geochronology and geochemistry of granitoids related to ... · yangtze craton (figs. 1, 2), in the...

Gondwana Research 28 (2015) 816–836

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Gondwana Research

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /gr

Geochronology and geochemistry of granitoids related to the giantDahutang tungsten deposit, middle Yangtze River region, China:Implications for petrogenesis, geodynamic setting, and mineralization

MaoZhi-hao a,⁎, LiuJia-jun a, MaoJing-wen a,b, DengJun a, ZhangFeng a, MengXu-yang a, XiongBi-Kang a,XiangXin-kui c, LuoXiao-hong d

a Faculty of Earth Science and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, Chinab MLR Key Laboratory of Metallogeny and Mineral Assessment, Institute of Mineral Resources, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100037, Chinac No. 916 Geological Team, Jiangxi Bureau of Geology, Mineral Resources, Exploration and Development, Jiujiang 332000, Chinad Northwestern Geological Team, Jiangxi Bureau of Geology, Mineral Resources, Exploration and Development, Shahe 332100, China

⁎ Corresponding author at: Room1101, HaiyangBuildinDistrict, Beijing, China, 100081.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2014.07.0051342-937X/© 2014 International Association for Gondwa

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 27 March 2014Received in revised form 13 July 2014Accepted 14 July 2014Available online 9 August 2014

Handling Editor: R. Goldfarb

Keywords:SkarnPorphyryU–Pb zircon ageGeochemistryDahutang tungsten depositMiddle–lower Yangtze River Valley

Porphyry and skarn deposits in the middle Yangtze Valley within the Northern Yangtze Craton have a combinedtungsten resource of ~3 million tonnes (Mt) and represent one of themost important tungsten regions in theworld.The Dahutang porphyry tungsten deposit, with reserves of N1 Mt, is one of the largest deposits. Uranium–Pb anal-yses for the ore-related granitoids yield ages of 147.4 ± 0.58 Ma–148.3 ± 1.9 Ma for porphyritic biotite granite,144.7 ± 0.47 Ma–146.1 ± 0.64 Ma for fine-grained granite, and 143.0 ± 0.76 Ma–143.1 ± 1.2 Ma for graniteporphyry, a progressive youngling of ages that is consistent with field observations. Geochemical data show thatthe three types of granite are characterized by enrichments in Rb, Pb, and U, and depletion in Ba, Nb, P, and Ti,with ASI [molar Al2O3/(CaO+ Na2O+ K2O)] N 1.1 that is characteristic of a peraluminous melt. The P2O5 contentsof the granites are 0.13–0.37% and have a positive correlation with SiO2, and they are thus S-type intrusions. Theyexhibit initial 87Sr/86Sr of 0.721 to 0.731 and εNd(t) of −5.06 to −7.99 for porphyritic biotite granite, 0.7196 to0.7289 and−6.29 to−6.74 forfine-grainedgranite, and0.7153 to 0.7365 and−5.09 to−7.64 for granite porphyry.Chondrite-normalized rare earth element (REE) patterns for the granites are characterized by enrichment in thelight REE and a strong negative Eu anomaly, indicating that they were derived from the Proterozoic pelitic andpsammitic basement strata and experienced strong fractional crystallization of plagioclase. Our ca. 150–140 Maage for the Dahutang S-type magmatism andWmineralization is identical to that of the I-type magmatism relatedto Cu–Au–Mo–Fe-bearing porphyry and skarn deposits along themiddle to lower Yangtze River Valley.We proposethat the latest Jurassic to earliest Cretaceous granitoids and ores formed during a tearing of the subducting Izanagislab, which caused the upwelling of asthenosphere and resulting mantle–crust interaction. The S-type granitoidsand related W ore systems resulted from the re-melting of the Proterozoic crust, whereas the I-type granitic rocksand related ores are attributed to the partial melting of the subducted slab.

© 2014 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The middle to lower Yangtze River Valley area is well known for itsCu–Au–Mo–Fe porphyry and skarn ore systems (Pan and Dong, 1999;Mao et al., 2006; Mao et al., 2011a,b,c, d). However, a cluster of W-richdeposits, including Dahutang W, Xianglushan W, Yangchuling W–Mo,and Zhuxi W–Cu–Mo, are concentrated in the middle Yangtze RiverValley on the northern margin of the Jiangnan Massif (Figs. 1, 2).These deposits are part of a newly defined tungsten ore belt termedthe North Yangtze Tungsten Belt (NYTB) by J.W. Mao et al. (2013) andZ.H. Mao et al. (2013), which strikes parallel to and is immediately

g, No.29 Xueyuan Road, Haidian

na Research. Published by Elsevier B.

south of the middle to lower Yangtze River Valley porphyry and skarnCu–Au–Mo–Fe belt (YRB) (Figs. 1, 2). The YRB has been well-studiedand is proposed to be genetically associated with an E–W-trendingtear zone (Mao et al., 2006, Mao et al., 2011b; Zhou et al., 2008, 2011;Zheng et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2013) or an E–W-trending spreadingridge (Ling et al., 2009) in a subducting slab, and the ore-related I-typegranitoids are of adakitic affinity (Zhang et al., 2001a,b; Q. Wang et al.,2006; X.L. Wang et al., 2006; Li et al., 2010).

Historically abundant and well-studied granites related to tungstenmineralization have been the S-type or crustal melt intrusions that areparticularly abundant in the Nanling region (Fig. 1). The region is locatedsouthwest of the less well-documented, newly evolving NYTB, which ispart of the focus of this paper. A critical question for the Yangtze RiverValley region is why did two parallel, but metallogenically distinct ore

V. All rights reserved.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.gr.2014.07.005&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2014.07.005


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1342937X

Fig. 1. Geological map showing the distribution of the middle to lower Yangtze River belt (YRB) with 148–135 Ma Cu–Au–Mo–Fe porphyry and skarn deposits, the Northern YangtzeCraton Tungsten (NYCT) belt, the 160–150 Ma Nanling granite-related W–Sn deposits, and 170–155 Ma Qin-Hang Cu–Mo porphyry and Pb–Zn–Ag vein systems.Compiled with the data from Song et al., 2012; Mao et al., 2006, 2011b, 2012, 2013.

817Z. Mao et al. / Gondwana Research 28 (2015) 816–836

belts, the NYTB and YRB, form in the same region? To answer this ques-tion, it is important to define the petrogenesis of the tungsten-relatedgranitoids and their relationship to geodynamic processes during thelate Mesozoic.

The Dahutang porphyry tungsten deposit is one of the largest de-posits in the NYTB, with reserves of N1 million tonnes (Mt) of tungsten.Hence, it was selected for a study of the relationship between the Wmineralization and causative intrusions, as well as of the geodynamicsetting. Although Huang and Jiang (2012, 2013) using the zirconLA-ICP-MS U–Pb dating method, obtained ages of 144.2 ± 1.3 Maand 134.6± 1.2Ma for the porphyritic muscovite granite and graniteporphyry, respectively, at the deposit, these ages span a surprisinglywide range. In addition, our new observations suggest that their so-called porphyritic muscovite granite may instead be an altered part ofa porphyritic biotite granite. Furthermore, Huang and Jiang (2013)carried out Nd–Hf isotopic measurements of the granite porphyry andsuggested that it is derived from the crust. However, both fresh porphy-ritic biotite granite and fine-grained granite, the major components ofthe granite stocks at the deposit, have not been studied. In this paper,we present petrochemical data, LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb dates, andSr–Nd isotopic data from the main granite phases in the area of theDahutang tungsten deposit, and then discuss the implications for oregenesis and geodynamic evolution of the region.

2. Regional geology

The Dahutang deposit is located within the northern margin of theYangtze Craton (Figs. 1, 2), in the southern part of the middle YangtzeRiver Valley. The YRB part to the valley is bounded by several largestrike–slip fault systems, including the Xiangfan–Guangji Fault in thenorthwest, the Tancheng-Lujiang Fault in the northeast and theYangxing–Changzhou Fault in the south (Chang et al., 1991) (Fig. 2).

Five successions of exposed rocks are generally found in the YRB and ad-jacent areas, which from base to top include: 1) Archean andPaleoproterozoicmetamorphic basement rocks, 2) Proterozoic to Silurianclastic rocks, 3) Middle Devonian to Early Triassic carbonates, 4) MiddleTriassic to Early Jurassic marine and terrigenous sedimentary rocks, and5) Early Cretaceous andesitic volcanic rocks controlled by several parallelNE-trending extensional basins (Fig. 2).

The lithologies exposed to the south of the Yangxing–ChangzhouFault, and thus in the area of the NYTB, include rocks of the Mesopro-terozoic Shuangqiaoshan Group and Neoproterozoic Banxi Group. Theformer are predominantly phyllite, whereas the latter consist of meta-morphosed slate locally intercalated with bimodal volcanic rocks inthe Jiangnan Massif (Fig. 2). A Phanerozoic cover sequence is presentsurrounding areas of the Jiangnan Massif and includes Silurian to EarlyTriassic strata marine clastic and carbonate rocks, and Middle Triassicto Early Jurassic paralic clastic rocks. Middle to Late Jurassic sedimentaryand volcanic rocks and Cretaceous red-bed sandstone occur within a se-ries of NE-trending continental basins. The Jurassic andesitic volcanicrocks have not been dated directly, but their coeval granodiorites were,however, determined to be 172 to 170 Ma (Wang et al., 2004; B.G.Zhou et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2012; Q. Zhou et al., 2012).

Neoproterozoic and Yanshanian (late Mesozoic) granitic rocks areabundant in the NYTB. Widespread Yanshanian granitic rocks (seebelow) occur as small stocks, intruded into both Neoproterozoic grano-diorite batholiths and older Precambrian lithologies. Neoproterozoicgranodiorite in the area is part of the Jiuling granodiorite batholith,the largest intrusion in southern China.

Mao et al. (2006) distinguished two ore types in the YRB: the148–135 Ma Cu–Au–Mo–Fe porphyry and skarn deposits and the135–123 Ma “porphyrite iron ore” or magnetite–apatite ore, which isconsidered to be similar to that of the Kiruna-type deposits. The NYCTbelt of veinlet/disseminated- (or porphyry) and skarn-type tungsten

Fig. 2.Map showing the distribution of the Cu–Au–Mo–Fe porphyry and skarn deposits along the middle to lower Yangtze River belt (YRB) and the W and W–Mo porphyry and skarndeposits in the NYCT to the south (modified from Mao et al., 2011a,b,c,d and therein). YCF, Yangxing–Changzhou Fault; TLF, Tancheng–Lujiang Fault; XGF, Xiangfan–Guangji Fault.

818 Z. Mao et al. / Gondwana Research 28 (2015) 816–836

deposits, including the Xianglushan, Dahutang, Yangchuling, Zhuxi,Qimei, Matou, and Jitoushan (Fig. 2), is located south of and strikesparallel to the YRB (J.W. Mao et al., 2013; Z.H. Mao et al., 2013). TheNYCT is located in northeastern margin of the Yangtze Craton (Fig. 1),within northern Jiangxi, southern Anhui, and northwestern Zhejiangprovinces.

3. Geology and petrography of late Mesozoic granites in theDahutang area

LateMesozoic granite plutons, occurring as small stocks or dikes, arewidely exposed in the Dahutang deposit area and are genetically associ-ated with the tungsten mineralization (Feng et al., 2012; Huang andJiang, 2012, 2013; J.W. Mao et al., 2013; Z.H. Mao et al., 2013). Most ofthe granites were emplaced into the Jiuling Neoproterozoic granodioritebatholith (Fig. 3), although some intruded the Mesoproterozoic meta-morphic rocks of the Shuangqiaoshan Formation. Observations fromdrill cores show that the tungsten mineralization occurs at the contactbetween the late Mesozoic granite stocks (Fig. 4), and the JiulingNeoproterozoic granodiorite batholith and Mesoproterozoic phyllite.

The exposed Cretaceous granites are compositionally and structurallycategorized into porphyritic biotite granite, fine-grained granite, andgranite porphyry dikes. The porphyritic biotite granite is the most abun-dant and it is cut by subordinate fine-grained granite (Fig. 5). The graniteporphyry dikes are younger than both the porphyritic biotite granite andfine-grained granite (Figs. 5, 6). Quartz–scheelite stockworks overprintboth granite porphyry dikes and the fine-grained granite stock (Fig. 6),indicating that some of the tungsten mineralization post-dates all threetypes of granitoids. Muscovite-bearing granites were reported byHuang and Jiang (2012) in the southern Dalingshang orebody, butmicroscope examination of these rocks indicates that the muscovite is

a product of hydrothermal alteration and that the granites are notanother intrusive phase.

