francis (1979), the ratio between extrusive and intrusive products is a function of water content in the intruding magma. The amount of volcanites generally decreases with increasing water content in magma. The hypothesis of a close genetic and time relation between plutonites and volcanites is based on the idea that the plutonites may represent deeply eroded magmatic chambers of the above lying volcanic products, now completely removed. This relation generally results from different rates of the extrusion and intrusion processes, but the real time relations between volcanics and plutonic rocks may be more complicated. Erosion in the Andean region indicates that the volcanic “cover” will disappear completely within 10 Ma after the plutonic rocks intruding beneath the present active volcanoes are exposed. In deeply eroded regions such as the Bohemian Massif, the outcrops of Variscan and particularly Cadomian plutonites may, therefore, contain only traces of volcanic products.

Time-space coincidence of volcanic and plutonic activities occurs also in the Bohemian Massif region (Palivcová and Šťovíčková 1968). Unambiguous overlapping of both processes is documented in the Teplice Volcanic Caldera (Breiter 1997), Všeradov Complex, Jílové Volcanic Belt, but also in the centres of the Tertiary alkaline basaltoid volcanites. Relics of subvolcanic members have the form of thick dykes or clusters of linear, radial or ring arrangement, e.g. the Teplice Volcanic Caldera (e.g. Jiránek et al. 1988) or the dyke swarm around the Roztoky Caldera and the Osečná Polzenite Centre. These volcanic centres also include diatremes so far sporadically reported from the Tertiary volcanics as well as from the Palaeozoic (Carboniferous and Ordovician) volcanics (e.g. the Otmíč Diatreme).

According to Palivcová and Šťovíčková (1968), not only plutonic but also volcanic complexes are indicative of deep-seated tectonic structures and help to determine their role in the geological setting of the region. The material composition of volcanic rocks not only reflects the composition of their source magmas but also provides additional information on the depth of their origin. Such data

are very useful for the support of mobility models of the Bohemian Massif geology.

Intricate, dense networks of dyke rocks (dyke swarms) occur in the areas of surface outcrops of some plutons and massifs such as the Lusatian Composite Batholith (Dolerite Dyke Swarm), Central Bohemian Composite Batholith (e.g. Příbram Dyke Swarm), Karlovy Vary Massif (e.g. Jáchymov Dyke Swarm) Moldanubian Composite Batholith (e.g. Kaplice Dyke Swarm) or the Štěnovice Stock. Their local accumulation may indicate traces of deep roots of volcanic structures (plumes) imprinted in the plutonic intrusion interiors. In the Central Bohemian Pluton, a multiple successive sequence is characteristic of such dyke intersections, with different petrographic types either older or younger than the plutonites themselves (Vlašímský 1976).

Palaeozoic volcanics are useful for the dating of the volcanics/plutonites relationships in the Bohemian Massif. The upper and lower boundaries of their major sequences are dated reliably in all Palaeozoic stages. Material composition of their small-scale cycles is also known. Traces of volcanic equivalents of deeply eroded plutonites in the Bohemian Massif are often well preserved in the temporally related sedimentary rock complexes. It is best documented by the Upper Palaeozoic magmatism and composition of contemporaneous sediments in adjacent basins (Kukal 1984).

Volcanic and subvolcanic products of a dominantly bimodal magmatism there started during the late Visean (?) and ended during the Cisuralian. Like in other Late Palaeozoic basin of central Europe, a major magmatic pulse took place around 300 Ma at the northern margin of the Bohemian Massif. They are possible subvolcanic counterparts of the Variscan Basement-rich granitoids and dykes (Awdankiewicz et al., 2009 and Rapprich et al., 2009).

Less preserved relationship can be observed between the Lower Palaeozoic plutons and contemporaneous volcanites of the Lower Palaeozoic age (e.g. the Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton and the Křivoklát Volcanic Belt).

Petránek (1978, 1984) formulated a hypothesis that rhyolites (ignimbrites) and associated volcanics and their tuffs became the sources for the arkoses in the Permian-Carboniferous basins of the Bohemian Massif long before the Variscan granite plutons were exposed at the surface. Explosive character of the Permian-Carboniferous volcanites is documented by large areal extent of rhyolite ignimbrites and volcano-sedimentary horizons of

51

the tuff-bearing “brousek” type and tonstein type. These horizons are still well preserved in the fillings of most Permian-Carboniferous basins of the Bohemian Massif (Jelínek et al. 2003, Awdankiewicz 2003, Ulrych et al. 2003, 2004, 2006). Episodic origin of such volcanic material is precisely documented by Ar-Ar radiometric dating (Lippold et al. 1986). The Teplice Volcanic Caldera is an example where the Upper Carboniferous granites (the Cínovec-Krupka Massif) intruded into own volcanic ejecta (Teplice Ignimbrite).

The significant time gap of at least 20 Ma between granite intrusion (320 ± 8 Ma) and rhyolite formation (297 ± 8 Ma) in the endo- and exo-contact of the Eibenstock granite, the Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif, has been found by Kempe et al. (2004). According to Förster et al. (2007) a suite of rhyolite dykes (305–295 Ma) in the western Erzgebirge is about 10 Ma younger than the major granite magmatism (325–318 Ma).

9. MINERALIZATION AND METALLOGENY OF THE PLUTONITES

Fig. 21. The atomic K/Na and Mg/Na ratios of the petrometallogenic series of the Bohemian plutonites (after Sattran and Klomínský 1970). 1 – field of the Sn genetic series, 2 – field of the Au genetic series, Mo-W and Mo-Au fields of the transitional genetic series characterised by occurrences of Mo, W and Au, Bu – average value for magmatites “red rocks”, Bushveld, D – average value for Sn-bearing granites from Dartmoor, P – average value for the Pannonian province, K – average value for the typical tin-bearing Krušné hory granites, S – average value for magmatites of the Au genetic series of the Central Bohemian Pluton.

Plutonic rocks of the Bohemian Massif play role in formation of endogenous ore deposits. There is some dispute about the role of granitoids in the concentration of ore components (Sattran et al. 1964, Sattran and Klomínský 1970, Bernard and Klomínský 1975, Tischendorf 1970, 1988, 1989, Bernard et al. 1976, Bernard and Pouba et al. 1986, Bernard 1991, Štemprok 1979, 1992,

Štemprok and Seltmann 1994, Breiter et al. 1999, and Kempe et al. 2004.

The chemical zonation and paragenetic sequences of the endogenous ore deposits are interpreted in terms of temperature control. The cooling regime of Late Variscan granite plutons and heat generated by radioactive decay of the elements U, Th and K, which are considerably enriched in the younger granites, are suggested to have been responsible for

52

ore (e.g. uranium, lead, zinc, silver, gold) mineralization (Dill 1985).

Granitoids may directly give rise to ore deposits during their evolution and emplacement having either a genetic (parental) relation to the endogenous ore deposits or so called “granite-induced” (e.g. being in paragenetic relation to the deposits). The term the petrometallogenic series (Sattran and Klomínský 1970) is an example of a concept based on direct genetic relation (Tab. 4) of the granitoids and ore deposits. It presumes that the magmatites now exposed on the surface have certain spatial and genetic relation to the corresponding metallogenic associations (Fig. 21).

Geological model of Sn-W deposits imply that the ore depositional events followed immediately the emplacement and solidification processes of granitic melt (Breiter et al. 1999 and Romer et al. 2007).

According to Kempe et al. (2004) the significant time gap of at least 20 Ma between granite intrusion (the Eibenstock Granite in Erzgebirge) and tin mineralization suggests that the late magmatic evolution of this granite cannot be regarded as a source for tin-ore forming fluids.

According to Štemprok (1979), there exist four different models explaining the concentration of ore particles by the intruding magma: a) emanation differentiation, b) fractionated differentiation, c) lateral secretion and d) subcrustal or intracrustal differentiation.

The idea of fractionated differentiation is based on the experimentally documented gradual change in magma composition dependent on the crystallizing rock-forming minerals. Sattran and Klomínský (1970) used a crystallochemical explanation for the concentration of tin in the crystallizing granitic magma. The degree of saturation of the principal cation of the ore element (e.g. Sn, W, Li) is classified as subcritical, critical or supracritical amount of the subsidiary cation of the rock-forming elements (e.g. Fe, Mg, Ti). The supracritical amount of the ore element is higher than the critical amount theoretically needed for a full saturation of potentially available diadochic position of a certain principal cation (e.g. Fe, Mg, Ti).

Quantification of supracritical and critical amounts of a certain metal was made empirically by Sattran and Klomínský (1970) for tin. Their determination of the saturation limit is based on the accepted fact that in biotite and two-mica granites dark mica acts as a specific concentrator of tin due to the crystallochemical similarity between tin and Mg and Fe cations. The overall amount of tin in the biotite and the amount of biotite in the rock must be determined for the estimation of saturation. Critical

amount of tin completely diadochically bound in dark mica in the above given granites equals to 25 ppm Sn in the rock (Fig. 22). Supracritical amount of tin in granites is indicated by content higher than 25 ppm in the whole rock, but the amount of tin bound in dark mica relative to its modal content in the rock (per 1 ton of rock) should not exceed 25 ppm. The YIC granites of the Erzgebirge/Krušné hory Mts. Batholith lie completely in the field of tin-bearing granites with supracritical amounts of Sn (Fig. 22).

Tischendorf (1970) summarized main mineralogical and geochemical criteria for the evaluation of the tin-bearing granites for practical assessment of the metallogenic potential of prospective areas (Tab. 5).

Extreme thermal effects of plutons at their exocontacts may cause mobilization and redistribution of the older mineralization (Au, Ag-Pb-Zn association) as can be documented in the Moldanubicum. The old mineralization probably had the form of stratiform and/or stratabound ore accumulations (e.g. Český Krumlov Ore District).

Endogenous ore deposits within the exocontact of Variscan plutons are considered to be products of the same magmatic centres as the adjacent plutonites themselves, but these deposits greatly differ in their age from the plutons. The difference between the age of plutonites and their ore mineral associations may exceed 100 Ma (e.g. Mesozoic fluorite-barite mineralization). According to Bernard et al. (1976), one possible origin of the Mesozoic fluorite-barite deposits is deep-reaching leaching process and decomposition of the Variscan granitic rocks caused by the circulation of connate NaCl waters as a product of the high heat production of these granites.

54

Table 5. Metallogenic indicators of tin-bearing and tin-barren granites of the Krušné hory Mts. (according to Tischendorf 1970)

Granite tin-bearing tin-barren Mineralogy

plagioclaseAn 10–15 20–30 K-feldspar microclinization none pronounced quartz 40–33 % of the mass 27–37 % of the mass dark mica zinwaldite, protolithionite,

Li-siderophylite, Li-lepidomelane Mg-biotite, Fe-biotite, siderophylite,

lepidomelane heavy minerals topaz-fluorite-tourmaline, relative

enrichment in cassiterite and xenotimeapatite-zircon-tourmaline, opaque

minerals (ilmenite) topaz (20)100–600 g/t 10 g/t zircon traces to 70 (100) g/t (40) 100–900 g/t Whole rock Geochemistry

Sn ppm 20–50 5–18 F ppm 2,000–10,000 150–1,400 Li ppm 300–1,200 50–300 Rb ppm 750–2,200 180–750 Mg % 0.05–0.25 (0.2) 0.5–1.1 Ti ppm 100–700 700–3,000 Ba ppm 50–250 100–1,000 Sr ppm 20–70 40–300 Zr ppm 20–130 40–250 V ppm 1–3 10–60 Dark mica Sn ppm 200–600 30–350 F % 2.0–6.2 0.5–1.8 Li2O % 0.4–2.6 0.1–0.6 MgO % 0.8–3.2 3.2–10.0 Ti2O % 0.5–2.0 2.0–4.5

Fig. 22. Saturation limit of tin content in granites and their biotites (after Sattran and Klomínský 1970). Yellow (III) – supracritical amount of tin, green – critical amount of tin, blue (II) – subcritical amount of tin, isolines are constructed according to data of the tin-bearing granites of the Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge) Batholith, Lt – line of total amount of Sn in rock captured in biotite and/or other mafic mineral.

55

Fig. 23. Heat production of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif.

56

10. HEAT PRODUCTION OF GRANITES IN THE BOHEMIAN MASSIF Thermal – kinematics modelling shows that the

internal crystal heat production by decay of radioactive elements during and after crystal thickening can be essential source for heat required for metamorphism and granite magmas (Gerdes, Wörner and Henk 2000). Two schematic end-member scenarios for the Carboniferous HT-LP metamorphism and granite generation in the Moldanubian Composite Batholith are shown in Fig. 7. In first case melting of fertile layers due to adjective heating though mantle magmatism derives granites. An alternative scenario to explain widespread crustal anatexis is an increasing radiogenic heat production in a thickened crust.

The research on economic extraction of dry heat from rocks has been conducted for many years already in different places of the world. The most advanced experiments have been conducted in a volcanic caldera near Los Alamos, in the Carnmenellis granite in south-western England and in the granite in the Vosges Mts. (Bresee Ed.1992, the Soultz hot dry rock project) The possibilities of utilization of geothermal heat from dry rocks were studied in the Czech Republic in 1979 and 1982 (Hazdrová et al. 1981 and Pačes et al. 1983). A special attention was concentrated on the north-western and northern parts of the Czech territory (Krušné hory Mts. and the basement of the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin). Geothermic research of the Fichtelgebirge granites has been conducted by Richter et al. (1988). Fundamental parameters, which control fluid transport and heat transfer in fractured granitic rocks, were studied in the Falkenberg Granite Massif (part of the Oberpfalz Composite Massif), NE Bavaria (Kappelmeyer and Rummel 1987).

The so-called dry heat is produced in granites by radioactive element decay. These elements can be found in accessory minerals, mostly in zircon (U and Th) and in potassium feldspar (40K isotope). According to Rybach (1976), heat production in µW.m-3 can be calculated from the uranium content (QU) in ppm, thorium content (QTh) in ppm, potassium content (QK) in weight percent and rock density (O*) using the equation:

A = 0.133 O*(0.718 QU+ 0.193 QTh + 0.262 QK).

If the value of density is not known in a specific case, the formula of Birch (1954) can be used for the mean value of granite density 2.67 g.cm-3 in the equation A = 0.26 QU + 0.071 QTh + 0.096 QK. If only summary gamma activity QUe (ppm) is known, we may also use the empirical formula of

Čermák (1977) for heat production calculation A = 0.177 QUe + 0.0012 QUe-2. The average heat production of granite is 3 W.m-3 (Rybach and Čermák 1982).

The formula A = 0.081 (K2O %) + 0.261 (U ppm) + 0.072 (Th ppm) in µW.m-3 (according to Vigneresse 1988) has been used for the calculation of heat production of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses from the Bohemian Massif:

The half time decays of 238U (4.5 . 1010 y) and 232Th (1.41 . 109 y) indicate that approximately only about 3 to 5 % of the primary U and Th contents have been lost due to radioactive decay to non-radioactive elements in the magmatic rocks and orthogneisses of the Bohemian Massif.

High heat production as recorded particularly in the Krušné hory (Erzgebirge) granites (Tischendorf 1989, Ostřihanský 1992, Förster et al. 2003) reaches or even exceeds the values of 15 W.m-3. The heat of the thermal waters from the Karlovy Vary hot springs, showing temperatures of over 70 oC, can be generated by radiothermal heat production of the Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif.

The heat production data of granites from Czech part of the Bohemian Massif are shown in Table 3 (Manová and Matolín 1995, Matolín 1977 and Hanák et al., 2008). Summary of the heat production of the Bohemian Massif granites is illustrated in Fig. 23.

