Elsevier

Gondwana Research

Volume 94, June 2021, Pages 87-105
Gondwana Research

Neoproterozoic bimodal magmatism in the eastern Himalayan orogen: Tectonic implications for the Rodinia supercontinent evolution

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2021.01.016Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Extensive Neoproterozoic magmatic belt in the eastern Himalayan orogen.

  • Partial melting of ancient lower crust with minor input of mantle components.

  • Andean-type orogeny along the northwestern margin of the Rodinia at ca. 820 Ma.

Abstract

Neoproterozoic magmatism associated with the assembly and configuration of the Rodinia supercontinent is widely distributed in the India-Himalayan terrane. However, its petrogenesis and tectonic settings remain controversial. This study provides new geochronological and geochemical data on the Neoproterozoic bimodal magmatism from the eastern Himalayan orogen. In situ zircon Usingle bondPb dating revealed that the protoliths of amphibolites were emplaced at ca. 826 Ma and the granitic gneisses have crystallization ages of 825–820 Ma. The granitic gneisses exhibit geochemical features of A-type granites, with high initial (87Sr/86Sr)i ratio (0.7182–0.7394), low whole-rock εNd(t) (−8.4 to −6.6), and variable zircon εHf(t) (−7.4 to +1.0) values. They were probably generated by partial melting of the ancient lower crust with minor input of mantle components. The amphibolite samples are enriched in light rare earth elements (LREEs) and depleted in heavy rare earth elements (HREEs), suggesting an arc affinity. They have relatively high initial (87Sr/86Sr)i ratios (0.7113–0.7136), low whole-rock εNd(t) (−1.1 to 1.4) and a wide range of zircon εHf(t) (−4.1 to 8.3) values, indicating that the protoliths of amphibolites were likely generated by partial melting of an enriched subduction-modified continental lithospheric mantle. Their geochemical signatures are similar to typical back-arc basin basalts. The presence of coeval A-type granites and arc-related mafic rocks is probably due to the existence of a back-arc system. We argue that the Neoproterozoic bimodal magmatism is a product of back-arc extension initiated at an early stage, resulting from the rollback of the Mozambique Oceanic slab. Combined with previous studies on Neoproterozoic magmas from India and the Himalayas, we suggest that an extensive Neoproterozoic back-arc system may have existed along the northwestern margin of the Rodinia supercontinent. This theory supports a scenario of an Andean-type continental margin for the India-Himalayan terrane during the middle Neoproterozoic.

Introduction

The global Neoproterozoic magmatism is commonly related to the assembly, configuration, and breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent and has evoked geoscientific attention regarding its petrogenesis and tectonic settings (Heaman et al., 1992; Li et al., 1999, Li et al., 2002, Li et al., 2006, Li et al., 2008, Li et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2009, Wang et al., 2018; Bybee et al., 2010; Spencer et al., 2013; Cawood et al., 2018). The evidences of Neoproterozoic magmatism have been reported from several continental fragments, such as South China (e.g., Li et al., 1999, Li et al., 2002, Li et al., 2003, Li et al., 2008, Li et al., 2010; Cawood et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2020), India (e.g., Bhushan, 2000; Gyani et al., 2001; Gregory et al., 2009; Santosh et al., 2012, Santosh et al., 2014, Santosh et al., 2017; Ashwal et al., 2013; He et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2020), Seychelles (e.g., Torsvik et al., 2001; Tucker et al., 2001; Ashwal et al., 2002; Hammond et al., 2013), Madagascar (e.g., Nédélec et al., 1995, Nédélec et al., 2016; Handke et al., 1999; Bybee et al., 2010; Boger et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2015), Lhasa (e.g., Zhang et al., 2012a, Zhang et al., 2012b; Hu et al., 2018a, Hu et al., 2018b, Hu et al., 2018c; Dong et al., 2020), Tarim (e.g., Xu et al., 2005, Xu et al., 2013; He et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2012c, 2016; Wu et al., 2017; Wen et al., 2019), Australia (e.g., Michael et al., 1998; Li et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2015), Pakistan (e.g., Khan et al., 2012; Ahmad et al., 2013; Qasim et al., 2018), and Laurentia (e.g., Goodge and Vervoort, 2006; Goodge et al., 2017; Cawood and Pisarevsky, 2017). However, the paleogeographic settings of diffenent terranes are still controversial. This caused long debates about the petrogenesis and tectonic settings of Neoproterozoic magmatism from diffenent terranes. As has been stated in previous studies, most of the Neoproterozoic magmatic events are attributed to mantle plumes or a mantle superplume that caused the rifting and fragmentation of the Neoproterozoic Rodinia supercontinent (e.g., Heaman et al., 1992; Park et al., 1995; Shellnutt et al., 2004; Maruyama et al., 2007; Li et al., 1999, Li et al., 2002, Li et al., 2006, Li et al., 2008, Li et al., 2013; Cui et al., 2015; Lyu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017a; Zhu et al., 2018). However, a few other studies have suggested that the Neoproterozoic magmas from northwestern India, Madagascar, Seychelles, and Tarim were formed in a continental arc setting, pointing to active Andean-type orogeny on the northwestern margin of the Rodinia supercontinent (e.g., Torsvik et al., 1996; Tucker et al., 2001; Rino et al., 2008; Gregory et al., 2009; Bybee et al., 2010; He et al., 2012; Tang et al., 2016; Ding and Zhang, 2016; Liao et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018). Although this debate has not been well resolved so far, there is no doubt that studies on the origin and geodynamics of Neoproterozoic magmas will contribute to our understanding of the Rodinia supercontinent evolution.