Outcrops of the porphyritic biotite granite exhibit irregular contactmargins, and they typically occur as small sub-spherical or cylindricalbodies that intrude Neoproterozoic coarse-grained granodiorite. Theporphyritic biotite granite is gray to white (Fig. 7a), with as much as35–50 modal percent phenocrysts. The phenocrysts are ~35 to 40%quartz, 1–3 mm in diameter; ~35% K-feldspar, 0.5–4 mm in diameter;10–15% plagioclase; and 10% biotite in a fine-grained matrix. The matrixis composed of quartz, K-feldspar, plagioclase, and biotite. The pheno-crysts are frequently corroded by the matrix, therefore displaying jaggededges and sieve-like texture (Fig. 7b). Chloritization and sericitization arethe dominant alteration and highly altered zones are closely associatedwith the opaqueminerals, including pyrite, limonite, and lesser hematite.Major accessoryminerals include apatite, zircon, garnet, ilmenite,magne-tite, monazite, epidote, tetrahedrite, and arsenopyrite.

Most of the fine-grained granite intruded the porphyritic biotitegranite, although some has also intruded the Neoproterozoic granodio-rite batholith. This fine-grained granite is commonly exposed in theShiweidong orebody. It is composed of 20–25% plagioclase, 30–35%K-feldspar, 35–40% quartz, and ~7% biotite (Fig. 7c, d). The plagioclasecrystals are typically 1.4–2.4 mm × 0.6–0.8 mm, subhedral inform, and commonly exhibit polysynthetic twins, with less commonCarlsbad–albite twins. Biotite flakes are mainly euhedral. Accessoryminerals include pyrite, ilmenite, arsenopyrite, iron rutile, monazite,and zinc spinel. The sulfides include pyrite and pyrrhotite. They are spa-tially associated withmuscovite alteration, and they are also commonlyobserved along or near the cleavage domains of the biotite.

The granite porphyry dikes are scattered throughout the Dahutangdeposit area. The dikes are irregular in shape and have variable widthsand dips. The granite porphyry intrudes both the fine-grained granite

Fig. 3. Geological map of the Dahutang tungsten deposit, including the Shimensi, Yihaomai (or Dalingshang) and Shiweidong orebodies.Modified from No. 916 Geological Party, Jiangxi Bureau of Geology, Mineral Resources, Exploration and Development, 2012.


and porphyritic biotite granite. The granite porphyry is light gray andexhibits a porphyritic structure (Fig. 7d). Phenocrysts account for30–40% of the rock mass. They comprise 30–35% euhedral quartz,1–3 mm in diameter; 40–45% K-feldspar, 0.5–2 mm in diameter andtypically displaying Carlsbad twinning; and 15–20% plagioclase mostlysubhedral to euhedral and 0.5 mm in diameter displaying polysynthetictwinning. Biotite forms the remainder of the phenocrysts. The fine-grained quartz and K-feldspar matrix account for 60–70% of the rock.Sericitic alteration is present along the edges of both biotite and feldsparphenocrysts. Main accessory minerals are apatite, zircon, rutile, ilmen-ite, magnetite, and pyrite.

As described in J.W. Mao et al. (2013) and Z.H. Mao et al. (2013),the Dahutang deposit comprises veinlets and disseminated oresrepresenting ~95% of the total reserve, breccia (~4%), and wolframite-and scheelite-bearing quartz veins (~1%). The mineralization and asso-ciated alteration developed between the late Mesozoic porphyriticbiotite granite stocks and Neoproterozoic biotite granodiorite intrusion.The hydrothermal alteration includes greisenization, K-feldspar alter-ation, silicification, carbonatization, chloritization and fluoritizationthat are zoned, respectively, in time (early to late) and outward fromthe intrusions. The three stages of granitoids comprising porphyriticbiotite granite, fine-grained granite and granite porphyry are all associ-ated with the tungsten mineralization.

4. Sampling and analytical methods

4.1. Sampling

The freshest possible representative rocks were sampled from thegranites. These included a total of 23 samples for major and trace ele-ment analyses, 19 samples for Sr–Nd isotopic measurement, and sixsamples for zircon geochronology from twelve drill holes. The locationsof the various samples are listed in Supplementary Table 1. Sampleswere initially checked for weathering and any traces of obvious alter-ation were removed before being reduced to chips. The freshest chipswere pre-selected for geochemical element analysis using a binocularmicroscope and pulverized into powders using agate mortars.

4.2. LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb dating

Zircon grains were separated from bulk samples using conventionaltechniques of density and magnetic separation. Representative zircongrains were handpicked under a binocular microscope, mounted inepoxy resin, polished, coated with gold, and mounted. Transmitted-light and reflected-light images were taken under an optical microscope.Cathodoluminescence (CL) images were obtained for zircons prior toanalysis, using aHITACHI S3000-N scanning electronmicroscope coupled

Fig. 4. Cross-section showing the tungstenmineralization at themargin of the lateMesozoic composite granite pluton (modified fromNo. 916 Geological Party, Jiangxi Bureau of Geology,Mineral Resources, Exploration and Development, 2012). Predominant wolframite–scheelite–quartz stockwork ores are mainly located outside of the late Mesozoic porphyritic biotitegranite pluton and hosted by Neoproterozoic granodiorite. The average grade of 0.152% W and cut-off grade of 0.064% W are used to delineate the orebody.


with GATAN Chroma CL detector housed at the Chinese Academy ofGeological Sciences (CAGS), Beijing, to examine the internal structuresto choose the optimum laser targeting sites. The U–Pb isotopic analyseswere performed using laser ablation multicollector ICP-MS at the Insti-tute ofMineral Resources, CAGS (Supplementary Table 2.). Detailed oper-ating conditions for the laser ablation system, the LA-ICP-MS instrument,and data reduction were described by Hou et al. (2007). Helium wasapplied as the carrier gas to avoid air abrasion of single crystals selectedfor dating. The reference zircon TEM (417 Ma) value was examinedevery five scans to maintain the accuracy of the outcome. The age uncer-tainties are cited as 1σ, and the weighted mean ages are quoted at the95% confidence level (2σ). The U–Pb isotopic analyses were performedusing the Elan 6100 DRC ICP-MS equipped with a 193 nm Excimerlaser. Zircon 91500was used as a standard and NIST 610was used to op-timize the instrument. A mean age of 1060 Ma was obtained for the91500 zircon standard. Off-line selection and integration of backgroundand analytic signals, and time-drift correction and quantitative calibra-tion for U–Pb dating were performed by ICPMS Data Cal (Hou et al.,2007). Corrections for common lead were made using the method ofAndersen (2002). The data were processed using the GLITTER andISOPLOT (Ludwig, 2003) programs. The LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb resultsare presented in Supplementary Table 2.

4.3. Major and trace elements

Bulk-rock major and trace element analyses were carried out at theNational Research Center for Geo-analysis of Beijing. Major elementswere analyzed by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF), with analyticaluncertainties b5% (Zhang et al., 2009). Ferric and ferrous iron measure-ments were determined by wet chemical analyses (titration). The ana-lytical precision for major oxides, based on certified standards (GSR-1,GSR-3) and duplicate analyses, is expressed in terms of relative percent-ages, ranging from ±0.01% to ±0.20%. Trace elements were deter-mined by solution ICP-MS performed at the ICP-MS Laboratory of theNational Research Center for Geoanalysis, Beijing. Bulk rock powders(50 mg) were weighed and dissolved in 1 ml of distilled HF (1.5 g/ml)

and 0. 5 ml of HNO3 (1. 41 g/ml) in a Teflon-lined stainless steelbomb. The sealed bombs were then placed in an oven and heated to190 °C for 24 h. After cooling, the bombs were opened and placed on ahotplate to evaporate at 200 °C to dryness. The residue was dissolvedby adding a HNO3 solution re-sealing the bombs and keeping it heatedat 130 °C for 3 h. The final solutions were transferred into plastic beakersanddiluted before analysis. The detailed sample preparations, instrumentoperating conditions and calibration procedures follow Grégoire (2000).Two standards (granite GSR-1, basalt GSR-3) were used to monitor theanalytical quality of the data.

4.4. Sr and Nd isotope analyses

The procedure for whole-rock Sr–Nd isotopic analyses follows Jahnet al. (1996, 2003). Mass analyses were carried out using a FinniganMAT-262 mass spectrometer at the Institute of Geology, CAGS. Totalprocedure blanks are ~10−11 g for Sm and Nd and ~10−10 g for Rb andSr. The 87Sr/86Sr ratios were corrected for mass fractionation relativeto 88Sr/86Sr = 8.37521 and are reported relative to the NBS987SrCO3 = 0.710247 ± 12 (2σm). The 143Nd/144Nd ratios werecorrected for mass fractionation relative to 146Nd/144Nd = 0.7219and reported relative to the JMC Nd2O3 standard = 0.511230 ± 10(2σm). The decay constants (λ) used are 1.42 × 10−11 a−1 for 87Rband 6.54 × 10−12 a−1 for 147Sm. εNd(t) values were calculated on thebasis of present-day reference values for chondritic uniform reservoir(CHUR): (143Nd/144Nd)CHUR = 0.512638 and (147Sm/144Nd)CHUR =0.1967.

5. Results

5.1. U–Pb zircon geochronology

Six samples (13DHT-5 and 13DLS-7 of porphyritic biotite granite,13DHT-8 and 13DHT-19 of fine grained granite, and 13DHT-11 and13DHT-1 of granite porphyry) were selected for LA-ICP-MS dating.Most of the selected zircon grains are transparent and colorless under

Fig. 5. Cross-section showing the geological relationship between the three types of Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous granites and their relationship to the ore systems.After No. 916 Geological Team, Jiangxi Bureau of Geology, Mineral Resources, Exploration and Development, 2012).


themicroscope, although they havemore or less inherited cores. The CLimages show that representative zircons have commonly concentricoscillatory zoning with low to variable luminescence that indicates amagmatic origin (Fig. 8). The age of each sample is given by the error-weighted mean of the common Pb-corrected 206Pb/238U ages of the

Fig. 6. Stockwork scheelite-quartz system overprinting both granite porphyry dikes and afine-grained biotite granite stock, indicating that much of the tungsten mineralization islater than the granite emplacement.

selected grains at 95% confidence level (Supplementary Table 2). TheU–Pb data sets for all samples are given in Supplementary Table 2 andillustrated on concordia plots in Fig. 9.

5.1.1. Porphyritic biotite graniteSamples 13DHT-5 and 13DLS-7 provide the crystallization age of the

porphyritic biotite granite. Most zircon grains in these samples areeuhedral (Fig. 8), with a few showing small cracks. Zircons withinherited cores are the general case, whereas zircons with euhedralconcentric zoning are less common (Fig. 8). In sample 13DHT-5, theconcentrations of U and Th are variable and high, with 29–1136 ppmU and 51–1071 ppm Th, and Th/U ratios of 0.18 to 2.33. However,these values do not showany correlationwith age results. Three analyses(spots 11, 13, 14) are discordant, showing partial radiogenic Pb loss. Theremaining 21 analyses demonstrate two population groups with aweighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 147.4 ± 0.58 Ma (2σ), representingthe crystallization age of the porphyritic biotite granite and 816.3 ±1.4 Ma (1σ) for the inherited zircon core. In addition, points 8, 17, 18,and 23 have relatively ancient ages, ranging from 1763 Ma to 1855 Ma,which can be interpreted as characterizing the basement rocks. These re-sidual zircons were captured by the ascending magma. Sample 13DLS-7shares a similar scenario with sample 13DHT-5. The concentrations of Uand Th range between 29 and 1006 ppm and between 38 and 625 ppm,respectively, with Th/U ratios of 0.17–2.59. Two age populations are ex-tracted from the raw data including a weighted mean of 148.3 ± 1.9 Ma(2σ) and 798.5 ± 6.4 Ma (2σ).

Fig. 7. Samples and photomicrographs of the three types of granitic rocks at Dahutang under cross-polarized light. Note: Kfs — K-feldspar. Pl— plagioclase, Q — quartz, Bt— biotite.

Fig. 8. CL images of representative zircons analyzed for in-situ U–Pb dating. The white bars are 100 μm in length for scale.


Fig. 9. U–Pb concordia diagrams for the Dahutang zircons: (a) for porphyritic biotite granite, (b) for granite porphyry, and (c) for fine-grained granite.


5.1.2. Fine-grained graniteThe analyzed zircons separated from samples 13DHT-8 and 13DHT-

19 are mostly clear and idiomorphic crystals with limited cracks, whichmay be due to damage during separation. Somegrains exhibit cores thatare distinct from oscillatory-zoned rims, with medium CL brightnessand a clear resorption texture (Fig. 8). They are considered to representinherited domains thatweremodified by recrystallization. Zircon grainsin sample 13DHT-8 show lower concentrations of U (77–700 ppm) andTh (31–371 ppm) thanweremeasured for the porphyritic biotite granite.Twenty-six analyses yield three age populations: 144.67± 0.96Ma (2σ),803.5 ± 4.9 Ma (2σ), and 166.5 ± 1.7 Ma (2σ). In sample 13DLS-14, the

concentrations of U and Th vary from 54 to 332 ppm and 28 to 88 ppm,respectively, with Th/U ratios of 0.01–0.7. Twenty-four analysis pointsyield two age groups of 146.0 ± 0.64 Ma (2σ) and 795.6 ± 5.9 Ma (2σ).

