Next Article in Journal
Coalbed Methane Enrichment Regularity and Model in the Xishanyao Formation in the Santanghu Basin, NW China
Next Article in Special Issue
Geochemistry, Chronology and Tectonic Implications of the Hadayang Schists in the Northern Great Xing’an Range, Northeast China
Previous Article in Journal
Late Cretaceous-Paleocene Arc and Back-Arc System in the Neotethys Ocean, Zagros Suture Zone
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ore Genesis of the Lower Urgen Porphyry Molybdenum Deposit in the Northern Great Xing’an Range, Northeast China: Constraints from Molybdenite Re-Os Dating, Fluid Inclusions, and H-O-S-Pb Isotopes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/min13111368
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

Ore Genesis and the Magmatism of the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) Deposit in Eastern Tianshan, NW China: Constraints from Geology, Geochemistry, Zircon U-Pb and Molybdenite Re-Os Dating

by
Di Wang
1,2,
Chunji Xue
1,3,*,
Yun Zhao
1,
Chao Li
2,*,
Binbin Xi
4,
Yang Yang
4,
Qinglei Tian
4,
Xunshan Kang
4 and
Xing Wu
4
1
State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
2
National Research Center for Geoanalysis, Beijing 100037, China
3
The National 305 Project Office of Xinjiang, Urumqi 830000, China
4
No. 704 Geological Party, Xinjiang Geological Exploration Bureau for Nonferrous Metals, Hami 839005, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2023, 13(11), 1368; https://doi.org/10.3390/min13111368
Submission received: 22 August 2023 / Revised: 15 October 2023 / Accepted: 21 October 2023 / Published: 26 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tectonic–Magmatic Evolution and Mineralization Effect in the Southern Central Asian Orogenic Belt)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit is a new discovery in the eastern section of the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc, Eastern Tianshan. However, the genesis of the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit is still not fully understood. The Yuhaixi intrusion is composed of monzonitic granites, diorites, granites, and gabbro dikes, among which disseminated or veinlet Mo and Cu mineralization is mainly hosted by the monzonitic granites. The LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb dating yields emplacement ages of 359.4 ± 1.6 Ma for the monzonitic granite, 298.8 ± 1.8 Ma for the diorite, and 307.0 ± 2.3 Ma for the granite. The Re-Os dating of molybdenite hosted by monzonitic granite yields a well-constrained 187Re-187Os isochron age of 354.1 ± 6.8 Ma (MSWD = 1.7) with a weighted average age of 344.5 ± 3.1 Ma. The Mo mineralization is closely associated with the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite. The Yuhaixi monzonitic granite rocks are characterized by high silica (SiO2 > 70 wt.%), low MgO (0.23–0.36), Ni, Cr contents, and they are enriched in light rare earth elements (LREEs) and large ion lithophile elements (LILEs: e.g., K, Ba, Pb and Sr), and depleted in heavy rare earth elements (HREEs) and high field-strength elements (HFSEs: e.g., Nb, Ta and Ti). They are weak peraluminous and have high εHf(t) (11.37–17.59) and εNd(t) (1.36–7.75) values, and varied initial 87Sr/86Sr (0.7037–0.7128) values. The Yuhaixi post-ore granites exhibit similar geochemical and isotopic signatures to the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite. These characteristics suggest that the Yuhaixi felsic rocks are likely sourced from the partial melting of the juvenile lower crust. The Yuhaixi diorite has low SiO2, and K2O contents, relatively high Na2O, MgO (Mg# = 45–53) contents, and depletions in HFSE (e.g., Nb, Ta, and Ti). These geochemical features, coupled with isotopic data such as low initial 87Sr/86Sr (≤0.7043), high εNd(t) (2.5 to 3.0) and εHf(t) (≥11.6) values, and young Hf model ages, suggest that their parental magmas possibly originated from the partial melting of the depleted lithospheric mantle that was metasomatized by hydrous melts or fluids from the subducting oceanic plate. Integrating our new results with previous works on the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc belt, we suggest that the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu)deposit is likely sourced from the juvenile lower crust, which was formed in an arc setting, where the bipolar subduction of the North Tianshan oceanic slab forms the Dananhu Tousuquan belt to the north and the Aqishan-Yamansu belt to the south. The eastern section of the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc is a promising target for late Paleozoic porphyry Mo(Cu) deposits.

1. Introduction

Porphyry ore deposits are the primary source of Cu, Mo, and Au [1,2,3]. Porphyry-type deposits commonly form in the young continental and oceanic arcs [4], and they are usually associated with magmatic–hydrothermal fluids exsolved from relatively oxidized intermediate-felsic magmas with high oxidation states [1,4]. However, porphyry Mo(Cu) deposits in the margins of North China Craton mainly occurred in a post-collision extension setting and the ore-forming magmas stemmed from an old lower crust source [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Therefore, the origin and evolution processes of ore-forming magmas and their tectonic setting are significant for understanding the formation of economic porphyry deposits [1,2,4].
Recently, numerous early Paleozoic porphyry Cu-Mo deposits have been discovered in the Eastern Tianshan, southern margin of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt (CAOB). These porphyry-type deposits are closely related to the Paleozoic intermediate to felsic magmatic hydrothermal activity in the Eastern Tianshan [15,16,17]. The Dananhu-Tousuquan arc belt (DTA) is located in the northern part of the Eastern Tianshan, which hosts Tuwu-Yandong, Fuxing, Linglong, Chihu, Yuhai porphyry deposits. Previous studies are mainly focused on these porphyry deposits in the middle section, which have revealed that most of the porphyry Cu-Mo deposits were likely related to the subduction of the North Tianshan Oceanic plate in the late Paleozoic [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. However, the genesis of the porphyry Mo(Cu) deposits in the eastern section of the DTA has not been fully understood.
The Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit is a new discovery in the eastern section of the DTA, which provides a good opportunity for investigating the generation mechanisms for the porphyry Mo deposits in this section [10,11,12,13,14]. In this study, zircon LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating and trace elements, zircon Hf isotope compositions, whole-rock geochemical data, and molybdenite Re-Os isotope dating were carried out to constrain the magma origins and the timing of mineralization in the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit. This study provides new insights on the evolution of the DTA and its potential for porphyry Mo(Cu) mineralization in Eastern Tianshan.

2. Geological Settings

2.1. Regional Geology

The CAOB, which is placed between the European and Siberian Cratons in the north and the North China and Tarim Cratons in the south, is the largest Phanerozoic accretionary orogenic belt in the world [8]. The west–east trending Eastern Tianshan orogenic belt is situated in the southern margin of the CAOB. The Eastern Tianshan is a Paleozoic island arc system, which is located between the Jungar Basin and the Tarim Craton (Figure 1), characterized by a series of complicated tectonic history, which has witnessed multiple stages of subduction and collisional events [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. It can be divided into three major tectonic zones from the north to the south: the Bogeda-Haerlike belt, the Jueluotage belt, and the Central Tianshan block (Figure 1c). The Eastern Tianshan belt withstands a series of E–W trending faults, including the Kanggur, the Yamansu, the Dacaotan, and the Aqikekuduke faults [12]. The Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc belt mainly consists of Devonian to Carboniferous sedimentary–volcanic rocks. The Devonian Dananhu Formation consists of basaltic to andesitic volcanic rocks, which were overlain by the Carboniferous Gandun Formation sedimentary rocks and Qie’shan Group basaltic–andesitic volcanic/pyroclastic rocks and sedimentary rocks. Most of the Cu-Mo deposits in the Eastern Tianshan porphyry are hosted in the middle section of the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc belt [15,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. The Kangguer shear zone mainly comprises volcanic–sedimentary rocks of the Carboniferous Gandun and Wutongwozi formations, and volcanic and pyroclastic rocks of the Carboniferous Yamansu Formation [15,16]. Most rocks were metamorphosed and ductile deformed in the Kangguer shear zone [11,15]. The Aqishan-Yamansu belt comprises bimodal volcanic rocks of the Carboniferous Yamansu Formation, as well as clastic rocks, andesitic tuff, and the Permian Kula Formation marine and terrestrial clastic rocks [15,25,26,27,28,29].

2.2. Ore Deposit Geology

The Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit is located in the eastern section of the Dananhu-Tousuquan arc belt, approximately 110 km southeast of Hami City, Xinjiang (Figure 1b). The main lithostratigraphic units in the area include granulite, hornblende schist of the lower Carboniferous Yanchi Formation, and glutenite of the Tertiary Putaogou Formation (Figure 2A; [5]). The intrusive complex at Yuhaixi is intermediate to felsic in composition (Figure 2B). In the middle and eastern area, various granitoid intrusions occur as stocks and dikes that cover an area of approximately 3 km2. These intrusions are composed of monzonitic granite, granite, diorite (Figure 2B). The monzonitic granites host most of the Mo and Cu mineralization at Yuhaixi. Postmineralization plutons comprising granite and diorite intruded the mineralized monzonitic granite. The gabbro dikes mark the final stage of magmatic activity, having intruded the monzonitic granite and the Yanchi Formation (Figure 2B). In the study area, the monzonitic granite and granite generally exhibit low or moderate degrees of alteration. The monzonitic granite is primarily composed of plagioclase (~25%), K-feldspar (~35%), quartz (~25%), and biotite (~5%), with accessory apatite and zircon (Figure 4A,D). The diorite is light gray to gray-white in color and has a microgranular or aphanitic groundmass. It mainly consists of plagioclase (~45%), hornblende (~20%), quartz (~15%), and biotite (~15%), with minor accessory minerals (Figure 4B,E). The granite is coarse-grained and shows typical equigranular texture. It consists of plagioclase (~35%), quartz (~30%), and biotite (~5%), with negligible magnetite, apatite, and zircon (Figure 4C,F). The Yuhaixi intrusive complex has been affected by subordinate faults associated with the regional-scale Kanggur fault [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. The early NE-trending fault dips 65° to 85° and is inferred to be the predominant structure in the Yuhaixi area (Figure 2A). Geologic surveying defined that the ore zone consists of 6 orebodies, which is based on the drill hole ZK3201 and ZK3601. Each individual orebody is about 2–10 m thick (Figure 3A,B). The monzonitic granite have a genetic relationship with disseminated molybdenite and chalcopyrite (Figure 4G–I) and associated hydrothermal alterations (Figure 4I–K).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sampling

Three representative intrusive samples (YHX-ZK-1, ZK001-412, 721-6) from the Yuhaixi outcrops (granite) and drill holes (monzonitic granite, diorite) were collected for zircon LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating, trace element and Hf isotope analyses. Nine samples, including monzonitic granite (Sample No. YHX-ZK-14, YHX-ZK2, YHX-ZK3), diorite (Sample No. ZK001-25, ZK001-350, ZK001-396), and granite (Sample No. 721-1, 721-3, 721-5), were chosen for major and trace element analysis and Sr-Nd isotope analyses. In addition, nine molybdenite samples from Mo orebodies of the Yuhaixi deposit were collected from the disseminated ores for Re-Os isotope analyses.

