Next Article in Journal
Influence of Layered Angle on Dynamic Characteristics of Backfill under Impact Loading
Previous Article in Journal
Naryn-Gol Creek Sapphire Placer Deposit, Buryatia, Russia
 
 
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 5
10.3390/min12050510
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

Reappraising the Provenance of Early Neoproterozoic Strata in the Southern–Southeastern North China Craton and Its Implication for Paleogeographic Reconstruction

by
Fengbo Sun
1,
Peng Peng
2,
Deshun Zheng
1,* and
Pengfei Zuo
1
1
Institute of Resources & Environment, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454003, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2022, 12(5), 510; https://doi.org/10.3390/min12050510
Submission received: 30 March 2022 / Revised: 15 April 2022 / Accepted: 18 April 2022 / Published: 20 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Geochemistry and Geochronology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The early Neoproterozoic sediments in the southern–southeastern (S-SE) North China Craton (NCC) are critical in paleogeographic reconstruction. We present new detrital zircon U–Pb–Hf data of five sandstone samples from the Sangwon Supergroup in SE-NCC and the Wufoshan Group in S-NCC. We integrate published zircon U–Pb data to appraise their provenance. The new dataset constrains the maximum depositional age of the Sangwon Supergroup to be ca. 1.0 Ga. The similar provenance transition and the comparable sequence stratigraphy imply that the Wufoshan Group could be an extension of the Xuhuai–Dalian–Pyongnam basins in the SE NCC with a maximum depositional age of ca. 1.0 Ga. The zircon age spectra of the successions show four major populations at ca. 2.5 Ga, ca. 2.0–1.8 Ga, ca. 1.6–1.4 Ga, ca. 1.3–1.0 Ga, with rare >2.5 Ga grains. The Archean–Paleoproterozoic grains could be derived from the NCC, which is confirmed by their εHf(t) values. After a review of the possible paleocontinental reconstructions, we suggest that the ca. 1.6–1.0 Ga grains with different εHf(t) values (mostly positive) were from the southwestern Congo craton, supporting a NCC–SW Congo/SE NCC-S São Francisco connection at ca. 0.9 Ga.

1. Introduction

The hypothesized late Mesoproterozoic to early Neoproterozoic supercontinent Rodinia has aroused hot discussions after the original configuration [1]. Unlike Laurentia, Baltica, Siberia, and some of the other cratons, which have been well-reconstructed in the Rodinia supercontinent [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], the position of the North China Craton (NCC) has been much debated. One reason is that the NCC is believed to have few geological records that match either the assemblage (e.g., orogenic event) or breakup (e.g., mafic magmatism) of the supercontinent [3,15,16].
It is well-known that there are widespread, early Neoproterozoic sedimentary successions along much of the southern and southeastern margins of the NCC (Figure 1). Recently, the quality and quantity of detrital zircon geochronology have begun to provide essential constraints on the clastic provenance of these marginal basins in the NCC, which may enhance the unraveling of the tectonic evolution and paleogeographic reconstruction [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. The increasing magnitude of the zircon-dating dataset permits the use of new statistical technics to identify trends in the spatial and temporal evolution of provenances of these basin successions [25,26]. In this contribution, we compile existing detrital zircon U–Pb datasets and add new U–Pb–Hf isotopic systematics of data of key samples from two focused successions (i.e., the Sangwon Supergroup in Pyongnam Basin, SE margin of the craton, and the Wufoshan Group in Xiong’er Basin, S margin; Figure 2), aiming to: (1) evaluate possible correlations of stratigraphy in the two regions and all the basins along the S-SE margin of the craton, (2) constrain provenance evolution of the relevant successions, and (3) infer the paleogeographic configuration of the NCC with the Rodinia supercontinent.

2. Geological Settings and Stratigraphy

The NCC is one of the three oldest cratons in China and has a geological history of >3.8 Ga characterized by multi-stages of crustal growth [27]. Its Archean basement includes dominantly the ca. 2.7–2.5 Ga supracrustal and plutonic rocks [28,29,30,31,32,33]. Three late Paleoproterozoic collision belts, comprising ca. 2.3–2.1 Ga metamorphic volcano-sedimentary sequences and ca. 1.9–1.8 Ga granite-dominated intrusions, represent the final stabilization of the NCC (Figure 1a) [34,35,36,37].
From ca. 1.8 Ga to 0.9 Ga, the NCC was stable, represented by multiple stages of basin formation [38], i.e., the Xiong’er rift along the southern margin of the NCC, the Yanliao rift in north-central NCC, the Bayan Obo rift in northwestern NCC, and the Xuhuai (–Dalian–Pyongnam) rift along the eastern margin of the NCC (Figure 1b). Several cogenetic (with the rifting) igneous events have been recognized [38,39]: (Ⅰ) the ca. 1.78–1.75 Ga Xiong’er volcanic and Taihang Dykes (Xiong’er LIP) and coeval granitic intrusions in central and southern NCC; (Ⅱ) the ca. 1.72–1.47 Ga anorogenic magmatic association in the north and south NCC; (Ⅲ) the ca. 1.35–1.21 Ga Yanliao and Licheng LIPs (LIP, Large Igneous Province) in the central–northern–eastern NCC, and ca. 1.3 Ga carbonites in the Bayan Obo, N NCC; and (Ⅳ) the ca. 0.94–0.89 Ga Dashigou LIP in the central and southeastern NCC.

2.1. Sangwon Supergroup in the Pyongnam Basin, SE-NCC

Early Neoproterozoic sedimentary successions were widely developed along much of the southeastern NCC (Figure 1d), including the Sangwon Supergroup (System) in Pyongnam Basin (North Korea), Yongning-Wuxingshan-Jinxian groups in Dalian Basin, Penglai and Tumen groups in the Jiaolai Basin and west Shandong, and Huaihe-Langan/Bagongshan-Xuhuai groups in Xuhuai Basin (Figure 3). Overlying the Paleoproterozoic Jiao–Liao–Ji belt, they show a distinct SW–NE trend and are separated from each other by the Phanerozoic Tan–Lu fault and Bohai Bay. In the reconstructions by reversing the sinistral displacement of the Tan–Lu fault, these early Neoproterozoic sedimentary basins are juxtaposed [40,41].
The Sangwon Supergroup of Pyongnam Basin consists of ca. 8000 m thick sedimentary rocks that underwent low greenschist metamorphism [42,45]. It is composed of the Jikhyon, Sadangu, Muckchon, and Myoraksan groups from the bottom-up (Figure 3). The Jikhyon Group comprises four formations (the Jangbong, Obongri, Jangsusan, and Ansimryong formations from the bottom-up) and comprises conglomerate, quartz sandstone, schist, and phyllite, with a total thickness of about 3000 m [42]. It was mostly developed in the southern Pyongnam Basin, called the South Type. In the northern Pyongnam basin, the Jikhyon Group is relatively thin, called the North Type [42]. The Sadangu Group comprises three formations (the Unjoksan, Tokjaesan, and Chongsokturi from the bottom upward), featured by stromatolite limestone and dolomite [42]. The Mukchon group comprises three formations (the Solhwasan, Okhyonri, and Mukchon) with mainly quartz sandstone, phyllite, and marl. The Myoraksan series is made of carbonate rocks (limestones and dolomites) in the lower part and silty phyllites in the upper part [42].
Sariwon mafic dykes and sills (belonging to the Dashigou LIP) widely intruded into the Sangwon Supergroup. Precise baddeleyite U–Pb dating has shown that these mafic intrusions were emplaced at ca. 0.9 Ga [40], giving a minimum age limit for Sangwon Supergroup. In addition, detrital zircon U–Pb dating yields the maximum depositional age of ca. 1.0 Ga for the Jikhyon Group [19,50].