5.1.3. Granite porphyryAnalyzed zircon grains in the samples of granite porphyry (13DHT-1

and 13DHT-11) are mostly clear and euhedral with concentric zoning(Fig. 8). Twenty-one analyses selected from 13DHT-1 show mediumto high concentrations of U (122–2659 ppm) and low to medium con-centrations of Th (38–763 ppm), with Th/U ratios ranging between0.05 and 4.7. Two age populationswere obtained, including a concordia

Table 1Major and trace element data for bulk rocks.Major andminor element oxide values are inwt.%; trace element data are in ppm. FeO* is total iron as FeO.Mg-number [molarMg/(Mg + Fe2+)], assuming 15% of total iron oxide is ferric.LOI, weight loss on ignition to 1000 °C.

Sample 13DHT-5 13DHT-7 13DHT-21 13DHT-22 13DHT-23 13DHT-24 13DLS-7 13DLS-8 13DLS-9 13DHT-4 13DHT-8 13DHT-9 13DHT-12

Rock Porphyritic biotite granite Fine-grained granite

SiO2 72.81 72.76 73.18 71.62 73.43 72.16 73.05 72.93 74.38 72.51 72.61 72.52 73.15TiO2 0.18 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.28 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.23Al2O3 14.68 15.02 14.42 15.60 14.71 14.91 14.83 14.39 13.67 14.66 14.52 14.28 14.73TFe2O3 1.31 1.48 1.39 1.51 1.40 1.94 1.48 1.38 1.60 1.53 1.54 1.61 1.54MnO 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03MgO 0.34 0.38 0.36 0.40 0.39 0.55 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.50 0.48 0.49 0.51CaO 0.95 1.17 1.04 1.25 1.08 1.10 0.95 0.94 1.05 1.21 1.07 1.23 1.10Na2O 3.75 3.86 3.70 3.99 3.68 3.72 2.97 2.80 2.58 3.67 3.47 3.10 3.56K2O 4.74 4.72 4.60 4.89 4.79 4.76 5.50 5.47 4.31 4.82 4.77 4.99 4.84P2O5 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.14LOI 0.85 0.67 0.72 0.74 0.68 0.76 1.10 0.97 1.38 0.64 0.82 0.82 0.82Total 99.80 100.49 99.81 100.41 100.53 100.38 100.62 99.62 99.71 99.94 99.66 99.47 100.65TFeO 1.18 1.33 1.25 1.35 1.26 1.74 1.33 1.24 1.44 1.37 1.39 1.45 1.38FeO 0.88 1.11 1.04 1.13 0.99 1.60 0.34 0.41 0.56 1.06 1.17 1.08 1.15Fe2O3 0.33 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.16 1.10 0.92 0.98 0.35 0.24 0.41 0.26A/CNK 1.13 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.18 1.18 1.26 1.09 1.13 1.12 1.12A/NK 1.30 1.31 1.30 1.32 1.31 1.32 1.37 1.37 1.53 1.30 1.34 1.36 1.33Mg# 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.29 0.31 0.29 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.40Fe/(Fe + Mg) 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.71 0.69 0.71 0.61 0.62 0.62 0.60Na2O + K2O 8.49 8.58 8.30 8.88 8.47 8.48 8.47 8.27 6.89 8.49 8.24 8.09 8.40La 18.90 20.70 20.9 19.20 19.8 22.6 21.6 22.7 30.1 22.1 20.8 20.6 24.2Ce 36.4 38.2 40.6 35.8 37.8 44.3 41.1 42.1 58.9 40.2 38.3 36.6 44.3Pr 4.18 4.56 4.60 4.23 4.43 5.13 4.9 5.08 6.86 4.65 4.34 4.44 5.07Nd 15.2 16.6 17.1 15.0 16.1 18.8 17.6 19.1 24.8 16.5 15.5 16.1 18Sm 3.16 3.33 3.44 3.24 3.26 3.91 3.38 3.53 4.64 3.44 3.2 3.11 3.63Eu 0.41 0.46 0.43 0.45 0.4 0.46 0.38 0.39 0.48 0.54 0.46 0.49 0.53Gd 2.47 2.68 2.74 2.67 2.58 3.2 2.41 2.47 3.09 2.64 2.41 2.33 2.75Tb 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.42 0.4 0.5 0.37 0.37 0.45 0.44 0.4 0.39 0.46Dy 1.74 1.9 2.05 2.01 1.79 2.37 1.6 1.58 1.95 2.12 1.9 1.94 2.13Ho 0.27 0.28 0.33 0.32 0.28 0.38 0.24 0.23 0.28 0.32 0.3 0.31 0.34Er 0.78 0.76 0.92 0.89 0.77 1.08 0.68 0.65 0.81 0.94 0.87 0.97 0.95Tm 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.12Yb 0.64 0.62 0.69 0.7 0.63 0.88 0.53 0.5 0.59 0.77 0.71 0.82 0.78Lu 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11Y 8.3 8.5 9.98 9.67 8.34 11.6 7.21 7.04 8.32 9.72 8.7 10 9.9Sc 3.34 3.85 3.89 3.5 3.3 5.31 2.63 2.9 3.1 3.98 3.51 4 4.34V 12.5 14.2 13.7 13.9 13.6 21.7 10.4 10.6 10.1 18.8 18 21.1 19.9Cr 33.8 10.4 61.5 12 12.5 25.3 7.26 7.29 7.82 15.8 14.9 13.8 27.8Ni 15 4.02 27.3 4.74 5.09 10.8 3.28 3.04 3.49 5.57 5.32 5.58 10.9Cu 9.83 5.43 12.1 6.94 3.2 7.3 47.2 49.3 991 6.21 5.69 41.3 5.49Zn 50.3 43.7 49.6 53.1 45.6 59.8 101 105 175 38.1 49.9 53 43.8Sr 73 66 66.5 60.5 67.7 67.7 53.9 52 59.7 77.9 64.6 87.2 89.1Co 2.23 2.24 2.71 2.24 2.23 3.7 1.83 1.7 2.23 2.89 2.72 2.94 2.92Rb 405 383 354 356 331 354 381 404.00 402 286 326 329 343Zr 90.2 91.6 93 100 100 105 90.7 99.6 92.5 104 104 100 110Nb 9.1 9.85 9.1 9.43 8.12 10.8 9.06 8.85 11.9 9.45 8.45 8.73 8.28Ba 209 199 208 183.0 202 204 177.0 188 207 283 256 280 296Hf 2.84 2.89 2.91 3.06 3.06 3.18 2.96 3.10 1.46 3.16 3.31 3.04 3.28Ta 2.04 2.1 1.88 1.94 1.98 2 2.23 2.16 0.61 2.64 1.87 1.96 1.65Pb 30.5 30.1 29.2 31.5 30.6 28.7 45.2 46.90 30.1 34 32.3 38.8 32.8Th 14.4 15.7 15.5 15.2 15.6 16.2 16.1 16.3 18.4 17.2 16.1 15.2 18.7U 10.6 9.98 10.3 11.1 10.3 11.3 10.1 9.15 8.3 8.77 10.1 12.90 9.83Ga 24.3 25.2 24.1 24.3 23.4 24.7 23 22.7 24.0 22.2 22.2 22.6 22.7Cs 82.9 77.5 46 56.2 40 57.7 72.9 83 106.0 32.1 50.3 91.6 40W 18.5 4.6 19.5 3.37 2 16.6 31.6 68.7 3373.0 2.5 18.2 16.4 11.1Sn 23.5 17.2 15 20.2 7.84 11.1 43.6 42 78.4 3.53 13.1 30.4 7.84K 39,348 39,182 38,186 40,593 39,763 39,514 45,657 45,408 35,779 40,012 39,597 41,423 40,178Ti 1079 1319 1259 1259 1199 1679 1319 1259 1259 1439 1319 1439 1379P 698.34 741.98 698 698 611 698 742 786 698 567.40 567.40 698.34 611.04


age of 816.9± 6.2Ma and an averagemean of 143.1± 1.2 (2σ). Sample13DHT-11 shows two main age populations at 143.0 ± 0.76 (1σ) and820–806 Ma. In addition, five analyses (1, 2, 23, 25, 31) yield ages of1021 Ma to 1649 Ma.

5.2. Whole rock major and trace element results

The results of geochemical analyses of samples from theDahutang granites are shown in Table 1. The loss on ignition (LOI)

for all analyzed samples is b1.5 wt.%, indicating little post-magmatic alteration or weathering. The three distinct Late Juras-sic–Early Cretaceous granites in the Dahutang deposit area displaysimilar chemical compositions, characterized by high SiO2 (71.62–75.33 wt.%) and Al2O3 (13.67 to 15.02 wt.%), and low MgO (0.18–0.5 wt.%), total Fe2O3 (0.05–0.7 wt.%), and CaO (0.94–1.23 wt.%). TheK2O contents range from 3.94 to 5.5 wt.% and Na2O from 2.58 to3.99 wt.%, with A/CNK values [molar Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O + K2O)] of1.09–1.26, a feature characteristic of peraluminous granites (Fig. 10a).

Table 1 (continued)Major and trace element data for bulk rocks.Major andminor element oxide values are inwt.%; trace element data are in ppm. FeO* is total iron as FeO.Mg-number [molarMg/(Mg + Fe2+)], assuming 15% of total iron oxide is ferric.LOI, weight loss on ignition to 1000 °CQ10 .

13DHT-14 13DHT-19 13DHT-20 13DLS-4 13DLS-13 13DLS-14 13DHT-1 13DHT-2 13DHT-11 13DHT-13 13SWD-1 13SWD-2 13DLS-2 13DLS-10

Fine-grained granite Granite porphyry

73.46 72.35 72.61 74.49 74.49 73.87 73.80 74.54 73.74 74.31 74.45 74.12 75.33 74.340.20 0.23 0.24 0.11 0.18 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.09

14.56 14.87 14.96 13.81 13.57 14.45 14.76 14.41 14.32 14.78 14.29 13.88 13.74 14.111.42 1.57 1.56 1.04 1.63 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.16 1.26 1.42 1.110.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.050.41 0.49 0.49 0.18 0.27 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.28 0.26 0.211.04 1.23 1.22 0.73 0.87 0.73 0.70 0.66 0.69 0.67 0.68 0.62 0.78 0.503.61 3.49 3.44 2.98 2.79 3.32 3.85 3.78 3.46 3.87 3.52 3.07 3.43 3.724.57 4.85 4.84 5.17 5.27 5.35 4.52 4.28 4.62 4.41 4.65 4.77 4.26 3.940.16 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.23 0.370.85 0.79 0.76 0.81 0.90 0.88 0.79 1.01 1.06 0.91 0.96 1.26 0.88 1.11

100.32 100.04 100.28 99.51 100.16 100.29 100.05 100.31 99.54 100.62 100.31 99.66 100.51 99.551.28 1.41 1.41 0.93 1.47 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.05 1.13 1.28 0.990.99 1.10 1.11 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.61 1.02 0.81 1.01 0.950.32 0.35 0.33 0.18 0.70 0.16 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.40 0.03 0.36 0.30 0.051.14 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.14 1.15 1.18 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.18 1.22 1.18 1.251.34 1.35 1.37 1.32 1.32 1.28 1.31 1.33 1.34 1.33 1.32 1.36 1.34 1.360.36 0.38 0.38 0.26 0.25 0.31 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.270.64 0.62 0.62 0.74 0.75 0.69 0.75 0.75 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.69 0.73 0.738.18 8.34 8.28 8.15 8.06 8.67 8.37 8.06 8.08 8.28 8.17 7.84 7.69 7.66

17.60 21.2 24.1 9.58 28.5 11.8 8.39 10.80 9.53 9.16 7.84 11.6 20.6 5.6932.7 38.6 43.6 19.2 56 23.5 15.9 28.9 16.7 15.7 18.1 25 36.2 10.703.83 4.41 5.05 2.16 6.45 2.65 2.03 2.66 2.29 2.14 2.05 2.96 4.78 1.47

13.4 15.7 18.3 7.92 23.7 9.5 7.3 9.62 8.3 7.96 7.72 11 16.8 5.232.96 3.26 3.51 1.97 5.12 2.32 1.84 2.35 2.01 2.06 2.2 2.91 3.87 1.470.39 0.51 0.52 0.27 0.34 0.29 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.26 0.092.44 2.53 2.71 1.93 4.52 2.13 1.74 2.09 1.7 1.8 2.31 2.77 3.36 1.440.39 0.42 0.44 0.34 0.73 0.41 0.32 0.39 0.31 0.33 0.44 0.48 0.59 0.281.97 1.94 2 1.74 3.79 2.02 1.65 2.03 1.61 1.75 2.33 2.45 3.21 1.420.31 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.65 0.33 0.26 0.33 0.26 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.57 0.210.89 0.9 0.91 0.71 1.82 0.85 0.76 0.92 0.68 0.76 1.08 1.04 1.64 0.570.11 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.25 0.11 0.1 0.13 0.09 0.1 0.13 0.13 0.21 0.080.72 0.73 0.70 0.61 1.59 0.71 0.61 0.82 0.54 0.63 0.84 0.8 1.34 0.460.1 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.24 0.1 0.09 0.1 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.2 0.069.69 9.17 9.68 8.55 20 10.2 8.52 10.8 7.2 8.92 12.1 11.7 16.4 6.83.61 3.92 4.24 2.82 3.26 2.83 2.1 4.39 2.09 2.18 3.17 3.05 2.86 2.89