3.2. Zircon U-Pb Dating and Trace Elements

Three samples, including one monzonitic granite (sample YHX-ZK-1), one diorite (sample ZK001-1), and one granite (721-6), were chosen for the zircon LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating and trace element analysis.
The zircon grains were separated by conventional density and magnetic techniques and then carefully hand-picked under a binocular microscope. Subsequently, they were mounted on epoxy resin discs and polished to expose the crystal cross-sections at the Langfang Regional Geological Survey. The selection of potential target sites for the U–Pb dating of all the mounted zircons were based on photomicrographs of both transmitted and reflected light, as well as cathodoluminescence (CL) images. Zircon U–Pb dating and trace element analyses were conducted using an Agilent 7500 a inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS) simultaneously coupled with a GeoLas 2005 at the Tianjin Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources. The analytical procedures were described in [38]. Laser ablation was operated at a constant energy of 60 mJ, with a repetition rate of 4 Hz and a spot diameter of 32 µm. Zircons 91500 and GJ-1, NIST SRM 610 [30] were used as external standards. Zircon 91500 was analyzed twice for every six analyses in order to calibrate the isotope fractionation. NIST SRM 610 was analyzed once every eight analyses to make the instrumental drift and mass discrimination correction of the trace element analysis. Individual errors in analyses were cited at the 1σ level, and the weighted mean 206Pb/238U ages were quoted at the 95% confidence level. The ICPMSDataCal software GeoLas 2005 were used for the adjustment of background and ablation signals, time drift correction [38]. Concordia diagrams and weighted mean calculations were determined using Isoplot 3.0 [39]. Zircon Ce anomalies were calculated using the method of the lattice strain model [17].

3.3. Zircon Hf Isotopes

In situ Hf isotope analyses were conducted using a Neptune MC-ICP-MS and New Wave UP 213 ultraviolet LA-MC-ICP-MS at the National Research Center for Geoanalysis, Beijing, China. The analysis was undertaken on the adjacent spots used for the LA–ICP–MS zircon U–Pb dating to match the Hf isotope data with the U–Pb ages. The ablated samples wrapped in helium were transported from the laser ablation chamber to the ICP-MS torch via a mixing chamber of Argon. Based on the zircon size, the stationary beam spot size was set to either 40 or 50 µm. During testing, GJ-1 international standard [30] zircon samples were used as a reference for the instrumental mass bias correction. The weighted average of the 176Hf/177Hf of the GJ-1 zircon samples was 0.281017 ± 0.000007 (2 SD, n = 10), which is consistent with the values reported by [18]. More detailed operating conditions for the MC-ICP-MS instrument, the laser ablation system, and the analytical method are given in [39,40].

3.4. Whole-Rock Major and Trace Elements

Whole-rock major and trace elements analyses were performed at the National Research Center for Geoanalysis, Beijing, China. The samples were powdered to approximately 200 mesh before testing. The major elements were determined using a Philips PW 2404 X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer with a rhodium X-ray source. The trace elements and the rare earth elements were determined using an Element-I plasma mass spectrometer (Finnigan-MAT Ltd., Bremen, German); two national geological standard reference samples, GSR-3 and GSR-15, were used for the analytical quality control purpose. The analytical precision for the major elements is better than 1% and for the trace elements is better than 5%, and the analytical procedures were described by [19].

3.5. Whole-Rock Sr-Nd Isotopes

Sr–Nd isotopic analyses were carried out using a Neptune multi-collector ICP-MS at the National Research Center for Geoanalysis, Beijing, China, using analytical procedures described by [40]. The Separation of the Sr and REE were performed using cation columns, and the Nd fractions were further separated using HDEHP-coated Kef columns. The measured 87Sr/86Sr and 143Nd/144Nd ratios were normalized to 86Sr/88Sr = 0.1193 and 146Nd/144Nd = 0.7217, respectively. The reported 87Sr/86Sr and 143Nd/144Nd ratios were adjusted to the NBS SRM 987 standard 87Sr/86Sr = 0.71027 and the Shin Etsu JNdi-1 standard 143Nd/144Nd = 0.512116 [11], respectively.

3.6. Re-Os Isotopic Analyses

Nine molybdenite samples were collected from the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposits for Re-Os isotope analyses. Among them, five molybdenite samples came from drill holes ZK3601. Four molybdenite samples came from drill hole ZK3201. The photographs and photomicrographs of the representative samples are shown in Figure 4. Molybdenite occurs as disseminations in monzonitic granite or quartz veinlets and molybdenite is cogenetic with chalcopyrite (Figure 4H). The molybdenite was magnetically separated and then handpicked under a binocular microscope at the Langfang Regional Geological Survey. Fresh, nonoxidized molybdenite powders (<0.1 mm in size and purity >99%) were used for Re-Os isotope analyses. 187Re and 187Os concentrations of molybdenite were measured using a TJA PQ ExCell ICP–MS at the Re-Os Laboratory of National Research Center of Geoanalysis, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing. The chemical separation of the Re and Os and the analytical procedure were in accordance with [18]. The weighed molybdenite samples were loaded into a Carius tube through a thin-neck long funnel. The mixed 190Os and 185Re spike solutions and 2 mL HCl and 4 mL HNO4 were loaded, while the bottom part of the tube was frozen at −50 °C to −80 °C in an ethanol–liquid nitrogen slush, and the top was sealed using an oxygen–propane torch. The tube was then placed in a stainless-steel jacket and heated for 24 h at 230 °C. After 24 h and upon cooling, the sample-bearing tubes were opened to transfer the supernatants out and the Os was separated using the method of direct distillation from the Carius tube for 50 min and trapped in 2 mL of water that was used for the ICP–MS (X-Series) determination of the Os isotope ratio. After that, the residual Re-bearing solution was saved in a 150 mL Teflon beaker for Re separation. The residual Re-bearing solution was heated to near-dryness. The acetone phase was transferred to a 150 mL Teflon beaker that contained 1 mL of water. Finally, the solution was picked up in 2% HNO3, which was used for the ICP–MS(X-Series) determination of the Re isotope ratio.
The average blanks for the method were ca. 3 pg Re and ca. 0.5 pg Os. The working conditions of the instrument were controlled by the reference material JDC, which produced a measured value of 139.8 ± 2.0 Ma, which is consistent with the recommended value of 139.6 ± 3.8 Ma [41]. The analytical uncertainty in the Re-Os model ages includes 1.02% uncertainty (at 95% confidence level) for the 187Re decay constant. The Re-Os model ages were calculated following the equation: t = [ln(1 + 187Os/187Re)]/λ, where λ is the decay constant of 187Re (λ 187Re = 1.666 × 10−11 year−1; [41]) and denotes the age. The Re-Os isochron ages were calculated using the least-squares method [42], employing the program ISOPLOT 3.0 [23].

4. Results

4.1. Zircon U-Pb Dating and Zircon Trace Elements

The Yuhaixi monzonitic granite sample (YHX-ZK-1), diorite sample (ZK001-412), and granite sample (721-6) were selected for LA-ICP-MS zircon U-Pb dating, and the analytical data are listed in Table 1. Most of the zircon grains are euhedral–subhedral and show prismatic forms (100–200 μm long) with aspect ratios of 3:1 to 3:2 and characterized by clear oscillatory growth zoning in the CL images (Figure 5). All samples have varying U(58–453 ppm) and Th (30–417 ppm) contents with high Th/U ratios (>0.3), which is consistent with a magmatic origin [21].
Except for two discordant spot (02, 05), the remaining 17 analyses from the monzonitic granite sample (YHX-ZK-1) yielded concordant 206Pb/238U ages varying from 352 to 362 Ma (Figure 6), with a weighted mean age of 359.4 ± 1.6 Ma (MSWD = 0.89), which is interpreted as the best estimate of emplacement age for the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite.
Except for three discordant spots (07, 09, 11), the remaining 12 analytical spots from the granite sample (721-6) had 206Pb/238U ages ranging from 306 to 309 Ma (Figure 6), with a weighted mean age of 307.0 ± 2.3 Ma (MSWD = 0.037).
Except for three discordant spots (03, 07 and 16), the remaining 19 analytical spots from the diorite sample (ZK001-412) had 206Pb/238U ages ranging from 296 to 306 Ma. (Figure 6), with a weighted mean age of 298.8 ± 1.8 Ma (MSWD = 1.3) (Table 2).
The calculated results of zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ and Ti-in-zircon thermometer have been used to estimate the magma temperatures and oxidation states [17], with the detailed calculation procedures being presented by [17]. In this study, the zircon Ce4+/Ce3+ values of the monzonitic granite, diorite, and granite were calculated to be ~6–248 (avg. 60), 11–182 (avg. 54), and 6–241 (avg. 85), respectively (Table 3). Ti-in-zircon temperatures were calculated to be 590–954 °C (avg. 744 °C) for the monzonitic granite, 698–775 °C (avg. 728 °C), for the diorite and 653–917 °C (avg. 712 °C) for the granite (Table 3). The zircon REE patterns are commonly featured by HREE enrichments with positive Ce anomalies and negative Eu anomalies (Figure 7).

4.2. Whole-Rock Major and Trace Elements

The representative whole-rock geochemical data for the Yuhaixi intrusive samples are presented in Table 1. The Yuhaixi monzonitic granite, granite and diorite samples plot inside the granite, granite and monzodiorite fields, respectively on the Na2O + K2O vs. SiO2 diagram (Figure 8a; [37]). The Yuhaixi monzonitic granites are characterized by high SiO2 (74.20~76.57 wt.%) and total alkali contents (K2O + Na2O = 7.14–8.30 wt.%), but low MgO (0.23~0.36 wt.%), TiO2 (0.14–0.17 wt.%), and P2O5 (0.04–0.05 wt.%), with low Mg# = 28–32 [100 × molecular Mg2+/(Mg2+ + Fe2+)], which belong to the high-K calc-alkaline series (Figure 8b). The Yuhaixi post-ore granite exhibited similar major element compositions, but they show relatively high Na2O and low K2O contents relative to the monzonitic granites. These rocks are characterized by high SiO2 and K2O + Na2O (7.11–7.37 wt.%) contents, which suggests that they are high-K calc-alkaline series rocks (Figure 8b). The Yuhaixi diorite is chemically different from the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite and granite, and has SiO2, Al2O3, Na2O, K2O, TFe2O3, TiO2, and P2O5 contents of 53.55–54.58 wt.%, 17.33–17.98 wt.%, 3.86–4.11 wt.%, 0.90–1.15 wt.%, 7.90–8.69 wt.%, 0.80–0.95 wt.%, and 0.16–0.25 wt.%, respectively. The Yuhaixi diorite belongs to the calc-alkaline series (Figure 8b). In the A/NK vs. A/CNK diagram, the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite and granite samples are metaluminous to weak peraluminous (Figure 8c), with an aluminum saturation index (Al2O3/(Na2O + K2O + CaO)) ranging from 0.66–1.07.
As for the chondrite-normalized REE patterns, the Yuhaixi diorite samples are moderately fractionated ((La/Yb)N = 4.19–7.64), with light rare earth element (LREE) enrichment and heavy rare earth element (HREE) depletion in the absence of clear Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.92–1.27) (Figure 9A). The overall rare earth content is low (ΣREE = 32.1~162.16) in Yuhaixi, among which the rare earth content of granite is the lowest (ΣREE = 32.1~78.49). The granite samples show a slight positive Eu anomaly (δEu = 0.94~1.33). The diorite samples show weaker negative Eu anomalies (δEu = 0.84–0.94) (Figure 9A). In the primitive mantle-normalized trace element spider diagram (Figure 9A; [30]), different magmatic rocks show different characteristics, which are generally characterized by enrichment of large-ion lithophile elements (LILE: Rb, Ba, K, U) and relative depletion of high-field-strength elements (HFSE: Nb, Ta, Zr). The monzonite granite is enriched in Rb, Ba, U, K, Pb, and depleted of Nb, Ta, Sr, Ti, P. Compared with granite, the LILE enrichment and the HFSE depletion in monzonitic granite and diorite are more significant (Figure 9A).

