2014
DOI: 10.1144/jgs2014-013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The source of Proterozoic anorthosite and rapakivi granite magmatism: evidence from combined in situ Hf–O isotopes of zircon in the Ahvenisto complex, southeastern Finland

Abstract: Sample ID & spot # Sequence in Drift corrected Samples Standards Stage position Field aperture centering session 18 O/ 16 O*  18 O (‰)  18 O (‰) x y X Y Session 1 915ox_857_@25 Notes:Samples are labeled according to the NORDSIM labfile system, n3602 corresponds to sample A1271, n3603 to A1933, n3604 to A1360, n3605 to A1306 and n3606 to A118.Analyses were performed at the same time with samples from other projects, which accounts for the missing sample numbers in the end of session 1 and at the beginning o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
1
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1.80-1.93 Ga) Svecofennian crust with sharp contacts (Alviola et al, 1999) and according to field relations the felsic rocks are younger than any of the mafic rocks. Isotopic evidence suggests that the primary source of the mafic rocks was most likely asthenospheric depleted mantle and that the felsic rocks were derived from a Proterozoic lower crustal source (Heinonen et al, 2010a(Heinonen et al, , 2010b(Heinonen et al, , 2015. This indicates that the petrogenetic framework of the Ahvenisto complex is congruent with the classical two-source model (Emslie, 1978;Rämö & Haapala, 2005) rather than with the single-source models proposed for some other massif-type anorthositic complexes (Duchesne et al, 1999;Frost & Frost, 1997; see also Heinonen et al, 2010a).…”
Section: Geological Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…1.80-1.93 Ga) Svecofennian crust with sharp contacts (Alviola et al, 1999) and according to field relations the felsic rocks are younger than any of the mafic rocks. Isotopic evidence suggests that the primary source of the mafic rocks was most likely asthenospheric depleted mantle and that the felsic rocks were derived from a Proterozoic lower crustal source (Heinonen et al, 2010a(Heinonen et al, , 2010b(Heinonen et al, , 2015. This indicates that the petrogenetic framework of the Ahvenisto complex is congruent with the classical two-source model (Emslie, 1978;Rämö & Haapala, 2005) rather than with the single-source models proposed for some other massif-type anorthositic complexes (Duchesne et al, 1999;Frost & Frost, 1997; see also Heinonen et al, 2010a).…”
Section: Geological Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Proterozoic AMCG (anorthosite-mangeritecharnokite-granite) complexes are bimodal (maficfelsic) magmatic suites (Emslie, 1978(Emslie, , 1991Ashwal, 1993;Alviola et al, 1999;Heinonen, 2012) in which different types of interactions of mafic and felsic magmas have been recognized as important petrogenetic processes. In the 1.64 Ga Ah venisto rapakivi granite -massif-type anorthosite complex of southeastern Finland (Savolahti, 1956(Savolahti, , 1966Johanson, 1984;Alviola et al, 1999;Heino nen 2012;Heinonen et al, 2010bHeinonen et al, , 2015 interaction of coeval mafic and felsic magmas has led to both mingling and chemical mixing processes. U-Pb geochronology and field relations reveal that in Ahvenisto, most of the mafic rocks are older than the bulk of the granitic rocks (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two to four crystals (mainly two) were analyzed from four samples (BD- 14,15,16,17), and up to ten analyses were made for each crystal, in transects from inner growth zone to rim, with closely spaced analyses for S and O isotopes, with a higher number of analyses for O (n = 96) than for S (n = 40). Separate analytical routines applied for S and O, are described briefly below, and closely follow those described in [49] for sulfur, with the exception that only 34 S/ 32 S ratios were measured here, and in [50] for oxygen. For both elements, the samples were sputtered using a Gaussian focused 133 Cs + primary beam with 20 kV incident energy (10 kV primary, −10 kV secondary) and primary beam current of~3 nA, which was rastered over a 5 µm × 5 µm area during analysis to homogenize the beam density.…”
Section: Stable Isotopesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After adding a 30 nm gold coating, the oxygen isotope analyses were performed at the NordSIM laboratory, Swedish Museum of Natural History using a Cameca IMS 1280 multicollector-equipped large geometry ion microprobe. The basic instrument setup and analytical protocols closely follow those described by Heinonen et al (2015a) for zircon, staying well within limits on in-run beam centering in the field aperture described by Whitehouse and Nemchin (2009). All data were normalized to regular measurements of the San Carlos olivine that bracketed every six unknown analyses, assuming a δ 18 OV-SMOW of 5.30 ‰, similar to recent measurements using CO2-laser BrF5 fluorination techniques of 5.28 ± 0.04 ‰ (1σ) by Kusakabe & Matsuhisa (2008) and 5.27 ± 0.04 ‰ (2σ) by Ahn et al (2012).…”
Section: Oxygen Isotope and Mineral Chemical Analysismentioning
confidence: 76%