According to Vaňková et al. 1979, Ostřihanský 1997) many granite types from the Bohemian Massif are ranked into groups with elevated (about 4 W.m-3) to anomalous (6 W.m-3) heat production. Granites with high heat production (HHP granites) in the Bohemian Massif can be found primarily at its northern margin and in the Moldanubian Zone. These facts were revealed by measurements shown in a radiometric map 1 : 500,000 (Manová and Matolín 1995), by field measurements of rock radioactivity (Matolín 1977) and by well log measurements (Čermák 1977 and Pokorný et al. in Pačes 1983).

The heat released from rocks as a result of radioactive decay can be measured on the Earth’s surface and/or in boreholes as heat flow. According to Čermák (1979), the average heat flow in the Bohemian Massif reaches 68 24 W.m-2. The highest values of heat flow in the northern part of the Bohemian Massif 80 to 100 W.m-2 are related to higher radioactivity of the late Variscan granites of the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Batholith and the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif.

57

Pokorný in Pačes et al. (1983) estimate that these granites contribute by their heat production to the surface heat flow by approx. 50%. At the heat flow of 80 W.m-2, the heat production of these granites represents 4 W.m-3. Maps of 130 C and 180 C isotherms were constructed on the basis of heat flow magnitude by Čermák (1979) for different depth levels of the Czech Republic. The depths of 5 to 6 km for the temperature of 180 C are expected in the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Batholith, namely in the Karlovy Vary Massif area.

The C-1 borehole in the Jelenia Góra-Cieplice Health Resort in Poland was drilled in the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif through the porphyritic granite, to depth of 2002.5 m (Dowgiałło 2000). Strong inflows of thermal water were observed at depth of 731 m and below. At the depth of 1601 m an important inflow of thermal water was intercepted, its temperature reaching

76.4 oC, at the ultimate depth the temperature had increased to 87.8 oC. After flow tests the save yield (artesian flow) was estimated at 49.5 m3.h-1 with water temperature 86.5 oC. The chemical type of water shows SO4-HCO3-Na-F-Si composition and the TDS (Total Diluted ) varies between 600 to 630 ppm. The maximum temperature recorded inside the well by thermal logging is 97.7 oC. Assuming that the geothermal gradient has an average value of

3 oC/100 m, finding mineral water with temperature 115–120 oC at depth of 2,500 m is more than probable (Dowgiałło 2000, Fistek and Dowgiałło 2003).

The total heat production of granites and the rate of surface-directed release of the produced heat is controlled by many geological and anatomical characteristics of the individual plutonic bodies.

The following characteristics should be listed among the most important:

1 – geological age of the granite massifs, 2 – morphology of outcrops and roofs of granite

intrusions, 3 – geometry of granite bodies, their depth range

and/or total volume, 4 – fault structures intersecting the HPP granites

and relics of volcanic vents in the hanging wall of or within the granites.

All Variscan granites (in the NW and N parts of the Bohemian Massif) have considerably higher values of heat production than the pre-Variscan granites (Pokorný et al. 1982, Klomínský 1993). Thermal production of the lateVariscan granites is by approx. 20–30 % higher than that of the early Variscan granites and by up to 100 % higher than the mean values of 2.5 and 3.0 W.m-3 for the Bohemian Massif and the world granites,

respectively. Heat production of all pre-Variscan granites averages by 20 to 30 % less than the above given mean values (Pokorný in Pačes et al. 1983). A similar conclusion was also found by Matolín (1970), who noted that magmatic rocks of pre-Variscan age show lower radioactivity than their Variscan equivalents. This may result from natural decay of radioactive elements the content of which in rocks decreases with the increasing age. According to Matolín (1970), the total radioactivity (expressed as uranium concentration equivalent) of the Proterozoic magmatites has decreased from the original value of 20 ppm by more than 3 ppm since the time of their origin.

Mountain topography of granite outcrops, unlike flat and basin (through)-like landscape, accelerates the mixing process of the surface water with thermal water along the principal fault structures (Klomínský 2006). An example of this is the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif within the Czech territory, which, despite anomalous values of heat production, holds cold (about 14 oC) mineral springs (e.g. Vratislavice mineral water). Thermal waters occur on its southern margin only (Janské Lázně) where the heat produced in the root zone of considerable thickness (11 to 15 km, Polanský 1973) is condensed in the country rock of this granite massif.

In the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Batholith, heat production is concentrated in the hidden cupolas in the footwall of the crystalline country rocks (Zlatý Kopec) and in the cupolas of the accompanying granitic stocks (Cínovec and Preisselberk Massifs – 4 to 9 Wm-3) intruded into own volcanic products. A similar effect of the heat concentration also functions in the outcrops of granites buried under a thick cover of younger sediments (e.g. in the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin and in the Krušné hory Piedmont Basin).

Lateral variation in heat production of the granite massif interior depends on petrographic composition of the individual rock types and also, to a large extent, on the geometry and depth range of the granite bodies. A detailed gamma-spectrometric mapping of the Melechov Massif (Novotný 1986) revealed a considerable areal variability in heat production not only between individual subordinate intrusions of the Massif but also within a single intrusion.

Depth range of granite bodies is essential for their total heat production potential. As indicated by gravimetric data, the “thickness” of the Western Krušné hory (Erzgebirge) Composite Pluton varies between 5–15 km (Polanský 1973). The geometry of

58

the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif is much alike.

On the other hand, areally extensive bodies of the Milevsko Massif, Rastenberg Massif and of the Třebíč Massif with extremely high values of heat production have a tabular shape and wedge out rapidly in the downward direction. Such massifs contribute only very little to the heat flow, hence, their total heat production potential is greatly reduced.

Fault structures intersecting granite massifs may indicate a presence of recent or palaeothermal cells, the activity of which may be directly dependent on heat production of the ambient granite. Circulation of underground water within fissure radiators originated through hydraulic fracturing leads to alteration and mineralization of the granite and its country rocks, often accompanied by ascent of heated and mineralised water up to the Earth’s surface (e.g. thermal springs in Karlovy Vary and Teplice, Jelenia Góra-Cieplice Health Resort). However, fault structures may also accelerate the

cooling of the surface part of the granite body, most often by large-scale infiltration of cold surface waters in a mountain relief of granite massifs (e.g. the Vratislavice mineral spring in the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif).

Granites are exposed on the Earth’s surface in the northwestern and northern parts of the Czech Republic over an area of more than 5,000 km2. Some of the granites of the Central Bohemian Pluton, Nasavrky Composite Pluton and of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith (Blatná Granite, Marginal Granite, Říčany type, Žumberk type and Eisgarn type) are also classified as magmatites with elevated heat production. The level of heat flow in northern part of the Czech Republic and the values of heat production of the HHP granites indicate that the temperature reaches approx. 200 C at a depth of 5 km. Such depths and temperatures meet requirements for the commercial production of thermal energy from dry rocks.

59

Fig. 24. Flow sheet of the chemical classification procedure of the Bohemian igneous rocks used in review – example of the Leuchtenberg Granite from the Oberpfalz Composite Massif (Moldanubicum). Leuchtenberg Granite – quartz-rich, sodic-potassic, weakly peraluminous, mesocratic, S-I type monzogranite.

60

11. PRINCIPLES OF THE ROCK CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

Description of plutons and their main characteristics are summarized according to the literature sources, listed in the sections of references. Their anatomies are based on hierarchy of the main components – their rock types. Rock type classification comprises the root name with descriptive attributes – traditional qualifiers of the granitic rocks such as mineral composition (e.g. biotite, muscovite, hornblende), textural terms (e.g. porphyritic) colour indicators (e.g. melanocratic, leucocratic), and grain size (e.g. coarse-grained) using the IUGS nomenclature (Fediuk 1996, Le Maitre et al. 2002). But in contrast to the IUGS classification scheme we have applied the chemical-mineralogical classification for reason of general lack of the modal analyses. To keep our classification relatively simple and essentially descriptive the qualifiers in the atlas are restricted to mineral names, textural terms and colour indicators. Approved names that consist of more than one word are hyphenised (alkali-feldspar granite). All qualifiers are linked by hyphens (biotite-muscovite).

Grain size definition is an important parameter in classifying the majority of rock types. The recommended boundaries between crystal-size of igneous rocks are: very coarse-grained ≥ 16 mm (not used in Czech terminology), coarse-grained ≥ 5 < 16 mm, medium grained ≥ 2 < 5 mm, minute (small) grained ≥ 0.25 < 2 mm (not applied in the atlas), and fine-grained ≥ 0.132 < 0.25 mm.

Prefixes leuco- and mela-precede the root name (e.g. biotite leucogranite). They are used to designate the more felsic (lower colour index) and mafic (higher colour index) types within each rock group, when compared with the “normal” types in that group. As the threshold values of the colour index of the IUGS classification vary from one rock group to another one, we applied the molar quotient value (Fe + Mg + Ti) as the colour index with uniform thresholds for leuco- meso- mela- prefixes of most granitoid root names.

Visual presentations of the chemical-mineralogical typology of igneous rocks of the Bohemian Massif (e.g. Klomínský and Dudek 1978, Holub et al. 1997, Janoušek et al. 2004) indicate not only the interest in this typological approach, but also how difficult is to attain a satisfactory solution and a general consensus.

A comprehensive contribution to the interpretation of whole-rock geochemical data in igneous geochemistry was developed by Janoušek et al. (2006) by introducing the Geochemical Data Toolkit (GCDkit) – a program for handling and recalculation of geochemical data from igneous and metamorphosed rocks.

We present here an attempt to take into account the chemical parameters applied by Debon and Le Fort (1983) and modified by Rajpoot (1992). It is based mainly on the treatment of major element analytical data in ABQ and TAS diagrams to obtain the root name for the individual rock samples or the average composition of certain rock type. Root names are accompanied by five major qualifiers in the petrochemical tables in section of magmatic objects. Chemical-mineralogical classification procedure is shown in the flow diagram in Fig. 24.

Average compositions of main world rock types after Debon and Le Fort (1983) were used for presentation in several types of petrological diagrams (see Fig. 25 and 26). Abbreviations of igneous rocks root names used in diagrams: gr – granite, mgr – monzogranit, sygr – syenogranit, afgr – alkalickoživcový granit, grd – granodiorite, d – diorite, qd – quartz diorite, gb – gabbro, qgb – quartz gabbro, gbd – gabbroic diorite, du – dunite (peridotite), mo – monzonite, qmo – quartz monzonite, sy – syenite, md – monzodiorite, mgb – monzogabbro, pgb – peridotite gabbro, fs – foid syenite, fms – foid monzosyenite, fmd – foid monzodiorite, fd – foid gabbro, fo – foidolites.

Two types of classification diagrams were used for characterization of the igneous rock root names and variation of within the individual rock types:

A triangular ABQ diagram (Fig. 25) developed by Rajpoot (1992). It represents the major components of igneous rocks in the form of three multicationic parameters: A = Na + K as a sum of alkaline elements, B = Fe + Mg + Ti as colour index and Q = Si/3-(Na + K + 2Ca/3). Both last parameters were applied also by Debon and Le Fort (1983, 1988) in several types of their diagrams.

A TAS (total alkali vs silica) diagram introduced in 1984 by the IUGS Sub commission for classification of plutonic rocks (Fig. 25). Validity of this diagram and its discriminated

61

fields for plutonites was confirmed by Cox et al. (1979), Wilson (1989), and Middlemost (1994).

In the ABQ diagram the olivine-rich rocks fall toward the B apex and muscovite-rich rocks lie close to the A-Q line. The alkali-rich rocks (syenite, monzonite) are shifted to the apex A. On the other hand, quartz diorite and quartz gabbro points are shifted toward the Q apex. The feldspathoid-dominant and quartz free (quartz deficient) rocks are located close to the A-B line or even outside the triangle while their Q-parameter shows negative values (Fig. 25).

Therefore figurative points of some basic rock may fall out of the triangle without distortion of their grouping.

Both diagrams can express the whole extent of rock composition better than other diagrams proposed merely for granitoids. Rocks formed in particular magmatic cycle or phase may have common chemical characteristics and hence may be grouped together as rock series. Graphic computer programmes as e.g. Janoušek et al. (2006) can be applied for calculations and diagram construction.

+

Fig. 25. TAS and ABQ diagrams: ABQ diagram (adapted after Rajpoot 1992), TAS diagram after Middlemost (1994. Standard rock averages after Debon and Le Fort (1983). 1 – granite, 2 – monzogranite, 3 – granodiorite, 4 – tonalite, 5 – quartz syenite, 6 – quartz monzonite, 7 – quartz monzodiorite, 8 – quartz diorite, 9 – syenite, 10 – monzonite, 11 –monzogabbro, 12 – gabbro.

62

Fig. 26. Classification diagrams according to: a – Debon and Le Fort (1983), b – Streckeisen and Le Maitre (1989), c – Debon and Le Fort (1983), d – De la Roche (1967). R1 = 4Si – 11 (Na +K) – 2 (Fe + Ti), R2 = 6Ca + 2Mg + Al (cationic values). Standard rock averages after Debon and Le Fort (1983). 1 – syenogranite, 2 – monzogranite, 3 – granodiorite, 4 – tonalite, 5 – quartz syenite, 6 – quartz monzonite, 7 – quartz monzodiorite, 8 – quartz diorite, 9 – syenite, 10 – monzonite, 11 – monzogabbro, 12 – gabbro.

Chemical parameters and statistics

The chemical analyses mostly taken from published sources were at first revised for completeness (sum of determined components) and accuracy. Only fresh rock samples (e.g. low H2O

+ values) were selected for parameter calculations. We have found that the main source of scatter is natural variability (differentiation) of rocks. In some cases the scatters are remarkably high (e.g. the Great Tonalite Dyke), in some on the contrary conspicuously low even in rocks, showing textural variation (e.g. Bohutín Quartz diorite).

Selected chemical analyses form typically small populations (from 4 to 20 samples). Moreover

local presence of deviating values may disturb their normal distribution needed for statistical treatment using arithmetical mean, standard deviation and their confidence limits. Therefore we prefer a non-parametric robust method (Meloun and Militký 1994) for the computation, applied to main element oxides and various petrological indexes as well.

Number of chemical analyses applied for chemical classification of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses are summarized in Tab. 6 according to principal geological zones of the Bohemian Massif (see tables with statistical parameters).

63

Table 6. Numbers of chemical analyses applied in classification of granitoids and orthogneisses

Principal geological zones

Magmatic rocks

Ortho gneisses

Sum

Bohemicum 493 19 512 Moldanubicum 802 73 875 Saxothuringicum 298 117 415 Lugicum 302 32 333 Moravosilesicum 90 38 128 Sum 1,984 279 2,263 Rock classifications in the table heads (see the

rock types in the territorial sections) are based both on chemical parameters and on petrochemical diagrams.

The mean chemical composition of the granitic types are characterized by approved root names of igneous rocks (granite, diorite) and are usually refined further by prefixing additional chemical, and genetic qualifiers. These qualifiers are based on parameters developed by Debon and Le Fort (1983, 1988), Peccerillo and Taylor (1976) for the chemical classification and Chappel and White (1974), and Ishihara (1977), for genetic classification of igneous rocks (I-S series and I-M types respectively).

Grouped rock types were summarized in tables of the individual rock types, showing mean values (Median), minimal and maximal content (Min, Max) of all components and their 1st and 3rd quartiles (Qu1, Qu3).

Such arrangement of median and quartiles allows further easy calculations. For example, the quartile range R = Qu3 – Qu1 serves for estimation of mean standard deviation Sr = 0.7413*R and can be used for testing of extreme values, which should eventually exceed the intervals Qu3 + 1.5R or Qu1 – 1.5R.

When only a small number of analyses were available for individual rock type (up to 5 samples), we have put these analyses (with no statistical parameters) directly in tables of the rock types in the regional sections with their original codes according to the source references or CGS data base.

