Age and temperature-time evolution of retrogressed eclogite-facies rocks in the Paleoproterozoic Nagssugtoqidian Orogen, South-East Greenland: Constrained from U-Pb dating of zircon, monazite, titanite and rutile

LA-ICP-MS U–Pb dating of rutiles associated with hydrothermal mineralization along the southern Araçuaí Belt, SE Brazil

“…Since the analysed rutiles had relatively low U concentrations (3-81 µg.g -1 ; Table 4), Tanzania zircon, an in-house 601 ± 1 Ma, low-U (11 to 26 µg.g -1 ) reference material developed in LOPAG (UFOP), was used as the primary reference material (Santos et al, unpublished results; TIMS U-Pb data for Tanzania zircon can be found in supporting information). Non-matrix matched dating of a range of minerals using zircon as primary reference material is an approach that has been previously successfully used in a number of studies (e.g., Millonig et al, 2013); Avigad et al, 2017;Van Lichtervelde et al, 2017;Be'eri-Shlevin et al, 2018;Ghobadi et al, 2018;Müller et al, 2018;Walter et al, 2018). In these studies, GJ-1 zircon was used as primary reference material for dating perovskite, monazite, apatite, baddeleyite, pyrochlore, titanite, xenotime, hematite, columbite, rutile, and secondary reference materials of the mineral of interest are used to establish a matrix offset to correct the age of these minerals (e.g., Avigad et al, 2017;Müller et al, 2018).…”

“…Non-matrix matched dating of a range of minerals using zircon as primary reference material is an approach that has been previously successfully used in a number of studies (e.g., Millonig et al, 2013); Avigad et al, 2017;Van Lichtervelde et al, 2017;Be'eri-Shlevin et al, 2018;Ghobadi et al, 2018;Müller et al, 2018;Walter et al, 2018). In these studies, GJ-1 zircon was used as primary reference material for dating perovskite, monazite, apatite, baddeleyite, pyrochlore, titanite, xenotime, hematite, columbite, rutile, and secondary reference materials of the mineral of interest are used to establish a matrix offset to correct the age of these minerals (e.g., Avigad et al, 2017;Müller et al, 2018). For the quality control of the analyses, and in order to minimize the matrix effect caused by the use of zircon as a reference material in the rutile analysis, an offset factor was applied based on newly acquired ID-TIMS U-Pb isotope data for Antônio Pereira rutile.…”

Deep Subduction in Earth history: Seeking for traces in the sedimentary record

“…Thus, the Neoproterozoic can only be considered as may marking the onset of modern-style plate tectonics. However, pre-Neoproterozoic ophiolites exist (Scott et al 1992;Peltonen et al 1996;Dann 1997) and many works report Paleoproterozoic low T/P rocks indicative for modern-style plate tectonics (Möller et al 1995;Collins et al 2004;Mints et al 2010;Ganne et al 2012;Dokukina et al 2014;Glassley et al 2014;Perchuk & Morgunova 2014;Weller & St-Onge 2017;François et al 2018;Müller et al 2018aMüller et al , 2018bXu et al 2018;de Oliveira Chaves & Porcher 2020). In addition, a lower proportion of low T/P rocks in the pre-Neoproterozoic may be related to the fragmentary geological record through time (e.g., Goodwin 1996;Palin et al 2020), including biased preservation due to erosion, retrograde metamorphism, and supercontinent cycles (e.g., Wei In conclusion, indications for modern-style plate tectonics in the Paleoproterozoic are convincing, but whether these are local or global phenomena and whether deep subduction to UHP conditions was involved are unresolved issues, especially when considering the fragmentary crystalline rock record (e.g., Goodwin 1996), the supposed higher metamorphic gradients (Holder et al 2019), and the oldest evidence for UHP metamorphism in the form of coesite at ~620 Ma (Jahn et al 2001).…”

“…(C) Potential mantle temperature (Davies 2009;Korenaga 2013;Condie et al 2016;Ganne & Feng 2017). (D) Metamorphic gradients of crystalline rocks after Brown & Johnson 2018, extended by Paleoproterozoic references (Perchuk & Morgunova 2014;François et al 2018;Müller et al 2018aMüller et al , 2018bde Oliveira Chaves & Porcher 2020). Marker size indicates pressure conditions.…”

“…On the one hand, their absence may be strongly related to biased preservation due to erosion, retrograde metamorphism, and supercontinent cycles (e.g., Wei & Clarke 2011;Weller & St-Onge 2017;Keller & Schoene 2018;Chowdhury et al 2021), restriction of lawsonite-bearing rocks to extremely cold conditions (Penniston-Dorland et al 2015;Hernández-Uribe & Palin 2019), variations in protolith composition through time (Palin & Dyck 2018;Palin et al 2021), as well as their general rare occurrence in the geological record (Palin et al 2020). On the other hand, a growing number of local Paleoproterozoic low T/P rocks is getting reported, which includes the Belomorian Belt of Russia (Mints et al 2010;Dokukina et al 2014;Perchuk & Morgunova 2014; partially maybe Mesoarchean), the Usagaran Belt of Tanzania (Möller et al 1995;Collins et al 2004), the West African Craton of Burkina Faso (Ganne et al 2012), the Kasai Block of the Democratic Republic of Congo (François et al 2018), the Nagssugtoqidian Orogen of Greenland (Glassley et al 2014;Müller et al 2018aMüller et al , 2018b, the Trans-Hudson Orogen of Canada (Weller & St-Onge 2017), the North China Craton of China (Xu et al 2018), and the São Francisco Craton of Brazil (de Oliveira Chaves & Porcher 2020; Figure 1.1-1D).…”