15.5 19.1 19.1 5.82 9.21 5.97 4.29 5.22 6.03 4.53 4.24 7.09 7.06 2.8614 14.3 21.4 12.3 6.26 4.58 7.66 17 8.14 7.09 5.41 18.2 3.69 5.494.79 5.79 8.84 6.39 2.57 2.33 3.64 7.76 3.51 3.48 2.45 8.26 2.07 2.846.87 293 249 380 367.0 32.8 19.5 17.1 39.8 3.98 3.79 2.44 193 69.4

44 50.2 51.9 47.2 91.5 45.6 53.5 76.8 53.8 39.8 51.5 46.9 69.3 94.667 74.1 75.5 36.1 44.8 40.1 18.1 37.1 22.5 20.6 30.9 41.5 26.8 9.292.31 2.68 2.66 1.78 1.98 1.41 1.53 1.33 0.99 0.87 1.03 1.59 1.32 0.7

378.00 307.00 333 406 452.00 437 492 584 523.0 495 432 381 422 74884.5 103 104 45.5 119 48.4 55.2 58.9 51 46.9 58.9 64 87.7 45.39.53 8.02 8.23 11.80 14.3 14.2 14.3 14.3 11.6 14.8 14.3 12.2 14.1 23.1

214.0 316 317 103 203 110 39.0 54.1 60.6 38.5 60.9 113 96.6 15.92.55 3.22 3.05 1.69 3.84 1.84 2.07 2.31 1.97 1.86 2.27 2.25 3.12 1.972.14 1.71 1.65 7.00 2.75 6.57 3.38 3.32 2.7 3.55 3.39 2.62 3.11 9.15

29.2 31.8 30.3 39.1 23.9 32.3 24.1 24.7 23 22.1 20.7 26.9 25 20.514.4 16.3 18.9 7.33 27.9 8.84 8.14 10.2 8.43 8.5 7.94 11.5 21.1 4.8211.1 8.3 8.92 14.00 11.4 13.1 19.1 16.9 13.50 17.6 16.8 12.6 14.2 20.924.2 22.1 22.5 21.2 23.3 21.5 24.8 27.6 22.9 25.6 23.3 20.9 21.7 23.252.4 54.3 59.6 83.4 66.2 101 69.1 93.6 104 69.3 88.5 110 168 3445.44 12.8 13.9 7.38 88.5 227 19.8 18.5 13 11.3 7.73 7.99 23.2 562

18 17.1 17.8 31.3 38.9 39.6 40.6 45.8 75.4 42 31.3 138 56.8 80.837,937 40,261 40,178 42,918 43,748 44,412 37,522 35,530 38,352 36,609 38,601 39,597 35,364 32,7071199 1379 1439 659 1079 779 600 659 779 719 659 899 899 540698.34 611 567 698 698 829 1003.86 960.21 872.92 1047.50 1178 960 1004 1615


Furthermore, all samples from the three types of granites fall in thefield ofthe high-K calc-alkaline series magmas (Fig. 10b). Harker diagrams showthat Al2O3, TiO2, FeOT, MgO, and CaO decrease with increasing SiO2,whereas K2O and Na2O remain nearly constant (Fig. 11), suggesting frac-tional crystallization of ferromagnesian minerals (biotite and/or horn-blende), plagioclase, Ti–Fe oxides, and apatite. The P2O5 increases withSiO2, which possibly indicates an enrichment of volatile components dur-ing differentiation. The diagrams also show that the porphyritic biotitegranite and fine-grained granite exhibit lower SiO2 and higher MgO

than the granite porphyry, suggesting that the fine-grained granite ismore evolved.

The chondrite-normalized REE patterns of the three types of graniteare generally similar, characterized by slight enrichment in the lightREE (Fig. 12). They have clear LREE/HREE fractionation with (La/Yb =6.7–36.6) and negative Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.19–0.56). However,the granite porphyry has a lower total REE (29.2–61.9 ppm) abundanceand La/Yb ratios of 8.9–10.4, and higher Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.19–0.31) compared to those of the porphyritic biotite granite and fine-


grained granite, which have total REE contents of 56.7–133.7 ppm,La/Yb ratios of 11.2–36.6, and larger Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.21–0.56). Total REE, La, Zr, Sr, Ni, and Yb concentrations and Eu/Eu* decrease,whereas Nb, Rb, and Cs increasewith increasing SiO2 fromporphyritic bi-otite granite, to fine-grained granite, and to granite porphyry (Fig. 13).This scenario can be attributed to the fractionation of accessory minerals,such as apatite, allanite, titanite, and monazite (Wu et al., 2003). In theprimitive mantle-normalized variation diagrams (Fig. 14), all threetypes of granite show similar signatures, characterized by amoderate en-richment of large ion lithophile elements (LILE) relative to high strengthfield elements (HFSE), positive Rb, Th, U, and K anomalies, and negativeBa, Nb, P, and Ti anomalies.

5.3. Sr–Nd isotopes

Nineteen samples from the Dahutang late Mesozoic graniticrocks exhibit a wide range of age-corrected (87Sr/86Sr)t (t = 145)values of 0.715 and 0.737. More specifically, these granitic rocks haveage-corrected (87Sr/86Sr)t values of 0.7152 and 0.7365 for porphyritic bi-otite granite, 0.7196 and 0.7289 for fine-grained granite, and 0.7152 and0.7365 for granite porphyry (Table 2). The age-corrected εNd(t) valuesrange from −7.99 to −5.09 (Table 2), and the T2DM model ages aremostly between 1.3 and 1.6 Ga, showing a set of linearflat plotting pointsin (87Sr/86Sr)t vs. εNd(t) (Fig. 15).

6. Discussion

6.1. Geochronological framework

During exploration at the Dahutang tungsten deposit, attention wasdirected to the likely genetic relationship of ore with the spatially asso-ciated granites. Although the major orebodies are hosted in the JiulingNeoproterozoic granodiorite batholith (Fig. 4), numerous observationssuggest that the tungsten mineralization is genetically associated withsmall Mesozoic granitic stocks (Feng et al., 2012; Song et al., 2012;Xiang et al., 2012; J.W. Mao et al., 2013; Xiang et al., 2013; Z.H. Maoet al., 2013). Previous biotite K–Ar and zircon SHRIMP U–Pb dates forthe ore-related granite stocks in the deposit area yielded ages of177–134 Ma (Jiangxi Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 1984;Lin et al., 2006a,b), as well as 151.4 ± 2.4 Ma for one sample measuredby the SHRIMP zircon U–Pb method (Zhong et al., 2005).

Huang and Jiang (2012, 2013) using the zircon LA-ICP-MS U–Pbdating method, obtained ages of 144.2 ± 1.3 Ma and 134.6 ± 1.2 Mafor the their porphyritic “muscovite granite” and the granite porphyry, re-spectively. These ages span a surprisinglywide range. It is also not clear asto whether these ages are representative of the full range of magmatismat the Dahutang deposit. Field observations indicated that the graniteswere emplaced in three pulses, and that the muscovite granite is actuallya highly altered example of one of these stages. Consequently, accurateage data on the clearly defined three pulses of the Dahutang magmatismare essential for reconstructing a geochronological framework.

Our precise new results show three pulses, includingmeasurement of147.4 ± 0.58 Ma and 148.3 ± 1.9 Ma for the porphyritic biotite granite,144.7 ± 0.47 Ma and 146.0 ± 0.64 Ma for the fine-grained granite, and143.0 ± 0.76 Ma and 143.1 ± 1.2 Ma for the granite porphyry dikes(Fig. 9). These data are in accord with field relationships at Dahuatang(Feng et al., 2012; J.W. Mao et al., 2013; Z.H. Mao et al., 2013). It can beconcluded that the new geochronological data suggest that theDahuatang granites were together emplaced within a short time spanof between three and eight million years.

Recent studies on tungsten ores and related granitoids throughoutthe NYCT belt show a range for the more reliable age measurementsfrom ca. 153 to 138 Ma Ma (Feng et al., 2012; Huang and Jiang, 2012;J.W. Mao et al., 2013; Z.H. Mao et al., 2013). The monzonitic granitesassociated with the Yangchuling porphyry tungsten deposit have agesbetween 143.8 ± 0.5 Ma and 149.8 ± 0.6 Ma using the LA-ICP-MS

method (Xiong et al., submitted for publication); the diorite, granodio-rite, and granite porphyry at the Jitoushan W–Mo deposit are dated at140.0 Ma, 138.8 Ma, and 138.3 Ma by the SIMS U–Pb method (Songet al., 2012); and the granite at the Zhuxi tungsten deposit has a LA-ICP-MS age of 146.90 ± 0.97 Ma (Wang et al., in press). Although manyother ore-related granitoids have not been dated, some molybdeniteRe–Os determinations give precise mineralization ages. ThemolybdeniteRe–Os age for theDengjiawuW–Modeposit is 141.40±0.88Ma (Li et al.,2012), whereas the host gneissic granitoid has an age of 772 ± 1.1 Ma,which is similar to the age of the Jiuling granodiorite batholith. Chenet al. (2013) reported an age for the Lidongkeng Mo–W deposit-relatedporphyritic granodiorite of 153.01 ± 0.90 Ma. It is slightly older thanthe other granitoids in the belt, but the molybdenite Re–Os dating forthe ores gives amodel age of 144.9±1.9Ma (Chen et al., 2013), in agree-ment with the other age data from the NYCT.

Several inherited zircons in our data record the time of various oldermagmatic events at ca. 818–786Ma, 1853–1768Ma, and 166.5 Ma. TheNeoproterozoic magmatic events, including those that formed theJiuling batholith in Hunan and Jiangxi provinces, and the Sanfang andYuanbaoshan batholiths in northern Guangxi province, all occurrednorth of the suture zone between the Yangtze Craton and Cathaysianblock (Q. Wang et al., 2006; X.L. Wang et al., 2006). These granitoids arepost-collisional, formed in an extensional environment, are highlyenriched in aluminum, and contain cordierite and muscovite. Therefore,they can be classified as S-type granites (Shu, 2012). The Neoproterozoic(820 ± 10 Ma) granodiorite in the Dahutang ore deposit area is part ofthe Jiuling batholith and was intruded by the Late Jurassic–Early Creta-ceous granitic rocks (Zhong et al., 2005). Therefore, the 786 Ma to817.9 Ma zircons from the Dahutang Cretaceous granites can beinterpreted to be xenocrysts captured from the Jiuling batholith. In con-trast, the upper intercept age of 1768Ma to 1853 Ma for the discordantline suggests a Paleo-Mesoproterozoic crystalline basement beneaththe Yangtze Craton, which has been recognized as the Tangdan Groupin the western margin of the Craton (B.G. Zhou et al., 2012; Q. Zhouet al., 2012). The single 166.5Ma zircon agemay reflect aMiddle Jurassicmagmatic event, such as that which is quite extensive along the Qin-Hang porphyry–skarn polymetallic copper belt to the south of theNYCT (Mao et al., 2008, 2011a,c,d; J.W. Mao et al., 2013; Z.H. Mao et al.,2013; Fig. 1).

6.2. Petrogenesis of the Dahutang granites

6.2.1. S-type or highly fractionated I-type granite?Granitic rocks have traditionally been divided into I, S, M, and A types

based on their respective geochemical signatures (Chappell andWhite, 1974; Collins et al., 1982; Pircher, 1983). The notable charac-teristics of S-type granites are their peraluminous nature with analumina saturation index (ACNK) N1.1, whereas I-type granites aremetaluminous to slightly peraluminous with ACNK b1.05. Generallythe presence of aluminous primaryminerals, such asmuscovite, cordier-ite, tourmaline, andalusite, and garnet, characterizes S-type granites,whereas alumina-deficient minerals, such as hornblende, are indicativeof I-type granites. However, highly fractionated I-type granites mayhave a similar mineralogy to S-type intrusions (Li et al., 2007a,b; Z.L. Liet al., 2007). As described inWhite et al. (1986) and Yu et al. (2004), gar-net andmuscovitemay, in some examples, be products of a fractionatedaluminous I-type magma. Therefore, caution should be exercised whencategorizing granites. The granite P2O5 concentrations were used hereto classify the granite type (Li et al., 2007a,b; Z.L. Li et al., 2007). TheP2O5 contents of theDahutang granites range from 0.13 to 0.37% and ex-hibit a positive correlation with SiO2 (Fig. 11), indicating that theDahutang granites are S-type bodies. This conclusion is further support-ed by the recognition that Rb/Sr ratios of N0.9 are indicative of S-typegranites (e.g., Wang et al., 1993), and our values for the porphyritic bio-tite granite,fine-grained granite, andgranite porphyry atDahutang haveratios of 4.89–7.77, 3.67–11.25, and 9.18–80.5, respectively.