4.3. Zircon Hf Isotopes

Zircon Hf isotope analysis results are listed in Table 4. The monzonitic granite, diorite, and granite yielded εHf(t) values of 11.37–17.59, 11.59–13.46, and 11.73–14.76, respectively. The zircon Hf single- and two-stage model ages are 280–538 Ma and 240–637 Ma for the monzonitic granite, 399–472 Ma and 458–578 Ma for the diorite, and 354–478 Ma and 377–572 Ma for the granite, respectively (Table 4).

4.4. Whole-Rock Sr-Nd Isotopes

The initial 87Sr/86Sr (Isr) isotope ratios and εNd(t) were calculated using the 87Sr/86Sr ratios, Nd values, and zircon U-Pb ages analyzed in this study (Table 5). All rock samples from the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit (e.g., monzonitic granite, diorite and granite) are characterized by low (87Sr/86Sr)i values with obviously varied ranges (e.g., 0.7043–0.7128, 0.7037–0.7041, and 0.7042–0.7043, respectively). They show positive and narrow ranges of εNd(t) (1.36–3.4, 5.16–7.75, and 4.62–6.44, respectively), corresponding to TDM2 ages of 832–1002 Ma, 430–642 Ma, and 545–693 Ma, respectively (Table 5).

4.5. Re-Os Isotopic Ages

The Re-Os isotopic data for nine molybdenite samples from the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo deposit are listed in Table 6 and are plotted in an isochron diagram in Figure 10. The concentrations of 187Re and 187Os ranged from 93.9 to 322.9 μg/g and from 539.5 to 1889.2 ng/g, respectively. Nine samples yielded model ages ranging from 337.9 ± 6.7 to 350.2 ± 6.1 Ma and a well-constrained 187Re–187Os isochron age of 354.1 ± 6.8 Ma, with MSWD = 1.7 and an initial 187Os of 24 ± 17ng/g (Figure 10A). The data also yields a weighted average age of 344.5 ± 3.1 Ma (MSWD = 2.1) (Figure 10B). These ages are concordant within the errors, indicating that the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit was formed in the Carboniferous.

5. Discussion

5.1. Timing of Magmatism and Mineralization of Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) Deposit

Multiple magmatic activities were documented in the eastern segment of the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc belt [25,26,27,28,29]. Our study reveals that at least two stages (~359 Ma and ~307–299 Ma) of magmatic activities occurred in the Yuhaixi area. Zircon U-Pb dating showed that Yuhaixi monzonitic granite, granite, and diorite were emplaced at ~359 Ma, ~307 Ma, and ~299 Ma, respectively. However, other intrusive rocks near the Yuhaixi orefield were reported to form at ~443–430 Ma, earlier than that of Yuhaixi intrusive rocks. For example, Wang et al. (2016) obtained the age of the rocks in the Yuhai Mo(Cu) deposit to be 441.6 ± 2.5 Ma, 430.3 ± 2.6 Ma for the diorite and granodiorite, respectively [5]; Wang et al. (2015) obtained the age of the Sanchakou pluton to be 443 Ma; Wang et al. (2016a) obtained the age of the felsic intrusion in the Sanchakou mining area to be 440–426 Ma [30]; and Wang et al. (2018) obtained the age of the Yuhai quartz diorite to be 443.5 ± 4.1 Ma [12]. Overall, at least three stages of magmatic activities were identified and recorded in the eastern segment of the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc belt, namely ~430–443 Ma, ~359 Ma, and ~307–299 Ma.
The molybdenite Re-Os dating shows that the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit was formed at 354 ± 6.8 Ma (Figure 10), which is approximately coeval with the emplaced ages of the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite (359.4 ± 1.6 Ma). Previous studies have shown that the Yuhai molybdenite age [5] and the Sanchakou molybdenite age are concentrated in 370–350 Ma (Figure 11 [30]), which are consistent with the molybdenite Re-Os age of Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit. So, the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit is suggested to form at ~354–360 Ma. The Yuhaixi granite and diorite rocks are post-ore intrusive plutons. Field investigations revealed that Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposits are characterized by disseminated or veinlet ores, and Mo mineralization mainly occurs in the potassic alteration zone (Figure 4I). It is highly likely that the monzonitic granite contributed to the generation of the Yuhaixi deposit.

5.2. Petrogenesis

The Yuhaixi monzonitic granite is characterized by high SiO2 and K2O + Na2O contents, low Al2O3 content, and the depletion of aluminum-rich minerals (e.g., muscovite, tourmaline, and garnet). They have a weak peraluminous character (1 < A/CNK < 1.1), and they exhibit low Sr (<188 ppm) and Y contents with relatively low Sr/Y ratios (<25). These features suggest that the Yuhaixi intrusion can be classified as the I- or A-type granite [21]. In addition, the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite shows low FeOt/(FeOt + MgO) ratios, Zr content, and 104 × Ga/Al ratios (2.1–2.4), excluding the possibility of A-type granite (Figure 8d). Therefore, the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite likely belongs to I-type granites [59]. The Yuhaixi post-ore granite is a high silica granite and exhibits similar geochemical signatures to the causative monzonitic granite. The Yuhaixi post-ore granite also has relatively low A/CNK (<1.1) and Ga/Al ratios, which is consistent with the features of I-type granites.
Generally, the Mg# values of magmatic rocks formed by the partial melting of the basaltic lower crust are less than 40 regardless of the degree of melting [43,44,60]. If mantle material was involved in the origin of ore-forming felsic rocks, Mg# values of these rocks will be higher than 40 [60]. Thus, the Mg# values can be used as an important indicator to track the addition of mantle-derived magma. Overall, the Yuhaixi felsic rocks both show high silica and low MgO, Cr, Ni contents, which is in favor of the crust origin. They both are enriched in LREE and LILE and depleted in HFSE elements (e.g., Nb, Ta) in the primitive mantle-normalized diagram (Figure 9). The Yuhaixi mozonitic granite samples have significant variable 87Sr/86Sr ratios, ranging from 0.7041–0.7127, and high εHf(t) (11.37–17.59) and εNd(t) (1.36–3.4) values, suggesting that it may have formed by melting the juvenile crust with the involvement of crustal components [43,44,45,60]. In addition, the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite is high silica granite and is lithologically homogeneous, arguing against the significant upper crustal contamination and fractional crystallization of basaltic magmas [40]. The studied monzonitic granite is characterized by high K2O (3.8–5.0 wt.%) and K2O/Na2O (1.1–1.6) ratios and shows relatively low Rb/Sr (0.34–0.47) and high K/Rb (396–615) ratios without obvious Eu-negative anomaly, indicating that it is less evolved than high-K granites. Thus, we proposed that Yuhaixi monzonitic granite likely originated from the partial melting of the juvenile lower crust with the involvement of hydrous melts or fluids sourced from continental crustal components (e.g., subducting sediments). However, Yuhaixi post-ore granite shows high Na2O (4.5–4.6 wt.%) contents and low K2O/Na2O (~0.6) ratios and it has low initial 87Sr/86Sr ratios (0.7042–0.7043) but high εHf(t) (11.7–14.8) and εNd(t) (4.6–6.4) values, which suggests that Yuhaixi granite likely originated from the partial melting of the juvenile crust with the addition of ocean crustal components (e.g., subducting oceanic slab) [45].
Compared to the Yuhaixi felsic rocks, Yuhaixi diorites have relatively low silica (53–54 wt.%) and high MgO (4.1–5.1 wt.%), Na2O (3.9–4.1 wt.%), and Al2O3 (17.3–18 wt.%) contents with high Cr, V, and Ni contents. Their high MgO (Mg# > 45) and high transition metal (e.g., Cr, Ni, V) contents suggest the Yuhaixi high-Al diorites may be derived from the depleted lithospheric mantle source [20,23,25]. They have relatively low initial 87Sr/86Sr ratios, and high εNd(t) (5.16–7.75) and εHf(t) values (11.59–13.46), further supporting the depleted mantle origin. However, the Yuhaixi diorite samples are enriched in LREEs and LILEs, depleted in HREEs and HFSEs, and exhibit high Sr contents (785–941 ppm), Ba/La, Ba/Th ratios, but low Th/Yb, and Th/Nb ratios. Plank and Langmuir (1998) pointed out that the magma formed from the source area metasomatized by the slab dehydration fluid usually has high Sr, Ba content and Ba/Th ratio (>170) [45]. Therefore, the Yuhaixi diorite is likely derived from partial melting of the metasomatized mantle wedge (Figure 12) [31].
In a word, the Yuhaixi felsic intrusive rocks are high silica (SiO2 > 70 wt.%) and are characterized by high total alkali and low MgO, Cr, Ni contents and high εNd(t) and εHf(t) values. These characteristics suggest that their melts are mainly derived from the partial melting of the juvenile lower crust. However, the post-ore diorite has a feature of high Al2O3, Na2O contents with depleted isotopic signatures, indicating that diorite melts likely originated from the partial melting of depleted lithospheric mantle metasomatized by fluids or hydrous melts from the subducting slabs [5,9,12,21,23].