Parameters (derived usually from cationic proportions) shown in tables are as follows: 1. Mg-ratio (Mg/ (Fe + Mg) distinguishes

magnesian and ferroan granitoids and may show differences in the metallogenetic potential and/or reflect different genetic source.

2. Alkalinity (AR ratio) alkali balance (K/(Na + K) specifies the sodic and/or potassic alkalinity. It may show large fluctuation within a single group. Potassic rocks are

having the AR ratio higher or equal to 0.50, sodic-potassic between 0.45 and 0.50, and AR ratio of sodic rocks is less than 0.45.

3. CIPW normative minerals (nor. Or, nor. Ab, nor. An and nor. Q) enable an easy calculation of plagioclase An content or construction of diagrams.

4. Sum of alkalies Na + K belongs to parameters of the ABQ diagram (Rajpoot 1992) as well as

5. Free quartz value Q (here denoted *Si). This parameter was introduced by De La Roche (1964) for typology of igneous rocks. It is defined by *Si = Si/3 – (K + Na + Ca/3). It shows quartz rich- (feldspar + muscovite poor), quartz normal- (alkali feldspar-normal) and quartz poor (rich in feldspar) associations. Fig. 26a in Debon and Le Fort (1983, 1988) diagram can serve as an example.

6. K-(Na+Ca) is used as a parameter in Q-P diagram (Debon and Le Fort 1983, 1988). Positive values show higher K-feldspar (or muscovite) content, negative values high plagioclase (Fig. 26a).

7. Colour index Fe + Mg + Ti, Rajpoot (1992), Debon and Le Fort (1983, 1988) defines the amount of ferromagnesian minerals (biotite, amphibole, and pyroxene) in igneous rocks. Leucocratic rock types have this parameter less than 40, mesocratic up to 150 and melanocratic rocks even more than 200 (Fig. 26c).

8. Alumina balance is defined as A= Al – (K + Na + 2Ca) (Debon and Le Fort 1983, 1988). The rocks with A positive values are peraluminous while the rocks with A negative values are metaluminous (Fig. 26c). The granites are mostly peraluminous if they do not contain pyroxene or amphibole. The peraluminosity is low for A 10 to 20), moderate for A values between 20 to 40 and high if A is higher than 40.

9. Alkali/calcium ratio = (Na + K)/Ca) is called also differentiation status used in diagrams versus Rb (Rajpoot 1992) to distinguish the degree of differentiation of granites.

10. Aluminous character (A/CNK) of igneous rocks is an essential criterion of their classification with genetic implications concerning the nature of the source material. Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O + K2O) ratio (in mol values) higher than 1.1 can discriminate S-types granites (being derived by partial melting of sedimentary source) from I-types (igneous source) granites.

64

12. GENERAL REFERENCES AFANASYEF, G. D. et al. (1977): Granitoidy sredněčešskogo plutona. In: Afanasyef, G. D. Ed.: Opyt

korreljaciji magmatičeskich, metamorfičeskich porod Čechoslovakiji i nekotorych rajonov SSSR. – 286 pp. Nauka, Moskva.

AWDANKIEWICZ, M. – BREITKREUZ, Ch. – RAPPRICH, V. (2009): Late Palaeozoic volcanism in intermontane basins at the northern margin of the Bohemian Massif: new results from Poland, Germany and Czech Republic. – SDGG, Heft 63 – GeoDresden 2009, p. 133.

AWDANKIEWICZ, M. – KUROWSKI, L. – MASTALERZ, K. – RACZYŃSKI, P. (2003): The Intra-Sudetic basin – a record of sedimentary and volcanic processes in late-to post-orogenic tectonic setting. – GeoLines 16, 165–175.

BANKWITZ, P. – BANKWITZ, E. (1994): Crustal structure of the Erzgebirge. In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. – Möller, P. Eds: Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 91–95. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

BARBARIN, B. (1999): A review of the relationship between granitoid types, their origins and their geodynamic environments. – Lithos 46, 605–626.

BARTOŠEK, J. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – ŠŤOVÍČKOVÁ, N. (1969): Petrogenesis and structural position of small granitoid intrusions in the aspect of petrophysical data. – Sbor. geol. Věd, užitá Geofyz. 8, 37–68.

BEHRMANN, J. H. – TANNER, D. C. (1997): Carboniferous tectonics of the Variscan basement collage in eastern Bavaria and western Bohemia. – Int. J. Earth Sci. 86, Suppl., 15–27.

BENDL, J. – VOKURKA, K. (1989): Strontium isotope model of formation of Blatná granodiorite. – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath. 40, 5, 655–664.

BENEŠ, K. (1971): Flow and fracture fabrics and their relationship in some granitic bodies of Bohemian Massif. – Krystalinikum 8, 149–166.

BENEŠ, K. (1974a): Distribution of granitoid bodies in the Bohemian Massif and their relationship to fold and fracture tectonics. – Krystalinikum 10, 31–38.

BENEŠ, K. (1974b): Structural Criteria Applied to the Division of Plutonites of the Bohemian Massif. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 26, 169–176.

BERGNER, R. – HOFMANN, J. – DUBANSKÝ, A. – GUNIA, T. – WOJCIECHOWSKA, I. – HOFMANN, J. – KÖHLER, H. – POVONDRA, P. – SCHARBERT, S. – ZOUBEK, V. (1988): Isotopic ages obtained from Precambrian Complexes in the Bohemian Massif. In: Zoubek, V. – Cogné, J. Kozhoukharov, D. – Kräutner, H. Ed.: Precambrian in Younger Fold Belts-European Variscides, the Carpathians and Balkans. – 885 pp. Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

BERNARD, J. H. (1967): Minerogenetic subprovinces and epochs of hydrothermal deposits in the Czechoslovak part of the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 42, 4, 263–274.

BERNARD, J. H. (1991): Empirical types of ore mineralizations in the Bohemian Massif. – 181 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

BERNARD, J. H. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1974): A comparison between the Variscan petrometallogenic units of the Bohemian Massif (Central Europe) and Massif Central (France). In: Metallization associated with acid magmatism, Vol. 1, Int. Geol. Correlation Programme, 23–28. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

BERNARD, J. H. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1975): Geochronology of the Variscan plutons and mineralization in the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 50, 71–81.

BERNARD, J. H. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – POLANSKÝ, J. (1976): Relationship between the metallogeny and the gravimetric pattern of the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 51, 65–74.

BERNARD, J. H. – POUBA, Z. et al. (1986): Rudní ložiska a metalogeneze čs. části Českého masivu. – 320 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

BESANG, C. – HARRE, W. – KREUZER, H. – LENZ, H. – MÜLLER, P. – WENDT, I. (1976): Radiometrische Datierung, geochemische und petrographische Untersuchung der Fichtelgebirgsgranite. – Geol. Jb., R. E. Geophysik 8, 3–71.

BIELIK, M. – KLOSKA, K. – MEURERS, B. – ŠVANCARA, J. – WYBRANIEC, S. (2006): Gravity anomaly map of the CELEBRATION 2000 region. – Geologica Carpathica, June 2006, 57, 3, 145-156.

BIRCH, F. (1954): Heat from Radioactivity. In: Faul H. et al. (Eds): Nuclear Geology – a symposium on nuclear phenomena. – 555 pp. Wiley and Sons, New York.

BLECHA, V – ŠTEMPROK, M. – FISCHER, T. (2009): Geological interpretation of gravity profiles through the Karlovy Vary Granite Massif (Czech Republic). – Stud. Geophys. Geod., 53 (2009), 295-314.

65

BLIŽKOVSKÝ, M. – NOVOTNÝ, M. – SUK, M. (1985): Přehled tíhových struktur Českého masivu. – Review of gravity elements in the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 60, 143–154.

BONIN, B. (2007): A-type granite and related rocks: Evolution of a concept, problems and prospects. – Lithos 97, 1–29.

BONIN, B. (2008): Death of super-continents and birth of oceans heralded by discrete A-type granite igneous events: the case of Variscan-Alpine Europe. – J. Geosci. 53, 237–252.

BONIN, B. – BÉBIEN, J. – MASSON, P. (2002): Granite: a planetary point of view. – Gondwana Res. 5, 261–273.

BOWES, D. R. – KOŠLER, J. (1993): Geochemical comparison of the Subvolcanic Appinite Suite of the British Caledonides and the Durbachite Suite of the Central European Hercynides: Evidence for Associated Shoshonitic and granitic magmatism. – Mineralogy Petrology 48, 47–63.

BREEMEN, VAN O. – BOWES, D. R. – DUDEK, A. – MÍSAŘ, Z. – POVONDRA, P. – VRÁNA, S. (1982): Geochronological studies of the Bohemian Massif, Czechoslovakia, and their significance in the evolution of Central Europe. – Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, Earth Sci. 73, 89–108.

BREITER, K. (1994): Variscan rare metal-bearing granitoids of the Bohemian Massif. In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. – Möller, P. Eds: Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 91–95. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

BREITER, K. (1997): The Teplice rhyolite (Krušné hory Mts., Czech Republic) – chemical evidence of a multiply exhausted stratified magma chamber. – Věst. Čes. geol. Úst. 72, 205–213.

BREITER, K. (2005): Interpretace vrstevnatých a usměrněných textur v granitech. 2. sjezd České geologické společnosti, Slavonice 2005. In: Breiter, K. Ed.: Sborník abstrakt a exkurzní průvodce, 31 pp. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

BREITER, K. (2009): Two contrasting granite magma types in late-Variscan Erzgebirge: areal distribution and chemical and mineralogical characteristic. – SDGG, Heft 63 – GeoDresden 2009, p. 137.

BREITER, K. – FÖRSTER, H. J. – SELTMANN, R. (1999): Variscan silicic magmatism and related tin-tungsten mineralization in the Erzgebirge-Slavkovský les metallogenic province. – Mineralium Depos. 34, 505–521.

BREITER, K. – KOLLER, F. (2000): Contrasting styles of magmatic zoning in the Central Moldanubian Pluton. – GeoLines 8, 10–11.

BREITER, K. – SOKOL, A. (1997): Chemistry of Bohemian granitoids: Geotectonic and metallogenic implications. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 31, 75–96.

BREITER, K. – SOKOLOVÁ, M. – SOKOL, A. (1991): Geochemical specialization of the tin-bearing granitoid massifs of NW Bohemia. – Mineralium Depos. 26, 298–306.

BRESEE, J. Ed. (1992): Geothermal energy in Europe: The Soultz hot dry rock project. – 356 pp. Gordon and Breach Sci. Publ.

BŘEZINOVÁ, D. – BUKOVANSKÁ, M. – DUDKOVÁ, I. – RYBAŘÍK, V. (1996): Praha Kamenná. – Národní muzeum, Praha. pp. 287. (in Czech).

BUBENÍČEK, J. (1968): Geology and petrography of the Třebíč massif. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 13, 133–164. (English summary)

BUDA, G. – KOLLER, F. – KOVÁCS, J. – ULRYCH, J. (2004): Composition of biotite in Variscan granitoids occuring in Central Europe: a statistical evalution. – Acta Mineral. Petrogr. Szeged 44, 1, 17–33.

BUDAY, T. – DUDEK, A. – IBRMAJER, J. (1969): Některé výsledky interpretace gravimetrické mapy ČSSR v měřítku 1 : 500 000. – Sbor. geol. Věd, užitá Geofyz. 8, 7–36. (English abstract)

BUCHA, V. – BLÍŽKOVSKÝ, M. et al. (1994): Crustal structure of the Bohemian Massif and the West Carpathians. – 355 pp. Academia, Prag, Springer Verlag, Berlin.

ČADKOVÁ, Z. – HAKOVÁ, M. – JAKEŠ, P. (1984): Katalog analýz regionální geochemické sítě. – MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

ČADKOVÁ, Z. – JAKEŠ, P. – HAKOVÁ, M. – MRÁZEK, P. (1985): Katalog geochemických dat základní regionální sítě. In: Litogeochem. databáze ČGS. – MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

CAMBEL, B. – KAMENICKÝ, L. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. (1980): Petrochemical correlation of granitoids of the Bohemian Massif and the West Carpathians. – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath. 31, 3–26.

CASTEN, U. – GÖTZE, H.-J. – PLAUMANN, S. – SOFFEL, H. C. (1997): Gravity anomalies in the KTB area and their structural interpretation with special regard to the granites of the northern Oberpfalz (Germany). – Geol. Rdsch. 86, 79–86.

66

CRUDEN, A. R. (2006): Emplacement and growth of plutons: implications for rates of melting and mass transfer in continental crust. – In: Brown, M. and Rushmer, T. (Eds.), Evolution and Differentiation of the Continental Crust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 455-519.

ČECH, S. – DUDEK, A. – ELIÁŠ, M. et al. (1994): Regional geological subdivision of the Bohemian Massif on the territory of the Czech Republic. – J. Czech. Geol. Soc. 39, 127–144.

ČERMÁK, V. (1977): Geothermal models of the Bohemian Massif (Variscan) and the Western Carpathians (Alpine) and their mutual relation. – Tectonophysics, 41, 127–167.

ČERMÁK, V. (1979): Geothermal studies and heat flow map of Czechoslovakia. In: Čermák, V. Ed.: Geodynamic investigations in Czechoslovakia. Final Report, 129–132. – Veda. Bratislava.

CHÁB, J. – BREITER, K. – FATKA, O. – HLADIL, J. – KALVODA, J. – ŠIMŮNEK, Z. – ŠTORCH, P. – VAŠÍČEK, Z. – ZAJÍC, J. – ZAPLETAL, J. (2008): Stručná geologie základu Českého masivu a jeho karbonského a permského pokryvu. – 284 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. (In Czech)

CHÁB, J. – STRÁNÍK, Z. – ELIÁŠ, M. Eds (2007): The geological map of the Czech Republic 1 : 500 000. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

CHÁB, J – ŽÁČEK, V. (1994): Geology of the Žulová pluton mantle (Bohemian Massif, Central Europe). – Věst. Čes. geol. Úst., 69, 4, 1–12.

CHALOUPSKÝ, J. (1963): Konglomeráty z krkonošského krystalinika. – Sbor. Ústř. Úst. geol., Odd. geol. 28, 143–190.

CHALOUPSKÝ, J. (1975): Notes on the age of granitoid rocks in the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 50, 317–320.

CHALOUPSKÝ, J. (1986): Tectonostratigraphic units of the Bohemian Massif. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 31, 387–393.

CHALOUPSKÝ, J. (1989): Major tectonostratigraphic units of the Bohemian Massif. – Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pap. 230, 101–196.

CHAMBERS 21st Century Dictionary. – 1664 pp. Chambers Harrap. CHAPPEL, B. W. – WHITE, A. J. R. (1974): Two contrasting granite styles. – Pacif. Geol. 8, 173–174. CHAPPEL, B. W. – WHITE, A. J. R. – WYBORN, D. (1987): The importance of residual source material

(restite) in granite petrogenesis. – J. Petrology 28, 1111–1138. CHLUPÁČ, I. – BRZOBOHATÝ, R. – KOVANDA, J. – STRÁNÍK, Z. (2002): Geologická minulost České

Republiky. – 436 pp. Academia. CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. (1974): The radioactivity of granites of the W and NW Bohemia. Postgradual thesis. –

– MS Fac. Sci. Charles Univ. Prague. (In Czech) CIMBÁLNÍKOVÁ, A. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. – HEJL, V. – ARAKELJANC, M. M. (1977): Biotit iz

ržičanskogo granita i ego bogatych biotitom ksenolitov (ČSSR, Sredněčešskij pluton). In: Afanasjev, G. D. Ed.: Opyt korrelacii magmatičeskzch i metamorfičeskych porod Čechoslovakiji i někotorych rajonov SSSR, 178–187. – Nauka, Moskva. (In Russian)

CLARKE, D. B. (1996): Two centuries after Hutton´s “Theory of the Earth”: the status of granite science. – Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, Earth Sci. 87, 353–359.