Fig. 10.Diagrams of (a) ACNK versus ANK (after Maniar and Piccoli, 1989) and (b) SiO2 versus K2O (after Peccerillo and Taylor, 1976) of theDahutang granites. The data for theNanlingW–Sn-related granites (Jiang et al., 2006) and YRB Cu–Au–Fe–Mo related granites (Mao et al., 2011b and Xie et al., 2011) are also plotted for comparison.


6.2.2. Assimilation and fractional crystallizationIt is necessary to evaluate any effects ofmagmatic differentiation, as-

similation, and/or contamination to fully understand magma petrogen-esis and tectonic setting. The Dahutang granites are close in age andhave similar Sr and Nd isotopic compositions, suggesting that thethree different intrusive suites originated from the same source andcontamination was not significant. Each of the three suites is enrichedin SiO2, Al2O3, and alkali elements; has high Rb/Sr and Rb/Ba ratios;low contents of FeO, MgO, and CaO; and is strongly depleted in Ti, Ba,Sr, and P (Table 1). The negative correlations of Al2O3, CaO, MgO, FeO,and TiO2 versus SiO2 (Fig. 9) suggest that the granites are products offractional crystallization. Trends of decreasing MgO, FeO, and CaO withincreasing SiO2 are consistent with the fractionation of mafic minerals,such as biotite, and calcium-richminerals, such as plagioclase. Fractionalcrystallization is further confirmed by (La/Yb)-La, (Rb/Sr)–Sr, Ba–Sr, andSiO2–εNd(t) variations (Fig. 18). Strontium concentrations decreasefrom 52–73 ppm and 40–89 ppm in the earlier granites to 9–42 ppmin the dikes, and Ba concentrations decrease progressively from 177–209 ppm, to 110–296 ppm and to 16–113 ppm, respectively, for thethree intrusive suites (Fig. 18). These trends can be explained bythe removal of K-feldspar, as indicated by the general decreasingK2O concentration with increasing SiO2 (Fig. 11). The decreasingtotal REE and (La/Yb)n, coupled with lower Eu/Eu* further suggeststhe removal of plagioclase (Fig. 12). Based upon the cross-cutting rela-tionships and our new precise ages, it is clear that the three granitetypes were emplaced at different times, but from the same source,with a parent magma having experienced strong fractionation.

6.2.3. Nature of magma source and partial meltingAs discussed above, the Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous Dahutang

granites are peraluminous. Peraluminous granitoid liquids have beenproduced experimentally by partial melting of various source rocksover a wide range of temperatures and pressures (e.g., Beard andLofgren 1989; Wolf and Wyllie, 1989; Montel and Vielzeuf, 1997).

These experimental studies have shown that the peraluminousgranitoid melts can be produced by partial melting of sediments andamphibolites with or without a free aqueous phase (Patiňo-Dounceand Johnston, 1991; Patiňo-Douce and Beard, 1995; Rapp andWatson, 1995). However, in contrast to the peraluminous tonalitic–trondhjemitic–granodioritic (TTG) melts that are produced by partialmelting of mafic source rocks or amphibolites, the Dahutang graniteshave abundances of MgO, CaO, and FeO, as well as FeO + MgO + TiO2

(b2 wt.%), which are too low for a mafic source (Beard and Lofgren,1991). Hence, the Dahutang granitic magmas were generated by partialmelting of sediments. This conclusion is consistent with the measuredhigh (87Sr/86Sr)t (0.7153–0.7365) and low εNd(t) (−5.06–−7.99)values. Partial melts of argillaceous sediments (meta-shales) andpsammites (meta-graywackes) in laboratory experiments exhibit awide range of chemical compositions. Chappell and White (1992)proposed that the low CaO and Na2O concentrations in peraluminousgranites were the result of melting of sedimentary rocks that had lostCa and Na during the formation of clay from feldspar. Furthermore,they suggested that the variability of the CaO and Na2O concentrationsin strongly peraluminous granites reflects differing clay abundances intheir protoliths. Sylvester (1998) suggested that CaO/Na2O ratios

Fig. 11. Harker diagram SiO2 versus major elements for the Dahutang granites.


provided an approximation of the fraction of argillaceous material insedimentary rock source areas for strongly peraluminous granites. How-ever, the dominant control on the ratio is the abundance of plagioclaserelative to clay within the sedimentary rock protoliths, and stronglyperaluminous granite melts produced from plagioclase-poor, clay-richsources will tend to have lower CaO/Na2O ratios than melts derivedfrom sources that are plagioclase-rich and clay-poor (Skjerlie andJohnston, 1996). The CaO/Na2O ratios of the Dahutang granites are0.4–2.0, with all samples plotting within the pelite field in Fig. 16b,suggesting that they were predominantly derived from melting of

argillaceous sedimentary rocks. In addition, other experimental results(e.g., Patiňo-Dounce and Johnston, 1991; Patiňo-Douce and Beard,1995) show that partial melting of argillaceous sediments will generatestrongly potassic peraluminous magmas, also consistent with the highK2O of the Dahutang granites (3.94–5.5 wt.% K2O). Samples of theDahutang granites form a linear positive array on a Rb/Sr vs. Rb/Badiagram, with all samples plotting in the clay-rich field (Fig. 16a), in fur-ther agreement with the conclusion obtained from the CaO/Na2O ratios.

The three suites of Dahutang granites share a similar Nd model agerange from 1585 to 1349 Ma, mostly concentrated at 1450–1350 Ma,

Fig. 12. Chondrite-normalized rare earth element patterns for the Dahutang granites. The data for the NanlingW–Sn-related granites (Mao and Li, 1995; Sun andMcDonough, 1989) andYRB Cu–Au–Fe–Mo-related granites (Mao et al., 2011b) are also plotted for comparison. Chondrite normalized values are from Sun and McDonough (1989).


which is significantly younger than the 1853–1768 Ma ages obtainedfrom the inherited zircon U–Pb measurements. Thus, it can be inferredthat the Dahutang granites were chiefly produced by partial meltingof ancient crust. As shown above, the Sr–Nd isotopic data fall in thefield for basement rocks of the Yangtze Craton. The low-grade meta-morphic rocks of the Shuangqiaoshan Group, the most widespreadlithology exposed in the Dahutang region, mainly consist of phyllite,slate, andmeta-siltstone, which are themetamorphic products of peliticand psammitic sedimentary rocks. Their εNd (t = 140–120 Ma) valuesrange from −2.1 to −10.6, mostly falling between −6.9 and −10.6,and they have 87Sr/86Sr (t = 140–120 Ma) measurements of 0.715 to0.742 (Mao et al., 1990; Chen et al., 1991; Ma and Xiang, 1993; Chenand Jahn, 1998; Li and Li, 2003; Li et al., 2008; Xie et al., 2011). These iso-topic data overlap those of the Dahutang granites (Fig. 15), such that allisotopic data for the Dahutang granites plot in the field of theMesoproterozoic Shuangqiaoshan Group rocks (Fig. 17). We concludethat the Dahutang granites originated from melting of the ProterozoicShuangqiaoshan argillaceous sedimentary rocks.

6.3. The relationship of the granitoids to tungsten mineralization

Tan (1979) proposed that all tungsten deposits are genetically asso-ciated with small granite plutons. The individual granite plutons thatoutcrop in the Dahutang district have areal extents of less than 1 km2.The Shizhuyuan world-class W–Sn–Mo–Bi deposit in Nanling region isgenetically associated with the Qianlishan granite pluton with a surfaceexposure of 10 km2 (Mao and Li, 1995).Moreover, several large depositsin China with reserves from 0.3 to 0.5 Mt of tungsten, including theZhuxi skarn deposit in northeastern Jiangxi province in the NYCT belt(Chen et al., 2012), the Heshangtian skarn deposit in northernGuangdong province in the Nanling region of southern China, and thePaleozoic Xiaoliugou deposit in Gansu province in the northern QilianShan of northwestern China (Mao et al., 1999), are all related to eitherburied granite plutons or small plutons with surface exposures ofb2 km2. Thus, it appears that most of the tungsten-related granitoidsare relatively small compared to their related large tonnage tungstenores. In other words, an important question is how can a small granitoidpluton produce such a large tonnage of tungsten ore?

Although the highly differentiated granite bodies and dikes in theDahutang tungsten district are small, they formed as three pulses ofmagmatism from 148.3 ± 1.9 Ma to 143.0 ± 0.76 Ma. The granitesshare common featureswith otherW- and/or Sn-bearing S-type granites,such as the granites at the Shizhuyuan W–Sn–Mo–Bi deposit (Mao andLi,, 1995), at the Xintianling W and Furong Sn deposits in southernHunan province (Li et al., 2007a,b; Z.L. Li et al., 2007), and at the Gejiu

Sn deposits in Yunnan province in southwestern China (Cheng andMao, 2010). These are all characterized by high enrichments of Si, K, F,Rb, Li, Th, and U and depletions of Fe, Mg, Sr, Ti, and Ba; flat or slightlyheavy REE enriched patterns with a strong negative Eu; and a crustalsource indicated by Sr–Nd isotopic components (Fig. 14).

The parental magma for the Dahutang granites was derived frompartial melting of the argillaceous sedimentary rocks of the ProterozoicShuangqiaoshan Group. Tungsten is present at relatively high concentra-tions in pelitic rocks, particularly in Fe-, Mn-, and C-rich, fine-grainedclastic sediments (Turekian and Wedepohl, 1961; Lehmann, 1987). Pre-vious studies (Yan and Chi, 1997; Breiter, 2012) show that many of thepelitic rocks in the South China Block are highly enriched in W, Sn, Sb,and U. Liu and Ma (1982) found that tungsten contents in mudstone,shale, and slate are much higher than in sandstone in the South ChinaBlock, with tungsten concentrations as high as 12 ppm for fine-grainedclastic rocks in the Shuangqiaoshan Group. Tungsten contents average20.6 ppm and 19.6 ppm for the porphyritic biotite granite and fine-grained granite at Dahutang, which is at least an order of magnitudehigher than the abundance of 0.6 ppm W in the lower crust and1.9 ppm W in the upper crust (Rudnick and Gao, 2004). Therefore, theanomalous W in rocks of the Shuangqiaoshan Group may explain thetungsten enrichment in the Dahutang magmas.

The Dahutang granitic magmas underwent strong fractionationduring crystallization processes. The first two pulses of magmatism,producing the porphyritic biotite granite and fine-grained granite, aresimilar in composition, whereas the granite porphyry has a slightlyhigher degree of fractionation. All three granite types are overprintedby the W-rich stockworks (Fig. 5). This indicates that the three pulsesof magma were possibly derived from a same highly fractionatedmagma chamber at depth (Fig. 19b), resulting in the formation of thetungsten-rich magmatic hydrothermal fluid, and tungsten-bearinggranitic rocks and adjacent mineralized quartz veins and brecciaspipes. Because the granite porphyry dikes cooled quickly, they are associ-ated with the weakest mineralization. In summary, the partial melting ofargillaceous metasedimentary rocks of the Proterozoic ShuangqiaoshanGroup, with their high W background concentrations, and the high de-gree of differentiation of the magma chamber at depth, are two criticalfactors for the formation of the Dahutang tungsten deposit.

6.4. Tectonic implications

China is well endowed with tungsten ore deposits. Both tungstenand tin deposits are widespread in southeastern China, many of whichhave been previously mined in the Nanling region (Fig. 1). The newlyexplored NYCT tungsten belt, comprising the Dahutang, the Zhuxi, and

Fig. 13. Diagrams of SiO2 versus trace elements for the Dahutang granites. The symbols are the same as all diagrams above.


Fig. 14. Primitive mantle-normalized incompatible element patterns of the Dahutang granites. Normalized values are from Sun and McDonough (1989).


the Yangchuling deposits with combined tungsten resources of N3 Mt,has increased the exploration target area for tungsten ores in this partof China. Both the Nanling and NYCT areas are now viewed as hosts forworld-class tungsten deposits. The NYCT parallels the Cu–Au–Mo–Febelt (YRB) of porphyry and skarn deposits to the northwithin themiddleand lower Yangtze River Valley. It is also about 150 km–200 km from theQing-Hang Cu–Mo–Au–Pb–Zn porphyry and skarn belt to the south, andwithin a few hundred kilometers of the Nanling W–Sn region furthersouth (Fig. 1). Precise dating of ore minerals and ore-related granitoidshas revealed that there two episodes of magmatism and ore-forming ep-isodes in the YRB: 1) 156–137 Ma high-K calc-alkaline granitoids associ-atedwith the 148–135Maporphyry, skarn, and strataboundCu–Au–Mo–Fe deposits and 2) 135–123 Ma shoshonitic series granitoids associatedwith the 135–123 Ma magnetite–apatite deposits (Mao et al., 2006,2011b; Goldfarb et al., 2014). The deposits of the Qing-Hang belt haveages of 170–155 Ma (J.W. Mao et al., 2008, 2011), and were formedalong a Neoproterozoic suture zone (Yang et al., 2009; Mao et al.,2011a) that later was reactivated to form a Mesozoic basin (Gilderet al., 1991). The W–Sn event in the Nanling region took place at

Table 2Nd and Sr isotopic data.Measured isotope ratios (subscript 0) are age-corrected (t) to 140 Ma. Concentrations of Sm, Ncentrations are less than 0.2% for Sm andNd, 0.4% for Sr, and 1% for Rb. It should be noted that εNBulk Earth 147Sm/144Nd = 0.1967.