5.3. Implication for Tectonic Evolution and Porphyry Mineralization in Eastern Tianshan

The tectonic evolution of the Dananhu-Tousuquan arc belt has been widely addressed in previous studies [5,12,27,28,29], and a growing number of Paleozoic arc-related magmatic rocks have been reported in the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc belt [11,12,13,14,15,16,25,26,27,28,29,30]. As reflected by the tectonic discrimination diagrams (Figure 13), Yuhaixi intrusive rocks including felsic and intermediate rocks all fall within the volcanic arc granitoid field, suggesting that they were formed in a subduction tectonic setting during Paleozoic era. Stratigraphic [29] and tectonic [30] studies indicated that the early Paleozoic Dananhu-Tousuquan island arcs were formed by the N-dipping subduction of the North Tianshan oceanic plate [5,12,27,29]. In the early Paleozoic, the partial melting of the low-angle, young subducted North Tianshan oceanic slab probably generated the Sanchakou adakite rocks (ca. 443 Ma–430 Ma; Unpublished data) (Figure 14A). The Carboniferous bipolar subduction of the North Tianshan Ocean formed the major Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc belt to the north and the Aqishan-Yamansu arc belt to the south (Figure 14B; [9,27,34,35,36,40]). During this period, asthenosphere upwelling triggered by the roll back or retraction of the subduction plate resulted in the partial melting of the juvenile lower crust to generate the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite (~360 Ma; Figure 14B). Meanwhile, with the emplacement of these magmas, the arc-related porphyry Mo mineralization was formed in the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc belt (Figure 14B). The Eastern Tianshan bimodal magmatism, e.g., the Baiyanggou gabbro (295.8 ± 2.8 Ma) and rhyolite (293 ± 1.7 Ma) [61,62], the Cheguluquan rhyolite (294.5 ± 3.6 Ma) and basalt (293.6 ± 2.3 Ma) [63], and the youngest Hongshishan ophiolite in this belt (~310 Ma), suggest that the Eastern Tianshan tectonic setting was dominated by extension, which implies that the collision between the Dananhu-Tousuquan and Aqishan-Yamansu belts likely occurred during the late Carboniferous to early Permian periods [38,41]. This idea is also favored by the occurrence of diorite (298.0 ± 1.8 Ma) and granite (307.0 ± 2.3 Ma) in the Yuhaixi area. Moreover, many extension-related magmatic Cu-Ni sulfide deposits that occurred in the post-collisional setting were documented and reported in ca. 300–275 Ma [64], which also support the view of the collision between the Dananhu-Tousuquan and Aqishan-Yamansu belts [65,66,67].

6. Conclusions

(1)
Zircon LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating suggests that the emplaced ages of the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite, diorite, and granite are 359.4 ± 1.6 Ma, 298.8 ± 1.8 Ma, and 307.0 ± 2.3 Ma, respectively.
(2)
The Re-Os dating of molybdenite hosted by Yuhaixi monzonitic granite yields a well-constrained 187Re–187Os isochron age of 354.1 ± 6.8 Ma (MSWD = 1.7).
(3)
Whole-rock geochemical characteristics and Sr-Nd-Hf isotopic compositions indicate that the Yuhaixi monzonitic granite and granite were formed via the partial melting of the juvenile crust. The post-ore diorite was formed via the partial melting of the metasomatized mantle wedge.
(4)
The eastern section of the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc is a promising target for late Paleozoic porphyry Mo(Cu) deposits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.W. and C.X.; investigation, D.W., Y.Z., C.X., B.X., Y.Y., Q.T., X.K. and X.W.; methodology, D.W., C.L. and C.X.; data curation, D.W. and C.L.; writing—original draft preparation, D.W.; writing—review and editing, D.W., Y.Z. and C.X.; supervision, C.X.; funding acquisition, C.X., C.L. and Y.Z.; Resources, X.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFC0601202 and 2020YFA0714800) and Open Research Project from the State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources (GPMR202307). Chunji Xue acknowledges funding under the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Introduced Project “Tianchi talent”.

