Next Article in Journal
Rotation and Uplift of the Taoxi Dome and Its Implication for the Evolution of Wuyi Terranes in Cathaysia Block
Next Article in Special Issue
Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis of the Major and Trace Elements and their Evolutionary Characteristics from the Jinchuan Ni-Cu-(PGE) Sulfide Deposit, NW China
Previous Article in Journal
A Preliminary Experimental Study on the Effect of Confining Pressure or Gas Pressure on the Permeability of Coal Samples
Previous Article in Special Issue
In Situ Monazite U–Pb Ages in Thin Sections from the Giant Bayan Obo Fe–REE–Nb Deposit, Inner Mongolia: Implications for Formation Sequences
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/min12101266
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Origin and Geodynamic Mechanism of the Tibetan Demingding Porphyry Mo (Cu) Deposit from Oceanic Subduction to Continental Collision

by
Yigan Lu
1,2,*,
Kai Dong
1,*,
Hui Zhou
3 and
Zhuoyang Li
1
1
School of Natural Resources and Surveying, Nanning Normal University, Nanning 530001, China
2
CAS Key Laboratory of Crust-Mantle Materials and Environments, School of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
3
School of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Nanning University, Nanning 530001, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2022, 12(10), 1266; https://doi.org/10.3390/min12101266
Submission received: 4 September 2022 / Revised: 29 September 2022 / Accepted: 1 October 2022 / Published: 8 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Critical Metals on Land and in the Ocean)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Demingding is a promising porphyry Mo-dominated deposit recently discovered in the eastern Gangdese metallogenic belt in Tibet, China. We present zircon U-Pb-Lu-Hf isotopic studies, as well as geochemical data of the late monzogranites and the prior rhyolites from the Demingding porphyry deposit to uncover their origin and geodynamic mechanism. Zircon U–Pb dating yielded precise crystallization ages of 17.3 ± 0.6 Ma (MSWD = 2.5) and 186.5 ± 3.0 Ma (MSWD = 2.0) for monzogranite and rhyolite, respectively. The monzogranite is characterized by high-K calc-alkaline, adakitic affinities, and positive zircon εHf(t) values (+0.9∼+5.6, avg.+3.1) with TDM2 (0.73–1.04 Ga), while the rhyolite has εHf(t) values of (+2.1∼+7.3, avg.+5.2) and TDM2 of (0.76–1.09 Ga) similar to the monzogranite. Our results suggest that the Demingding porphyry Mo (Cu) deposit is related to magma generated from the Neo-Tethyan oceanic subduction. The subsequent monzogranite porphyry was likely formed by the remelting of previously subduction-modified arc lithosphere, triggered by continental collision crustal thickening in Miocene. The lower positive εHf(t) values of monzogranites suggest minor inputs from the Mo-rich ancient crust, suggesting that Mo favors the silicate melt. Such magmatic events and special metallogenesis typify intracontinental processes and porphyry copper deposits, which are normally confined to oceanic subduction and Cu-dominated style, thereby making the continental setting and Mo-dominated style of Demingding exceptional and possibly unique.

1. Introduction

The Tibetan Plateau is the best natural laboratory for studying dynamic processes of continental collision [1,2]. The associated Tethyan metallogenic belt is one of the most endowed metallogenic belts in China, which was formed in a continental collision setting [3,4,5]. Giant or large porphyry copper deposit (PCD) may not be solely produced by oceanic subduction [6,7,8], but might also be emplaced in the continental collision during the post-collisional extension of the intra-continental setting, which also favors large or even giant porphyry deposit [9,10,11,12]. Generally, in an arc setting, the porphyry Cu deposits are associated with a calc-alkaline suite whereas in the continental settings are associated with high-K to shoshonitic suites [13,14]. The Gangdese metallogenic belt is an important porphyry copper belt in the Tethyan metallogenic domain that host some famous large-size Cu (Au ± Mo) deposits, e.g., Qulong, Jiama, and Xiongcun, which were discovered over a decade [15,16,17]. Previous studies have shown that the host rocks of the aforementioned deposits are characterized by adakitic features [4,18,19]. Adakites are known to preserve the imprints of the lower crust, thus information regarding the nature of crust-mantle interaction and its implication on the metallogenesis in the region could be deciphered from the adakites in the Gangdese metallogenic belt (e.g., [14,18,20,21,22,23]). However, magmatism and mineralization associated with the transition between Pacific and Tethyan tectonic domains have not been well-elucidated, and the corresponding origins of the adakite in the Gangdese metallogenic belt are complex and remain enigmatic, thus hampering understanding of the regional geodynamic framework of the Gangdese belt and ore-forming processes.
Here, we present a detailed isotopic study of the recently discovered Demingding porphyry Mo (Cu) deposit, which is the eastern extension of the Gangdese metallogenic belt [24,25]. Consequently, the discovery of the Demingding porphyry Mo (Cu) deposit enriches the ore deposit association in the eastern part of the Gangdese PCDs metallogenic belt. Nevertheless, the Demingding Mo (Cu) deposit is poorly and least studied due to its high topographic altitude (ca. 5000∼5822 m) and harsh climatic conditions (snow cover almost year-round), which hampers the geological field mapping. In addition, the Demingding deposit is so unique, most of the Gangdese deposits are Cu-dominated whereas the Demingding deposit is Mo-dominated [25,26], which means this study will play a vital role in our understanding of the diverse nature and styles of the Gangdese metallogenic belt. In this study, we use Lu-Hf isotopes, together with whole-rock geochemistry and zircon U-Pb dating, which is newly designed to achieve the following goals: (1) to explore the origin and geodynamic mechanisms of the Demingding porphyry Mo (Cu) deposit in Tibet; and (2) to assess their significance in the understanding of the regional geodynamic setting and the mineralization styles of the Gangdese metallogenic belt.

2. Geologic Setting

2.1. Regional Geology

The Himalayan-Tibet plateau is the largest plateau on Earth, which is part of the Alps-Himalayan orogenic belt, formed due to the continental collision and subduction of India underneath Eurasia [27,28,29]. The Himalayan-Tibetan plateau consists primarily of four continental blocks, including the Himalaya, Lhasa, Qiangtang, and Songpan-Ganzi terranes, which are separated from south to north by the Indus-Yarlung Zangbo suture zone (IYZSZ), Jinsha suture zone (JSSZ), and Bangong-Nujiang suture zone (BNSZ), respectively (Figure 1a, [30]). The Lhasa terrane is divided into the northern Lhasa, central Lhasa, and southern Lhasa subterranes, which are separated from one another by the Shiquan River-Nam Tso Mélange Zone and the Luobadui-Milashan Fault. These subterranes are covered by different sedimentary and volcanic sequences [31,32]. In southern Tibet, the Lhasa terrane consists mainly of the Gangdese orogenic belt, which is regarded as a huge porphyry Cu-Mo-Au deposit belt.

2.2. Geology of Ore Deposit and Sample Description

The Demingding porphyry Mo-Cu deposit is a promising deposit recently discovered in the eastern part of the Gangdese giant porphyry belt of Tibet (Figure 1b). The belt is one of the richest Cu provinces of the Tethyan-Himalayan metallogenic domain, hosting some of the largest PCDs in China (Figure 2a,b), and is widely accepted to represent a post-collisional tectonic environment [4,9,34]. Ongoing exploration and preliminary evaluations have estimated the Demingding porphyry deposit to be a medium to large-sized Mo-Cu deposit with inferred resources of >0.5 Mt Mo at 0.14% Mo and >0.5 Mt Cu at 0.26% Cu (Guangxi Nonferrous Metal Group Resource Exploration Co., Ltd., Nanning, China, 2017), mainly enriched in Mo (Figure 2c). The local geology is dominated by a volcano-sedimentary sequence including rhyolite and tuff of the Jurassic Yeba Formation [35]. At Demingding, the monzogranite porphyry represents the main ore-bearing intrusion (Mo#3), together with the earlier rhyolite porphyry, intruded into the Jurassic Yeba Formation (Figure 2a).
The monzogranite outcrop in the east-northern part of the deposit are characterized by a typical porphyritic texture comprised of phenocryst and matrix (Figure 3a). These rocks contain alkali feldspar (25%–30%), plagioclase (30%–35%), and quartz (20%–30%) with a minor amount of biotite (5%–10%) (Figure 3b). The accessory minerals are apatite, magnetite, zircon, and titanite.
The rhyolite has a beige or gray color and contains phenocrysts of quartz and minor alkali feldspar, with a grain size of 1–2 mm (Figure 3c). The groundmass of rhyolites is quartz-feldspathic in nature and contain accessory minerals including zircon, titanite, and apatite.
The tuff has a tuffaceous texture and is mainly composed of rhyolitic tuff, 15%–25% crystal fragments, and minor lithic and plastic vitric fragment. Its crystal fragment comprises fine grain of quartz and feldspar, minor biotite (Figure 3d).
The mineralization-related monzogranite show concentric alteration zones including weak inner potassic alteration, phyllic zones characterized by replacement of plagioclase by quartz and sericite, and an outer prophylitic zone, and beyond that, kaolinitic alteration to ferroan carbonate alteration. Mineralization is characterized by disseminated chalcopyrite, pyrite, malachite, azurite, and molybdenite are mainly hosted within the potassic and phyllic zones.
A total of twenty fresh or minimally altered samples were obtained from the Demingding deposits, including nine samples from drill cores (ZK001, ZK002, ZK003, ZK004) and nine samples from field outcrops. Generally, the samples comprised of thirteen monzogranite samples and five rhyolite, which were subjected to geochemical analysis. Two samples (18-DMD-1 and 18-DMD-4) were selected for zircon U-Pb-Lu-Hf isotopic analysis.