2.2. Wufoshan Group in the Xiong’er Basin, S-NCC

In the Songshan area of the Xiong’er Basin, the Wufoshan Group unconformably covers the metamorphic Archean–Paleoproterozoic basement (Figure 2c). It is composed of terrestrial clastic–carbonate succession recording river delta–coastal–neritic environments [43]. The Wufoshan Group is subdivided into Ma’anshan, Puyu, Luotuopan, and Hejiazhai formations. The Ma’anshan Formation mainly comprises fleshy red and grayish-white quartz sandstone with a small amount of silty shale and lenticular conglomerates [45]. The basal conglomerate is common and about 3–20 m thick. Structures like cross–beddings, ripple marks, and mud cracks are well-developed in the Ma’anshan Formation. The overlying Puyu Formation is characterized by variegated shales and siltstones, with a stable thickness of ~130 m [43]. The Luotuopan Formation, conformably sitting on the Puyu shales, consists of quartz sandstones and sandstone-conglomerates with a thickness of 30–40 m [45]. The Hejiazhai Formation is composed of fine sandstones, shales, thin-bedded limestones, and stromatolitic limestones, with a thickness of ~330 m in the typical profile [43].
Based on regional lithologic correlation and U–Pb dating on detrital zircons from Ma’anshan Formation, the Wufoshan Group has long been described as part of late Paleoproterozoic–early Mesoproterozoic Xiong’er rift formation, being correlated with the 1.7–1.6 Ga Ruyang–Luoyu groups in the Mianchi–Queshan area [43,46,47,51,52]. However, plenty of ca. 1.1–1.0 Ga Mesoproterozoic grains are reported from the Luotuopan and Hejiazhai formations, limiting the maximum deposition age to be ca. 1.0 Ga [48,49].

3. Samples and Methods

3.1. Samples

Five samples were collected for detrital zircon geochronological analysis (sampling locations are shown in Figure 2). Three samples (WFS2110-1, WFS2110-2, WFS2110-3) were collected from the Wufoshan Group near the Wufoshan village, Dengfeng, west Henan Province (coordinates: E 112°51′27.24″, N 3429′33.37″). Sample WFS2110-1 is a siltstone collected from the Puyu Formation, ca. 100 m far south of the village. Sample WFS2110-2 is a medium-to-coarse-grained quartz sandstone collected from the Luotuopan Formation, ca. 500 m north of the Wufoshan Village. Sample WFS2110-3 is a coarse sandstone collected from the basal part of the Hejiazhai Formation, about 100 m away from Sample WFS2110-2.
Two samples, NK1010-1 and NK1015-1, were collected from basal parts of the Sangwon Supergroup (the Jikhyon Group) in the north and south margins of the Pyongnam basin, respectively. Sample NK1015-1 was collected from the east Taetan County, Hwanghaenam-do, North Korea (coordinates: E 125°21′0.6″, N 38°4′47.4″). Sample NK1010-1 was collected from the west Sangsong County, Pyongannam-do, North Korea (coordinates: E 126°51′7.1″, N 39°11′46.6″). They were both quartz sandstones of the Jangbong Formation of the Jikhyon Group, representing the south and north types, respectively.

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Zircon U–Pb Isotopes and Trace Elements

Fresh portions of the samples were powdered to 80-mesh, and then zircon grains were extracted using conventional heavy liquids and magnetic methods. Hand-picked zircons under a binocular microscope, together with the standard 91500, GJ–1, were subsequently mounted on adhesive tape. They were enclosed in epoxy resin and polished 1/3 to 1/2 to expose the grain centers. Then, the CL images of the zircons were obtained at Wuhan SampleSolution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd. to check the internal structures and exposed surfaces to understand their origins and identify suitable dating targets for LA–ICP–MS analysis (Figure 4).
Zircon U–Pb dating and trace elements were measured by LA–ICP–MS at the Wuhan SampleSolution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd., Wuhan, China. Laser sampling was performed using a 193 nm GeoLasPro laser ablation system that consists of a COMPexPro 102 ArF excimer laser and a MicroLas optical system. Ion-signal intensities were acquired using an Agilent 7700e ICP–MS. The diameter of the spot was set to 32 µm and 24 µm for different sizes of zircon grains. The repetition was also set as 5 Hz and 4 Hz, respectively. Each analysis incorporated a background acquisition of approximately 20 s followed by 40 s of data acquisition from the sample. Reference zircon GJ1, 91500, Plešovice, and glass NIST SRM 610 were used as external reference standards for U–Pb dating and trace elements, respectively. The 91500 was analyzed twice every six analyses for both tests. A date processing app, ICPMSDataCal 11.8 [53], was utilized for offline raw data selection, integration of background and analyte signals, time-drift correction, and quantitative calibration for U–Pb dating. Concordia diagrams and probability density plots (PDPs) were plotted using Isoplot 4.0 [54].

3.2.2. Zircon Lu–Hf Isotopes

In situ zircon Hf isotope analysis was carried out at the Sample Solution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd., Wuhan, China, using a GeoLas-193 laser-ablation microprobe attached to a Neptune Plus multi-collector (MC) ICP-MS. Spots for Hf analysis were undertaken as closely as possible to the U–Pb analysis spots. The ablation protocol employed a spot diameter of 44 µm. Zircon standard 91500, GJ-1, Plešovice, and TEM were measured as external calibration to evaluate the analytical reliability. The standard zircon Plešovice was analyzed twice every 5–10 sample analyses. The present-day chondritic ratios of 176Hf/177Hf = 0.282772 and 176Lu/177Hf = 0.0332 (Blichert-Toft and Albarède, 1997) were adopted to calculate the εHf(t) values. Raw data were processed using the ICPMSDataCal 11.8 [53].

4. Analytical Results

4.1. Zircon U–Pb Dating

The LA–ICP–MS zircon U–Pb dating and Th and U compositions of the five samples are supplied in Supplementary Table S1. Age disconcordance > 10% and error > 80 Ma (1σ) were utilized as filters to preclude some valueless ages, and they are not further discussed below. For zircon grains older than 1.0 Ga, 207Pb/206Pb ages were applied, whereas 206Pb/238U ages were selected for zircon grains younger than 1.0 Ga. The Th/U values are shown in Figure 5. Age probability distribution diagrams are shown in Figure 6.

4.1.1. WFS2110-1: Puyu Formation Silty Shale

The sizes of the zircon grains in Sample WFS2110–1 are relatively small, mostly at ca. 50 μm or smaller (Figure 4a). 55 spots randomly selected from 300 zircon grains were dated, and only 25 spots are valid after filtration. Their Th/U values are all >0.25 (Figure 5). Ages range from 1837 Ma to 2929 Ma, with distinct peaks at ca. 2.1 Ga and ca. 2.5 Ga (Figure 6f).

4.1.2. WFS2110-2: Lower Lutuopan Formation Sandstone

More than 2000 zircon grains were separated from sample WFS2110–2. They were mainly ca. 100 μm in size and subrounded or round (Figure 4b). In CL images, most of them displayed clear oscillating zonings. A few grains also showed core–rim texture, implying later thermal disturbance. A total of 90 analytical spots on 300 randomly selected grains were analyzed and two of them were abandoned because of low concordance. The remaining ages had a wide range between 1710 Ma to 2829 Ma, peaking at ca. 1.8 Ga and ca. 2.4 Ga (Figure 6g).

4.1.3. WFS2110–3: Basal Hejiazai Formation Sandstone

Zircons from samples WFS2110-3 were 80–150 μm in size and were rounded or subrounded. Almost all grains displayed clear oscillatory zoning on CL images (Figure 4c). Dissolution depressions and cracks are common, with Th/U ratios of 0.19–2.25 (Figure 5). A total of 95 randomly selected spots were analyzed, and 94 valid concordant ages range from 1091 Ma to 2787 Ma, peaking at ca. 1100 Ma, 1200 Ma, and ca. 1584 Ma (Figure 6h).

4.1.4. NK1015–1: Jangbong Formation, South Type

The zircon grain size of sample NK1015–1 was ca. 100 μm. In the CL image, most grains displayed clear oscillatory zoning and core–rim structure. Some had good roundness (Figure 4d). A total of 100 spots on 100 randomly selected grains were analyzed. All the 100 ages passed filtering, ranging from 2607 to 1820 Ma. In Figure 6i, they present a single peak at ca. 1.9 Ga. Their Th/U ratios were >0.15 (Figure 5), implying igneous origin.

4.1.5. NK1010–1: Jangbong Formation, North Type

The zircon grains in sample NK1010–1 were ca. 100 μm in size and had a good roundness shape. The CL images show that most grains had oscillating zonings (Figure 4e). After filtration, 97 ages with the high concordance were selected from 100 randomly tested spots were selected. Their ages had a wide range from Archean to late Mesoproterozoic. The Archaean and Paleoproterozoic grain ages peaked at ca. 2.6 Ga, while the middle Proterozoic grain ages were concentrated at ca. 1260 Ma, ca. 1395 Ma, ca. 1520 Ma, and ca. 1650 Ma (Figure 6j). High Th/U values implied they had an igneous origin (Figure 5).