Data Availability Statement

All data are presented in the paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the managers and geological staff of No. 1 Geological Team of Xinjiang for their support with the fieldwork. The authors are also deeply grateful for the reviews and constructive suggestions of the anonymous reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sillitoe, R.H. Porphyry copper systems. Econ. Geol. 2010, 105, 3–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sinclair, W.D. Porphyry deposits. Mineral Deposits of Canada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit-Types, District Metallogeny, the Evolution of Geological Provinces, and Exploration Methods. In Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Deposits Division, Special Publication No. 5; Geological Association of Canada: St. John’s, NL, Canada, 2007; pp. 223–243. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gao, J.; Klemd, R.; Zhu, M.; Wang, X.-S.; Li, J.; Wan, B.; Xiao, W.; Zeng, Q.; Shen, P.; Sun, J.; et al. Large-scale porphyry-type mineralization in the Central Asian metallogenic domain: A review. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2018, 165, 7–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yan, D.-P.; Qiu, L. Geology of China and adjacent regions: An introduction. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2020, 203, 104533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Y.; Zhang, F.; Liu, J. The genesis of the ores and intrusions at the Yuhai Cu-Mo deposit in eastern Tianshan, NW China: Constraints from geology, geochronology, geochemistry, and Hf isotope systematics. Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 77, 312–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Xiao, B.; Chen, H.; Hollings, P.; Han, J.; Wang, Y.; Yang, J.; Cai, K. Magmatic evolution of the Tuwu–Yandong porphyry Cu belt, NW China: Constraints from geochronology, geochemistry and Sr–Nd–Hf isotopes. Gondwana Res. 2017, 43, 74–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, Y.H.; Zhang, F.F.; Liu, J.J.; Que, C.Y. Genesis of the Fuxing porphyry Cu deposit in Eastern Tianshan, China: Evidence from fluid inclusions and C–H–O–S–Pb isotope systematics. Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 79, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, H.; Qiu, L.; Yan, D.-P.; Zhao, Z.; Cai, K.; Zhang, J.; Chen, S.; Li, Y.; Song, Y.; Zheng, Y.; et al. Late-Permian subduction-to-collision transition and closure of Paleo-Asian Ocean in eastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt: Evidence from borehole cores in the Songliao Basin, Northeast China. Gondwana Res. 2023, 122, 74–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J. Petrogenesis of Late Carboniferous granitoids in the Chihu area of Eastern Tianshan, Northwest China, and tectonic implications: Geochronological, geochemical, and zircon Hf–O isotopic constraints. Int. Geol. Rev. 2016, 58, 949–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, Y.; Chen, H.; Baker, M.J.; Han, J.; Xiao, B.; Yang, J.; Jourdan, F. Multiple mineralization events of the Paleozoic Tuwu porphyry copper deposit, Eastern Tianshan: Evidence from geology, fluid inclusions, sulfur isotopes, and geochronology. Miner. Depos. 2018, 54, 1053–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xiao, B.; Chen, H.; Wang, Y.; Han, J.; Xu, C.; Yang, J. Chlorite and epidote chemistry of the Yandong Cu deposit, NW China: Metallogenic and exploration implications for Paleozoic porphyry Cu systems in the Eastern Tianshan. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 100, 168–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, Y.F.; Chen, H.Y.; Han, J.S. Paleozoic tectonic evolution of the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc belt, Eastern Tianshan: Constraints from the mliaoagmatism of the Yuhai porphyry Cu deposit, Xinjiang, NW China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2018, 153, 282–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Xiao, W.; Windley, B.F.; Allen, M.B.; Han, C. Paleozoic multiple accretionary and collisional tectonics of the Chinese Tianshan orogenic collage. Gondwana Res. 2013, 23, 1316–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sun, H.; Li, H.; Danišík, M.; Xia, Q.; Jiang, C.; Wu, P.; Yang, H.; Fan, Q.; Zhu, D. U–Pb and Re-Os geochronology and geochemistry of the Donggebi Mo deposit, Eastern Tianshan, NW China: Insights into mineralization and tectonic setting. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 86, 584–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, S.; Chen, H.; Hollings, P.; Zhao, L.; Gong, L. Tectonic and magmatic evolution of the Aqishan-Yamansu belt: A Paleozoic arc-related basin in the Eastern Tianshan (NW China). GSA Bull. 2020, 133, 1320–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hou, G.S.; Tang, H.F.; Liu, C.Q.; Wang, Y.B. Geochronological and geochemical study on the wallrock of Tuwu-Yandong porphyry copper deposits, eastern Tianshan mountains. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2005, 21, 1729–1736. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ballard, R.J.; Palin, M.J.; Campbell, I.H. Relative oxidation states of magmas inferred from Ce (IV)/Ce (III) in zircon: Application to porphyry copper deposits of northern Chile. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2002, 144, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Elhlou, S.; Belousova, E.; Griffin, W.; Pearson, N.; O’Reilly, S. Trace element and isotopic composition of GJ-red zircon standard by laser ablation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2006, 70, A158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liang, Q.; Jing, H.; Gregoire, D.C. Determination of trace elements in granites by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Talanta 2000, 51, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sun, S.S.; McDonough, W.F. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts: Implications for mantle composition and processes. In Magmatism in the Ocean Basin; Geological Society Special Publication: London, UK, 1989; Volume 42, pp. 313–345. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoskin, P.W.O.; Schaltegger, U. The composition of zircon and igneous and metamorphic petrogenesis. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2003, 53, 27–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ferry, J.M.; Watson, E.B. New thermodynamic models and revised calibrations for the Ti-in-zircon and Zr-in-rutile thermometers. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2007, 154, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. 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]
  24. Griffin, W.L.; Pearson, N.J.; Belousova, E.; Jackson, S.V.; Van Achterbergh, E.; O’Reilly, S.Y.; Shee, S.R. The Hf isotope composition of cratonic mantle: LAM-MC-ICPMS analysis of zircon megacrysts in kimberlites. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2000, 64, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, F.W.; Li, H.Q.; Chen, Y.C.; Wang, D.H.; Wang, J.L.; Liu, D.Q.; Zhou, R.H. Zircon SHRIMP U–Pb dating and its geological significance of mineralization in Tuwu-Yandong porphyry copper mine, East Tianshan Mountain. Acta Geol. Sin. 2005, 79, 256–261. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wu, H.; Li, H.Q.; Chen, F.W.; Lu, Y.F.D.; Mei, Y.P. Zircon SHRIMP U–Pb dating of plagiogranite porphyry in the Chihu molybdenum-copper district, Hami, East Tianshan. Geol. Bull. China 2006, 25, 549–552. [Google Scholar]
  27. Du, L.; Yuan, C.; Li, X.-P.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Long, X. Petrogenesis and Geodynamic Implications of the Carboniferous Granitoids in the Dananhu Belt, Eastern Tianshan Orogenic Belt. J. Earth Sci. 2019, 30, 1243–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rui, Z.Y. Discussion on metallogenic epoch of Tuwu and Yandong porphyry copper deposits in eastern Tianshan Mountains, Xinjiang. Miner. Depos. 2002, 21, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhang, L.; Qin, K.; Xiao, W. Multiple mineralization events in the eastern Tianshan district, NW China: Isotopic geochronology and geological significance. J. Southeast Asian Earth Sci. 2008, 32, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, Y.-H.; Zhang, F.-F. Petrogenesis of early Silurian intrusions in the Sanchakou area of Eastern Tianshan, Northwest China, and tectonic implications: Geochronological, geochemical, and Hf isotopic evidence. Int. Geol. Rev. 2016, 58, 1294–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wood, D.A. The application of a Th–Hf–Ta diagram to problems of tectonomagmatic classification and to establishing the nature of crustal contamination of basaltic lavas of the British Tertiary Volcanic Province. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1980, 50, 11–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Du, L.; Zhu, H.; Yuan, C.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Li, X.-P.; Long, X. Paleozoic crustal evolution and tectonic switching in the Northeastern Tianshan: Insights from zircon Hf isotopes of granitoids. J. Geol. Soc. 2020, 178, jgs2020-035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pearce, J.A.; Harris, N.B.W.; Tindle, A.G. Trace Element Discrimination Diagrams for the Tectonic Interpretation of Granitic Rocks. J. Pet. 1984, 25, 956–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Harris, N.B.W.; Pearce, J.A.; Tindle, A.G. Geochemical characteristics of collision-zone magmatism. In Geological Society; Special Publications: London, UK, 1986; Volume 19, pp. 67–81. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhang, Z.; Ding, H.; Dong, X.; Tian, Z. Partial melting of subduction zones. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2020, 36, 2589–2615. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tang, G.; Wang, Q.; Wyman, D.A.; Li, Z.-X.; Zhao, Z.-H.; Jia, X.-H.; Jiang, Z.-Q. Ridge subduction and crustal growth in the Central Asian Orogenic Belt: Evidence from Late Carboniferous adakites and high-Mg diorites in the western Junggar region, northern Xinjiang (west China). Chem. Geol. 2010, 277, 281–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, J.Y. Late Neoproterozoic and Paleozoic tectonic framework and evolution of Eastern Xinjiang, NW China. Geol. Rev. 2004, 50, 304–322, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu, Y.; Hu, Z.; Zong, K.; Gao, C.; Gao, S.; Xu, J.; Chen, H. Reappraisement and refinement of zircon U–Pb isotope and trace element analyses by LA–ICP–MS. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2010, 55, 1535–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ludwig, K.R. Isoplot/Ex, Version 3: A Geochronological Toolkit for Microsoft Excel: Berkley; Berkeley Geochronology Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tang, G.-J.; Wang, Q.; Wyman, D.A.; Li, Z.-X.; Zhao, Z.-H.; Yang, Y.-H. Late Carboniferous high εNd(t)–εHf(t) granitoids, enclaves and dikes in western Junggar, NW China: Ridge-subduction-related magmatism and crustal growth. Lithos 2012, 140–141, 86–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Andao, D.; Hongliao, H.; Ningwan, Y.; Xiaoqiu, Z.; Yali, S.; Dezhong, S.; Shaozhen, C.; Wenjun, Q. A Study of the Rhenium Osmium Geochronometry of Molybdenites1. Acta Geol. Sin. Engl. Ed. 1995, 8, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Qu, W.J. Highly precise Re-Os dating of molybdenite by ICP-MS with Carius tube sample digestion. Rock Miner. Anal. 2003, 22, 254–257. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wang, Q.; Xu, J.-F.; Jian, P.; Bao, Z.-W.; Zhao, Z.-H.; Li, C.-F.; Xiong, X.-L.; Ma, J.-L. Petrogenesis of Adakitic Porphyries in an Extensional Tectonic Setting, Dexing, South China: Implications for the Genesis of Porphyry Copper Mineralization. J. Pet. 2005, 47, 119–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, S.-A.; Li, S.; He, Y.; 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]