CLEMENS, J. D. (2003): S-type granitic magmas – petrogenetic issues, models and evidence. – Earth Sci. Rev. 61, 1–18.

CLOOS, H. (1925): Das Riesengebirge in Schlesien: Einführung in die tektonische Behandlung magmatischer Erscheinungen. – 194 pp. Berlin.

COX, K. G. – BELL, J. D. – PANKHURST, R. J. (1979): The Interpretation of the Igneous Rocks. – 445 pp. George Allen and Unwin, London.

D´AMICO, C. – ROTHURA, A. – BARGOSI, G. M. – MANETTI, M. (1981): Magmatic genesis of andalusite in peraluminous granites, example from Eisgarn type granites in Moldanubicum. – Rend. Soc. Ital. Mineralogy Petrology38, 15–25.

DALLMEYER, R. D. – FRANKE, W. – WEBER, K. Eds (1995): Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe. – 604 pp. Springer Verlag, Berlin.

DALLMEYER, R. D. – URBAN, M. (1998): Variscan vs Cadomian tectonothermal activity in northwestern sectors of the Teplá-Barrandian zone, Czech Republic: constraints from 40Ar/39Ar ages. – Geol. Rdsch. 87, 94–106.

DE LA ROCHE, H. (1964): Sur l’expression graphique des relations entre la composition chimique et la composition minéralogique quantitative des roches cristallines. – Sci. de la Terre 9, 293–337.

67

DE LA ROCHE, H. et al. (1980): A classification of volcanic and plutonic rocks using R1 and R2 diagram and major-elements analyses; its relationship with current nomenclature. – Chem. Geol. 29, 183–210.

DEBON, F. – LE FORT, P. (1983): A chemical-mineralogical classification of common plutonic rocks and associations. – Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, Earth Sci. 73, 135–149.

DEBON, F. – LE FORT, P. (1988): A cationic classification of common plutonic rocks and their magmatic association, principles, methods, applications. – Bull. Minéral. 111, 493–510.

DIETL, C. – KOYI, H. (2008): Formation of tabular plutons – results and implications of centrifuge modelling. – J. Geosci. 53, 253–261.

DILL, H. G. (1985): Granite-related and granite-induced ore mineralization on the western edge of the Bohemian Massif. In: High heat production (HHP) granites, hydrothermal circulation and ore genesis, 55–70. – IMM, London.

DOBEŠ, M. – POKORNÝ, L. (1988): Gravimetry applied to the interpretation of the morphology of the Čertovo břemeno durbachite body in the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Bull. Geol. Survey Prague 63, 129–135. (In Czech)

DOMEČKA, K. – SOKOL, A. – BREITER, K. (1998): Petrological characteristics of plutonites of the Přibram underground gas reservoir. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 1997, 131–140.

DOWGIAŁŁO, J. (2000): Thermal water prospecting results at Jelenia Góra-Cieplice (Sudetes, Poland) versus geothermometric forecasts. – Environment. Geol. 39, 433–435.

DÖRR, W. – FIALA, J. – FRANKE, W. – HAACK, U. – PHILIPPE, S. – SCHASTOK, J. – SCHEUVENS, D. – VEJNAR, Z. – ZULAUF, G. (1998): Cambrian vs. Variscan tectonothermal evolution within the Teplá-Barrandian: evidence from U-Pb zircon ages of syn-tectonic plutons (Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic). – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 42, 229–230.

DÖRR, W. – FIŠERA, M. – FRANKE, W. (1992): Cadomian magmatic events in the Bohemian Massif – U-Pb data from felsic magmatic pebles. – 7th geol. workshop: Styles of superposed Variscan nape tectonics, Kutná Hora, ČSFR. (Abstract)

DÖRR, W. – PHILLIPE, S. – FIALA, J. – VEJNAR, Z. – ZULAUF, G. (1995): U-Pb dating on zircons of meta-granitoids of the Teplá crystalline unit (Bohemian Massif) – evidence for pervasive Cambrian plutonism. – Terra Abstracts, Abstract suppl. 1 to Terra Nova 7, EUG 8, 352 pp. Strasbourg.

DÖRR, W. – ZULAUF, G – FIALA, J. – FRANKE, W. – VEJNAR, Z. (2002): Neoproterozoic to Early Cambrian history of an active plate margin in the Teplá-Barrandian unit – a correlation of U-Pb isotopic-dilution-TIMS ages (Bohemia, Czech Republic). – Tectonophysics 352, 65–85.

DUBANSKÝ, A. (1984): Stanovení radiogenního stáří kalium-argonovou metodou (geochronologická data z Českého masívu v oblasti ČSR). – Sbor. Věd. Prací Vys. Šk. báň., Ř. horn.-geol. 30, 137–170.

DUDEK, A. (1954): Biotity hlubinných vyvřelin a jejich vztah k chemismu matečných hornin. – Rozpr. Čs. Akad. Věd, 64, 6, 19–61.

DUDEK, A. (1957): The geomorphological features of the Sedmihoří composite stock. – Čas. Čs. Společ. zeměp. 62, 206–209. (English summary)

DUDEK, A. (1979): Prevariské plutonity Českého masívu. In: Vážnějšie problémy geologického vývoja a stavby Československa. Klúčové územia a metody riešenia IB. Geológia rudných ložisk. Sekcia A, 221–235. – Bratislava.

DUDEK, A. (1995): Teplá-Barrandian Zone (Bohemicum) – Igneous Activity. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke, W. – Weber, K. Eds: Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 398–402. – Springer Verlag, Berlin.

DUDEK, A. – FEDIUK, F. (1956): Bohutínský křemenný diorit. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 2, 2, 149–169. DUDEK, A. – FEDIUK, F. (1957): Basic inclusions and fluidal phenomena in the granodiorite at the border

of the Central Bohemian Pluton near Teletín (English summary). In: Sbor. k osmdesátinám akad. F. Slavíka, 97–112. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

DUDEK, A. – FROLÍKOVÁ, I. – NEKOVAŘÍK, Č. (1991): The depth of intrusion of Hercynian granitoid plutons in the Bohemian Massif. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol., Kettner Vol. 3–4, 249–256. (In Czech)

DUDEK, A. – MELKOVÁ, J. (1975): Radiometric age determination in the crystalline basement of the Carpathian Foredeep and of the Moravian Flysch. – Bull. Czech Geol. Surv. 50, 257–264.

DUDEK, A. – SUK, M. (1965): The depth relief of the granitoid plutons of the Moldanubicum. – Neu. Jb. Geol. Paläont., Abh. 123, 1–19.

FEDIUK, F. (1972): Verwachsungeigenschaften der Plagioklase in den Granitoigesteinen der Böhmischen Masse. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 3, 161–183.

68

FEDIUK, F. (1996): Zásady nomenklatury, klasifikace a typologie plutonitů se zvláštním zřetelem ke granitoidům pro potřeby úkolu ÚLOŽIŠTĚ Ústavu jaderného výzkumu v Řeži. MS Úst, jader. výzk., 45.

FEDIUK, F. – RENÉ, M. (1996): Contribution to the concentric zonality of the Kladruby Massif (W- Bohemia). – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 1995, 66–68.

FEDIUKOVÁ, E. (1963): Těžké minerály v liberecké a železnobrodské žule. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 8, 1, 12–20. (In Czech)

FIALA, F. (1948): Algonkické slepence ve středních Čechách. – Sbor. St. Geol. Úst. Čs. Republ., 15, 399-612. (English summary).

FIALA, F. (1977): The xenoliths of albitized granitoids in granulated diabase from Otmíče. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 8, 115–127.

FIALA, F. (1980): The granitoid pebbles from the Lower Cambrium Žitec Conglomerates. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 25, 351–368. (English summary)

FIALA, F. (1983): Xenolity albitizovaných granitoidů v granulovaném diabasu od Otmíčů. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 4, Hejtman Vol., 345–361.

FIALA, J. – FUCHS, G. – WENDT, J. I. (1995): Moldanubian Zone-Stratigraphy. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke W. – Weber, K. Eds: Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 417–428. – Springer Verlag, Berlin.

FIALA, J. – VAŇKOVÁ, V. – WENZLOVÁ, M. (1983): Radioactivity of selected durbachites and syenites of the Bohemian Massif. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 28, 1–16.

FIALA, J. – VEJNAR, Z. – KUČEROVÁ, D. (1976): Composition of the biotites and the coexisting biotite-hornblende pairs in granitic rocks of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Krystalinikum 12, 76–111.

FINGER, F. – CLEMENS, J. D. (1995): Migmatitization and “secondary” granitic magmas: effects of emplacement and crystallization of “primary” granitoids in Southern Bohemia, Austria. – Contr. Mineral. Petrology 120, 311–326.

FINGER, F. – FRASL, G. – DUDEK, A. – JELÍNEK, E. – THÖNI, M. (1995): Igneous Activity (Cadomian Plutonism in the Moravo-Silesian Basement. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke, W. – Weber, K. Eds: Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 495–507. – Springer Verlag, Berlin.

FINGER, F. – FRASL, G. – HÖCK, V. – STEYRER, H. P. (1989): The granitoids of the Moravian Zone of Northeast Austria: Products of a Cadomian active continental margin? – Precambr. Res. 45, 234–245.

FINGER, F. – GERDES, A. – JANOUŠEK, V. – RENÉ, M. – RIEGLER, G. (2007): Resolving the Variscan evolution of the Moldanubian sector of the Bohemian Massif: the significance of the Bavarian and Moravo-Moldanubian tectonometamorphic phases. – J. Geosci. 52, 9–28.

FINGER, F. – GERDES, A. – RENÉ, M. – RIEGLER, G. (2009): The Saxo-Danubian Granite Belt: magmatic response to post-collisional delamination of mantle lithosphere below the south-western sector of the Bohemian Massif (Variscan orogen). – Geol. carpath. 60, 3, 205–212.

FINGER, F. – HANŽL, P. – PIN, C. et al. (2000): The Brunovistulian: Avalonian Precambrian sequence at the eastern end of the Central European Variscides? In: Franke, W. – Haak, V. – Oncken, O. – Tanner, D. Eds: Orogenic Processes: Quantification and Modelling in the Variscan Belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 103–112.

FINGER, F. – ROBERTS, M. P. – HAUNSCHMID, B. – SCHREMAIER, A. – STEYRER, H. P. (1997): Variscan granitoids of central Europe: their typology, potential sources and tectonothermal relations. – Mineralogy Petrology 61, 67–96.

FISTEK, J. – DOWGIALLO, J. (2003): Thermal waters at Cieplice Slaskie Spa in the light of geological investigations carried out in the years 1969-1973 and 1997-1998. In: Ciezkowski A. et al. Eds: Sudety Zachodnie: od wendu do czwartorzedu, 207–224. – WIND, Wroclav. (In Polish)

FÖRSTER, H.-J. – DAVIS, J. C. – TISCHENDORF, G. – SELTMANN, R. (1999): Multivariate analyses of Erzgebirge granite and rhyolite composition: implications for classification of granites and their genetic relations. – Comp. Geosci. 25, 533–546.

FÖRSTER, A. – FÖRSTER, H.-J. – STROMEYER, D. (2003): An internally consistent present-day thermo-petrological model of the Erzgebirge crust. – J. Czech Geol. Soc. 48, 49–50.

FÖRSTER, H.-J. – GOTTESMANN, B. – TISCHENDORF, G. – SIEBEL, W. – RHEDE, D. – SELTMANN, R. – WASTERNACK, J. (2007): Permo-Carboniferous subvolcanic rhyolitic dikes in the western Erzgebirge/Vogtland, Germany: a record of source heterogeneity of post-collisional felsic magmatism. – Neu. Jb. Mineral., Abh. 183, 123–147.

69

FÖRSTER, H.-J. – ROMER, R. L. (2009): Carboniferous magmatism. In: Linnemann, U. – Kroner, U. – Romer, R. L. Eds: From the Cadomian Active Margin to the Variscan Orogen: The pre-Mesozoic Geology of Saxo-Thuringia (NW Bohemian Massif). – E. Schweizerbart Sci. Publ.

FÖRSTER, H.-J. – TISCHENDORF, G. (1996): Compositional heterogeneity of silicic magmatic rocks from the German Variscides. – Z. geol. Wiss. 24, 467–482.

FÖRSTER, H.-J. – TISCHENDORF, G. – GOTTESMANN B. – SELTMANN, R. – TRUMBULL, R. B. (1997): Die variszischen Granite des Erzgebirges – neue Aspecte. – Exkurs. Veröfftl. GGW, Berlin, 200, 17–18.

FÖRSTER, H.-J. – TISCHENDORF, G. – TRUMBULL, R. B. – GOTTESMANN B. (1999): Late- Collisional Granites in the Variscan Erzgebirge, Germany. – J. Petrology 40, 1613–1645.

FRANKE, W. (1989): Tectonostratigraphic units in the Variscan belt of central Europe. – Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pap. 230, 67–90.

FRANKE, W. – HAAK, V. – ONCKEN, O. – TANNER, D. Eds (2000): Orogenic processes: Quantification and modelling in the Variscan belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 459 pp.

FRANKE, W. – STEIN, E. (2000): Exhumation of high-grade rocks in the Saxo-Thuringian Belt: geological constraints and geodynamic concepts. In: Franke, W. – Haak, V. – Oncken, O. – Tanner, D. Eds: Orogenic Processes: Quantification and modelling in the Variscan Belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 337–354.

FRANKE, W. – WEBER, K. Eds (1995): Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe. – 604 pp. Springer Verlag, Berlin.

FRANKE, D. – ZELAZNIEWICZ, A. (2000): The eastern termination of the Variscides: terrane correlation and kinematic evolution. In: Franke, W. – Haak, V. – Oncken, O. Eds: Orogenic processes: Quantification and modelling in the Variscan Belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 63–86.

FRANKE, W. – ZELAZNIEWICZ, A. – POREBSKI, S. J. – WAJSPRYCH, B. (1993): Saxothuringian zone in Germany and Poland: differences and common features. – Geol. Rdsch. 82, 583–599.

FRITZ, H. – NEUBAUER, F. (1995): Kinematics of crustal stacking and dispersion in the southeastern Bohemian Massif. – Geol. Rdsch. 82, 556–565.

FRÝDA, J. – BREITER, K. (1995): Alkali feldspars as a main phosphorus reservoirs in rare metal granites: three examples from the Bohemian Massif (Czech Republic). – Terra Nova 7, 315–320.

FUSÁN, O. – KODYM, O. – MATĚJKA, A. Eds (1967): Geological map of Czechoslovakia 1 : 500,000. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

GASTIL, G. – NOZAWA, T. – TAINOSHO, Y. (1991): The tectonic implications of asymmetrically zoned plutons. – Earth planet Sci. Lett. 102, 302–309.

GEBAUER, D. – FRIEDL, G. (1994): A 1.38 Ga protolith age for the Dobra orthogneiss (Moldanubian Zone of the southern Bohemian Massif, NE-Austria): Evidence from ion-microprobe (SHRIMP) dating of zircon. – J. Czech Geol. Soc. 39, 34–35.

GERDES, A. – WÖRNER, G. – FINGER, F. (2000): Hybrids, magma mixing and enriched mantle melts in post-collisional Variscan granitoids: the Rastenberg Pluton, Austria. In: Franke, W. et al. Eds: Orogenic processes: Quantification and Modelling in the Variscan Belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 415–431.

GERDES, A. – WÖRNER, G. – HENK, A. (2000): Post-collisional granite generation and HT-LP metamorphism by radiogenic heating: The Variscan South Bohemian Batholith. – J. Czech Geol. Soc. 157, 577–587.

GERSTENBERGER, H. (1989): Whole rock isotope systematics of granitoids in Central Europe. – ZfI-Mitt., 5th Working Meeting Isotopes in Nature Proceedings II, 99–130. – Leipzig.