4.2. Zircon Hf Isotopes

Zircons from Sample WFS2110–1 were not further dated because of their small size. The analytical data of all the samples are displayed in Supplementary Table S2. The εHf(t) values of most zircons from sample NK1015–1 cluster between −2 and −6 with TDMC ages ranging from 2.5 Ga to 2.9 Ga (Figure 7). The εHf(t) values of the 1.6–1.0 Ga zircons from Sample NK1010–1 were mainly positive, with minor negative ones. The εHf(t) values of the zircons from Sample WFS2110–2 (Luotuopan Fm.) range from −22.51 to +3.47. Both the ca. 1.6 Ga and ca. 1.2 Ga zircons from Sample WFS2110–3 (Hejiazhai Fm.) had large ranges of εHf(t) values.

5. Discussion

5.1. Depositional Ages

5.1.1. Depositional Age of the Sangwon Supergroup

The youngest detrital zircon ages can provide constraints on the maximum depositional age and provide information for the regional stratigraphy correlation [54]. In this study, we took the youngest single zircon age as an estimation of maximum depositional age in this contribution.
In Pyongnam, Samples NK1010-1 and NK1015-1 were collected from basal parts of the Jangbong Formation in the north and south margins of the Pyongnam basin, respectively. Their age distributions show a big difference, and the youngest single ages are 1820 ± 44 Ma and 1005 ± 72 Ma, respectively. We suggested that the 1005 ± 72 Ma could represent the maximum depositional age of the Sangwon Supergroup, consistent with the youngest 968 ± 25 Ma age of the Jangsan Formation in [19]. The 1820 ± 44 Ma zircon grains could be caused by a regional discrepancy of provenances.

5.1.2. Revised Age of the Wufoshan Group

In the southern NCC, the Wufoshan Group was lithologically described as a late Paleoproterozoic–early Mesoproterozoic Xiong’er rift sequence, correlating with the Ruyang–Luoyu groups in the Mianchi–Queshan area [43,46,47,51,52]. LA–ICP–MS207Pb/206Pb ages of the single youngest detrital zircons from the Ma’anshan Formation include 1655 ± 22 Ma [46], 1793 ± 6.4 Ma [47], 1698 ± 47 Ma [55], and 1711 ± 39 Ma (this study). However, the upper two formations of the Wufoshan Group are constrained to be ca. 1.0–0.95 Ga [48,49] and this study, which extends the depositional chronospan of the Wufoshan Group to be 1.65–0.95 Ga. Since the formations of the Wufoshan Group are conformably contact from bottom to top—such a large chronospan may be quite different from the actual depositional age of the Wufoshan Group.
Zircon age distributions depend on the geological setting of source areas. Provenance variation or transition could significantly affect age distributions of different horizons and regions. The age distribution difference between the lower and upper units of the Wufoshan Group could be simply caused by the provenance transition because the provenance of the Ma’anshan Formation has a strong affinity with NCC [47,50,56]. However, ca. 1.65–1.45 Ga and 1.3–1.0 Ga magmatic zircons are not common in the NCC basement. In Figure 8, the MDS plots reveal that this provenance transition generally occurred in the early Neoproterozoic basins in the southeastern NCC [26]. Additionally, the Wufoshan Group and those successions in the southeastern NCC share a similar sequence stratigraphy (Figure 3) [42,43,44]. We suggest that the Wufoshan Group could have also been deposited during ca. 1.0–0.9 Ga, correlating with those successions in the southeastern NCC, and consequently, it represents a western extension of the Xuhuai–Dalian–Pyongnam basins.

5.2. Provenance Analysis

The detrital zircon U–Pb age spectra of sedimentary rocks from the target successions show four major populations at ca. 2.5 Ga, ca. 2.0–1.8 Ga, ca. 1.7–1.5 Ga, and ca. 1.3–1.1 Ga, and subordinate populations at ca. 1.4 Ga with rare >2.5 Ga grains (Figure 6k). The >2.5 Ga Archean grains are subordinate in all the dated samples from the successions and usually cluster between 2.8 and 2.6 Ga, with fewer >3.0 Ga, highly consistent with the coeval TTG gneisses and greenstones reported in the Eastern Block of the NCC (e.g., Luxi Complex in Western Shandong and Qixia Complex in Eastern Shandong; [57,58,59,60]). Among the detrital zircon age peaks, ca. 2.5 Ga and ca. 2.0 to 1.8 Ga are typical features of the NCC basement [31], which is also indicated by their εHf(t) values. In addition, ca. 1.8–1.6 Ga Xiong’er LIP and anorogenic magmatic association also developed in the northern and southern margin of the NCC [39].
However, other zircons, such as ca. 1.6–1.4 Ga and ca. 1.3–1.0 Ga grains, should not be attributed to the NCC. Several ca. 1.62–1.47 Ga anorogenic magmatic rocks, including 1.62 Ga Longwangzhuang granite [61,62], 1.6 Ga, and 1.53 Ga A-type granite [63,64], and 1.47 Ga Panhe syenites [65], were also reported in the southern NCC. However, all of them are characterized by negative εHf(t) values, distinctive from positive εHf(t) values for the 1.6–1.4 Ga detrital zircons from the Meso- to Neoproterozoic successions in the southern–southeastern NCC. Some ca. 1.40 Ga tuff layers [66,67], ca. 1.35–1.30 Ga [68,69,70,71], and ca. 1.27–1.21 Ga dikes/sills [72,73,74] also developed in the Yanliao area. However, they can hardly provide zircons to the basins because of the zircon fertility and limited outcrops. The NCC has no record of 1.2–1.0 Ga acidic magmatic activity, except for a granitic body in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula [75]. These Mesoproterozoic zircons could have provenance other than the NCC or block(s) that were formerly adjacent or juxtaposed to the NCC.

5.3. Non-NCC Provenance and Paleogeographic Implications

5.3.1. Possible Paleocontinental Reconstructions

The variable amount of zircon detritus and their Lu–Hf data indicate that between 1.6 and 1.0 Ga, important periods of juvenile activity coupled with reworking occurred in the regions of provenance [19,20,22,24]. Ca. 0.94–0.89 Ga sills and dikes are widely distributed in the central and southeastern NCC [23,40,41,76,77,78]. This large-scale mafic intrusion event is an essential indicator for widespread continental lithospheric extension and thus could be a precursor of continental rifting events [79,80]. This ca. 0.94–0.89 Ga magmatism could represent an early breakup phase of the Rodinia supercontinent [40,77,81]. Additionally, the detrital zircon spectra are in an agreement with the extensional setting in the tectonic discrimination (Figure 9) [82]. Therefore, the NCC should be connected to a continent that developed 1.6–1.0 Ga multiphase large-scale magmatism. This continent split from the NCC during the sedimentation of early Neoproterozoic successions in the southern–southeastern NCC. It could also be the case that the NCC once developed in the Andean continental margin arc (orogenic belt) and experienced post-orogen extension. Still, this continental margin arc is not preserved. The zircon grains can therefore be derived from syn–collisional magmatism as well as a swath of older rock units caught in the orogenic margin and the cratonic foreland [82].
In the literature, three paleocontinental reconstructions are particularly interesting to interpret the Mesoproterozoic provenances and tectonic of early Neoproterozoic successions in the southern–southeastern NCC. The first one connects the northern side of the NCC (present coordinate) with the Canadian shield, Baltica [83,84,85]. It can explain the observation that the detrital zircon age spectrums of coeval sediments in the western Baltica and the NCC basins are quite similar. However, notable paleomagnetic data support that the northern side of the NCC was placed along the northwest side of Laurentia (present coordinates) in Rodinia [23,86]. It needed a large drainage system across the Laurentia and the NCC that transported the Grenville-age detrital zircons in the Baltic and East Laurentia to the basins. Considering the large distance and weak NCC basement provenance record in most formations, the possibility of these exotic grains entering the basins through the craton is quite small. It is more likely that the ancient block was once adjacent to the southern–southeastern margin of the NCC and provided the provenance.
Microcontinental fragments with Precambrian basement comprising pre-orogenic components are common constituents of orogenic belts. The second reconstruction suggests a Grenvillian-aged orogeny (ca. 0.9 Ga) between the North Qinling Terrane (NQT) and NCC occurred along the Kuanping suture [87,88]. The post-collisional tectonics was consequently succeeded by orogenic collapse and extension [89,90]. However, the Proterozoic NQT is characterized by a predominantly highly deformed and metamorphosed Paleoproterozoic basement, with a small amount of 1.4–1.0 Ga Kuanping meta-basic volcanic rocks [91] and 1.37 Ga bimodal volcanic rocks of the Waitoushan Formation [92]. The NQT itself has few rocks to be provenance of ca. 1.6–1.4 Ga detrital zircons.
Some researchers speculate about a long Proterozoic proximity between the São Francisco-Congo and the NCC [40,77,93,94,95,96,97,98]. Reconstructions of the Columbia supercontinent suggest the proximity of the NCC and SF–CC due to the locations of the ca. 1.8–1.7 Ga Pará de Minas I and II dyke swarms and Xiong’er LIP [93,95,97,98,99,100]. Similarly, Peng et al. [40,81,101] proposed an NCC–São Francisco connection during the early Neoproterozoic based on the similar 920–900 Ma Dashigou-Chulan and Bahia-Gangila LIPs. Based on the paleomagnetic constraints [15,23,86], another reconstruction with southeastern NCC placed side-by-side with northeastern SF–CC [94]. Unfortunately, the SF–CC has few effective Mesoproterozoic provenance.