Thus far, only a few studies have focused on the Neoproterozoic granitoids from the eastern Himalayan orogeny (Ding and Zhang, 2016; Wang et al., 2017a), and no coeval mafic rocks have been reported elsewhere. Moreover, the origin and geodynamics of these Neoproterozoic granitoids remain controversial. Ding and Zhang (2016) proposed that these granitoids display arc geochemical features, indicating that an Andean-type orogen may have existed along the northwestern margin of the Rodinia supercontinent. In contrast, Wang et al. (2017a) suggested that these Neoproterozoic granitoids are derived from the melting of ancient crustal rocks, possibly due to the breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent associated with episodic plume events. This contradiction is attributed to the lack of coeval mafic rock constraints, limiting the comprehensive understanding of the Neoproterozoic magmas in the eastern Himalayan orogen. Herein, we present new geochronological and geochemical data for the Neoproterozoic bimodal magmatism from the eastern Himalayan orogen (Fig. 1). In addition, we reanalyzed previously published results and revisited the petrogenesis of the Neoproterozoic bimodal magmatic rocks in the eastern Himalayan orogen to construct a new geodynamic model, propose the formation mechanism of these Neoproterozoic bimodal magmas, and correlate them with the geological evolution of the Rodinia supercontinent. We anticipate that this study can provide key clues for Neoproterozoic tectonothermal evolution of the India-Himalayan terrane in the northwestern Rodinia supercontinent.

Section snippets

Geological setting

As one of the largest collisional orogens in Earth history, the Himalayan orogenic belt consists of three parallel east-west-striking tectonic units, including the Lesser Himalayan Sequence (LHS), Greater Himalayan Crystalline Sequence (GHS), and Tethys Himalayan Sequence (THS), separated by the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT), Main Central Thrust (MCT), and South Tibetan Detachment System (STDS), respectively (Fig. 1A).

The THS zone extends in an east-west direction for more than 1300 km and is

Whole rock major and trace elements

Five fresh amphibolite samples and eleven fresh granitic gneiss samples were collected from outcrops. All the samples were analyzed for major and trace elements at the Analytical Laboratory Beijing Research Institute of Uranium Geology. Major element analyses were completed using a Philips PW2404 XRF with a precision of less than ±1%. Trace elements were determined using a Finnigan MAT Element XR ICP-MS. The uncertainties of the ICP-MS analyses are estimated to be better than ±5% for most trace

Zircon Usingle bondPb ages

The results of zircon Usingle bondPb testing are presented in Supplementary Table S1. The zircons from sample CNDXCJ (amphibolite) are euhedral to subhedral and approximately 40–150-μm long and 35–100-μm wide, with length to width ratios of 2:1 to 1:1 (Fig. 4A). Most of the Th/U ratios (0.46–1.94) are >0.1, indicating magmatic crystallization (Wu and Zheng, 2004). It is noteworthy that Most of these zircons have no clear oscillatory zoning and show core–rim structure in Cathodoluminescence (CL) images (

Rock metamorphism and alteration

Both the granitic gneiss and amphibolite samples reveal low loss-on-ignition (LOI) values (0.29–1.06). However, the petrographic investigations indicate that though these rocks have undergone various degrees of metamorphism and alteration, they still preserved igneous textures. Thus, the alkali elements and LILEs may have been modified by the metamorphic and alteration processes (Verma, 1981; Hart and Staudigel, 1982). However, REEs, HFSEs, V, Cr, and Ni are considered immobile and are likely

Conclusions

The new data presented herein and combined with previous studies allow for a better understanding of the petrogenesis of the Neoproterozoic bimodal magmatism in the eastern Himalayan orogen. Our key conclusions are as follows:

  • (1)

    The in situ zircon Usingle bondPb dating reveal that the protoliths of amphibolites were emplaced at Ca. 826 Ma and the granitoids have crystallization ages of 825–820 Ma. An extensive Neoproterozoic magmatic rock belt likely existed in the eastern Himalayan orogeny.