Sample Rb (ppm) Sr (ppm) 87Rb/86Sr 87Sr/86Sr 87Sr/86Sr(t) Sm (ppm) N

Porphyritic biotite granite, t = 144.775 Ma13DHT-5 381.7 85.35 12.988 0.749517 0.723172 2.98 113DHT-21 328 76.56 12.440 0.748014 0.721913 3.15 112DHT-22 344 78.73 12.684 0.747164 0.721021 3.35 113DLS-7 405.1 73.78 15.957 0.757514 0.724999 3.78 113DLS-8 384.5 69.31 16.125 0.758348 0.725112 3.58 113DLS-9 362.9 69.86 15.103 0.762324 0.731195 3.61 1

Fine-grained granite, t = 145.438 Ma13DHT-8 328 87.56 10.870 0.742002 0.719650 3.22 113DHT-12 323.9 105.10 8.938 0.738913 0.720491 3.32 113DHT–19 311.7 95.92 9.429 0.739982 0.720490 3.31 113DHT-20 319.8 94.91 9.776 0.740463 0.720313 3.43 113DLS-13 422.4 52.32 21.732 4.94 213DLS-14 415.3 46.12 26.233 0.783338 0.728895 2.03

Granite porphyry, t = 144.417 Ma13DHT-1 462.8 23.05 58.825 0.842963 0.725317 1.9213DHT-11 537.1 33.84 46.373 0.811835 0.715265 2.2913DHT-13 471.1 30.77 44.798 0.828854 0.736520 2.0013SWD-1 363.2 35.44 29.872 0.78884 0.727270 2.4013SWD-2 356.5 51.07 20.311 0.767509 0.725646 3.15 113DLS-2 415.1 38.44 31.467 0.786395 0.721851 4.06 113DLS-10 692.8 14.15 146.075 1.027439 0.726361 1.70

160–150 Ma (Mao et al., 2004; Hua et al., 2005; Mao et al., 2007; Huand Zhou, 2012; J.W. Mao et al., 2013; Z.H. Mao et al., 2013), and all theW–Sn deposits in that region are spatially distributed within a NE-striking oval-shaped area southeast of the Qin-Hang belt (Fig. 1 in J.W.Mao et al., 2013).

The porphyry tungsten deposits of the NYCT resemble the tungstenore systems in the Nanling region, in both ore types and ore-relatedgranitoids. The Dahutang ore-related granitoids are peraluminousS-type granites that appear as slightly heavy REE enriched bodieswith strong Eu negative anomalies. These REE patterns are similarto those of the Qianlishan granites at the Shizhuyuan W–Sn–Mo–Bideposit (Chen et al., 1989; Mao and Li, 1995) in the Nanling regionand to the Gejiu tin deposit in the western part of the Cathaysiablock, southwestern China (Cheng and Mao, 2010). The Sr–Nd iso-tope data for the granites of the three W and Sn deposits show thatthe W-related granites are derived from the crust whereas Sn relatedgranites are mainly derived from the crust with some input of theman-tle source (Fig. 15). Many studies (Mao and Li, 1995; Jiang et al., 2006; Liet al., 2007a,b; Z.L. Li et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2012) have been focused on

d, Rb and Sr were determined by isotope dilution; uncertainties on isotope-dilution con-d(0) today corresponds to 143Nd/144Nd = 0.51264; values for older times assume present

d (ppm) 147Sm/144Nd 143Nd/144Nd 143Nd/144Nd(t) εNd(t) T2DM

4.50 0.1244 0.512244 0.512128 −6.37 1453.35.46 0.1232 0.512253 0.512134 −6.13 1437.56.38 0.1235 0.512309 0.512192 −5.06 1349.19.99 0.1142 0.512151 0.512044 −7.99 1585.59.13 0.1132 0.512158 0.512051 −7.82 1572.89.16 0.1138 −0.000108 −10,002.11 283,062.7

6.09 0.1210 0.512221 0.512106 −6.74 1484.86.89 0.1188 0.512242 0.512129 −6.29 1448.26.84 0.1190 0.512217 0.512104 −6.77 1488.17.60 0.1178 −0.000112 −10,002.18 283,063.62.84 0.1308 −0.000125 −10,002.45 283,066.88.47 0.1447 0.512251 0.512113 −6.58 1473.2

7.50 0.1551 −0.000143 −10,002.79 283,072.39.54 0.1451 0.512226 0.512087 −7.07 1513.57.87 0.1538 0.512280 0.512134 −6.19 1440.68.32 0.1746 0.512356 0.512190 −5.09 1351.41.96 0.1591 0.512300 0.512149 −5.90 1416.98.18 0.1352 0.512300 0.512172 −5.46 1380.86.11 0.1679 0.512219 0.512060 −7.64 1558.4

Fig. 15. (87Sr/86Sr)t versus εNd(t) diagram of the Dahutang granites. The symbols are the same as Fig. 10.


the W–Sn related granitoids in the Nanling region and still debate as towhether the granitoids are of S-, A-, or highly fractionated I-types. How-ever, all these studies favor a crustal melt source for themagmas, possi-bly with some input from the asthenospheric mantle material duringrollback of the paleo-Pacific plate or by subduction of a slabwindow. Al-though both the NYCT and the Nanling region have tungsten as majorone of ore deposits, as well as ore-related granitoids derived from similarsources, they are several hundred kilometers apart and have an apparentage difference. Therefore, we consider it unlikely that the granites andassociated ore systems in the two areas were formed during a single tec-tonic event.

Previous studies (Xiang et al., 2012) categorized the Dahutangtungsten district as a part of the Qing-Hangmetallogenic belt. However,there is also an obvious age gap, i.e. ca. 150–140 Ma for the Dahutangtungsten ore and related granites, and 170–155 Ma for the basemetal-rich porphyry and skarn ores and related granites in the Qin-Hang belt (Fig. 1). Furthermore, the mineralization types and thesources of the associated granitoids are also quite different from eachother.

J.W.Mao et al. (2013), Z.H.Mao et al. (2013) indicated that theNYCT,including the Dahutang porphyry tungsten deposit, shows a spatial andtemporal relationship with the Cu–Au–Mo–Fe porphyry and skarndeposits in the YRB (Fig. 1). However, the ore-related granitoid suitesin the two parallel belts show significant differences. The Dahutang

Fig. 16. Rb/Sr versus Rb/Ba diagram (a) and Al2O3/TiO2 versus Ca/Na2O diagram (b) of the DahFig. 10.

granitoids are S-type and peraluminous, their Sr and Nd isotopic com-ponents plot in the area for upper Yangtze Craton crust (Fig. 15), andthey are predominantly derived from the Shuangqiaoshan argillaceoussediments. The 156–137 Ma granitoids in YRB are high-K, calc-alkaline,I-type or adakitic-like granites (Mao et al., 1990; Pei and Hong, 1995;Zhang et al., 2001b; Mao et al., 2006; X.L. Wang et al., 2006; Xie et al.,2011; Li et al., 2013). Their Sr and Nd isotopic data (Fig. 15) show thatthey are derived fromamantle and lower Yangtze Craton crust. The ques-tion remains as to why the two parallel ore belts with different mineralassemblages and contrasting magma sources can form at the same timealong the middle to lower Yangtze River Valley (Figs. 1, 2). Although thegranitoids in YRB are proposed to be derived from a thickened lowercrust (Zhang et al., 2001a,b; Mao et al., 2006; X.L. Wang et al., 2006), itis an atypical scenario for such granitoids associated with magmatic Cu–Au deposits, which instead are generally derived from mantle. If theywere generated by partial melting of intermediate-mafic granulites inthe deep lower crust under high P and T conditions, then there wouldnot be enough water in such proposed source materials to form thelarge Cu–Au porphyry deposits. Experimental data indicate that the par-tial melting of a subducted slab may lead to the formation of porphyryCu-related granitoids with melts containing 1.0–7.5 wt.% H2O (Sobolevand Chaussidon, 1996; Pichavant et al., 2002; Kelley et al., 2010;Zimmer et al., 2010). Mao et al. (2006, 2011b) suggested that the148–135 Ma porphyry and skarn deposits were related to an EW-

utang granites (after Sylvester, 1998 and references therein). The symbols are the same as

Fig. 17. T versus εNd(t) diagram showing the evolution of Nd isotopic compositions of theShuangqiaoshan Group and Proterozoic crust in southern China (Huang and Jiang 2013).The Dahutang granites are also shown. The symbols are the same as Fig. 10.


trending tear of the Izanagi plate during oblique subduction belowthe Eurasian continent. Ling et al. (2009) proposed a Cretaceous E–W-trending oceanic ridge subduction to explain the 140–125 Mamagmatism and associated 148–135 Ma Cu–Au–Mo–Fe porphyry andskarn deposits and the 135–123 Ma magnetite–apatite magmatic oresystems. Although there are some differences, the two models stresspartial melting of the subducted oceanic slab and some input from thecrust during magma ascent.

Considering that the two contrasting ore belts formed at sametime and exhibit a close spatial distribution (Figs. 1, 2), we proposethat they could form in the same tectonic setting during a singleevent (Fig. 19a). The magmas dominated by the partial melting ofthe slab formed the I-type granites and related porphyry and skarndeposits above the E–W-trending tear along the YRB. The magmasdominated by crustalmelt adjacent to the tear resulted in the formationof the S-type granitoids and relatedW deposits, which parallel the YRBto the north (Fig. 19a).

Fig. 18. Diagrams of Rb/Sr versus Sr (a); La/Yb versus L

7. Conclusions

The following conclusions, based on our new results, can be drawn:

(1) The tungsten-bearing granites exposed in the Dahutang depositcomprise porphyritic biotite granite, fine-grained granite, andgranite porphyry. The LA-ICP-MS zircon U–Pb dating resultsshow that they formed in a short time span of 147.4 ±0.58 Ma–148.3 ± 1.9 Ma, 144.7 ± 0.47 Ma–146.1 ± 0.64 Ma,and 143.0 ± 0.76 Ma–143.1 ± 1.2 Ma, respectively.

(2) These three types of granite share similar geochemical character-istics and exhibit an S-type character with peraluminous affinity.Geochemical characteristics suggest that the granites are derivedfrom the partial melting of the Shuangqiaoshan argillaceous sed-iments with high enrichment of tungsten. The three pulses ofmagmatism were generated by a high degree of fractional crys-tallization within the deep-levels of a single magma chamber.

(3) Themagmatism in theDahutang ore district, which occurred at ca.150–140Ma, is coevalwith that responsible for the Cu–Au–Mo–Feporphyry and skarn deposits in the YRB.We propose that the sub-duction of Izanagi plate at approximately the Jurassic–Cretaceousboundary resulted in the upwelling of asthenospheric mantle,which interactedwith the crust. Themagmaderived from the par-tial melting of the slab formed I-type granitic rocks and relatedCu–Au–Mo–Fe porphyry and skarn deposits along the middle tolower Yangtze River Valley, whereas some of the upwelling as-thenosphere also led to partial melting of the crust to form theS-type granitoids and related W ore systems in the NYCT.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2014.07.005.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Mr. Huang Shuibao, Mr. Liu Xianmu, Mr. WuJianping, and their co-workers from the Jiangxi Bureau of Geology,Mineral Resources, Exploration and Development, and its affiliated No.916 Geological Team and Northwestern Geological Team, for field helpand constructive discussions. We appreciate input from Dr. Franco

a (b); Ba versus Sr (c); and εNd(t) versus SiO2 (d).



Fig. 19. (a)Model explaining the geodynamic setting for both Cu–Au–Mo–Fe porphyry andskarn deposits along the middle to lower Yangtze River belt (YRB) and W and W–Moporphyry and skarn deposits in the NYCT. (b) Model explaining the formation of theDahuatang granites and their relationship to tungsten mineralization. Greisen is the mostimportant alteration surrounding the orebodies with Neoproterozoic granodiorite andminor unaltered phyllite beyond the alteration.


Pirajno, Prof. Nigel Cook, Prof. Zhang Zhaochong, and Prof. Xie Guiqingto help improve the manuscript in both science and language. Wethank Dr. Richard J. Goldfarb and two anonymous reviewers for theircritical and constructive comments and suggestions, which helped toimprove the paper. Also, the first author wants to deliver special thanksto Yanbo Cheng, Dongyang Zhang, Bo Yuan, and Wei Zheng for theirsupport and suggestions. This research is jointly funded by the NationalNature Science Foundation of China (no. 40930419, 41430314) and aproject of the China Geological Survey (no. 121201112083).

References

Andersen, T., 2002. Correction of common Pb in U–Pb analyses that do not report 204Pb.Chemical Geology 192, 59–79.

Beard, J.S., Lofgren, G.E., 1989. Effect of water on the composition of partial melts of green-stone and amphibolite. Science. 244 (4901), 195–197.

Beard, J.S., Lofgren, G.E., 1991. Dehydration melting and water-saturated melting of basalticand andesitic greenstones and amphibolites at 1.3 and 6.9 Kbar. Journal of Petrology 32,365–402.