GERSTENBERGER, H. – HAASE, G. – HABEDANK, M. (1983): Rb/Sr Datierungen der jüngeren Granite in Ehrenfriedersdorf. In: Schröter, R. Ed.: Isotopen und elementgeochemische sowie radiogeochronologische Untersuchungen an der Zinnerzlagerstätte Ehrenfriedersdorf. – Zentralinst. Isotop. Strahlenforsch., Mitt. 76, 125–133.

GNOJEK, I. – ŠŤOVÍČKOVÁ, N. (1974): The ring structure of the Sedmihoří granite stock. – Sbor. geol. Věd, užitá geofyz. 12, 113–130.

GOROCHOV, I. M. et al. (1983): Rb-Sr dating of magmatic and metamorphic events in the eastern part of the Bohemian Massif. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 28, 349–361.

GÜRTLEROVÁ, P. (2004): Lithogeochemical database, Czech Geological Survey. Internal File. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

70

HAAKE, R. (1972): Zur Alterstellung granitoider Gesteine im Erzgebirge. – Geologie (Berlin) 21, 641–676. HAMTILOVÁ, M. (1971): Petrographic study of plutonic rocks using statistical methods. – Acta Univ.

Carol., Geol. 1, 63–77. HANÁK, J. – MACHEK, M. – ULRICH, S. – HROUDA, F. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – ONDRA, P. (2008):

Expertní odhad vybraných fyzikálních, mikrotektonických a geomechanických vlastností masivu. –Projekt SÚRAO: Výzkum procesů pole vzdálených interakcí HÚ vyhořelého jaderného paliva a vysoce aktivních odpadů. 330 pp. MS Čes. geol. služba, Praha.

HANŽL, P. – JANOUŠEK, V. – ŽÁČEK, V. – WILIMSKÝ, D. – AICHLER, J. – ERBAN, V. – PUDILOVÁ, M. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – BURIÁNKOVÁ, K. – MIXA, P. – PECINA, V. (2007): Magmatic history of granite-derived mylonites from the southern Desná Unit (Silesicum, Czech Republic). – Mineralogy Petrology 89, 45–75.

HANŽL, P. – MELICHAR, R. (1997): The Brno Massif: A section through the active continental margin or a composed terrane? – Krystalinikum 23, 33–58.

HARLAND, W. B. – ARMSTRONG, R. L. – COX, A. V. – CRAIG L. E. – SMITH, A. V. – SMITH, D. V. (1989): A Geologic time scale. – 263 pp. Cambridge Univ. Press.

HAVLENA, V. – POUBA, Z. (1953): O současném stavu otázky vzniku žul. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 28, 57–82.

HAZDROVÁ, M. –PAČES, T. – ŠPIČKA, J. – ČERMÁK, V. – MATOLÍN. M. – JURZA, F. (1981): Geotermální energie a její využití. – Knihovna Ústř. Úst. geol. 56, 128 pp.

HECHT, L. – VIGNERESSE, J. L. – MORTEANI, G. (1997): Constraints on the origin of zonation of the granite complexes in the Fichtelgebirge (Germany and Czech Republic): evidence from a gravity and geochemical study. – Geol. Rdsch. 86, 93–109.

HEJTMAN, B. (1984): Petrografie vyvřelých hornin Českého masívu. Část I, Intruzivní vyvřelé horniny západních a severozápadních Čech. – 186 pp. Praha.

HENK, A. – VON BLANCKENBURG, F. – FINGER, F. – SCHALTEGGER, U. – ZULAUF, G. (2000): Syn-convergent high-temperature metamorphism and magmatism in the Variscides: a discussion of potential heat sources. In: Orogenic processes: Quantification and modeling in the Variscan belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 387–399.

HINE, R. – WILLIAMS, I. S. – CHAPPELL. B. W. – WHITE, A. J. R. (1978): Contrasts between I- and S-type granitoids of the Kosciusco Batholith. – J. Geol. Soc. Aust., 25, 219–234.

HOFMANN, Y. – JAHR, T. – JENTZSCH, G. (2003): Three-dimentional gravimetric modeling to detect the deep structure of the region Vogtland/NW-Bohemia. – J. Geodynamics, 35, 1–2, 209–220.

HOLL, P. K. – VON DRACH, V. – MÜLLER-SOHNIUS, D. – KÖHLER, H. (1989): Caledonian ages in Variscan rocks: Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd isotopic variations in dioritic intrusives from the northwestern Bohemian Massif, West Germany. – Tectonophysics 157, 179–194.

HOLUB, F. (1991): Příspěvek k petrochemii středočeského plutonu. In: Souček, J. Ed.: Horniny ve vědách o Zemi, 117–140. Charles Univ. Prague. (Abstract in English)

HOLUB, F. V. (1997): Ultrapotassic plutonic rocks of the durbachite series in the Bohemian Massif: Petrology, geochemistry and petrogenetic interpretation. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 31, 5–26.

HOLUB, F. V. (2002): Obecná a magmatická petrologie. – 214 pp. Karolinum, Praha. HOLUB, F. V. – KLEČKA, M. – MATĚJKA, D. (1995): The Moldanubian Zone – Igneous activity. In:

Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke, W. – Weber, K. Eds: Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 444–455. – Springer Verlag, Berlin.

HOLUB, F. V. – MACHART, J. – MANOVÁ, M. (1997): The Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex: Geology, chemical composition and genetic interpretation. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 31, 27–50.

HOUZAR, S. – NOVÁK, M. (1998): Fluorine-enriched rocks on exocontact of the Třebíč durbachite massif: evidence from underlying chondrodite marbles. – Acta Univ. Carol. Geol. 42, 267.

HROUDA, F. (1999): Petrophysical properties of the Brno Massif and their tectonic implication. – Geolines 8, 30.

HROUDA, F. – REJL, L. (1973): Studium tektoniky v brněnském masivu na základě magnetických výzkumů. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 48, 1–9.

IBRMAJER, J. – SUK, M. et al. (1989): Geofyzikální obraz ČSSR. – 354 pp. Ústř. úst. geol. Praha. ISHIHARA, S. (1977): The magnetite series and ilmenite series granitic rocks. – Mining Geol. 17, 293–305.

71

JACKSON, J. A. (1997): Glossary of Geology. 4th Edition. – 769 pp. Alexandria. JANOUŠEK, V. (2002): Guide Abschluss. Exkursion 2002. Central and Southern Bohemia 4–7 July 2002

Excursion. – 26 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. JANOUŠEK, V. – BOWES, D. R. – BRAITHWAITE, C. J. R. – ROGERS, G. (2000a): Microstructural and

mineralogical evidence for limited involvemant of magma mixing in the petrogenesis of a Hercynian high-K calc-alkaline intrusion: the Kozárovice granodiorite, Central Bohemian Pluton, Czech Republic. – Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Earth Sci. 91, 15–26.

JANOUŠEK, V. – BOWES, D. – ROGERS, G. – FARROW, C. M. – JELÍNEK, E. (2000b): Modelling diverse processes in the petrogenesis of a composite batholith: the Central Bohemian Pluton, Central European Hercynides. – J. Petrology 41, 511–543.

JANOUŠEK, V. – BRAITHWAITE, C. J. R. – BOWES, D. R. – GERDES, A. (2004): Magma-mixing in the genesis of Hercynian calc-alkaline granitoids: an integrated petrographic and geochemical study of the Sázava intrusion, Central Bohemian Pluton, Czech Republic. – Lithos 78, 67–99.

JANOUŠEK, V. – FARROW, C. M. – ERBAN, V. (2006): Technical note interpretation of whole-rock geochemical data in igneous geochemistry: Introducing geochemical data toolkit (GCD kit). – J. Petrology 47, 1255–1259.

JANOUŠEK, V. – HOLUB, F. V. (2007): The causal link between HP-HT metamorphism and ultrapotassic magmatism in collisional orogens: case study from the Moldanubian Zone of the Bohemian Massif. – Proc. Geol. Assoc. 118, 75–86.

JANOUŠEK, V. – ROGERS, G. – BOWES, D. R. – VAŇKOVÁ, V. (1997): Cryptic trace-element variation as an indicator of reverse zoning in a granitic pluton: the Říčany granite, Czech Republic. – J. Geol. Soc. London 754, 807–815.

JARCHOVSKÝ, T. (1994): Inner structure of tin-tungsten bearing cupolas near Krásno (Slavkovský les Mts). In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. – Möller, P. Eds: Mineralization of Collisional Orogens. 61–69. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

JARCHOVSKÝ, T. (2006): The nature and genesis of greisen stocks at Krásno, Slavkovský les area. – J. Czech Geol. Soc. 51/3-4, 201–215.

JARCHOVSKÝ, T. – ŠTEMPROK, M. (1979): Geochemistry of granites of the Slavkovský les Mts. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 20, 111–149.

JELÍNEK, E. – DUDEK, A. (1993): Geochemistry of subsurface Precambrian plutonic rocks from the Brunovistulian complex in the Bohemian Massif, Czechoslovakia. – Precambr. Res. 62, 103–125.

JELÍNEK, E. – PEŠEK, J. – BOUŠKA, V. (2003): Late Palaeozoic volcanism in the West and Central Bohemian basins (Czech Republic). – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 45, 33–40.

JELIŃSKI, A – LIS, J. – PRZENIOSŁO, S. (1963): Uwagi o północzym kontaktie granitu karkonoskiego na zachód od Szklarskiej Poŗeby – Biul. Pań. Inst. geol. 170, 9, 5–13.

JIRÁNEK, J. (1983): Geochemie alkalických živců karlovarského masívu. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 3, 216–236.

JIRÁNEK, J. – SCHOVÁNKOVÁ, D. – SCHULMANN, K. (1988): Stavba tělesa teplického ryolitu. – Sbor. Západočes. Muz. (Plzeň), Přír. 67, 56–62.

JUST, G. (1991): The radioactivity of rocks and the radioactive heat production in the former GDR. – Geophys. Geol. (Univ. Leipzig) 4, 65–89.

KAPPELMEYER, O. – RUMMEL, F. Eds (1988): Terrestrial heat from impervious rocks. Investigations in the Falkenberg Granite Massif . – Geol. J., R. E, 39, 252 pp.

KLEIN, T. – KIEHM, S. – SIEBEL, W. – SHANG, C. K. – ROHRMÜLLER, J. – DÖRR, W. – ZULAUF, G. (2008): Age and emplacement of late-Variscan granites of the western Bohemian Massif with main focus on the Hauzenberg granitoids (European Variscides, Germany). – Lithos 102, 478–507.

KEMPE, U. – BELYATSKY, B. V. (1994): Sm-Nd ages of wolframites from the western Erzgebirge – Vogtland region: possible genetic implications. In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. – Möller, P. Eds: Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 142–149. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

KEMPE, U. – BOMBACH, K – MATUKOV, D. – SCHLOTHAUER, T. – HUTSCHENREUTER, J. – WOLF, D. – SERGEEV, S. (2004): Pb/Pb and U/Pb zircon dating of subvocanic rhyolite as a time marker for Hercynian granite magmatism and Sn mineralisation in the Eibenstock granite, Erzgebirge, Germany: Considering effects of zircon alteration. – Mineralium Depos. 39, 646–669.

72

KENNAN, P. S. – DZIDZIC, H. – LORENC, M. W. – MIERZEJEWSKI, M. P. (1999): A review of Rb-Sr isotope patterns in the Carboniferous granitoids of the Sudetes in SW Poland. – Geol. sudetica 32 (1), 49–53.

KETTNER, R. (1930a): O postavení metamorfovaných ostrovů v oblasti středočeského žulového masívu. – Sbor. St. geol. Úst. Čs. Republ. 9, 302–308.

KETTNER, R. (1930b): Geologie českého žulového masívu. – Příroda 23, 431–437. KETTNEROVÁ, M. (1920): Kontakt středočeské žuly u Žampachu na Sázavě. – Čas. Mus. Král. čes. 19–28. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1963): Geology of the Čistá Massif. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 3, 75–99. (English

summary) KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1965): The Štěnovice granodiorite massif. (English summary) – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 8,

75–99. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1969): Krkonošsko-jizerský granitoidní masiv. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 15, 7–133. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1993): Granity v Českém masivu produkují teplo. In: Reichmann, F. Ed.: Geologové proti

ničení životního prostředí, 140–141. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1994a): Zonation of Plutons – its tectonic implications. In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. –

Möller, P. Eds: Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 313–317. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. Ed. (1994b): Geological Atlas of the Czech Republic – Stratigraphy. – Czech Geol.

Survey, Prague. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. Ed. (2006): Základní geologická mapa České republiky 1 : 25 000 s Vysvětlivkami, 03-

143 Liberec. – 62 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (2006): Geotermální pole v západní části krkonošsko-jizerského masivu – fikce nebo

realita? – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2005, 179–182. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – BERNARD, J. H. (1974): Segmentation of the Bohemian Massif in the light of Variscan

magmatism and metallogeny. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 49, 149–157. Praha. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – DUDEK, A. (1978): The plutonic geology of the Bohemian Massif and its problems. –

Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 31, 47–66. KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – FEDIUK, F. – SCHOVÁNEK, P. – JARCHOVSKÝ. T. (2009): Tanvald Massif – relict

of the magmatic body in the Krkonoše–Jizera Composite Massif. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2008, 158–161.

KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – FEDIUK, F. – VESELOVSKÝ, F. – SCHOVÁNEK, P. – JARCHOVSKÝ, T. – TÁBORSKÝ, Z. (2004): Topazový kvarcolit (greisen) u Chrastavy v severních Čechách jako metalogenetický indikátor W-Sn mineralizace. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2003, 112–114.

KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. – CAMBEL, B. – GURBANOV, A. G. (1981): Petrochemická korelace a I/S klasifikace granitoidů Českého masívu, Západních Karpat a Velkého Kavkazu. – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath. 32, 307–315.

KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – RAJPOOT, G. S. (1993): The review of plutons in the Bohemian Massif – western section. – MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – SCHOVÁNEK, P. – JARCHOVSKÝ, T. – SULOVSKÝ, P. – TOUŽIMSKÝ, M. (2007): Kontakt tanvaldského a libereckého granitu u Jablonce nad Nisou. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2006, 24–29.

KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – SATTRAN, V. (1965): Podloží svrchnokarbonských sedimentů v oblasti západně od Labe. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 9, 109–115. (In Czech)

KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – SATTRAN, V. (1978): Inventory of two-mica granites of the Bohemian Massif. Proceedings of GEPIC Meeting, Nancy-Vandoeuvre (France), IGCP Project 154. – Sci. de la Terre, Sér. Inform. Gèol. 13, 123–136.

KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – TÁBORSKÝ, Z. (2003): Wolframitové zrudnění u jižního okraje tanvaldského granitu v severních Čechách. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2002, 169–170.

KLÖTZLI, U. S. – KOLLER, F. – SCHARBERT, S. – HÖCK, V. (2001): Cadomian lower-crustal contributions to Variscan Granite Petrogenesis (South Bohemian Pluton, Austria): Constraints from zircon typology and geochronology, whole-rock, and feldspar Pb-Sr isotope systematics. – J. Petrology 42, 1621–1642.

KODYM, O. – SUK, M. (1958): Přehled geologických a petrografických poměrů Blatenska a Strakonicka.– Geol. Práce 50, 71–121. (In Czech)

KODYM, O. – SUK, M. (1960): Přehled geologie západní části středočeského plutonu. – Věst. Čes. geol. Úst. 35, 269–277.

73

KODYMOVÁ, A. (1984): Morfologie akcesorického zirkonu z některých hlubinných vyvřelin Českého masívu. – 25 pp. MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. (In Czech)

KODYMOVÁ, A. – ŠTEMPROK, M. (1993): Typology and internal structure of zircons from the granites of the Krušné hory-Erzgebirge batholith and associated rhyolite and granite porphyry (Czech Republic). – J. Czech Geol. Soc. 38, 3–4, 149–164.