  • (2)

    The granitic

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 41702080, 91955208), the National Key R&D Program of China (grants 2018YFC0604103, 2016YFC0600308) and the China Geological Survey (grant DD20190147). We are deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers for constructive suggestions.

References (164)

  • H. de Wall et al.

    Cryogenian transpression and granite intrusion along the western margin of Rodinia (Mt. Abu region): magnetic fabric and geochemical inferences on Neoproterozoic geodynamics of the NW Indian block

    Tectonophysics

    (2012)
  • D.J. DePaolo

    Trace element and isotopic effects of combined wallrock assimilation and fractional crystallization

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (1981)
  • H.X. Ding et al.

    Neoproterozoic granitoids in the eastern Himalayan orogen and their tectonic implications

    Precambrian Res.

    (2016)
  • H.X. Ding et al.

    Cambrian ultrapotassic rhyolites from the Lhasa terrane, South Tibet: evidence for Andean-type magmatism along the northern active margin of Gondwana

    Gondwana Res.

    (2015)
  • H. Ding et al.

    Early Eocene (c. 50 Ma) collision of the Indian and Asian continents: Constraints from the North Himalayan metamorphic rocks, southeastern Tibet

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (2016)
  • X. Dong et al.

    Late Neoproterozoic thermal events in the northern Lhasa terrane, South Tibet: Zircon chronology and tectonic implications

    J. Geodyn.

    (2011)
  • M. D'Orazio et al.

    Slab window-related magmatism from southernmost South America: the late Miocene mafic volcanics from the Estancia Glencross area (~52°S, Argentina–Chile)

    Lithos

    (2001)
  • G.N. Eby

    The A-type granitoids: a review of their occurrence and chemical characteristics and speculations on their petrogenesis

    Lithos

    (1990)
  • J.J. Fan et al.

    Features, provenance, and tectonic significance of Carboniferous-Permian glacial marine diamictites in the Southern Qiangtang-Baoshan block, Tibetan Plateau

    Gondwana Res.

    (2015)
  • C.M. Fisher

    Guidelines for reporting zircon Hf isotopic data by LA-MC-ICPMS and potential pitfalls in the interpretation of these data

    Chem. Geol.

    (2014)
  • J.W. Goodge et al.

    Origin of Mesoproterozoic A-type granites in Laurentia: Hf isotope evidence

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (2006)
  • J.W. Goodge et al.

    Proterozoic crustal evolution of central East Antarctica: Age and isotopic evidence from glacial igneous clasts, and links with Australia and Laurentia

    Precambrian Res.

    (2017)
  • Z.B. Gou et al.

    Petrogenesis and tectonic implications of the Yadong leucogranites, southern Himalaya

    Lithos

    (2016)
  • L.C. Gregory et al.

    Paleomagnetism and geochronology of the Malani Igneous Suite, Northwest India: Implications for the configuration of Rodinia and the assembly of Gondwana

    Precambrian Res.

    (2009)
  • K.C. Gyani et al.

    Neoproterozoic Magmatism and Metamorphism in Northwestern Indian Shield: Implications of Rodinia-Gondwana Tectonics

    Gondwana Res.

    (2001)
  • J.O.S. Hammond et al.

    The extent of continental crust beneath the Seychelles

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (2013)
  • S.R. Hart et al.

    The control of alkalies and uranium in seawater by ocean crust alteration

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (1982)
  • Z.Y. He et al.

    Neoproterozoic granulites from the northeastern margin of the Tarim Craton: Petrology, zircon U–Pb ages and implications for the Rodinia assembly

    Precambrian Res.

    (2012)
  • X.F. He et al.

    Early to late Neoproterozoic magmatism and magma mixing–mingling in Sri Lanka: Implications for convergent margin processes during Gondwana assembly

    Gondwana Res.

    (2016)
  • L.M. Heaman et al.

    Nature and timing of Franklin igneous events, Canada: implications for a late Proterozoic mantle plume and the breakup of Laurentia

    J. Geol.

    (1992)
  • P.Y. Hu et al.

    Precambrian origin of the North Lhasa terrane, Tibetan Plateau: Constraint from early Cryogenian back-arc magmatism

    Precambrian Res.

    (2018)
  • P.Y. Hu et al.

    Middle Neoproterozoic (ca. 760 Ma) arc and back-arc system in the North Lhasa terrane, Tibet, inferred from coeval N-MORB- and arc-type gabbros

    Precambrian Res.

    (2018)
  • P.Y. Hu et al.

