Svetlana Tessalina, Cristina Talavera, Michael E. Pritchin, Victor Puchkov. Biostratigraphy versus isotope geochronology: Testing the Urals island arc model[J]. Geoscience Frontiers, 2019, 10(1): 119-125. DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2018.09.002
Citation: Svetlana Tessalina, Cristina Talavera, Michael E. Pritchin, Victor Puchkov. Biostratigraphy versus isotope geochronology: Testing the Urals island arc model[J]. Geoscience Frontiers, 2019, 10(1): 119-125. DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2018.09.002

Biostratigraphy versus isotope geochronology: Testing the Urals island arc model

  • Formation of the Urals volcanic-hosted massive sulphide (VHMS) deposits is considered to be related with the intra-oceanic stage of island arc(s) development in the Upper Ordovician-Middle Devonian based on the biostratigraphic record of ore-hosting sedimentary rocks. However, the direct Re-Os dating of four known VHMS systems in the Urals gives significantly younger Re-Os isochron ages ranging from 355 ±15 Ma up to 366 ±2 Ma. To address this discrepancy, we performed SHRIMP U-Pb dating on zircons extracted from rhyodacites (Eifelian biostratigraphic age of 393-388 Ma) from the footwall of the Alexandrinka VHMS deposit which has a Re-Os isochron age of sulphides of 355 ±15 Ma.
    New 206Pb/238U mean age of 374 ±3 Ma (MSWD = 1.4 and probability = 0.11) is considered to be the crystallisation age of the host volcanic rock. This age is ca. 15 Ma younger than the Eifelian (393-388 Ma) biostratigraphic age and overlaps the Frasnian-Famennian boundary (372 ±2 Ma), characterised by the final stages of Magnitogorsk Arc - East European continent collision. Such an inconsistency with geochronological age may be due to a reburial of conodonts during resedimentation as a result of erosion of older rocks in younger sedimentary sequences.
  • loading

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return