Breiter, K., 2012. Nearly contemporaneous evolution of the A and S type fractionatedgranites in the Krŭsné Hory/Erzgebirge Mts., Central Europe. Lithos 151, 105–121.

Chang, Y.F., Liu, X.P., Wu, C.Y., 1991. The Copper–Iron Belt of the Lower and MiddleReaches of the Changjiang River. Geological Publishing House, Beijing, (234 pp. (inChinese)).

Chappell, B., White, A.J.K., 1974. Two contrasting granite types. Pacific Geology 8,173–174.

Chappell, B.W., White, A.J.R., 1992. I and S-type granites in the Lachlan Fold Belt. EarthScience 83, 1–26.

Chen, J.F., Jahn, B.-M., 1998. Crustal evolution of southeastern China: Nd–Sr isotopic evi-dence. Tectonophysics 284, 101–133.

Chen, Y.C., Pei, R.F., Zhang,, H.l, Li, X.D., Bai, G., Li, C.Y., Hu, Y.J., Liu, H.Q., Xian, B.Q., 1989.The Geology of Non-ferrous and Rare Ore Deposits Related to Mesozoic Granitoidsin Nanling Regions. Being: Geological Publishing House, (506 pp. (in Chinese withEnglish abstract)).

Chen, J.F., Foland, K.A., Xu, X., Zhou, T.X., 1991. Magmatism along the southeast margin ofthe Yangtze block: Precambrian collision of the Yangtze and Cathaysia blocks ofChina. Geology 19, 815–818.

Chen, G.G., Zhang, W.H., Shu, L.S., Zhang, C., Kang, H., 2012. An analysis on ore controllingconditions and geological features of the Cu–Wpolymetallic ore deposits in the Zhuxiarea of the Jingdezhen, Jiangxi Province. Acta Petrologica Sinica 28 (12), 3904–3914.

Chen, Z.W., Yu, X.Q., Zhou, X., Hao, G.S., Qiu, J.T., Li, P.J., 2013. Rock-forming and ore-forming characteristics of the Lidongkeng porphyritic granodiorite in Xiuning County,South Anhui Province. Geology of China 40, 1762–1776 (in Chinese with Englishabstract).

Cheng, Y.B., Mao, J.W., 2010. Age and geochemistry of granites in Gejiu area, Yunnanprovince, SW China: constraints on their petrogenesis and tectonic setting. Lithos120, 258–276.

Collins, W.J., Beams, S.D., White, A.J.R., 1982. Nature and origin of A-type granites withparticular reference to southeastern Australia. Contributions to Mineralogy andPetrology 80, 189–200.

Feng, C.Y., Zhang, D.Q., Xiang, X.K., Li, D.X., Liu, J.N., Xiao, Y., Qu, H.Y., 2012. Re/Os isotopicdating of molybdenite from the Dahutang tungsten deposit in northwestern JiangxiProvince and its geological implication. Acata Petrologica Sinica 28 (12), 3858–3868(in Chinese with English abstract).

Gilder, S.A., Keller, G.R., Luo, M., et al., 1991. Eastern Asia and the western Pacific timingand spatial distribution of rifting in China. Tectonophysics 197, 225–243.

Goldfarb, R.J., Taylor, R.D., Collins, G.S., Goryachev, N.A., Orlandini, O.F., 2014. Phan-erozoic continental growth and gold metallogeny of Asia. Gondwana Research25, 48–102.

Gregoire, M., Moine, B.N., O'Reilly, S.Y., Cottin, J.Y., Giret, A., 2000. Trace tlement residenceand partitioning in mantle xenolithsmetasomatized by highly alkaline, silicate- andcarbonate-rich melts (Kerguelen Islands, Indian Ocean). Journal of Petrology 41,477–509.

Hou, K.J., Li, Y.H., Zou, T.R., Qu, X.M., Shi, Y.R., Xie, G.Q., 2007. Laser ablation-MC-ICP-MStechnique for Hf isotope microanalysis of zircon and its geological applications.Acta Petrologica Sinica 23, 2595–2604 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Hu, R.Z., Zhou, M.F., 2012. Multiple mineralization events in South China — an introduc-tion to the thematic issue. Mineralium Deposita 47, 579–588.

Hua, R.M., Chen, P.R., Zhang, W.L., Lu, J.J., 2005. Three major metallogenic events inMesozoic in South China. Mineral Deposits 24 (2), 99–107 (in Chinese with Englishabstract).

Huang, L.C., Jiang, S.Y., 2012. Geochroronology, geochemistry and petrogenesis of theporphyric like muscovite granite in the Dahutang tungsten deposit, Jiangxi Province.Acata Petrological Sinica 28 (12), 3887–3900 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Huang, L.C., Jiang, S.Y., 2013. Geochronology, geochemistry and Petrogenesis of the tung-sten-bearing porphyrytic granite in the Dahutang tungsten deposit, Jiangxi Province.Acta Petrologica Sinica 29 (12), 4323–4335.

Jahn, B.M., Cornichet, J., Cong, B., Yui, T.F., 1996. Ultrahigh-epsilon (Nd) eclogites from anultrahigh-pressure metamorphic terrane of China. Chemical Geology 127 (1–3),61–79.

Jahn, B.M., Fan, Q.C., Yang, J.J., Henin, O., 2003. Petrogrenesis of the Maowu pyroxenite–eclogite body from the UHP metamorphic terrane of Dabieshan: chemical and isoto-pic constraints. Lithos 70 (3–4), 243–267.

Jiang, Y.H., Jiang, S.Y., Zhao, K.D., Ling, H.F., 2006. Petrogenesis of Late Jurassic Qianlishangranites andmafic dykes, Southeast China: implications for a back-arc extension setting.Geological Magazine 143 (4), 457–474.

Jiangxi Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 1984. Regional Geology of JiangxiProvince Beijing: Geological Publishing House, (921 pp. (In Chinese)).

Kelley, K.A., Plank, T., Newman, S., Stolper, E.M., Grove, T.L., Parman, S., Hauri, E., 2010.Mantle melting as a function of water content beneath the Mariana Arc. Journal ofPetrology 51, 1711–1738.

Lehmann, B., 1987. Metallogeny of Tin. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York, pp. 19–84.Li, W.X., Li, X.H., 2003. 缺少参考文献的论文名称. Precambrian Research 122, 29–44.Li, X.H., Li, W.X., Li, Z.X., 2007a. On the genetic classification and tectonic implications of

the Early Yanshanian granitoids in the Nanling Range, South China. Chinese ScienceBulletin 52 (14), 1873–1885.

Li, X.-H., Li, Z.X., Li, W.X., Liu, Y., Yuan, C., Wei, G.J., Qi, C.S., 2007b. U–Pb zircon, geochem-ical and Sr–Nd–Hf isotopic constraints on age and origin of Jurassic I- and A-typegranites from central Guangdong, SE China: a major igneous event in response tofoundering of a subducted flat-slab. Lithos 96, 186–204.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1342-937X(14)00229-9/rf0005
























































































Li, Z.L., Hu, R.Z., Yang, J.H., Peng, J.T., Li, X.M., Bi, X.W., 2007c. He, Pb and S isotopic con-straints on the relationship between the A-type Qitianling granite and the Furongtin deposit, Hunan Province, China. Lithos 97, 161–173.

Li, J.W., Zhao, X.F., Zhou, M.F., Vasconcelos, P., Ma, C.Q., Deng, X.D., Zhao, Y.X., Wu, G.,2008. Origin of the Tongshankou porphyry–skarn Cu–Mo deposit, eastern YangtzeCraton, Eastern China: geochronological, geochemical, and Sr–Nd–Hf isotopicconstraints. Mineralium Deposita 43, 319–336.

Li, J.W., Deng, X.D., Zhou, M.F., Liu, Y.S., Zhao, X.F., Guo, J.L., 2010. Laser ablation ICP–MStitanite U–Th–Pb dating of hydrothermal ore deposits: a case study of the TonglushanCu–Fe–Au skarn deposit, SE Hubei Province. China. Chem. Geol. 270, 56–67.

Li, S., Yang, X.Y., Sun, W.D., 2012. Ages and zircon Hf isotope geochemistry of theDengjiawu Mo deposit in the Shexian, South Anhui Province. Acta Petrologica Sinica28 (12), 3980–3990.

Li, X.-H., Li, Z.-X., Li, W.-X., Wang, X.-C., Gao, Y.Y., 2013. Revisiting the “C-type adakites” ofthe Lower Yangtze River Belt, central eastern China: in-situ zircon Hf–O isotope andgeochemical constraints. Chemical Geology 345, 1–15.

Lin, L., Yu, Z.Z., Ding, S.H., 2006a. The metallogenic prognosis of Dahutang tungsten orefield in Jiangxi. Journal of East China Institute of Technology 3 (s1), 139–142 (inChinese with English abstract).

Lin, L., Zhan, G.L., Yu, X.P., 2006b. Geological characteristics and oresearch prospect ofDahutang tungsten (tin) ore field in Jiangxi. Resources Survey ＆ Environment 27(1), 25–32 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Ling, M.X., Wang, F.Y., Ding, X., Hu, Y.H., Zartman, R.E., Xiong, X.L., Sun, W.D., 2009. Creta-ceous ridge subduction along the Lower Yangtze River belt, Eastern China. EconomicGeology 104, 303–321.

Liu, Y.J., Ma, D.S., 1982. The geochemical studies of tungsten built in South China. Sciencein China. Series B 10, 939–950 (in Chinese).

Liu, X., Fan, H.R., Santosh, M., Hu, F.F., Yang, K.F., Li, Q.L., Yang, Y.H., Liu, Y.S., 2012.Remelting of Neoproterozoic relict volcanic arcs in the Middle Jurassic: implicationfor the formation of the Dexing porphyry copper deposit, Southeastern China. Lithos150, 85–100.

Ludwig, K.R., 2003. User's Manual for Isoplot 3.00: A Geochronological Toolkit forMicrosoft Excel: Berkeley Geochronology Center Special, Publication. 4.

Ma, X., Xiang, X.K., 1993. Preliminary study of the Nd isotopicmodel ages of the Precambrianmetamorphic stratum in northeastern Jiangxi Province. Scientia Geologica Sinica 28,145–150 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Maniar, P.D., Piccoli, P.M., 1989. Tectonic discrimination of granitoids. Geological Societyof America 101 (5), 635–643.

Mao, J.W., Li, H.Y., 1995. Evolution of the Qianlishan granite stock and its relation to theShizhuyuan polymetallic tungsten deposit. International Geology Review 37, 63–80.

Mao, J.R., Su, Y.X., Chen, S.Y., 1990. Intermediate-acid Intrusion in the Middle–LowerReaches of Yangtze River and Related Mineralization. Geological Publishing House,Beijing, (191 pp. (in Chinese)).

Mao, J.W., Zhang, Z.C., Zhang, Z.H., Du, A.D., 1999. Re–Os dating of molybdenites in theXiaoliugou W–(Mo) deposit in the northern Qilian Mountains and its geological sig-nificances. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 63, 1815–1818.

Mao, J.W., Xie, G.Q., Li, X.F., 2004. Mesozoic large scale mineralization and multiple litho-spheric extensions from South China. Earth Science Frontiers 11 (1), 45–56 (in Chinesewith English abstract).

Mao, J.W., Wang, Y.T., Lehmann, B., Yu, J.J., Du, A.D., Mei, Y.X., Li, Y.F., Zang,W.S., Stein, H.J.,Zhou, T.F., 2006. Molybdenite Re–Os and albite 40Ar/39Ar dating of Cu–Au–Mo andmagnetite porphyry systems in the Changjiang valley and metallogenic implications.Ore Geol. Rev. 29, 307–324.

Mao, J.W., Xie, G.Q., Guo, C.L., Chen, Y.C., 2007. Large-scale tungsten–tin mineralization inNanling area of South China: metallogenic ages and corresponding geodynamic pro-cess. Acta Petrologica Sinica 23, 2329–2338 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Mao, J.W., Xie, G.Q., Guo, C.L., Yuan, S.D., Cheng, Y.B., Chen, Y.C., 2008. Spatial–temporaldistribution of Mesozoic ore deposits in South China and their metallogenic settings.Geological Journal of China Universities 14, 510–526 (in Chinese with Englishabstract).

Mao, J.W., Chen, M.H., Yuan, S.D., Guo, C.L., 2011a. Geological characteristics of theQinhang (or Shihang)metallogenic belt in South China and spatial–temporal distribu-tion of mineral deposits. Acta Geologica Sinica 85, 636–658 (in Chinese with Englishabstract).

Mao, J.W., Xie, G.Q., Duan, C., Pirajno, F., Ishiyama, D., Chen, Y.C., 2011b. A tectonogeneticmodel for porphyry–skarn-strata bound Cu–Au–Mo–Fe and magnetite–apatitedeposits along the Middle–Lower Yangtze River Valley, Eastern China. Ore Geol.Rev. 43, 294–314.