3. Analytical Methods

3.1. Major and Trace Elements Analysis

A total of 18 samples from Demingding deposit were crushed and pulverized using an agate mill to ~200 mesh for bulk rock analyses (Processed by Yuheng Mineral and Rock Technology Company, Langfang City, China). After crushing, the samples were fused with Li tetraborate and Li metaborate in a ratio of 2:1 as fluxing and releasing agent, and the glasses were prepared by fusion in the ZSB0630 automatic electrofusion furnace. Major elements were analyzed using a Rigaku ZSX Primus II WDXRF X-ray fluorescence spectrometer at the University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei (USTC). Two standards (GSR-1 and GSR-9) were included as monitoring samples, with 2σ RSD of ±5%.
For trace elements, ~50 mg of powdered samples were dissolved in Teflon bombs for ~72 h in a mixture of HF-HNO3 at 190 °C before evaporation. The dried samples were diluted to 80 g for analysis, following the procedures detailed by [36]. Trace elements were analyzed using an Elan 6100 DRC inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS) at USTC. The reference material BHVO-2 was used as standard to monitor the analytical quality with 2σ RSD of ±0.3%.

3.2. Laser Ablation ICP-MS Zircon U-Pb Dating

Zircon grains were separated from the rock samples, mounted in epoxy, and polished. Cathodoluminescence (CL) images were produced at USTC using a TESCAN MIRA 3 LMH FE-SEM and Gatan Chromal CL2 instrument. Zircons U-Pb isotopic ratios and trace element concentrations were measured using an Agilent 7700e ICP-MS attached to a Geolas 193 nm ArF-excimer laser at USTC. Spot size was set at 32 μm and a repetition rate of 10 Hz was used at 10 mJ. Ablated aerosols were transported to the ICPMS using He gas. The 91500 and NIST610 were chosen as standards for U-Pb dating and trace element analysis, respectively. The U-Pb ages and trace element contents were calculated using ICPMSDataCal software. The 29Si was used as internal standard for concentrations [37,38].

3.3. Lu-Hf Isotopic Analyses

Hafnium isotopic ratios in zircon grains were measured using a Teledyne Cetac Technologies Analyte HE Excite 193 nm ArF laser-ablation system coupled to a Thermofisher Neptune Plus MC-ICP-MS (LA-MC-ICP-MS) at the Isotope Laboratory of the School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Hefei University of Technology (HUST). A fluence of ~6.0 J cm−2, a repetition rate of 8 Hz, and a diameter of 55 µm was used to ablate the zircons for 30 s. Mixed He-Ar at a flow of ~0.9 L/min was used as carrier gas. Standard zircons (including Qinghu, Plešovice, Penglai, 91500, GJ-1) were used as quality control during the analytical process. All the data were reduced offline using LAZrnHf-Calculator@HFUT and the newly proposed isobaric correction model of [39]. Analytical results of standard zircons measured simultaneously are given and initial 176Hf/177Hf values were calculated based on a Lu decay constant of 1.865 × 10−11 [40]. The model ages were computed under the assumption that the 176Lu/177Hf of average crust is 0.015, and that the actual 176Hf/177Hf and 176Lu/177Hf ratios of chondrite and depleted mantle are 0.282772 and 0.0332, and 0.28325 and 0.0384, respectively [41].

4. Results

4.1. Major and Trace Elements

The result of whole-rock major and trace elements is presented in Table 1. The monzogranite samples show moderate to high silica contents (SiO2 = 65.0∼70.3 wt.%, avg. 68.3 wt.%, n = 13; Figure 4a); as such, the samples mainly fall in the field of granodiorite, while the rhyolites show high silica contents (SiO2 = 67.4∼74.9 wt.%, avg. 71.5 wt.%; n = 5), and as such span the fields of granite to granodiorite. Both the monzogranite and the rhyolite show relatively higher Al2O3 contents (12.3–15.5 wt.%) and as such span the fields of metaluminous and peraluminous in A/NK vs. A/CNK diagram (abbreviations: A–Al2O3, C–CaO, N–Na2O, K–K2O; Figure 4b). These rocks are mainly high-K calc-alkaline due to their high K2O contents (3∼4 wt.%) and K2O/Na2O ratio of about 0.9 (Figure 4c). All of the samples have low TiO2 (0.3∼0.4 wt.%) and MgO (0.4∼1.3 wt.%) and Mg# values (31-51), and relatively lower CaO and Fe2O3 contents. Monzogranites are characterized by high Sr, high Sr/Y ratios (avg. 61), and low Y and Yb contents; whereas the rhyolites show lower Sr concentration, and higher Y and Yb contents. Most of monzogranite and rhyolite specimens are enriched in LILEs (e.g., Sr, Ba, K, Cs) and depleted in HFSEs (Nb, Ta, Ti) in trace element spidergram (Figure 5a), obviously enriched in LREE and relatively flat HREE pattern and negative Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.6–1.0) in REE diagrams (Figure 5b).

4.2. Zircon U-Pb Chronological Data

Zircon grains separated from Demingding monzogranites and rhyolites are generally prismatic, colorless, transparent, and euhedral. Cathodoluminescence (CL) images clearly show microscale oscillatory zoning, suggesting magmatic origin (Figure 6). The zircon data show concordant U-Pb data with weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of monzogranite porphyry that yielded an age of 17.3 ± 0.6 Ma (MSWD = 2.5, Figure 6a), suggesting that the Demingding monzogranite porphyry was formed in Miocene. The zircon grains from the rhyolite porphyry yielded a U-Pb age of 186.5 ± 3 Ma (MSWD = 2.0, Figure 6b), indicating the emplacing age of early Jurassic. Results of zircon U-Pb isotopic data are listed in Table 2.

4.3. Zircon Lu-Hf Isotopes

Zircon Lu-Hf isotopic results of the Demingding monzogranite and rhyolite samples are listed in Table 3. In this study, the Demingding monzogranites have 176Hf/177Hf ratios ranges from 0.282787 to 0.282920 (avg. 0.282850, n = 19), and εHf(t) (t = 17.3 Ma) values from +0.9 to +5.7 (avg. +3.1, n = 19) with TDM2(ca. 0.73–1.04 Ga). The rhyolites show a narrow range of 176Hf/177Hf ratios from 0.282729 to 0.282868 (avg.= 0.282814, n = 20), and εHf(t) values from +2.1 to +7.3 (avg. +5.2, n = 20) with TDM2 (ca. 0.76–1.09 Ga).

5. Discussion

5.1. Petrogenesis of the Ore-Bearing Monzogranites

Porphyry copper deposits typically occur in magmatic arcs settings above subduction zones and are genetically related to intermediate to felsic, hydrous calc-alkaline arc magmas that are predominantly formed by partial melting of the metasomatized asthenospheric mantle wedge [7,18,43]. However, recent studies have shown that porphyry Cu-Au deposits can also form in late-orogenic to post-collisional settings [4,14,16]. Generally, porphyry copper deposits are genetically associated with high Sr/Y or “adakitic” rocks [6,43,44]. Adakite is characterized by >56 wt.% SiO2, ≥15 wt.% Al2O3 (rarely lower), mostly <3 wt.% MgO (rarely above 6 wt.% MgO), high Sr (mostly ≥ 400 ppm), and lower Y and HREE contents (e.g., Y and Yb lower than 18 and 1.9 ppm, respectively) than normal arc andesite-dacite-rhyolites (ADRs), low HFSE contents as in most island arc ADRs, and 87Sr/87Sr ratios usually ≤ 0.7040 [44,45].
The Demingding monzogranite varieties are characterized by high Sr (347∼710 ppm) contents, low MgO (0.6∼1.2 wt.%), high Sr/Y (35∼116) and La/Yb (12∼40) ratios, depleted in HREE (6∼13 ppm) and Y (11∼21 ppm), and slight negative Eu (avg. 0.8) anomaly, showing a typical adakite-like signature; whereas the rhyolites show normal arc andesite-dacite-rhyolite (ADRs) features (Table 1 and Figure 7), characterized by the continental marginal arc in petrological and geochronological characteristics. By contrast, the geochemical characteristics of monzogranite are also similar to the coeval intrusive rocks related to porphyry Cu deposits in the Gangdese metallogenic belt (e.g., [14,24,46,47,48]). Thus, the monzogranite might have a similar origin with the Miocene ore-bearing adakite-like porphyry varieties and the evolutionary process.
At least four genetic models have been proposed to account for the origin of Miocene adakite-like porphyry in the Eastern Gangdese metallogenic belt as follows: (1) Partial melting of the mantle wedge of the residual subducted Tethys oceanic plate [49,50,51]; (2) Magmatic mixing with felsic and basaltic magma [52,53,54]; (3) Partial melting of the lithospheric mantle peridotite [55,56]; (4) Partial melting of the thickened juvenile lower crust of Lhasa [4,57].
Among the above, Allègre and Minster [58] pointed out that the ratio of La, Nd, Th, Sm, Y, and other incompatible elements can effectively distinguish whether the rocks are formed by partial melting or differentiation and crystallization of magma. The ratio of Th, Nd, La, and other incompatible elements of monzogranites in the Demingding deposit show an obvious linear increasing trend on the partial melting evolution line (Figure 8), similar to adakitic rocks formed by partial melting such as the Qulong and Jiama deposits [59], indicating that partial melting occurred in the process of magma evolution rather than assimilation, or crystallization differentiation. In addition, Streck et al. [60] considered that adakitic rocks formed by magmatic mixing of felsic and basaltic melt usually contain high MgO content (>4.5%) and high Mg# (>66). However, the Demingding monzogranite samples are characterized by low MgO content (0.6%∼1.2%) and relatively low Mg# (32.3∼48.8). In the Mg# vs. MgO and SiO2 diagrams, our samples were plotted in the field of origin from the lower crust (Figure 9). This is inconsistent with the characteristics of adakitic rocks formed by the mixing of felsic and basaltic magma. Moreover, the mantle peridotites are mainly composed of peridotite and pyroxenite melt, mainly forming basaltic magma rather than adakitic magma; hence, the Demingding monzogranites did not appear by partial melting of peridotite in the lithospheric mantle.
Post-collisional magmatism can be considered as the second stage of melting of the subduction-modified upper lithosphere, which may remobilize metals and other elements accumulating during magmatism at the early stage [16]. In the Miocene period, the crust thickness of the Tibetan plateau increased to about 40∼55 km [1,64]. Studies have confirmed that the juvenile lower crust is mainly composed of eclogite and amphibolite facies that are rich in garnet when the crust attains a thickness of 40∼50 km [65]. Similarly, in the (La/Yb)NYbN diagram (Figure 10), the Demingding monzogranites plotted in the area of amphibolite facies to garnet-bearing facies (10%) indicate the existence of garnet-rich residual [66]. Experimental petrological studies have shown that the adakitic rocks formed by the partial melting of the thickened juvenile lower crust usually contain lower Mg# and MgO, Cr, and Ni [67]. The accordance of low MgO content, low Mg# and low Cr, Ni and Co, high K2O content, K2O/Na2O, Sr/Y, and (La/Yb)N ratio of the Demingding monzogranites, is also consistent with the petrogenesis and geodynamic setting of the Qulong intrusions in Miocene [68] and Jiru adakitic intrusions [59]. Particularly, the Gangdese adakitic intrusives have higher K2O contents (3.2–4.3 wt.%), as partial melting of the mafic lower continental crust (LCC) under high pressure could produce high K2O adakitic magmas with high K2O/Na2O ratios [69]. Therefore, we propose that the monzogranite were most likely formed by partial melting of the thickened juvenile lower crust [63].