KODYMOVÁ, A. – VEJNAR, Z. (1974): Accessory heavy minerals of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 16, 89–128. (English summary)

KÖHLER, H. – MÜLLER-SOHNIUS, D. (1986): Rb-Sr Altersbestimmungen und Sr-Isotopen Systematik an Gesteien des Regensburger Waldes (Moldanubikum NE Bayern). Teil 2: Intrusivgesteine. – Neu. Jb. Mineral., Abh. 155, 219–241.

KOLLER, F. (1994): The South Bohemian Pluton – A complex batholith with a multiple intrusion history. – Mitt. Österr. mineral. Gesell. 139, 28, 258–313.

KONOPÁSEK, J. – SCHULMANN, K. (2005): Contrasting Early Carboniferous field geotherms: evidence for accretion of a thickened orogenic root and subducted Saxothuringian crust (Central European Variscides). – J. Geol. Soc. London 162, 463–470.

KOŠLER, J. – AFTALION, M. – BOWES, D. R. (1993): Mid-late Devonian plutonic activity in the Bohemian Massif: U-Pb zircon isotopic evidence from the Staré Sedlo and Mirotice gneiss complexes, Czech Republic. – Neu. Jb. Mineral., Mh. 9, 417–431.

KOŠLER, J. – AFTALION, M. – VOKURKA, K. – KLEČKA, M. – SVOJTKA, M. (1996): Early Cambrian granitoid magmatism in the Moldanubian zone: U-Pb zircon isotopic evidence from the Stráž orthogneiss. – MS Fac. Sci. Charles Univ. Prague.

KOŠLER, J. – ROGERS, G. – RODDICK, J. C. – BOWES, D. R. (1995): Temporal association of ductile deformation and granitic plutonism: Rb-Sr and Ar-Ar isotopic evidence from roof pendants above the Central Bohemian Pluton, Czech Republic. – J. Geol. (Chicago) 103, 711–717.

KOSSMAT, F. (1927): Gliederung des varistischen Gebirgsbaues. – Abh. Sächs. Geol. Landesamt. 1, 39 pp. KOTKOVÁ, J. – GERDES, A. – PARRISH, R. R. – NOVÁK, M. (2007): Clasts of Variscan high-grade

rocks within Upper Viséan conglomerates – constraints on exhumation history from petrology and U-Pb chronology. – J. metamorph. Geol. 25, 781–801.

KOUZNYETSOF, YU. A. (1964): Glavnyje tipy magmatičeskich formacij. – Izd. Nedra, Moskva. KOVAŘÍKOVÁ, P. – JELÍNEK, E. – ŠTEMPROK, M. – KACHLÍK, V. – HOLUB, F. V. – BLECHA, V.

(2005): Petrochemické srovnání redwitzitů severozápadní části Českého masivu. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2004, 103–106. (In Czech)

KREUZER, H. – MÜLLER, P. – OKRUSCH, M. – PATZAK, M. – SCHÜSSLER, U. – SEIDEL, E. – ŠMEJKAL, V. – VEJNAR, Z. (1991): Ar-Ar confirmation of Cambrian, early Devonian, and Mid-Carboniferous events in tectonic units at the western margin of the Bohemian Massif. – Zbl. Geol. Paläont., H. 5, 6. Rundgespräch Geodynamik des europäischen Variszikums.

KREUZER, H. – SEIDEL, E. – SCHÜSSLER, U. – OKRUSCH, M. – LENZ, K. L. – RASCHKA, H. (1989): K-Ar geochronology of different tectonic units at the northwestern margin of the Bohemian Massif. – Tectonophysics 157, 149–178.

KREUZER, H. – VEJNAR, Z. – SCHÜSSLER, U. – OKRUSCH, M. – SEIDEL, E. (1992): K-Ar dating in the Teplá-Domažlice Zone at the western margin of the Bohemian Massif. In: Kukal Z. Ed.: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Bohemian Massif, 168–175. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

KRÖNER, A. – HEGNER, E. (1998): Geochemistry, single zircon ages and Sm-Nd systematics of granitoid rocks from the Góry Sowie (Owl Mts), Polish West Sudetes: evidence for Early Palaeozoic arc-related plutonism. – J. Geol. Soc. London 155, 711–724.

KRÖNER, A. – HEGNER, E. – HAMME, J. et al. (1994): Geochronology and Nd-Sr systematics of Lusatian granitoids: significance for the evolution of the Variscan orogen in east-central Europe. – Geol. Rdsch. 83, 357–376.

KRÖNER, A. – JAECKEL, P. – HEGNER, E. – OPLETAL, M. (2001): Single zircon ages and whole-rock Nd isotopic systemarics of early Palaeozoic granitoid gneisses from the Czech and Polish Sudetes (Jizerské hory, Krkonoše Mts. and Orlice-Sněžník Complex). – Int. J. Earth. Sci. 90, 304–324.

KRUPIČKA, J. (1950): Metamorfismus ve střední části jílovského pásma. – Sbor. Ústř. Úst. geol., Odd. geol. 17, 1–103.

KRUPIČKA, J. (1968): The contact zone in the North of the Moldanubian Pluton. – Krystalinikum 6, 7–39. Praha.

74

KRYZA, R. (1995): Western Sudetes (Lugicum) – Igneous Activity. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke, W. –Weber, K. Eds (1995): Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 341–350. – Springer Verlag, Berlin.

KUKAL, Z. (1984): Granitoidové plutony byly hlavním zdrojem živců permokarbonských sedimentů. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 29, 193–196.

LE MAITRE, R. W. et al. (2002): Igneous rocks A Classification and Glossary of Terms. – 236 pp. The Cambridge University Press URL.

LIEW, T. C. – FINGER, F. – HÖCK, V. (1989): The Moldanubian granitoid plutons of Austria: Chemical and isotopic studies bearing on their environmental setting. – Chem. Geol. 76, 41–55.

LIEW, T. C. – HOFMANN, A. W. (1988): Precambrian crustal components, plutonic associations, plate environment of the Hercynian Fold Belt of central Europe: Indications from a Nd and Sr isotopic study. – Contr. Mineral. Petrology 98, 129–138.

LIPPOLD, H.-J. – HESS, J. C. – HOLUB, V. – PEŠEK, J. (1986): Correlation of Upper Carboniferous Deposits in the Bohemian Massif (Czechoslovakia) and in the Ruhr District (FR Germany). Evidence from 40Ar/39Ar Ages of Tuff Layers. – Z. Dtsch. geol. Gesell. 137, 447–464.

LOSOS, Z. – HLADÍKOVÁ, J. (1988): Izotopické složení grafitů a karbonátů z pláště žulovského masívu a jeho využití pro výpočet teplot metamorfózy. – Scr. Univ. Purkyn. Brun. Geol. 18, 261–272.

MÁCHA, J. et al. (1972): Želivka tunelem do Prahy. – 196 pp. Podzem. inž. stavby, Praha. MADEL, J. (1975): Geochemical structures in multiple intrusion granite massif. – Neu Jb. Mineral., Abh.

124, 103–127. MAHEL, M. et al. (1973): Tectonic map of the Carpathian-Balkan mountains system and adjacent areas. –

D. Štúr Geol. Inst. Bratislava. MALÝ, J. – SUK, M. (1989): I/S klasifikace granitoidních hornin východního okraje Českého masívu. –

Čas. Mineral. Geol. 34, 59–74. MANOVÁ, M. – MATOLÍN, M. (1995): Radiometric map of the Czech Republic 1: 500,000. – Czech Geol.

Survey, Prague. MAREK, F. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. (1968): Deeper structure of the Central Bohemian Pluton on basis of

density measurements and gravity anomalies (English summary). – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 13, 3, 333–346. MARHEINE, D. – KACHLÍK, V. – MALUSKI, H. et al. (2002): The 40Ar/39Ar ages from the West

Sudetes (NE Bohemian Massif): constraints on the Variscan polyphase tectonothermal development. In: Winchester, J. A. – Pharaoh, T. C. – Verniers, J. Eds: Palaeozoic Amalgamation of Central Europe. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 201, 133–155.

MAŠÍN, J. (1952): Magnetismus gabrových vyvřelin středočeského plutonu. – Sbor. Ústř. Úst. geol., Odd. geol. 19, 185–211.

MÁŠKA, M. (1954): K tektonické analýze krystalinika (Drobná tektonika Krkonoš). – Knih. Ústř. Úst. geol. 27, 259 pp.

MATOLÍN, M. (1970): The radioactivity of rock of the Bohemian Massif. – Knih. Czech Geol. Surv. 41, 1–100. (In Czech)

MATTE, A. W. (1986): Tectonics and plate tectonic model for the Variscan belt in Europe. – Tectonophysics 126, 329–374.

MATTE, PH. – MALUSKI, H. – RAJLICH, P. – FRANKE, W. (1990): Terrane boundaries in the Bohemian Massif: Result of large-scale Variscan shearing. – Tectonophysics 177, 151–170.

McCANN, T. Ed. (2008): The geology of Central Europe. Volume 1: Precambrian and Palaeozoic. 748 pp. MICHNIEWITZ, M. – BOBIŃSKI, W. – SIEMĄRKOWSKI, J. (2006): Mineralizacja cynowa w środkowej

części pasma łupkowego Starej Kamienicy (Sudety zachodnie). – Prace Pol. Inst. Geol. 185, 136 pp. (In Polish)

MAZUR, S. – ALEKSANDROWSKI, P. – TURNIAK, K. – DANKIEWITZ, A. W. (2007): Geology, tectonic evolution and Late Palaeozoic magmatism of Sudetes – an overview. In: Kozlowski, A. – Wiszniewska, J. Eds: Granitoids in Poland. – Arch. mineral. 1, 59–87.

MELOUN, M. – MILITKÝ, J. (1994): Statistické zpracování experimentálních dat. – 839 pp. Plus. Praha. MIDDLEMOST, A. K. (1994): Naming materials in the magma/igneous rock system. – Earth-Sci. Rev. 37,

215–224. MINAŘÍK, L. (1975): Distribuce prvků v hlavních horninotvorných minerálech plutonitů. – Čas. Mineral.

Geol. 20, 185–199.

75

MINAŘÍK, L. – CIMBÁLNÍKOVÁ, A. – ULRYCH, J. (1988): Coexisting amphibole-biotite pairs in durbachitic rocks of the Central Bohemian Pluton . – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 3, 259–287.

MINAŘÍK, L. – POVONDRA, P. (1976): Geochemie draselných živců durbachitů Čertova břemene. – Stud. Čs. Akad. Věd. 9, 7–63.

MÍSAŘ, Z. – DUDEK, A. – HAVLENA, V. – WEISS, J. (1983): Geologie ČSSR I. Český masív. – St. pedag. nakl. Praha.

MOREHEAD, P. D. (1998): The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary. – 850 pp. Penguin. MOTTLOVÁ, L. (1971): Hlubší stavba kutnohorského krystalinika s. s. na základě interpretace regionálního

tíhového pole. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 16, 3, 247–254. MOTTLOVÁ, L. – SUK, M. (1970): Distribution of granitoid rocks in the subsurface structure of the

Moldanubian Zone. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 15, 383–392. (English summary). MÖBUS, G. (1966): Petrographisch-tectonische Untersuchungen im Lausitzer Granitmassiv. – Abh.

Deutsch. Akad. Wiss. Kl. Chemie, Geol. u. Biol., 1955 (8) (Abh. Geotectonik 7) 1-40. NEUŽILOVÁ, M. (1973): Chemické složení alkalických živců. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 18, 309–318. NOVOTNÝ, P. (1986): Peraluminické granity melechovského masívu. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 1984, 149–

150. NOZAWA, T. – TAINOSHO, Y. (1990): Characteristic of zoned plutons in Japan: A summary. In: Shomizo,

M. – Gastil, G. Eds: Recent advances in concepts concerning zoned plutons in Japan and Southern and Baja California, 115–242. – The Univ. Mus., Univ. Tokyo.

OBERC-DZIEDZIC, T. (1985): Wplyw granitu karkonoskiego na gneisy izerskie. – Kwart. Geol. 29, 571–588.

OLIVER, G. J. H. – CORFU, F. – KROGH, T. E. (1993): U-Pb ages from SW Poland: evidence for a Caledonian suture zone between Baltica and Gondwana. – J. Geol. Soc. London 150, 355–369.

ORLOV, A. (1935a): Zur Kenntnis der Petrochemie des mittelböhmischen Plutons. – Mineral. petrogr. Mitt., N.F. 46, 416–446.

OSTŘIHANSKÝ, L. (1992): The structure of the Earth’s crust and the heat-flow – heat production relationship in the Bohemian Massif. In: Kukal Z. Ed.: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Bohemian Massif, Prague, Czechoslovakia, Sept. 26–Oct. 3, 1988, 210–217. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

PAČES, T. et al. (1983): Možnosti využití zemského tepla suchých hornin v ČSR. Závěrečná zpráva. – 35 pp. MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

PÄLCHEN, W. – THIERGÄRTNER, H. (1970): Anwendung der Trendanalyse zum Studium des Aufbaus von Granitkörpern am Beispiel des Granitmassivs von Königshain, Oberlausitz. – Geologie (Berlin) 19, 55–71.

PALIVCOVÁ, M. (1967): Řešení granitového problému v některých současných teoriích. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 12, 2, 195–218.

PALIVCOVÁ, M. (1977): Formační analýza magmatických hornin. – Miner. slov. 9, 213–220. PALIVCOVÁ, M. – BENEŠ, K. – ZOUBEK, Vl. (1968): Genesis of Granitoids in the Bohemian Massif.

Guide to Excursion 29 AC, Czechoslovakia, Int. Geol. Congress 22 session Prague 1968, 42 pp. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

PALIVCOVÁ, M. – CIMBÁLNÍKOVÁ, A. – HEJL, V. (1978): Problemy formacionogo analiza granitoidov Češskogo masiva. – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath. 29, 1, 43–66. Bratislava. (In Russian)

PALIVCOVÁ, M. – ŠŤOVÍČKOVÁ, N. (1968): Volcanism and plutonism of the Bohemian Massif from the aspect of its segmented structure. – Krystalinikum 6, 169–199.

PALIVCOVÁ, M. – WALDHAUSROVÁ, J. – LEDVINKOVÁ, V. (1989a): Precursors lithology and the origin of the Central Bohemian Pluton (Bohemian Massif). – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath., 40, 5, 521–526.

PALIVCOVÁ, M. – WALDHAUSROVÁ, J. – LEDVINKOVÁ, V. (1989b): Granitization problem – once again. – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath., 40, 4, 423–452.

PALIVCOVÁ, M. – WALDHAUSROVÁ, J. – LEDVINKOVÁ, V. (1989c): Granitologie – věda o granitech na konci druhého tisíciletí (Ke druhému vydání Pitcherova díla o granitu 1997 a ke Clarkovu hodnocení granitového paradigmatu 1996). – Miner. slov. 33 (2001), 389–402. (In Czech)

PEARCE, J. A. – HARRIS, N. B. W. – TINDLE, A. G. (1984): Trace element discrimination diagrams for the tectonic interpretation of granitic rocks. – J. Petrology 25, 956–983.

PECCERILLO, A. – TAYLOR, S. R. (1976): Geochemistry of Eocene calc-alkaline volcanic rocks from the Kastamonu area, Northern Turkey. – Contr. Mineral. Petrology 58, 63–81.

76

PETRAKAKIS, K. (1997): Evolution of Moldanubian rocks in Austria: review and synthesis. – J. Metamorph. Geol. 15, 203–222.

PETRÁNEK, J. (1978): Byly variské plutony Českého masívu tak rychle obnaženy, že se staly zdrojem materiálu karbonských arkóz? – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 23, 381–387.