5.3.2. Non-NCC Sources and Paleogeographic Reconstruction

Notably, most Precambrian paleocontinental reconstructions are generally cratonic pieces drawn with their present-day shapes [96]. Old cratonic basements could be flanked or truncated by orogenic belts. Alternatively, when we carry out a paleocontinental reconstruction, vast tracts of marginal basements, which could have been reworked and intruded by orogenic plutons as well as juvenile magmatism, should also be taken into consideration [102].
In this sense, the “broad” SF–CC should also include the Congo–Uganda Block, the Bangweulu Block, and Tanzania Craton, which were assembled after peak compressional tectonism in the Kibaran Belt at 1.38–1.25 Ga and Irumide Belt at ca. 1.0 Ga [103]. Multiphase magmatic episodes cluster at ca. 1.77–1.75, 1.68–1.61, 1.53–1.50, 1.44, 1.38–1.33, and 1.25–1.03 Ga are identified in the southwestern Congo Craton and its marginal orogenic belts [103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110]. When we take a closer look at the zircon ages obtained from the southern São Francisco and southwestern Congo, we notice a similarity of provenance for the detrital zircons in the NCC and SF–CC with matching Mesoproterozoic ages as well as the Hf isotopes (Figure 10) [19,20,22,102,111,112,113,114]. The SF–CC has also undergone ca. 0.9 Ga intraplate rift evolution [113,115,116,117], which is highly consistent with the southeast NCC.
Based on these several lines of evidence, we suggest the Mesoproterozoic zircon grains in the NCC basins could be derived from the southwest Congo block and its marginal orogenic belts. If some large depression, uplift, or other continents separated the south–southeast NCC from the SF–CC, sediments eroded from the sources might not have been transported towards the basins in NCC. We infer a paleogeographic model that the southeast Congo could link to the southern NCC, while the southern São Francisco corresponded to the southeast NCC (Figure 11). The sediments eroded from the southwest Congo have been transported towards Xiong’er and Xuhuai basins and subsequently redistributed to other basins in southeast NCC by marine currents. Supplementarily, they could also get their clastic supply after a cycle of sedimentation and diagenesis of the upper Espinhaço sedimentary rocks [102,112]. However, because of the unconformity between early and late Neoproterozoic basins in both cratons, the exact timing and mechanism of separating the two cratons remain unclear, which deserves further attention.

6. Conclusions

The conclusions of this study are as follows:
(1)
The maximum depositional age of the Sangwon Supergroup is ca. 1.0 Ga. According to a similar provenance transition among all the successions and the comparable sequence stratigraphy in the basins along with the southern–southeastern NCC, the Wufoshan Group to the south of the craton is comparable with those ca. 1.0–0.9 Ga sedimentary successions in the Xuhuai–Dalian–Pyongnam basins. An intracratonic rift setting is most likely the sedimentary environment of these very late Mesoproterozoic–early Neoproterozoic basins.
(2)
The Archean–Paleoproterozoic zircon grains from the successions show a feature of the NCC provenance, while the more prominent sedimentary provenance—those with Mesoproterozoic ages—could be transported from the once-connected neighbor block of the NCC, e.g., the southwest Congo craton.
(3)
Based on the evaluation of the possible paleogeographic reconstructions of the south–southeast NCC, a connection between southern–southeastern NCC and southern São Francisco/southwest Congo at 1.0–0.9 Ga is preferred based on the comparable tectonic environment, highly matching provenance characteristics, and matching key magmatism (e.g., ca. 0.92 Ga igneous event).

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/min12050510/s1, Table S1: LA–ICP–MA zircon U–Pb dating results; Table S2: LA–MC–ICP–MS zircon Hf isotope analytical results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation and editing, F.S.; writing—review and editing, P.P. and P.Z.; supervision, D.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The National Key Research and Development Project of China, grant number 2020YFA0714803, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Numbers 41872238 and 41890833.