  45. Plank, T.; Langmuir, C.H. The chemical composition of subducting sediment and its consequences for the crust and mantle. Chem. Geol. 1998, 145, 325–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Smoliar, M.I.; Walker, R.J.; Morgan, J.W. Re-Os ages of group IIA, IIIA, IVA, and IVB iron meteorites. Science 1996, 271, 1099–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, W.; Zhang, F.F.; Wang, Y.H.; Xue, C.J.; Wang, J.P.; Sun, M.; Wang, K. Origin of Paleozoic granitoids in the Yuhai Cu–Modeposit, Eastern Tianshan, NW China and implications for regional metallogeny. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 121, 103465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liao, K.L.; Lyu, C.L. The geological significance of molybdenite Re-Os isotopic dating result of Sanchakouxi Cu deposit in East Tianshan, Xinjiang. Miner. Resour. Geol. 2020, 34, 471–476, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  49. Lin, T.; Deng, Y.F.; Qu, W.J.; Zhou, T.F.; Yuan, F.; Deng, G. The genesis, petrology, chronology and geochemical evidence of the Sanchakou copper deposit in the East Tianshan area, Xinjiang. J. Mineral. Petrol. 2017, 37, 47–61, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, Y.; Chen, H.; Falloon, T.J.; Han, J. The Paleozoic-Mesozoic magmatic evolution of the Eastern Tianshan, NW China: Constraints from geochronology and geochemistry of the Sanchakou intrusive complex. Gondwana Res. 2022, 103, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, F.F.; Wang, Y.H.; Liu, J.J.; Xue, C.J.; Wang, J.P.; Zhang, W.; Li, Y.Y. Paleozoic magmatism and mineralization potential of the Sanchakou copper deposit, eastern Tianshan, Northwest China: Insights from geochronology, mineral chemistry, and isotopes. Econ. Geol. 2022, 117, 165–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, C.; Chen, B.; Ma, X.H.; Yan, X.L. Petrogenesis of Early and late Paleozoic Plutons in Sanchakou Area of East Tianshan and Their Implications for Evolution of Kangur Suture Zone. J. Earth Sci. Environ. 2015, 37, 5. [Google Scholar]
  53. An, W.; Xue, C.; Zhao, Y.; Chao, L. Two Periods of Porphyry Cu Mineralization and Metallogenic Implications in the Tuwu–Yandong Belt (NW China), Based on Re-Os Systematics of Molybdenite. Minerals 2022, 12, 1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sun, M.; Wang, Y.H.; Zhang, F.F.; Lin, S.Y.; Xue, C.J.; Liu, J.J.; Zhu, D.C.; Wang, K.; Zhang, W. Petrogenesis of Late Carboniferous intrusions in the Linglong area of Eastern Tianshan, NW China, and tectonic implications: Geochronological, geochemical, and zircon Hf–O isotopic constraints. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 120, 103462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, Y.; Chen, H.; Xiao, B.; Han, J.; Fang, J.; Yang, J.; Jourdan, F. Overprinting mineralization in the Paleozoic Yandong porphyry copper deposit, Eastern Tianshan, NW China—Evidence from geology, fluid inclusions and geochronology. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 100, 148–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shen, P.; Pan, H.; Dong, L. Yandong porphyry Cu deposit, Xinjiang, China—geology, geochemistry and SIMS U–Pb zircon geochronology of host porphyries and associated alteration and mineralization. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2014, 80, 197–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhang, L.; Qin, K.Z.; Ying, J.F.; Xia, B. The relationship between ore-forming processes and adakitic rock in Tuwu-Yandong porphyry copper metallogenic belt, eastern Tianshan mountains. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2004, 20, 259–268. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang, Y.H.; Xue, C.J.; Liu, J.J.; Wang, J.P.; Yang, J.T.; Zhang, F.F.; Zhao, Z.N.; Zhao, Y.J.; Liu, B. Early Carboniferous adakitic rocks in the area of the Tuwu deposit, eastern Tianshan, NW China: Slab melting and implications for porphyry copper mineralization. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2015, 103, 332–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Whalen, J.B.; Currie, K.L.; Chappell, B.W. A-type granites: Geochemical characteristics, discrimination and petrogenesis. Contrib. Mineral. Petr. 1987, 95, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. 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]
  61. Chen, X.; Shu, L.; Santosh, M.; Zhao, X. Island arc-type bimodal magmatism in the eastern Tianshan Belt, Northwest China: Geochemistry, zircon U-Pb geochronology and implications for the Paleozoic crustal evolution in Central Asia. Lithos 2013, 168–169, 48–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chen, X.; Shu, L.; Santosh, M. Late Paleozoic post-collisional magmatism in the Eastern Tianshan Belt, Northwest China: New insights from geochemistry, geochronology and petrology of bimodal volcanic rocks. Lithos 2011, 127, 581–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yuan, C.; Sun, M.; Wilde, S.; Xiao, W.; Xu, Y.; Long, X.; Zhao, G. Post collisional plutons in the Balikun area, East Chinese Tianshan: Evolving magmatism in response to extension and slab break-off. Lithos 2010, 119, 269–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Qiu, M.; Zhao, Y.; Xue, C.; Chen, J.; Ma, X.; Wang, L.; Yu, L.; You, Y. genesis of the Ni–Cu sulfide mineralization of the carboniferous Haibaotan intrusion, Eastern Tianshan, Central Asian Orogenic Belt. Int. J. Earth Sci. 2022, 112, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rickwood, P.C. Boundary lines within petrologic diagrams which use oxides of major and minor elements. Lithos 1989, 22, 247–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Irvine, T.N.; Baragar, W.R.A. A Guide to the Chemical Classification of the Common Volcanic Rocks. Can. J. Earth Sci. 1971, 8, 523–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Huang, B.; Chen, S.; Li, C.; Tian, Q.; Wang, C.; Wu, J.; Chen, M.; Han, J.; Wang, Y. Geochemical Features and Geological Significance of Yuhaixi Plutons in Eastern Tianshan, Xinjiang. Earth Sci. 2018, 43, 2943–2965. [Google Scholar]
Minerals 13 01368 g001
Figure 1. (a) Location of Central Asian Orogenic Belt (CAOB) [4]; (b) geological map of NW China showing the mains tectonic units; (c) geological map of Eastern Tianshan showing major tectonic units, faults and copper deposits (modified from [12]).
Figure 1. (a) Location of Central Asian Orogenic Belt (CAOB) [4]; (b) geological map of NW China showing the mains tectonic units; (c) geological map of Eastern Tianshan showing major tectonic units, faults and copper deposits (modified from [12]).
Minerals 13 01368 g001
Minerals 13 01368 g002
Figure 2. (A) Geological map of the Yuhaixi region showing the distribution of Cu and Cu–Ni deposits. (B) Simplified geological map of the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit (modified from [30]).
Figure 2. (A) Geological map of the Yuhaixi region showing the distribution of Cu and Cu–Ni deposits. (B) Simplified geological map of the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit (modified from [30]).
Minerals 13 01368 g002
Minerals 13 01368 g003
Figure 3. Geologic cross section of the ZK3601 and ZK3201 exploration lines across the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo deposit with lithology and mineralization (A) and alteration (B).
Figure 3. Geologic cross section of the ZK3601 and ZK3201 exploration lines across the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo deposit with lithology and mineralization (A) and alteration (B).
Minerals 13 01368 g003
Minerals 13 01368 g004
Figure 4. Field, hand specimen, and microscope photos of magmatic intrusions in the Yuhaixi area. (A–C) Hand specimen of the monzonitic granite (A), diorite (B), granite (C). (D) Photomicrograph of the monzonitic granite, showing K-felspar, quartz, and muscovite phenocrysts under cross-polarized light. (E) Photomicrograph of the diorite, showing plagioclase, quartz, and hornblende phenocrysts under cross-polarized light. (F) Photomicrograph of the granite, showing biotite, quartz, and plagioclase phenocrysts under cross-polarized light. (G) Photomicrograph of the anhedral chalcopyrite and euhedral molybdenite assemblages under reflected light. Abbreviations: Group; Qtz, quartz; Pl, plagioclase; Bt, biotite; Mus, muscovite; Kfs, K-feldspar; Ccp, chalcopyrite; Mo, molybdenite. (H,I) The molybdenite in the monzonitic granite hand specimen, with potassic alteration. (J) The Carboniferous Yanchi Formation rocks and the monzonitic granite in the exploratory trench. (K) Propylitic alteration in the exploratory trench. (L) The gabbro dike intruded into early monzonitic granite.
Figure 4. Field, hand specimen, and microscope photos of magmatic intrusions in the Yuhaixi area. (A–C) Hand specimen of the monzonitic granite (A), diorite (B), granite (C). (D) Photomicrograph of the monzonitic granite, showing K-felspar, quartz, and muscovite phenocrysts under cross-polarized light. (E) Photomicrograph of the diorite, showing plagioclase, quartz, and hornblende phenocrysts under cross-polarized light. (F) Photomicrograph of the granite, showing biotite, quartz, and plagioclase phenocrysts under cross-polarized light. (G) Photomicrograph of the anhedral chalcopyrite and euhedral molybdenite assemblages under reflected light. Abbreviations: Group; Qtz, quartz; Pl, plagioclase; Bt, biotite; Mus, muscovite; Kfs, K-feldspar; Ccp, chalcopyrite; Mo, molybdenite. (H,I) The molybdenite in the monzonitic granite hand specimen, with potassic alteration. (J) The Carboniferous Yanchi Formation rocks and the monzonitic granite in the exploratory trench. (K) Propylitic alteration in the exploratory trench. (L) The gabbro dike intruded into early monzonitic granite.
Minerals 13 01368 g004
Minerals 13 01368 g005
Figure 5. Cathodoluminescence images of representative zircon grains of the Yuhaixi showing the inner structures and analyzed spots.
Figure 5. Cathodoluminescence images of representative zircon grains of the Yuhaixi showing the inner structures and analyzed spots.
Minerals 13 01368 g005
Minerals 13 01368 g006
Figure 6. U-Pb concordia diagrams and weighted average ages of the zircons from monzonitic granite, diorite, and granite in the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit.
Figure 6. U-Pb concordia diagrams and weighted average ages of the zircons from monzonitic granite, diorite, and granite in the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit.
Minerals 13 01368 g006
Minerals 13 01368 g007
Figure 7. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns for zircon grains from the Yuhai intrusions. Chondrite values are from [20].
Figure 7. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns for zircon grains from the Yuhai intrusions. Chondrite values are from [20].
Minerals 13 01368 g007
Minerals 13 01368 g008
Figure 8. Classification and series diagrams of intrusions in the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit. (a) Na2O + K2O vs. SiO2 plot diagram [43]. (b) K2O vs. SiO2 diagram [44]. (c) A/NK vs. A/CNK plot diagram [45]. (d) FeOt/(FeO+MgO) vs. SiO2 diagram.
Figure 8. Classification and series diagrams of intrusions in the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit. (a) Na2O + K2O vs. SiO2 plot diagram [43]. (b) K2O vs. SiO2 diagram [44]. (c) A/NK vs. A/CNK plot diagram [45]. (d) FeOt/(FeO+MgO) vs. SiO2 diagram.
Minerals 13 01368 g008
Minerals 13 01368 g009
Figure 9. (A) primitive mantle-normalized trace element abundance spider diagram and (B) chondrite-normalized REE of the intrusions in the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit. (normalization values are from [20]). The N-MORB, E-MORB, and OIB patterns are from [20].