PETRÁNEK, J. (1984): Karbonské arkózy, variské granitoidy a subsekvenční vulkanismus. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 29, 197–210.

PIN, C. – MAJEROVICZ, A. – WOJCIECHOVSKA, I. (1988): Upper Palaeozoic oceanic crust in the Polish Sudetes: Nd-Sr isotope and trace element evidence. – Lithos 21, 195–209.

PITCHER, W. S. (1970): Ghost stratigraphy in intrusive granites: a review. In: Newall, G. – Rast, N. Eds: Mechanism of Igneous Intrusion. – Geol. J. Spec. Publ. 2, 123–140.

PITCHER, W. S. (1979): Comments on the Geological Environments of Granites. In: Atherton, M. P. – Tarney, J. Eds: Origin of Granite Batholiths,1–33. – Black. Acad. Profess. London.

PITCHER, W. S. (1993): The Nature and Origin of Granite. – 321 pp. Black. Acad. Profess. London. PIVEC, E. (1970): On the origin of phenocrysts of potassium feldspars in some granitic rocks of the Central

Bohemian Pluton. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 1, 11–25. PIVEC, E. (1982): Dvojživcová geotermometrie aplikovaná na intruzi granitoidů „okrajového“ typu na

Příbramsku. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 27, 4, 421–428. POKORNÝ, L. (1997): Geophysical position of granitoid plutons in the Bohemian Massif. – Sbor. geol.

Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 31, 67–73. POKORNÝ, L. – POLANSKÝ, J. – ŠŤOVÍČKOVÁ, N. (1970): Evidence of the deep segmented structure

of the Bohemian Massif based on geophysical data. – Sbor. geol. Věd, užitá Geofyz. 9, 7–18. POLANSKÝ, J. (1970): Granitoid plutons in the subsurface structure of the Krušné hory Mts. crystalline

complex. In: Deep geological structure in Czechoslovakia (Loučná), 88–92. – Brno. (In Czech) POLANSKÝ, J. (1973): Hloubkové řezy Českým masivem. – Geol. Průzk. 6, 15, 161–167. POUBA, Z. (1969): Beziehungen zwischen der Bruchtektonik in den Erzgängen der Böhmische Masse. –

Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 10, 7–23. (In German) POUBOVÁ, M. (1974): Composition of amphiboles and rock type subdivisions in the Central Bohemian

Pluton. – Krystalinikum 10, 149–169. PUPIN, J. P. (1980): Zircon and granite petrology. – Contr. Mineral. Petrology 73, 207–220. PUPIN, J. P. – TURCO, G. (1975): Typologie de zircon accessoire dans les roches plutonique dioritiques,

granitiques et syénitiques. Facteures essentiets déterminant les variations typologiqueas. – Pétrologie 1, 139–156.

RAJLICH, P. – VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. (1983): Regionální trendy chemismu ve středočeském plutonu. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 3, 193–213.

RAJPOOT, G. S. (1992): Granites in Sn metallogenic provinces of Hercynian fold belt (SW England and NW Bohemia) and their comparison with the granites of Himalayas. Ph. D. Thesis. – 212 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

RAJPOOT, G. S. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1993): Typology and origin of granite in the Cornubian and the Krušné hory-Smrčiny batholiths. – Bull. Czech Geol. Surv. 3, 66 pp.

RAPPRICH, V. – STÁRKOVÁ, M. – BREITKREUZ, Ch. (2009): Monogenetic volcanism in the Levín Volcanic Field (Krkonoše Piemont Basin, Permian): eruptive styles and interactions with environment. – GeoDresden 2009, p. 147.

RENÉ, M. (1995): Genetic classification of Variscan granitoids of the Bohemian Massif and their mineralization. In: Kříbek, B. – Pašava, J. Eds: Mineral deposits: From their origin to their environmental impacts, 501–504. – Balkema, Rotterdam.

RICHTER, P. – OKRUSCH, M. – BOHLENDER, F. (1988): Die Geothermie-Bohrung Neusorg im Fichtelgebirge: Petrographie und Geochemie des Kernmaterials. – Geol. Forsch. 38, 125–168.

ROMER, R. L. – THOMAS, R. – STEIN, H. J. – RHEDE, D. (2007): Dating multiply overprinted Sn-mineralized granites – examples from the Erzgebirge, Germany. – Mineralium Depos. 42, 337–359.

RYBACH, L. – ČERMÁK, V. (1982): Radioactive heat generation in rocks. In: Čermák, V. et al. Eds: Physical properties of rocks. Vol. 1, Subvol. A. – 373 pp. Springer Verlag, Berlin.

RYBAŘÍK, V. (1994): Ušlechtilé stavební a sochařské kameny České republiky. – 218 pp. Nadace Střední prům. školy kamenické a sochařské v Hořicích v Podkrkonoší.

SATTRAN, V. (1957): Odnos krystalinika v prostoru východních Krušných hor. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 32, 316–322.

77

SATTRAN, V. (1960): Flájská žula a loučensko-flajský žulový porfyr. – Sbor. Ústř. Úst. geol., Odd. geol., 26, 1, 75–99.

SATTRAN, V. – FIŠERA, M. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1964): O genetickém vztahu endogenních ložisek cínu a zlata k variskému magmatismu Českého masivu. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 39, 435–439.

SATTRAN, V. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1970): Petrometallogenetic series of igneous rocks and endogeneous ore deposits in the Czechoslovak part of the Bohemian Massif. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 12, 65–154.

SEDLÁK, J. – GNOJEK, I. – SCHEIBE, R. – ZABADAL, S.– (2009): Gravity response of igneous rocks in the northwestern part of the Bohemian Massif. – J. Geosci., 54, 325–342.

SEDLÁK, J. – GNOJEK, I. – ZABADAL, S. – FARBISZ, J. – CWOJDZINSKI, S. – SCHEIBE, R. (2007): Geological interpretation of a gravity low in the central of the Lugian unit (Czech Republic, Germany and Poland). – J. Geosci. 52, 181–198.

SCHARBERT, S. (1987): Rb-Sr Analysen des Tonalits und Granits von der Lokalität Křižanovice (Železné hory). – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 32, 411–412.

SCHARBERT, S. (1998): Some geochronological data from the South Bohemian Pluton in Austria – a critical review. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 42, 114–118.

SCHARBERT, S. – BREITER, K. – FRANK, W. (1997): The cooling history of the southern Bohemian Massif. – J. Czech Geol. Surv. 42, 24 pp.

SCHARBERT, S. – VESELÁ, M. (1990): Rb-Sr systematics of intrusive rocks from the Moldanubicum around Jihlava. In: Minaříková, D. – Lobitzer, H. Eds: Thirty years of geological cooperation between Austria and Czechoslovakia, 262–272. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

SCHEUVENS, D. – ZULAUF, G. (2000): Exhumation, strain localization, and emplacement of granitoids along the western part of the Central Bohemian shear zone (Bohemian Massif). – Int. J. Earth Sci. 89, 617–630.

SCHULMANN, K. – KRÖNER, A. – HEGNER, E. – WENDT, I. – KONOPÁSEK, J. – LEXA, O. – ŠTÍPSKÁ, P. (2005): Chronological constraints on the pre-orogenic history, burial and exhumation of deep-seated rocks along the eastern margin of the Variscan orogen, Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic. – Amer. J. Sci. 305, 407–448.

SCHUST, F. (1967): Die Kornregelung von Feldspäten in magmatischen Gesteinen. Tektonik und Magma, Teil I. – Freiberg. Forsch.-H., R. C 215, 81–94.

SCHUST, F. – WASTERNACK, J. (2002): Granitoid-Typen in postkinematischen Granitoidplutonen: Abbilder von autonomen Intrusionsschüben – Beispiele vom Nordrand des Böhmischen Massivs (Erzgebirge – Harz – Flechtinger Scholle – Lausitz). – Z. geol. Wiss. Berlin 30, 77–117.

SELTMANN, R. (1990): Structurelle Position magmatischer Intrusions und Explosionsbrekzien im Bereich der Erzgebirgischen Antiklinalzone in Verbindung zur Mineralisation. – Sci. Rep. Zentralinst. Physik Erde Potsdam, 228 pp.

SIEBEL, W. – BREITER, K. – WENDT, I. – HÖHNDORF, A. – HENJES-KUNST, F. – RENÉ, M. (1997a): Petrogenesis of contrasting granitoid plutons in western Bohemia (Czech Republic). – Mineralogy Petrology65, 207–235.

SIEBEL, W. – HÖHNDORF, A. – WENDT, I. (1995): Origin of late Variscan granitoids from NE Bavaria, Germany, exemplified by REE and Nd isotope systematics. – Chem. Geol. 125, 249–270.

SIEBEL, W. – SHANG, C.K. – RITTER, E. – ROHRMÜLLER, J. – BREITER, K. (2008): Two distinctive granite suites in the SW Bohemian Massif and their record of emplacement constraints from geochemistry and zircon 207Pb/206Pb chronology. – J. Petrology 49, 1853–1872.

SIEBEL, W. – TRZEBSKI, R. – STETTNER, G. – HECHT, L. – CASTEN, U. – HÜHNDORF, A. – MÜLLER, P. (1997b): Granitoid magmatism of the NW Bohemian massif revealed: gravity data, composition, age relationss and phase concept. – Geol. Rdsch. 86, S45–S63.

SMETANA, V. (1927): Zpráva o mapování listu Podbořany-Rakovník v r. 1927 – okolí Žihle. – Sbor. St. geol. Úst. Čs. Republ. 7, 430–452.

SOKOL, A. – DOMEČKA, K. – BREITER, K. – JANOUŠEK, V. (2000): The underground gas storage near Příbram – a source of new information about granitoids of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Věst. Čes. geol. Úst. 75, 89–104.

SOUČEK, J. (1987): Minerální asociace hornin pláště žulovského plutonu. – Práce Odb. přír. Věd Vlastivěd. Muz. 36, 78–83. Olomouc.

78

STEINOCHER, V. (1969): Composition and petrology of the Central Bohemian Pluton.– Rozpr. Čs. Akad. Věd, Ř. mat. přír. Věd 79, 100 pp. (German summary)

STONE, M. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – RAJPOOT, G. S. (1997): Composition of trioctahedral micas in the Karlovy Vary pluton, Czech Republic and a comparison with those in the Cornubian batholith, SW England. – Mineral. Mag. 61, 791–807.

STRECKEISEN, A. – LE MAITRE, R. W. (1979): A chemical approximation to the modal QAPF classification of the igneous rocks. – Neu. Jb. Mineral, Abh. 136, 169–206.

SUK, M. (1973): Reconstruction of the mantle of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 18, 345–364.

SUK, M. – BUDAY, T. – CHLUPÁČ, I. – CICHA, I. – DUDEK, A. – DVOŘÁK, J. – ELIÁŠ, M. – HOLUB, V. – IBRMAJER, J. – KODYM, O. – KUKAL, Z. – MALKOVSKÝ, M. – MENČÍK, E. – MÜLLER, V. – TYRÁČEK, J. – VEJNAR, Z. – ZEMAN, A. (1984): Geological history of the territory of the Czech Socialist Republic. – 400 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

SUK, M. – ĎURICA, D. et al. (1991): Deep boreholes in the Czech Republic. – 171 pp. Gabriel, Praha. (English abstract)

SUK, M. – VACEK, J. (1984): Horizontální řezy Českým masívem. – Geol. Průzk. 8/9, 226–230. SUK, M. – WEISS, J. (1975): Interpretation of subsurface structure of plutons in the Moldanubian Zone. In:

Deep geological structure of Czechoslovakia (Loučná, 1974), 195–206. – Geofyzika, Brno. SVOBODA, J. et al. (1964): Regionální geologie ČSSR, díl I. Český masív, Krystalinikum 1. – 380 pp.

Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. SVOBODA, J. et al. (1966): Regional geology of Czechoslovakia. Part I. The Bohemian Massif. – 668 pp.

Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. SVOBODA, J. et al. (1983): Encyklopedický slovník geologických věd, I. – Academia, Praha. ŠALANSKÝ, K. (1955): Geofyzikální průzkum ve sv. Petru v Krkonoších. – MS Czech Geol. Survey –

Geofond, Prague. ŠALANSKÝ, K. (1983): Regionální magnetické struktury Českého masivu na území ČSR. – Věst. Ústř. Úst.

geol. 58, 275–286. ŠALANSKÝ, K. (1989): Geofyzikální indikace cirkulárních struktur Českého masivu. – Geol. Průzk. 10,

301–304. ŠALANSKÝ, K. (1995): Geomagnetická mapa České republiky 1 : 500 000. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. ŠALANSKÝ, K. – GNOJEK, I. (2002): Geomagnetické anomálie v České republice. – Czech Geol. Surv.

Spec. Pap. 14, 142 pp. (English summary) ŠKVOR, V. (1986): The granite pluton of the Krušné hory and its interpretation. – Bull. Czech Geol. Surv.

65–71 (In Czech) ŠMEJKAL, V. (1960): Absolutní stáří některých granitoidů a metamorfitů Českého masívu stanovené

kalium-argonovou metodou. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 35, 441–449. ŠMEJKAL, V. (1964): The absolute age of some plutonic and metamorphic rocks of the Bohemian Massif

determined by K/Ar method (part II). (English summary) – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 4, 121–136. ŠMEJKAL, V. – MELKOVÁ, J. (1969): Notes of some potassium-argon dates of magmatic and

metamorphic rocks from the Bohemian Massif. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 14, 331–338. ŠMEJKAL, V. – VEJNAR, Z. (1965): Zur Frage der prävariszischen Alters einiger Granitoide des

Böhmischen Massivs. In: Geochemie v Československu, Sbor. prací 1. geochem. konfer. v Ostravě, 123–128. – Ostrava.

ŠRÁMEK, J. – MRLINA, J. (1997): Gravity field – its features and geological interpretation. In: Vrána, S. – Štědrá, V. Eds: Geological model of western Bohemia related to the KTB borehole in Germany. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 47, 27–32.

ŠTELCL, J. (1960): Petrografie kulmských slepenců jižní části Drahanské vysočiny. – Folia Fac. Sci. Nat. Univ. Purk. Brun. 1, 103 pp.

ŠTEMPROK, M. (1986): Petrology and geochemistry of the Czechoslovak part of the Krušné hory Mts. pluton. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 27, 111–156.

ŠTEMPROK, M. (1991): The geochemistry of the Czechoslovak part of the Smrčiny (Fichtelgebirge) granite pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 37, 1–19.

ŠTEMPROK, M. (1992): Granitoid-related tin and tungsten mineralization of the Bohemian Massif. In: Kukal, Z. Ed.: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Bohemian Massif, 291–297. –Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

79

ŠTEMPROK, M. – SELTMANN, R. (1994): The metallogeny of the Erzgebirge (Krušné hory). In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. – Möller, P. Eds: Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 61–69. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

ŠTEMPROK, M. – ŠKVOR (1974): Composition of tin-bearing granites from the Krušné hory metallogenic province of Czechoslovakia. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 16, 7–87.

ŠTEMPROK, M. – ŠULCEK, Z. (1969): Geochemical profile through an ore-bearing lithium granite. – Econ. Geol. 64, 392–404.

ŠTÍPSKÁ, P. – SCHULMANN, K. – KRÖNER, A. (2004): Vertical extrusion and middle crustal spreading of omphacite granulite: a model of syn-convergent exhumation (Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic). – J. metamorph. Geol. 22, 179–198.

ŠVANCARA, J. (2004): Gravimetrická mapa České republiky. – Čs. Čas. Fyz. 54/2004, 217-220. ŠVANCARA, J. – GNOJEK, I. – HUBATKA, F. – DĚDÁČEK, K. (2000): Geophysical field pattern in the

west Bohemian geodynamic active area. – Studia geoph. geod. 44, 307–326. TAKAGI, T. – TSUKIMURA, K. (1997): Genesis of Oxidized- and Reduced-Type Granites. – Econ. Geol.