5.2. Source Origin and Links between the Monzogranite Porphyry and Rhyolite Porphyry

Zircon Lu-Hf isotopes and their Hf model ages (TDMC) can be used to distinguish juvenile mantle sources and give an estimated age when the magmatic source was extracted from a depleted mantle reservoir [49]. The Cenozoic collision-related Cu-Mo deposits in southern Lhasa subterrane are exclusively located in regions with high εHf (>5) juvenile crust [4].
In the Demingding deposit, the positive zircon εHf(t) values (+0.9∼+5.6, avg. +3.1) with TDM2 (0.73–1.04 Ga) of monzogranites are slightly lower than the εHf(t) values of rhyolites (+2.1∼+7.3, avg.+5.2, TDM2 0.76–1.09 Ga) in Mid-Jurassic Yeba formation (Table 3). These features are similar to other post-collisional porphyry intrusions such as Qulong (+6.2∼+9.9, avg.+7.8; n = 20; from [61]) and Jiama (+1.4∼+4.9, avg.+3.6; n = 14; from [62]) porphyry deposits in the Gangdese metallogenic belt. On the one hand, our samples plotted in the field between the mantle line and the chondrite evolution line, together with high Sr/Y ratios, show the characteristics of magmas derived at greater depth (Figure 11a). The εHf(t) values of monzogranites are on the normal evolution line of εHf(t) of rhyolites (Figure 11b), together with the identical ages of TDM1 and TDM2, indicating that monzogranites and rhyolites likely have the same source region. The monzogranite is most probably derived from the thickened lower crust, which may have been accumulated by previous Neo-Tethyan oceanic subduction.
The εHf(t) values (+3.1) of monzogranites in the Demingding deposit are slightly lower than the values (εHf >5) for ore-bearing adakitic intrusions in the southern Lhasa subterrane. Thus, studied monzogranites may be interpreted as the ancient crustal inputs from the Indian plate or the magma source incorporating a higher proportion of ancient continental crust materials. Remarkably, most Mo-rich rocks have been widely considered to be formed by an influx of ancient continental crust [10,70,71,72]. Thus, our Hf isotopic features indicate that the Demingding Mo-bearing monzogranites are derived from the mixing of ancient crust and input of the mantle.

5.3. Geodynamic Mechanism

The post-subduction magmas could share many of the geochemical and isotopic characteristics of the preceding arc magmatism [16,73,74]. The present zircon U-Pb ages of the Demingding monzogranites are dated at 17.3 ± 0.6 Ma (Figure 6a) and the rhyolites are dated at 186.5 ± 3 Ma (Figure 6b). These two age values should indicate two tectonic-magmatic events from oceanic subduction to continental collision. The ages of monzogranites are also consistent with those of most Miocene large to giant porphyry deposits in Gangdese under a similar tectonic setting [17,51,75], while the older ages of rhyolites show affinity with the oceanic subduction [76,77]. Significantly, recent studies suggested that the Neo-Tethyan subduction might have had an important influence on the large-scale magmatism and mineralization during this period [78].
Wang et al. [79] and Zhu et al. [23] have revealed that the south Lhasa terrane has undergone a transformation of tectonic regime, i.e., from ca. 250 Ma to 66 Ma. The Neo-Tethys oceanic plate continuously subducted northward, around the early stage (∼180 Ma), generating rhyolites and initial accumulation in the lower crust. At the same time, or later on, large-scale magmatic events may have been initiated by westward subduction of the ancient Pacific Ocean, which in turn led to triggering the remote effect of a tectonic transformation in the Tethys domain [76,78]. This is also supported by the late Yanshanian granites reported in the Duoba-Bange area, Gangdese belt, Tibet [80].
The early subduction of the Neo-Tethyan oceanic plate dragged the Indian plate lithosphere into the subduction zone, resulting in a continental collision between the Indian continent and the Eurasian continent, and the subduction of Neo-Tethys oceanic plate likely ceased at 65 Ma [81]. Then, there was upwelling of hot asthenosphere via a slab window, induced by the Neo-Tethys oceanic plate tearing [82]. Afterward, the Indian plate began under-thrusting to the north under the Lhasa terrane, resulting in the thickening of the south Lhasa terrane [83]. Continued upwelling of the asthenosphere resulted in delamination of the thickened lithosphere and the thinning of the subcontinental lithospheric mantle, causing the extension of the crust [84,85]. A large volume of fluids and melts were released, metasomatized the lithospheric mantle, and triggered partial melting, forming the initial mantle-derived magma [51,86].
At ca. 25∼11 Ma, the mantle-derived magmas underplated the accumulated thickened lower crust, forming H2O-S-Cl(F)-rich alkaline melts [15]. Furthermore, the melts are compositionally similar to the andesite with high oxygen fugacity (fO2) [81]. The andesite melts later preferentially mixed the Mo (Cu ± Au)-rich ancient crustal materials [74,87], evolved to Mo (Cu ± Au)-rich adakitic magmas, intruded into the prior Mid-Jurassic Yeba Formation (J2y) as adakitic rocks, accompanied by pervasively extensive wall-rock alteration and ultimately formed the Demingding porphyry Mo (Cu) ore deposit (Figure 12).

6. Conclusions

On the basis of the geochronological data, whole-rock geochemical analysis, and in-situ U-Pb-Lu-Hf isotopes studies, we conclude as follows:
(1)
Zircon U–Pb dating yielded crystallization age values of 17.3 ± 0.6 Ma and 186.5 ± 3.0 Ma for monzogranite and rhyolite in the Demingding deposit, respectively.
(2)
The Demingding monzogranite is characterized by high- K calc-alkaline, adakitic affinities, and positive zircon εHf (t) values (+0.9∼+5.6, av.+3.1) with TDM2 (0.73–1.04 Ga). The rhyolite has similar εHf (t) values of (+2.1∼+7.3, av.+5.2) and TDM2 of (0.76–1.09 Ga) to those of monzogranites.
(3)
Mo (Cu) ore-bodies produced in the monzogranite porphyry are the main ore types in this ore deposit, suggesting that Mo favors the silicate melt, as the confining pressure exerts a strong effect on the evolution of Mo concentration during fractional crystallization.
(4)
The monzogranite is most probably derived from the remelting of the thickened lower crust. In addition, the ancient continental crust contributed to the formation of the porphyry Mo (Cu) deposit.