Figure 9. (A) primitive mantle-normalized trace element abundance spider diagram and (B) chondrite-normalized REE of the intrusions in the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit. (normalization values are from [20]). The N-MORB, E-MORB, and OIB patterns are from [20].
Minerals 13 01368 g009
Minerals 13 01368 g010
Figure 10. Re-Os isochron diagram and weighted average model age diagram for four molybdenite samples in the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit.
Figure 10. Re-Os isochron diagram and weighted average model age diagram for four molybdenite samples in the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit.
Minerals 13 01368 g010
Minerals 13 01368 g011
Figure 11. Summary of geochronological data of major porphyry Cu deposits in the Eastern-Tianshan. Error bars are 2σ [5,6,7,9,12,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58].
Figure 11. Summary of geochronological data of major porphyry Cu deposits in the Eastern-Tianshan. Error bars are 2σ [5,6,7,9,12,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58].
Minerals 13 01368 g011
Minerals 13 01368 g012
Figure 12. (A) Zircon εHf (t) vs. U-Pb ages (T) diagram for the Yuhaixi intrusions. (B) εNd(t) vs. ISr diagram for the Yuhaixi intrusions.
Figure 12. (A) Zircon εHf (t) vs. U-Pb ages (T) diagram for the Yuhaixi intrusions. (B) εNd(t) vs. ISr diagram for the Yuhaixi intrusions.
Minerals 13 01368 g012
Minerals 13 01368 g013
Figure 13. Tectonic discrimination diagrams for the Yuhaixi intrusions. (A) Rb vs. Ta + Yb diagram [33]; (B) Ta vs. Yb diagram [33]. Syn-COLG = Syn-collision granites; WPG = Within plate granites; ORG = Ocean ridge granites; VAG = Volcanic arc granites.
Figure 13. Tectonic discrimination diagrams for the Yuhaixi intrusions. (A) Rb vs. Ta + Yb diagram [33]; (B) Ta vs. Yb diagram [33]. Syn-COLG = Syn-collision granites; WPG = Within plate granites; ORG = Ocean ridge granites; VAG = Volcanic arc granites.
Minerals 13 01368 g013
Minerals 13 01368 g014
Figure 14. Schematic cartoons illustrating the tectono–magmatic–metallogenic evolution model of the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit in eastern Tianshan. (A) N-dipping subduction of the North Tianshan ocean plate gave rise to the Bogeda-Haerlike and Dananhu-Tousuquan island arcs in the early Paleozoic period. (B) Bipolar subduction of the North Tianshan ocean plate gave rise to the Dananhu-Tousuquan and Aqishan-Yamansu arcs in the Carboniferous period, forming Yuhaixi monzonitic granite and granite. (C) The Permian period post-collisional extension forming Yuhaixi diorite.
Figure 14. Schematic cartoons illustrating the tectono–magmatic–metallogenic evolution model of the Yuhaixi porphyry Mo(Cu) deposit in eastern Tianshan. (A) N-dipping subduction of the North Tianshan ocean plate gave rise to the Bogeda-Haerlike and Dananhu-Tousuquan island arcs in the early Paleozoic period. (B) Bipolar subduction of the North Tianshan ocean plate gave rise to the Dananhu-Tousuquan and Aqishan-Yamansu arcs in the Carboniferous period, forming Yuhaixi monzonitic granite and granite. (C) The Permian period post-collisional extension forming Yuhaixi diorite.
Minerals 13 01368 g014
Table 1. Whole-rock geochemical data of the studied intrusive rocks in the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit (major elements: wt.%; trace elements: ppm).
Table 1. Whole-rock geochemical data of the studied intrusive rocks in the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit (major elements: wt.%; trace elements: ppm).
Rock TypeMonzonitic GraniteDioriteGranite
Sample No.YHX-ZK-1YHX-ZK-2YHX-ZK-3ZK001-25ZK001-350ZK001-396721-1721-3721-5
SiO274.276.5774.6453.5554.5854.1674.1673.7973.75
TiO20.170.180.140.950.940.80.20.180.18
Al2O313.5712.4212.917.9817.3317.5913.7714.1514.17
TFe2O31.231.3118.698.377.91.491.41.39
MnO0.030.060.030.170.160.140.080.060.06
MgO0.280.360.234.064.845.060.450.390.39
CaO1.231.121.97.977.87.611.651.631.64
Na2O3.333.392.773.864.114.114.464.574.55
K2O4.973.754.531.150.91.142.652.72.81
P2O50.040.050.040.240.160.250.070.070.07
LOI0.630.731.821.120.81.020.50.470.5
TOTAL99.6899.9499.9899.7499.9999.7799.4899.4199.52
Na2O + K2O8.37.147.295.015.015.257.117.287.37
Mg#28.8732.8829.0845.4450.7653.313533.1833.34
A/CNK1.041.051.060.810.790.811.041.051.05
A/NK1.251.21.292.372.242.21.351.351.27
Li5.446.671.318.6710.668.7113.7916.6712.95
Be0.892.390.940.971.020.961.051.521.04
Sc2.153.531.1419.9224.8723.371.382.61.38
V10.6612.169.27201.07241.97116.98.358.397.22
Cr19.130.7810.5322.3367.75129.445.688.874.1
Co1.971.010.5622.8330.7329.041.011.030.88
Ni0.110.730.8618.4846.2781.170.261.811.52
Cu114.2237.210.265.43132.9155.892.011.232.88
Zn15.8374.8927.69103.43102.49105.5568.2944.1749.97
Ga14.8815.6711.7222.9823.4324.0215.1516.2515.12
Rb64.5775.864.6525.217.6925.2545.662.9745.83
Sr188.36168.2137.76833.76784.8940.51379.1400.17371.33
Y7.8314.275.7728.5825.6524.6419.5718.5919.64
Zr94.78114.1689.03364.46160.1923.13120.58110.57114.79
Nb5.3512.475.344.525.264.155.46.284.93
Cs0.240.40.40.510.50.570.391.390.38
Ba853592598369314436124812771333
La27.7627.0317.3118.1819.0915.3520.7635.1527.57
Ce51.75938.9445.5747.4541.3145.2968.0953.25
Pr5.866.193.936.636.786.234.718.116.57
Nd21.5422.7414.6630.2530.2628.0818.1130.5625.29
Sm3.394.12.566.666.095.783.355.44.51
Eu1.150.860.821.911.571.581.41.541.51
Gd2.943.42.145.465.054.692.994.433.96
Tb0.360.490.270.90.830.790.490.640.6
Dy1.642.581.165.674.844.652.983.423.47
Ho0.30.520.221.20.990.940.670.670.71
Er0.811.430.63.32.772.571.971.871.97
Tm0.110.220.080.490.410.370.30.280.29
Yb0.671.450.533.122.712.421.991.731.95
Lu0.110.240.080.480.440.390.330.280.32
Hf2.773.642.58.984.931.273.673.463.54
Ta0.31.340.290.320.340.250.310.480.3
Tl0.210.240.190.090.060.080.180.20.16
Pb15.3111.311.696.25.458.028.429.448.78
Bi0.050.030.030.120.10.260.020.040.02
Th5.778.185.83.063.351.185.219.977.37
U1.131.950.992.191.460.831.191.821.46
(La/Yb)N27.912.5521.983.924.744.287.0213.719.54
(Tb/Yb)N2.371.52.241.291.361.451.11.631.36
(La/Sm)N5.154.154.261.721.971.673.94.093.84
Th/Ce0.110.140.150.070.070.030.120.150.14
Th/U5.124.25.841.42.291.424.395.485.05
Ce/Pb3.385.223.337.358.75.155.387.226.06
ΣREE118.34130.2483.29129.82129.29115.14105.33162.16131.97
Eu1.090.681.050.940.840.91.330.941.07
Sr/Y24.0511.7823.8829.1730.5938.1719.3821.5318.91
Note: Mg# = 100 × (MgO/40.3044)/(MgO/40.3044 + 0.8998 × Fe2O3 T/71.8440).
Table 2. LA–ICP–MS zircon U–Pb data for the studied intrusive rocks in the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit.
Table 2. LA–ICP–MS zircon U–Pb data for the studied intrusive rocks in the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit.
SpotElement (×10−6)Isotope RationApparent Age (Ma)
PbThU207Pb/206Pb1σ207Pb/235U1σ206Pb/238U1σ207Pb/206Pb1σ207Pb/235U1σ206Pb/238U1σ
Monzonitic granite
YHX-1-19784911560.05470.00340.44140.02730.05810.0012398173371193648
YHX-1-2231743020.05390.00330.43620.02640.05810.001369134368193646
YHX-1-3261083480.05250.00710.42690.05730.05780.00233092813614136214
YHX-1-4201372650.05430.00430.43090.03480.05620.0013383180364253528
YHX-1-5141201730.05580.0060.42580.04010.05790.00174562753602936311
YHX-1-6748358400.05320.00350.43190.02590.0580.001345145365183646
YHX-1-7741890.05680.0060.43930.03660.05730.0013487236370263598
YHX-1-88461020.05480.00560.44040.04490.05650.00164062273713235410
YHX-1-913691820.05610.00380.44650.0270.05760.0011457155375193617
YHX-1-109053511670.05590.00330.45730.02670.05760.0011450127382193617
YHX-1-11201442450.05460.00590.4360.03690.05710.00193982103672635812
YHX-1-1216952180.05310.00320.42030.02340.05710.0009345144356173585
YHX-1-13181062320.0590.0050.45980.03280.05780.0015565183384233629
YHX-1-1412681570.05710.00920.4480.06730.05740.00234943563764736014
YHX-1-15104105011840.05770.00220.46020.01810.05720.000851783384133595
YHX-1-1614921820.05640.00380.44360.02790.05750.001478146373203606
YHX-1-17235161830010.05940.0020.4710.01510.05680.000758374392103564
YHX-1-18252413070.05430.0030.43220.02340.05690.0008389122365173575
Diorite
zk001-1430600.04980.00570.33160.02970.04870.0014187244291233069
zk001-2540850.05590.00520.36360.02880.04750.0011450207315212997
zk001-3547720.05840.00590.37120.03110.04820.0015543222321233049
zk001-47721080.0550.00480.36950.03040.0480.0011413196319233026
zk001-58791280.0520.00460.34580.02740.04810.001283199302213036
zk001-6669930.06040.00770.36360.03560.04710.0013617275315262968
zk001-79851330.05020.00370.31930.01810.04740.001206168281142996
zk001-88721280.04990.00530.31110.02490.04760.0012191230275193007
zk001-9549870.05680.00550.34630.0260.04660.0012483213302202947
zk001-10428580.05970.00610.37720.03040.0470.0012591222325222967
zk001-11547690.05060.00550.33670.03770.0480.00192332242952930311
zk001-1210911490.04810.0040.31980.02120.04870.0011106181282163067
zk001-138851180.05810.00450.37580.02650.04690.001600170324202966
zk001-149861270.04890.00450.32090.0250.04730.001143200283192986
zk001-15657840.04850.00380.30790.0170.04710.001124174273132976
zk001-168901170.05050.00370.33770.02270.04710.001217177295172966
zk001-176461010.05540.00490.35340.02750.04660.0009428198307212936
zk001-18111021530.04610.0040.30580.02450.04790.0014400-202271193029
zk001-19541830.0530.00540.33520.0290.04690.0011328230294222967
zk001-20436670.05330.00820.33650.04370.04820.00213433152953330313
Granite
721-6-016106870.05840.00210.38840.01410.04870.000854684333103075
721-6-02264753500.05340.0010.36080.00790.04890.00053464431363083
721-6-03303694530.05590.00140.37520.0120.04860.0014565632393066
721-6-05201773270.05250.0010.35260.0080.04860.00063064630763064
721-6-07161312580.05290.00120.35820.01080.0490.00093245231183096
721-6-08162482160.05220.00110.35110.00820.04880.00072955030663074
721-6-11171982690.05130.00150.34490.01080.04870.00062546730183064
721-6-13121781700.05530.00140.37140.00960.04890.00084335732173085
721-6-16563620.05360.00230.35940.01510.04880.000736796312113075
721-6-21212043380.05420.0010.36560.00780.04880.00063763831663074
721-6-22121931620.05590.00170.37720.01220.04880.00054506432593073
721-6-23334174780.05530.00120.37210.00870.04860.00074335132163064
Table 3. Trace element abundance (in ppm), Eu anomalies, and Ce4+/Ce3+ in zircon and Ti-in-zircon temperature.
Table 3. Trace element abundance (in ppm), Eu anomalies, and Ce4+/Ce3+ in zircon and Ti-in-zircon temperature.
AnalysisTiYLaCePrNdSmEuGdTbDyHoErTmYbLuEu/Eu*T
YHX-ZK-13818609.551011163.534.97.576315.515456.7257555251140.52732
YHX-ZK-28.130413.1599.13.425.515.34.627022.12611084661059182000.56745
YHX-ZK-35.220930.0432.20.32.737.592.573912.615965.329864.96061300.45747
YHX-ZK-45.915010.233.40.43.215.531.82238.6411249.224554.75211250.41748
YHX-ZK-527383612.51371588.157.111.111833.335613860112811372520.49677
YHX-ZK-66.114960.3532.90.43.966.361.772910.412850.823652.55261080.47715
YHX-ZK-76.218790.2428.60.45.129.432.324113.21676429963.85971350.35631
YHX-ZK-81328461.381361.411.615.83.425920.425797.943190.98241870.37815
YHX-ZK-91227970.6965.916.918.4124317.223294.245297.89252060.41745
YHX-ZK-10618670.14430.11.154.611.29261113862.731068.36291480.36637
YHX-ZK-111720892.3153.10.86.6211.93.345315.717574.635072.16941510.70731
YHX-ZK-121.613290.0222.700.983.790.95228.3911144.522350.24731030.52884
YHX-ZK-132221860.9246.71.18.249.482.813812.916065.930568.26741400.42955
YHX-ZK-142411120.5428.10.22.73.871.32226.989840.117838.9357830.48693
YHX-ZK-1517543617.61782012476.316.817749.152718580016814412980.41692
YHX-ZK-163.327100.51380.77.6211.23.025819.322785.237781.37471590.64626
zk001-412-19.19560.029.890.13.495.431.25267.738731.714630.8277570.47799
zk001-412-28.45150.118.0901.221.070.347.63.44116.876.218.7182380.43741
zk001-412-36.28200.0112.300.852.370.57175.936927.912427.9259540.40799
zk001-412-46.79070.0111.50.11.834.090.6196.57830.113229.2275600.35787
zk001-412-55.98090.0412.100.752.680.4135.126625.912326.4256560.40778
zk001-412-68.85740.0110.100.711.90.52124.175118.885.918.9177370.30749
zk001-412-79.44460.017.3700.531.010.367.92.863414.366.815.7149330.30782