92, 81–86. TAKATASHI, – ARAMAKI, S. – ISHIHARA, S. (1980): Magnetite-series/Ilmenite-series vs. I-type/S-type

granitoids. – Min. Geol. Spec. Issue 8, 13–28. Tokyo. TAUSON, L. V. – KOZLOV, V. D. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. – CIMBÁLNÍKOVÁ, A. (1977): Geochimičeskije

osobenosti granitoidov sredněčešskogo plutona i nekotoryje voprosy ich genezisa. In: Opyt korelacii magmatičeskich i metamorfičeskich porod Čechoslovakii i nekotorych rajonov SSSR, 145–161. – Izd. Nauka, Moskva.

TEUFEL, S. (1988): Vergleichende U-Pb und Rb-Sr Alterbestimmungen an Gesteinen des Übergangsbereiches Saxothuringikum/Moldanubikum, NE Bayern. – Göttinger Arb. Geol. Paläont. 35, 87 pp.

THOMAS, R. – FÖRSTER, H. J. – TISCHENDORF, G. (1991): PTX-signatures of Hercynian ore-producing granites, Erzgebirge, Germany. In: Pagel, M. – Leroy, J. A. Eds: Source, Transport and Deposition of Metals, 231–234. – Rotterdam.

THORPE, R. S. – FRANCIS, P. W. (1979): Strontium isotope evidence. – Nature 277, 5671, 44–45. TICHOMIROVA, M. – BERGER, H. J. – KOCH, E. A. – BELYATSKI, B. V. – GÖTZE, J. – KEMPE, U. –

NASDALA, L. – SCHALTEGGER, U. (2001): Zircon ages of high-grade gneisses in the Eastern Erzgebirge (Central European Variscides) – constraints on origin of the rocks and Precambrian to Ordovician magmatic events in the Variscan foldbelt. – Lithos 56, 303–332.

TIMMERMAN, M. J. (2008): Palaeozoic magmatism. In: McCann, T. Ed. The geology of Central Europe. Volume 1: Precambrian and Palaeozoic. 665–748. TISCHENDORF, G. (1970): Zur geochemischen Spezialisierung der Granite des Westerzgebirgischen

Teilplutons. – Geologie (Berlin) 19, 25–40. TISCHENDORF, G. (1988): On the genesis of tin deposits related to granites: The example Erzgebirge. – Z.

geol. Wiss. 16, 407–420. TISCHENDORF, G. (1989): Silicic magmatism and metalogenesis of the Erzgebirge. – Veröff. Zent.-Inst.

Phys. Erde 107, 316 pp. TISCHENDORF, G. – FÖRSTER, H. J. – FRISCHBUTTER, A. – KRAMER, W. – SCHMIDT, W. –

WERNER, C. D. (1995): Saxothuringian Basin. Igneous Activity. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke, W. – Weber, K. Eds: Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 249–259. – Springer Verlag, Berlin.

TISCHENDORF, G. – FRIESE, G. – SCHINDLER, R. (1969): Die Dunkelglimmer der westererzgebirgisch-vogtländischen Granite und ihre Bedeutung als petrogenetische und metallogenetische Indikatoren. – Geologie (Berlin) 18, 384–399.

TOMEK, Č. (1974): The inverse gravimetric task and its application on morphology of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 19, 217–220.

TOMEK, Č. (1975): Hlubší stavba a petrogeneze středočeského plutonu. In: Výzkum hlubinné stavby Československa. Sbor. referátů Loučná 1974, 187–194. – Geofyzika, Brno.

TOMEK, Č. (1976): Deep structure, petrogenesis and emplacement of the Central Bohemian Pluton. In: Nagy, M. Ed.: Proc. 20th Geophysical Symposium, 123–134. – OMKDK-Technoinform, Budapest.

TRUBAČ, J. – ŽÁK, J. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – JANOUŠEK, V. (2009): Magnetic fabric of the Říčany granite, Bohemian Massif: A record of helicoidal magmatic flow? – Volcan. Geotherm. Res. 181, 25–34.

80

TRZEBSKI, R. – BEHR, H. J. – CONRAD, W (1997): Subsurface distribution and tectonic setting of the late-Variscan granites in the northwestern Bohemian Massif. – Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rdsch.) 86, Suppl. S64–S78.

TUTTLE, O. F. – BOWEN. L. N. (1958): Origin of granite in the light of experimental studies in the system NaAlSi3O8-KAl Si3O8-SiO2-H2O. – Memoir (Geol. Soc. Amer.) 74.

ULRYCH, J. – FEDIUK, F. – LANG, M. – MARTINEC, P. (2004): Palaeozoic volcanics of the Czech part of the Intra-Sudetic Basin, Bohemian Massif: petrological and geochemical characteristics. – Chem. Erde 63, 329–348.

ULRYCH, J. – PEŠEK, J. – ŠTĚPÁNKOVÁ-SVOBODOVÁ, J. – BOSÁK, P. – LLOYD, F. E. – VON SECKENDORFF, V. – LANG, M. – NOVÁK, J. K. (2006): Permo-Carboniferous volcanism in late Variscan continental basins of the Bohemian Massif (Czech Republic): geochemical characteristic. – Chem. d. Erde, Geochemistry 66, 37–56.

ULRYCH, J. – ŠTĚPÁNKOVÁ, J. – NOVÁK, J. K. – PIVEC, E. – PROUZA, V. (2003): Volcanic activity in Late Variscan basins of northern Bohemia: petrological and geochemical constraints. – Slovak Geol. Mag. 33, 219–235.

VACEK, J. et al. (1984): Přehledné prognózní ocenění rudonosnosti Českého masívu. – MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.

VACHTL, J. – KNOTEK, M. (1979): Magmatity křižanovické štoly (Železné hory). – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 33, 123–145.

VAŇKOVÁ, V. – BARTOŠEK, J. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – MATOLÍN, M. (1979): Radioactivity and heat production of rocks from the Bohemian Massif and the West Carpathians. In: Geodynamic Investigations in Czechoslovakia, 257–263. – Veda, Bratislava.

VEJNAR, Z. (1973): Trace elements in rocks of the Poběžovice basic pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 18, 75–79. (English summary)

VEJNAR, Z. (1974): Trace elements in rocks of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 49, 29–34.

VEJNAR, Z (1980): Contact metamorphism associated with the Poběžovice basic massif, South-West Bohemia. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 55, 321–330.

VEJNAR, Z. (1990): The contact aureole around the Kdyně pluton in SW Bohemia. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 45, 9–35. (English summary)

VEJNAR, Z. – ŽEŽULKOVÁ, V. – TOMAS, J. (1975): Granitoids from the water-supply gallery of the Želivka water-work, Central Bohemian Pluton. – J. Geol. Sci., Geol. 27, 31–54. (In Czech)

VERNER, K. – ŽÁK, J. – HROUDA, F. – HOLUB, F. V. (2006): Magma emplacement during exhumation of the lower- to mid-crustal orogenic root: The Jihlava syenitoid pluton, Moldanubian Unit, Bohemian Massif. – J. Struct. Geol. 28, 1553–1567.

VERNER, K. – ŽÁK, J. – NAHODILOVÁ, R. – HOLUB, F. V. (2006): Magmatic fabric and emplacement of the cone-sheet-bearing Knížecí Stolec durbachitic pluton (Moldanubian Unit, Bohemian Massif): implication for mid-crustal reworking of granulitic lower crust in the Central European Variscides. – Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rdsch.) 97, 19–33.

VIGNERESSE, J. L. (1988): Forme et volumes des plutons granitiques. – Bull. Soc. Geol. France. 8, 4, 6, 897–906.

VIGNERESSE, J. L. (1995a): Control of granite emplacement by regional deformation. – Tectonophysics 249, 173–186.

VIGNERESSE, J. L. (1995b): Crustal regime of deformation and ascent of granitic magma.– Tectonophysics 249, 187–202.

VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. (1975): The geochemistry of the plutonic rocks of the Central Bohemian Pluton in the Příbram area. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 3, 115–137.

VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. (1976): Development of dyke rocks in the Příbram area. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 4, 377–402.

VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. (1982): Geochemie hornin a otázka možných zdrojů hydrotermální mineralizace v příbramské rudní oblasti. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 24, 49–99.

VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. – LEDVINKOVÁ, V. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. – WALDHAUSROVÁ, J. (1992): Relict stratigraphy and the origin of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 37, 31–44. (English summary)

81

VRÁNA, S. – ŠTĚDRÁ, V. Eds (1997): Geological model of western Bohemia related to the KTB borehole in Germany. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 47, 5–240.

WATZNAUER, A. (1935): Die Geologie des Bezirkes Gablonz. – Heimatkunde des Bezirkes Gablonz. Neue Ausgabe. – 119 pp. Gablonz-Tannwalder Lehrerverein.

WATZNAUER, A. (1954): Die erzgebirgischen Granitintrusionen. – Geologie 3, 688–706. WEBSTER’s II New Riverside University Desk Dictionary (1995) – 512 pp. Hougton Mifflin Co. Boston. WEDEPOHL, K. H. (1991): Chemical composition and fractionation of the continental crust. – Geol. Rdsch.

80, 207–223. WENDT, J. I. – KRÖNER, A. – FIALA, J. – TODT, W. (1993): Evidence from zircon dating for existence

of approximately 2.1 Ga old crystalline basement in southern Bohemia, Czech Republic. – Geol. Rdsch. 82, 42

WHITE, A. J. R. – CHAPPELL, B. W. (1987): Ultrametamorphism and granitoid genesis. – Tectonophysics 43, 7–22.

WIEBE, R. A. – COLLINS, W. J. (1998): Depositional features and stratigraphic sections in granitic plutons: implications for the emplacement and crystallization of granitic magma. – J. Struct. Geol. 20, 1273–1289.

WIEGAND, B. (1997): Isotopengeologische und geochemische Untersuchungen zur prävariszischen magmatischen und sedimentären Entwicklung im saxothuringisch-moldanubischen Übergangbereich (Grenzgebiet BRD/CR). – Geotekt. Forsch. 88, 1–177.

WILSON, M. (1989): Igneous petrogenesis. – 486 pp. Unwin, London. WISZNIEWSKA, J. – KRZEMIŃSKA, E. – MAZUR, S. – GAWĘDA, A. – KOZŁOWSKI, A. (2007):

Forword – brief outline of geology of Poland. In: Kozlowski, A. – Wiszniewska, J. Eds: Granitoids in Poland. – Arch. Mineral. 1, 5–7.

WÖRNER, G. – HENK, A. (2000): Post collisional granite generation and HAT-LP metamorphism by radiogenic heating: the Variscan South Bohemian batholith. – J. Geol. Soc. (Bath) 157, 577–587.

YIN, A. (2004): Gneiss domes and gneiss dome systems. In: Whitney, D. L. – Teyssier, Ch. – Siddoway, S. Eds: Gneiss Domes in Orogeny, 1–14. – Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pap. 380, 393 pp.

ZACHOVALOVÁ, K. – LEICHMANN, J. – ŠVANCARA, J. (2002): Žulová Batholith: a post-orogenic, fractionated ilmenite-allanite I-type granite. – J. Czech Geol. Soc. 47, 35–44.

ZELAZNIEWICZ, A. – BANKWITZ, P. (1995): Cadomian basement of the Palaeozoikum platform in central Europe. – Stud. geophys. geod. 39, 302–308.

ZIKMUND, J. (1983): Relict granites and the genesis of the Blaník type orthogneisses (Bohemian Massif). – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 28, 81–87. (In Czech)

ZOUBEK, V. (1964): The Variscan granitoid magmatism. Guide des excursions dans le noyau du Massif de la Boheme 1964, 53–56. – Čs. akad. věd. Praha.

ZOUBEK, V. (1988): Precambrian in the Bohemian Massif. In: Zoubek, V. – Cogné, J. – Kozhoukharov, D. – Kräutner, H.-G. Eds: Precambrian in younger fold belts. European Variscides, the Carpathians and Balkans, 69–74. – Wiley.

ZULAUF, G. (2001): Structural style, deformation mechanism and paleostress along an exposed crustal section: constraints on the rheology of quartzfeldspathic rocks at supra- and infrastructural levels (Teplá-Barrandian unit, Bohemian Massif). – Tectonophysics 332, 211–237.

ZULAUF, G. – AHRENDT, H. – DÖRR, W. – FIALA, J. – VEJNAR, Z. – WEMMER, K. (1995): Der Westrand des Teplá-Barrandiums: Cadomisches basement variszisch überprägt. In: Geologisches Untersuchungen im Umfeld der Kontinentalen Tiefbohrung. – Bayer. Geol. Landesamt. München.

ZULAUF, G. – BUES, C. – DÖRR, W. – VEJNAR, Z. (2002): 10 km Minimum throw along the West Bohemian shear zone: Evidence for dramatic crustal thickening and high topography in the Bohemian Massif (European Variscides). – Int. J. Earth Sci. 91, 850–864.

ZULAUF, G. – DÖRR, W. – FIALA, J. – VEJNAR, Z. (1997): Late Cadomian crustal tilting and Cambrian transtension in the Teplá-Barrandian unit (Bohemian Massif, Central European Variscides). – Geol. Rdsch. 86, 571–584.

ZULAUF, M. – MAIER, M. – STÖCKHERT, B. (1997): Depth of intrusion and thermal modelling of the Falkenberg granite (Oberpfalz, Germany). – Geol. Rdsch. 86, S87–S92.

ŽÁK, J. – HOLUB, F. V. – KACHLÍK, V. (2006): Magmatic stoping as an important emplacement mechanism of Variscan plutons: evidence from roof pendants in the Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex (Bohemian Massif). – Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rdsch.) 95, 771–789.

82

ŽÁK, J. – HOLUB, F. V. – VERNER, K. (2005): Tectonic evolution of a continental magmatic arc from transpression in the upper crust to exhumation of mid-crustal orogenic root recorded by episodically emplaced plutons: the Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex (Bohemian Massif). – Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rdsch.) 94, 385–400.

ŽÁK, J. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (2007): Magmatic structures in the Krkonoše-Jizera Plutonic Complex: evidence for localized multiphase flow and small-scale thermal-mechanical instabilities in a granitic magma chamber. – J. volcanol. geotherm. Res. 164, 254–267.

ŽÁK, J. – SCHULMANN, K. – HROUDA, F. (2005): Multiple magmatic fabrics in the Sázava pluton (Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic): a result of superposition of wrench-dominated regional transpression on final emplacement. – J. Struct. Geol. 27, 805–822.

ŽÁK, J. – VERNER, K. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. (2008): “Granite tectonics“ revisited: insights from comparison of K-feldspar shape-fabric, anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) and brittle fractures in the Jizera granite, Bohemian Massif. – Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rdsch).

ŽÁK, J. – VYHNÁLEK, B. – KABELE, P. (2006): Is there a relationship between magmatic fabrics and brittle fractures in plutons? A view based on structural analysis, anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility and thermo-mechanical modeling of the Tanvald pluton (Bohemian Massif). – Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 157, 286–310.

83

Plate 1–6

(photos of selected plutonic rocks and orthogneisses)

Atlas of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses

in the Bohemian Massif

Introduction

J. Klomínský, T. Jarchovský, G. S. Rajpoot

Published by the Czech Geological Survey Prague 2010 First edition Printed in the Czech Republic 03/9 446-412-10

ISBN 978-80-7075-751-2

Správa úložišť radioaktivních odpadů Dlážděná 6, 110 00 Praha 1 Tel.: 221 421 511 E-mail: [email protected] www.surao.cz

bohemian massif introduction - geology.cz · atlas of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the...

Documents