Data Availability Statement

The presented data appear in the listed references and Supplementary Materials of this submitted article, and are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Yuan Zhang and Xin Wang for their help with the fieldwork. The authors also thank the staff of the Wuhan Sample Solution Analytical Technology Co., Ltd. for their help with laboratory analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dalziel, I.W.D. Pacific Margins of Laurentia and East Antarctica Australia as a Conjugate Rift Pair–Evidence and Implications for an Eocambrian Supercontinent. Geology 1991, 19, 598–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, Z.X.; Zhang, L.; Powell, C.M. South China in Rodinia: Part of the missing link between Australia-East Antarctica and Laurentia? Geology 1995, 23, 407–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, Z.X.; Bogdanova, S.V.; Collins, A.S.; Davidson, A.; De Waele, B.; Ernst, R.E.; Fitzsimons, I.C.W.; Fuck, R.A.; Gladkochub, D.P.; Jacobs, J.; et al. Assembly, configuration, and break-up history of Rodinia: A synthesis. Precambrian Res. 2008, 160, 179–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pisarevsky, S.A.; Natapov, L.M. Siberia and Rodinia. Tectonophysics 2003, 375, 221–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pisarevsky, S.A.; Wingate, M.T.D.; Stevens, M.K.; Haines, P.W. Palaeomagnetic results from the Lancer 1 stratigraphic drillhole, Officer Basin, Western Australia, and implications for Rodinia reconstructions. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 2007, 54, 561–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Johansson, Å. Baltica, Amazonia and the SAMBA connection—1000 million years of neighbourhood during the Proterozoic? Precambrian Res. 2009, 175, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Johansson, Å. From Rodinia to Gondwana with the ‘SAMBA’ model—A distant view from Baltica towards Amazonia and beyond. Precambrian Res. 2014, 244, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Stewart, E.D.; Link, P.K.; Fanning, C.M.; Frost, C.D.; McCurry, M. Paleogeographic implications of non-North American sediment in the Mesoproterozoic upper Belt Supergroup and Lemhi Group, Idaho and Montana, USA. Geology 2010, 38, 927–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, Z.X.; Evans, D.A. Late Neoproterozoic 40° intraplate rotation within Australia allows for a tighter-fitting and longer-lasting Rodinia. Geology 2011, 39, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Gibson, G.M.; Henson, P.A.; Neumann, N.L.; Southgate, P.N.; Hutton, L.J. Paleoproterozoic-earliest Mesoproterozoic basin evolution in the Mount Isa region, northern Australia and implications for reconstructions of the Nuna and Rodinia supercontinents. Episodes 2012, 35, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Dalziel, I.W. Antarctica and supercontinental evolution: Clues and puzzles. Earth Environ. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 2013, 104, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Paulsen, T.; Deering, C.; Sliwinski, J.; Bachmann, O.; Guillong, M. New detrital zircon age and trace element evidence for 1450 Ma igneous zircon sources in East Antarctica. Precambrian Res. 2017, 300, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wen, B.; Evans, D.A.; Li, Y.X. Neoproterozoic paleogeography of the Tarim Block: An extended or alternative “missing-link” model for Rodinia? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2017, 458, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wen, B.; Evans, D.A.; Wang, C.; Li, Y.X.; Jing, X. A positive test for the Greater Tarim Block at the heart of Rodinia: Mega-dextral suturing of supercontinent assembly. Geology 2018, 46, 687–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Evans, D.A.; Trindade, R.I.; Catelani, E.L.; D’Agrella-Filho, M.S.; Heaman, L.M.; Oliveira, E.P.; Söderlund, U.; Ernst, R.E.; Smirnov, A.V.; Salminen, J.M. Return to Rodinia? Moderate to high palaeolatitude of the São Francisco/Congo craton at 920 Ma. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2016, 424, 167–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Merdith, A.S.; Collins, A.S.; Williams, S.E.; Pisarevsky, S.; Foden, J.D.; Archibald, D.B.; Blades, M.L.; Alessio, B.L.; Armistead, S.; Plavsa, D.; et al. A full-plate global reconstruction of the Neoproterozoic. Precambrian Res. 2017, 50, 84–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chu, H.; Lu, S.N.; Wang, H.C.; Xiang, Z.Q.; Liu, H. U-Pb age spectrum of detrital zircons from the Fuzikuang Formation, Penglai Group in Changdao Shandong Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2011, 27, 1017–1028, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  18. Gao, L.Z.; Liu, P.J.; Yin, C.; Zhang, C.Y.; Ding, X.Z.; Liu, Y.X.; Song, B. Detrital zircon dating of Meso- and Neoproterozoic rocks in North China and its implications. Acta Geol. Sin. 2011, 85, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hu, B.; Zhai, M.G.; Li, T.S.; Li, Z.; Peng, P.; Guo, J.H.; Kusky, T.M. Mesoproterozoic magmatic events in the eastern North China Craton and their tectonic implications: Geochronological evidence from detrital zircons in the Shandong Peninsula and North Korea. Gondwana Res. 2012, 22, 828–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yang, D.B.; Xu, W.L.; Xu, Y.G.; Wang, Q.H.; Pei, F.P.; Wang, F. U-Pb ages and Hf isotope data from detrital zircons in the Neoproterozoic sandstones of northern Jiangsu and southern Liaoning Provinces, China: Implications for the late Precambrian evolution of the southeastern North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 2012, 216–219, 162–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. He, T.; Zhou, Y.; Vermeesch, P.; Rittner, M.; Miao, L.; Zhu, M.; Carter, A.; von Strandmann, P.A.E.P.; Shields, G.A. Measuring the ‘Great Unconformity’ on the North China Craton using new detrital zircon age data. Geol. Soci. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2017, 448, 145–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sun, F.B.; Peng, P.; Zhou, X.Q.; Magalhaes, A.J.; Guadagnin, F.; Zhou, X.T.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Su, X.D. Provenance analysis of the late Mesoproterozoic to Neoproterozoic Xuhuai Basin in the southeast North China Craton: Implications for paleogeographic reconstruction. Precambrian Res. 2020, 337, 105554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhao, H.Q.; Zhang, S.H.; Ding, J.K.; Chang, L.; Ren, Q.; Li, H.; Yang, T.; Wu, H. New geochronologic and paleomagnetic results from early Neoproterozoic mafic sills and late Mesoproterozoic to early Neoproterozoic successions in the eastern North China Craton, and implications for the reconstruction of Rodinia. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 2020, 132, 739–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, W.; Liu, F.L.; Liu, C.H. Provenance transition from the North China Craton to the Grenvillian orogeny-related source: Evidence from late Mesoproterozoic-early Neoproterozoic strata in the Liao-Ji area. Precambrian Res. 2021, 362, 106281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Andersen, T. Detrital zircons as tracers of sedimentary provenance: Limiting conditions from statistics and numerical simulation. Chem. Geol. 2005, 216, 249–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vermeesch, P. Multi-sample comparison of detrital age distributions. Chem. Geol. 2013, 341, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, D.Y.; Nutman, A.P.; Compston, W.; Wu, J.S.; Shen, Q.H. Remnants of >3800 Ma crust in the Chinese part of the Sino-Korean Craton. Geology 1992, 20, 339–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhai, M.G.; Bian, A.G.; Zhao, T.P. The amalgamation of the supercontinent of North China Craton at the end of Neoarchean and its breakup during late Paleoproterozoic and Meso-Proterozoic. Sci. China 2000, 43, 219–232, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wilde, S.A.; Zhao, G.C. Archean to Paleoproterozoic evolution of the North China Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2005, 24, 519–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Santosh, M. Assembling North China Craton within the Columbia supercontinent: The role of double-sided subduction. Precambrian Res. 2010, 178, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wan, Y.S.; Liu, D.Y.; Dong, C.Y.; Xie, H.Q.; Kröner, A.; Ma, M.Z.; Liu, S.J.; Xie, S.W.; Ren, P. Formation and Evolution of Archean Continental Crust of the North China Craton. In Precambrian Geology of China; Zhai, M.G., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 59–136. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhao, G.C.; Cawood, P.A. Precambrian geology of China. Precambrian Res. 2012, 222–223, 13–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, L.; Yang, X.; Santosh, M.; Aulbach, S. Neoarchean to Paleoproterozoic continental growth in the southeastern margin of the North China Craton: Geochemical, zircon U–Pb and Hf isotope evidence from the Huoqiu complex. Gondwana Res. 2015, 28, 1002–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhao, G.C. Palaeoproterozoic assembly of the North China Craton. Geol. Mag. 2001, 138, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Zhao, G.C.; Sun, M.; Wilde, S.A.; Li, S.Z. Assembly, Accretion and Breakup of the Paleo-Mesoproterozoic Columbia Supercontinent: Records in the North China Craton. Gondwana Res. 2001, 6, 417–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Guo, J.H.; Sun, M.; Chen, F.K.; Zhai, M.G. Sm–Nd and SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology of high-pressure granulites in the Sanggan area, North China Craton: Timing of Paleoproterozoic continental collision. J. Asian Ear. Sci. 2005, 24, 629–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, C.H.; Zhao, G.; Liu, F.; Cai, J. The southwestern extension of the Jiao-Liao-Ji belt in the North China Craton: Geochronological and geochemical evidence from the Wuhe Group in the Bengbu area. Lithos 2018, 304–307, 258–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhai, M.G.; Hu, B.; Zhao, T.P.; Peng, P.; Meng, Q.R. Late Paleoproterozoic-Neoproterozoic multi-rifting events in the North China Craton and their geological significance: A study advance and review. Tectonophysics 2015, 662, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Geng, Y.S.; Kuan, H.W.; Du, L.L.; Liu, Y.Q. The characteristics of Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic rocks in North China, South China and Tarim blocks and their significance of geological correlation. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2020, 36, 2276–2312, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  40. Peng, P.; Zhai, M.G.; Li, Q.L.; Wu, F.Y.; Hou, Q.L.; Li, Z.; Li, T.S.; Zhang, Y.B. Neoproterozoic (900 Ma) Sariwon sills in North Korea: Geochronology, geochemistry and implications for the evolution of the south-eastern margin of the North China Craton. Gondwana Res. 2011, 20, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, S.H.; Zhao, Y.; Ye, H.; Hu, G.H. Early Neoproterozoic emplacement of the diabase sill swarms in the Liaodong Peninsula and pre-magmatic uplift of the southeastern North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 2016, 272, 203–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Paek, R.J.; Kang, H.G.; Jon, G.P. Geology of Korea; Foreign Language Book Publishing House: Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 1996; pp. 31–51. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources of Henan Province (BGMRH). Regional Geology of Henan Province; Geological Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1989; pp. 94–124. (In Chinese)
  44. Pang, K.; Tang, Q.; Wan, B.; Li, G.J.; Chen, L.; Yuan, X.L.; Zhou, C.M. Integrated Meso-Neoproterozoic stratigraphy in the Jiao-Liao-Xu-Huai area of North China Craton: A review. J. Strat. 2021, 45, 467–492, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  45. Park, H.U.; Zhai, M.G.; Yang, J.H.; Peng, P.; Kim, J.N.; Zhang, Y.B.; Kim, M.C.; Park, U.; Feng, L.J. Deposition age of the Sangwon Supergroup in the Pyongnam basin (Korea) and the Early Tonian negative carbon isotope interval. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2016, 32, 2181–2195, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  46. Hu, G.H.; Zhao, T.P.; Zhou, Y.Y.; Yang, Y. Depositional age and provenance of the Wufoshan Group in the southern margin of the North China Craton: Evidence from detrital zircon U-Pb ages and Hf isotopic compositions. Geochimica 2012, 41, 326–342, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, H.F.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, G.W.; Santosh, M.; Yu, H.; Yang, H.Y.; Wang, J.L. Detrital zircon U-Pb, Lu-Hf, and O isotopes of the Wufoshan Group: Implications for episodic crustal growth and reworking of the southern North China craton. Precambrian Res. 2016, 273, 112–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Huang, Z.W. Sedimentary Geology of the Wufoshan Group in the Southern Margin of North China Block and Its Tectonic Implications. Master’s Thesis, China University of Geoscieces, Beijing, China, 2020. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  49. Li, Z.S.; Jiang, R.; Cao, G.S.; Ma, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Jia, C. Depositional age and provenance analysis of the Wufoshan Group in the southern North China Craton: Constraints from detrital zircon U–Pb geochronology and Hf isotopes. Geol. J. 2021, 56, 5600–5620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hu, G.H.; Zhao, T.P.; Zhou, Y.Y. Depositional age, provenance and tectonic setting of the Proterozoic Ruyang Group, southern margin of the North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 2014, 246, 296–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhao, T.P.; Deng, X.Q.; Hu, G.H.; Zhou, Y.Y.; Peng, P.; Zhai, M.G. The Paleoproterozoic-Mesoproterozoic boundary of the North China Craton and the related geological issues: A review. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2015, 31, 1495–1508, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  52. Liu, Y.S.; Gao, S.; Hu, Z.C.; Gao, C.G.; Zong, K.Q.; Wang, D.B. Continental and oceanic crust recycling-induced melt-peridotite interactions in the Trans-North China Orogen: U-Pb dating, Hf isotopes and trace elements in zircons from mantle xenoliths. J. Petrol. 2010, 51, 537–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ludwig. Isoplot 3.70: A Geochronological Toolkit for Microsoft Excel; Special Publication No. 4; Berkeley Geochronology Centre: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  54. Dickinson, W.R.; Gehrels, G.E. Use of U–Pb ages of detrital zircons to infer maximum depositional ages of strata: A test against a Colorado Plateau Mesozoic database. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2009, 288, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Park, H.N.; Zhai, M.G.; Yang, J.H.; Kim, J.N.; Jong, C.S.; Wu, F.Y.; Kim, S.H.; Han, R.Y.; Park, U.; Kim, M.C.; et al. Meso-Proterozoic magmatism event in the Pyongnam Basin, Korean Peninsula. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2016, 32, 3033–3044, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  56. Meng, Y.; Zuo, P.; Zheng, D.; Sun, F.; Wang, P.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y. The earliest clastic sediments overlying the Xiong’er volcanic rocks: Implications for the Mesoproterozoic tectonics of the southern North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 2018, 305, 268–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jahn, B.M.; Auvray, B.; Shen, Q.H.; Liu, D.Y.; Zhang, Z.Q.; Dong, Y.J.; Ye, X.J.; Zhang, Q.Z.; Cornichet, J.; Mace, J. Archean crustal evolution in China: The Taishan Complex and evidence for Juvenile crustal addition from long-term depleted mantle. Precambrian Res. 1988, 38, 381–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jahn, B.M.; Liu, D.Y.; Wan, Y.S.; Song, B.; Wu, J.S. Archean crustal evolution of the Jiaodong Peninsula, China, as revealed by zircon SHRIMP geochronology, elemental and Nd-isotope geochemistry. Am. J. Sci. 2008, 308, 232–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wan, Y.S.; Liu, D.Y.; Wang, S.J.; Yang, E.X.; Wang, W.; Dong, C.Y.; Zhou, H.Y.; Du, L.L.; Yang, Y.H.; Diwu, C.R. 2.7 Ga juvenile crust formation in the North China Craton (Taishan-Xintai area, western Shandong Province): Further evidence of an understated event from U–Pb dating and Hf isotopic composition of zircon. Precambrian Res. 2011, 186, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wu, M.; Zhao, G.; Sun, M.; Li, S.; He, Y.; Bao, Z. Zircon U-Pb geochronology and Hf isotopes of major lithologies from the Yishui Terrane: Implications for the crustal evolution of the Eastern Block, North China Craton. Lithos 2013, 170–171, 164–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bao, Z.W.; Wang, Q.; Zi, F.; Tang, G.J.; Du, F.J.; Bai, G.D. Geochemistry of the Paleoproterozoic Longwangzhuang A-type granites on the southern margin of the North China Craton: Petrogenesisi and tectonic implications. Geochimica 2009, 38, 509–522, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang, X.L.; Jiang, S.Y.; Dai, B.Z.; Kern, J. Lithospheric thinning and reworking of Late Archean juvenile crust on the southern margin of the North China Craton: Evidence from the Longwangzhuang Paleoproterozoic A-type granites and their surrounding Cretaceous adakite-like granites. Geol. J. 2013, 48, 498–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Deng, X.Q.; Zhao, T.P.; Peng, T.P.; Gao, X.Y.; Bao, Z.W. Petrogenesis of 1600 Ma Maping A type granite in the south margin of the north China Craton and its tectonic implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2015, 31, 1621–1635, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  64. Deng, X.Q.; Zhao, T.P.; Peng, T.P. Age and geochemistry of the early Mesoproterozoic A-type granites in the southern margin of the North China Craton: Constraints on their petrogenesis and tectonic implications. Precambrian Res. 2016, 283, 68–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zeng, L.J.; Bao, Z.W.; Zhao, T.P.; Yao, J.M.; Zhou, D. Geochronology and geochemistry of the Mesoproterozoic Panhe syenites in the southern margin of North China Craton and its tectonic implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 2425–2436, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  66. Su, W.B.; Zhang, S.H.; Huff, W.D.; Li, H.K.; Ettensohn, F.R.; Chen, X.Y.; Yang, H.M.; Han, Y.G.; Song, B.; Santosh, M. SHRIMP U-Pb ages of K-bentonite beds in the Xiamaling Formation: Implications for revised subdivision of the Meso- to Neoproterozoic history of the North China Craton. Gondwana Res. 2008, 14, 543–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Su, W.B.; Li, H.K.; Warren, D.H.; Ettensohn, F.R.; Zhang, S.H.; Zhou, H.Y.; Wan, Y.S. Zircon SHRIMP U-Pb ages of tuff in the Tieling Formation and their geological significance. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2010, 55, 3312–3323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wang, Q.H.; Yang, H.; Yang, D.B.; Xu, W.L. Mid-Mesoproterozoic (~1.32 Ga) diabase swarms from the western Liaoning region in the northern margin of the North China Craton: Baddeleyite Pb–Pb geochronology, geochemistry and implications for the final breakup of the Columbia supercontinent. Precambrian Res. 2014, 254, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, S.H.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, Z.Y.; He, Z.F.; Wu, H. The 1.35 Ga diabase sills from the northern North China Craton: Implications for breakup of the Columbia (Nuna) supercontinent. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2009, 288, 588–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, S.H.; Zhao, Y.; Santosh, M. Mid-Mesoproterozoic bimodal magmatic rocks in the northern North China Craton: Implications for magmatism related to breakup of the Columbia supercontinent. Precambrian Res. 2012, 222–223, 339–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, S.H.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.H.; Ernst, R.E.; Yang, Z.Y. The 1.33–1.30 Ga Yanliao large igneous province in the North China Craton: Implications for reconstruction of the Nuna (Columbia) supercontinent, and specifically with the North Australian Craton. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2017, 465, 112–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, W.; Liu, S.; Santosh, M.; Zhang, L.; Bai, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, S.; Guo, R. 1.23 Ga mafic dykes in the North China Craton and their implications for the reconstruction of the Columbia supercontinent. Gondwana Res. 2015, 27, 1407–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, C.; Peng, P.; Wang, X.; Yang, S. Nature of three Proterozoic (1680 Ma, 1230 Ma and 775 Ma) mafic dyke swarms in North China: Implications for tectonic evolution and paleogeographic reconstruction. Precambrian Res. 2016, 285, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ding, J.K.; Zhang, S.H.; Evans, D.A.D.; Yang, T.; Li, H.; Wu, H.; Chen, J. North China craton: The conjugate margin for northwestern Laurentia in Rodinia. Geology 2021, 49, 773–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhao, G.C.; Cao, L.; Wilde, S.A.; Sun, M.; Choe, W.J.; Li, S.Z. Implications based on the first SHRIMP U–Pb zircon dating on Precambrian granitoid rocks in North Korea. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 251, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, Y.Q.; Gao, L.Z.; Liu, Y.X.; Song, B.; Wang, Z.X. Zircon U-Pb dating for the earliest Neoproterozoic mafic magmatism in the southern margin of the North China Block. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2006, 51, 2375–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Peng, P.; Bleeker, W.; Ernst, R.E.; Söderlund, U.; McNicoll, V. U-Pb baddeleyite ages, distribution and geochemistry of 925 Ma mafic dykes and 900 Ma sills in the North China craton: Evidence for a Neoproterozoic mantle plume. Lithos 2011, 127, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wang, Q.H.; Yang, D.B.; Xu, W.L. Neoproterozoic basic magmatism in the southeast margin of North China Craton: Evidence from whole-rock geochemistry, U-Pb and Hf isotopic study of zircons from diabase swarms in the Xuzhou-Huaibei area of China. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2012, 55, 1461–1479, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ernst, R.E.; Buchan, K.L. Recognizing mantle plumes in the geological record. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2003, 31, 469–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Ernst, R.E.; Wingate, M.T.; Buchan, K.L.; Li, Z.X. Global record of 1600–700 Ma Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs): Implications for the reconstruction of the proposed Nuna (Columbia) and Rodinia supercontinents. Precambrian Res. 2008, 160, 159–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Peng, P. Precambrian mafic dyke swarms in the North China Craton and their geological implications. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2015, 58, 649–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cawood, P.A.; Hawkesworth, C.J.; Dhuime, B. Detrital zircon record and tectonic setting. Geology 2012, 40, 875–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Liu, C.H.; Zhao, G.C.; Liu, F.L.; Shi, J.R. Detrital zircon U-Pb and Hf isotopic and whole-rock geochemical study of the Bayan Obo Group, northern margin of the North China Craton: Implications for Rodinia reconstruction. Precambrian Res. 2017, 303, 372–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dong, X.; Li, Z.; Hu, J.; Gong, W.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, Y. Provenance and tectonic significance of late Mesoproterozoic detrital zircons from the Tonian system; northern margin of the North China Craton. Int. Geol. Rev. 2017, 60, 1773–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lu, S.N.; Xiang, Z.Q.; Li, H.K.; Wang, H.C.; Chu, H. Response of the North China Craton to Rodinia Supercontinental events: GOSEN joining hypothesis. Acta Geol. Sin. 2012, 86, 1396–1406, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  86. Fu, X.M.; Zhang, S.H.; Li, H.; Ding, J.K.; Li, H.; Yang, T.; Wu, H.; Yuan, H.; Lv, J. New paleomagnetic results from the Huaibei Group and Neoproterozoic mafic sills in the North China Craton and their paleogeographic implications. Precambrian Res. 2015, 269, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dong, Y.; Zhang, G.; Neubauer, F.; Liu, X.; Genser, J.; Hauzenberger, C. Tectonic evolution of the Qinling orogen, China: Review and synthesis. J. Asian Ear. Sci. 2011, 41, 213–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dong, Y.; Santosh, M. Tectonic architecture and multiple orogeny of the Qinling Orogenic Belt, Central China. Gondwana Res. 2016, 29, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhang, C.L.; Li, M.; Wang, T.; Yuan, H.L.; Yan, Y.X.; Liu, X.M.; Wang, J.Q.; Liu, Y. U–Pb zircon geochronology and geochemistry of granitoids in the Douling Group in the Eastern Qinling. Acta Geol. Sin. 2004, 78, 83–95, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  90. Zhang, C.L.; Liu, L.; Zhang, G.W.; Wang, T.; Chen, D.L.; Yuan, H.L.; Liu, X.M.; Yan, Y.X. Dzetermination of Neoproterozoic post-collisional granites inthe north Qinling Mountains and its tectonic significance. Ear. Sci. Front. 2004, 11, 33–42, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  91. Dong, Y.; Yang, Z.; Liu, X.; Zhang, X.; He, D.; Li, W.; Zhang, F.; Sun, S.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, G. Neoproterozoic amalgamation of the Northern Qinling terrain to the North China Craton: Constraints from geochronology and geochemistry of the Kuanping ophiolite. Precambrian Res. 2014, 255, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Su, W.; Liu, J.B.; Chen, N.S.; Guo, S.; Ba, J.; Zhang, L.; Liu, X.; Shi, Y.X. Geochronology and tectonic background of magmatic and metamorphic events in the East Qinling-Dabie Mountains. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 1573–1593, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  93. Cederberg, J.; Söderlund, U.; Oliveira, E.P.; Ernst, R.E.; Pisarevsky, S.A. U-Pb baddeleyite dating of the Proterozoic Pará de Minas dyke swarm in the São Francisco craton (Brazil)—Implications for tectonic correlation with the Siberian, Congo and North China cratons. GFF 2016, 138, 219–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. De Oliveira Chaves, A.; Ernst, R.E.; Söderlund, U.; Wang, X.; Naeraa, T. The 920–900 Ma Bahia-Gangila LIP of the São Francisco and Congo cratons and link with Dashigou-Chulan LIP of North China craton: New insights from U-Pb geochronology and geochemistry. Precambrian Res. 2019, 329, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. D’Agrella-Filho, M.S.; Teixeira, W.; Trindade, R.I.; Patroni, O.A.; Prieto, R.F. Paleomagnetism of 1.79 Ga Pará de Minas mafic dykes: Testing a São Francisco/Congo-North China-Rio de la Plata connection in Columbia. Precambrian Res. 2020, 338, 105584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. De Andrade Caxito, F.; Hagemann, S.; Dias, T.G.; Barrote, V.; Dantas, E.L.; de Oliveira Chaves, A.; Campello, M.S.; Campos, F.C. A magmatic barcode for the São Francisco Craton: Contextual in-situ SHRIMP U-Pb baddeleyite and zircon dating of the Lavras, Pará de Minas and Formiga dyke swarms and implications for Columbia and Rodinia reconstructions. Lithos 2020, 374–375, 105708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Xu, H.R.; Yang, Z.; Peng, P.; Ge, K.; Jin, Z.; Zhu, R. Magnetic fabrics and rock magnetism of the Xiong’er volcanic rocks and their implications for tectonic correlation of the North China Craton with other crustal blocks in the Nuna/Columbia supercontinent. Tectonophysics 2017, 712–713, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Xu, H.R.; Yang, T.; Dekkers, M.J.; Peng, P.; Li, S.; Deng, C.; Zhu, R. Magma flow pattern of the 1.78 Ga dyke swarm of the North China Craton during the initial assembly of the Supercontinent Nuna/Columbia: Constraints from rock magnetic and anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility studies. Precambrian Res. 2020, 345, 105773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Peng, P.; Zhai, M.G.; Guo, J.H.; Kusky, T.; Zhao, T.P. Nature of mantle source contributions and crystal differentiation in the petrogenesis of the 1.78 Ga mafic dykes in the central North China craton. Gondwana Res. 2007, 12, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Peng, P.; Zhai, M.; Ernst, R.E.; Guo, J.; Liu, F.; Hu, B. A 1.78 Ga large igneous province in the North China craton: The Xiong’er Volcanic Province and the North China dyke swarm. Lithos 2008, 101, 260–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Peng, P.; Sun, F.B.; Wang, C.; Wang, X.P.; Su, X.D.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Zhou, X.T. Comparing the Precambrian geology of the North China Craton and the São Francisco Craton. Chin. J. Geol. 2018, 53, 363–399. [Google Scholar]