Author Contributions

Y.L. and K.D. conceived and designed the experiments; Y.L., H.Z. and Z.L. took part in the discussion; Y.L. and Z.L. took part in the field campaigns; Y.L. wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially funded by the Strategic Priority Research Program (B) of CAS (XDB18000000), the Natural Science Foundation of China (42073003), and the Guangxi Science and Technology Base and Talent Project (AD21220157).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

This is a part of the Y.L postdoctoral project at University of Science and Technology of China. Special thanks go to Yilin Xiao (USTC) for his guidance and He Sun (HUST) and Haiou Gu (HUST) for their great help during the study. This version significantly improved based on the four anonymous reviewer’s great comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mo, X.X.; Hou, Z.Q.; Niu, Y.L.; Dong, G.C.; Qu, X.M.; Zhao, Z.D.; Yang, Z.M. Mantle contributions to crustal thickening during continental collision: Evidence from Cenozoic igneous rocks in southern Tibet. Lithos 2007, 96, 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chung, S.L.; Lo, C.H.; Lee, T.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, K.L.; Wang, P.L. The nature and timing of crustal thickening in Southern Tibet: Geochemical and zircon Hf isotopic constraints from postcollisional adakites. Tectonophysics 2009, 477, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tang, J.X.; Zheng, W.B.; Chen, Y.C.; Wang, D.H.; Ying, L.J.; Qin, Z.P. Prospecting breakthrough of the deep porphyry ore body and its significance in Jiama copper polymetallic deposit, Tibet, China. J. Jilin Univ. 2013, 43, 1100–1110. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hou, Z.Q.; Yang, Z.M.; Lu, Y.J.; Kemp, A.; Zheng, Y.C.; Li, Q.Y.; Tang, J.X.; Yang, Z.S.; Duan, L.F. A genetic linkage between subduction- and collision-related porphyry Cu deposits in continental collision zones. Geology 2015, 43, 247–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Zheng, Y.F.; Mao, J.W.; Chen, Y.J.; Sun, W.D.; Ni, P.; Yang, X.Y. Hydrothermal ore deposits in collisional orogens. Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Cooke, D.R.; Hollings, P.; Walshe, J.L. Giant porphyry deposits: Characteristics, distribution, and tectonic controls. Econ. Geol. 2005, 100, 801–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sillitoe, R.H. Porphyry copper systems. Econ. Geol. 2010, 105, 3–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Sun, W.D.; Huang, R.F.; Li, H.; Hu, Y.B.; Zhang, C.C.; Sun, S.J.; Zhang, L.P.; Ding, X.; Li, C.Y. Porphyry deposits and oxidized magmas. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 65, 97–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hou, Z.Q.; Cook, N.J. Metallogenesis of the Tibetan collisional orogen: A review and introduction to the special issue. Ore Geol. Rev. 2009, 36, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chen, Y.J.; Pirajno, F.; Li, N.; Deng, X.H. The collision-type porphyry Mo deposits in Dabie Shan, China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 81, 405–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sun, X.; Zheng, Y.Y.; Xu, J.; Huang, L.H.; Guo, F.; Gao, S.B. Metallogenesis and ore controls of Cenozoic porphyry Mo deposits in the Gangdese belt of southern Tibet. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 81, 996–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lu, Y.G.; Xiao, Y.L.; Nadeau, O.; Yang, X.Y.; Wang, Y.Y.; Hou, Z.H.; Sun, H.; Li, D.Y.; Gu, H.O.; Deng, J.H. Inherited source affinity of Li and Hf isotopes for porphyry copper deposits from subduction and collisional settings. Ore Geol. Rev. 2021, 138, 104328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sillitoe, R. Andean copper province: Tectonomagmatic settings, deposit types, metallogeny, exploration, and discovery. Econ. Geol. 2005, 100, 845–890. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hou, Z.Q.; Gao, Y.F.; Qu, X.M.; Rui, Z.Y.; Mo, X.X. Origin of adakitic intrusives generated during mid-Miocene east–west extension in southern Tibet. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2004, 220, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hou, Z.Q.; Yang, Z.M.; Qu, X.M.; Meng, X.J.; Li, Z.Q.; Beaudoin, G.; Rui, Z.Y.; Gao, Y.F.; Zaw, K. The Miocene Gangdese porphyry copper belt generated during post-collisional extension in the Tibetan Orogen. Ore Geol. Rev. 2009, 36, 25–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Richards, J.P. Postsubduction porphyry Cu-Au and epithermal Au deposits: Products of remelting of subduction-modified lithosphere. Geology 2009, 37, 247–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, Z.M.; Goldfarb, R.; Chang, Z.S. Generation of postcollisional porphyry copper deposits in southern Tibet triggered by subduction of the Indian continental plate. Soc. Econ. Geol. 2016, 19, 279–300. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chung, S.L.; Liu, D.; Ji, J.; Chu, M.F.; Lee, H.Y.; Wen, D.J.; Lo, C.H.; Lee, T.Y.; Qian, Q.; Zhang, Q. Adakites from continental collision zones: Melting of thickened lower crust beneath southern Tibet. Geology 2003, 31, 1021–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Zheng, Y.C.; Hou, Z.Q.; Li, Q.Y.; Sun, Q.Z.; Liang, W.; Fu, Q.; Li, W.; Huang, K.X. Origin of Late Oligocene adakitic intrusives in the southeastern Lhasa terrane: Evidence from in situ zircon U–Pb dating, Hf–O isotopes, and whole-rock geochemistry. Lithos 2012, 148, 296–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Qing, Q.; Yang, J.H.; Wang, Y.L.; Zhao, T.P.; Guo, G.J. The characteristics and tectonic-metallogenic significances of the adakites in Yanshan period from eastern China. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2001, 17, 236–244. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gao, S.; Rudnick, R.L.; Yuan, H.L.; Liu, X.M.; Liu, Y.S.; Xu, W.L.; Ling, W.L.; Ayers, J.; Wang, X.C.; Wang, Q.H. Recycling lower continental crust in the North China craton. Nature 2004, 432, 892–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sun, X.; Hollings, P.; Lu, Y.-J. Geology and origin of the Zhunuo porphyry copper deposit, Gangdese belt, southern Tibet. Miner. Depos. 2021, 56, 457–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhu, D.C.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, Z.D.; Chung, S.L.; Cawood, P.A.; Niu, Y.L.; Liu, S.A.; Wu, F.Y.; Mo, X.X. Magmatic record of India-Asia collision. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 14289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Wang, B.D.; Xu, J.F.; Chen, J.L.; Zhang, X.G.; Wang, L.Q.; Xia, B.B. Petrogenesis and geochronology of the ore-bearing porphyritic rocks in Tangbula porphyry molybdenum-copper deposit in the eastern segment of the Gangdese metallogenic belt. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2010, 26, 1820–1832. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhang, Z.B.; Wang, L.Q.; Tang, P.; Lin, B.; Sun, M.; Qi, J.; Li, Y.X.; Yang, Z.K. Geochemistry and zircon trace elements composition of the Miocene ore©\bearing biotite monzogranite porphyry in the Demingding porphyry Cu-Mo deposit, Tibet: Petrogenesis and implication for magma fertility. Geol. J. 2020, 55, 4525–4542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tang, P.; Tang, J.X.; Lin, B.; Wang, L.Q.; Zheng, W.B.; Leng, Q.F.; Gao, X.; Zhang, Z.B.; Tang, X.Q. Mineral chemistry of magmatic and hydrothermal biotites from the Bangpu porphyry Mo (Cu) deposit, Tibet. Ore Geol. Rev. 2019, 115, 103122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Allegre, C.O.; Courtillot, V.; Tapponnier, P.; Hirn, A.; Mattauer, M.; Coulon, C.; Jaeger, J.; Achache, J.; Schärer, U.; Marcoux, J. Structure and evolution of the Himalaya-Tibet orogenic belt. Nature 1984, 307, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chung, S.L.; Lo, C.H.; Lee, T.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, K.L.; Wang, P.L. Diachronous uplift of the Tibetan plateau starting 40? Myr ago. Nature 1998, 394, 769–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chung, S.L.; Wu, F.Y.; Zhao, Z.D. The Tibetan orogenic evolution: New advances from pre- to post-collisional geologic records. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2012, 53, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yin, A.; Harrison, T.M. Geologic evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2000, 28, 211–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Zhu, D.C.; Zhao, Z.D.; Pan, G.T.; Lee, H.Y.; Kang, Z.Q.; Liao, Z.L.; Wang, L.Q.; Li, G.M.; Dong, G.C.; Liu, B. Early cretaceous subduction-related adakite-like rocks of the Gangdese Belt, southern Tibet: Products of slab melting and subsequent melt-peridotite interaction? J. Asian Earth Sci. 2009, 34, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhu, D.C.; Zhao, Z.D.; Niu, Y.L.; Mo, X.X.; Chung, S.L.; Hou, Z.Q.; Wang, L.Q.; Wu, F.Y. The Lhasa Terrane: Record of a microcontinent and its histories of drift and growth. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2011, 301, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sun, X.; Lu, Y.J.; McCuaig, T.C.; Zheng, Y.Y.; Chang, H.F.; Guo, F.; Xu, L.J. Miocene ultrapotassic, high-Mg Dioritic, and adakite-like rocks from Zhunuo in Southern Tibet: Implications for mantle metasomatism and porphyry copper mineralization in collisional orogens. J. Petrol. 2018, 59, 341–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chen, Y.J.; Pirajno, F.; Li, N.; Deng, X.H. Molybdenum deposits in China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 81, 401–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, X.Q.; Yan, J.; Wang, A.G.; Li, Q.Z.; Xie, J.C. Origin of the Cretaceous ore-bearing granitoids in the Beihuaiyang Zone, northern margin of the Dabie Orogen, Eastern China. Int. Geol. Rev. 2018, 60, 1453–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hou, Z.; Wang, C. Determination of 35 trace elements in geological samples by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. J. Univ. Ence Technol. China 2007, 37, 940–944. [Google Scholar]
  37. Liu, Y.S.; Hu, Z.C.; Gao, S.; Günther, D.; Xu, J.; Gao, C.G.; Chen, H.H. In situ analysis of major and trace elements of anhydrous minerals by LA-ICP-MS without applying an internal standard. Chem. Geol. 2008, 257, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, L.; Liu, Y.S.; Hu, Z.C.; Gao, S.; Zong, K.Q.; Chen, H.H. Accurate determinations of fifty-four major and trace elements in carbonate by LA–ICP-MS using normalization strategy of bulk components as 100%. Chem. Geol. 2011, 284, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gu, H.-O.; Sun, H.; Wang, F.Y.; Ge, C.; Zhou, T.F. A new practical isobaric interference correction model for the in situ Hf isotopic analysis using laser ablation-multi-collector-ICP-mass spectrometry of zircons with high Yb/Hf ratios. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2019, 34, 1223–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Scherer, E.; Munker, C.; Mezger, K. Early Differentiation of the Crust-Mantle System: A Hf Isotope Perspective. AGUFM 2001, 2001, V52B-10. [Google Scholar]
  41. Blichert-Toft, J.; Albarède, F. The Lu-Hf isotope geochemistry of chondrites and the evolution of the mantle-crust system. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1997, 148, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sun, S.S.; McDonough, W.F. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts: Implications for mantle composition and processes. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 1989, 42, 313–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Richards, J.P. Magmatic to hydrothermal metal fluxes in convergent and collided margins. Ore Geol. Rev. 2011, 40, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Richards, J.P.; Kerrich, R. Special paper: Adakite-like rocks: Their diverse origins and questionable role in metallogenesis. Econ. Geol. 2007, 102, 537–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Defant, M.J.; Drummond, M.S. Derivation of some modern arc magmas by melting of young subducted lithosphere. Nature 1990, 347, 662–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Guo, F.; Nakamuru, E.; Fan, W.M.; Kobayoshi, K.; Li, C.W. Generation of Palaeocene adakitic andesites by magma mixing; Yanji Area, NE China. J. Petrol. 2007, 48, 661–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yang, Z.M.; Hou, Z.Q.; White, N.C.; Chang, Z.S.; Li, Z.Q.; Song, Y.C. Geology of the post-collisional porphyry copper-molybdenum deposit at Qulong, Tibet. Ore Geol. Rev. 2009, 36, 133–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zheng, Y.Y.; Sun, X.; Gao, S.B.; Zhao, Z.D.; Zhang, G.Y.; Wu, S.; You, Z.M.; Li, J.D. Multiple mineralization events at the Jiru porphyry copper deposit, southern Tibet: Implications for Eocene and Miocene magma sources and resource potential. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2014, 79, 842–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mahéo, G.; Guillot, S.; Blichert-Toft, J.; Rolland, Y.; Pêcher, A. A slab breakoff model for the Neogene thermal evolution of South Karakorum and South Tibet. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2002, 195, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Martin, H.; Smithies, R.H.; Rapp, R.; Moyen, J.F.; Champion, D. An overview of adakite, tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite (TTG), and sanukitoid: Relationships and some implications for crustal evolution. Lithos 2005, 79, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hou, Z.Q.; Duan, L.F.; Lu, Y.J.; Zheng, Y.C.; Zhu, D.C.; Yang, Z.M.; Yang, Z.S.; Wang, B.D.; Pei, Y.R.; Zhao, Z.; et al. Lithospheric architecture of the Lhasa terrane and its control on ore deposits in the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen. Econ. Geol. 2015, 110, 1541–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Guo, Z.F.; Wilson, M.; Liu, J.Q. Post-collisional adakites in south Tibet: Products of partial melting of subduction-modified lower crust. Lithos 2007, 96, 205–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ji, W.Q.; Wu, F.Y.; Chung, S.L.; Li, J.X.; Liu, C.Z. Zircon U–Pb geochronology and Hf isotopic constraints on petrogenesis of the Gangdese batholith, southern Tibet. Chem. Geol. 2009, 262, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Castillo, P.R. Adakite petrogenesis. Lithos 2012, 134, 304–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Xu, W.C.; Zhang, H.F.; Guo, L.; Yuan, H.L. Miocene high Sr/Y magmatism, south Tibet: Product of partial melting of subducted Indian continental crust and its tectonic implication. Lithos 2010, 114, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, J.L.; Xu, J.F.; Yu, H.X.; Wang, B.D.; Wu, J.B.; Feng, Y.X. Late Cretaceous high-Mg# granitoids in southern Tibet: Implications for the early crustal thickening and tectonic evolution of the Tibetan Plateau? Lithos 2015, 232, 12–22. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tang, M.; Lee, C.T.; Ji, W.Q.; Wang, R.; Costin, G. Crustal thickening and endogenic oxidation of magmatic sulfur. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaba6342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Allègre, C.J.; Minster, J.F. Quantitative models of trace element behavior in magmatic processes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1978, 38, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yang, Z.M.; Hou, Z.Q.; Chang, Z.S.; Li, Q.Y.; Liu, Y.F.; Qu, H.C.; Sun, M.Y.; Xu, B. Cospatial Eocene and Miocene granitoids from the Jiru Cu deposit in Tibet: Petrogenesis and implications for the formation of collisional and postcollisional porphyry Cu systems in continental collision zones. Lithos 2016, 245, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Streck, M.J.; Leeman, W.P.; Chesley, J.T. High-magnesian andesite from Mount Shasta: A product of magma mixing and contamination, not a primitive melt: COMMENT AND REPLY: REPLY. Geology 2007, 35, e148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yang, Z.; Hou, Z. Porphyry Cu deposits in collisional orogen setting: A preliminary genetic model. Miner. Depos. 2009, 28, 515–538. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zou, B.; Lin, B.; Zheng, W.B.; Song, Y.; Tang, P.; Zhang, Z.B.; Xin, G. The characteristics of alteration and mineralization and geochronology of ore-bearing porphyry in south pit of Jiama copper-polymetallic deposit, Tibet. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2019, 35, 953–967. [Google Scholar]