Mao, J.W., Zhang, J.D., Pirajno, F., Ishiyama, D., Su, H.M., Guo, C.L., Chen, Y.C., 2011c.Porphyry Cu–Au–Mo–epithermal Ag–Pb–Zn–distal hydrothermal Au deposits in theDexing area, Jiangxi province, East China-A linked ore system. Ore Geology Reviews43, 203–216.

Mao, J.W., Pirajno, F., Cook, N., 2011d. Mesozoic metallogeny in East China and corre-sponding geodynamic settings—an introduction to the special issue. Ore Geology Re-views 43, 1–7.

Mao, J.W., Cheng, Y.B., Chen, M.H., Pirajno, F., 2012. Major types and time–space distribu-tion of Mesozoic ore deposits in South China and their geodynamic settings. Miner,Deposita.

Mao, J.W., Cheng, Y.B., Chen, M.H., Pirajno, F., 2013a.Major types and time–space distribu-tion of Mesozoic ore deposits in South China and their geodynamic settings.Mineralium Deposita 48, 267–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00126-012-0446-z.

Mao, Z.H., Cheng, Y.B., Liu, J.J., Yuan, S.D., Wu, S.H., Xiang, X.K., Luo, X.H., 2013b. Geologyand molybdenite Re–Os age of the Dahutang granite-related veinlets-disseminatedtungsten ore field in the Jiangxin Province, China. Ore Geology Reviews 53, 422–433.

Montel, J.M., Vielzeuf, D., 1997. Partial melting of metagreywackes. Part II: compositionsof minerals and melts. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 128, 176–196.

No. 916 Geological Team, Jiangxi Bureau of Geology, Mineral Resources, Exploration andDevelopment, 2012. The Exploration Report of the Shimensi, North Portion of theDahutang Tungsten Deposit, Wuning County, Jiangxi Province. Jiangxi Jutong MiningCorporation, (224 pp.).

Pan, Y.M., Dong, P., 1999. The Lower Changjiang (Yangzi/Yangtze River)metallogenic belt,East China: intrusion- and wall rock-hosted Cu–Fe–Au, Mo, Zn, Pb, Ag deposits. OreGeology Reviews 15, 177–242.

Patiňo-Douce, A.E., Beard, J.S., 1995. Dehydration-melting of biotite gneiss and quartz am-phibolite from 3 to 15 kbar. Journal of Petrology 36 (3), 707–738.

Patiňo-Dounce, A.E., Johnston, A.D., 1991. Phase equilibria and melt productivity in thepelitic system: implications for the origin of peraluminous granitoids and aluminousgranulites. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 107 (2), 202–218.

Peccerillo, A., Taylor, S.R., 1976. Geochemistry of Eocene calc-alkaline volcanic rocks fromthe Kastamonu area, northern Turkey. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 58,63–81.

Pei, R.F., Hong, D.W., 1995. The granites of South China and their metallogeny. Episodes18, 77–86.

Pichavant, M., Mysen, B.O., Macdonald, R., 2002. Source and H2O content of high-MgOmagmas in island arc settings: an experimental study on a primitive calc-alkaline ba-salt from St. Vincent, Lesser Antilles arc. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 66,2193–2209.

Pircher, W.S., 1983. Granite type and tectonic environment. In: Hsu, K. (Ed.), MountainBuilding Processes. Academic Press, London, pp. 19–40.

Rapp, R.P., Watson, E.B., 1995. Dehydration melting of metabasalt at 8–32 kbar: implica-tions for continental growth and crust–mantle recycling. Journal of Petrology 36,891–931.

Rudnick, R.L., Gao, S., 2004. Composition of the continental crust. Treatise on Geochemis-try 3, 1–64.

Shu, L.S., 2012. An analysis of principal features of tectonic evolution in South China Block.Geological Bulletin of China 31 (07), 1035–1053.

Skjerlie, K.P., Johnston, A.D., 1996. Vapour-absent melting from 10 to 20 kbar of crustal rocksthat containmultiple hydrous phases: implications for anatexis in the deep to very deepcontinental crust and active continental margins. Journal of Petrology 37 (3), 661–691.

Sobolev, S.G., Chaussidon, M., 1996. H2O concentrations in primary melts from supra-subduction zones and mid-ocean ridges: implications for H2O storage and recyclingin the mantle. Earth and Planetary Letters 137, 45–55.

Song, G.X., Qin, K.Z., Li, G.M., Liu, T.B., Li, J.X., Chang, Z.S., 2012. Geochronologic and isotopegeochemical constraints on magmatism and associated W–Mo mineralization of theJitoushan W–Mo deposit, middle–lower Yangtze Valley. International Geology Re-view 54, 1532–1547.

Sun, S.S.,McDonough,W.F., 1989.Chemical and Isotopic Systematics of oceanic basalts: implicationsforMantle Composition and Processes. In: Saunders, A.D., Norry,M.J. (Eds.),Magmatism in theOcean Basins. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. Vol. 42, pp. 313–345.

Sun, W.D., Yang, X.Y., Fan, W.M., Wu, F.Y., 2012. Mesozoic large scale magmatism andmineralization in South China: Preface. Lithos 150, 1–5.

Sylvester, P.J., 1998. Post-collision strongly peraluminous granites. Lithos 45, 29–44.Tan, Y.J., 1979. Porphyry tungsten deposits. Geology and Geochimstry 12, 1–7 (in Chinese

with English abstract).Turekian, K.K., Wedepohl, K.H., 1961. Distribution of the elements in some major units of

the earth's crust. Geological Society of America Bulletin 72 (2), 175–192.Wang, D.Z., Liu, C.S., Shen, W.Z., Chen, F.R., 1993. The contrast between Tonglu I-type and

Xiangshan S-type clasto-porphyritic lava. Acta Petrologica Sinica 9 (1), 44–53 (inChinesewith English abstract).

Wang, Q., Zhao, Z.H., Jian, P., Xu, J.F., Bao, Z.W., Ma, J.L., 2004. SHRIMP zircon geochronologyand Nd–Sr isotopic geochemistry of the Dexing granodiorite porphyries. ActaPetrologica Sinica 20, 315–324 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Wang, Q., Wyman, D.A., Xu, J.F., Zhao, Z.H., Jian, P., Xiong, X.L., Bao, Z.W., Li, C.F., Bai, Z.H.,2006a. Petrogenesis of Cretaceous adakitic and shoshonitic igneous rocks in theLuzong area, Anhui Province (eastern China): implications for geodynamics andCu–Au mineralization. Lithos 89, 424–446.

Wang, X.L., Zhou, J.C., Qiu, J.S., Zhang, W.L., Liu, X.M., Zhang, G.L., 2006b. LA-ICP-MS U–Pbzircon geochronology of the Neoproterozoic igneous rocks from Northern Guangxi,South China: Implications for tectonic evolution. Precambrian Research 145,111–130.Watson, E.B., Harrison, T.M., 1983b. Zircon saturation revisited: temperature andcomposition effects in a variety of crustal magma types. Earth and Planetary ScienceLetters 64, 295–304.

Wang, X.G., Wang, C.H., Liu, S.B., Liu, Z.Q., Liu, J.G., Wan, H.Z., Chen, G.H., Zhang, C., Zhang,S.D., 2014. Geochronology of fine-grained biotite granite in the Zhuxi copper–tungsten de-posit of Northeastern Jiangxi province and its geological significance. Rock and MineralAnalysis (in press (Chinese with English abstract)).

White, A.J.R., Clemens, J.D., Holloway, J.R., Silver, L.T., Chappell, B.W.,Wall, V.J., 1986. Com-ment and reply on “S-type granites and their probable absence in southwesternNorth America”. Geology 14, 805–806.

Wolf, M.B., Wyllie, P.J., 1989. The formation of tonalitic liquids during the vapor-absentpartial melting of amphibolite at 10 kbar. Eos 70, 506–518.

Wu, F.Y., Jahn, B.M., Wilder, S.A., Lo, C.H., Yui, T.F., Lin, Q., Ge, W.C., Sun, D.Y., 2003. Highlyfractionated I-type granites in NE China (I): geochronology and petrogenesis. Lithos66, 241–273.

Xiang, X.K., Chen, M.S., Zhang, G.N., Qian, Z.Y., Li, H., Xu, J.H., 2012. Metallogenic geologicalconditions of Shimensi tungsten-polymetallic deposit in north Jiangxi province. Con-tributions to Geology and Mineral Resources Research 27 (2), 143–155 (in Chinesewith English abstract).

Xiang, X.K., Wang, P., Zhang, G.N., Sun, D.M., Zhong, B., Qian, Z.Y., Tan, R., 2013. Character-istics of the Shimensi tungsten deposit in northern Jiangxi Province. Mineral Deposits36, 1171–1187 (in Chinese with English abstract).











































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00126-012-0446-z





























































































Xie, G.Q., Mao, J.W., Zhao, H.J., 2011. Zircon U–Pb geochronological and Hf isotopic con-straints on petrogenesis of Late Mesozoic intrusions in the southeast Hubei Province,Middle–Lower Yangtze River belt (MLYRB), East China. Lithos 125, 693–710.

Xiong, B.K., Mao, J.W., Ye, H.S., Zhang, D.Y., Cheng, Y.B., Mao, Z.H., Wu, S.H., 2014. Petro-genesis of Yangchuling composite intrusion in the Middle–Lower Yangtze valleyRange, Eastern China: implications for W–Mo mineralization. Ore Geology Reviews(submitted for publication).

Yan, M.C., Chi, Q.H., 1997. The Chemical Composition of the Continental Crust and Rocksin the Eastern Part of China. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 1–291, (in Chinese).

Yang, M.G., Huang, S.B., Lu, F.S., Tang, W.X., Mao, S.B., 2009. Major types and time–spacedistribution of Mesozoic ore deposits in South China: implications for geodynamicsettings. Geology in China 36, 528–543 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Yu, J.H., Zhao, L., Zhou, X., 2004. Mineralogical Characteristics and Genesis of SoutheasternFujian Garnet I-type Granites. 10, pp. 365–377.

Zhang, Q., Qian, Q., Wang, E.C., Wang, Y., Zhao, T.P., Hao, J., Guo, G.J., 2001a. Existence ofEast China plateau in mid-late Yanshan period: implication from adakites. ScientiaGeologica Sinica 36, 248–255 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Zhang, Q., Wang, Y., Qian, Q., Yang, J.H., Wang, Y.L., Zhao, T.P., Guo, G.J., 2001b. The character-istics and tectonic–metallogenic significances of the adakites in Yanshan period fromeastern China. Acta Petrologica Sinica 17, 236–244 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Zhang, Z.C., Mao, J.W., Andrew, D., Saunders, A.D., Ai, Y., Li, Y., Zhao, L., 2009. Petrogeneticmodeling of three mafic–ultramafic layered intrusions in the Emeishan large igneousprovince, SW China, based on isotopic and bulk chemical constraints. Lithos 113,369–392.

Zhang, Z.J., Deng, Y.F., Chen, L., Wu, J.Y., Teng, J.W., Panza, G., 2013. Seismic structure andrheology of the crust under mainland China. Gondwana Research 23, 1455–1483.

Zheng, Y.F., Xiao, W.J., Zhao, G.C., 2013. Introduction to tectonics of China. GondwanaResearch 23, 1189–1206.

Zhong, Y.F., Ma, C.Q., She, Z.B., Lin, G.C., Xu, H.J., Wang, R.J., Yang, K.G., Liu, Q., 2005.SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology of the Jiuling granitic complex batholith in Jiang-xi province. Earth Science 30, 685–691 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Zhou, T.F., Fan, Y., Yuan, F., 2008. Advances on petrogenesis and metallogenic study of themineralization belt of the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River area. ActaPetrologica Sinica 24, 1665–1678 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Zhou, T.F., Wu, M.A., Fan, Y., Duan, C., Yuan, F., Zhang, L.J., Liu, J., Qian, B., Pirajno, F., Cooke,D.R., 2011. Geological, geochemical characteristics and isotope systematic of theLongqiao iron deposit in the Lu-Zong volcano-sedimentary basin, Middle–LowerYangtze (Changjiang) River Valley, Eastern China. Ore Geology Reviews 43, 154–169.

Zhou, B.G., Wang, S.W., Sun, X.M., Liao, Z.W., Guo, Y., Jiang, X.F., Zhu, H.P., Liu, C.Z., Luo, M.J., Shen, Z.W., Zhang, H., 2012a. Geological Reviews (2).

Zhou, Q., Jiang, Y., Zhao, P., Liao, S., Jin, G., Jia, R., Liu, Z., 2012b. SHRIMP U–Pb dating andtrace-element compositions of hydrothermal zircon from the Dexing porphyry copperdeposit, SE China. Economic Geology 107, 1507–1514.

Zimmer, M.M., Plank, T., Hauri, E.H., Yogodznski, G.M., Stelling, P., Larsen, J., Singer, B.,Mandeveville, C., Nye, C.J., 2010. The role of water in generating the calc-alkalinetrend: new volatile data for Aleutian magmas and a new tholeiitic index. Journal ofPetrology 51, 2411–2444.












































geochronology and geochemistry of granitoids related to ... · yangtze craton (figs. 1, 2), in the...

Documents