  102. Marimon, R.S.; Johannes Trouw, R.A.; Dantas, E.L.; Ribeiro, A. U-Pb and Lu-Hf isotope systematics on detrital zircon from the southern São Francisco Craton’s Neoproterozoic passive margin: Tectonic implications. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2020, 100, 102539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. De Waele, B.; Johnson, S.P.; Pisarevsky, S.A. Palaeoproterozoic to Neoproterozoic growth and evolution of the eastern Congo Craton: Its role in the Rodinia puzzle. Precambrian Res. 2008, 160, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Kröner, A.; Rojas-Agramonte, Y.; Wong, J.; Wilde, S.A. Zircon reconnaissance dating of Proterozoic gneisses along the Kunene River of northwestern Namibia. Tectonophysics 2015, 662, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kröner, A.; Rojas-Agramonte, Y. Mesoproterozoic (Grenville-age) granitoids and supracrustal rocks in Kaokoland, northwestern Namibia. Precambrian Res. 2017, 298, 572–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mayer, A.; Hofmann, A.W.; Sinigoi, S.; Morais, E. Mesoproterozoic Sm–Nd and U–Pb ages for the Kunene Anorthosite Complex of SW Angola. Precambrian Res. 2014, 133, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Drüppel, K.; Littmann, S.; Romer, R.L.; Okrusch, M. Petrology and isotope geochemistry of the Mesoproterozoic anorthosite and related rocks of the Kunene Intrusive Complex, NW Namibia. Precambrian Res. 2007, 156, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Maier, W.D.; Rasmussen, B.; Fletcher, I.R.; Li, C.; Barnes, S.J.; Huhma, H. The Kunene anorthosite complex, Namibia, and its satellite intrusions: Geochemistry, geochronology, and economic potential. Econ. Geol. 2013, 108, 953–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. McCourt, S.; Armstrong, R.A.; Jelsma, H.; Mapeo, R.B.M. New U–Pb SHRIMP ages from the lubango region, SW Angola: Insights into the Palaeoproterozoic evolution of the Angolan shield, southern Congo craton, Africa. J. Geol. Soc. 2013, 170, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Simon, S.J.; Wei, C.; Ellmies, R.; Yang, H.; Tamehe, L.S. New SIMS U-Pb age on zircon from the Epembe carbonatite dyke, NW Namibia: Implications for Mesoproterozoic evolution of carbonatites at the southern margin of the Congo Craton. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2017, 135, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Guadagnin, F.; Chemale, F.; Magalhães, A.J.; Santana, A.; Dussin, I.; Takehara, L. Age constraints on crystal-tuff from the Espinhaço supergroup—Insight into the paleoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic intraCratonic basin cycles of the Congo–São Francisco craton. Gondwana Res. 2015, 27, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Guadagnin, F.; Chemale, F.; Magalhães, A.J.; Alessandretti, L.; Bállico, M.B.; Jelinek, A.R. Sedimentary petrology and detrital zircon U–Pb and Lu–Hf constraints of Mesoproterozoic intraCratonic sequences in the Espinhaço Supergroup: Implications for the archean and Proterozoic evolution of the São Francisco craton. Precambrian Res. 2015, 266, 227–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rodrigues, J.B.; Pimentel, M.M.; Dardenne, M.A.; Armstrong, R.A. Age, provenance and tectonic setting of the Canastra and Ibiá Groups (Brasília Belt, Brazil): Implications for the age of a Neoproterozoic glacial event in central Brazil. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2010, 29, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Rodrigues, J.B.; Pimentel, M.M.; Buhn, H.; Matteini, M.; Dardenne, M.A.; Alvarenga, C.J.S.; Armstrong, R.A. Provenance of the Vazante Group: New U-Pb, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf isotopic data and implications for the tectonic evolution of the Neoproterozoic Brasília Belt. Gondwana Res. 2012, 21, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Martins-Neto, M.A. Sequence stratigraphic framework of Proterozoic successions in eastern Brazil. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2009, 26, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Kuchenbecker, M.; Pedrosa-Soares, A.C.; Babinski, M.; Fanning, M. Detrital zircon age patterns and provenance assessment for pre-glacial to post-glacial successions of the Neoproterozoic Macaúbas Group, Araçuaí orogen, Brazil. Precambrian Res. 2015, 266, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Babinski, M.; Pedrosa-Soares, A.C.; Trindade, R.I.F.; Martins, M.; Noce, C.M.; Liu, D. Neoproterozoic glacial deposits from the Araçuaí orogen, Brazil: Age, provenance and correlations with the São Francisco craton and West Congo belt. Gondwana Res. 2012, 21, 451–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Minerals 12 00510 g001 550
Figure 1. Simplified geological map of the Precambrian Geology of the NCC. (a) Paleoproterozoic accretion belts; (b) Meso–Neoproterozoic cratonic basins; (c) the Songshan area in S NCC; (d) the early Neoproterozoic basins in SE NCC.
Figure 1. Simplified geological map of the Precambrian Geology of the NCC. (a) Paleoproterozoic accretion belts; (b) Meso–Neoproterozoic cratonic basins; (c) the Songshan area in S NCC; (d) the early Neoproterozoic basins in SE NCC.
Minerals 12 00510 g001
Minerals 12 00510 g002 550
Figure 2. Geological map of the (a) Early Neoproterozoic basins in NCC; (b) Pyongnam Basin [19] and (c) Songshan area [20].
Figure 2. Geological map of the (a) Early Neoproterozoic basins in NCC; (b) Pyongnam Basin [19] and (c) Songshan area [20].
Minerals 12 00510 g002
Minerals 12 00510 g003 550
Figure 3. Stratigraphy of the late Meso- to early Neoproterozoic successions in south–southeast NCC [42,43,44]. The reported samples are from [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,44,45,46,47,48,49].
Figure 3. Stratigraphy of the late Meso- to early Neoproterozoic successions in south–southeast NCC [42,43,44]. The reported samples are from [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,44,45,46,47,48,49].
Minerals 12 00510 g003
Minerals 12 00510 g004 550
Figure 4. CL images of the representative zircons from the tested samples. Spot diameter for sample WFS2110-1 is ~24 μm and the others are ~32 μm.
Figure 4. CL images of the representative zircons from the tested samples. Spot diameter for sample WFS2110-1 is ~24 μm and the others are ~32 μm.
Minerals 12 00510 g004
Minerals 12 00510 g005 550
Figure 5. Th–U ratios of the tested zircons of the samples.
Figure 5. Th–U ratios of the tested zircons of the samples.
Minerals 12 00510 g005
Minerals 12 00510 g006 550
Figure 6. U–Pb concordia and relative probability plots of detrital zircons of the samples from the target successions. Ages are in Ma and ellipses show 1σ errors.
Figure 6. U–Pb concordia and relative probability plots of detrital zircons of the samples from the target successions. Ages are in Ma and ellipses show 1σ errors.
Minerals 12 00510 g006
Minerals 12 00510 g007 550
Figure 7. Hafnium isotope characteristics of detrital zircons of the samples from the target successions.
Figure 7. Hafnium isotope characteristics of detrital zircons of the samples from the target successions.
Minerals 12 00510 g007
Minerals 12 00510 g008 550
Figure 8. Multidimensional Scaling plots of existing samples from the early Neoproterozoic successions in south-southeast NCC [26]. The serial number of the samples are the same as in Figure 2.
Figure 8. Multidimensional Scaling plots of existing samples from the early Neoproterozoic successions in south-southeast NCC [26]. The serial number of the samples are the same as in Figure 2.
Minerals 12 00510 g008
Minerals 12 00510 g009 550
Figure 9. Detrital zircon age cumulative probability diagram for early Neoproterozoic sedimentary successions in NCC [82]. The reported data are the same as compiled in Figure 3 and also are from this study. CA: crystallization age; DA: depositional age. 1000 Ma was taken as the depositional age. (A) convergent setting; (B) collisional setting; (C) extensional setting
Figure 9. Detrital zircon age cumulative probability diagram for early Neoproterozoic sedimentary successions in NCC [82]. The reported data are the same as compiled in Figure 3 and also are from this study. CA: crystallization age; DA: depositional age. 1000 Ma was taken as the depositional age. (A) convergent setting; (B) collisional setting; (C) extensional setting
Minerals 12 00510 g009
Minerals 12 00510 g010 550
Figure 10. εHf(t) versus age diagrams of late Meso- to early Neoproterozoic successions in NCC and SF–CC. The NCC data are from [19,20,22] and this study. The SF–CC data are from [111,112,113,114].
Figure 10. εHf(t) versus age diagrams of late Meso- to early Neoproterozoic successions in NCC and SF–CC. The NCC data are from [19,20,22] and this study. The SF–CC data are from [111,112,113,114].
Minerals 12 00510 g010
Minerals 12 00510 g011 550
Figure 11. A speculation of paleogeographic reconstruction of the NCC in the early Neoproterozoic era [22]. The possible extend of NCC follows [77]. The possible extension of “broad” SF–CC follows [103].
Figure 11. A speculation of paleogeographic reconstruction of the NCC in the early Neoproterozoic era [22]. The possible extend of NCC follows [77]. The possible extension of “broad” SF–CC follows [103].
Minerals 12 00510 g011
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sun, F.; Peng, P.; Zheng, D.; Zuo, P. Reappraising the Provenance of Early Neoproterozoic Strata in the Southern–Southeastern North China Craton and Its Implication for Paleogeographic Reconstruction. Minerals 2022, 12, 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12050510

AMA Style

Sun F, Peng P, Zheng D, Zuo P. Reappraising the Provenance of Early Neoproterozoic Strata in the Southern–Southeastern North China Craton and Its Implication for Paleogeographic Reconstruction. Minerals. 2022; 12(5):510. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12050510

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Fengbo, Peng Peng, Deshun Zheng, and Pengfei Zuo. 2022. "Reappraising the Provenance of Early Neoproterozoic Strata in the Southern–Southeastern North China Craton and Its Implication for Paleogeographic Reconstruction" Minerals 12, no. 5: 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12050510

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