    Early Neoproterozoic (ca. 900 Ma) rift sedimentation and mafic magmatism in the North Lhasa Terrane, Tibet: Paleogeographic and tectonic implications

    Lithos

    (2018)
  • Q. Huang et al.

    Neoproterozoic (ca. 820–830 Ma) mafic dykes at Olympic Dam, South Australia: Links with the Gairdner large Igneous Province

    Precambrian Res.

    (2015)
  • K.P. Jochum et al.

    Nb-Th-La in komatiites and basalts: constraints on komatiite petrogenesis andmantle evolution

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (1991)
  • J. Just et al.

    Monazite CHIME/EPMA dating of Erinpura granitoid deformation: implications for Neoproterozoic tectonothermal evolution of NW India

    Gondwana Res.

    (2011)
  • T. Khan et al.

    Nagarparker granites showing Rodinia remnants in the southeastern part of Pakistan

    J. Asian Earth Sci.

    (2012)
  • Z.X. Li et al.

    The breakup of Rodinia: did it start with a mantle plume beneath South China? Earth Planet

    Sci. Lett.

    (1999)
  • Z.X. Li et al.

    Geochronology of Neoproterozoic syn-rift magmatism in the Yangtze Craton, South China and correlations with other continents: evidence for a mantle superplume that broke up Rodinia

    Precambrian Res.

    (2003)
  • X.H. Li et al.

    Geochemistry of the 755 Ma Mundine well dyke swarm, northwestern Australia: part of a Neoproterozoic mantle superplume beneath Rodinia?

    Precambrian Res.

    (2006)
  • Z.X. Li et al.

    Assembly, configuration, and break-up history of Rodinia: a synthesis

    Precambrian Res.

    (2008)
  • X.H. Li et al.

    Petrogenesis and tectonic significance of the 850 ma Gangbian alkaline complex in South China: evidence from in situ zircon U-Pb dating, Hf-O isotopes and whole-rock geochemistry

    Lithos

    (2010)
  • Z.X. Li et al.

    Neoproterozoic glaciations in a revised global alaeogeography from the breakup of Rodinia to the assembly of Gondwanaland

    Sediment. Geol.

    (2013)
  • J. Lin et al.

    Calibration and correction of LA-ICP-MS and LA-MC-ICP-MS analyses for element contents and isotopic ratios

    Solid Earth Sci.

    (2016)
  • Y.S. Liu et al.

    In situ analysis of major and trace elements of anhydrous minerals by LA-ICP-MS without applying an internal standard

    Chem. Geol.

    (2008)
  • Z.C. Liu et al.

    Petrogenesis of the Ramba leucogranite in the Tethyan Himalaya and constraints on the channel flow model

    Lithos

    (2014)
  • Z. Liu et al.

    Petrogenesis of the early cretaceous Laguila bimodal intrusive rocks from the Tethyan Himalaya: Implications for the break-up of Eastern Gondwana

    Lithos

    (2015)
  • Z.C. Liu et al.

    Highly fractionated late Eocene (~ 35 Ma) leucogranite in the Xiaru Dome, Tethyan Himalaya, South Tibet

    Lithos

    (2016)
  • Z.C. Liu et al.

    Leucogranite geochronological constraints on the termination of the South Tibetan Detachment in eastern Himalaya

    Tectonophysics

    (2017)
  • Z.C. Liu et al.

    Mineralogical evidence for fractionation processes in the Himalayan leucogranites of the Ramba Dome, southern Tibet

    Lithos

    (2019)
  • Cited by (9)

    • Himalayan leucogranites: A review of geochemical and isotopic characteristics, timing of formation, genesis, and rare metal mineralization

      2022, Earth-Science Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      The Himalayas are bordered from east to west by the syntaxial massifs—the Namche Barwa massif in the east (Eastern Himalayan Syntaxis) and the Nanga Parbat massif in the west (Western Himalayan Syntaxis) (Guevara et al., 2022). Multiple stages of magmatism are recognized from the available data in the Himalayan orogenic belt: Paleoproterozoic (1900–1700 Ma; Imayama et al., 2019), Neoproterozoic (1000–800 Ma; Zhang et al., 2021), early Paleozoic (520–460 Ma; Zhang et al., 2019a), Permian (290–260 Ma; Tian et al., 2021), late Triassic (240–210 Ma; Huang et al., 2018), late Jurassic–early Cretaceous (150–120 Ma; Chen et al., 2021a) and Cenozoic (45–1 Ma; Burg and Bouilhol, 2019). Among these, the magmatic rocks emplaced during the Proterozoic and early Paleozoic underwent Cenozoic intermediate- to high-grade metamorphism to form orthogneiss and are mainly exposed in the LHS and GHC.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text