Dating young zircon: A case study from Southeast Asian megacrysts

Kirkland, Christopher L.; Danišík, Martin; Marsden, Ruby C.; Piilonen, Paula C.; Barham, Milo; Sutherland, Lin

doi:10.1016/j.gca.2020.01.013

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…792 793 7.4. Distribution pattern of "zero-age" zircons 794 795 U-Pb dating of very young zircons is challenging because of low levels of radiogenic Pb that 796 approach instrument detection capability (Kirkland et al, 2020). The very young ages obtained in this 797 study may have large uncertainties and should thus be considered with real caution.…”

Section: Evaluating Environmental Bias 679 680mentioning

confidence: 98%

Andean retroarc-basin dune fields and Pampean Sand Sea (Argentina): Provenance and drainage changes driven by tectonics and climate

Garzanti

Capaldi

Tripaldi

et al. 2022

Earth-Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Evaluating Environmental Bias 679 680mentioning

confidence: 98%

Andean retroarc-basin dune fields and Pampean Sand Sea (Argentina): Provenance and drainage changes driven by tectonics and climate

Garzanti

Capaldi

Tripaldi

et al. 2022

Earth-Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Assuming that the 206 Pb/ 238 U age and the (U-Th)/He age of PL1 and PL2 zircon can be interpreted as zircon crystallisation and zircon eruption ages (Kirkland et al 2020), respectively, these data constrain the magma residence time to 0.17 ± 0.1 My (PL1) and 0.88 ± 0.25 My (PL2). The 206 Pb/ 238 U age of PL4 fragments is 3.06 ± 0.07 Ma (1s), which agree within uncertainty of the (U-Th)/He age of 3.04 ± 0.24 Ma (1s), suggesting a slightly shorter magma residence time of 0.02 ± 0.25 My.…”

Section: Implications For Eruptive Episodes and Magmatic History Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Further Evaluation of Penglai Zircon Megacrysts as a Reference Material for (U‐Th)/He Dating

Shi

Sun

Evans

et al. 2020

Geostandard Geoanalytic Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The a-ejection-corrected (U-Th)/He dates of the widely used reference materials (e.g., Fish Canyon Tuff zircon) can be inaccurate for several reasons (e.g., inclusions, U-Th zonation). There is a need for large, widely available, compositionally homogeneous mineral reference materials with accurately and precisely known ages. In this work, four individual Penglai zircon megacrysts are evaluated via interlaboratory (U-Th)/He dating comparison, trace element analysis, U-Pb dating and a range of characterisation methods. The (U-Th)/He ages and 206 Pb/ 238 U ages are variable between Penglai megacrysts-4.12 ± 0.10 Ma (1s) and 4.29 ± 0.05 Ma (1s) (PL1), 3.07 ± 0.25 Ma (1s) and 3.95 ± 0.05 Ma (1s) (PL2), 3.04 ± 0.24 Ma (1s) and 3.06 ± 0.07 Ma (1s) (PL4), and 4.49 ± 0.07 Ma (1s) (PL5; (U-Th)/He age only), respectively. A single, cm-sized megacryst (PL1) qualifies as a new (U-Th)/He dating reference material, as it is structurally and chemically homogeneous, and yielded a highly reproducible and statistically indistinguishable (U-Th)/He age of 4.12 ± 0.10 Ma from repeated analysis in multiple laboratories (slightly younger than the 206 Pb/ 238 U age of 4.29 ± 0.05 Ma). These results confirm Penglai zircon as a suitable reference material for (U-Th)/He dating, on the proviso that some care needs to be taken to characterise individual megacrysts for trace element zonation, and to verify (U-Th)/He (and U-Pb ages, if double dating) prior to routine use. The 206 Pb/ 238 U ages and (U-Th)/He ages obtained in this work provide constraints on the timing of Penglai megacryst crystallisation and eruption, and confirm at least two eruptive episodes during the Neogene in the Leiqiong area.

show abstract