  63. Liu, S.A.; Li, S.G.; He, Y.S.; Huang, F. Geochemical contrasts between early Cretaceous ore-bearing and ore-barren high-Mg adakites in central-eastern China: Implications for petrogenesis and Cu—Au mineralization. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74, 7160–7178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Guan, Q.; Zhu, D.C.; Zhao, Z.D.; Dong, G.C.; Zhang, L.L.; Li, X.W.; Liu, M.; Mo, X.X.; Liu, Y.S.; Yuan, H.L. Crustal thickening prior to 38Ma in southern Tibet: Evidence from lower crust-derived adakitic magmatism in the Gangdese Batholith. Gondwana Res. 2012, 21, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lee, C.T.A.; Tang, M. How to make porphyry copper deposits. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2020, 529, 115868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rapp, R.P.; Shimizu, N.; Norman, M.D.; Applegate, G.S. Reaction between slab-derived melts and peridotite in the mantle wedge: Experimental constraints at 3.8 GPa. Chem. Geol. 1999, 160, 335–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, Q.; Wyman, D.A.; Xu, J.F.; Zhao, Z.H.; Jian, P.; Zi, F. Partial Melting of Thickened or Delaminated Lower Crust in the Middle of Eastern China: Implications for Cu-Au Mineralization. J. Geol. 2007, 115, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hu, Y.B.; Liu, J.Q.; Ling, M.X.; Liu, Y.; Ding, X.; Liu, D.Y.; Sun, W.D. Constraints on the origin of adakites and porphyry Cu-Mo mineralization in Chongjiang, Southern Gangdese, the Tibetan Plateau. Lithos 2017, 292–293, 424–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Xiao, L.; Clemens, J.D. Origin of potassic (C-type) adakite magmas: Experimental and field constraints. Lithos 2007, 95, 399–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. White, W.; Bookstrom, A.; Kamilli, R.; Ganster, M.; Smith, R.; Ranta, D.; Steininger, R. Character and origin of Climax-type molybdenum deposits. Econ. Geol. 1981, 75, 270–316. [Google Scholar]
  71. Farmer, G.L.; DePaolo, D.J. Origin of Mesozoic and Tertiary granite in the western United States and implications for Pre-Mesozoic crustal structure: 1. Nd and Sr isotopic studies in the geocline of the Northern Great Basin. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1983, 88, 3379–3401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Klemm, L.M.; Pettke, T.; Heinrich, C.A.; Campos, E. Hydrothermal evolution of the El Teniente deposit, Chile: Porphyry Cu-Mo ore deposition from low-salinity magmatic fluids. Econ. Geol. 2007, 102, 1021–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chen, J.L.; Xu, J.F.; Wang, B.D.; Yang, Z.M.; Ren, J.B.; Yu, H.X.; Liu, H.F.; Feng, Y.X. Geochemical differences between subduction- and collision-related copper-bearing porphyries and implications for metallogenesis. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 70, 424–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Xu, J.; Zheng, Y.Y.; Sun, X.; Shen, Y.H. Geochronology and petrogenesis of Miocene granitic intrusions related to the Zhibula Cu skarn deposit in the Gangdese belt, southern Tibet. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2016, 120, 100–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zeng, Y.C.; Chen, J.L.; Xu, J.F.; Lei, M.; Xiong, Q.W. Origin of Miocene Cu-bearing porphyries in the Zhunuo region of the southern Lhasa subterrane: Constraints from geochronology and geochemistry. Gondwana Res. 2017, 41, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Deng, J.H.; Yang, X.Y.; Zartman, R.E.; Qi, H.S.; Zhang, L.P.; Liu, H.; Zhang, Z.F.; Mastoi, A.S.; Al Emil, G.B.; Sun, W.D. Early cretaceous transformation from Pacific to Neo-Tethys subduction in the SW Pacific Ocean: Constraints from Pb-Sr-Nd-Hf isotopes of the Philippine arc. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2020, 285, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Deng, J.H.; Yang, X.Y.; Qi, H.S.; Zhang, Z.F.; Mastoi, A.S.; Al Emil, G.B.; Sun, W.D. Early Cretaceous adakite from the Atlas porphyry Cu-Au deposit in Cebu Island, Central Philippines: Partial melting of subducted oceanic crust. Ore Geol. Rev. 2019, 110, 102937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sun, W.D. Initiation and evolution of the South China Sea: An overview. Chin. J. Geochem. 2016, 35, 215–225. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wang, R.; Richards, J.P.; Hou, Z.Q.; Yang, Z.M.; DuFrane, S.A. Increased Magmatic Water Content—The Key to Oligo-Miocene Porphyry Cu-Mo ± Au Formation in the Eastern Gangdese Belt, Tibet. Econ. Geol. 2014, 109, 1315–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, J.C.; Wang, X.W.; Lei, C.Y.; Peng, H.I.; Hu, Z.L. Genesis of late Yanshanian granites and the ore-search prospect in the Duoba-Bange area, Gangdise Belt, Tibet, China. J. Chengdu Univ. Technol. 2011, 38, 671–677. [Google Scholar]
  81. Hou, Z.Q.; Zheng, Y.C.; Yang, Z.M.; Rui, Z.Y.; Zhao, Z.D.; Jiang, S.H.; Qu, X.M.; Sun, Q.Z. Contribution of mantle components within juvenile lower-crust to collisional zone porphyry Cu systems in Tibet. Miner. Depos. 2013, 48, 173–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhao, X.Y.; Yang, Z.S.; Zheng, Y.C.; Liu, Y.C.; Tian, S.; Fu, Q. Geology and genesis of the post-collisional porphyry–skarn deposit at Bangpu, Tibet. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 70, 486–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ji, W.Q.; Wu, F.Y.; Liu, C.Z.; Chung, S.L. Early Eocene crustal thickening in southern Tibet: New age and geochemical constraints from the Gangdese batholith. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2012, 53, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mo, X.X.; Niu, Y.L.; Dong, G.C.; Zhao, Z.D.; Hou, Z.Q.; Zhou, S.; Ke, S. Contribution of syncollisional felsic magmatism to continental crust growth: A case study of the Paleogene Linzizong volcanic Succession in southern Tibet. Chem. Geol. 2008, 250, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Liu, D.; Zhao, Z.D.; DePaolo, D.J.; Zhu, D.C.; Meng, F.Y.; Shi, Q.S.; Wang, Q. Potassic volcanic rocks and adakitic intrusions in southern Tibet: Insights into mantle–crust interaction and mass transfer from Indian plate. Lithos 2017, 268, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Liu, D.; Zhao, Z.D.; Zhu, D.C.; Niu, Y.L.; DePaolo, D.J.; Harrison, T.M.; Mo, X.X.; Dong, G.; Zhou, S.; Sun, C. Postcollisional potassic and ultrapotassic rocks in southern Tibet: Mantle and crustal origins in response to India–Asia collision and convergence. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2014, 143, 207–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Li, Y.L.; Li, X.H.; Wang, C.S.; Wei, Y.S.; Chen, X.; He, J.; Xu, M.; Hou, Y.L. Miocene adakitic intrusions in the Zhongba terrane: Implications for the origin and geochemical variations of post-collisional adakitic rocks in southern Tibet. Gondwana Res. 2017, 41, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 12 01266 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Simplified geologic map of the Lhasa terrane showing the distribution of main porphyry deposits and locality of the study area (modified after [22,33]). Abbreviations: BNSZ = Bangong–Nujiang suture zone, SNMZ = Shiquan River-NamTso Mélange Zone, LMF = Luobadui-Milashan Fault, IYZSZ = Indus-Yarlung Zangbo Suture Zone, SL = southern Lhasa Terrane, CL = central Lhasa Terrane, NL = northern Lhasa Terrane. (b) Geological sketch map of the Demingding porphyry deposit showing the porphyry intrusion and locations of samples.
Figure 1. (a) Simplified geologic map of the Lhasa terrane showing the distribution of main porphyry deposits and locality of the study area (modified after [22,33]). Abbreviations: BNSZ = Bangong–Nujiang suture zone, SNMZ = Shiquan River-NamTso Mélange Zone, LMF = Luobadui-Milashan Fault, IYZSZ = Indus-Yarlung Zangbo Suture Zone, SL = southern Lhasa Terrane, CL = central Lhasa Terrane, NL = northern Lhasa Terrane. (b) Geological sketch map of the Demingding porphyry deposit showing the porphyry intrusion and locations of samples.
Minerals 12 01266 g001
Minerals 12 01266 g002 550
Figure 2. Photographs of the ore field and outcrops with Mo, Cu mineralization. (a) Locality of Mo#3; (b) Locality of Cu#1; (c) Molybdenum mineralization phenomenon; (d) Oxidized copper mineralization phenomenon. Abbreviations: Mo = molybdenite, Cu = copper-bearing minerals (e.g., malachite and azurite).
Figure 2. Photographs of the ore field and outcrops with Mo, Cu mineralization. (a) Locality of Mo#3; (b) Locality of Cu#1; (c) Molybdenum mineralization phenomenon; (d) Oxidized copper mineralization phenomenon. Abbreviations: Mo = molybdenite, Cu = copper-bearing minerals (e.g., malachite and azurite).
