Paleogeographic Reconstruction of the Paleozoic Lhasa Terrane Through Detrital Zircon Mixing Modeling

Abstract

Unlike most other present-day cratons, Eastern Asia assembled during the Phanerozoic (Matthews et al., 2016;Metcalfe, 1988Metcalfe, , 2013. This relatively recent formation offers special opportunities to dissect key aspects of the supercontinent cycle (e.g., Evans et al., 2016) in detail, but these depend on accurate reconstruction of the history of its construction from the fragmentation of Gondwana. The configuration of the Gondwanan core (e.g., Australia, Antarctica, India, Africa and South America) is relatively well established (Figure 1a, e.g., Matthews et al., 2016), but the history of its peripheral continental slivers that now comprise eastern Asia (i.e., the equatorial peri-Gondwanan "outboard" fragments) remains highly controversial. This is particularly the case for the Lhasa terrane. One popular model proposed is that the Lhasa terrane rifted away from NW Australia (Figures 1b; Audley-Charles, 1984;Zhu et al., 2011); whereas other models consider that it was adjacent to either Greater India (Figures 1c;Metcalfe, 1988;Gehrels et al., 2011) or eastern Africa (Figures 1d;Hu et al., 2021;Zhang et al., 2012). The Lhasa-NW Australia link was based on the presence of a great abundance of ca. 1,170 Ma detrital zircons (DZs) in Lhasa terrane Paleozoic strata, that was suggested to indicate derivation from a particular source in SW Australia (i.e., the Albany-Fraser belt, Wang et al., 2021;Zhu et al., 2011). In contrast, other models argue that the late Mesoproterozoic DZ age population is also common in other Gondwanan continents (e.g.

Tracing the sedimentary response to the rifting and opening of the Meso‐Tethys Ocean

“…The palaeo‐position of the Lhasa Terrane is controversial (Zhu et al ., 2011; Zhang et al ., 2014a; Hu et al ., 2018, 2021), which restricts the understanding of the recorded geological information in the Carboniferous–Permian Shiquanhe succession of the western Lhasa Terrane. Three possible models have been proposed for the palaeo‐position of the Lhasa Terrane during the Carboniferous–Permian, including: (i) the Lhasa Terrane may have been located adjacent to Indian Gondwana before separating from the Tethyan Himalaya in the Mesozoic (Yin & Harrison, 2000; Metcalfe, 2021); (ii) the Lhasa Terrane was part of the Australian continent prior to its isolation as a microcontinent in the Early Palaeozoic (Zhu et al ., 2013); and (iii) the Lhasa Terrane may have been on the northern Australian margin of Gondwana in the Carboniferous–Permian period (Zhai et al ., 2013; Zhang et al ., 2013, 2023; Liao et al ., 2015; Xu et al ., 2022a).…”

“…In the Early Permian, the continental glaciers ended in northern Gondwana, and changed the palaeogeographical pattern significantly, which caused the change in sedimentary provenance. The Angjie Formation, with a mixed source of Australian and Indian Gondwana, led the authors to further conclude that the Lhasa Terrane was located on the northern margin of Australian Gondwana but near Indian Gondwana (Zeng et al ., 2019; Metcalfe, 2021; Xu et al ., 2022a), which allowed rock fragments from Indian Gondwana to be transported to the Lhasa Terrane after the Early Permian retreat of Gondwanan continental glaciers.…”