zk001-412-89.86580.017.6901.613.520.74165.215821.996.220.4189390.23757
zk001-412-98.71111012.10.34.66.91.26319.2310136.716334.3308630.22745
zk001-412-101412370.0111.20.23.917.21.523110.111240.918237.6336690.37783
zk001-412-118.66490.018.9700.982.790.43124.385221.598.722.1216480.42790
zk001-412-12111265012.50.34.066.621.42319.511104219141.8354770.32794
zk001-412-135.85520.018.0900.291.130.249.13.274217.582.819.2189410.28766
zk001-412-146.711090.0211.70.13.155.281.16298.8110337.716136324650.26766
7216-16.416360.0526.90.23.836.683.073611.313452.825656.25551310.55752
7216-29.339420.51950.66.5511.35.17726.833013161012912342760.48789
7216-36.337851.1958.21.17.029.663.635822.629912560013012552720.46733
7216-45.337060.1646.20.33.238.033.76122.629712157712712002650.45739
7216-55.63438043.70.11.515.392.45421825311155812712502790.44666
7216-62.43024017.601.54.72.163916.222497.349511211102520.45776
7216-78.227650.02570.12.486.692.974917.322390.143194.18902080.50771
7216-89.433521.8677.41.91313.15.356422.627310951711310722410.45747
7216-91133093.8477.93.623.420.88.1876252851094891039732150.56772
7216-1048771523.62272114195.137.622869.6704248109622020214190.63695
7216-116.119570.02420.22.015.072.163512.215564.530868.66721560.57742
7216-1211345122.81118.849.425.38.757925.329111150611010442350.49712
7216-137.919060.0837.70.22.075.132.623311.514862.130169.16931580.51730
7216-143.4720011.60.11.632.861.43144.395522.611327300770.46753
7216-155.818160.0234.90.11.934.622.523211.414359.5281646201440.48731
1 (Eu/Eu*) = Eu/(Sm × Gd)1/2 [18]. 2 Ti-in-zircon temperatures are calculated using the equation proposed by [22]: log (ppm Ti-in-zircon) = (5.711 ± 0.072) − (4800 ± 86)/T(K) − logαSiO2 + logαTiO2, where αSiO2 = 1, αTiO2 = 0.6 are used in the calculation.
Table 4. In situ zircon Hf isotopic data on the studied intrusive rocks in the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit.
Table 4. In situ zircon Hf isotopic data on the studied intrusive rocks in the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit.
Sample No.Age (Ma)176Hf/177Hf1σ176Lu/177Hf1σ176Yb/177Hf1σeHf (0)eHf (T)TDMTDMCfs
Monzonitic granite
YHX-ZK-1364.070.2830720.0000140.0043460.0000380.1256950.00084510.6117.59279.05240.34−0.87
YHX-ZK-2364.280.2829210.0000160.0024430.0000490.0689810.0014285.2712.71487.64553.83−0.93
YHX-ZK-3362.360.2829390.0000130.0022610.0000210.0626580.000635.9113.34458.91511.47−0.93
YHX-ZK-4352.340.2829720.0000170.0026450.0000920.0767060.0029357.0914.23414.25446.94−0.92
YHX-ZK-5362.890.2829470.0000140.0018110.0000130.0515110.0005166.1813.74442.01486.6−0.95
YHX-ZK-6363.70.2829290.0000150.0029130.0000440.0851320.0011765.5612.87481.81542.82−0.91
YHX-ZK-7358.970.2829650.0000140.0017190.0000460.0482630.0012926.8314.32414.48445.98−0.95
YHX-ZK-8354.40.2829780.0000160.0037750.0000910.1060830.0027737.314.22418.43449.15−0.89
YHX-ZK-93610.2829470.0000130.0013130.0000060.0358210.0001276.2113.84435.14478.51−0.96
YHX-ZK-10361.260.2829850.0000160.0032410.0000260.0883010.0008277.5414.72401.89422.3−0.9
YHX-ZK-11358.080.2829450.0000160.0029790.0000540.0839920.0015076.1213.3459.23511.2−0.91
YHX-ZK-12358.060.2829030.0000130.0020890.0000380.0561930.0010684.6212.01509.8593.52−0.94
YHX-ZK-13361.990.282880.0000140.0017610.0000340.0467450.0008883.8211.37538.24637.96−0.95
YHX-ZK-14359.720.2829560.0000140.0016550.0000090.0463420.0002316.5214.05426.25464.2−0.95
YHX-ZK-15358.690.2829680.0000160.0031170.0000470.0874350.0013086.9314.08426.66461.17−0.91
YHX-ZK-16360.350.2829570.0000160.0018480.0000060.0480010.0002856.5314.03427.98466−0.94
YHX-ZK-17356.410.2830070.0000140.0032890.0000630.0975060.0018568.315.37369.99376.79−0.9
YHX-ZK-18356.810.2829270.0000180.0032890.0000450.0963940.0013965.4912.57490.31557.13−0.9
Diorite
zk001-412-1306.40.2829430.0000140.0007310.000010.020650.0002596.0412.64434.94513.32−0.98
zk001-412-2298.940.2829670.0000140.0006880.0000010.019160.0000486.913.34400.38462.42−0.98
zk001-412-3303.670.2829690.0000160.0008880.0000020.0263110.0000666.9513.46400.35458.66−0.97
zk001-412-4302.430.2829380.0000160.0011760.0000120.0336110.0002865.8712.29447.19532.71−0.96
zk001-412-6303.050.2829440.0000120.0008270.0000050.0236060.000126.0912.59434.22513.67−0.98
zk001-412-7296.450.2829270.0000120.0006310.0000040.0183430.0001495.511.9455.47553.11−0.98
zk001-412-8298.790.2829370.0000140.0008370.0000160.0248970.0005925.8512.26443.87531.68−0.97
zk001-412-9299.820.2829460.0000140.0007010.0000030.0200660.0001036.1612.62430.05509.63−0.98
zk001-412-10293.730.2829670.0000110.0006070.0000050.0174960.0001376.9113.26398.9463.59−0.98
zk001-412-11295.90.2829250.0000130.0005740.0000010.0165150.0000395.4111.81458.27558.37−0.98
zk001-412-12302.540.2829140.0000150.0004490.0000110.0126070.0004085.0211.59472.15577.62−0.99
zk001-412-13306.430.282940.0000130.000940.0000050.0277550.0001985.9512.51440.87521.65−0.97
zk001-412-14295.580.2829370.0000120.000960.0000010.028610.0000665.8312.14446.22536.6−0.97
zk001-412-15297.650.2829550.0000120.0008850.0000030.0259820.0001216.4812.86419.08492.32−0.97
zk001-412-16296.550.2829530.0000130.0006490.0000030.0185220.0001466.4112.81419.37494.69−0.98
zk001-412-17296.480.2829520.0000140.0010760.0000040.0322820.0001556.3812.69425.56502.38−0.97
zk001-412-18293.480.2829340.0000130.0006790.0000020.0191990.0000885.7312.05446.96540.9−0.98
zk001-412-19301.640.2829660.0000170.0006770.0000030.0186150.0000836.8713.38401.16462.08−0.98
zk001-412-20295.720.2829310.0000110.0006070.0000050.0163220.0001435.6212.01450.39545.54−0.98
zk001-412-21303.20.2829380.0000150.0008350.0000090.0241640.0003155.8712.38442.95527.54−0.97
Granite
7216-1306.630.2829250.0000340.002120.0000150.0521260.0007425.4111.73477.66571.8−0.94
7216-2307.950.282980.0000270.0042110.0000220.1086320.0006727.3613.28421.22473.44−0.87
7216-3305.70.2830250.0000230.0045130.0000570.1144450.0013148.9414.76354.81376.83−0.86
7216-4306.150.2829920.0000190.0041370.0000740.1068520.0026017.7813.68401.84446.26−0.88
7216-5308.540.2829680.0000140.0033260.0000320.0887440.0011456.9413.06428.42488.23−0.9
7216-6307.070.2829470.0000210.0026760.0000130.071040.0004826.1912.41452.27528.74−0.92
7216-7306.320.2829890.0000190.0042370.0000410.1108440.0014757.6913.58406.88453.14−0.87
7216-8308.070.2829450.0000190.00220.0000390.056070.0011286.1112.44449.83527.37−0.93
7216-9307.160.2829620.000020.0014270.0000760.0336210.0017966.7113.18416.07479.25−0.96
Note: εHf(0) = [(176Hf/177Hf)S/(176Hf/177Hf)CHUR,0 − 1] · 10,000; εHf(t) = {[(176Hf/177Hf)S − (176Lu/177Hf)S · (eλt − 1)]/[(176Hf/177Hf)CHUR,0 − (176Lu/177Hf)CHUR,0 · (eλt − 1)] − 1} · 10,000; TDM1 = 1/λ · ln{1 + [(176Hf/177Hf)S − (176Hf/177Hf)DM]/[(176Lu/177Hf)S − (176Lu/177Hf)DM]; TDM2 = TDM1 − (TDM1 − t) · (ƒcc − ƒs) · (ƒcc − ƒDM); ƒLu/Hf = [(176Lu/177Hf)S/(176Lu/177Hf)CHUR,0] − 1, where (176Hf/177Hf)S and (176Lu/177Hf)S are the measured values of the samples, s = sample, and t = crystallization time of zircon; (176Lu/177Hf)CHUR,0 = 0.0332 and (176Hf/177Hf)CHUR,0 = 0.282772 [23]; (176Lu/177Hf)DM = 0.0384 and (176Hf/177Hf)DM = 0.28325 [24]; ƒcc = −0.55 and ƒDM = 0.16; and λ = 1.867 × 10−12/yr−1 [46] were used in the calculation.
Table 5. Sr–Nd isotopic compositions of the studied intrusive rocks in the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit.
Table 5. Sr–Nd isotopic compositions of the studied intrusive rocks in the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit.
Sample No.Rock TypeAge (Ma)RbSr87Rb/86Sr87Sr/86SrISrSmNd147Sm/144Nd143Nd/144NdSm/NdINdεNd(0)εNd(t)TDM
YHX-ZK-1MG359.430.95631070.83710.7110.70624.54513.950.1970.51270.3260.51221.36551.35973992
YHX-ZK-2MG359.428.927568.651.21930.7110.70431.9486.9050.1710.51270.2820.51231.40452.61031555
S3201-20GNG36458.62890.58660.7060.70321.6410.40.0950.5126 −0.684.03705
S3201-26GNG36469.92030.99640.7090.70372.5614.90.1040.5126 −0.763.56765
ZK001-25DI298.811.6175657.90.05110.7040.70371.99617.470.0690.51280.1140.51272.8877.7512386
ZK001-350DI298.88.715648.60.03890.7040.70371.96819.860.060.51280.0990.51262.49697.7096382
ZK001-396DI298.811.9025749.40.0460.7040.70413.96617.230.1390.51280.230.51252.96515.1618739
721-1GR30714.9663212.80.20350.7050.70431.4439.5910.0910.51280.1510.51262.28236.435493
721-3GR30714.2313194.20.2120.7050.70432.67312.850.1260.51270.2080.51251.83374.6214727
721-5GR30714.51252090.20090.7050.70431.73912.240.0860.51270.1420.51261.95076.3017493
Abbreviation: MG, monzonitic granite; GNG, gneissic granite; DI, diorite; GR, granite. (87Sr/86Sr)i = (87Sr/86Sr)s − (87Rb/86Sr)s × (eλt − 1); 87Sr/86Sr = (Rb/Sr) × 2.8956; λRb–Sr = 1.42 × 10–11/a; (143Nd/144Nd)i = (143Nd/144Nd)s − (147Sm/144Nd)s × (eλt–1); 147Sm/144Nd = (Sm/Nd) × 0.60456; λSm–Nd = 6.54 × 10–12/a; εNd(t) = 10,000 [(143Nd/144Nd)i/(143Nd/144Nd)CHUR(t) − 1]; (143Nd/144Nd)CHUR(t) = (143Nd/144Nd)CHUR(0) − (147Sm/144Nd)CHUR × (eλt − 1); (143Nd/144Nd)CHUR(0) = 0.512638; (147Sm/144Nd)CHUR = 0.1967; TDM = 1/λ × ln{1 + [(143Nd/144Nd)S − (143Nd/144Nd)DM]/[(147Sm/144Nd)S − (147Sm/144Nd)DM]}; (147Sm/144Nd)DM = 0.21357; (143Nd/144Nd)DM = 0.51315; (147Sm/144Nd) crust = 0.118.
Table 6. Molybdenite Re-Os isotopic data for the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit.
Table 6. Molybdenite Re-Os isotopic data for the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) deposit.
Sample No.Weight (g)Ores TypeOccurrenceRe/μg·g−1Os/ng·g−1187Re/μg·g−1187Os/ng·g−1Model Age (Ma)
Measured2σMeasured2σMeasured2σMeasured2σMeasured2σ
Mo-010.00306Mo mineralized MGDissemination206.71.80.00720.2129.91.17414.2341.44.9
Mo-020.00516Mo mineralized MGDissemination223.43.40.00220.1140.42.2793.45.8338.26.7
Mo-030.00141Mo mineralized MGDissemination2261.80.0080.1142.11.2820.55.7345.75.0
Mo-040.00311Mo mineralized MGDissemination411.55.00.00710.2258.63.11510.89.3349.65.9
Mo-050.00205Mo mineralized MGDissemination204.11.80.00870.3128.31.1737.74.5344.25.0
Mo-060.00051Mo mineralized MGDissemination513.75.40.00870.4322.93.41889.218.7350.26.1
Mo-070.0031Ccp-Mo-Qz veinletVeinlet330.73.20.00720.2207.82.01206.37.2347.45.2
Mo-080.00509Ccp-Mo-Qz veinletVeinlet149.31.90.00230.193.91.2539.53.3344.15.8
Mo-090.00511Ccp-Mo-Qz veinletVeinlet182.62.90.00210.1114.81.86484.0337.96.7
Abbreviation: MG, monzonitic granite. Decay constant: λ187Re = 1.666 × 10−11 year−1 [46]. Uncertainty in the Re and Os concentrations includes errors associated with the weighing of the sample and diluent, the calibration error of the diluent, the mass spectrometry analytical error, and the measurement error of the isotope ratios for the test sample; the confidence level is 95%. Uncertainty in the Re-Os model ages includes the uncertainty of the 187Re decay constant, with a confidence level of 95%. Uncertainties for ages are absolute (2σ).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, D.; Xue, C.; Zhao, Y.; Li, C.; Xi, B.; Yang, Y.; Tian, Q.; Kang, X.; Wu, X. Ore Genesis and the Magmatism of the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) Deposit in Eastern Tianshan, NW China: Constraints from Geology, Geochemistry, Zircon U-Pb and Molybdenite Re-Os Dating. Minerals 2023, 13, 1368. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13111368

AMA Style

Wang D, Xue C, Zhao Y, Li C, Xi B, Yang Y, Tian Q, Kang X, Wu X. Ore Genesis and the Magmatism of the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) Deposit in Eastern Tianshan, NW China: Constraints from Geology, Geochemistry, Zircon U-Pb and Molybdenite Re-Os Dating. Minerals. 2023; 13(11):1368. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13111368

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Di, Chunji Xue, Yun Zhao, Chao Li, Binbin Xi, Yang Yang, Qinglei Tian, Xunshan Kang, and Xing Wu. 2023. "Ore Genesis and the Magmatism of the Yuhaixi Mo(Cu) Deposit in Eastern Tianshan, NW China: Constraints from Geology, Geochemistry, Zircon U-Pb and Molybdenite Re-Os Dating" Minerals 13, no. 11: 1368. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13111368

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