Minerals 12 01266 g002
Minerals 12 01266 g003 550
Figure 3. Photographs of representative rock samples of Demingding deposit and relevant photomicrographs: (a,b) Gray medium-grained monzogranite; (c,d) Beige or gray tiny-grained rhyolite. Abbreviations: Kfs–K-feldspar, Pl–plagioclase, Qtz–quartz, Bt–biotite; Py–pyrite; Cpy–chalcopyrite; Mo–molybdenite.
Figure 3. Photographs of representative rock samples of Demingding deposit and relevant photomicrographs: (a,b) Gray medium-grained monzogranite; (c,d) Beige or gray tiny-grained rhyolite. Abbreviations: Kfs–K-feldspar, Pl–plagioclase, Qtz–quartz, Bt–biotite; Py–pyrite; Cpy–chalcopyrite; Mo–molybdenite.
Minerals 12 01266 g003
Minerals 12 01266 g004 550
Figure 4. Geochemical features of the Demingding granitoid. (a) Diagrams of K2O + Na2O versus SiO2, (b) A/CNK versus A/NK diagram, (c) SiO2 versus K2O plot. Abbreviations: MD–Monzo-diorite; GD–Gabbro-diorite; A–Al2O3; C–CaO; N–Na2O; K–K2O.
Figure 4. Geochemical features of the Demingding granitoid. (a) Diagrams of K2O + Na2O versus SiO2, (b) A/CNK versus A/NK diagram, (c) SiO2 versus K2O plot. Abbreviations: MD–Monzo-diorite; GD–Gabbro-diorite; A–Al2O3; C–CaO; N–Na2O; K–K2O.
Minerals 12 01266 g004
Minerals 12 01266 g005 550
Figure 5. Primitive-mantle-normalized trace element (a) and chondrite-normalized REE (b) variation diagrams for samples from the Demingding deposit [42].
Figure 5. Primitive-mantle-normalized trace element (a) and chondrite-normalized REE (b) variation diagrams for samples from the Demingding deposit [42].
Minerals 12 01266 g005
Minerals 12 01266 g006 550
Figure 6. Zircon U-Pb Concordia diagrams and representative cathodoluminescence images, 206Pb/238U weighted ages and Hf isotopes of the monzogranites (a) and rhyolites (b) of the Demingding deposit. The small yellow circle represents the analysis point of zircon U-Pb age, while the large red circle represents the LA-MC-ICPMS in situ Hf isotope analysis point. The number next to the analysis point represents the U-Pb ages and the εHf(t) values.
Figure 6. Zircon U-Pb Concordia diagrams and representative cathodoluminescence images, 206Pb/238U weighted ages and Hf isotopes of the monzogranites (a) and rhyolites (b) of the Demingding deposit. The small yellow circle represents the analysis point of zircon U-Pb age, while the large red circle represents the LA-MC-ICPMS in situ Hf isotope analysis point. The number next to the analysis point represents the U-Pb ages and the εHf(t) values.
Minerals 12 01266 g006
Minerals 12 01266 g007 550
Figure 7. Sr/Y classification diagram for the Demingding monzogranite and rhyolite, after [45].
Figure 7. Sr/Y classification diagram for the Demingding monzogranite and rhyolite, after [45].
Minerals 12 01266 g007
Minerals 12 01266 g008 550
Figure 8. Correlation diagrams of Th/La (a), Th/Nd (b), Th/Sm (c), Th/Y (d) vs. Th for the Demingding monzogranites and rhyolites. Data sources: Qulong from [61]; Jiama from [62].
Figure 8. Correlation diagrams of Th/La (a), Th/Nd (b), Th/Sm (c), Th/Y (d) vs. Th for the Demingding monzogranites and rhyolites. Data sources: Qulong from [61]; Jiama from [62].
Minerals 12 01266 g008
Minerals 12 01266 g009 550
Figure 9. The plots of MgO versus SiO2 field for the Demingding monzogranite and rhyolite, after [63].
Figure 9. The plots of MgO versus SiO2 field for the Demingding monzogranite and rhyolite, after [63].
Minerals 12 01266 g009
Minerals 12 01266 g010 550
Figure 10. (La/Yb)N versus YbN classification diagram for the Demingding monzogranite and rhyolite, after [45].
Figure 10. (La/Yb)N versus YbN classification diagram for the Demingding monzogranite and rhyolite, after [45].
Minerals 12 01266 g010
Minerals 12 01266 g011 550
Figure 11. Zircon εHf(t) data plotted against zircon U–Pb ages. Data sources: Qulong from [61]; Jiama from [62]. DM–depleted mantle; CHUR–chondritic uniform reservoir. (a) (176Hf/177Hf)/t(Ma); (b) εHf(t)/t(Ma).
Figure 11. Zircon εHf(t) data plotted against zircon U–Pb ages. Data sources: Qulong from [61]; Jiama from [62]. DM–depleted mantle; CHUR–chondritic uniform reservoir. (a) (176Hf/177Hf)/t(Ma); (b) εHf(t)/t(Ma).
Minerals 12 01266 g011
Minerals 12 01266 g012 550
Figure 12. Schematic diagram showing the genetic and geodynamic model for the Miocene high-K felsic intrusion in Demingding porphyry Mo (Cu) deposit in Tibet.
Figure 12. Schematic diagram showing the genetic and geodynamic model for the Miocene high-K felsic intrusion in Demingding porphyry Mo (Cu) deposit in Tibet.
Minerals 12 01266 g012
Table
Table 1. Major (wt.%) and trace element (ppm) concentrations of monzogranite and rhyolite samples from the Demingding deposit.
Table 1. Major (wt.%) and trace element (ppm) concentrations of monzogranite and rhyolite samples from the Demingding deposit.
Sample No.18-L118-L218-L318-L418-L5zk001-420zk002-110ZK002-210zk003-51zk003-120ZK003-250zk003-310zk004-110ZK004-258D003-1D003-2D003-4D003-5
Rock TypesRhyoliteMonzogranite
Age (Ma)186.5 ± 3.017.3 ± 0.6
SiO274.867.467.872.674.968.666.868.567.765.068.867.970.368.269.767.769.768.7
TiO20.40.40.40.380.360.30.40.30.40.40.30.40.30.40.40.30.40.3
Al2O312.314.514.413.212.713.214.614.314.413.614.313.914.714.514.315.514.714.9
Fe2O33.63.13.12.31.93.12.52.13.43.61.92.62.42.52.02.11.32.3
MgO0.91.30.90.60.440.60.90.81.11.20.71.10.70.91.10.90.80.6
MnO0.100.110.120.080.100.020.040.050.030.050.030.040.040.040.040.030.030.05
CaO3.92.13.12.41.361.62.22.62.42.92.02.12.62.42.42.32.11.3
Na2O1.14.23.63.443.44.54.53.93.93.83.43.94.83.94.64.13.4
K2O1.24.14.32.63.163.24.13.83.33.54.34.13.53.73.43.23.43.9
P2O50.090.130.130.080.050.100.140.140.190.180.120.160.140.150.140.140.160.13
LOI2.32.82.73.11.084.52.62.52.34.23.02.91.01.91.31.82.12.5
Total100.7100.1100.6100.7100.198.698.799.799.198.499.198.699.699.398.698.598.697.9
K2O/Na2O1.090.981.190.760.790.950.910.840.850.891.111.180.910.780.860.700.841.15
Mg#31.043.034.332.029.425.440.739.337.237.239.242.134.140.548.845.051.732.3
A/CNK1.21.00.91.01.01.10.90.91.00.91.01.01.00.91.01.01.01.2
A/NK4.01.31.41.61.31.51.21.21.41.31.31.41.41.21.41.41.41.5
Li5.520.814.215.812.89.28.614.614.837.517.722.714.219.018.919.216.623.7
Be0.81.81.61.20.90.82.01.82.21.91.72.22.52.02.02.22.12.0
Sc12.08.06.76.47.011.65.76.16.67.07.66.35.66.34.04.03.84.6
V67.058.048.026.022.0133.944.137.456.254.946.147.240.146.741.239.536.835.7
Cr14.018.09.05.65.440.113.97.612.97.96.88.06.47.8147.6107.3109.6100.6
Ni7.011.05.04.52.333.07.47.811.29.49.18.65.37.372.954.853.351.8
Cu11.020.07.02.54.5118.1107.0135.1313.052.0420.0166.868.51010.796.3363.2354.3417.3
Zn53.039.034.043.037.027.264.779.441.373.237.920.334.927.244.984.039.739.6
Ga12.014.012.014.012.018.216.215.317.017.714.916.217.215.718.719.618.018.0
Rb42.0149.0124.070.075.076.9127.6109.9106.0144.7148.1130.396.2129.5136.0132.2143.5183.0
Sr195.0329.0357.0213.0158.0462.1477.8431.5466.4439.8398.3378.5513.8463.3643.4710.8586.8347.0
Y30.019.018.028.036.012.98.38.311.68.511.48.57.19.75.67.37.87.8
Zr117.0152.0146.0177.0262.0131.675.952.659.054.457.160.851.637.838.637.739.331.2
Nb3.212.010.09.012.02.98.88.413.49.611.010.08.112.87.46.89.35.6
Cs5.47.31.14.14.22.13.12.16.510.87.011.45.27.23.29.410.59.9
Ba267.0625.0576.0421.0708.0515.5836.3541.0459.8711.8560.6773.9515.61005.9676.0550.1709.2680.8
La11.032.031.024.028.011.931.621.133.124.821.223.319.724.721.719.424.539.9
Ce22.057.056.046.058.027.159.640.867.849.841.549.137.654.545.439.352.474.3
Pr3.35.95.45.66.83.36.74.57.95.64.85.74.26.64.84.15.77.4
Nd14.220.719.320.826.513.623.316.527.619.917.220.715.224.516.514.519.523.8
Sm3.83.83.64.76.02.83.62.84.53.33.13.52.54.02.62.43.13.6
Eu1.00.90.91.31.30.90.80.60.80.80.80.70.60.80.70.80.80.8
Gd4.03.83.64.86.02.93.22.53.82.92.83.02.23.32.42.22.93.4
Tb0.70.50.50.81.00.40.40.30.50.40.40.40.30.40.30.30.30.4
Dy4.62.92.84.75.92.61.81.72.41.82.11.81.42.11.11.41.51.7
Ho1.00.60.61.01.30.50.30.30.40.30.40.30.20.40.20.30.30.3
Er3.01.91.73.13.81.50.90.91.20.91.20.90.81.10.60.70.80.8
Tm0.50.30.30.50.60.20.10.10.20.10.20.10.10.20.10.10.10.1
Yb3.22.01.93.34.01.40.80.81.20.81.30.90.81.00.50.70.70.7
Lu0.50.30.30.50.60.20.10.10.20.10.20.10.10.20.10.10.10.1
Hf3.13.23.14.36.33.62.44.22.11.92.02.52.01.41.41.41.41.2
Ta0.20.70.60.60.70.30.70.71.20.81.10.90.71.00.70.60.80.5
Pb11.414.19.613.713.249462311215129273137423745
Th2.48.88.98.79.74242020161414181917151824
U0.82.12.32.01.92.06.24.75.54.03.94.75.33.72.62.92.82.8
∑REE103152146149186821411011631201091199313310394120165
Eu/Eu*0.80.70.80.80.61.00.70.70.60.80.80.70.80.70.81.00.80.7
Table
Table 2. The results of Zircon U-Pb data of monzogranite and rhyolite samples from the Demingding deposit.
Table 2. The results of Zircon U-Pb data of monzogranite and rhyolite samples from the Demingding deposit.
Measuring Point232Th238UPb*Th/U207Pb/206Pb207Pb/235U206Pb/238U207Pb/206Pb207Pb/235U206Pb/238U
×10-6×10-6×10-6Ratio1σRatio1σRatio1σMa1sMa1sMa1s
Sample. 18-DMD-4
18-DMD-4-1581.91024.14.10.60.063080.007310.027550.003140.003170.0001171126628320.40.7
18-DMD-4-2308.3182.70.81.70.228150.053980.082280.018620.002610.000253039456801717.02.0
18-DMD-4-3577.1628.92.10.90.068610.012430.026250.004720.002770.0001388740726517.90.8
18-DMD-4-4711.3804.53.20.90.035230.007770.015190.003360.003130.00013−6430415320.10.8
18-DMD-4-5649.3654.72.41.00.107680.015470.037600.005330.002530.00010176128037516.30.7
18-DMD-4-6568.9629.82.20.90.035290.012020.013190.004510.002710.00012−6248013517.40.7
18-DMD-4-7740.5860.42.90.90.067930.011340.025070.004160.002670.0001186636225417.20.7
18-DMD-4-8475.0492.41.71.00.040090.017670.015720.006960.002840.00014−28560516718.30.9
18-DMD-4-9232.1185.60.71.30.126970.040410.051190.016160.002920.000242056681511619.02.0
18-DMD-4-10497.3558.91.80.90.095410.020060.032970.006890.002500.00013153643233716.10.8
18-DMD-4-111209.51111.23.81.10.032850.006730.011670.002390.002580.00010−16224812216.60.6
18-DMD-4-12444.4548.02.20.80.048670.011860.022120.005390.003290.0001613241022521.01.0
18-DMD-4-131720.11121.34.01.50.043790.008670.014920.002960.002470.00010−8228515315.90.6
18-DMD-4-14585.1603.01.91.00.038680.016360.013120.005580.002460.00013−36861113615.80.8
18-DMD-4-151027.3891.13.11.20.029960.014920.010580.005290.002560.00011−28657711516.50.7
18-DMD-4-16246.8314.91.10.80.073530.049340.021100.014710.002080.0002110291205211513.01.0
18-DMD-4-17430.8483.51.60.90.064240.026180.022420.009170.002530.0001674979423916.01.0
18-DMD-4-181024.01154.54.20.90.031030.008850.012230.003500.002860.00012−23933012418.40.8
18-DMD-4-19668.5460.52.71.50.127960.065650.050110.029610.002840.0003320701175502918.02.0
18-DMD-4-20797.31004.03.40.80.050350.010550.019370.004060.002790.0001121137319418.00.7
18-DMD-4-21983.21004.53.51.00.079350.014480.029350.005340.002680.00011118137329517.30.7
18-DMD-4-22966.3673.92.61.40.075560.018750.029030.007200.002780.00013108353629717.90.9
18-DMD-4-23378.0493.61.50.80.106900.032070.037460.011210.002540.000171747597371116.01.0
18-DMD-4-24408.6460.41.60.90.076900.020230.029640.007790.002790.00015111952630818.01.0
18-DMD-4-251650.81295.04.41.30.081180.010950.028200.003750.002520.00010122624728416.20.6
18-DMD-4-26906.9909.73.11.00.028590.009380.010270.003390.002600.00011−34635210316.80.7
18-DMD-4-27461.7536.22.00.90.074700.015730.028180.005920.002730.00013106041728617.60.8
18-DMD-4-28697.2705.92.51.00.070950.012300.027590.004760.002820.0001195633828518.10.7
Sample. 18-DMD-1
18-DMD-1-1542.4716.52.80.70.050640.003270.198710.012200.028420.00072225141184101815
18-DMD-1-2956.5723.52.90.80.050390.003130.193300.011790.027780.00064213136179101774
18-DMD-1-3852.3812.63.01.10.064430.006510.282440.028160.031750.00092756211253222016
18-DMD-1-4365.2653.52.60.50.051720.002940.216930.011620.030380.00068273127199101934
18-DMD-1-5658.5724.43.60.80.050530.002610.197270.009640.028270.0006221912318381804
18-DMD-1-6936.2741.23.31.40.054470.003000.207390.011150.027570.0006339013119191754
18-DMD-1-7345.4451.31.70.90.051270.002580.205310.010000.029000.0006325312119081844
18-DMD-1-8542.4512.32.71.00.051550.003080.200180.011250.028120.00067266142185101794
18-DMD-1-9745.4841.03.30.90.047980.005350.203920.025660.030820.0009099233188221966
18-DMD-1-10365.2362.51.70.90.048740.002540.212640.010690.031590.0007113512319692004
18-DMD-1-11245.7368.81.60.80.052790.002830.204190.010560.028010.0006432012818991784
18-DMD-1-12634.1512.62.21.10.051590.003160.213590.012750.029980.00070267138197111904
18-DMD-1-13856.5965.43.60.90.048220.002930.191950.011360.028830.00065110133178101834
18-DMD-1-14586.6614.72.60.90.045950.003090.199100.013150.031380.00076–5144184111995
18-DMD-1-15489.8612.72.70.80.049890.003570.207800.013920.030160.00075190158192121925
18-DMD-1-16425.3452.32.00.90.056990.003230.235830.012640.029970.00066491124215101904
18-DMD-1-17912.41865.57.80.50.046640.002720.186240.010410.028920.000663112417391844
18-DMD-1-18637.5632.82.41.00.057750.003160.225110.011750.028230.00066520112206101794
18-DMD-1-19524.8528.52.51.00.052400.002860.215160.011410.029730.00069303115198101894
18-DMD-1-20956.11002.54.70.90.061590.003710.259480.014660.030510.00072660120234121944
18-DMD-1-21425.4415.73.00.90.053920.003030.226320.012420.030390.00071368118207101934
18-DMD-1-22714.4745.83.40.90.050150.002750.207240.010760.029930.0006720211619191904
18-DMD-1-23301.4354.21.20.70.057600.003430.223860.012740.028140.00066515129205111794
18-DMD-1-24635.7765.33.10.90.052960.003120.216040.012000.029540.00067327131199101884
18-DMD-1-25398.7534.62.20.80.050500.003360.205140.012960.029420.00074218147189111875
Table
Table 3. Hf isotopic compositions of samples from the Demingding deposit.
Table 3. Hf isotopic compositions of samples from the Demingding deposit.
Sample No.Rock TypeT (Ma)176Lu/177Hf2SE176Hf/177Hf2SEHf(t)2TDM1TDM2
18-DMD-4
DMD-4-1monzogranites17.90.0010210.0000470.2829190.0000335.61.2472.1740.2
DMD-4-216.30.0012680.0000670.2828630.0000193.60.7554.6866.9
DMD-4-317.40.0015040.0000420.2828470.0000223.00.8582.1904.0
DMD-4-417.20.0010520.0000250.2828180.0000232.00.8616.3969.3
DMD-4-518.30.0009630.0000210.2828230.0000202.20.7607.9957.6
DMD-4-616.10.0008990.0000150.2827870.0000240.90.8657.31039.2
DMD-4-716.60.0012300.0000190.2828410.0000192.80.7586.8918.4
DMD-4-815.90.0006220.0000520.2828180.0000182.00.6609.3969.7
DMD-4-915.80.0009230.0000330.2828750.0000184.00.6533.4841.2
DMD-4-1016.50.0008050.0000150.2828300.0000182.40.6594.7941.4
DMD-4-1116.00.0009080.0000330.2828460.0000223.00.8573.8905.8
DMD-4-1218.40.0011000.0000650.2828330.0000172.50.6595.6934.6
DMD-4-1318.00.0013710.0000540.2828460.0000203.00.7581.1905.3
DMD-4-1418.00.0008990.0000210.2828650.0000183.70.6547.4862.8
DMD-4-1517.30.0009770.0000250.2828630.0000193.60.7551.6868.1
DMD-4-1617.90.0009680.0000510.2828470.0000203.00.7573.9903.5
DMD-4-1716.80.0017370.0000680.2828400.0000222.70.8596.4921.0
DMD-4-1817.60.0010800.0000540.2828690.0000243.80.8543.9853.4
DMD-4-1918.10.0011840.0000210.2829200.0000205.60.7472.2737.2
18-DMD-1
DMD-1-1rhyolites1810.0023360.0000530.2828150.0000175.20.6642.2888.8
DMD-1-22010.0019190.0000270.2827620.0000233.80.9711.5993.5
DMD-1-31930.0036110.0000900.2828200.0000205.50.7657.6880.9
DMD-1-41800.0034500.0000690.2828310.0000215.60.8638.7862.3
DMD-1-51860.0051900.0000550.2827880.0000244.00.9739.3968.2
DMD-1-61840.0041910.0001670.2828680.0000196.90.7594.7781.9
DMD-1-71790.0040060.0000500.2828050.0000234.60.8689.1925.7
DMD-1-82000.0041360.0001350.2828640.0000227.10.8600.3783.7
DMD-1-91900.0026490.0000120.2827670.0000233.70.8718.5994.1
DMD-1-101860.0035360.0000580.2827920.0000254.40.9699.0947.2
DMD-1-111920.0022290.0000680.2828680.0000277.31.0563.3763.5
DMD-1-121840.0033290.0001300.2828470.0000206.30.7612.4823.4
DMD-1-131860.0039310.0000830.2827290.0000262.10.9803.21091.4
DMD-1-141790.0029090.0000220.2828500.0000266.30.9600.2815.2
DMD-1-151890.0023360.0000380.2828290.0000245.90.8621.5852.8
DMD-1-161940.0033800.0001330.2828220.0000225.60.8651.1875.3
DMD-1-171930.0032440.0001580.2827940.0000254.60.9690.3937.1
DMD-1-181900.0024010.0000120.2828320.0000216.00.8618.1845.8
DMD-1-191790.0022140.0000930.2828100.0000255.00.9647.2900.0
DMD-1-201860.0021010.0000640.2827960.0000244.70.9665.2926.3
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lu, Y.; Dong, K.; Zhou, H.; Li, Z. Origin and Geodynamic Mechanism of the Tibetan Demingding Porphyry Mo (Cu) Deposit from Oceanic Subduction to Continental Collision. Minerals 2022, 12, 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12101266

AMA Style

Lu Y, Dong K, Zhou H, Li Z. Origin and Geodynamic Mechanism of the Tibetan Demingding Porphyry Mo (Cu) Deposit from Oceanic Subduction to Continental Collision. Minerals. 2022; 12(10):1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12101266

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lu, Yigan, Kai Dong, Hui Zhou, and Zhuoyang Li. 2022. "Origin and Geodynamic Mechanism of the Tibetan Demingding Porphyry Mo (Cu) Deposit from Oceanic Subduction to Continental Collision" Minerals 12, no. 10: 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12101266

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop