Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Earth-Science Reviews
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earscirev

Geochronological and geochemical insights into the tectonic evolution of the T

Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, Sino-Korean Craton
Wang Xua, , Fulai Liua,b,
⁎ ⁎

a
Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100037, China
b
Key Laboratory of Deep-Earth Dynamics of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing 100037, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The Sino-Korean Craton, which is part of the Columbia supercontinent, was originally formed and stabilized by
Sino-Korean Craton the amalgamation of several distinctly different tectonic units during the Paleoproterozoic period. Although the
Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt early tectonic framework of the Sino-Korean Craton remains controversial, the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt
Paleoproterozoic magmatism is accepted to divide the eastern unit of this craton into Archean Nangrim-Liaonan and Longgang blocks. This
Tectonic evolution
orogenic belt is thus the key to revealing the geodynamic processes that occurred during the assemblage and
Oceanic plate subduction
Back-arc basin
breakup of the Paleoproterozoic supercontinent Columbia. Due to late polyphase tectonothermal events (e.g.,
Collisional orogeny subduction of the paleo-Pacific Plate), considerable and continuing controversy has surrounded how this
Paleoproterozoic orogenic belt formed, with models including (1) opening and closing of an intracontinental rift,
(2) collision of a continent–arc–continent system, (3) a rifting–initial ocean formation–oceanic sub-
duction–collision cycle, and (4) opening and closure of a back-arc basin or retro-arc foreland basin.
Here, we synthesize the geochronological, geochemical, and isotopic data on the Paleoproterozoic igneous
rocks in the JLJB. The available data suggest that the Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB lasted from ca.
2200 Ma to ca. 1800 Ma, with five magmatic flare-ups at ca. 2190–2160 Ma, ca. 2160–2110 Ma, ca.
2110–2080 Ma, ca. 2010–1895 Ma and ca. 1875–1850 Ma. These data, in combination with previous studies on
voluminous meta-sedimentary rocks, Archean basement relict slices and granitic leucosomes within the JLJB,
allow us to reconstruct the tectonic evolution of the JLJB based on rock petrogenesis as described below. (1)
During the early stage of northwestward subduction of Paleoproterozoic oceanic plate between the Longgang-
Liaonan-Nangrim Block (i.e., the Eastern Block) and the West Australian Craton (WAC) and/or North Australian
Craton (NAC), strong slab rollback resulted in trench retreat and extension of the overriding plate (i.e., the
Longgang-Liaonan-Nangrim Block) and induced upwelling and decompression melting of asthenospheric mantle
to produce basaltic magma. The overriding Archean continental crust was heated by the underlying basaltic
magma and melted to produce ~2190–2160 Ma aluminous A2-type granites, and minor basaltic magma mixed
with this crustal melt to form ~2180–2160 Ma calc-alkaline, andesitic-rhyolitic tuffs. (2) With ongoing exten-
sion, the overriding plate thinned, and a back-arc basin opened and widened. The asthenospheric mantle that
was metasomatized by limited subduction-related fluids and/or melts began to melt in the spinel-garnet stability
field, and produced ~2160–2110 Ma tholeiitic mafic rocks with the geochemical features of both mid-oceanic
ridge basalt (MORB) and volcanic arcs. (3) Decreased back-arc mafic magmatism suggests that subduction
ceased due to collision between the WAC and/or NAC and the active subduction zone during ~2110–2080 Ma.
After the collision, the subduction polarity reversed, from northwestward to southeastward, forming new sub-
duction initiation in the southeastern margin of the back-arc basin, and this new subduction further resulted in
forearc extension. Decompression melting of the subarc mantle produced basaltic magma, which was metaso-
matized by subducted slab- and ancient sediment-derived melts to form ~2110–2080 Ma mafic rocks with both
calc-alkaline and tholeiitic features. Simultaneously, the overriding continental crust was heated by the basaltic
magma and melted to form ~2110–2080 Ma aluminous A2-type granites. These processes, including opening
and closure of back-arc basin, were accompanied by the deposition of voluminous sedimentary rocks in this
back-arc basin, and the deposition lasted for at least 180 Myr. (4) After the collision between the WAC and/or
NAC, the arc terrane (Nangrim-Liaonan Block + Gyeonggi massif?) and the Longgang Block, the orogeny that
involved Archean basement rocks, Paleoproterozoic sedimentary rocks and associated mafic and granitic in-
trusions began. This process was accompanied by prograde or peak metamorphism and minor magmatism,

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: wangxu_k@126.com (W. Xu), lfl0225@sina.com (F. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.019
Received 30 January 2019; Received in revised form 6 April 2019; Accepted 11 April 2019
Available online 16 April 2019
0012-8252/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

which produced the ~2000–1895 Ma adakitic granites derived from partial melting of thickened lower crust. (5)
During the late Paleoproterozoic, termination of the collisional orogenic event occurred, as evidenced by strong
postcollisional extension, which generated widespread ~1875–1850 Ma igneous rocks in the JLJB and was
accompanied by a regional partial melting event related to the exhumation of the JLJB. In summary, the five
stages of magmatism, and associated sedimentation and metamorphism in the JLJB record a complete tectonic
cycle, including oceanic plate subduction, back-arc extension, closure of the back-arc basin, collisional orogeny
and postcollisional extension. These processes further support the conclusion that plate tectonic processes in the
Paleoproterozoic period resulted in the amalgamation of microcontinents and arcs to form the Sino-Korean
Craton and the Columbia supercontinent.

1. Introduction
The Sino-Korean Craton, which is composed of the North China
Craton (NCC) and Korean Peninsula, is one of the major Archean cra-
tons in eastern Eurasia (Fig. 1A; Yang et al., 2010). As a part of the
Columbia supercontinent, the Sino-Korean Craton formed and stabi-
lized during Paleoproterozoic period (Zhao et al., 2001, 2002, 2012;
Zhai and Liu, 2003; Kusky and Li, 2003; Kusky, 2011; Zhai and Santosh,
2011), and this tectonothermal event is undoubtedly recorded in as-
sociated collisional orogenic belts, although the positions and nature of
these orogenic belts remains controversial, including: (1) the Jiao-Liao-
Ji Belt (JLJB), the Trans-North China Orogen (TNCO) and the Khon-
dalite Belt (KB) (Fig. 1A; Zhao et al., 2002, 2005, 2012), (2) the Liaoji
Orogenic Belt, the Jinyu Orogenic Belt and the Fengzhen Orogenic Belt
(Fig. 1B; Zhai and Liu, 2003; Zhai and Santosh, 2011, 2013), and (3) the
Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB) and the Inner Mongolia-Northern Hebei Orogen
(IMNHO) (Fig. 1C; Kusky and Li, 2003; Kusky et al., 2007, 2014, 2016;
Kusky, 2011). In the three major tectonic frameworks of the Sino-
Korean Craton mentioned above, the JLJB (or Liaoji Orogenic Belt) is
the only Paleoproterozoic orogenic belt that is currently widely ac-
cepted (Fig. 1A–C). Therefore, the JLJB is the key to revealing the
geodynamic process that occurred during the cratonization of the Sino-
Korean Craton and the amalgamation of the Columbia supercontinent.
Recently, major advances in our understanding of the Paleoproterozoic
tectonic evolution of the Sino-Korean Craton have been achieved fol-
lowing the discovery of eclogite xenoliths in Paleoproterozoic carbo-
natite that record modern-style cold deep oceanic plate subduction in
the central part of the Sino-Korean Craton (Xu et al., 2017a, 2018a).
However, researchers have questioned whether the JLJB records a si-
milar tectonic evolution due to a lack of direct evidence of oceanic plate
subduction.
The JLJB is traditionally regarded as a Paleoproterozoic orogenic
belt linking the Liaonan-Nangrim Block in southern Liaoning Province
and North Korea and the Longgang Block (e.g., Li et al., 2001, 2003,
2005, 2012; Zhao et al., 2005, 2012), which is one of the ancient cra-
tonic nuclei in the world (3.8–2.5 Ga, e.g., Liu et al., 1992; Zhao et al.,
2005, 2012; Liu et al., 2007; Zhai and Santosh, 2011; Wan et al., 2015a,
2015b). Although previous studies of sedimentation (e.g., Wan et al.,
2006; Luo et al., 2004, 2008; Wang et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2018),
magmatism (e.g., Sun et al., 1993; Faure et al., 2004; Li and Zhao, 2007;
Meng et al., 2014; Li and Chen, 2014; Yuan et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
2016a, 2017b, 2017c; Xu et al., 2017b, 2018b, 2018c, d; Cheng et al.,
2017; Liu et al., 2018a) and metamorphism (e.g., Zhou et al., 2008a;
Tam et al., 2011, 2012a; Liu et al., 2013a; Cai et al., 2017; Zou et al.,
2017) attempted to reveal the nature of the JLJB, its complete history of
tectonic evolution remains controversial, and four primary models have
been proposed: (1) opening and closing of a Paleoproterozoic in-
tracontinental rift (e.g., Zhang, 1984; Zhang and Yang, 1988; Luo et al.,
2004, 2008; Li et al., 2005; Li and Zhao, 2007; Wang et al., 2016a,
2017b); (2) collision of continent–arc–continent system at ca. 1.9 Ga
(e.g., Bai, 1993; Faure et al., 2004; Li and Chen, 2014; Yuan et al.,
2015); (3) a Paleoproterozoic rifting–initial ocean for-
mation–subduction–collision cycle (Li et al., 2010, 2012; Zhai and
Santosh, 2011, 2013; Zhao et al., 2012; Zhao and Zhai, 2013); and (4)
opening and closing of a back-arc basin (e.g., Wang et al., 2011; Meng
et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2017b, 2018b, 2018c) or retro-arc foreland basin
(Kusky et al., 2016). Undoubtedly, the multiphase Paleoproterozoic
magmatism that was widespread within the JLJB (Figs. 2 and 3) pro-
vides key clues for reconstructing the complete tectonic history of the
JLJB. Despite the lack of a record of oceanic plate subduction, as
mentioned above, the accumulated geochronological and geochemical
data of the Paleoproterozoic magmatism make such a reconstruction
feasible (Table 1; e.g., Hao et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2004a, 2004b; Yu
et al., 2007; Meng et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016a, 2017b, 2017c;
Cheng et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017a, 2018a; Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c).
However, no such comprehensive study to reveal the complicated tec-
tonic evolution of the JLJB based on geochronological and geochemical
data has been conducted to date.
This paper, for the first time, synthesizes the spatial and temporal
distribution and geochronological and geochemical data of the
Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB published in the past few
decades. We further link the times of magmatism with petrogenesis and
tectonic settings and discuss their implications for the overall tectonic
evolution processes of the JLJB, including oceanic plate subduction,
back-arc extension, back-arc basin closure, collisional orogenesis, and
postcollisional extension.
2. Geological background
2.1. Tectonic framework
The Sino-Korean Craton, one of the major Archean cratons in
eastern Eurasia, is tectonically bordered by the Central Asian Orogenic
Belt to the north, the Su-Lu Orogenic Belt to the southeast, the Qinling-
Dabie Orogenic Belt to the south and the Qilian Orogenic Belt to the
southwest (Fig. 1B; Zhao et al., 2001; Liu et al., 2004; Xiao et al., 2017).
The craton is mainly composed of Archean microcontinents and Me-
soproterozoic to Cenozoic cover sequences (e.g., Zhai and Santosh,
2011). Although the Sino-Korean Craton has been studied for decades,
its tectonic subdivision remains debated, and three major models for its
tectonic framework have been proposed. (1) Zhao et al. (2001) divided
it into the Western and Eastern blocks, which were sutured along the
TNCO at ca. 1.85 Ga. The Western Block is further divided into the
Yinshan and Ordos blocks by the Khondalite Belt (also known as the
Inner Mongolia Suture Zone, Santosh, 2010), and the Eastern Block is
divided into the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks by the JLJB
(Fig. 1A; Zhao et al., 2005, 2012). (2) Zhai and Liu (2003) also pro-
posed three Paleoproterozoic orogenic belts in the similar positions as
those described by Zhao et al. (2012), but they are smaller in range.
Zhai and Santosh (2011, 2013) further defined them as the Fengzhen
Orogenic Belt, Jinyu Orogenic Belt and Liaoji Orogenic Belt from west
to east (Fig. 1B). (3) Kusky and Li (2003) and Kusky et al. (2007) di-
vided the Sino-Korean Craton into the Western and Eastern blocks,
which were sutured along the Central Orogenic Belt (COB) during the
Archean period. Subsequently, this craton underwent a Paleoproter-
ozoic cratonization event along the Inner Monglia-Northern Hebei
Orogen (IMNHO) in the north of the Sino-Korean Craton and the JLJB
in the Eastern Block (Fig. 1C; Kusky et al., 2007, 2014; Kusky, 2011).

163
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

(caption on next page)

164
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Fig. 1. Tectonic subdivision of the Sino-Korean Craton and surrounding orogens. Panel (A) shows that the Sino-Korean Craton can be divided into four micro-blocks
(the Yinshan, Ordos, Longgang and Nangrim blocks) and three Paleoproterozoic orogenic belts [the Khondalite Belt, Trans-North China Orogen (TNCO) and Jiao-
Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB)] (modified from Zhao et al., 2005, 2012). Panel (B) shows the Archean basement rocks and three Paleoproterozoic orogenic belts (the Fengzhen
Orogenic Belt, Jinyu Orogenic Belt and Liaoji Orogenic Belt) in the Sino-Korean Craton (modified from Zhai and Liu, 2003; Zhai and Santosh, 2011, 2013). Panel (C)
shows that the Sino-Korean Craton can be divided into three Archean-Paleoproterozoic micro-blocks (the Western Block, Eastern Block and Nangrim Massif), one
Archean orogenic belt [the Central Orogenic Belt (COB)] and two Paleoproterozoic orogenic belts [the Inner Monglia-Northern Hebei Orogenic Belt (IMNHO) and
Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB)] (modified from Kusky and Li, 2003; Kusky et al., 2007, 2014, 2016). Note: The major difference in three schemes is the tectonic subdivision
of the west part of the Sino-Korean Craton, whereas the Paleoproterozoic JLJB (or Liaoji Orogenic Belt), and the Archean micro-blocks on both sides of this orogenic
belt are widely accepted.

Nevertheless, the Eastern Block represents an Archean basement that is
divided into the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks by the Paleo-
proterozoic JLJB (Fig. 1A–C).
2.1.1. Longgang Block
The Longgang Block is dominated by Neoarchean tonalite-trondh-
jemite-granodiorite (TTG) gneisses, with minor Eo- to Mesoarchean
basement rocks (e.g., Wan et al., 2015a; Wang et al., 2016b; Dong et al.,
2017). Since ca. 3.8 Ga detrital and magmatic zircons were discovered
in the Caozhuang and Anshan areas, respectively (Liu et al., 1992), the
Longgang Block has become a key unit for studying the evolution of
Archean continental crust, and more Archean lithologies of different
ages (3.8–2.5 Ga) have since been identified (Song et al., 1996; Wan
et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2017b; Dong et al., 2017). Archean granitoids in
the Longgang Block are generally accepted to be products of the re-
working of older continental crust (Wu et al., 2008; Wan et al., 2015a;
Liu et al., 2017b; Dong et al., 2017), except for ca. 2.7 Ga granitoids in
western Shandong Province that have high εHf(t) values and were de-
rived from depleted mantle sources (Wan et al., 2011a, 2014). The
major difference between the Longgang Block and many other cratons
worldwide is that ca. 2.5 Ga magmatism is widely distributed in the
Longgang Block, implying significant continental crustal growth and
reworking in the late Neoarchean (Sun et al., 2012), whereas many
other cratons around the world mainly experienced tectonothermal
events at ca. 2.7 Ga (Wan et al., 2011a, 2014). Although many studies
have focused on the widespread late Neoarchean magmatism in the
Longgang Block, its petrogenesis and tectonic setting remain debated,
with interpretations including (1) magma mixing triggered by mantle
plume activity (e.g., Yang et al., 2008); (2) slab–wedge interaction re-
lated to oceanic plate subduction (e.g., Wang et al., 2015, 2017d); and
(3) reworking of crustal material during continental collision and
postcollisional extension (e.g., Wang et al., 2016c).
2.1.2. Liaonan-Nangrim Block
The Liaonan Block was initially thought to be an Archean gray
gneiss terrane (Zhang and Yang, 1988) or metamorphic basement (Shen
et al., 1994). However, recent geochronological and geochemical stu-
dies suggest that the Liaonan Block is composed of Neoarchean plutonic
gneisses (e.g., biotite-plagioclase gneiss) with minor supracrustal rocks
(e.g., amphibolite) (e.g., Lu et al., 2004a; Wang et al., 2017e, 2017f).

Fig. 2. Simplified geological map showing the distribution of Paleoproterozoic magmatism and anataxis in the Liaoji area and the locations of all U–Pb crystallization
age samples based on available isotopic dating results. Details for all samples are listed in Table 1.

165
W. Xu and F. Liu
Fig. 3. Simplified geological map showing the distribution of Paleoproterozoic magmatism and anataxis, and Archean basement rocks in the Jiaobei (A) and Anhui
(B) areas, also showing locations of all U–Pb crystallization age samples based on available isotopic dating results. Details for all samples are listed in Table 1.
Furthermore, the plutonic gneisses are comparable to Neoarchean rocks
in the Longgang Block, implying a unified Neoarchean continental
block (Wang et al., 2017f).
Traditionally, the Nangrim Block was thought to be composed of
Archean to Paleoproterozoic supracrustal and granitoid rocks, with a
single Archean basement unit in North Korea (Zhao et al., 2006, and
references therein). Some late Archean basement rocks indeed exist in
the Nangrim Block (e.g., Zhang et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016a).
However, recent studies have identified increasing late Paleoproter-
ozoic intrusions (Kim et al., 2016; Peng et al., 2016a) and metamorphic
complexes (Li et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016b), and these lithological
records are connected to collisional orogeny, postcollisional extension
or oceanic plate subduction (Kim et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Peng et al.,
2016a; Zhao et al., 2016b). More importantly, the studies on detrital
zircon from sands in rivers running through the Nangrim Block suggest
that this block mainly consists of Paleoproterozoic material and that it
may be a Paleoproterozoic unit similar to the JLJB (e.g., Wu et al.,
2007a, 2016). This speculation is also supported by evidence showing
that the Archean basement rocks in the Nangrim Block have been al-
tered by Paleoproterozoic tectonothermal events (Zhao et al., 2016a).
166
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
2.1.3. Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB)
The JLJB, a nearly 1200 km-long, northeast-southwest-trending
orogenic belt, is located in the eastern part of the Eastern Block
(Fig. 1A; Li et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2005, 2012). This belt mainly
consists of greenschist- to amphibolite-facies and rare granulite-facies
metasedimentary and metavolcanic successions with associated granitic
and mafic intrusions.
The metasedimentary and metavolcanic successions, including the
Macheonayeong Group in North Korea, the Laoling and Ji’an groups in
southern Jilin, the North and South Liaohe groups in eastern Liaoning,
the Fenzishan and Jingshan groups in eastern Shandong, and the Wuhe
and Fengyang groups in Anhui Province (e.g., Zhao et al., 2012; Liu
et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2018a; Liu and Cai, 2017; Liao et al., 2016),
contain a consistent sequence from a basal clastic-rich sequence and a
lower bimodal volcanic sequence, through a middle carbonate-rich se-
quence to an upper pelite-rich sequence (Li et al., 2005; Liu et al.,
2015a, and references therein). Based on stratigraphy and metamorphic
history, these sequences are traditionally divided into two zones, which
are separated by ductile shear zones and faults (Li et al., 2005). The
southern zone, which consists of the Ji’an Group in southern Jilin, the
 Table 1
Summary of geochronological data on Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt.
No. Sample Satge No. Lithology Mineral assemblage U–Pb age Tuffzirc age Location Analytical References
method
W. Xu and F. Liu

Liaoji area
1 FW01-327 1 Kfs granitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Ms+Tur WMA 2161 ± 12 Ma 2175+14/–31 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Lu et al.
(n = 18) MS) (2004a)
2 FW02-62 5 Porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt WMA 1848 ± 10 Ma 1854+12/–8 Ma Wolongquan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Lu et al.
monzogranite (n = 15) MS) (2004a)
3 FW01-31 5 Amp-Px syenite Kfs+Pl+Amp+Px WMA 1843 ± 23 Ma 1853+25/–6 Ma Kuangdonggou Zircon (LA-ICP- Lu et al.
(n = 9) Pluton MS) (2004a)
4 Lu0007 1 Syenogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl ± Amp+Zr+Ttn+Ap+Mag+Rt+Py WMA 2164 ± 8 Ma 2163+19/–13 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
(n = 7) (SHRIMP) (2004b)
5 Lu1065 1 Syenogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl ± Amp+Zr+Ttn+Ap+Mag+Rt+Py WMA 2158 ± 13 Ma 2166+10/–26 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
(n = 9) (SHRIMP) (2004b)
6 12072 5 Quartz diorite Qtz+Amp+Pl+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ap+Zr WMA 1872 ± 11 Ma 1872+17/–13 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
(n = 8) (SHRIMP) (2005)
7 92015 5 Porphyritic Bt Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Grt+Ms+Sil+Crd WMA 1872 ± 7 Ma 1876+9/–13 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
monzogranite (n = 12) (SHRIMP) (2005)
8 12082 5 Porphyritic Bt Bt+Grt+Ms ± Sil ± Crd WMA 1817 ± 18 Ma (Total n = 2) Shuangcha Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
monzogranite (SHRIMP) (2005)
9 Lu010 5 Porphyritic Bt Bt+Grt+Ms ± Sil ± Crd WMA 1782 ± 38 Ma (Total n = 4) Bahechuan Pluton Zircon Lu et al.
monzogranite (SHRIMP) (2005)
10 LD9822 1 Biotite granite Pl+Kfs+Qtz+Bt WMA 2173 ± 4 Ma 2174+8/–7 Ma Mafeng-longchang Zircon Wan et al.
(n = 10) Pluton (SHRIMP) (2006)
11 LJ005 5 Porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs WMA 1856 ± 31 Ma 1812+21/–11 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao
monzogranite (n = 4) (SHRIMP) (2007)
12 LJ006 5 Porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs WMA 1875 ± 10 Ma 1859+3/–8 Ma Bahechuan Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao

167
monzogranite (n = 4) (SHRIMP) (2007)
13 LJ010 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mag WMA 2166 ± 14 Ma 2171+3/–16 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon Li and Zhao
(n = 5) Pluton (SHRIMP) (2007)
14 LJ035 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mag WMA 2175 ± 13 Ma 2180+13/–9 Ma Jiguanshan Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao
(n = 6) (SHRIMP) (2007)
15 LJ040 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Amp WMA 2143 ± 17 Ma 2079+7/–3 Ma Dafangshen Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao
(n = 3) (SHRIMP) (2007
16 LJ044 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt WMA 2150 ± 17 Ma 2159+8/–3 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon Li and Zhao
(n = 5) (SHRIMP) (2007)
17 LJ056 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mag WMA 2176 ± 11 Ma (Total n = 6) Mafeng-longchang Zircon Li and Zhao
Pluton (SHRIMP) (2007)
18 03JH079 5 Syenite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt+Amp+Px+Ttn+Ap+Aln+Zr WMA 1879 ± 17 Ma 1876+14/–11 Ma Kuangdonggou Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 10) Pluton MS) (2007a)
19 03JH080 5 Syenite Bt+Amp+Px+Ttn+Ap+Aln+Zr WMA 1872 ± 14 Ma 1882+11/–25 Ma Kuangdonggou Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 10) Pluton MS) (2007a)
20 03JH082 5 Diorite Amp+Pl+Kfs+Px+Ap+Zr WMA 1870 ± 18 Ma 1885+6/–15 Ma Kuangdonggou Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 8) Pluton MS) (2007a)
21 DD24-1 2 Amphibolite Amp+Pl+Bt+Ap+Mag+Ttn+Zr WMA 2059 ± 22 Ma 2074+26/–33 Ma Mafeng Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yu et al.
(n = 7) MS) (2007)
22 N02 1 Hyalotourmalite Tur+Qtz WMA 2171 ± 5 Ma 2177+7/–9 Ma Jianyi Town Zircon Zhang et al.
(n = 11) (SHRIMP) (2010)
23 N13 1 Hyalotourmalite Tur+Qtz WMA 2171 ± 9 Ma 2177+3/–13 Ma Jianyi Town Zircon Zhang et al.
(n = 17) (SHRIMP) (2010)
24 N14 1 Hyalotourmalite Tur+Qtz WMA 2165 ± 18 Ma 2167+16/–14 Ma Jianyi Town Zircon Zhang et al.
(n = 5) (SHRIMP) (2010)
25 10JL13 5 Granitic pegmatite Pl+Kfs+Qtz+Ms WMA 1875 ± 10 Ma 1873+12/–13 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 17) MS) (2011)
26 A1102 2 Meta-gabbro Px+Pl+Amp+Bt+Mag+Qtz WMA 2110 ± 31 Ma (Total n = 2) Qianshan Town Zircon Dong et al.
(SHRIMP) (2012)
(continued on next page)
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
 Table 1 (continued)

No. Sample Satge No. Lithology Mineral assemblage U–Pb age Tuffzirc age Location Analytical References
method
W. Xu and F. Liu

27 NLX02-4 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp WMA 2163 ± 22 Ma 2150+19/–3 Ma Helan Town Zircon Qin (2013)
(n = 4) (SHRIMP)
28 NMY03 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Zr+Ap+Mag WMA 2168 ± 14 Ma 2172+3/–15 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Qin (2013)
(n = 12) MS)
29 NQZ01 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Zr+Ap+Mag WMA 2170 ± 11 Ma 2170+3/–5 Ma Qinghe Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Qin (2013)
(n = 15) MS)
30 NHP01 1 Bt Monzogranitic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Mag+Ttn+Zr+Ap+Hem WMA 2173 ± 20 Ma 2167+7/–6 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Qin (2013)
gneiss (n = 18) MS)
31 NSC01 5 Porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Zr+Ap+Mag+Grt WMA 1877 ± 15 Ma 1877+6/–3 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Qin (2013)
monzogranite (n = 12) MS)
32 LZ02-1 1 Gneiss Kfs+Qtz+Tur+Bt WMA 2189 ± 10 Ma 2201+14/–18 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Li and Chen
(n = 21) MS) (2014)
33 LZ04-1 1 Gneiss Kfs+Qtz WMA 2172 ± 8 Ma 2174+15/–13 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Li and Chen
(n = 24) MS) (2014)
34 LZ19-1 1 Gneiss Kfs+Qtz+Tur WMA 2158 ± 23 Ma 2148+12/–36 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Li and Chen
(n = 9) MS) (2014)
35 DZ73-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Px+Bt+Qtz+Mag WMA 2159 ± 12 Ma 2158+2/–9 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.
(n = 11) MS) (2014)
36 DZ74-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Px+Bt+Qtz+Mag WMA 2144 ± 16 Ma 2143+4/–1 Ma Bahui Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.
(n = 24) MS) (2014)
37 DZ78-1 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp WMA 2161 ± 45 Ma (Total n = 3) Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.
MS) (2014)
38 DZ85-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Px+Bt+Qtz+Mag WMA 2157 ± 17 Ma 2157+3/–2 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.
(n = 6) MS) (2014)
39 DZ91-1 2 Meta-diabase Pl+Amp+Px+Bt+Mag WMA 2161 ± 12 Ma 2160+4/–2 Ma Mafeng Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Meng et al.

168
(n = 22) MS) (2014)
40 HD-2 1 Granitic gneiss Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Amp+Ep+Mag+Zr+Ap+Ttn+Po WMA 2175 ± 3 Ma 2176+4/–3 Ma Hadabei Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 27) MS) (2015a)
41 SM-1 1 Amp monzogranitic Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Zr+Ttn+Ap WMA 2205 ± 2 Ma 2202+5/–7 Ma Simenzi Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
gneiss (n = 13) MS) (2015a)
42 HP-9 2 Meta-mafic vein WMA 2145 ± 21 Ma 2159+13/–18 Ma In Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 11) MS) (2015a)
43 SC-1 5 Porphyritic Grt-Bt Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Grt+Ms+Sil WMA 1895 ± 2 Ma 1899+1/–9 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
monzogranite (n = 25) MS) (2015b)
44 YK12-1-4 2 Gabbro Pl+Cpx+Amp+Bt+Kfs+Zr+Mag+Ap WMA 2125 ± 6 Ma 2124+12/–11 Ma Pailou Town Zircon Yuan et al.
(n = 16) (CAMECA) (2015)
45 HPX1 1 Gneissic granite Mc+Pth+Pl+Qtz+Hbl+Ep+Mag+Zr+Ttn WMA 2209 ± 12 Ma 2217+9/–24 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Chen et al.
(n = 22) MS) (2016)
46 T02-1 1 Syenogranite Kfs+Pl+Qtz WMA 2169 ± 11 Ma 2163+19/–2 Ma Simenzi Pluton Zircon Song et al.
(n = 6) (SHRIMP) (2016)
47 TW12 1 Monzogranite Kfs+Qtz+Bt WMA 2153 ± 16 Ma 2159+10/–17 Ma Simenzi Pluton Zircon Song et al.
(n = 5) (SHRIMP) (2016)
48 TW11 5 Porphyritic granite Pl+Kfs+Qtz WMA 1835 ± 9 Ma 1832+7/–7 Ma Muniu Pluton Zircon Song et al.
(n = 8) (SHRIMP) (2016)
49 TW13 5 Monzogranite Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt WMA 1867 ± 10 Ma (Total n = 3) Qingchengzi Town Zircon Song et al.
(SHRIMP) (2016)
50 598XLLZ2 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Cpx+Qtz+Ap+Ilm+Mag WMA 2115 ± 3 Ma 2117+4/–6 Ma Qianshan Town Baddeleyite Wang et al.
(n = 13) (CAMECA) (2016a)
51 598XLLZ2 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Amp+Cpx+Qtz+Ap+Ilm+Mag UIA 2115 ± 13 Ma (Total n = 3) Qianshan Town Zircon Wang et al.
(CAMECA) (2016a)
52 HP-1 1 Gneissic granite Kfs+Pth+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Amp+Ep+Mag+Zr+Ap+Ttn WMA 2184 ± 2 Ma 2183+1/–7 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 22) MS) (2016)
53 MN-6 1 Gneissic granite Mc+Pth+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Hbl+Ep+Mag+Zr+Ap+Ttn WMA 2200 ± 4 Ma 2199+4/–1 Ma Hupiyu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 20) MS) (2016)
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

(continued on next page)

 Table 1 (continued)

No. Sample Satge No. Lithology Mineral assemblage U–Pb age Tuffzirc age Location Analytical References
method
W. Xu and F. Liu

54 LC1 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Mag+Tur+Bt+Zr WMA 2205 ± 6 Ma 2203+12/–4 Ma Mafeng-longchang Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 20) Pluton MS) (2017a)
55 LC26 1 Granitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Mag WMA 2213 ± 6 Ma 2213+8/–5 Ma Mafeng-longchang Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 22) Pluton MS) (2017a)
56 LC110 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Mag WMA 2178 ± 7 Ma 2182+17/–6 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 12) Pluton MS) (2017a)
57 LC126 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Mag WMA 2180 ± 6 Ma 2184+5/–12 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 24) Pluton MS) (2017a)
58 JN1 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1865+4/–13 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
porphyritic granite 1868 ± 9/1848 ± 13 Ma (n = 31) MS) (2017a)
59 JN2 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1866+4/–3 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite 1868 ± 6/1849 ± 13 Ma (n = 42) MS) (2017a
60 JN3 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1870+2/–1 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
porphyritic granite 1872 ± 6/1851 ± 14 Ma (n = 51) MS) (2017a)
61 JN4 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1872 ± 7/1849 ± 9 Ma 1872+2/–7 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 48) MS) (2017a)
62 JN5 5 Flesh-red porphyritic Qtz+Kfs ± Pl+Bt+Grt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1868 ± 7/1849 ± 8 Ma 1862+4/–10 Ma Baoquanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
Kfs granite (n = 54) MS) (2017a)
63 JN6 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1865 ± 7/1849 ± 9 Ma 1859+3/–7 Ma Longquan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 43) MS) (2017a)
64 JN7 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1869+3/–8 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
porphyritic granite 1871 ± 7/1850 ± 12 Ma (n = 39) MS) (2017a)
65 JN8 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1872+3/–6 Ma Shuangcha Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite 1872 ± 7/1850 ± 13 Ma (n = 38) MS) (2017a)
66 LN1 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1863+5/–18 Ma Zhenjiang-yulin Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.

169
granite 1867 ± 10/1842 ± 12 Ma (n = 28) Pluton MS) (2017a)
67 LN2 5 Flesh-red porphyritic Qtz+Kfs ± Pl+Bt+Grt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1865+2/–2 Ma Zhenjiang-yulin Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
Kfs granite 1866 ± 6/1846 ± 13 Ma (n = 47) Pluton MS) (2017a)
68 LN3 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1869+5/–7 Ma Jiuliancheng Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
porphyritic granite 1872 ± 8/1851 ± 12 Ma (n = 37) MS) (2017a)
69 LN4 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1865 ± 6/1849 ± 8 Ma 1861+2/–3 Ma Jiuliancheng Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 49) MS) (2017a)
70 LN5 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1864 ± 8/1844 ± 9 Ma 1859+5/–10 Ma Bahechuan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 32) MS) (2017a)
71 LN6 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1866+4/–4 Ma Jiguanshan Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
porphyritic granite 1870 ± 7/1850 ± 11 Ma (n = 44) MS) (2017a)
72 SJZ07-5.1 2 Grt amphibolite Grt+Amp+Pl+Qtz+Fe-Ti Oxide+Ap+Ttn+Zr WMA 2060 ± 32 Ma (Total n = 2) Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
MS) (2017d)
73 SJZ07-2.1 2 Grt amphibolite Grt+Amp+Pl+Qtz+Fe-Ti Oxide+Ap+Ttn+Zr WMA 2167 ± 31 Ma (Total n = 4) Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
MS) (2017d)
74 13LJ11 4 Granitic gneiss Pl+Mc+Qtz+Bt+Ms+Ap+Zr WMA 1892 ± 16 Ma 1888+27/–19 (n = 9) Jianyi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Ren et al.
MS) (2017)
75 NYD-3 1 Granitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Bt+Amp+Mag+Zr+Ttn+Aln+Ap WMA 2180 ± 5 Ma 2182+4/–6 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Teng et al.
(n = 30) Pluton MS) (2017)
76 601SDG1 1 Amp monzogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Mag WMA 2181 ± 6 Ma 2184+3/–4 Ma Mafeng-longchang Zircon Wang et al.
(n = 19) Pluton (CAMECA) (2017b)
77 719FSG1 5 Bt plagiogranite Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt WMA 1891 ± 10 Ma 1891+6/–7 Ma Shimengou Pluton Zircon Wang et al.
(n = 8) (CAMECA) (2017b)
78 16LN13-1 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Bt+Zr WMA 2177 ± 15 Ma 2174+6/–13 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 14) Pluton MS) (2017g)
79 16LN23-1 1 Monzogranitic gneiss Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Amp+Bt+Zr WMA 2177 ± 9 Ma 2178+15/–6 Ma Yongdian-budayuan Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 22) Pluton MS) (2017g)
80 D1001-B1 1 Bt monzogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt ± Amp+Mag+Zr CA 2185 ± 29 Ma 2189+20/–20 Ma Muniu Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 6) MS) (2017h)
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

(continued on next page)

 Table 1 (continued)

No. Sample Satge No. Lithology Mineral assemblage U–Pb age Tuffzirc age Location Analytical References
method
W. Xu and F. Liu

81 D1032-B1 4 Granitic diorite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt+Zr CA 1995 ± 18 Ma 1977+24/–35 Ma Huanghuadian Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 6) Town MS) (2017h)
82 D5002-B1 4 Granitic diorite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt+Zr CA 1995 ± 13 Ma 2006+10/–19 Ma Huanghuadian Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 17) Town MS) (2017h)
83 D3208-B1 1 Bt monzogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt ± Amp+Mag+Zr CA 2183 ± 13 Ma 2191+5/–16 Ma Dafangshen Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 11) MS) (2017h)
84 D5132-B1 1 Bt monzogranite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt ± Amp+Mag+Zr CA 2166 ± 10 Ma 2175+6/–14 Ma Dafangshen Pluton Zircon (LA-ICP- Wang et al.
(n = 15) MS) (2017h)
85 16KD05-4 5 Tur-bearing pegmatite Qtz+Kfs+Tur ± Pl WMA 1842 ± 7 Ma 1844+7/–12 Ma Kuandian County Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 41) MS) (2017)
86 16KD06-1 5 Granitic pegmatite Qtz+Kfs ± Pl ± Tur ± Ms WMA 1864 ± 8 Ma 1865+3/–4 Ma Kuandian County Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 30) MS) (2017)
87 16KD54-2 5 Tur-bearing pegmatite Qtz+Kfs+Tur ± Pl WMA 1876 ± 11 Ma 1874+7/–8 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 28) MS) (2017)
88 16KD66-1 5 Tur-bearing pegmatite Qtz+Kfs+Tur ± Pl WMA 1802 ± 15 Ma 1824+17/–16 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 22) MS) (2017)
89 16KD80-2 5 Tur-bearing pegmatite Qtz+Kfs+Tur+Ms ± Pl WMA 1740 ± 8 Ma 1744+9/–14 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 26) MS) (2017)
90 16SJZ07-8 5 Granitic pegmatite Qtz+Kfs ± Pl ± Tur ± Ms WMA 1871 ± 7 Ma 1873+4/–6 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 37) MS) (2017)
91 TWD15001 1 Rhyolite Kfs+Qtz+Pl+Bt+Tur+Ap+Chl WMA 2179 ± 20 Ma 2160+24/–11 Ma Tianshui Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Bi et al. (2018)
(n = 7) MS)
92 TWD15002 1 Rhyolite Kfs+Qtz+Pl+Bt+Tur+Ap+Chl WMA 2127 ± 25 Ma 2152+13/–49 Ma Tianshui Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Bi et al. (2018)
(n = 10) MS)
93 TWD15056 1 Rhyolite Kfs+Qtz+Pl+Bt+Tur+Ap+Chl WMA 2184 ± 11 Ma 2183+7/–12 Ma Tianshui Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Bi et al. (2018)

170
(n = 17) MS)
94 D1002-2 2 Meta-diabase Pl+Chl+Act+Qtz+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ttn WMA 2133 ± 14 Ma 2132+22/–7 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 11) MS) (2018b)
95 D1009-5 2 Meta-diabase Pl+Chl+Act+Qtz+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ttn WMA 2100 ± 12 Ma 2100+22/–9 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 12) MS) (2018b)
96 D1009-7 2 Meta-diabase Pl+Chl+Act+Qtz+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ttn WMA 2110 ± 23 Ma 2091+31/–16 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 18) MS) (2018b)
97 D5048-4 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn WMA 2164 ± 6 Ma 2163+24/–10 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 26) MS) (2018b)
98 16KD68-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Chl+Act+Qtz+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ttn WMA 2188.2 ± 8.5 Ma 2188+4/–16 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 38) MS) (2018c)
99 D9001-1 2 Meta-gabbro Pl+Chl+Act+Qtz+Bt+Cpx+Mag+Ttn WMA 2118.6 ± 6.3 Ma 2121+2/–8 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 26) MS) (2018c)
100 D2066-11 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn ± Grt WMA 2083 ± 13 Ma 2087+19/–32 Ma Helan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 7) MS) (2018c
101 SJZ07-5 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn ± Grt WMA 2054-2061 Ma (Total n = 2) Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
MS) (2018c)
102 SJZ11-1 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn ± Grt WMA 2119 ± 19 Ma 2122+10/–21 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 20) MS) (2018c)
103 16KD55-1-1 2 Amphibolite Pl+Amp+Mag+Ttn ± Grt WMA 2063 ± 23 Ma 2061+63/–23 Ma Sanjiazi Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Xu et al.
(n = 7) MS) (2018c)
104 D2092-1.2 1 Felsic tuff Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mnz+Ap+Zr+Mag WMA 2174 ± 8 Ma 2174+6/–9 Ma Helan Town Zircon Xu et al.
(n = 17) (SHRIMP) (2019a)
105 D5049-1.5 1 Felsic tuff Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mnz+Ap+Zr+Mag WMA 2170 ± 7 Ma 2174+5/–9 Ma Helan Town Zircon Xu et al.
(n = 18) (SHRIMP) (2019a)
106 16SMT02-1 1 Felsic tuff Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mnz+Ap+Zr+Mag WMA 2174 ± 8 Ma 2167+9/–11 Ma Helan Town Zircon Xu et al.
(n = 18) (SHRIMP) (2019a)
107 16SMT03-1 1 Felsic tuff Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Mnz+Ap+Zr+Mag WMA 2168 ± 6 Ma 2169+5/–3 Ma Helan Town Zircon Xu et al.
(n = 17) (SHRIMP) (2019a)
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

(continued on next page)

 Table 1 (continued)

No. Sample Satge No. Lithology Mineral assemblage U–Pb age Tuffzirc age Location Analytical References
method
W. Xu and F. Liu

Jiaobei area
108 S0835 5 Meta-diorite Pl+Bt+Amp+Ep WMA 1852 ± 9 Ma 1850+20/–10 Ma Laiyang County Zircon Dong et al.
(n = 13) (SHRIMP) (2010)
109 QX16-1 3 Bt-Amp-bearing Qtz+Pl+Amp+Kfs+Bt WMA 2095 ± 12 Ma 2091+14/–9 Ma Laiyang County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granitic gneiss (n = 22) MS) (2011a)
110 QX2-2 3 Meta-gabbro Cpx+Opx+Pl+Qtz+Amp+Fe-Ti Oxide+Bt+Kfs+Ap+Zr WMA 2102 ± 3 Ma 2101+5/–3 Ma Laiyang County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
(n = 75) MS) (2013)
111 JB09-1 5 Bt-bearing Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt WMA 1801 ± 21 Ma 1804+8/–6 Ma Qixia County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
syenogranite (n = 20) MS) (2014a)
112 JB13-1 1 Bt-bearing Pl+Kfs+Qtz+Bt WMA 2181 ± 12 Ma 2176+14/–6 Ma Qixia County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
monzogranitic gneiss (n = 24) MS) (2014a)
113 CY2-92 1 Alkali-feldspar granite Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Zr+Ap WMA 2193 ± 11 Ma 2194+0/–3 Ma Changyi County Zircon (LA-ICP- Lan et al.
(n = 22) MS) (2015)
114 CY2-43 1 Albite granite Pl+Qtz+Bt+Zr WMA 2171 ± 10 Ma 2173+21/–4 Ma Changyi County Zircon (LA-ICP- Lan et al.
(n = 13) MS) (2015)
115 14LK22 3 Monzogranite Qtz+Pl+Kfs WMA 2110 ± 4 Ma 2108+6/–5 Ma Guocheng Town Zircon Cheng et al.
(n = 26) (SHRIMP) (2017)
116 10-23 3 Monzogranite Qtz+Pl+Kfs WMA 2105 ± 7 Ma 2101+9/–10 Ma Guocheng Town Zircon Cheng et al.
(n = 26) (SHRIMP) (2017)
117 TC02 5 Two-mica Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Ms+Zr+Mnz+Ap+Mag+Ttn WMA 1861 ± 13 Ma 1865+1/–1 Ma Huili Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
leucogranites (n = 17) MS) (2017c)
118 TC15 5 Two-mica Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Bt+Ms+Zr+Mnz+Ap+Mag WMA 1870 ± 11 Ma 1867+2/–4 Ma Huili Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
leucogranites (n = 26) MS) (2017c)
119 TC21 5 Ms leucogranite Kfs+Pl+Qtz+Ms+Zr+Mnz+Ap+Mag WMA 1864 ± 7 Ma 1858+14/–10 Ma Huili Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Li et al.
(n = 16) MS) (2017c)

171
120 JB1 5 Flesh-red porphyritic Qtz+Kfs ± Pl+Bt+Grt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1867+2/–2 Ma Taocun Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
Kfs granite 1868 ± 6/1848 ± 14 Ma (n = 41) MS) (2017a)
121 JB2 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1861+3/–13 Ma Taocun Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
porphyritic granite 1866 ± 7/1842 ± 10 Ma (n = 40) MS) (2017a)
122 JB3 5 Bt-bearing porphyritic Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Bt+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1872 ± 8/1848 ± 7 Ma 1854+16/–4 Ma Qixia County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
granite (n = 48) MS) (2017a)
123 JB4 5 Grt-bearing Qtz+Pl+Kfs+Grt ± Bt ± Sil ± Crd+Ilm+Mag+Zr+Mnz WMA 1871+2/–17 Ma Nanshu Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
porphyritic granite 1871 ± 7/1851 ± 11 Ma (n = 35) MS) (2017a)
JD1402 1 Geneissic Pl+Kfs+Qtz+Bt+Hbl WMA 2174 ± 8 Ma 2168+15/–16 Ma Xiadian Town Zircon Tian et al.
monzogranite (n = 10) (SHRIMP) (2017a)

Anhui area
124 05SMS-1 3 Granite WMA 2058 ± 8 Ma 2056+24/–17 Ma Shimenshan Town Zircon Guo and Li
(n = 6) (SHRIMP) (2009)
125 BB8 3 Kfs granite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Bt+Amp+Ap+Ttn+Mag+Zr WMA 2100 ± 14 Ma 2084+11/–9 Ma Daxihe Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
(n = 12) MS) (2009)
126 BB13 3 Kfs granite Qtz+Kfs+Pl+Ms+Mag+Ap+Zr UIA 2196 ± 190 Ma (Total n = 0) Shimenshan Town Zircon (LA-ICP- Yang et al.
MS) (2009)
127 07SMS 3 Kfs granite Qtz+Kfs+Pth+Pl+Ms WMA 2096 ± 9 Ma 2097+10/–13 Ma Shimenshan Town Zircon Wang et al.
(n = 12) (SHRIMP) (2017c)
128 1403FY13-5 3 Granitic gneiss Qtz+Pth+Pl+Amp+Ttn+Ep+Ap WMA 2096 ± 8 Ma 2096+6/–10 Ma Fengyang County Zircon Wang et al.
(n = 6) (SHRIMP) (2017c)
129 14BB19-2 3 Amphibolite Amp+Pl+Cpx+Ttn UIA 2126 ± 37 Ma 2108+9/–22 Ma Fengyang County Zircon (LA-ICP- Liu et al.
(n = 10) MS) (2018a)

Note: Concordance = 100*(206Pb/238U–age)/(207Pb/206Pb–age). Only the 207Pb/206Pb ages with concordance = 90–105% are chosen for calculation of Tuffzirc ages.
Abbreviation: Ab—Albite; Act—Actinolite; Aln—Allanite; Amp—Amphibole; Ap—Apatite; Bt—Biotite; Chl—Chlorite; Cpx—Clinopyroxene; Crd—Cordierite; Ep—Epidote; Grt—Garnet; Hem—Haematite; Ilm—Ilmenite;
Kfs—K-feldspar; Mag—Magnetite; Mc—Microcline; Mnz—Monazite; Ms—Muscovite; Opx—Orthopyroxene; Pl—Plagioclase; Po—Pyrrhotite; Pth—Perthite; Px—Pyroxene; Py—Pyrite; Rt—Rutile; Qtz—Quartz;
Sil—Sillimanite; Ttn—Titanite; Tur—Tourmaline; Zr—Zircon; CA—Concodia age; UIA—Upper intercept age; WMA—Weighted mean age
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Fig. 4. Tectonic evolution models of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt modified according to (A) Li et al. (2005), (B) Bai (1993), (C) Li et al. (2010, 2012) and Zhao et al. (2012),
and (D) Kusky et al. (2016). See text for discussion. Four schematic illustrations correspond to the intracontinental rift opening and closure model (A), the con-
tinent–arc–continent collision model (B), the rift–subduction–collision cycle model (C) and the retro-arc foreland basin opening and closure model (D).

172
W. Xu and F. Liu
South Liaohe Group in eastern Liaoning, and the Jingshan Group in
eastern Shandong, is characterized by an anticlockwise pressur-
e–temperature–time (P–T–t) path, whereas the northern zone, which
comprises the Laoling Group in southern Jilin, the North Liaohe Group
in eastern Liaoning, and the Fenzishan Group in eastern Shandong,
records a clockwise P–T–t path (e.g., Li and Liu, 1997; He and Ye, 1998;
Li et al., 2001; Zhao et al., 2005). However, recent studies on detrital
zircons from the sedimentary successions within the JLJB show that
both the southern and northern zones have identical age populations of
ca. 2.1 Ga and ca. 2.5 Ga and comparable Hf signatures (c.f., Luo et al.,
2004, 2008; Xie et al., 2014a; Liu et al., 2015a; Wang et al., 2017a;
Zhang et al., 2018), suggesting the same sedimentary environment for
the protoliths of these two zones. Additionally, recent studies on
medium- and high-pressure metamorphic rocks from the southern zone,
including pelitic and mafic granulites in the Ji’an Group (Cai et al.,
2017), garnet amphibolite and pelitic granulites in the South Liaohe
Group (Liu et al., 2017d, 2019), and (high-pressure) pelitic and mafic
granulites in the Jingshan Group (Tam et al., 2012a; Liu et al., 2013a;
Zou et al., 2017), show a ca. 1.95–1.85 Ga clockwise P–T–t path similar
to that of the northern zone, implying that these two zones record the
same late Paleoproterozoic tectonothermal event.
Voluminous Paleoproterozoic granitic and mafic intrusions asso-
ciated with the metasedimentary and metavolcanic successions are
widely distributed in the JLJB (Figs. 2 and 3). Notably, the JLJB un-
derwent late polyphase tectonothermal events (e.g., subduction of the
Paleo-Pacific Plate), and some of the associated intrusions are mistaken
for Paleoproterozoic rocks (e.g., Mesozoic Dandong granite, Li et al.,
2004). In summary, the Paleoproterozoic igneous intrusions in the JLJB
have ages that are segregated into two main groups. Some intrusions
formed from ca. 2.2–2.1 Ga, are usually deformed, altered or meta-
morphosed, have various petrogenesis and tectonic settings and are
interpreted to have been emplaced during oceanic plate subduction,
including the continental arc (Faure et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2015),
ocean island arc (Ma et al., 2007), back-arc basin (Wang et al., 2011;
Meng et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c) and retro-arc foreland basin
(Kusky et al., 2016), or in an intracontinental rift (e.g., Hao et al., 2004;
Li and Zhao, 2007; Yang et al., 2009; Lan et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
2016a, 2017b). Using the sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe
(SHRIMP) zircon U–Pb dating method, Li and Zhao (2007) further di-
vided the ca. 2.2–2.1 Ga granites into two groups: the magnetite mon-
zogranitic gneisses were emplaced in the period of 2176–2166 Ma,
whereas the hornblende/biotite monzogranitic gneisses were emplaced
at 2150–2143 Ma and represent two emplacement phases (Li and Zhao,
2007). The other, undeformed intrusions predominantly emplaced at
ca. 1.88–1.85 Ga have distinct compositions (Section 3.2) that suggest a
postcollisional or postorogenic extensional setting (e.g., Lu et al.,
2004a; Li and Zhao, 2007; Yang et al., 2007a, 2015b, 2017; Liu et al.,
2017a). Notably, a granitic pegmatite sample yielded weighted mean
207
Pb/206Pb age of 1740 ± 8 Ma (Fig. 5G), and Yang et al. (2017) thus
suggested that the postorogenic extension lasted for at least 130 Myr.
2.2. Tectonic controversy of the JLJB
The JLJB is generally accepted to be a Paleoproterozoic collisional
orogen linking the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks (e.g., Li,
1997; Li et al., 2001; Lu et al., 2004a; Zhao et al., 2005; Wan et al.,
2006; Wu et al., 2008; Zhai and Santosh, 2011; Liu et al., 2015a). Al-
though it has been studied for decades, its tectonic nature remains
debated, and several models have been proposed.
2.2.1. Intracontinental rift opening and closure model
Zhang (1984) first proposed the intracontinental rift opening and
closure model for the JLJB, and subsequently, many studies have sup-
ported this model (e.g., Sun et al., 1993; Peng and Palmer, 1995; Liu
et al., 1997; Li and Liu, 1997; Li et al., 2001, 2003; Zhai and Liu, 2003;
Hao et al., 2004; Luo et al., 2004). Li et al. (2005) summarized several
173
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
lines of evidence from magmatism and structure, including (1) the
presence of bimodal volcanic assemblages represented by metabasic
rocks and metarhyolites (e.g., Sun et al., 1993); (2) the existence of A-
type granites and minor rapakivi rocks (e.g., Zhang and Yang, 1988);
(3) late Archean TTG basement gneisses and mafic dike swarms on
opposite sides of the JLJB, which are geochemically and geochronolo-
gically similar (e.g., Zhang and Yang, 1988); and (4) the identification
of early deformation (D1) related to an extensional event (Li et al.,
2005). Based on this evidence, the authors proposed a complete sce-
nario for evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji rift system as follows: (1)
~2.17–2.05 Ga, an extensional regime developed and induced the
widespread emplacement of the Liaoji A-type granitoids; (2)
~2.05–1.90 Ga, a rift basin formed, accompanied by deposition of
meta-sedimentary and metavolcanic successions, including bimodal
volcanics; (3) ~1.90 Ga, lithospheric uplift produced extensional de-
formation D1; (4) ~1.90–1.87 Ga, a compressive event closed the rift
basin to form the JLJB; and (5) ~1.87 Ga, exhumation formed asso-
ciated rapakivi granite (Fig. 4A). This model is considered consistent
with the anticlockwise P–T–t path of the protoliths in the southern zone
(He and Ye, 1998) and nonmarine origin (Jiang et al., 1997) of a borate
deposit (Zhao et al., 2005). Recent studies on detrital zircons (e.g., Luo
et al., 2008), geochemistry (e.g., Yang et al., 2009; Lan et al., 2015;
Wang et al., 2016a, 2017b) and basement rocks (e.g., Wang et al.,
2017f) also favor the intracontinental rift opening and closure model.
2.2.2. Continent–arc–continent collision model
Bai (1993) suggested that the JLJB represents an active continental
margin close to a subduction zone and that this belt underwent oceanic
plate subduction, deposition of volcanic and sedimentary successions,
contraction of the ocean basin, and the collision among a continent (the
Longgang Block), the arc, and a second continent (the Nangrim Block)
(Fig. 4B). Based on geochemical observations of ca. 2.2–2.1 Ga mafic
and granitic intrusions, some researchers have proposed that the JLJB
represents a continental arc magmatic belt (Faure et al., 2004; Li and
Chen, 2014; Yuan et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2015a, 2016), and further
support the continent-arc-continent collision model. Some studies on
detrital zircons from sedimentary rocks within the JLJB also favor the
continent-arc-continent collision model for the JLJB (e.g., Wang et al.,
2017a).
2.2.3. Rift–subduction–collision cycle model
Li et al. (2010, 2012) and Zhao et al. (2012) focused on HP pelitic
granulites in the Jiaobei area (Zhou et al., 2008a; Tam et al., 2011,
2012a), which record a clockwise P–T–t path that is consistent with
subduction and continent-continent collision to transport the pelitic
rocks to a lower crustal depth. These authors thus proposed the fol-
lowing rift–subduction–collision cycle for the JLJB (Fig. 4C): (1) at
~2.16–1.91 Ga, intracontinental rifting broke up the Eastern Block into
the separate Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks and further opened
an incipient ocean and (2) at ~1.91–1.85 Ga, oceanic plate subduction
led to the closure of the ocean basin and subsequent continent-con-
tinent collision to form the JLJB and associated HP pelitic granulites (Li
et al., 2010, 2012; Zhao et al., 2012). Similarly, Zhai and Santosh
(2011, 2013) proposed a rifting-subduction-collision process in the NCC
after ca. 2.5 Ga. They suggested that the pull-apart stage in probably
occurred at 2300–2000 Ma, including the formation of rifts, their ex-
tension and the generation of ancient remnant ocean basins. Finally, the
oceanic plate subduction and continent-continent collision occurred at
2010–1970 Ma (Zhai and Santosh, 2011). On the basis of nonseismic
geophysical data (e.g., gravity data), Peng et al. (2016b) showed that
the tectonic boundary between the JLJB and the Longgang Block is a
normal fault and a basin-controlling boundary fault and thus inferred
the presence of a Paleoproterozoic continental rift. Combining this in-
formation with previous studies, Peng et al. (2016b) again proposed a
rift–subduction–collision cycle.
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

(caption on next page)

174
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Fig. 5. Histograms of U–Pb ages of Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB. Details of all data used for the plotting are listed in Table 1. Note: Only those data with
concordances between 90% and 105% were chosen for TuffZirc and weighted mean age calculations. The black curve showing the age peak is a kernel density
function (bandwidth = 20 Ma). Based on U–Pb ages, petrology and areas of distribution, five periods of magmatism in the JLJB are identified: ~2190–2160 Ma
gneissic granites and tuffs, ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks, ~2110–2080 Ma granites and mafic rocks, ~2000–1895 Ma granites, and ~1875–1850 Ma granites and
intermediate-alkaline rocks (see text).

2.2.4. Back-arc basin or retro-arc foreland basin opening and closure model references, are listed in Table S2. We note that only 14 of these analyses
Recently, based on geochemical studies of ca. 2.2–2.1 Ga mafic and have relatively high loss on ignition (LOI; 3.01–5.10%) corresponding
granitic intrusions in the JLJB, some researchers have suggested that to alteration, and eight altered analyses are from tuff samples.
these intrusions were formed in a back-arc setting and subsequently However, this paper ignores these very few altered samples because (1)
proposed that the JLJB represents an orogenic belt derived from the they are too few to influence the statistical results and (2) a combina-
opening and closure of a back-arc basin (e.g., Wang et al., 2011; Meng tion of major and immobile trace elements is used for discussing the
et al., 2014; Li et al., 2017a, 2017b; Xu et al., 2017b, 2018b, 2018c). geochemical characteristics.
Some studies on detrital zircons from sedimentary rocks within the Additionally, whole-rock Sm–Nd isotope data from 139 samples are
JLJB also favor the back-arc basin opening and closure model for the presented in Table S3, and their εNd(t) values are recalculated based on
JLJB (e.g., Zhang et al., 2018). However, these studies lack detailed the age peak of a single period of magmatism (see Section 4.1). Simi-
information about the possible subduction system (e.g., position of the larly, 888 recalculated zircon Hf isotope data from 45 samples and their
arc and subduction polarity).
Initially, Kusky and Li (2003) proposed that the Inner Mongolia-
Northern Hebei Orogen (IMNHO), a 1400 km long orogenic belt, re-
presents a nearly E-W arc terrane that collided with the north margin of
the NCC at ca. 2.3 Ga (Fig. 1C). From 2.20–1.85 Ga, this orogen was
converted to an Andean-style convergent margin through subduction
polarity reversal from northwards to southwards, and this process was
recorded by belts of plutonic rocks, accreted meta-sedimentary rocks,
and a possible back-arc basin (Kusky and Li, 2003). Recently, Kusky
et al. (2016) modified this model. The authors found that the horizontal
extent of the tectonic components, including continental margin
magmas and retro-arc foreland sedimentary basins, of the Sino-Korean
Craton during 2.3–1.9 Ga is similar to the components across the pre-
sent-day Andes in South America. Combined with previous geochro-
nological, geochemical and isotopic data, the authors defined the Ordos
and Khondalite belt retro-arc basin, the Hutuo-Wanzi retro-arc basin,
and the Jiao-Liao-Ji retro-arc basin (Fig. 4D). In this model, the
southern subduction of an oceanic plate to the north of the Sino-Korean
Craton formed the Jiao-Liao-Ji retro-arc foreland basin above the Ar-
chean basement in an Andean margin, and this retro-arc basin subse-
quently closed to form the JLJB (Fig. 4D; Kusky et al., 2016).

3. Data sources and geochemical results

3.1. Data sources

In this study, previously published zircon U–Pb ages and whole-rock

geochemical and isotopic data are integrated with our new age data to
investigate the geochronological history, petrogenesis, source, and
tectonic implications of the Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB
(Figs. 2 and 3). Our age data for three representative mafic samples
from the Liaoji area (Fig. 2) and the analytical procedures are listed in
Table S1.
This paper collects all 129 U–Pb age samples that provide credible
crystallization ages from the Liaoji, Jiaobei and Anhui areas. Their detailed
information, including sample numbers, lithology, mineral assemblages,
U–Pb ages, locations, analytical methods, and references, is listed in
Table 1. Additionally, the concordances of all U–Pb ages are recalculated
[concordance = 100*(206Pb/238U–age)/(207Pb/206Pb–age)], and only
those with concordances between 90% and 105% are chosen for further
TuffZirc age calculation (Table 1). This criterion is also used in the cal- Fig. 6. Relative probability diagrams for zircon age data obtained from
culation of TuffZirc and weighted mean ages and the plotting of binned Paleoproterozoic post-tectonic magmatic rocks and granitic leucosomes (ana-
frequency histograms for the geochronological outline of these magmatic texis) from the Liaoji and Jiaobei areas. The black curve showing the age peak is
rocks (Fig. 5). a kernel density function (bandwidth = 20 Ma). Age data obtained from post-
tectonic magmas are the same as those reported in Fig. 5. Age data obtained
In terms of whole-rock geochemistry, major and trace element data
from granitic leucosomes were reported by Liu et al. (2014b, 2017e).
for all 393 samples from the JLJB and their details, including areas and

175
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Fig. 7. Chemical compositions of magmatic rocks from the JLJB. (A and C) Total alkali versus silica classification diagram (Middlemost, 1994). Line dividing the
alkaline and subalkaline fields is from Miyashiro (1978). Some analyses from ~2140 Ma mafic rocks and ~2170 Ma tuffs have elevated total alkali contents and plot
in the alkaline field, possibly suggesting that Na and K are relatively mobile in these rocks during late alteration and metamorphism (Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c, 2019a).
(B and D) Zr/TiO2 versus Nb/Y classification diagram (Pearce, 1996). Note that almost all whole-rock geochemical analyses from the JLJB belong to the subalkaline
series, except for some posttectonic (~1865 Ma) intermediate-alkaline intrusions and porphyritic leucogranites. (E) Zr versus Y diagram (Ross and Bédard, 2009).

areas and references are listed in Table S4.
3.2. Geochemical results
The Paleoproterozoic magmatic rocks in the JLJB can be divided
into seven groups according to their distinct geochemical features.
The first group consists of ~2180 Ma and ~2100 Ma granites. They
have uniform geochemical compositions and are characterized by high
abundances of SiO2 (Fig. 6A) and trace elements, with enrichment in
light rare earth elements (LREEs), Rb, K, Th and Nd and negative
anomalies in Ba, Nb, Ta, Sr, P, Eu and Ti (Fig. 7A, F). These rocks be-
long to the subalkaline series (Fig. 6A, B) and further plot within the
calc-alkaline field (Fig. 6E).
The second group is composed of ~2170 Ma tuffs. They generally
have modest and varying SiO2 contents and belong to the subalkaline
(Fig. 6A, B) and calc-alkaline series (Fig. 6E). Compared with the first
group, these rocks have the same trace element patterns but lower trace
element concentrations (Fig. 7A, F).
The third group comprises ~2140 Ma mafic rocks. This group of
rocks has low abundances of SiO2 (Fig. 6A) and considerable variations
in MgO content (Table S2) and falls into the “transitional” field in the Zr
versus Y diagram (Fig. 6E), suggesting that this diagram probably
cannot classify these rocks (Ross and Bédard, 2009). Furthermore, they
belong to the tholeiitic series in the FeOT/MgO versus SiO2 diagram
(not shown, see Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c). This group is also char-
acterized by nearly flat REE patterns (Fig. 7B) with enrichment in Pb
and depletion in Nb, Ta, P, Zr and Ti (Fig. 7G).
The fourth group consists of ~2000 Ma and ~1895 Ma granites
(Fig. 7D, I). This group has high SiO2, and all the rocks are granites
(Fig. 6A). They usually have subalkaline and calc-alkaline features,
with modest total alkali contents and low abundances of Zr and Y
(Fig. 6E). These rocks, compared with those in group 1, have very low
contents of trace elements and are characterized by enrichments in Ba,
K, Sr, Zr, Hf and Eu and depletions in Th, Nb, Ta, La, Ce, P, Nd, Sm and
Ti (Fig. 7D, I).
The last three groups are all from posttectonic magmatism

176
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Fig. 8. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns and primitive mantle (PM)-normalized trace element diagrams for the Paleoproterozoic magmatic rocks in the JLJB. The
chondrite and PM normalization values are from Sun and McDonough (1989). Data sources: E-MORB (enriched mid-oceanic ridge basalt) (Sun and McDonough,
1989).

177
W. Xu and F. Liu
(~1865 Ma). The rocks in group 5 are megaporphyritic granites and
have modest SiO2 contents (Fig. 6A). Group 6 is composed of inter-
mediate-alkaline rocks (e.g., diorite and syenite) that show low and
variable SiO2 contents (Fig. 6A). Group 7 mainly consists of porphyritic
leucogranites with high abundances of SiO2, and the compositions of
these rocks are granitic (Fig. 6A). Almost all the rocks from this period
of magmatism belong to the alkaline series, except for some samples in
group 5 (Fig. 6A, B). Generally, the abundances and patterns of trace
elements in groups 5 and 6 are similar to those in group 1, and only a
few elements have higher contents than those in group 1 (e.g., Pb, P and
Ti) (Fig. 7E, J), whereas compared with groups 5 and 6, group 7 usually
has lower abundances of heavy REEs (HREEs) (Fig. 7E, J).
4. Discussion
4.1. Geochronological outline of Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB
Although the Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB has been
studied for decades, its geochronological outline is still unclear
(Table 1). Due to the lack of comprehensive analysis of U–Pb age data,
previous studies have been able to draw only some interim conclusions,
including (1) the pretectonic granitic and mafic magmatism was con-
temporaneous (Sun et al., 1993; Li and Chen, 2014); (2) the pretectonic
granites can be divided into two groups of 2176–2166 Ma and
2150–2143 Ma, and they represent two emplacement phases (Li and
Zhao, 2007); (3) the pretectonic (gneissic) granites formed in the period
from approximately 2200–2000 Ma (Zhao et al., 2005); (4) some meta-
mafic rocks formed at ca. 1880–1870 Ma (Wang et al., 2011); and (5)
the pretectonic tuffs from the North Liaohe Group formed from
2184–2127 Ma (Bi et al., 2018). In this study, we collect 2533 reliable
U–Pb crystallization ages (concordance = 90–105%) from 129 samples
from the Liaoji, Jiaobei and Anhui areas to reconstruct the geochro-
nological history of Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB (Table 1;
Figs. 2 and 3). In summary, the 2533 analyses yield five different age
peaks (Fig. 5), suggesting that five periods of Paleoproterozoic mag-
matism occurred in the JLJB as described below.
4.1.1. ~2190–2160 Ma gneissic granites and tuffs
The products of magmatism during this period are large in amount
and are distributed in the Liaoji area, with a few in the Jiaobei area
(Figs. 2 and 3). These products can be divided into two groups based on
lithology: one group represented by the Liaoji granites (Zhang and
Yang, 1988), is mainly composed of monzogranite, syenogranite and
albite granite, and most of these rocks show gneissic structure (e.g., Lu
et al., 2004b; Lan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017g); the other group
consists of felsic tuffs (or rhyolite, Bi et al., 2018) and is identified in
only the North Liaohe Group at present (Chen et al., 2017; Bi et al.,
2018; Xu et al., 2019a).
In terms of granites, 590 reliable analyses from thirty-six samples in
the Liaoji area yield a strong age peak of 2180 Ma, and most of the ages
are concentrated between 2190 and 2160 Ma (Fig. 5A), which is con-
sistent with 70 U–Pb ages from four samples in the Jiaobei area
(Fig. 5H). Therefore, we regard 2180 Ma as the crystallization age of the
granitic magmatism in the recalculation of published εNd(t) values
(Table S3).
In terms of tuffs, three samples from Bi et al. (2018) give weighted
mean ages of 2184 Ma, 2181 Ma and 2127 Ma and thus suggest a long
period of magmatic activity from 2184 to 2127 Ma. Nevertheless, only 6
of the thirty-five reliable analyses (concordance = 90–105%) from
these samples yield single zircon ages younger than 2150 Ma (Fig. 5B).
Moreover, SHRIMP zircon U–Pb ages of four samples yield weighted
mean ages from 2174 to 2168 Ma (Xu et al., 2019a). In this paper, 106
reliable ages of seven samples lie mainly between 2180 and 2160 Ma
and give a strong age peak at 2170 Ma, which can be regarded as the
crystallization age for calculation of εNd(t) values (Table S3).
In summary, these granites and tuffs are nearly coeval, and they
178
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
represent the first magmatic phase in the JLJB (Fig. 5).
4.1.2. ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks
These mafic rocks are dominantly distributed in the Liaoji area
(Fig. 2) and are composed of metagabbro/diabase and amphibolite
(Meng et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016a; Xu et al., 2018c). Previous
studies suggest that they formed over a long period from 2188 to
2059 Ma (Table 1). In this study, 298 reliable analyses from twenty-one
samples in the Liaoji area give one strong age peak of 2140 Ma, and
these ages are mainly concentrated between ca. 2110 and ca. 2160 Ma
(Fig. 5C), implying that the duration of the mafic magmatism was re-
latively limited. However, we notice that the published ages of bad-
deleyites and platy zircons, which are regarded as typical crystalline
minerals in mafic magmatism, yield a very short period of ca.
2125–2110 Ma (Dong et al., 2012; Yuan et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
2016a). To ascertain whether this speculation is true, three samples of
platy zircons (i.e., 17XW039-1, 17XW053-1 and 17XW055-1) from the
Mafeng-Longchang area were collected for dating (Fig. 2). Laser abla-
tion inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) U–Pb
ages of these platy zircons yield three weighted mean ages of
2147 ± 15 Ma, 2131 ± 17 Ma and 2136 ± 14 Ma (Fig. 8) and sug-
gest a moderate period for the mafic magmatism. In summary, most
analyses yield U–Pb ages between 2160 and 2110 Ma, suggesting a
moderate period for the mafic magmatism (Fig. 5C), and we chose the
age peak of 2140 Ma to calculate εNd(t) values (Table S3). Note that a
few analyses from amphibolite samples yield weighted mean ages
younger than 2100 Ma (Table 1; 2083–2054 Ma, Yu et al., 2007; Liu
et al., 2017d; Xu et al., 2018b). Considering the high amphibolite-facies
metamorphism experienced by these rocks, we suggest that these ab-
normally young ages are probably the result of lead loss.
4.1.3. ~2110–2080 Ma granites and mafic rocks
The products of the second granitic magmatic event are mainly
distributed in the Jiaobei and Anhui areas (Fig. 5H, K). They consist of
K-feldspar granite, albite granite and monzogranite, with varying de-
grees of gneissic structure (Yang et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2014a; Cheng
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017c). Seven published age samples give
weighted mean ages of 2110–2095 Ma and 2058 Ma (Table 1), which
are much younger than the age of the first magmatic event (see Section
4.1.1; Fig. 5A, H and K). However, previous studies have considered
these two events to be the same magmatic phase when reconstructing
the tectonic evolution of the JLJB (Yang et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2014a;
Cheng et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017c). This study collects 74 reliable
U–Pb ages from three samples in the Jiaobei area and 49 reliable U–Pb
ages from five samples in the Anhui area, and these results yield age
peaks of 2103 and 2090 Ma, respectively (Fig. 5H, K), suggesting that
these granitic rocks formed in a relatively short period of ca.
2110–2080 Ma, and they represent the third magmatic event in the
JLJB (Fig. 5). We further use the median age 2100 Ma to calculate their
εNd(t) values (Table S3).
Previous studies also dated a few mafic samples in the Jiaobei and
Anhui areas (Fig. 3; Liu et al., 2013b, 2018a). This study collects 75
reliable U–Pb ages from one mafic sample in the Jiaobei area and 10
reliable U–Pb ages from one mafic sample in the Anhui area (Table 1).
These analyses yield age peaks of 2101 and 2107 Ma (Fig. 5I, L), re-
spectively, which are similar to the crystallization age of the ~2100 Ma
granites, implying the same period of magmatism.
4.1.4. ~2000–1895 Ma granitic rocks
As mentioned above, some igneous rocks show geochemical char-
acteristics that are distinctly different from those of other rocks in the
JLJB (Fig. 8D, I; Section 3.2). Previous studies usually focused on ear-
lier granitic and mafic magmatism (Section 4.1.1–4.1.3) and did not
identify this period of magmatism (Fig. 5). To date, this period of
granitic magmatism is reported only in the towns of Huanghuadian
(Fig. 2, Wang et al., 2017h), Jianyi (Qin, 2013; Ren et al., 2017) and
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Qingchengzi (Wang et al., 2017b) in the Liaoji area. The rocks are
granites (Fig. 6A) that have intruded into the first granitic magmatic
phase (Fig. 2, e.g., Muniu pluton) and Paleoproterozoic sedimentary
successions (Wang et al., 2017h). Zircon U–Pb concordia ages suggest
that they formed at ca. 1995 Ma (Wang et al., 2017h) and ca. 1892 Ma
(Ren et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017b), respectively. This study collects
twenty-eight reliable analyses from the Huanghuadian sample and
twenty reliable analyses from the Jianyi and Qingchengzi samples. The
former sample yields an age peak of approximately 2000 Ma, and the
latter sample yields an age peak of approximately 1895 Ma. Both ages
are similar to their TuffZirc and weighted mean ages (Fig. 5D). There-
fore, we consider these ~2000–1895 Ma granites to be the products of
the fourth period of Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the JLJB (Fig. 5).
4.1.5. ~1875–1850 Ma granitoids, intermediate-alkaline rocks and
granitic leucosomes (anatexis)
The products of late-stage magmatism are mainly distributed in the
Liaoji area, with minor appearances in the Jiaobei area (Figs. 2 and 3A).
They present various rock types, including garnet-biotite-bearing por-
phyritic granite, K-feldspar granite, albite granite, syenite, diorite and
pegmatite (Lu et al., 2004a; Yang et al., 2007a; Liu et al., 2014a, 2017a;
Li et al., 2017c). Liu et al. (2017a) conducted a detailed study on the
mineral morphology and cathodoluminescence (CL) and back-scattered
electron (BSE) images of zircons and monazites from porphyritic
granite samples in the Liaoji and Jiaobei areas and dated the light-gray
luminescent cores and dark-gray luminescent rims via 707 zircon ana-
lyses from 18 samples and 439 monazite analyses from 10 samples. The
dating results reveal that the cores and rims of zircons formed at ca.
1869 and ca. 1848 Ma, respectively, consistent with those of monazites
(ca. 1868 Ma and ca. 1847 Ma, respectively). They thus suggest that the
emplacement of the porphyritic granites started at ca. 1870 Ma and
ended at ca. 1850 Ma. This study collected 46 published age samples
from all the rock types listed above. Among them, 38 weighted mean
ages concentrate between 1880 and 1840 Ma, except for 8 samples with
younger (1835–1740 Ma) or older (1895–1891 Ma) ages (Table 1). We
integrate 1213 reliable analyses of 46 age samples and subdivide them
into four groups based on their distributions and rock types (Fig. 5E, F,
G and J). All four groups yield similar, strong age peaks of ca.
1875–1862 Ma, and most analyses fall in the age range of
1875–1850 Ma, consistent with the results from Liu et al. (2017a).
Therefore, we suggest that the late-stage magmatism in the JLJB was
mainly active in the period of 1875–1850 Ma, and we further chose the
median age of 1865 Ma for calculation of εNd(t) values (Table S3).
Similar to the late-stage magmatism mentioned above, the late
Paleoproterozoic granitic leucosomes are also widely distributed in the
Liaoji and Jiaobei areas (Table 2; Figs. 2 and 3A). These granitic leu-
cosomes derived from partial melting of the host mafic and pelitic
granulites, amphibolites and TTG gneisses are only distributed in the
southern zone of the JLJB (i.e., the Ji’an, South Liaohe and Jingshan
groups) as irregular layers, lenses and blocks (Liu et al., 2014b, 2017e).
Liu et al. (2014b, 2017e) conducted a combined analysis of mineral
inclusions, CL images and LA–ICP–MS U–Pb on anatectic zircons from
the granitic leucosome samples. One hundred ninety-four analyses of
zircon cores and 120 analyses of zircon rims from eight samples in the
Liaoji Area reveal 207Pb/206Pb age peaks at ca. 1868 Ma and ca.
1841 Ma (Liu et al., 2017e), respectively, whereas 435 analyses of
zircon cores and 59 analyses of zircon rims from sixteen samples in the
Jiaobei Area reveal age peaks at ca. 1857 Ma and ca. 1838 Ma (Liu
et al., 2014b), respectively. They propose that a regional partial melting
event started at ca. 1870 Ma and ended at ca. 1840 Ma in the JLJB. In
the present study, we integrate 808 analyses from all 24 granitic leu-
cosome samples and divide them into two groups based on their dis-
tributions (Fig. 6C, D). The two groups yield similar ages peaks of
1861–1856 Ma, and most analyses also fall in the age range of
1875–1850 Ma, consistent with the age results from regional post-tec-
tonic magmatism mentioned above (Fig. 6). Based on the results from

Table 2
Summary of geochronological data from Paleoproterozoic granitic leucosomes related to regional partial melting event in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt.
No. Sample Host rock U-Pb age range of cores WMA of cores U-Pb age range of rims WMA of rims References

Liaoji area

South liaohe group

1 LM1 Grt-Sil-Crd-Bt paragneiss 1878 ± 20~1857 ± 20 Ma 1869 ± 8 Ma 1856 ± 20~1832 ± 20 Ma 1843 ± 10 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
2 LM2 Grt-Sil-Crd-Bt paragneiss 1878 ± 22~1857 ± 25 Ma 1866 ± 9 Ma 1855 ± 20~1832 ± 21 Ma 1839 ± 11 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
3 LM3 Grt-Bt paragneiss 1879 ± 24~1861 ± 21 Ma 1870 ± 8 Ma 1853 ± 20~1828 ± 32 Ma 1843 ± 12 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
4 LM4 Grt-Bt paragneiss 1877 ± 20~1857 ± 22 Ma 1868 ± 9 Ma 1851 ± 22~1827 ± 23 Ma 1838 ± 11 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)

Ji'an group
5 JM1 Grt-Sil-(Crd)-Bt paragneiss 1877 ± 26~1858 ± 18 Ma 1865 ± 9 Ma 1853 ± 21~1823 ± 25 Ma 1835 ± 11 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
6 JM2 Grt-Sil-(Crd)-Bt paragneiss 1877 ± 16~1865 ± 17 Ma 1870 ± 7 Ma 1853 ± 21~1833 ± 17 Ma 1841 ± 10 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
7 JM3 Grt-Sil-(Crd)-Bt paragneiss 1878 ± 27~1857 ± 25 Ma 1867 ± 7 Ma 1855 ± 18~1835 ± 20 Ma 1843 ± 9 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)
8 JM4 Grt-Bt paragneiss 1880 ± 21~1857 ± 21 Ma 1870 ± 8 Ma 1855 ± 21~1834 ± 19 Ma 1842 ± 11 Ma Liu et al. (2017e)

Jiaobei area
9 HM1 HP mafic granulite 1870 ± 11~1843 ± 20 Ma 1859.6 ± 2.2 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
10 HM2 HP mafic granulite 1869 ± 26~1848 ± 30 Ma 1856.8 ± 4.9 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
11 HM3 HP mafic granulite 1870 ± 21~1845 ± 18 Ma 1856.1 ± 3.1 Ma 1844 ± 19~1829 ± 17 Ma 1837.8 ± 6.8 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
12 MM1 MP mafic granulite 1868 ± 8~1849 ± 23 Ma 1858.2 ± 2.8 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
13 MM2 MP mafic granulite 1869 ± 19~1847 ± 22 Ma 1857.2 ± 4.6 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
14 AM1 OPX-CPX-Amphibolite 1871 ± 21~1847 ± 20 Ma 1860.2 ± 4.8 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
15 AM2 OPX-CPX-Amphibolite 1868 ± 23~1848 ± 13 Ma 1859.6 ± 3.7 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
16 AM3 Qtz-bearing Amphibolite 1867 ± 14~1847 ± 16 Ma 1858.2 ± 2.3 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
17 AM4 Qtz-bearing Amphibolite 1865 ± 9~1848 ± 14 Ma 1857.4 ± 2.2 Ma Liu et al. (2014b
18 TG1 TTG gneisses 1870 ± 10~1852 ± 13 Ma 1860.9 ± 2.2 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
19 TG2 TTG gneisses 1868 ± 9~1846 ± 12 Ma 1859.7 ± 2.7 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
20 MG1 MP pelitic granulite 1865 ± 19~1845 ± 25 Ma 1852.9 ± 3.7 Ma 1843 ± 16~1833 ± 17 Ma 1836.3 ± 6.8 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
21 MG2 MP pelitic granulite 1871 ± 9~1846 ± 14 Ma 1857.4 ± 2.9 Ma 1844 ± 18~1831 ± 22 Ma 1836.9 ± 6.0 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
22 MG3 MP pelitic granulite 1861 ± 11~1845 ± 25 Ma 1852.1 ± 2.8 Ma 1842 ± 16~1821 ± 16 Ma 1833.3 ± 5.3 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
23 HG1 HP pelitic granulite 1869 ± 15~1846 ± 9 Ma 1858.7 ± 2.1 Ma 1843 ± 13~1835 ± 9 Ma 1839.9 ± 2.9 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)
24 HG2 HP pelitic granulite 1870 ± 12~1847 ± 23 Ma 1857.2 ± 3.7 Ma 1844 ± 20~1820 ± 16 Ma 1835.5 ± 5.3 Ma Liu et al. (2014b)

Abbreviation: Grt—Garnet; Sil—Sillimanite; Crd—Cordierite; Bt—Biotite; TTG—tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite; HP—high-pressure; MP—Middle-pressure;

WMA—Weighted mean age.

179
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

these studies, the post-tectonic magmatism was accompanied by re-
gional partial melting related to granulite facies metamorphism in the
JLJB.
4.2. Crustal growth, basement reworking and magma source
Prior to discussing the tectonic evolution of the JLJB, an under-
standing of the early crustal evolution history and evaluating the source
of the Paleoproterozoic magmatic suites (Figs. 5 and 10; ca.
2.20–1.80 Ga) in the JLJB is necessary. Note that a regional magmatic
gap between ~2.45 and ~2.20 Ga has been identified in the Eastern
Block (e.g., Wan et al., 2015b; Xu et al., 2019b, and references therein).
The basement rocks, which recorded crustal growth history and were
recycled to produce part of the Paleoproterozoic magmatic suites in the
JLJB, should thus be Archean (dominantly ≥ 2.50 Ga), and previous
studies have successfully established the main geochronological periods
of magmatism in these Archean basement rocks in the Eastern Block:
(1) ~3.3–3.0 Ga, (2) ~2.9 Ga, (3) ~2.7 Ga, and (4) ~2.5 Ga (c.f., Kusky
et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2008; Wan et al., 2014, Wan
et al., 2015a, 2015b; Dong et al., 2017). These periods of magmatism
can thus be used to constrain significant Archean continental crustal
growth in the Eastern Block.
Generally, zircon Hf isotopes are considered an effective tool for
investigating crustal generation, basement reworking and magma
sources (e.g., Yang et al., 2007b; Collins et al., 2011; He et al., 2018).
The published zircon Hf isotope data of the Paleoproterozoic magmatic
suites, including εHf(t) values and Hf crust model ages (TDMC), are
presented in Table S4 and Fig. 9A. Unlike their uniform major and trace
element compositions (Figs. 7 and 8), the pretectonic intermediate-
acidic magmatism represented by ~2180 Ma granites, ~2170 Ma tuffs
and ~2100 Ma granites shows considerable variation in zircon Hf iso-
tope compositions with εHf(t) values of –8.21–5.70, –9.11–8.57 and

Fig. 9. Cathodoluminescence (CL) images and zircon U–Pb concordia diagrams for three representative mafic samples (A—17XW039-1, B—17XW053-1 and
C—17XW055-1) from the Mafeng-Longchang area, Liaodong Peninsula. The diameters of all red circles represent 25 μm for U–Pb age analyses. Note: Only those data
with concordances between 90% and 105% were chosen for TuffZirc and weighted mean age calculations.

180
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

–5.09–6.19, respectively (Fig. 10A). Fig. 10A also shows that the TDMC
Hf crustal model ages of both the ~2180 Ma and ~2100 Ma granites are
mainly distributed between 2.8 Ga and 2.5 Ga, corresponding to the
Neoarchean and that zircons from three samples (JB13-1, Liu et al.,
2014a; CY2-43/92, Lan et al., 2015) of the ~2180 Ma granites mostly
have TDMC of 3.2–3.0 Ga, corresponding to the Mesoarchean. However,
these results do not mean that the Paleoproterozoic granitic rocks were
formed by reworking of Mesoarchean to Neoarchean crustal basement
because these granitic rocks were probably generated from the mixing
of crust-derived felsic magma and mantle-derived mafic magma, (e.g.,
Yang et al., 2015a), and at least part of their Hf crust model ages (TDMC)
may thus be hybrids that reflect an average age of a mixed source rather
than specific crust-forming events (Hawkesworth and Kemp, 2006;
Kemp et al., 2006). Importantly, a few zircons from ~2180 Ma and
~2100 Ma granites have high positive εHf(t) values of 5.70–5.42 and
6.19–4.41, respectively, which represent Hf crustal model ages of
2.4 Ga and 2.4–2.3 Ga, respectively (Table S4 and Fig. 10A), suggesting
a minor contribution from juvenile material (or depleted mantle). The
~2170 Ma tuffs have relatively scattered Hf isotope compositions with
TDMC of 3.3–2.2 Ga. A few zircons have low εHf(t) values of -9.11 to
-8.42 and high TDMC of 3.3 Ga, implying that minor Paleoarchean
crustal basement may have been involved in the formation of the
~2170 Ga tuffs, whereas some zircons have high εHf(t) values of
4.85–8.57 and low TDMC of 2.4–2.2 Ga, suggesting an increasing con-
tribution of juvenile material (Fig. 10A). Unlike the intermediate-acidic
magmatism, the pretectonic mafic magmatism represented by
~2140 Ma mafic rocks dominantly shows high εHf(t) values from 4.61
to 9.62 and low TDMC from 2.4 to 2.1 Ga, suggesting that these mafic
rocks were mainly derived from depleted mantle material and that
minor ancient crust was involved in their generation by assimilation
(Xu et al., 2018b). In contrast, the ~2100 Ma mafic rocks also have
considerable variation in Hf isotopes with εHf(t) values of -6.17–8.43,
which were interpreted as metasomatism by melts derived from sub-
ducted ancient sediments (Liu et al., 2018a). The zircon Hf isotope
compositions are usually relatively narrow and uniform for the
products of post-tectonic magmatism, i.e., ~1865 Ma megaporphyritic
granites (mostly εHf(t) = –5.42–3.50, TDMC = 2.9–2.3 Ga) and
~1865 Ma intermediate-alkaline rocks (εHf(t) = –3.89–3.41,
TDMC = 2.7–2.3 Ga) (Fig. 10A). Additionally, the zircons from coeval
Bt-bearing syenogranites (JB09-1) show more radiogenic Hf isotope
compositions with εHf(t) values in the range of -7.11 to -2.96 and Hf
crustal model ages of 2.9–2.7 Ga (Table S4). Although the real sources
of the posttectonic magmatic rocks are complex, including (1) early
Paleoproterozoic sedimentary rocks (e.g., Liaohe Group; Yang et al.,
2015b; Liu et al., 2017a), (2) early Paleoproterozoic magmatic suites
(e.g., ~2180 Ma granites; Liu et al., 2017a), and (3) hybrids between
crust-derived magma and mantle-derived magma (Yang et al., 2007a),
the results described above suggest that these rocks were mainly de-
rived from the reworking of a Neoarchean crustal component with a
minor contribution from early Paleoproterozoic juvenile material.
Fig. 10B shows the whole-rock Nd isotope compositions, including
εNd(t) values and two-stage Nd model ages, of the Paleoproterozoic
magmatic suites in the JLJB. Similar to the zircon Hf isotope data, the
limited whole-rock Nd isotope data present useful information about
basement reworking and magma sources. Generally, the pretectonic
magmatic rocks have even and scattered Nd isotope compositions with
εNd(t) values and two-stage Nd model ages of -5.63–3.03 and
3.3–2.4 Ga for ~2180 Ma granites, -2.62–3.39 and 2.8–2.3 Ga for
~2170 Ma tuffs, -3.18–5.44 and 2.8–2.1 Ga for ~2140 Ma mafic rocks,
-12.13–2.29 and 3.5–2.4 Ga for ~2100 Ma granites and -0.85–3.77 and
2.6–2.2 Ga for ~2100 Ma mafic rocks, respectively. The posttectonic
magmatic rocks have relatively narrow and uniform Nd isotope com-
positions with εNd(t) values and Nd model ages of -5.02 to -1.50 and
2.8–2.5 Ga for ~1865 Ma megaporphyritic granites, -2.58 to -1.80 and
2.6–2.5 Ga for ~1865 Ma intermediate-alkaline rocks and -6.27 to -4.02
and 2.9–2.7 Ga for ~1865 Ma porphyritic leucogranites, respectively
(Table S3 and Fig. 10B).
In summary, both zircon Hf and whole-rock Nd isotopes show that
the pretectonic magmatic suites were mainly derived from various de-
grees of mixing of Paleoproterozoic juvenile materials (or depleted

Fig. 10. (A) εHf(t) versus t(U–Pb age) and TDMC (Hf) histogram and (B) εNd(t) versus t(age peak) and TDM2 (Nd) histogram for the Paleoproterozoic magmatism in the
JLJB. Data sources: Depleted mantle (DM) (147Sm/144Nd = 0.2137, 143Nd/144Nd = 0.51315, Liew and Hofmann, 1988; 176Lu/177Hf = 0.03842,
176
Hf/177Hf = 0.28325, Griffin et al., 2000); Chondritic uniform reservoir (CHUR) (147Sm/144Nd = 0.1967, 143Nd/144Nd = 0.512638, Wasserburg et al., 1981;
176
Lu/177Hf = 0.0332, 176Hf/177Hf = 0.282772, Blichert-Toft and Albarède, 1997); Crust (Upper crust (UC), 147Sm/144Nd = 0.118, Jahn and Condie, 1995; Average
crust (AC), 176Lu/177Hf = 0.015, Griffin et al., 2002). Legend is the same as in Fig. 6.

181
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

mantle) and Archean crust, suggesting important continental crustal
growth and reworking, whereas the posttectonic magmatic suites were
mainly generated from reworking of the Neoarchean-early
Paleoproterozoic crustal component, implying strong basement re-
working.
4.3. Petrogenesis and tectonic evolution
4.3.1. ~2190–2160 Ma magmatic suites and slab rollback during the early
stage of subduction
The interval from 2190–2160 Ma marks an important period of
basement reworking in the JLJB (Section 4.2), and two types of mag-
matic suites are identified in this period: (1) ~2180 Ma gneissic gran-
ites and (2) ~2170 Ma felsic tuffs (Fig. 5).
4.3.1.1. ~2180 Ma gneissic granites. Although the ~2180 Ma gneissic
granites have been studied for decades, their petrogenesis (i.e., genetic
type, magma source and tectonic environment) remains debated.
On the basis of several diagnostic elements and ratios (i.e., Zr, Nb,
Ce, Y, Ga/Al, FeOT/MgO and (K2O+Na2O)/CaO) proposed by Whalen
et al. (1987), previous studies predominantly suggest that the
~2180 Ma gneissic granites in the JLJB are A-type granites (Li et al.,
2004, 2017a, 2017b; Lan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017b, 2017g; Liu
et al., 2018b). Recently, based on petrographic, mineralogical and
geochemical investigations (e.g., mafic microgranular enclaves, calcic
amphibole and boron-rich features), Yang et al. (2015a) proposed that
these gneissic granites are highly fractionated I-type granites rather
than A-type granites, and this opinion is further supported by Chen
et al. (2016) and Xu et al. (2019a). Several lines of evidence, however,
argue against a highly fractionated I-type nature for the ~2180 Ma
gneissic granites. (1) The varying REE contents can indeed be explained
by fractionation of accessory minerals (e.g., monazite, allanite, apatite
and zircon, Xu et al., 2019a), and they are possibly highly fractionated
granites (Fig. 11B). Note that they clearly deviate from the trend de-
fined by fractional I/S-type granites (Fig. 11C) and belong to fractional
A-type granite because the 10000*Ga/Al ratio increases and Zr content
decreases during fractional crystallization of I- and S-type granites (Wu
et al., 2017). (2) The A-type granite is generally accepted to have a
higher temperature than other types of granites (e.g., I- and S-type
granites, Clemens et al., 1986; King et al., 1997, 2001). The ~2180 Ma
gneissic granites show high Zr saturation temperatures with a peak at
approximately 858 °C, which is similar to that of average A-type granite
(839 °C) and higher than those of unfractionated (781 °C) and fractio-
nated (764 °C) I-type granites (King et al., 1997). Because the
~2180 Ma gneissic granites do not contain inherited zircons (e.g., Yang
et al., 2015a; Li et al., 2017a; Wang et al., 2017b, 2017g, 2017h), their
Zr saturation temperatures thus represent minimum estimates of tem-
perature (Miller et al., 2003), suggesting that their initial temperature
was greater than 858 °C. Therefore, the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites in
the JLJB cannot be highly fractionated I-type granites. (3) The samples,
which contain calcic amphibole (e.g., HD-7, Yang et al., 2015a), show
different geochemical features from other ~2180 Ma gneissic granites
(Fig. 8A, F; e.g., extremely low abundances of trace elements), probably
suggesting different magma sources or petrogenesis. In addition, pre-
vious studies have shown that the A-type granites are not strictly an-
hydrous and that suite-specific enclaves indeed exist in A-type granites
(e.g., aluminous A-type granites in the Lachlan Fold Belt, King et al.,
1997). Therefore, we conclude that the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites
from the JLJB are fractionated aluminous A2-type granites rather than
highly fractionated I-type granites (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11. Selected diagrams for the genetic types of the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites and the ~2100 Ma granites in the JLJB. (A) A/NK versus A/CNK classification
diagram (Maniar and Piccoli, 1989); (B) Nb/Ta versus Zr/Hf diagram (Wu et al., 2017) with lines of Zr/Hf = 26 (Bau, 1996), Nb/Ta = 5 (Ballouard et al., 2016), Zr/
Hf = 38 and Nb/Ta = 17 (Wu et al., 2017); (C) Zr versus 10000*Ga/Al discrimination diagram (Whalen et al., 1987) with the ranges of fractionated A- and I/S-type
granites after Wu et al. (2017); (D) Binned frequency histograms of TZr(°C) with calculation of Zr saturation temperatures (TZr) after Watson and Harrison (1983) and
Miller et al. (2003); average TZr of A-type, fractionated I-type and unfractionated I-type granites after King et al. (1997); black curve showing Zr saturation
temperature peak is a kernel density function (bandwidth = 10 °C); and (E) A1 and A2 subgroup discrimination diagram (Eby, 1992). In summary, all these features
suggest that the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites and the ~2100 Ma granites in the JLJB are highly fractionated, aluminous A2-type granites.

182
W. Xu and F. Liu
In terms of magma source, most studies suggest that these gneissic
granites were mainly derived from partial melting of Archean felsic
basement (Liu et al., 2014a; Lan et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017a, 2017b;
Wang et al., 2017g; Teng et al., 2017) with minor contributions of ju-
venile mafic crustal material (Hao et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2015a).
Recently, Wang et al. (2017b) proposed that these gneissic granites
originated from Archean subcontinental lithospheric mantle and that
crustal material was involved in their generation in the form of con-
tamination. These authors present evidence that the Nd isotopes of the
~2180 Ma gneissic granites are similar to those of evolutionary Ar-
chean subcontinental lithospheric mantle (SCLM) (data from Wu et al.,
2005) but are less radiogenic than those of the Archean granites (Wang
et al., 2017b). Based on Nd isotopic data from mantle-derived mafic
rocks, Wu et al. (2005) proposed that the mantle beneath the NCC was
depleted in the Archean. However, these authors did not identify the
source (e.g., SCLM or depleted asthenospheric mantle) of the mafic
rocks, and the Nd isotopic features of the Archean SCLM are still un-
clear. The similar Nd isotopic compositions between the ~2180 Ma
gneissic granites and these mafic rocks can lead to only the conclusion
that the granites were probably derived from the partial melting of
Archean mafic rocks. In addition, the Archean felsic basement rocks
(e.g., TTG) in the Eastern Block actually show considerable variation in
Nd isotope compositions (Wan et al., 2015b), which overlap with those
of the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites, suggesting a possible genetic rela-
tion (not shown). Based on their coeval, associated mafic counterparts,
Bonin (2007) suggested that A-type granites more likely come from
mantle-derived magma. Nonetheless, this derivation is not the case in
the JLJB because the Hf and Nd isotope compositions of the ~2180 Ma
gneissic granites in the JLJB are more radiogenic than those of the
nearly coeval, mantle-derived mafic rocks (Fig. 10; i.e., ~2140 Ma
mafic rocks). Recently, convincing genetic modeling of some ~2180 Ma
gneissic granites with highly radiogenic isotopes (εNd(t) = -5.44 to
-4.47, εHf(t) = -8.12 to -3.38, Table S2) suggests that these rocks were
derived from partial melting of Archean crustal rocks at high tem-
perature and low pressure (T > 850 °C and P < 4 kbar, Lan et al.,
2015). Lee and Morton (2015) also showed that high-silica granites
(SiO2 > 70%) are predominantly formed in shallow (< 10 km) magma
chambers (Table S2, 101 of 103 ~2180 Ma gneissic granite samples
have SiO2 = 70.4–78.3%). Combining this information with published
studies showing that aluminous A2-type granites are probably produced
by partial melting of continental crust under high-temperature condi-
tions (e.g., Eby, 1992; King et al., 1997), we suggest that the ~2180 Ma
gneissic granites in the JLJB were generated by partial melting of Ar-
chean crustal rocks with minor contributions from juvenile mafic rocks
(i.e., ~2140 Ma mafic rocks; Section 4.2).
Because the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites are A-type granites, pre-
vious studies overwhelmingly support the viewpoint that they were
formed in a continental rift and further favor the intracontinental rift
opening and closure model (Section 2.2.1; Li et al., 2005; Zhao et al.,
2005, 2012; Lan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017b; Liu et al., 2018b).
However, note that the geochemical compositions of granitic magmas
reflect the compositions of their source rocks, temperature-pressure
conditions of melting and magmatic evolutionary process rather than
tectonic setting (Frost et al., 2001; Wu et al., 2007b). Therefore, all we
know about the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites is that they were produced
by partial melting of Archean crustal material with minor contributions
of juvenile mafic rocks at high temperature and low pressure, corre-
sponding to an extensional setting with mantle upwelling (e.g., con-
tinental rift and back-arc extension) (Wu et al., 2007b).
4.3.1.2. ~2170 Ma felsic tuffs
The Paleoproterozoic felsic tuffs, which are currently believed to be
distributed mainly in the northern segment of the JLJB, were identified
through regional geological investigations thirty years ago (e.g., Zhang
and Yang, 1988). Recently, several researchers have conducted con-
tinuous geochronological and geochemical studies on these rocks (Chen
183
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
et al., 2017; Bi et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2019a). These felsic tuffs, from
andesite to rhyolite, are calc-alkaline in composition (Fig. 7). Due to
their considerable variations in Hf isotopes (εHf(t) = -9.11–8.57,
TDMC = 3.3–2.2 Ga), Bi et al. (2018) proposed that the felsic tuffs were
mainly derived from a Meso-Neoarchean juvenile mafic lower crustal
source, with minor addition of ancient crustal material. However, these
felsic tuffs have a relatively low proportion of zircons with depleted Hf
isotopes. The Paleoproterozoic juvenile mafic crustal rocks thus may be
too depleted (see Fig. 10 in Xu et al., 2019a), whereas the evolved
Meso-Neoarchean juvenile mafic lower crust may be too radiogenic
(Fig. 10A) to produce these felsic tuffs. Note that the ~2170 Ma felsic
tuffs have trace element features that are similar to the ~2180 Ma
gneissic granites (Fig. 8A, F), suggesting a predominant Archean crustal
source, as mentioned above. Moreover, these felsic tuffs show geo-
chemical compositions (e.g., 17 of 24 samples have
SiO2 = 59.17–69.8%; Table S2; Fig. 7A, B, F, G) and isotopic compo-
sitions (see Figs. 10 and 11 in Xu et al., 2019a) that are intermediate
between those of the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites and the ~2140 Ma
mafic rocks, suggesting that the tuffs were probably produced by
mixing between felsic magma from Archean basement rocks and a
lesser amount of Paleoproterozoic mafic magma from the depleted
mantle (Xu et al., 2019a). Before the petrogenetic investigation of these
felsic tuffs, a key to supporting the intracontinental rift opening and
closure model was the lack of calc-alkaline igneous associations (e.g.,
Zhao et al., 2005, 2012), whereas the ~2170 Ma felsic tuffs show re-
lative enrichments in large ion lithophile elements (LILEs) and negative
anomalies in high field strength elements (HFSEs) (Fig. 8F), which are
common features of trace element partitioning in continental arc an-
desite (Xu et al., 2019a). Thus, the tuffs are assumed to be typical calc-
alkaline volcanic rocks related to a continental arc (Bi et al., 2018; Xu
et al., 2019a).
In summary, the ~2190–2160 Ma magmatic suites represent the
early stage of the Paleoproterozoic tectonothermal event (Fig. 5). One
possible scenario is that these magmatic suites formed in a continental
rift (e.g., Li et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2005, 2012; Wang et al., 2016a,
2017b). In this scenario, the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites were mainly
derived from partial melting of Archean continental crust triggered by
mantle upwelling during extension, whereas the arc-like features of the
~2170 Ma felsic tuffs were probably inherited from pre-existing arc-
derived rocks (e.g., Neoproterozoic igneous rocks in the Jiangnan
Orogen, Zheng et al., 2008). However, this possibility is contradicted by
the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks in the JLJB, which show different geo-
chemical characteristics from those of typical intracontinental rifts
(Section 4.3.2; Xu et al., 2018c). Additionally, the associated Paleo-
proterozoic sedimentary rocks in the JLJB show intimate affinity to an
active continental margin (e.g., Wang et al., 2017a, 2018a; Meng et al.,
2017a; Li et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). Therefore, because these
felsic rocks represent the first stage of magmatism related to oceanic
plate subduction in the JLJB (Xu et al., 2019b), the speculation that the
~2190–2160 Ma magmatic suites have a genetic relationship to mantle
upwelling during the early stage of subduction is reasonable (Fig. 14A).
Due to the increasing subduction rate resulting from vertical slab roll-
back, the trench retreats and the overriding plate is extended (Niu et al.,
2003; Gerya, 2011). The extension of the overriding plate induces de-
compression melting of asthenospheric mantle, producing mafic mag-
matism (Gerya et al., 2008; Gerya, 2011). This mafic magma pools
beneath and heats the overlying Archean continental crust. Due to the
continuous input of heat, the continental crust begins to melt, produ-
cing the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites, and some mafic materials si-
multaneously participate in the formation of the ~2170 Ma felsic tuffs.
4.3.2. ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks and back-arc extension
Although most of the unique ~2140 Ma mafic rocks in the JLJB
show relatively homogeneous geochemical compositions (Figs. 7 and
8), their petrogenesis and tectonic settings have been debated for the
past three decades. The most important arguement is that these mafic
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

rocks show enriched MORB (E-MORB)-like patterns of trace element usually higher than those of typical subduction zone basalts (Tatsumi
partition with some arc-like characteristics, such as negative anomalies and Eggins, 1995). (3) These mafic rocks show MORB-like trace ele-
in Nb, Ta, P and Ti (Fig. 8B, G; see also Fig. 7 of Xu et al., 2018b). ment patterns (Fig. 8B, G) and plot in the MORB field rather than the
Early reports of these mafic rocks emphasized their close association volcanic arc field in the discrimination diagrams (Fig. 12B; See also Xu
with widespread intermediate-acidic igneous rocks (e.g., ~2180 Ma et al., 2018b, 2018c). All these features suggest that the ~2140 Ma
gneissic granites) and considered that they were bimodal assemblages mafic rocks do not represent a typical magmatic arc belt, as suggested
formed in an intracontinental extensional setting (e.g., a rift, Zhang and by some authors (e.g., Faure et al., 2004; Li and Chen, 2014; Yuan et al.,
Yang, 1988; Sun et al., 1993, 1996; Li, 1994; Yu et al., 2007). Sun et al. 2015). The intracontinental rift model seems to be an alternative model
(1993) proposed that they have geochemical features similar to those of (e.g., Wang et al., 2016a). Xu et al. (2018c), however, compared the
modern continental flood basalt and thus suggested their possible as- geochemical features of the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks with those of mafic
sociation with a mantle plume. Recently, the rifting hypothesis was rocks related to continental rifts, including modern rifts and those as-
elaborated by Wang et al. (2016a), who documented the geochemical sociated with the breakup of supercontinents (Fig. 12), recognized the
similarity between the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks in the JLJB and some geochemical differences resulting from differences in the mantle source
other nearly coeval sill swarms in the central part of the Sino-Korean and tectonic setting and suggested that these mafic rocks in the JLJB
Craton and proposed an intracontinental rift system throughout the would not have formed in an intracontinental rift (Fig. 12; Xu et al.,
NCC. Furthermore, Wang et al. (2016a) suggested that these mafic 2018c). Recently, Kusky et al. (2016) proposed that the JLJB represents
rocks were generated by partial melting of ancient SCLM and that the a retro-arc foreland basin that was formed above the Archean basement
arc-like trace element features were inherited from Archean subduc- of the Eastern Block (Fig. 1C; see fig. 26 in Kusky et al., 2016). How-
tion-related rocks. Other authors incorporated arc-like features into the ever, because (1) the formation of ~2180 Ma A-type granites requires
dynamics of plate subduction, and these ~2140 Ma mafic rocks thus extension and mantle upwelling (Section 4.3.1), (2) the early stage of
have been associated with a continental arc (Faure et al., 2004; Li and felsic magmatism (~2190–2160 Ma) resulted from partial melting of
Chen, 2014; Yuan et al., 2015), an island arc (Ma et al., 2007; Gao et al., Archean basement rocks and almost completely ceased during the for-
2017) and back-arc extension (Wang et al., 2011; Meng et al., 2014; Xu mation of the ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks (Fig. 5A, B, C, and H), and
et al., 2017b, Xu et al., 2018b). (3) the ~2110–2080 Ma granites and mafic rocks related to fore-arc
All the research implies that the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks are the key extension (see details in Section 4.3.4) may not form in an
to determining the early tectonic evolution of the JLJB. Regardless of
the specific explanations, there seems to be widespread agreement that
these mafic rocks have arc-like features. These features have been re-
garded as modifications induced by subduction agents (e.g., Meng et al.,
2014; Yuan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016a), although they are po-
tentially ascribed to plate subduction, inheritance from metasomatized
SCLM, or contamination by felsic continental crust. Additionally, their
inhomogeneous Hf and Nd isotope compositions (Fig. 10) have been
considered to be inherited from mantle sources rather than from crustal
contamination. However, Xu et al. (2018b) identified felsic crustal en-
claves in these mafic rocks and further proposed that crustal con-
tamination played an important role in the generation of the mafic
rocks through qualitative simulation using Nd isotope and trace ele-
ments; this study suggested that the slight depletion in some HFSEs in
the least-contaminated samples corresponds to limited metasomatism
from subduction-related fluids and/or melts.
Additionally, another consensus states that the ~2140 Ma mafic
rocks were derived from partial melting of SCLM, consistent with the
observation that melt generation occurred in the spinel-garnet stability
field (i.e., within the extent of the lithosphere, Li and Chen, 2014; Yuan
et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016a). Given that widespread Neoarchean
magmatism was produced by a mantle plume (Zhao et al., 2001; Yang
et al., 2008) or oceanic plate subduction (Wang et al., 2015, 2017d),
either low-degree melts from the asthenosphere or subduction-derived/
supercritical fluids enriched in incompatible elements (e.g., LREEs)
(McKenzie, 1989; Kepezhinskas et al., 1997; Kessel et al., 2005; Chu
et al., 2009) modified the SCLM and markedly elevated the LREE/HREE
ratios. However, the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks exhibit an E-MORB-like
REE pattern with relatively low LREE/HREE ratios (Fig. 8B). Thus,
these rocks were more likely derived from depleted asthenospheric
Fig. 12. (A) Lu/Hf versus Sm/Nd and (B) Zr versus Zr/Y diagrams showing that
mantle, as Xu et al. (2018b) suggested.
the geochemical features of the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks in the JLJB differ from
As mentioned above, the most controversial topic is the tectonic
those of modern rifts and the breakup of supercontinents but are similar to
setting (e.g., volcanic arc) in which the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks formed. those of rocks from back-arc settings. WPB—within-plate basalt; MORB—mid-
Although these mafic rocks display some arc-like features (Fig. 8G) and oceanic ridge basalt; IAB—island arc basalt. Data sources: PM (primitive
probably have undergone various degrees of modification from sub- mantle), OIB (oceanic island basalt), E-MORB (enriched mid-oceanic ridge
duction-related fluids and/or melts (Yuan et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2018a; basalt) and N-MORB (normal mid-oceanic ridge basalt) (Sun and McDonough,
Xu et al., 2018b), several lines of evidence argue against their formation 1989); SCLM (subcontinental lithospheric mantle) (McDonough, 1990); LC
by typical arc magmatism. (1) Most of these mafic rocks are tholeiitic (lower crust) and UC (upper crust) (Rudnick and Gao, 2014); mafic rocks from
(Yuan et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016a; Xu et al., 2018b, 2018c), modern rifts (http://georoc.mpch-mainz.gwdg.de/georoc/); mafic rocks from
whereas typical arc basalts are dominantly calc-alkaline. (2) The in- the breakup of supercontinents (Li et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2012a); mafic rocks
compatible element (e.g., Nb and Zr) abundances in these rocks are from the Sumisu and Torishima back-arc rifts (Fryer et al., 1990).

184
W. Xu and F. Liu
intracontinental setting, we suggests that a more reasonable hypothesis
is that the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks with MORB-like trace element pat-
terns and arc-like features formed in a back-arc basin setting (Fig. 12B;
e.g., Fryer et al., 1990; Floyd et al., 1991; Taylor and Martinez, 2003).
With trench retreat resulting from slab rollback, the overriding plate
continued to extend and thin. As mentioned above, the magmatism that
occurred from ~2160–2110 Ma consisted mainly of mafic rocks with
minor granites (Fig. 5), suggesting that the overriding continental li-
thosphere (including crust and mantle) was probably too thin for high
granitic melt productivity. Finally, the asthenospheric mantle upwelled
further and melted by decompression in the spinel-garnet stability field
to produce the ~2140 Ma mafic rocks (Fig. 15B).
4.3.3. Subduction polarity and continental arc
As mentioned above, the ~2190–2110 Ma magmatism in the JLJB is
related to oceanic plate subduction and back-arc extension. However,
the polarity of the subducting Paleoproterozoic oceanic plate has been a
continual topic of debate, with diverse proposals including double-
sided subduction (Yuan et al., 2015), southward subduction (Faure
et al., 2004; Li and Chen, 2014; Lee et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Oh
et al., 2018) and northward subduction (Peng et al., 2014; Cho et al.,
2017; Wang et al., 2017a; Li et al., 2017a; Xu et al., 2018c; Zhang et al.,
2018).
Yuan et al. (2015) emphasized that both the ~2.20–1.80 Ga mag-
matism and metamorphism, which are recorded on the southern margin
of the Longgang Block and the northern margin of the Nangrim Block,
can support a double subduction system between these two blocks, but
no evidence of early oceanic crust (> 2.2 Ga) and associated
~2.2–2.1 Ga magmatism in the northern margin of the Nangrim Block
has been found to date. The southward subduction model is mainly
supported by several lines of evidence: (1) mafic rocks related to sub-
duction are recorded in the marble series representing the Southern
Block (Faure et al., 2004); (2) the ~2.2–2.0 Ga arc-derived mafic rocks
of the Liaohe Group are distributed in the margin of the Nangrim Block
(Li and Chen, 2014); (3) tholeiitic mafic rocks related to forearc ex-
tension are distributed only to the north of the calc-alkaline andesitic
volcanic rocks representing the continental arc (Chen et al., 2016); and
(4) ~1900–1800 Ma postcollisional granitoids are widespread in the
Nangrim and northern Gyeonggi massifs (Oh et al., 2018). These ar-
guments are clearly contradicted by recent geological investigations.
(1) The marble series belongs to the Liaohe Group in the JLJB (e.g.,
Wang et al., 2017a) rather than to the Southern Block (i.e., Nangrim
Block). (2) There is no evidence to prove the unique deposition of the
Liaohe Group on the margin of the Nangrim Block, and it probably
formed in a back-arc setting (Xu et al., 2018c). (3) Tholeiitic mafic
rocks related to back-arc extension (Meng et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2018b,
2018c) are widely distributed in the Liaodong Peninsula (Fig. 2; Sun
et al., 1993; Wang et al., 2017g; Xu et al., 2018c). (4) The postcolli-
sional granitoids are related to cratonization of the NCC (Yang et al.,
2007a; Liu et al., 2017a) rather than to oceanic plate subduction. All of
the above studies imply that the present geological evidence does not
support the southward or double-sided subduction models for the JLJB.
Therefore, northward subduction resulting in back-arc extension in the
JLJB seems to be a more robust model.
Several previous studies have suggested the northward subduction
of an oceanic plate (Peng et al., 2014; Cho et al., 2017; Wang et al.,
2017a; Li et al., 2017a; Tian et al., 2017b; Xu et al., 2018c; Zhang et al.,
2018). Peng et al. (2014) showed that northwest-directed subduction
resulted in the formation of the Korean arc and subsequent regional
(ultra-) high-temperature/high-pressure ((U)HT/HP) granulite-facies
metamorphism. Undoubtedly, the formation of HP pelitic granulite
requires tectonic processes (e.g., subduction and continent-continent
collision) to transport the pelitic rocks to middle-lower crustal depths
(e.g., Zhao et al., 2012; Tam et al., 2012a; Xu et al., 2018b), but the HP
granulite-facies metamorphism should not be used to infer the sub-
duction polarity. A subduction-related environment seems able to
185
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
explain the age distribution of detrital zircons in the sedimentary rocks
in the JLJB well, but their age distribution also does not constrain the
subduction polarity (Wang et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2018). An ar-
gument proposed by Xu et al. (2018c) that the mafic rocks in the
southern segment of the JLJB experienced enhanced metasomatism by
subduction-related fluids and/or melts probably supports the north-
ward subduction model (Xu et al., 2018c), although their higher U/Th
ratios possibly also reflect the behavior of fluid and/or melts during
higher-grade metamorphism.
Recently, Kusky et al. (2016) proposed that the southward sub-
duction of oceanic plate to the north of the IMNHO formed an Andean-
style convergent margin in the north margin of the Sino-Korean Craton
during 2.3–1.9 Ga, and this subduction system resulted in the formation
of Jiao-Liao-Ji retro-arc basin (Fig. 4D). Moreover, this model ade-
quately explains the formation of ~2190–2160 Ma magmatic suits re-
lated to continental arc (Section 4.3.1; Kusky et al., 2016). As men-
tioned in Sections 4.1, 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, the early stage of felsic
magmatism (~2190–2160 Ma) derived from partial melting of Archean
basement rocks almost completely ceased during ~2160–2110 Ma
(Fig. 5A, B, C, and H), and the formation of ~2160–2110 Ma mafic
rocks related to back-arc extension (Fig. 15B) required trench retreat
resulting from slab rollback. With slab rollback, the arc magma should
move north simultaneously, because the arc-trench distance decreases
strongly with slab dip (Perrin et al., 2018). Therefore, a considerable
amount of Paleoproterozoic arc magma related to southward subduc-
tion should be present in the Longgang Block (Fig. 1C). Notably, the
Longgang Block is dominated by Eo- to Neoarchean basement rocks
(e.g., Yang et al., 2008; Wan et al., 2015a, 2015b; Dong et al., 2017;
Wang et al., 2015, 2017d, and references therein), and the associated
arc magma has not yet been found. From this perspective, the south-
ward subduction of the oceanic plate to the north of the IMNHO may
have resulted in the formation of the Ordos and Khondalite belt retro-
arc basin and Hutuo-Wanzi retro-arc basin (Kusky et al., 2016), but the
opening of Jiao-Liao-Ji back-arc basin is more likely related to another
subduction system (see below).
Another problem that is closely related to subduction polarity and
remains to be solved is the location of the continental arc. Zhao et al.
(2006) first reported late Archean rocks in the Imjingang Belt of North
Korea (ca. 2636–2538 Ma). Subsequently, Zhang et al. (2016) and Zhao
et al. (2016a) acquired coeval late Archean samples from the Nangrim
Block (ca. 2567–2514 Ma). Previous studies on detrital zircons from
sands in several rivers running through the Nangrim Block show the
main age peak at approximately 1.8 Ga corresponding to postcollisional
extension (Section 4.3.6), and these ~1.8 Ga detrital zircons have Ar-
chean Hf model ages, suggesting derivation from recycled Archean
material (Wu et al., 2007a, 2007c, 2016). Recently, Wang et al. (2017e,
2017f) identified two major episodes of crustal growth at ~2.7 Ga and
~2.5 Ga in the Liaonan Block. All of the above studies suggest that the
Nangrim-Liaonan Block (+Gyeonggi massif?) has an Archean crustal
evolution similar to that of the Longgang Block and that these blocks
belong to a single Archean basement (Zhao et al., 2006, 2016a; Wu
et al., 2007a, 2007c, 2016; Wang et al., 2017f). Therefore, Paleopro-
terozoic oceanic plate subduction should have resulted in back-arc ex-
tension, as represented by ~2140 Ma mafic rocks (Section 4.3.2), be-
tween the Nangrim-Liaonan Block (+Gyeonggi massif?) and the
Longgang Block (Fig. 15B). Recent investigations of paleomagnetics and
large igneous provinces suggested that the eastern (-northern) margin
of the Sino-Korean Craton has a close connection with the West Aus-
tralian Craton (WAC) and/or North Australian Craton (NAC) during the
Paleoproterozoic-Mesoproterozoic period (ca. 1.78–1.40 Ga) to form a
part of the Columbia supercontinent (Zhang et al., 2012b, 2017; Xu
et al., 2014). Considering that the Nangrim Block rather than the
Longgang Block has undergone extensive late Paleoproterozoic colli-
sional orogeny and postcollisional extension (Section 4.3.8; c.f., Zhao
et al., 2006, 2016b; Wu et al., 2007a, 2007c, 2016; Wan et al., 2015a;
Wang et al., 2015, 2017d; Li et al., 2016), the speculation that the
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Nangrim Block (+Gyeonggi massif?) represents the disappeared arc
terrane is reasonable because these rocks underwent strong tectonic
compression between the Longgang Block and the WAC and/or NAC
during ~2000–1900 Ma (Section 4.3.6; Fig. 15D). In this scenario, the
tectonic model of northward (or northwestward) subduction of the
oceanic plate between the WAC and/or NAC and the Nangrim-Liaonan
Block (an arc terrane) is reasonable (Fig. 15A, B).
4.3.4. ~2110–2080 Ma granites and mafic rocks and initiation of the
closure of the back-arc basin
Although the magmatism in this period has been identified based on
zircon U–Pb ages, it is generally incorporated into the early stage of
magmatism (i.e., ~2180 Ma; Section 4.1.3; Yang et al., 2009; Liu et al.,
2011a; Cheng et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017c). Obviously, the strong
and younger age peak at approximately 2100 Ma (Fig. 5H, K) should be
associated with another tectonothermal event.
Yang et al. (2009) suggested that these ~2100 Ma granites with
various isotopic compositions were derived from partial melting of ju-
venile lower crust with minor contribution of ancient crustal material,
whereas Wang et al. (2017c) supported a contrary viewpoint that their
source was the Archean felsic crust (i.e., ~2.5 Ga TTG gneisses; see also
Cheng et al., 2017) and that minor coeval mafic crustal materials were
involved in their formation. Notably, these ~2100 Ma granites have the
same geochemical and isotopic compositions as the ~2180 Ma gneissic
granites (Figs. 7, 8C, H and 10). Therefore, these rocks are also highly
fractionated, aluminous A2-type granites (Fig. 11) derived from partial
melting of Archean crustal material with minor contributions of juve-
nile mafic rocks at high temperature and low pressure, as discussed in

Table 3
Summary of the depositional ages of meta-sedimentary rocks in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt.
Rock type Group Formation Depositonal age Method References

Laoling and Ji'an groups

Amphibolite; Grt-bearing gneiss Ji'an 2.10–1.98 Ga VI Lu et al. (2006)
Meta-sandstone Laoling 2.5–2.2 Ga & 2.0–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Lu et al. (2006)
Grt-bearing gneiss/schist Ji'an and Laoling 2.10–1.95 Ga YDZ and MA Liu et al. (2015a)
Gneiss, mica schist, phyllite, meta-sandstone, amphibolite Laoling 2.04–1.90 Ga YDZ and MA Meng et al. (2017a)
Meta-sandstone, meta-greywacke, meta-claystone, shale Ji'an 2.03–1.91 Ga YDZ and MA Meng et al. (2017b)
Amphibolite; Felsic gneiss; Bt-Pl gneiss Ji'an 2.18 Ga VI Meng et al. (2017c)
Leptynite, paragneiss Ji'an Mayihe 2126–1940 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Paragneiss Ji'an Huangchagou 2100–1944 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Paragneiss, mica schist Ji'an Dadongcha 1950–1900 Ma YDZ & MA? Zhang et al. (2018)
Meta-sandstone Laoling Dataishan 2178–1899 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Marble Laoling Zhenzhumen 2083–1910 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Mica schist, meta-sandstone Laoling Huashan 1990–1899 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Mica schist, quartzite Laoling Linjiang 1957–1899 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)
Phyllite Laoling Dalizi 1940–1899 Ma YDZ and MA Zhang et al. (2018)

N. Liaohe and S. Liaohe groups

Granitic rocks N. and S. Liaohe 2.16–1.85 Ga DP and MI Lu et al. (2004a)
Mica schist, gneiss N. and S. Liaohe 2.05–1.93 Ga YDZ and MA Luo et al. (2004)
Bt gneiss N. Liaohe Li'eryu > 2.18 Ga VI Wan et al. (2006)
Quartzite N. Liaohe Gaixian < 2.02 Ga YDZ Wan et al. (2006)
Grantites N. and S. Liaohe < 2.14 Ga DP Li and Zhao (2007)
Mica schist, gneiss N. and S. Liaohe 2.1–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Luo et al. (2008)
Grt-bearing gneiss/schist N. and S. Liaohe 2.05–1.95 Ga YDZ and MA Liu et al. (2015a)
Tur-bearing leptynite S. Liaohe 2.2 Ga VI Li et al. (2015a)
Sandstone, mica schist, phyllite S. Liaohe 2.0–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Li et al. (2015b)
Grt amphibolite S. Liaohe Li'eryu > 2.15 Ga MI Liu et al. (2017d)
Mica schist, quartzite, meta-sandstone, slate, gneiss, amphibolite N. Liaohe 2.04–1.90 Ga YDZ and MA Meng et al. (2017a)
Gneiss, amphibolite, leptynite S. Liaohe 2.19 Ga VI Meng et al. (2017d)
Granite S. Liaohe Dashiqiao > 2.16 Ga MI Tian et al. (2017b)
Paragneiss S. Liaohe Li'eryu < 2.05 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2017a)
Paragneiss, quartzite S. Liaohe Gaojiayu < 2.07 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2017a)
Paragneiss, marble S. Liaohe Dashiqiao < 2.04 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2017a)
Mica schist S. Liaohe Gaixian < 1.92 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2017a)
Leptynite, gneiss S. Liaohe 2.14–1.95 Ga YDZ and MA Wang et al. (2017i)
Gneiss, mica schist, Qtz schist S. Liaohe 2.0–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Liu et al. (2018b)
Meta-sandstone S. Liaohe Gaixian < 2.15 Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2018b)
Meta-sandstone S. Liaohe Gaixian < 1.86Ga YDZ Wang et al. (2018b)
Meta-mafic rocks N. Liaohe > 2.13 Ga MI Xu et al. (2018b)
Felsic tuffs N. Liaohe Li'eryu 2.17 Ga VI Xu et al. (2019a)

Fenzishan and Jingshan groups

Qtz schist Fenzishan 2.2–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Wan et al. (2006)
Gneiss Jingshan 2.2–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Wan et al. (2006)
Qtz schist Fenzishan 2.1–1.9 Ga YDZ and MA Xie et al. (2014a)
Gneiss Fenzishan and Jingshan < 2.1 Ga YDZ Liu et al. (2015a)

Wuhe group
Granite, TTG gneisses Wuhe Neoarchean ? Wang et al. (2013)
Marble Wuhe Neoarchean YDZ? Liu et al. (2017f)
Marble, quartzite, Qtz schist Wuhe 2.16–2.10 Ga YDZ and MI Liu et al. (2018a)

Abbreviation: Grt—Garnet; Bt—Biotite; Pl—Plagioclase; Qtz—Quartz; Tur—Tourmaline; TTG—tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite; DP—Depositional provenance

(crystallization age of magmatic rocks as the provenance of sedimentary rocks; older than the depositional age of sedimentary rocks); YDZ—Youngest detrital zircon
age [e.g., the youngest single grain detrital zircon age and the youngest graphical detrital zircon age (Dickinson and Gehrels, 2009); older than the depositional age of
sedimentary rocks]; VI—Volcanic intercalation (approximate the depositional age of sedimentary rocks); MI—Magmatic intrusion (crystallization age of magmatic
intrusions intruding into the sedimentary rocks; younger than the depositional age of sedimentary rocks); MA—Metamorphic age of the sedimentary rocks (younger
than the depositional age of sedimentary rocks).

186
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Section 4.3.1. Combining this information with the small range of dis-
tribution compared to that of the ~2180 Ma gneissic granites, we
propose an event comprising relatively small-scale lithospheric exten-
sion and mantle upwelling during ~2110–2080 Ma. We note that
coeval mafic rocks (~2100 Ma, Fig. 5I, L) are also distributed in the
Jiaobei and Anhui areas where the ~2100 Ma granites are found. Liu
et al. (2018a) divided these mafic rocks into two groups based on their
geochemical nature: (1) Group 1 samples show geochemical features
similar to those of forearc tholeiitic basalts in the Izu-Bonin-Mariana
system (Reagan et al., 2010) and were derived from partial melting of
the subarc mantle wedge metasomatized by melts originating from
subducted ancient sediments; (2) Group 2 samples have transitional to
calc-alkaline affinities and were generated by partial melting of subarc
depleted mantle metasomatized by subduction-derived melts (Liu et al.,
2018a). The petrogenesis of the ~2100 Ma granites and coeval mafic
rocks in the southern part of the JLJB thus suggests that they probably

Fig. 13. Relative probability diagrams for detrital zircon age data obtained from Paleoproterozoic meta-sedimentary rocks related to the opening and closure of the
back-arc basin. Note: Only the 207Pb/206Pb ages with concordance = 90–105% are chosen for plots of binned frequency diagrams. Data presented in G–I are modified
from Liu et al. (2015a). Data sources: (A) Laoling Group (Lu et al., 2006; Meng et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2018); (B) Ji’an Group (Lu et al., 2006; Meng et al., 2017b;
Zhang et al., 2018); (C) North Liaohe Group (Luo et al., 2004, 2008); (D) South Liaohe Group (Luo et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2017a, 2017i); (E) Fenzishan Group (Wan
et al., 2006; Xie et al., 2014a); and (F) Jingshan Group (Wan et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2011b).

187
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

formed in a forearc extensional environment. In this scenario, the
subarc mantle that was metasomatized by subduction-derived melts
(from sediments and/or oceanic crust) upwelled and heated the con-
tinental crust to produce the ~2100 Ma A-type granites during the
forearc extension resulting from slab rollback (Fig. 15C).
Note that the early stage of mafic magmatism related to back-arc
extension (i.e., ~2160–2110 Ma mafic rocks) in the JLJB weakened and
even ceased during ~2110–2080 Ma (Fig. 5C). This process, resulting
from the termination of subduction and slab rollback, suggests that
positively buoyant terranes (i.e., WAC and/or NAC as mentioned
above) have collided with the active subduction zone in front of the arc
terrane (i.e., Nangrim-Liaonan Block) in this period (Fig. 15C, e.g.,
Gerya, 2011). After the collision, the subduction polarity reversed, from
northwestward to southeastward, forming a new subduction zone in the
northwestern part of the arc terrane (Fig. 15C). Therefore, this stage of
subduction-related magmatism resulting in ~2100 Ma granites and
mafic rocks in the southern part of the back-arc basin should represent
the initiation of southeastward subduction and the beginning of the
closure of the back-arc basin (Fig. 15C). In addition, as mentioned in
Section 2.1.3, the JLJB is conventionally divided into the southern zone
with high-grade metamorphism (i.e., high amphibolite to granulite fa-
cies) and the northern zone with low-grade metamorphism (i.e.,
greenschist to amphibolite facies), similarly suggesting the possible
southward subduction of an oceanic plate in the back-arc basin
(Fig. 15C).
4.3.5. Revisiting the depositional age and environment of Paleoproterozoic
meta-sedimentary rocks
As mentioned above, voluminous meta-sedimentary rocks exist in
the JLJB (Section 2.1.3; e.g., Li et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2015a, and re-
ferences therein). Although these meta-sedimentary rocks have been
studied for decades, their depositional age and environment remains
controversial (e.g., Lu et al., 2006; Li and Zhao, 2007; Xie et al., 2014a;
Liu et al., 2015a, 2017d; Wang et al., 2017a; Tian et al., 2017b; Xu
et al., 2018b).
Early studies used K–Ar, Rb–Sr, and Sm–Nd whole-rock isochron
and conventional single-grain zircon evaporation method suggested
that these meta-sedimentary rocks were deposited at Paleoproterozoic
(e.g., 2.3–1.9 Ga for the Liaohe Group in Liaodong Peninsula, Zhang
and Yang, 1988; Bai, 1993; 2.49–2.38 Ga for the Jingshan and Fen-
zishan groups in Jiaobei area, Wang, 1995) or Neoarchean (e.g., Wuhe
Group in Anhui area, ABGMR, 1987). However, these dating methods
are sensitive to late tectonothermal events, and thus do not provide
reliable ages. Recent studies mainly used the three methods listed
below for constraining the depositional age of these meta-sedimentary
rocks in the JLJB. (1) YDZ and MA method: The minimum peak age or
single grain age of detrital igneous zircons and the maximum peak age
of metamorphic zircons represent the maximum and minimum de-
positional ages, respectively. (2) VI method: The crystallization age of
volcanic intercalation approximates the depositional age of meta-sedi-
mentary rocks. (3) MI method: The crystallization age of magmatic
intrusion intruding into the meta-sedimentary rocks is older than the
depositional age of meta-sedimentary rocks.
This study collects all estimated depositional ages of these meta-
sedimentary rocks, including the Laoling, Ji’an, North Liaohe, South
Liaohe, Fenzishan, Jingshan and Wuhe groups (Table 3). Because the
youngest single grain age is probably spurious and not reproducible
(Dickinson and Gehrels, 2009), the maximum depositional age esti-
mated using this method is unreliable (e.g., Wang et al., 2017a). In
summary, the YDZ and MA method suggests that most of these meta-
sedimentary rocks were deposited after 2.1 Ga, and the range of esti-
mated ages depends on different samples (Table 3). Undoubtedly, most
analyses yield two major age peaks of ca. 2.55–2.40 and ca. 2.2–2.0 Ga
(Fig. 13), suggesting that the detrital material within the JLJB was

Fig. 14. (A) Y versus Sr/Y (Martin, 1999), (B) YbN versus (La/Yb)N (Drummond and Defant, 1990), and (C) Ba–Rb–Sr (after Tarney and Jones, 1994) diagrams for the
Paleoproterozoic (~2000 and ~1895 Ma) adakitic granites showing the trace element characteristics similar to those of adakites and high Ba–Sr granitoids; (D) SiO2
versus MgO (after Wang et al., 2006) diagram for these adakitic granites, suggesting the possible origin by partial melting of thickened lower crust; (E) Zr/Sm–Nb/Ta
(Foley et al., 2002) diagram for adakitic granites in the JLJB. Experimental melts of partial melting of eclogite and amphibolite are from Foley et al. (2002).

188
W. Xu and F. Liu
mainly derived from basement rocks on both sides of the JLJB (e.g.,
Longgang Block, Liu et al., 2015a) and Paleoproterozoic magmatism
related to subduction (Fig. 5; e.g., Liaoji granitoids, Li and Zhao, 2007;
Luo et al., 2008). Therefore, the early stage of Paleoproterozoic mag-
matism formed before the sedimentation of most sedimentary rocks.
Although most of the “so-called” volcanic rocks (e.g., amphibolite,
leptynite and felsic gneiss, Lu et al., 2006; Wan et al., 2006; Li et al.,
2015a; Meng et al., 2017c, 2017d) have not been proven, the crystal-
lization age of identifiable volcanic intercalations (i.e., felsic tuffs in the
North Liaohe Group) indicates that at least some of the meta-sedi-
mentary rocks were deposited at ca. 2.17 Ga (Table 3; Section 4.1.1; Xu
et al., 2019a). On the other hand, although most gneissic granites are in
tectonic contact with the meta-sedimentary rocks (e.g., Li and Zhao,
2007, and references therein), recent investigations revealed the in-
trusive contacts of some granitic and mafic rocks with the meta-sedi-
mentary rocks, suggesting that protoliths of some meta-sedimentary
rocks were deposited before 2.1Ga (Wang et al., 2013; Liu et al.,
2018a), 2.13 Ga (Xu et al., 2018b), 2.15 Ga (Liu et al., 2017d), or even
prior to 2.16 Ga (Tian et al., 2017b). In conclusion, based on these
studies, most sedimentary sequences in the JLJB were deposited at ca.
2.17–1.95 Ga (Table 3).
In terms of the depositional environment, Luo et al. (2008) noticed
that the North and South Liaohe groups have the same age distributions
of detrital zircons (Fig. 13) and suggested that the basement rocks
underneath the two groups belong the same Archean continental block,
which underwent Paleoproterozoic rifting, accompanied by the em-
placement of 2.2–2.1 Ga magmatic rocks and the deposition of the
North and South Liaohe groups. However, recent studies on detrital
zircons (Wang et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018a; Xu
et al., 2019b) and geochemistry (Li et al., 2015b; Meng et al., 2017a,
2017b; Liu et al., 2018b) suggested that the protoliths of these meta-
sedimentary rocks were deposited in an active continental margin,
consistent with our model mentioned above. In our model, because
most meta-sedimentary rocks were deposited at ca. 2.17–1.95 Ga, they
should have formed during the processes of opening and closure of
back-arc basin (Fig. 15A–C), and this model also explains why the
northern and southern zones (Section 2.1.3) have similar geochemical
features and identical age populations of detrital zircons (Xu et al.,
2018c).
Notably, the detrital igneous zircons of some meta-sedimentary
rocks yield an age range of ca. 2000–1900 Ma (Table 3; e.g., Gaixian
Formation, Wang et al., 2018b; Huashan, Linjiang, Dalizi and Da-
dongcha formations, Zhang et al., 2018), consistent with the timing of
collisional orogeny. According to Zhang et al. (2018), the protoliths of
these meta-sedimentary rocks were probably deposited in a foreland
basin. However, detailed studies must be designed in the future to test
the validity of this hypothesis.
4.3.6. ~2000–1895 Ma adakitic granites and collisional orogeny
As mentioned in Section 3.2, one type of granite shows geochemical
features that are distinctly different from those of other granites in the
JLJB (e.g., low REE concentrations, Fig. 8D, I) and has scattered ages of
~2000 Ma (Wang et al., 2017h) and ~1895 Ma (Wang et al., 2017b;
Ren et al., 2017) (Fig. 5D). These granites are characterized by high
SiO2 (72.54–75.14 wt.%), Al2O3 (14.90–16.17 wt.%), Ba (505–2043
ppm) and Sr (287–1022 ppm) concentrations, low Y (1.24–4.50 ppm)
and HREE (e.g., Yb = 0.12–0.48 ppm) concentrations, high Sr/Y
(117–497) ratios, and a lack of pronounced negative Eu anomalies
(Table S2), similar to the features of typical adakites (Fig. 14A, B;
Defant and Drummond, 1990) and high Ba–Sr granitoids (Fig. 14C;
Tarney and Jones, 1994). Considering that high Ba–Sr granitoids are
usually enriched in potassium (e.g., Na2O/K2O ≤ 1.0) and have highly
fractionated REE patterns (e.g., La/Yb ≥ 30–40) (c.f., Fowler et al.,
2001; Qian et al., 2003; Fowler et al., 2008; Peng et al., 2013), the
classification of these JLJB granites (mostly Na2O/K2O = 1.3–2.8, La/
Yb = 14–34) as adakitic granites is reasonable (Wang et al., 2017b;
189
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
Wang et al., 2017h; Ren et al., 2017).
Adakitic rocks can be generated from partial melting of subducted
oceanic crust (Defant and Drummond, 1990); mixing of subducted slab-
derived melt and mantle wedge-derived melt (Danyushevsky et al.,
2008); fractional crystallization of water-rich, mantle-derived arc
magma (Roderíguez et al., 2007); partial melting of delaminated lower
crust (Wang et al., 2006); and partial melting of newly underplated or
thickened crust (Atherton and Petford, 1993; Muir et al., 1995). Pre-
vious studies suggest that the Paleoproterozoic adakitic granites in the
JLJB were formed in (1) a subduction-related arc setting (Wang et al.,
2017b, 2017h) and were produced by partial melting of subducted
oceanic crust with significant contribution from sediments (Wang et al.,
2017b), or (2) a syn-collisional setting (Qin, 2013; Ren et al., 2017) and
were generated by partial melting of thickened lower crust (Ren et al.,
2017).
Generally, adakitic rocks produced from partial melting of a sub-
ducted slab and delaminated lower crust should have relatively low
SiO2 contents and high MgO contents because of extensive melt-rock
interactions when passing through the mantle (e.g., Xiao et al., 2004;
Martin et al., 2005; Moyen, 2009). In contrast, in a plot of SiO2 versus
MgO, the JLJB adakitic granites lie in the field of thickened crust-de-
rived adakitic rocks and exhibit higher SiO2 contents and lower MgO
contents than those produced by partial melting of a subducted slab and
delaminated lower crust (Fig. 14D). Note that these adakitic granites
have low HREE and Y contents, indicating that they formed in the
garnet stability field above ca. 1.0 GPa, and their relatively low Nb/Ta
ratios suggest a rutile-free source below ca. 1.5 GPa (Fig. 14E, Xiong
et al., 2005). The pressure condition of partial melting for these adakitic
granites is thus constrained to a range from 1.0 to 1.5 GPa (30–50 km),
consistent with the pressure condition of HP granulite-facies peak me-
tamorphism in the JLJB (ca. 1.0–1.66 GPa; e.g., Tam et al., 2012b; Liu
et al., 2013a; Cai et al., 2017; Zou et al., 2017), implying a crustal
source (Fig. 14E). All these features suggest that the ~2000–1995 Ma
adakitic granites in the JLJB should have been derived from partial
melting of thickened lower crust.
The widespread Paleoproterozoic metamorphic rocks that exhibit
metamorphic ages of ca. 1960–1800 Ma in the Nangrim Block (e.g.,
Zhao et al., 2016a), the JLJB (Liaoji area, Cai et al., 2017; Liu et al.,
2017d; Jiaobei area, Zhou et al., 2008a; Tam et al., 2011, 2012a,
2012b; Liu et al., 2013a; Zou et al., 2017, 2018; Anhui area, Liu et al.,
2009), and the central part of the Sino-Korean Craton (Tang and
Santosh, 2018, and references therein) are generally accepted to have
witnessed the Paleoproterozoic cratonization of the NCC (e.g., Zhao
et al., 2001, 2002, 2005). Previous studies considered that all these
ages, which are mainly distributed from ca. ~1900–1800 Ma, represent
the peak metamorphism ages (e.g., high-pressure granulite-facies me-
tamorphism, Zhou et al., 2008a; Liu et al., 2009, 2013a). However,
recent studies on high-grade metamorphic rocks suggest that the timing
of the peak metamorphism ranges from 1.96–1.90 Ga, whereas the
~1.90–1.80 Ga ages represent the timing of exhumation and cooling of
the metamorphic rocks (e.g., Liu et al., 2017d, 2019; Zou et al., 2017,
2018). This conclusion is also supported by a case study of the Heng-
shan complex in the central part of the Sino-Korean Craton because
metamorphic zircons mainly grow during the uplift and cooling process
(Wei et al., 2014).
In summary, the nearly coeval adakitic granites (~2000–1895 Ma)
and prograde or peak metamorphism (~1960–1900 Ma) represent
collisional orogeny in this period (Fig. 15D).
4.3.7. Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks were involved in collisional
orogeny: evidence from Archean basement relic slices within the JLJB
The JLJB is widely accepted to represent a Paleoproterozoic orogen
between the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks (Fig. 1; e.g., Zhao
et al., 2005; Zhai and Santosh, 2011; Kusky et al., 2016). However,
some different perspectives about whether the Archean micro-blocks on
both sides of the JLJB were involved in the Paleoproterozoic orogeny
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Fig. 15. Conceptual diagram illustrating the tectonic evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt involving (A) ~2190–2160 Ma slab rollback during the early stage of
subduction, (B) ~2160–2110 Ma back-arc extension, (C) ~2110–2080 Ma initiation of closure of back-arc basin, (D) ~2000–1895 Ma collisional orogeny, and (E)
~1875–1850 Ma postcollisional extension. WNC—West Australian Craton; NAC—North Australian Craton

190
 Table 4
Summary of geochronological data from Archean basement rocks in the Jiaobei area.
No. Sample Lithology (or mineral assemblage) Crystallization age Archean metamorphic age Paleoproterozoic metamorphic age Analytical method References
W. Xu and F. Liu

1 SL127 Qtz-Kfs leucosome UIA 2514 ± 23 Ma SIMS Faure et al. (2003)

2 SL136 Gneissic mignatite UIA 2715 ± 39 Ma SIMS Faure et al. (2003)
3 C4 Amphibolite WMA 2530 ± 17 Ma WMA1852 ± 37 Ma SHRIMP Zhang et al. (2003)
4 02SD25 TTG gneiss WMA 2692 ± 14 Ma LIA 1720 ± 290 Ma LA-ICP-MS Tang et al. (2007)
5 02SD35 TTG gneiss WMA 2691 ± 12 Ma LIA 1767 ± 140 Ma LA-ICP-MS Tang et al. (2007)
6 03SD03 TTG gneiss WMA 2696 ± 10 Ma LA-ICP-MS Tang et al. (2007)
7 03SD06 Amphibolite WMA 2506 ± 18 Ma WMA 1769 ± 60 Ma LA-ICP-MS Tang et al. (2007)
8 S0130-2 TTG gneiss WMA 2906 ± 12 Ma 2501 Ma SHRIMP Jahn et al. (2008)
9 CF92-34 TTG gneiss WMA 2707 ± 4 Ma Jahn et al. (2008)
10 S0123-1 TTG gneiss WMA 2726 ± 12 Ma 2499 Ma Jahn et al. (2008)
11 S0129-1 TTG gneiss WMA 2721 ± 9 Ma WMA 2487 ± 11 Ma Jahn et al. (2008)
12 SD6 Amp-Pl gneiss WMA 1865 ± 3 Ma SHRIMP Zhou et al. (2008b)
13 SD8 Bt-Pl gneiss WMA 2535 ± 7 Ma SHRIMP Zhou et al. (2008b)
14 QX13-3 Tonalitic gneiss WMA 2548 ± 12 Ma WMA 2504 ± 16 Ma WMA 1863 ± 41 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a, 2011b)
15 QX44-1 Tonalitic gneiss WMA 2738 ± 23 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a. 2011b)
16 QX49-1 Tonalitic gneiss WMA 2909 ± 19 Ma WMA 2513 ± 32 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a, 2011b)
17 QX66-1 Tonalitic gneiss WMA 2564 ± 12 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a, 2011b)
18 QX27-2 Bt-Amp granitic gneiss WMA 2544 ± 15 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2011a, 2011b)
19 08JB06-4 HP mafic granulite WMA 2638 ± 22 Ma WMA 1956 ± 41 Ma SHRIMP Tam et al. (2011)
20 QX69-1 Bt-bearing granitic gneiss WMA 2522 ± 55 Ma WMA 2510 ± 54 Ma 1861~1857 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2013)
21 QX19-1b Bt-bearing monzogranitic gneiss WMA 2702 ± 51 Ma LA-ICP-MS Liu et al. (2013)
22 10SD19-2 Amphibolite WMA 2555 ± 11 Ma 2506~2459 Ma 1948 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2013)
23 10SD10-1 Bt-Pl gneiss WMA 2618 ± 24 Ma WMA 1893 ± 11 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2013)
24 10SD11-1 Tonalitic gneiss UIA 2887 ± 30 Ma UIA 2526 ± 14 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2013)
25 10SD26-1 Granodioritic gneiss UIA 2573 ± 12 Ma UIA 2493 ± 14 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2013)

191
26 08QX16 Anatectic TTG WMA 2912 ± 6 Ma WMA 2488 ± 9 Ma CAMECA Wang et al. (2014)
27 08QX26 Amphibolite WMA 2484 ± 7 Ma CAMECA Wang et al. (2014)
28 10SD10-2 Grt-bearing amphibolite WMA 2546 ± 12 Ma WMA 2458 ± 9 Ma WMA 1916 ± 27 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
& 1823~1808 Ma
29 10SD19-7 Grt-bearing amphibolite WMA 2559 ± 10 Ma WMA 2522 ± 11 Ma 1926~1836 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
30 10SD27-9 Grt-bearing amphibolite WMA 2473 ± 20 Ma WMA 1838 ± 25 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
31 10SD13-2 Amphibolite WMA 2588 ± 16 Ma WMA 2469 ± 30 Ma WMA 1917 ± 26 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
& 1854 ± 12 Ma
32 10SD12-3 Bt-Pl gneiss 2412 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
33 10SD20-1 Granodioritic gneiss WMA 2710 ± 14 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
34 10SD14-1 Granodioritic gneiss WMA 2865 ± 18 Ma WMA 2518 ± 9 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
35 10SD16-1 Trondhjemitic gneiss WMA 2526 ± 23 Ma WMA 2501 ± 16 Ma 1849 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
36 10SD18-1 Granodioritic gneiss WMA 2712 ± 12 Ma WMA 2503 ± 11 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
37 10SD21-1 Granodioritic gneiss WMA 2745 ± 12 Ma LA-ICP-MS Wu et al. (2014)
38 S1102 Gneissic tonalite WMA 2906 ± 22 Ma WMA 2471 ± 16 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
39 S1215 Gneissic tonalite WMA 2856 ± 13 Ma WMA 2489 ± 13 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
40 S0901 Gneissic high-Si trondhjemite WMA 2918 ± 8 Ma WMA 2495 ± 8 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
41 S1101 Gneissic high-Si trondhjemite WMA 2873 ± 12 Ma WMA 2473 ± 37 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
42 QX1262 Gneissic diorite 2880 Ma WMA 2461 ± 10 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
43 QX1267 Gneissic trondhjemite WMA 2933 ± 16 Ma WMA 2472 ± 15 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
44 S1211 Gneissic tonalite WMA 2902 ± 7 Ma WMA 2475 ± 8 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
45 S1212 Gneissic high-Si trondhjemite WMA 2902 ± 17 Ma 2480 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
46 S1209 Gneissic quartz diorite WMA 2915 ± 9 Ma 2466 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
47 S1208 Gneissic tonalite WMA 2914 ± 12 Ma WMA 2490 ± 5 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
48 S1210 Gneissic tonalite WMA 2900 ± 8 Ma WMA 2476 ± 6 Ma SHRIMP Xie et al. (2014b)
49 Z2965-102 Amphibolite WMA 2484 ± 23 Ma LIA 1834 ± 83 Ma LA-ICP-MS Shan et al. (2015)
50 Z2965-98 Bt-Pl gneiss WMA 2496 ± 7 Ma LIA 1887 ± 90 Ma LA-ICP-MS Shan et al. (2015)
51 Z2967-45 Amphibolite UIA 2457 ± 34 Ma LIA 1900 ± 240 Ma LA-ICP-MS Shan et al. (2015)
52 Z2967-56 Bt-Pl gneiss WMA 2503 ± 8 Ma LIA 1667 ± 230 Ma LA-ICP-MS Shan et al. (2015)
(continued on next page)
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
W. Xu and F. Liu Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198

Abbreviation: Qtz—Quartz; Kfs—K-feldspar; Pl—Plagioclase; Amp—Amphibole; Bt—Biotite; Ep—Epidote; Grt—Garnet; TTG—tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite; HP—high-pressure; UIA—Upper intercept age;
have been reported (Fig. 1A, B; c.f. Zhai and Santosh, 2011, 2013; Zhao
et al., 2005, 2012). In the tectonic subdivision of the Sino-Korean
Craton reported by Zhai and Santosh (2011, 2013), the Liaoji orogenic
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
belt (i.e., JLJB) predominantly consists of Paleoproterozoic material,
and Archean material only exists in the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
al.
References

blocks (Fig. 1B). In contrast, other researchers suggested that the JLJB
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
Jiang
contains some Archean basement relic slices that are mainly distributed
in the Jiaobei area (Fig. 1A; e.g., Zhao et al., 2005, 2012). Undoubtedly,
the direct solution is to investigate the possible lithological records
related to Paleoproterozoic orogeny within these Archean basement
Analytical method

rocks.
This study collects 62 U–Pb age samples from Archean basement
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA
CAMECA

rocks in the Jiaobei area (Fig. 3A). Their detailed information, in-
cluding sample numbers, lithology (or mineral assemblages), crystal-
lization and metamorphic ages, analytical methods and references, is
listed in Table 4. Most samples record Archean crystallization ages with
age peaks of ca. 2.90, ca. 2.70, and ca. 2.55–2.50 Ga, and late Archean-
Paleoproterozoic metamorphic age

early Paleoproterozoic (ca. 2510–2470 Ma) metamorphic ages, which

are similar to the Longgang-Liaonan Block (e.g., Yang et al., 2008;
Wang et al., 2017f; Wang et al., 2019; Wan et al., 2011b, 2015b, and
references therein). Although the Nangrim Block is mainly composed of
late Paleoproterozoic material (Section 2.1.2), it has been proven to be
a pre-existing Archean basement that was probably replaced by a late
Paleoproterozoic basement (e.g., Wu et al., 2007a, 2016; Zhu et al.,
2019). Zircon U–Pb age data of Archean basement rocks (e.g., Zhang
et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016a), and Hf isotope data of Paleoproterozoic
detrital zircons from river sands (Wu et al., 2007a, 2016) and Paleo-
proterozoic zircon xenocrysts from Triassic kimberlites (Zhu et al.,
Archean metamorphic age

2019) reveal that this pre-existing Archean basement is mainly com-

prised of ca. 2.9 and ca. 2.5 Ga rocks. Therefore, a reasonable hypoth-
esis is that the Archean basement rocks in the Jiaobei area are derived
from the Longgang and Liaonan-Nangrim blocks. It should be noted that
most of these Archean basement rocks also record Paleoproterozoic
2494 Ma

metamorphic ages (ca. 1.95–1.75 Ga) in addition to the Archean crys-

tallization and metamorphic ages (Table 4), and these Paleoproterozoic
metamorphic ages are highly consistent with the timing of regional
metamorphism related to collisional orogeny (ca. 1.96–1.80 Ga, Section
4.3.6, e.g., Liu et al., 2015a, 2015c, 2019, and references therein). In
10 Ma

10 Ma

12 Ma
9 Ma
7 Ma

6 Ma

7 Ma
4 Ma
7 Ma
4 Ma
Crystallization age

addition, some Archean basement rocks in the Jiaobei area record the
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±

late Paleoproterozoic partial melting event that is related to post-

2904
2726
2722
2729
2531
2534
2512
2508
2506
2508

orogenic extension (e.g., TG1, Liu et al., 2014b). Based on the findings
from these studies, the Archean micro-blocks (i.e., Longgang and
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA
WMA

Liaonan-Nangrim blocks) on both sides of the JLJB, as well as the Pa-

leoproterozoic sedimentary-volcanic successions and associated
granitic and mafic rocks in the JLJB, were also involved in the Paleo-
Bt-bearing tonalitic gneiss (Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt)

proterozoic orogenic process to form the JLJB (e.g., Wu et al., 2013,

2014).

4.3.8. ~1875–1850 Ma igneous rocks, granitic leucosomes and

Lithology (or mineral assemblage)

postorogenic extension
LIA—Lower intercept age; WMA—Weighted mean age.

Late Paleoproterozoic igneous rocks are widespread in the NCC, not

Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt+Amp

Pl+Qtz+Amp+Bt+Kfs
Pl+Qtz+Amp+Bt+Kfs
Pl+Qtz+Amp+Bt+Kfs
Pl+Qtz+Amp+Bt+Kfs

only in the JLJB but also in the central part of the Sino-Korean Craton.
Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt+Ep

Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt+Ep

Tang and Santosh (2018) reviewed this stage of magmatism and sug-
Qtz+Pl+Bt+Kfs

Pl+Qtz+Kfs+Bt

gested that these rocks formed in various postorogenic settings (Tang

and Santosh, 2018, and references therein). In the JLJB, the coeval
magmatism represented by undeformed porphyritic granite, inter-
mediate-alkaline plutons (e.g., syenite and diorite), leucogranite and
pegmatite, which have intrusion ages of 1875–1850 Ma (Table 1;
Fig. 5E, F, G and J), occurred in the Liaoji and Jiaobei areas. As men-
tioned above, these ~1865 Ma igneous rocks were mainly produced by
Table 4 (continued)

the partial melting of ancient crustal rocks (Fig. 10; e.g., Yang et al.,
08QX03

08QX04
JN1318
JN1322
JN1323
JN1325

JN1320

JN1315
JN1317
JN1324
Sample

2015b; Li et al., 2017c; Liu et al., 2017a), whereas a small amount of

mantle materials may have been involved in the formation of the in-
termediate-alkaline plutons (Yang et al., 2007a). As in the central part
of the Sino-Korean Craton, there is widespread agreement that these
No.

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

rocks in the JLJB correspond to a postorogenic environment (Yang

192
W. Xu and F. Liu
et al., 2007a, 2015b, 2017; Liu et al., 2017a).
Notably, coeval igneous rocks are also widespread in the Nangrim
Block (Wu et al., 2007a, 2007c, 2016; Peng et al., 2016a). Peng et al.
(2016a) suggested that they were mainly derived from partial melting
of continental crustal materials and formed in a continental arc setting
related to subduction, based on the information that (1)
~1900–1840 Ma is the same time as the metamorphic ages in the JLJB
and (2) coeval mantle-derived magma probably existed in the Nangrim
Block. However, recent detailed studies on high grade meta-pelitic
rocks in the JLJB constrain the peak metamorphism to ca.
1950–1900 Ma, with isothermal decompression at ca. 1900–1850 Ma
and subsequent near isobaric cooling during ca. 1850–1800 Ma (e.g.,
Zou et al., 2018, 2019). In addition, the mantle-derived magma should
be related to mantle upwelling during postorogenic extension (Yang
et al., 2007a, 2015b). Therefore, the widespread ~1900–1800 Ma ig-
neous rocks in the Nangrim Block also correspond to postorogenic ex-
tension.
As mentioned in Section 4.1.5, the ca. 1875–1850 Ma granitic leu-
cosomes related to the regional partial melting event are widely dis-
tributed in the Liaoji and Jiaobei areas (Table 2; Figs. 2 and 3A; Liu
et al., 2014b, 2017e). Liu et al. (2014b, 2017e) studied these granitic
leucosomes in detail, and proposed that a regional Paleoproterozoic
partial melting event occurred during the post-peak granulite facies
retrograde stage related to the exhumation of the JLJB based on several
lines of evidence as described below. (1) In the pelitic and mafic mig-
matite samples, the matrix minerals cordierite and plagioclase are
stable in their host migmatites, and felsic minerals (e.g., Qtz, Kfs and
Ab) have textures typical of crystallization from melts and occur as
inclusions in anatectic zircons, suggesting that the generation of partial
melting and crystallization of the melts occurred below decompression
reactions (i.e., Grt + Sil + Qtz = crd; Grt + Cpx + Qtz = Opx + Pl) in
the cordierite and plagioclase stability field. (2) The granitic leuco-
somes display crystallization ages of ca. 1875–1850 Ma (Fig. 6C, D),
similar to the timing of the post-peak isothermal decompression stage of
various granulite facies rocks (Liu et al., 2014b, 2017e). Therefore, the
widely distributed granitic leucosomes in the JLJB should be derived
from late Paleoproterozoic decompression melting.
In summary, the coeval (ca. 1875–1850 Ma) magmatism, retrograde
metamorphism and partial melting event suggest that the JLJB and
Nangrim Block both underwent postorogenic extension after ~1900 Ma
(Fig. 15E).
5. Conclusions
A detailed synthesis of the geochronology, geochemistry, and Lu–Hf
and Sm–Nd isotopes of the Paleoproterozoic igneous rocks, in combi-
nation with associated meta-sedimentary rocks, Archean basement re-
lict slices and granitic leucosomes within the JLJB, allows us to re-
construct the tectonic evolution of the JLJB and draw the following
conclusions.
(1) The ~2190–2160 Ma gneissic granites are aluminous A2-type
granites generated by the partial melting of Archean crustal mate-
rials, whereas the ~2180–2160 Ma felsic tuffs are calc-alkaline
andesite-rhyolites that were produced by mixing of crust-derived
felsic and mantle-derived mafic magmas. These rocks represent the
early stage of northwestward subduction of the oceanic plate be-
tween the Nangrim-Liaonan Block and the WAC and/or the NAC.
(2) In terms of trace element partitioning, the ~2160–2110 Ma tho-
leiitic mafic rocks show MORB-like patterns and some arc-like
characteristics instead of features related to intracontinental rifts or
typical volcanic arcs. These rocks were derived from decompression
melting of depleted asthenospheric mantle in the spinel-garnet
stability field during continuous back-arc extension.
(3) The ~2110–2080 Ma aluminous A2-type granites were also derived
from partial melting of ancient crustal materials, and their coeval
193
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
mafic counterparts are the products of partial melting of subarc
mantle metasomatized by subducted slab- and ancient sediment-
derived melts. They formed in a forearc extensional setting related
to the initiation of the closure of the back-arc basin.
(4) The protoliths of voluminous meta-sedimentary rocks within the
JLJB were mainly deposited during the opening and closure of the
back-arc basin from ca. 2170-1950 Ma.
(5) The ~2000–1895 Ma adakitic granites were derived from partial
melting of thickened lower crust. They, together with the coeval
(~1960–1900 Ma) regional prograde or peak metamorphism, re-
present the Paleoproterozoic orogeny that formed the JLJB. In ad-
dition to the Paleoproterozoic sedimentary-volcanic successions
and associated mafic and granitic intrusions, the Archean basement
rocks were also involved in the collisional orogeny.
(6) The widespread 1874–1850 Ma magmatism and coeval retrograde
metamorphism that was accompanied by the regional partial
melting event suggest that the Eastern Block underwent postcolli-
sional extension in the late Paleoproterozoic era.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.019.
Acknowledgements
We thank Chaohui Liu for assistance during the field work, Wen
Zhang for help with compilation of detrital zircons age data of meta-
sedimentary rocks. We thank many colleagues for carrying out much
more research than can be presented here. We are extremely grateful to
Editor Arturo Gomez-Tuena and two anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments and suggestions, which enhanced the present
manuscript. This study was financially supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 41430210, 41890833), and
Basic Scientific Foundation of CAGS (Grant YYWF201703).
References
Anhui Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources (LBGMR), 1987. Regional Geology of
Anhui Province. Geological Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 1–650.
Atherton, M.P., Petford, N., 1993. Generation of sodium-rich magmas from newly un-
derplated basaltic crust. Nature 362, 144–146.
Bai, J., 1993. The Precambrian Geology and Pb–Zn Mineralization in the Northern Margin
of North China Platform. Geological Publishing House, Beijing in Chinese with
English abstract.
Ballouard, C., Poujol, M., Boulvais, P., Branquet, Y., Tartèse, R., Vigneresse, J.L., 2016.
Nb–Ta fractionation in peraluminous granites: a marker of the magmatic-hydro-
thermal transition. Geology 44, 231–234.
Bau, M., 1996. Controls on the fractionation of isovalent trace elements in magmatic and
aqueous systems: evidence from Y/Ho, Zr/Hf, and lanthanide tetrad effect. Contrib.
Mineral. Petrol. 123 (3), 323–333.
Bi, J.H., Ge, W.C., Xing, D.H., Yang, H., Dong, Y., Tian, D.X., Chen, H.J., 2018.
Palaeoproterozoic meta-rhyolite and meta-dacite of the Liaohe Group, Jiao-Liao-Ji
Belt, North China Craton: petrogenesis and implications for tectonic setting.
Precambrian Res. 314, 306–324.
Blichert-Toft, J., Albarède, F., 1997. The Lu–Hf isotope geochemistry of chondrites and
the evolution of the mantle—crust system. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 148, 243–258.
Bonin, B., 2007. A-type granites and related rocks: Evolution of a concept, problems and
prospects. Lithos 97, 1–29.
Cai, J., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Meng, E., Wang, W., Yang, H., Ji, L., Liu, L.S., 2017.
Discovery of granulite-facies metamorphic rocks in the Ji’an area, northeastern
Jiao–Liao–Ji Belt, North China Craton: metamorphic P–T evolution and geological
implications. Precambrian Res. 303, 626–640.
Chen, B., Li, Z., Wang, J.L., Zhang, L., Yan, X.L., 2016. Liaodong Peninsula ~2.2 Ga
magmatic event and its geological significance. J. Jilin Univ. (Earth Sci. Ed.) 46 (2),
303–320 in Chinese with English abstract.
Chen, J.S., Xing, D.H., Liu, M., Li, B., Yang, H., Tian, D.X., Yang, F., Wang, Y., 2017.
Zircon U–Pb chronology and geological significance of felsic volcanic rocks in the
Liaohe Group from the Liaoyang area, Liaoning Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9),
2792–2810 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Cheng, S.B., Liu, Z.J., Wang, Q.F., Feng, B., Wei, X.L., Liu, B.Z., Qin, L.Y., Zhao, B.J., Shui,
P., Xu, L., Wang, J.P., 2017. SHRIMP zircon U–Pb dating and Hf isotope analyses of
the Muniushan Monzogranite, Guocheng, Jiaobei Terrane, China: implications for the
tectonic evolution of the Jiao–Liao–Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res.
301, 36–48.
Cho, M., Kim, T., Yang, S.Y., Yi, K., 2017. Paleoproterozoic to Triassic crustal evolution of
the Gyeonggi Massif, Korea: tectonic correlation with the North China craton. In:
W. Xu and F. Liu
Law, R.D., Thigpen, J.R., Merschat, A.J., Stowell, H.H. (Eds.), Linkages and
Feedbacks in Orogenic Systems: Geological Society of America Memoir. 213. pp.
165–197.
Chu, Z.Y., Wu, F.Y., Walker, R.J., Rudnick, R.L., Pitcher, L., Puchtel, I.S., Yang, Y.H.,
Wilde, S.A., 2009. Temporal evolution of the lithospheric mantle beneath the Eastern
North China Craton. J. Petrol. 50, 1857–1898.
Clemens, J.D., Holloway, J.R., White, A.J.R., 1986. Origin of an A-type granite: experi-
mental constraints. Am. Mineral. 71 (3-4), 317–324.
Collins, W.J., Belousova, E.A., Kemp, A.I.S., Murphy, J.B., 2011. Two contrasting
Phanerozoic orogenic systems revealed by hafnium isotope data. Nat. Geosci. 4,
333–337.
Danyushevsky, L.V., Falloon, T.J., Crawford, A.J., Tetroeva, S.A., Leslie, R.L., Verbeeten,
A., 2008. High-Mg adakites from Kadavu Island Group, Fiji, southwest Pacific: evi-
dence for the mantle origin of adakite parental melts. Geology 36, 499–502.
Defant, M.J., Drummond, M.S., 1990. Derivation of some modern arc magmas by melting
of young subducted lithosphere. Nature 347, 662–665.
Dickinson, W.R., Gehrels, G.E., 2009. Use of U–Pb ages of detrital zircons to infer max-
imum depositional ages of strata: a test against a Colorado Plateau Mesozoic data-
base. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 288, 115–125.
Dong, C.Y., Wang, S.J., Liu, D.Y., Wang, J.G., Xie, H.Q., Wang, W., Song, Z.Y., Wan, Y.S.,
2010. Late Palaeoproterozoic crustal evolution of the North China Craton and for-
mation time of the Jinshan Group: constraints from SHRIMP U–Pb zircon dating of
meta-intermediate-basic intrusive rocks in eastern Shandong Province. Acta Petrol.
Sin. 27 (6), 1699–1706 in Chinese with English abstract.
Dong, C.Y., Ma, M.Z., Liu, S.J., Xie, H.Q., Liu, D.Y., Li, X.M., Wan, Y.S., 2012. Middle
Paleoproterozoic crustal extensional regime in the North China Craton: new evidence
from SHRIMP zircon U–Pb dating and whole-rock geochemistry of meta-gabbro in the
Anshan-Gongchangling area. Acta Petrol. Sin. 28 (9), 2785–2792 in Chinese with
English abstract.
Dong, C.Y., Wan, Y.S., Xie, H.Q., Nutman, A.P., Xie, S.W., Liu, S.J., Ma, M.Z., Liu, D.Y.,
2017. The Mesoarchean Tiejiashan-Gongchangling potassic granite in the Anshan-
Benxi area, North China Craton: origin by recycling of Paleo- to Eoarchean crust from
U–Pb–Nd–Hf–O isotopic studies. Lithos 290, 116–135.
Drummond, M.S., Defant, M.J., 1990. A model for Trondhjemite-Tonalite-Dacite Genesis
and crustal growth via slab melting: Archean to modern comparisons. J. Geophys.
Res. 95, 21503–21521.
Eby, G.N., 1992. Chemical subdivision of the A-type granitoids petrogenetic and tectonic
implications. Geology 20, 641–644.
Faure, M., Lin, W., Monié, P., Le Breton, N., Poussineau, S., Panis, D., Deloule, E., 2003.
Exhumation tectonics of the ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic rocks in the Qinling
orogen in east China: new petrological-structural-radiometric insights from the
Shandong Peninsula. Tectonics 22 (3), 1018–1040.
Faure, M., Lin, W., Monié, P., Bruguier, O., 2004. Palaeoproterozoic arc magmatism and
collision in Liaodong Peninsula (north-east China). Terra Nova 16, 75–80.
Floyd, P.A., Kelling, G., Gökçen, S.L., Gökçen, N., 1991. Geochemistry and tectonic en-
vironment of basaltic rocks from the Misis ophiolitic mélange, south Turkey. Chem.
Geol. 89, 263–280.
Foley, S., Tiepolo, M., Vannucci, R., 2002. Growth of early continental crust controlled by
melting of amphibolite in subduction zones. Nature 417, 837–840.
Fowler, M.B., Henney, P.J., Darbyshire, D.P.F., Greenwood, P.B., 2001. Petrogenesis of
high Ba–Sr granites: the Rogart pluton, Sutherland. J. Geol. Soc. 158.
Fowler, M.B., Kocks, H., Darbyshire, D.P.F., Greenwood, P.B., 2008. Petrogenesis of high
Ba–Sr plutons from the Northern Highlands Terrane of the British Caledonian
Province. Lithos 105, 129–148.
Frost, B.R., Barnes, C.G., Collins, W.J., Arculus, R.J., Ellis, D.J., Frost, C.D., 2001. A
geochemical classification for granitic rocks. J. Petrol. 42, 2033–2048.
Fryer, P., Taylor, B., Langmuir, C.H., Hochstaedter, A.G., 1990. Petrology and geo-
chemistry of lavas from the Sumisu and Torishima backarc rifts. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 100, 161–178.
Gao, B.S., Dong, Y.S., Li, F.Q., Wang, P.S., Gan, Y.C., Chen, M.S., Tian, Z.H., 2017.
Petrogenesis of the Li’eryu Formation of the South Liaohe Group in the
Huanghuadian area, Liaodong Peninsula. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2725–2742 in
Chinese with English abstract.
Gerya, T.V., 2011. Future directions in subduction modeling. J. Geodyn. 52, 344–378.
Gerya, T.V., Connolly, J.A.D., Yuen, D.A., 2008. Why is terrestrial subduction one-sided?
Geology 36, 43–46.
Griffin, W.L., Pearson, N.J., Belousova, E., Jackson, S.E., Achterbergh, E.v., O’Reilly, S.Y.,
Shee, S.R., 2000. The Hf isotope composition of cratonic mantle: LAM-MC-ICPMS
analysis of zircon megacrysts in kimberlites. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 64,
133–147.
Griffin, W.L., Wang, X., Jackson, S.E., Pearson, N.J., O'Reilly, S.Y., Xu, X.S., Zhou, X.M.,
2002. Zircon chemistry and magma mixing, SE China: in-situ analysis of Hf isotopes,
Tonglu and Pingtan igneous complexes. Lithos 61, 237–269.
Guo, S.S., Li, S.G., 2009. SHRIMP zircon U–Pb ages for the Paleoproterozoic meta-
morphic-magmatic events in the southeast margin of the North China Craton. Sci.
China Ser. D Earth Sci. 52, 1039–1045 in Chinese with English abstract.
Hao, D.F., Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Han, Z.Z., Zhao, G.T., 2004. Origin and its con-
straint to tectonic evolution of Paleoproterozoic granitoids in the eastern Liaoning
and Jilin province, North China. Acta Petrol. Sin. 20, 1409–1416 in Chinese with
English abstract.
Hawkesworth, C.J., Kemp, A.I., 2006. Evolution of the continental crust. Nature 443,
811–817.
He, G.P., Ye, H.W., 1998. Two type of early Proterozoic metamorphism in the eastern
Liaoning to southern Jilin and their tectonic implication. Acta Petrol. Sin. 14,
152–162 in Chinese with English abstract.
He, Z.Y., Klemd, R., Yan, L.L., Zhang, Z.M., 2018. The origin and crustal evolution of
194
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
microcontinents in the Beishan orogen of the southern Central Asian Orogenic Belt.
Earth Sci. Rev. 185, 1–14.
Jahn, B.M., Condie, K.C., 1995. Evolution of the Kaapvaal Craton as viewed from geo-
chemical and Sm-Nd isotopic analyses of intracratonic pelites. Geochim. Cosmochim.
Acta 59, 2239–2258.
Jahn, B.m., Liu, D., Wan, Y., Song, B., Wu, J., 2008. Archean crustal evolution of the
Jiaodong Peninsula, China, as revealed by zircon SHRIMP geochronology, elemental
and Nd-isotope geochemistry. Am. J. Sci. 308, 232–269.
Jiang, S.Y., Palmer, M.R., Peng, Q.M., Yang, J.H., 1997. Chemical and stable isotopic
compositions of Proterozoic metamorphosed evaporites and associated tourmalines
from the Houxianyu borate deposit, eastern Liaoning, China. Chem. Geol. 135,
189–211.
Jiang, N., Guo, J.H., Fan, W.B., Hu, J., Zong, K.Q., Zhang, S.Q., 2016. Archean TTGs and
sanukitoids from the Jiaobei terrain, North China craton: insights into crustal growth
and mantle metasomatism. Precambrian Res. 281, 656–672.
Kemp, A.I., Hawkesworth, C.J., Paterson, B.A., Kinny, P.D., 2006. Episodic growth of the
Gondwana supercontinent from hafnium and oxygen isotopes in zircon. Nature 439,
580–583.
Kepezhinskas, P., McDermott, F., Defant, M.J., Hochstaedter, A., Drummond, M.S., 1997.
Trace element and Sr–Nd–Pb isotopic constraints on a three-component model of
Kamchatka Arc petrogenesis. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 61, 577–600.
Kessel, R., Schmidt, M.W., Ulmer, P., Pettke, T., 2005. Trace element signature of sub-
duction-zone fluids, melts and supercritical liquids at 120–180 km depth. Nature 437,
724–727.
Kim, J.N., Han, R.Y., Zhao, L., Li, Q.L., Kim, S.S., 2016. Study on the petrographic and
SIMS zircon U-Pb geochronological characteristics of the magmatic rocks associated
with the Jongju and Cholsan REE deposits in northern Korean Peninsula. Acta Petrol.
Sin. 32 (10), 3123–3138 in Chinese with English abstract.
King, P.L., White, A.J.R., Chappell, B.W., Allen, C.M., 1997. Characterization and Origin
of Aluminous A-type Granites from the Lachlan Fold Belt, Southeastern Australia. J.
Petrol. 38, 371–391.
King, P.L., Chappell, B.W., Allen, C.M., White, A.J.R., 2001. Are A-type granites the high-
temperature felsic granites? Evidence from fractionated granties of the Wangrah
Suite. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 38, 371–391.
Kusky, T.M., 2011. Geophysical and geological tests of tectonic models of the North China
Craton. Gondwana Res. 20, 26–35.
Kusky, T.M., Li, J.H., 2003. Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolution of the North China
Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 22, 383–397.
Kusky, T.M., Li, J.H., Santosh, M., 2007. The Paleoproterozoic North Hebei orogen: North
China Craton's collisional suture with the Columbia supercontinent. Gondwana Res.
12, 4–28.
Kusky, T.M., Li, X.Y., Wang, Z.S., Fu, J.M., Ze, L., Zhu, P.M., 2014. Are Wilson Cycles
preserved in Archean cratons? A comparison of the North China and Slave cratons.
Can. J. Earth Sci. 51, 297–311.
Kusky, T.M., Polat, A., Windley, B.F., Burke, K.C., Dewey, J.F., Kidd, W.S.F., Maruyama,
S., Wang, J.P., Deng, H., Wang, Z.S., Wang, C., Fu, D., Li, X.W., Peng, H.T., 2016.
Insights into the tectonic evolution of the North China Craton through comparative
tectonic analysis: a record of outward growth of Precambrian continents. Earth Sci.
Rev. 162, 387–432.
Lan, T.G., Fan, H.R., Yang, K.F., Cai, Y.C., Wen, B.J., Zhang, W., 2015. Geochronology,
mineralogy and geochemistry of alkali-feldspar granite and albite granite association
from the Changyi area of Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt: implications for Paleoproterozoic rifting of
eastern North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 266, 86–107.
Lee, C.T.A., Morton, D.M., 2015. High silica granites: terminal porosity and crystal set-
tling in shallow magma chambers. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 409, 23–31.
Lee, B.C., Oh, C.W., Yengkhom, K.S., Yi, K., 2014. Paleoproterozoic magmatic and me-
tamorphic events in the Hongcheon area, southern margin of the Northern Gyeonggi
Massif in the Korean Peninsula, and their links to the Paleoproterozoic orogeny in the
North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 248, 17–38.
Li, S.Y., 1994. The bimodal volcanic rocks and magma evolution in Liaoji paleo-rift. J.
Changchun Univ. Earth Sci. 24 (2), 143–147 in Chinese with English abstract.
Li, Z., Chen, B., 2014. Geochronology and geochemistry of the Paleoproterozoic meta-
basalts from the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton: implications for petrogenesis
and tectonic setting. Precambrian Res. 255, 653–667.
Li, S.Z., Liu, Y.J., 1997. Paleoproterozoic sedimentary assemblages of the Jiao-Liao-Ji
Belt: geochronology and sequences. Northwest. Geol. 18 (3), 28–35 in Chinese with
English abstract.
Li, S.Z., 1997. Palaeoproterozoic geotectonic problems of the Jiao-Liao massif: evolu-
tionism and mobilism. Northwest. Geol. 18 (3), 28–35 in Chinese with English ab-
stract.
Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., 2007. SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology of the Liaoji granitoids:
constraints on the evolution of the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji belt in the Eastern
Block of the North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 158, 1–16.
Li, S.Z., Han, Z.Z., Liu, Y.J., Yang, Z.S., Ma, R., 2001. Regional metamorphism of the
Liaohe Group: implications for continental dynamics. Geol. Rev. 47, 9–18 in Chinese
with English abstract.
Li, S.Z., Hao, D.F., Han, Z.Z., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., 2003. Paleoproterozoic deep processes
and tectono-thermal evolution in Jiao-Liao Massif. Acta Geol. Sin. 77 (3), 328–340 in
Chinese with English abstract.
Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Wu, F.Y., Liu, J.Z., Hao, D.F., Han, Z.Z., Luo, Y., 2004.
Mesozoic, not Paleoproterozoic SHRIMP U-Pb zircon ages of two Liaoji granites,
eastern block, North China craton. Int. Geol. Rev. 46, 162–176.
Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Han, Z.Z., Luo, Y., Hao, D.F., Xia, X.P., 2005. Deformation
history of the Paleoproterozoic Liaohe assemblage in the Eastern Block of the North
China Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 24, 659–674.
Li, X.H., Li, W.X., Li, Z.X., Liu, Y., 2008. 850–790 Ma bimodal volcanic and intrusive rocks
W. Xu and F. Liu
in northern Zhejiang, South China: a major episode of continental rift magmatism
during the breakup of Rodinia. Lithos 102, 341–357.
Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Zhang, J., Sun, M., Zhang, G.W., Dai, L.M., 2010.
Deformation history of the Hengshan–Wutai–Fuping Complexes: implications for the
evolution of the Trans-North China Orogen. Gondwana Res. 18, 611–631.
Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Santosh, M., Liu, X., Dai, L.M., Suo, Y.H., Tam, P.Y., Song, M.C.,
Wang, P.C., 2012. Paleoproterozoic structural evolution of the southern segment of
the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 200–203, 59–73.
Li, Z., Chen, B., Liu, J.W., Zhang, L., Yang, C., 2015a. Zircon U–Pb ages and their im-
plications for the South Liaohe Group in the Liaodong Peninsula, Northeast China.
Acta Petrol. Sin. 31 (6), 1589–1605 in Chinese with English abstract.
Li, Z., Chen, B., Wei, C.J., Wang, C.X., Han, W., 2015b. Provenance and tectonic setting of
the Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks from the Liaohe Group, Jiao-Liao-Ji
Belt, North China Craton: insights from detrital zircon U–Pb geochronology, whole-
rock Sm-Nd isotopes, and geochemistry. J. Asian Earth Sci. 111, 711–732.
Li, Q.L., Zhao, L., Zhang, Y.B., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., Han, R.H., 2016.
Zircon–titanite–rutile U–Pb system from metamorphic rocks of Jungshan "Group" in
Korea: implications of tectono-thermal events from Paleoproterozoic to Mesozoic.
Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 (10), 3019–3032 in Chinese with English abstract.
Li, C., Li, Z., Yang, C., 2017a. Palaeoproterozoic granitic magmatism in the northern
segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt: implications for orogenesis along the Eastern Block
of the North China Craton. Int. Geol. Rev. 60, 217–241.
Li, C., Chen, B., Li, Z., Yang, C., 2017b. Petrologic and geochemical characteristics of
Paleoproterozoic monzogranitic gneisses from Xiuyan-Kuandian area in Liaodong
Peninsula and their tectonic implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (3), 963–977 in
Chinese with English abstract.
Li, Y.L., Zhang, H.F., Guo, J.H., Li, C.F., 2017c. Petrogenesis of the Huili Paleoproterozoic
leucogranite in the Jiaobei Terrane of the North China Craton: a highly fractionated
albite granite forced by K-feldspar fractionation. Chem. Geol. 450, 165–182.
Li, Z., Chen, B., Yan, X., 2018. The Liaohe Group: an insight into the Paleoproterozoic
tectonic evolution of the Jiao–Liao–Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2018.01.009.
Liao, X., Zhang, X.H., Kim, S.H., Park, U., Jong, C., 2016. Detrital zircon U–Pb ages of the
Machollyong Group in Korean Peninsula: regional correlation and tectonic implica-
tions. Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 (10), 2981–2992 in Chinese with English abstract.
Liew, T.C., Hofmann, A.W., 1988. Precambrian crustal components, plutonic associations,
plate environment of the Hercynian Fold Belt of central Europe: indications from a Nd
and Sr isotopic study. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 98, 129–138.
Liu, C.H., Cai, J., 2017. Provenance and depositional age of the Baiyunshan Formation of
the Fengyang Group in the Wuhe Complex: constraints from zircon U–Pb age and
Lu–Hf isotopic studies. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2867–2880 in Chinese with English
abstract.
Liu, D.Y., Nutman, A.P., Compston, W., Wu, J.S., Shen, Q.H., 1992. Remnants of > 3800
Ma crust in the Chinese part of the Sino-Korean Craton. Geology 20, 339–342.
Liu, J.L., Liu, Y.J., Chen, H., Sha, D.M., Wang, H.C., 1997. The inner zone of the Liaoji
paleorift: its early structural styles and structural evolution. J. Asian Earth Sci. 15,
19–31.
Liu, F.L., Xu, Z.Q., Liou, J.G., Song, B., 2004. SHRIMP U–Pb ages of ultrahigh-pressure
and retrograde metamorphism of gneisses, south-estern Sulu terrane, eastern China.
J. Metamorph. Geol. 22, 315–326.
Liu, D.Y., Wan, Y.S., Wu, J.S., Wilde, S.A., Zhou, H.Y., Dong, C.Y., Yin, X.Y., 2007.
Eoarchean rocks and zircons in the North China Craton. In: van Kranendonk, M.,
Smithies, R.H., Bennett, V. (Eds.), Earth's Oldest Rocks. 15. Elsevier Series
‘Developments in Precambrian Geology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 251–273.
Liu, Y.C., Wang, A.D., Rolfo, F., Groppo, C., Gu, X.F., Song, B., 2009. Geochronological
and petrological constraints on Palaeoproterozoic granulite facies metamorphism in
southeastern margin of the North China Craton. J. Metamorph. Geol. 27, 125–138.
Liu, J.H., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Ding, Z.J., 2011a. Polyphase magmatic and me-
tamorphic events from Early Precambrian metamorphic basement in Jiaobei area:
evidence from the zircon U–Pb dating of TTG and granitic gneisses. Acta Petrol. Sin.
27 (4), 943–960 in Chinese with English abstract.
Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Wang, F., Liu, J.H., 2011b. U–Pb dating of zircons from Al-rich
paragneisses of Jingshan Group in Shandong peninsula and its geological sig-
nificance. Acta Petrol. Mineral. 30 (5), 829–843 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Liu, J.H., Liu, F.L., Ding, Z.J., Liu, C.H., Yang, H., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Meng, E., 2013. The
growth, reworking and metamorphism of early Precambrian crust in the Jiaobei
terrane, the North China Craton: constraints from U–Th–Pb and Lu–Hf isotopic sys-
tematics, and REE concentrations of zircon from Archean granitoid gneisses.
Precambrian Res. 224, 287–303.
Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Liu, C.H., Wang, F., Liu, J.H., Yang, H., Cai, J., Shi, J.R., 2013a.
Petrogenesis, P–T–t path, and tectonic significance of high-pressure mafic granulites
from the Jiaobei terrane, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 233, 237–258.
Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Wang, F., Liu, J.H., Cai, J., 2013b. Petrological and geochronological
preliminary study of the Xiliu ~2.1Ga meta-gabbro from the Jiaobei terrane, the
southern segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt in the North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin.
29 (7), 2371–2390 in Chinese with English abstract.
Liu, J.H., Liu, F.L., Ding, Z.J., Liu, P.H., Guo, C.L., Wang, F., 2014a. Geochronology,
petrogenesis and tectonic implications of Paleoproterozoic granitoid rocks in the
Jiaobei Terrane, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 255, 685–698.
Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Liu, J.H., Meng, E., Cai, J., Shi, J.R., 2014b. U–Pb dating of
zircons from granitic leucosomes in migmatites of the Jiaobei Terrane, southwestern
Jiao–Liao–Ji Belt, North China Craton: constraints on the timing and nature of partial
melting. Precambrian Res. 245, 80–99.
Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Liu, C.H., Cai, J., 2015a. Progresses and overviews of vo-
luminous meta-sedimentary series within the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji orogenic/
mobile belt, North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 31 (10), 2816–2846 in Chinese
195
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
with English abstract.
Liu, Y.C., Wang, C.C., Zhang, P.G., Groppo, C., Rolfo, F., Wang, A.D., 2015b. Granulite
Facies Metamorphism,Partial Melting and Metasomatism in the Wuhe Complex at the
Southeastern Margin of the North China Block. J. Earth Sci. Environ. 37 (1), 1–11 in
Chinese with English abstract.
Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Wang, F., Liu, C.H., Yang, H., Liu, J.H., Cai, J., Shi, J.R., 2015c. P–T–t
paths of the multiple metamorphic events of the Jiaobei terrane in the southeastern
segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt (JLJB), in the North China Craton: impication for
formation and evolution of the JLJB. Acta Petrol. Sin. 31 (10), 2889–2941 (in Chinese
with English abstract).
Liu, F.L., Liu, C.H., Itano, K., Iizuka, T., Cai, J., Wang, F., 2017a. Geochemistry, U–Pb
dating, and Lu–Hf isotopes of zircon and monazite of porphyritic granites within the
Jiao-Liao-Ji orogenic belt: implications for petrogenesis and tectonic setting.
Precambrian Res. 300, 78–106.
Liu, S.W., Wang, M.J., Wan, Y.S., Guo, R.R., Wang, W., Wang, K., Guo, B.R., Fu, J.H., Hu,
F.Y., 2017b. A reworked ∼3.45 Ga continental microblock of the North China
Craton: constraints from zircon U–Pb–Lu–Hf isotopic systematics of the Archean
Beitai-Waitoushan migmatite-syenogranite complex. Precambrian Res. 303,
332–354.
Liu, P.H., Cai, J., Zou, L., 2017d. Metamorphic P–T–t path and its geological implication
of the Sanjiazi garnet amphibolites from the northern Liaodong Penisula, Jiao-Liao-Ji
belt:Constraints on phase equilibria and zircon U–Pb dating. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9),
2649–2674 in Chinese with English abstract.
Liu, F.L., Liu, L.S., Cai, J., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Liu, C.H., Liu, J.H., 2017e. A widespread
Paleoproterozoic partial melting event within the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China
Craton: zircon U-Pb dating of granitic leucosomes within pelitic granulites and its
tectonic implications. Precambrian Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2017.
10.017.
Liu, Y.C., Zhang, P.G., Wang, C.C., Groppo, C., Rolfo, F., Yang, Y., Li, Y., Deng, L.P., Song,
B., 2017f. Petrology, geochemistry and zirconology of impure calcite marbles from
the Precambrian metamorphic basement at the southeastern margin of the North
China Craton. Lithos 290–291, 189–209.
Liu, C.H., Zhao, G.C., Liu, F.L., Cai, J., 2018a. 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 304–307, 258–279.
Liu, J., Zhang, J., Liu, Z.H., Yin, C.Q., Zhao, C., Li, Z., Yang, Z.J., Dou, S.H., 2018b.
Geochemical and geochronological study on the Paleoproterozoic rock assemblage of
the Xiuyan region: new constraints on an integrated rift-and-collision tectonic process
involving the evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian
Res. 310, 179–197.
Liu, P.H., Liu, F.L., Tian, Z.H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Wang, F., 2019. Petrological and geochro-
nological evidence for Paleoproterozoic granulite-facies metamorphism of the South
Liaohe Group in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2019.03.002.
Lu, X.P., Wu, F.Y., Lin, J.Q., Sun, D.Y., Zhang, Y.B., Guo, C.L., 2004a. Geochronological
successions of the early Precambrian granitic magmatism in southern Liaodong
Peninsula and its constraints on tectonic evolution of the North China Craton. Chin. J.
Geol. 39 (1), 123–138 in Chinese with English abstract.
Lu, X.P., Wu, F.Y., Zhang, Y.B., Zhao, C.B., Guo, C.L., 2004b. Emplacement age and
tectonic setting of the Paleoproterozoic Liaoji granites in Tonghua area, southern
Jilin province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 20 (3), 381–392 in Chinese with English abstract.
Lu, X.P., Wu, F.Y., Guo, J.H., Yin, C.J., 2005. Late Paleoproterozoic granitic magmatism
and crustal evolution in the Tonghua region, northeast China. Acta Petrol. Sin. 21 (3),
721–736 in Chinese with English abstract.
Lu, X.P., Wu, F.Y., Guo, J.H., Wilde, S.A., Yang, J.H., Liu, X.M., Zhang, X.O., 2006. Zircon
U–Pb geochronological constraints on the Paleoproterozoic crustal evolution of the
Eastern block in the North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 146, 138–164.
Luo, Y., Sun, M., Zhao, G.C., Li, S.Z., Xu, P., Ye, K., Xia, X.P., 2004. LA–ICP–MS U–Pb
zircon ages of the Liaohe Group in the Eastern Block of the North China Craton:
constraints on the evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt. Precambrian Res. 134, 349–371.
Luo, Y., Sun, M., Zhao, G.C., Li, S.Z., Ayers, J.C., Xia, X.P., Zhang, J.H., 2008. A com-
parison of U-Pb and Hf isotopic compositions of detrital zircons from the North and
South Liaohe Groups: constraints on the evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North
China Craton. Precambrian Res. 163, 279–306.
Ma, L.J., Cui, Y.C., Liu, J.L., Zhang, J.B., 2007. Geochemical characteristics and the
tectonic setting of amphibolites of the North Liaohe Group in Liaodong area. J.
Shanxi Univ. 30 (4), 515–524 in Chinese with English abstract.
Maniar, P.D., Piccoli, P.M., 1989. Tectonic discrimination of granitoids. Geol. Soc. Am.
Bull. 101, 635–643.
Martin, H., 1999. The adakitic magmas: modern analogues of Archaean granitoids. Lithos
46, 411–429.
Martin, H., Smithies, R.H., Rapp, R., Moyen, J.F., Champion, D., 2005. An overview of
adakite, tonalite–trondhjemite–granite (TTG), and sanukitoid: relationship and some
implications for crustal evolution. Lithos 79, 1–24.
McDonough, W.F., 1990. Constraints on the composition of the continental lithospheric
mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 101, 1–18.
McKenzie, D., 1989. Some remarks on the movement of small melt fractions in the
mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 95, 53–72.
Meng, E., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Liu, C.H., Yang, H., Wang, F., Shi, J.R., Cai, J., 2014.
Petrogenesis and tectonic significance of Paleoproterozoic meta-mafic rocks from
central Liaodong Peninsula, northeast China: evidence from zircon U–Pb dating and
in situ Lu–Hf isotopes, and whole-rock geochemistry. Precambrian Res. 247, 92–109.
Meng, E., Wang, C.Y., Li, Y.G., Li, Z., Yang, H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Jin, M.Q., 2017a. Zircon
U–Pb–Hf isotopic and whole-rock geochemical studies of Paleoproterozoic metase-
dimentary rocks in the northern segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, China: implications
for provenance and regional tectonic evolution. Precambrian Res. 298, 472–489.
W. Xu and F. Liu
Meng, E., Wang, C.Y., Li, Z., Li, Y.G., Yang, H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Jin, M.Q., 2017b.
Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks of the Ji'an Group and their significance for
the tctonic evolution of the noorthern segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China
Craton. Geol. Mag. 155, 149–173.
Meng, E., Wang, C.Y., Yang, H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Li, Y.G., 2017c. Paleoproterozoic meta-
volcanic rocks in the Ji’an Group and constraints on the formation and evolution of
the northern segment of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, China. Precambrian Res. 294, 133–150.
Meng, E., Wang, C.Y., Liu, C.H., Shi, J.R., Li, Y.G., 2017d. Geochronology, petrogenesis
and constraints on regional tectonic evolution of the meta-volcanic Rocks in
Southeastern Liaodong Peninsula. J. Jilin Univ. (Earth Sci. Ed.) 47, 1589–1619 in
Chinese with English abstract.
Middlemost, E.A.K., 1994. Naming materials in the magma/igneous rock system. Earth
Sci. Rev. 37, 215–224.
Miller, C.F., Mcdowell, S.M., Mapes, R.W., 2003. Hot and cold granites? Implications of
zircon saturation temperatures and preservation of inheritance. Geology 31,
529–532.
Miyashiro, A., 1978. Nature of alkalic volcanic rock series. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 66,
91–104.
Moyen, J.F., 2009. High Sr/Y and La/Yb ratios: the meaning of the “adakitic signature”.
Lithos 112, 556–574.
Muir, R.J., Weaver, S.D., Bradshaw, J.D., Eby, G.N., Evans, J.A., 1995. The Cretaceous
separation point batholith, New Zealand: granitiod magmas formed by melting of
mafic lithosphere. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 152, 689–701.
Niu, Y.L., O'Hara, M.J., Pearce, J.A., 2003. Initiation of subduction zones as a con-
sequence of lateral compositional buoyancy contrast within the lithosphere: a pet-
rological perspective. J. Petrol. 44, 851–866.
Oh, C.W., Lee, B.C., Yi, S.-B., Ryu, H.I., 2018. Correlation of Paleoproterozoic igneous and
metamorphic events of the Korean Peninsula and China; Its implication to the tec-
tonics of Northeast Asia. Precambrian Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.
2018.03.010.
Pearce, J.A., 1996. A user's guide to basalt discrimination diagrams. In: Wyman, D.A.
(Ed.), Trace Element Geochemistry of Volcanic Rocks. Applications for Massive
Sulphide Exploration Geological Association of Canada, pp. 77–113 Short Course
Notes.
Peng, Q.M., Palmer, M.R., 1995. The Palaeoproterozoic boron deposits in eastern
Liaoning, China: a metamorphosed evaporite. Precambrian Res. 72, 185–197.
Peng, T.P., Wilde, S.A., Fan, W.M., Peng, B.X., 2013. Late Neoarchean potassic high Ba–Sr
granites in the Taishan granite–greenstone terrane: petrogenesis and implications for
continental crustal evolution. Chem. Geol. 344, 23–41.
Peng, P., Wang, X.P., Windley, B.F., Guo, J.H., Zhai, M.G., Li, Y., 2014. Spatial dis-
tribution of ~1950–1800 Ma metamorphic events in the North China Craton: im-
plications for tectonic subdivision of the craton. Lithos 202–203, 250–266.
Peng, P., Wang, C., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., 2016a. A preliminary study on the rock series
and tectonic environment of the ~1.9 Ga plutonic rocks in DPR Korea. Acta Petrol.
Sin. 32 (10), 2993–3018 in Chinese with English abstract.
Peng, C., Xue, L.F., Zhu, M., Chai, Y., Liu, W.Y., 2016b. The location and evolution of the
tectonic boundary between the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt and the Longgang
Block, northeast China. Precambrian Res. 272, 18–38.
Perrin, A., Goes, S., Prytulak, J., Rondenay, S., Davies, D.R., 2018. Mantle wedge tem-
peratures and their potential relation to volcanic arc location. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
501, 67–77.
Qian, Q., Chung, S.L., Lee, T.Y., Wen, D.J., 2003. Mesozoic high-Ba-Sr granitoids from
North China: geochemical characteristics and geological implications. Terra Nova 15,
272–278.
Qin, Y., 2013. Geochronological Constraints in the Tectonic Evolution of the Liao-ji
Paleoproterozoic rift zone. Ph. D. Dissertation. College of earth science, Jilin
University, Changchun (in Chinese with English abstract).
Reagan, M.K., Ishizuka, O., Stern, R.J., Kelley, K.A., Ohara, Y., Blichert-Toft, J., Bloomer,
S.H., Cash, J., Fryer, P., Hanan, B.B., Hickey-Vargas, R., Ishii, T., Kimura, J.I., Peate,
D.W., Rowe, M.C., Woods, M., 2010. Fore-arc basalts and subduction initiation in the
Izu-Bonin-Marianan system. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 11. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2009GC002871.
Ren, Y.W., Wang, H.C., Kang, J.L., Chu, H., Tian, H., 2017. Paleoproterozoic magmatic
events in the Hupiyu area in Yingkou, Liaoning Province and their geological sig-
nificance. Acta Geol. Sin. 91 (11), 2456–2472 in Chinese with English abstract.
Roderíguez, C., Sellés, D., Dungan, M., Langmuir, C., Leeman, W., 2007. Adakitic dacites
formed by intracrustal crystal fractionation of water-rich parent magmas at Nevado
de Longaví| Volcano (36.2°S; Andean SouthernVolcanic Zone, Central Chile). J.
Petrol. 48, 2033–2061.
Ross, P.S., Bédard, J.H., 2009. Magmatic affinity of modern and ancient subalkaline
volcanic rocks determined from trace-element discriminant diagrams. Can. J. Earth
Sci. 46, 823–839.
Rudnick, R.L., Gao, S., 2014. The composition of the continental crust. In: Holland, H.D.,
Turekian, K.K. (Eds.), The Crust, Treatise on Geochemistry. Elsevier, Oxford, pp.
1–51.
Santosh, M., 2010. Assembling North China Craton within the Columbia supercontinent:
the role of double-sided subduction. Precambrian Res. 178, 149–167.
Shan, H.X., Zhai, M.G., Oliveira, E.P., Santosh, M., Oliveira, E.P., Wang, F., 2015.
Convergent margin magmatism and crustal evolution during Archean-Proterozoic
transition in the Jiaobei terrane: zircon U–Pb ages, geochemistry, and Nd isotopes of
amphibolites and associated grey gneisses in the Jiaodong complex, North China
Craton. Precambrian Res. 264, 98–118.
Shen, B.F., Luo, H., Han, G.G., Dai, X.Y., Jin, W.S., Hu, X.D., Li, S.B., Bi, S.Y., 1994.
Archean Geology and Mineralization of Northern Liaoning and Southern Jilin
Province. Geological Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 1–255 in Chinese with English
abstract.
196
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
Song, B., Nutman, A.P., Liu, D.Y., Wu, J.S., 1996. 3800 to 2500 Ma crustal evolution in
the Anshan area of Liaoning Province, northeastern China. Precambrian Res. 78,
79–94.
Song, Y.H., Yang, F.C., Yan, G.L., Wei, M.H., Shi, S.S., 2016. SHRIMP U–Pb ages and Hf
isotopic compositions of Paleoproterozoic granites from the eastern part of Liaoning
Province and their tectonic significance. Acta Geol. Sin. 90 (10), 2620–2636 in
Chinese with English abstract.
Sun, S.S., McDonough, W.F., 1989. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts:
implications for mantle composition and processes. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 42,
313–413.
Sun, M., Armstrong, R.L., Lambert, R.S.J., Jiang, C.C., Wu, J.H., 1993. Petrochemistry and
Sr, Pb and Nd isotopic geochemistry of the paleoproterozoic kuandian complex, the
eastern liaoning province, china. Precambrian Res. 62, 171–190.
Sun, M., Zhang, L.F., Wu, J.H., 1996. The origin of the early Proterozoic Kuandian
Complex: evidence from geochemistry. Acta Geol. Sin. 70 (3), 207–222 in Chinese
with English abstract.
Sun, J.F., Yang, J.H., Wu, F.Y., Wilde, S.A., 2012. Precambrian crustal evolution of the
eastern North China Craton as revealed by U–Pb ages and Hf isotopes of detrital
zircons from the Proterozoic Jing’eryu Formation. Precambrian Res. 200–203,
184–208.
Tam, P.Y., Zhao, G.C., Liu, F.L., Zhou, X.W., Sun, M., Li, S.Z., 2011. Timing of meta-
morphism in the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt: new SHRIMP U–Pb zircon dating
of granulites, gneisses and marbles of the Jiaobei massif in the North China Craton.
Gondwana Res. 19, 150–162.
Tam, P.Y., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Li, S.Z., Iizuka, Y.Y., Ma, G.S.K., Yin, C.Q., He, Y.H., Wu,
M.L., 2012a. Metamorphic P–T path and tectonic implications of medium-pressure
pelitic granulites from the Jiaobei massif in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton.
Precambrian Res. 220–221, 177–191.
Tam, P.Y., Zhao, G.C., Zhou, X.W., Sun, M., Guo, J.H., Li, S.Z., Yin, C.Q., Wu, M.L., He,
Y.H., 2012b. Metamorphic P–T path and implications of high-pressure pelitic gran-
ulites from the Jiaobei massif in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Gondwana
Res. 22, 104–117.
Tang, L., Santosh, M., 2018. Neoarchean-Paleoproterozoic terrane assembly and Wilson
cycle in the North China Craton: an overview from the central segment of the Trans-
North China Orogen. Earth Sci. Rev. 182, 1–27.
Tang, J., Zheng, Y.F., Wu, Y.B., Gong, B., Liu, X., 2007. Geochronology and geochemistry
of metamorphic rocks in the Jiaobei terrane: constraints on its tectonic affinity in the
Sulu orogen. Precambrian Res. 152, 48–82.
Tarney, J., Jones, C.E., 1994. Trace element geochemistry of orogenic igneous rocks and
crustal growth models. J. Geol. Soc. 151, 855–868.
Tatsumi, Y., Eggins, S., 1995. Subduction Zone Magmatism. Blackwell Science,
Cambridge, pp. 1–211.
Taylor, B., Martinez, F., 2003. Back-arc basin basalt systematics. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
210, 481–497.
Teng, D.W., Wang, Y.K., Hao, X.J., Liu, Z.H., Zhu, K., 2017. Petrogenesis of Liaoji granites
in Yongdian area of Liaoning and their constraints on tectonic evolution of Liao–Ji
mobile belt. Global Geology 36 (4), 1100–1115 in Chinese with English abstract.
Tian, R.C., Li, D.P., Hou, J.H., Zhu, D.C., Li, J.J., Tian, J.P., Zhang, P.P., Guo, R.P., Huang,
Y.B., 2017a. Zircon U–Pb dating, Hf isotope composition and tectono-magmatic
evolutionary significance the Paleoproterozoic Monzogranite in Changyi Area,
Eastern Shandong. Acta Geol. Sin. 91 (12), 2710–2726 in Chinese with English ab-
stract.
Tian, Z.H., Liu, F.L., Windley, B.F., Liu, P.H., Wang, F., Liu, C.H., Wang, W., Cai, J., Xiao,
W.J., 2017b. Polyphase structural deformation of low-to medium-grade metamorphic
rocks of the Liaohe Group in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Orogenic Belt, North China Craton:
correlations with tectonic evolution. Precambrian Res. 303, 641–659.
Wan, Y.S., Song, B., Liu, D.Y., Wilde, S.A., Wu, J.S., Shi, Y.R., Yin, X.Y., Zhou, H.Y., 2006.
SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology of Palaeoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks in
the North China Craton: evidence for a major Late Palaeoproterozoic tectonothermal
event. Precambrian Res. 149, 249–271.
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., 2011a. ∼2.7Ga 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. 186, 169–180.
Wan, Y.S., Liu, D.Y., Wang, W., Song, T.R., Kroner, A., Dong, C.Y., Zhou, H.Y., Yin, X.Y.,
2011b. Provenance of Meso- to Neoproterozoic cover sediments at the Ming Tombs,
Beijing, North China Craton: an integrated study of U–Pb dating and Hf isotopic
measurement of detrital zircons and whole-rock geochemistry. Gondwana Res. 20,
219–242.
Wan, Y.S., Liu, D.Y., Nutman, A., Zhou, H.Y., Dong, C.Y., Yin, X.Y., Ma, M.Z., 2012.
Multiple 3.8-3.1 Ga tectono-magmatic events in a newly discovered area of ancient
rocks (the Shengousi Complex), Anshan, North China Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci.
54–55, 18–30.
Wan, Y.S., Xie, S.W., Yang, C.H., Kröner, A., Ma, M.Z., Dong, C.Y., Du, L.L., Xie, H.Q., Liu,
D.Y., 2014. Early Neoarchean (∼2.7 Ga) tectono-thermal events in the North China
Craton: a synthesis. Precambrian Res. 247, 45–63.
Wan, Y.S., Ma, M.Z., Dong, C.Y., Xie, H.Q., Xie, S.W., Ren, P., Liu, D.Y., 2015a.
Widespread late Neoarchean reworking of Meso- to Paleoarchean continental crust in
the Anshan-Benxi area, North China Craton, as documented by U–Pb–Nd–Hf–O iso-
topes. Am. J. Sci. 315, 620–670.
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., 2015b. Formation and evolution of archean continental crust of the North China
Craton. In: Zhai, M.G. (Ed.), Precambrian Geology of China. Springer, pp. 59–136.
Wang, P.C., 1995. Relationships between the Jingshan Group and the Fenzishan Group in
the Jiaobei area. Reg. Geol. China 1, 15–20 in Chinese with English abstract.
W. Xu and F. Liu
Wang, Q., Wyman, D.A., Xu, J.F., Zhao, Z.H., Jian, P., Xiong, X.L., Bao, Z.W., Li, C.F., Bai,
Z.H., 2006. Petrogenesis of Cretaceous adakitic and shoshonitic igneous rocks in the
Luzong area, Anhui Province (eastern China): implications for geodynamics and
Cu–Au mineralization. Lithos 89, 424–446.
Wang, H.C., Lu, S.N., Chu, H., Xiang, Z.Q., Zhang, C.J., Liu, H., 2011. Zircon U–Pb age
and tectonic setting of meta-basalts of Liaohe Group in Helan area, Liaoyang,
Liaoning Province. J. Jilin Univ. (Earth Sci. Ed.) 41 (5), 1322–1334 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Wang, A.D., Liu, Y.C., Santosh, M., Gu, X.F., 2013. Zircon U–Pb geochronology, geo-
chemistry and Sr–Nd–Pb isotopes from the metamorphic basement in the Wuhe
Complex: implications for Neoarchean active continental margin along the south-
eastern North China Craton and constraints on the petrogenesis of Mesozoic grani-
toids. Geosci. Front. 4, 57–71.
Wang, W., Zhai, M.G., Li, T.S., Santosh, M., Zhao, L., Wang, H.Z., 2014. Archean-
Paleoproterozoic crustal evolution in the eastern North China Craton: zircon
U–Th–Pb and Lu–Hf evidence from the Jiaobei terrane. Precambrian Res. 241,
146–160.
Wang, W., Liu, S.W., Santosh, M., Wang, G.H., Bai, X., Guo, R.R., 2015. Neoarchean intra-
oceanic arc system in the Western Liaoning Province: implications for early
Precambrian crustal evolution in the Eastern Block of the North China Craton. Earth
Sci. Rev. 150, 329–364.
Wang, X.P., Peng, P., Wang, C., Yang, S.Y., 2016a. Petrogenesis of the 2115 Ma Haicheng
mafic sills from the Eastern North China Craton: implications for an intra-continental
rifting. Gondwana Res. 39, 347–364.
Wang, W., Zhai, M.G., Wang, S.J., Santosh, M., 2016b. Neoarchean crustal evolution in
western Shandong Province of the North China Craton: the role of 2.7–2.6 Ga mag-
matism. Precambrian Res. 285, 170–185.
Wang, C., Song, S.G., Niu, Y.L., Wei, C.J., Su, L., 2016c. TTG and potassic granitoids in the
Eastern North China craton: making neoarchean upper continental crust during
micro-continental collision and post-collisional extension. J. Petrol. 57, 1775–1810.
Wang, F., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Cai, J., Schertl, H.P., Ji, L., Liu, L.S., Tian, Z.H., 2017a. In
situ zircon U–Pb dating and whole-rock geochemistry of metasedimentary rocks from
South Liaohe Group, Jiao-Liao-Ji orogenic belt: constraints on the depositional and
metamorphic ages, and implications for tectonic setting. Precambrian Res. 303,
764–780.
Wang, X.P., Peng, P., Wang, C., Yang, S.Y., Söderlund, U., Su, X.D., 2017b. Nature of three
episodes of Paleoproterozoic magmatism (2180 Ma, 2115 Ma and 1890 Ma) in the
Liaoji belt, North China with implications for tectonic evolution. Precambrian Res.
298, 252–267.
Wang, C.C., Liu, Y.C., Zhang, P.G., Zhao, G.C., Wang, A.D., Song, B., 2017c. Zircon U–Pb
geochronology and geochemistry of two types of Paleoproterozoic granitoids from
the southeastern margin of the North China Craton: constraints on petrogenesis and
tectonic significance. Precambrian Res. 303, 268–290.
Wang, W., Cawood, P.A., Liu, S., Guo, R., Bai, X., Wang, K., 2017d. Cyclic formation and
stabilization of Archean lithosphere by accretionary orogenesis: constraints from TTG
and potassic granitoids, North China Craton. Tectonics 36, 1724–1742.
Wang, W., Yang, H., Ji, L., 2017e. The identification of the Neoarchean 2.52~2.46Ga
tectono-thermal events from the Liaonan terrain and its geological significance. Acta
Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2775–2784 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Wang, M.J., Liu, S.W., Fu, J.H., Wang, K., Guo, R.R., Guo, B.R., 2017f. Neoarchean DTTG
gneisses in southern Liaoning Province and their constraints on crustal growth and
the nature of the Liao-Ji Belt in the Eastern Block. Precambrian Res. 303, 183–207.
Wang, X.J., Liu, J.H., Ji, L., 2017g. Zircon U–Pb chronology, geochemistry and their
petrogenesis of Paleoproterozoic monzogranitic gneisses in Kuandian area, eastern
Liaoning Province, Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9),
2689–2707 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Wang, P.S., Dong, Y.S., Li, F.Q., Gao, B.S., Gan, Y.C., Chen, M.S., Xu, W., 2017h.
Paleoproterozoic granitic magmatism and geological significance in Huanghuadian
area, eastern Liaoning Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2708–2724 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Wang, F., Liu, J.H., Liu, C.H., 2017i. Detrital zircon U–Pb geochronology of metasedi-
mentary rocks from the Li'eryu Formation of the South Liaohe Group in Sanjiazi area,
the South Liaoning Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2785–2791 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Wang, C.Y., Meng, E., Yang, H., Liu, C.H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Li, Y.G., 2018a. Geochronological
and petrogenetic constraints on the regional tectonic evolution of the Guanghua
Group in northeastern Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, China. Precambrian Res. 305, 427–443.
Wang, F., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Cai, J., Ji, L., Liu, L.S., Tian, Z.H., 2018b. Redefinition of the
Gaixian Formation of the South Liaohe Group: evidence from the detrital zircon U-Pb
geochronology of metamorphosed sandstone in Huanghuadian-Suzigou area, the
southern Liaoning Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 34 (4), 1219–1228 in Chinese with
English abstract.
Wang, W., Liu, F.L., Ji, L., Santosh, M., 2019. Geochronology and geochemistry of the
Neoarchean Lulong Complex in the eastern Hebei Province, North China Craton:
implications on regional crustal evolution. Precambrian Res. 323, 102–125.
Wasserburg, G.J., Jacobsen, S.B., DePaolo, D.J., McCulloch, M.T., Wen, T., 1981. Precise
determination of Sm/Nd ratios, Sm and Nd isotopic abundances in standard solu-
tions. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 45, 2311–2323.
Watson, E.B., Harrison, T.M., 1983. Zircon saturation revisited: temperature and com-
position effects in a variety of crustal magma types. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 64,
295–304.
Wei, C.J., Qian, J.H., Zhou, X.W., 2014. Paleoproterozoic crustal evolution of the
Hengshan-Wutai-Fuping redion, North China Craton. Geosci. Front. 5, 485–497.
Whalen, J.B., Currie, K.L., Chappell, B.W., 1987. A-type granites: geochemical char-
acteristics, discrimination and petrogenesis. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 95, 407–419.
Wu, F.Y., Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Sun, D.Y., 2005. Nd isotopic constraints on crustal
197
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
formation in the North China Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 24, 523–545.
Wu, F.Y., Yang, J.H., Wilde, S.A., Liu, X.M., Guo, J.H., Zhai, M.G., 2007a. Detrital zircon
U–Pb and Hf isotopic constraints on the crustal evolution of North Korea.
Precambrian Res. 159, 155–177.
Wu, F.Y., Li, X.H., Yang, J.H., Zheng, Y.F., 2007b. Discussions on the petrogenesis of
granites. Acta Petrol. Sin. 23 (6), 1217–1238.
Wu, F.Y., Han, R.H., Yang, J.H., Wilde, S.A., Zhai, M.G., Park, S.C., 2007c. Initial con-
straints on the timing of granitic magmatism in North Korea using U–Pb zircon
geochronology. Chem. Geol. 238, 232–248.
Wu, F.Y., Zhang, Y.B., Yang, J.H., Xie, L.W., Yang, Y.H., 2008. Zircon U-Pb and Hf iso-
topic constraints on the Early Archean crustal evolution in Anshan of the North China
Craton. Precambrian Res. 167, 339–362.
Wu, M.L., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Bao, Z.A., Tam, P.Y., He, Y.H., 2013. Tectonic affinity and
reworking of the Archaean Jiaodong Terrane in the Eastern Block of the North China
Craton: evidence from LA–ICP–MS U–Pb zircon ages. Geol. Mag. 151, 365–371.
Wu, M.L., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Li, S.Z., Bao, Z.A., Tam, P.Y., Eizenhöefer, P.R., He, Y.H.,
2014. Zircon U-Pb geochronology and Hf isotopes of major lithologies from the
Jiaodong Terrane: implications for the crustal evolution of the Eastern Block of the
North China Craton. Lithos 190–191, 71–84.
Wu, F.Y., Li, Q.L., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., Han, R.H., 2016. Crustal growth and evolution of
the Rangnim Massif, northern Korean Peninsula. Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 (10), 2933–2947
in Chinese with English abstract.
Wu, F.Y., Liu, X.C., Ji, W.Q., Wang, J.M., Yang, L., 2017. Highly fractionated granites:
recognition and research. Sci. China Earth Sci. 60, 1201–1219 in Chinese with
English abstract.
Xiao, L., Rapp, P.R., Xu, J.F., 2004. The role of deep processes controls on variation of
compositions of adakitic rocks. Acta Petrol. Sin. 20 (2), 219–228 in Chinese with
English abstract.
Xiao, W., Windley, B.F., Han, C.M., Liu, W., Wan, B., Zhang, J.E., Ao, S.J., Zhang, Z.Y.,
Song, D.F., 2017. Late Paleozoic to early Triassic multiple roll-back and oroclinal
bending of the Mongolia collage in Central Asia. Earth Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.020.
Xie, S.W., Wang, S.J., Xie, H.Q., Liu, S.J., Dong, C.Y., Ma, M.Z., Liu, D.Y., Wan, Y.S.,
2014a. SHRIMP U–Pb dating of detrital zircons from the Fenzishan Group in eastern
Shandong, North China craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 30 (10), 2989–2998 in Chinese with
English abstract.
Xie, S.W., Xie, H.Q., Wang, S.J., Kröner, A., Liu, S.J., Zhou, H.Y., Ma, M.Z., Dong, C.Y.,
Liu, D.Y., Wan, Y.S., 2014b. Ca. 2.9 Ga granitoid magmatism in eastern Shandong,
North China Craton: zircon dating, Hf-in-zircon isotopic analysis and whole-rock
geochemistry. Precambrian Res. 255, 538–562.
Xiong, X.L., Adam, J., Green, T.H., 2005. Rutile stability and rutile/melt HFSE parti-
tioning during partial melting of hydrous basalt: implications for TTG genesis. Chem.
Geol. 218, 339–359.
Xu, H.R., Yang, Z.Y., Peng, P., Meert, J.G., Zhu, R.X., 2014. Paleo-position of the North
China craton within the supercontinent Columbia: constraints from new paleomag-
netic results. Precambrian Res. 255, 276–293.
Xu, C., Kynicky, J., Tao, R., Liu, X., Zhang, L., Pohanka, M., Song, W., Fei, Y., 2017a.
Recovery of an oxidized majorite inclusion from Earth's deep asthenosphere. Sci. Adv.
3, e1601589.
Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Liu, C.H., 2017b. Petrogenesis and geochemical characteristics of the
North Liaohe metabasic rocks, Jiao-Liao-Ji orogenic belt and their tectonic sig-
nificance. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2743–2757 in Chinese with English abstract.
Xu, C., Kynicky, J., Song, W., Tao, R., Lu, Z., Li, Y., Yang, Y., Pohanka, M., Galiova, M.V.,
Zhang, L., Fei, Y., 2018a. Cold deep subduction recorded by remnants of a
Paleoproterozoic carbonated slab. Nat. Commun. 9, 2790. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-018-05140-5.
Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Tian, Z.H., Liu, L.S., Ji, L., Dong, Y.S., 2018b. Source and petrogenesis of
Paleoproterozoic meta-mafic rocks intruding into the North Liaohe Group: implica-
tions for back-arc extension prior to the formation of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North
China Craton. Precambrian Res. 307, 66–81.
Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Santosh, M., Liu, P.H., Tian, Z.H., Dong, Y.S., 2018c. Constraints of
mafic rocks on a Paleoproterozoic back-arc in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China
Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 166, 195–209.
Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Wang, F., Santosh, M., Dong, Y.S., 2019a. Paleoproterozoic tectonic
evolution of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton: geochemical and isotopic
evidence from ca. 2.17 Ga felsic tuff. Geol. J. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.3380.
Xu, W., Liu, F.L., Liu, P.H., Tian, Z.H., Cai, J., Wang, W., Ji, L., 2019b. Paleoproterozoic
transition in tectonic regime recorded by the Eastern Block of the North China
Craton: evidence from detrital zircons of the Langzishan Formation, Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt.
Int. Geol. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/00206814.2019.1594413.
Yang, J.H., Wu, F.Y., Xie, L.W., Liu, X.M., 2007a. Petrogenesis and tectonic implications
of Kuangdonggou syenites in the Liaodong Peninsula, east North China Craton:
constraints from in-situ zircon U–Pb ages and Hf isotopes. Acta Petrol. Sin. 23,
263–276 in Chinese with English abstract.
Yang, J.H., Wu, F.Y., Wilde, S.A., Xie, L.W., Yang, Y.H., Liu, X.M., 2007b. Tracing magma
mixing in granite genesis: in situ U–Pb dating and Hf-isotope analysis of zircons.
Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 153, 177–190.
Yang, J.H., Wu, F.Y., Wilde, S.A., Zhao, G.C., 2008. Petrogenesis and geodynamics of Late
Archean magmatism in eastern Hebei, eastern North China Craton: geochronological,
geochemical and Nd-Hf isotopic evidence. Precambrian Res. 167, 125–149.
Yang, D.B., Xu, W.L., Pei, F.P., Wang, Q.H., 2009. Petrogenesis of the Paleoproterozoic K-
feldspar granites in Bengbu Uplift: constraints from petro-geochemistry, zircon U–Pb
dating and Hf isotope. Earth Sci. J. China Univ. Geosci. 34 (1), 148–164.
Yang, J.H., O'Reilly, S., Walker, R.J., Griffin, W., Wu, F.Y., Zhang, M., Pearson, N., 2010.
Diachronous decratonization of the Sino-Korean craton: geochemistry of mantle xe-
noliths from North Korea. Geology 38, 799–802.
W. Xu and F. Liu
Yang, M.C., Chen, B., Yan, C., 2015a. Petrogenesis of Paleoproterozoic gneissic granites
from Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt of North China Craton and their tectonic implications. J. Earth
Sci. Environ. 37 (5), 31–51 in Chinese with English abstract.
Yang, M.C., Chen, B., Yan, C., 2015b. Petrological, geochronological, geochemical and Sr-
Nd-Hf isotopic constraints on the petrogenesis of the Shuangcha Paleoproterozoic
megaporphyritic granite in the southern Jilin Province: tectonic implications. Acta
Petrol. Sin. 31 (6), 1573–1588 in Chinese with English abstract.
Yang, M.C., Chen, B., Yan, C., 2016. Paleoproterozoic gneissic granites in the Liaoji
Mobile belt, North China Craton: implications for tectonic setting. In: Zhai, M.G.,
Zhao, Y., Zhao, T.P. (Eds.), Main Tectonic Events and Metallogeny of the North China
Craton. Springer, pp. 155–180.
Yang, H., Wang, W., Liu, J.H., 2017. Zircon U–Pb dating and its geological significance of
granitic pegmatites from the Kuandian and Sanjiazi area in eastern Liaoning
Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 33 (9), 2675–2688 in Chinese with English abstract.
Yu, J.J., Yang, D.B., Feng, H., Lan, X., 2007. Chronology of amphibolite protolith in
Haicheng of southern Liaoning: evidence from LA–ICP–MS zircon U–Pb dating. Glob.
Geol. 26 (4), 391–396 in Chinese with English abstract.
Yuan, L., Zhang, X., Xue, F., Han, C., Chen, H., Zhai, M., 2015. Two episodes of
Paleoproterozoic mafic intrusions from Liaoning province, North China Craton: pet-
rogenesis and tectonic implications. Precambrian Res. 264, 119–139.
Zhai, M.G., Liu, W.J., 2003. Palaeoproterozoic tectonic history of the North China craton:
a review. Precambrian Res. 122, 183–199.
Zhai, M.G., Santosh, M., 2011. The early Precambrian odyssey of North China Craton: a
synoptic overview. Gondwana Res. 20, 6–25.
Zhai, M.G., Santosh, M., 2013. Metallogeny of the North China Craton: link with secular
changes in the evolving Earth. Gondwana Res. 24, 275–297.
Zhang, Q.S., 1984. Geology and Metallogeny of the Early Precambrian in China. Jilin
People’s Publishing House, Changchun, pp. 66–70 in Chinese with English abstract.
Zhang, Q.S., Yang, Z.S., 1988. Early Crust and Mineral Deposits of Liaodong Peninsula,
China. Geological Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 1–575 (in Chinese with English
abstract).
Zhang, X.O., Cawood, P.A., Wilde, S.A., Liu, R., Song, H., Li, W., Snee, L.W., 2003.
Geology and timing of mineralization at the Cangshang gold deposit, north-western
Jiaodong Peninsula, China. Mineral. Deposita 38, 141–153.
Zhang, Y.F., Liu, J.D., Xiao, R.G., Wang, S.Z., Wang, J., Bao, D.J., 2010. The hyalo-
tourmalites of Houxianyu borate deposit in eastern Liaoning: zircon features and
SHRIMP dating. Earth Sci. J. China Univ. Geosci. 35, 985–999 in Chinese with
English abstract.
Zhang, S.H., Zhao, Y., Santosh, M., 2012a. Mid-Mesoproterozoic bimodal magmatic rocks
in the northern North China Craton: implications for magmatism related to breakup
of the Columbia supercontinent. Precambrian Res. 222–223, 339–367.
Zhang, S.H., Li, Z.X., Evans, D.A.D., Wu, H.C., Li, H.Y., Dong, J., 2012b. Pre-Rodinia
supercontinent Nuna shaping up: a global synthesis with new paleomagnetic results
from North China. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 353–354, 145–155.
Zhang, X.H., Wang, H.Z., Park, H.N., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., 2016. Basement affinity of the
Kwanmo Massif, Korean Peninsula: evidence from zircon U–Pb geochronology and
petro-geochemistry of the Undokdong meta-intrusive complex. Acta Petrol. Sin. 32
(10), 2965–2980 in Chinese with English abstract.
Zhang, S.H., Zhao, Y., Li, X.H., Ernst, R.E., Yang, Z.Y., 2017. 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. 465, 112–125.
Zhang, W., Liu, F.L., Cai, J., Liu, C.H., Liu, J.H., Liu, P.H., Liu, L.S., Wang, F., Yang, H.,
198
Earth-Science Reviews 193 (2019) 162–198
2018. Geochemistry, zircon U-Pb dating and tectonic implications of the
Palaeoproterozoic Ji’an and Laoling groups, northeastern Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North
China Craton. Precambrian Res. 314, 264–287.
Zhao, G.C., Zhai, M.G., 2013. Lithotectonic elements of Precambrian basement in the
North China Cration: review and tectonic implications. Gondwana Res. 23,
1207–1240.
Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Sun, M., 2001. Archean blocks and their bound-
aries in the North China Craton: lithological, geochemical, structural and P–T path
constraints and tectonic evolution. Precambrian Res. 107, 45–73.
Zhao, G.C., Cawood, P.A., Wilde, S.A., Sun, M., 2002. Review of global 2.1–1.8 Ga oro-
gens: implications for a pre-Rodinia supercontinent. Earth Sci. Rev. 59, 125–162.
Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Wilde, S.A., Li, S.Z., 2005. Late Archean to Paleoproterozoic evo-
lution of the North China Craton: key issues revisited. Precambrian Res. 136,
177–202.
Zhao, G.C., Cao, L., Wilde, S., Sun, M., Choe, W., Li, S.Z., 2006. Implications based on the
first SHRIMP U–Pb zircon dating on Precambrian granitoid rocks in North Korea.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 251, 365–379.
Zhao, G.C., Cawood, P.A., Li, S.Z., Wilde, S.A., Sun, M., Zhang, J., He, Y.H., Yin, C.Y.,
2012. Amalgamation of the North China Craton: key issues and discussion.
Precambrian Res. 222–223, 56–76.
Zhao, L., Zhang, Y.B., Yang, J.H., Han, R.Y., Kim, J.N., 2016a. Archean rocks at the
southeastern margin of the Rangnim massif, northern Korean Peninsula, and their
response to Paleoproterozoic tectonothermal event. Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 (10),
2948–2964 in Chinese with English abstract.
Zhao, L., Zhang, Y.B., Wu, F.Y., Li, Q.L., Yang, J.H., Kim, J.N., Choi, W.J., 2016b.
Paleoproterozoic high temperature metamorphism and anatexis in the northwestern
Korean Peninsula: constraints from petrology and zircon U–Pb geochronology. Acta
Petrol. Sin. 32 (10), 3045–3069 in Chinese with English abstract.
Zheng, Y.F., Wu, R.X., Wu, Y.B., Zhang, S.B., Yuan, H., Wu, F.Y., 2008. Rift melting of
juvenile arc-derived crust: geochemical evidence from Neoproterozoic volcanic and
granitic rocks in the Jiangnan Orogen, South China. Precambrian Res. 163, 351–383.
Zhou, X.W., Zhao, G.C., Wei, C.J., Geng, Y.S., Sun, M., 2008a. EPMA U–Th–Pb monazite
and SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology of high-pressure pelitic granulites in the
Jiaobei massif of the North China Craton. Am. J. Sci. 308, 328–350.
Zhou, J.B., Wilde, S.A., Zhao, G.C., Zheng, C.Q., Jin, W., Zhang, X.Z., Cheng, H., 2008b.
SHRIMP U-Pb zircon dating of the Neoproterozoic Penglai Group and Archean
gneisses from the Jiaobei Terrane, North China, and their tectonic implications.
Precambrian Res. 160, 323–340.
Zhu, Y.S., Yang, J.H., Wang, H., Wu, F.Y., 2019. A Palaeoproterozoic basement beneath
the Rangnim Massif revealed by the in situ U–Pb ages and Hf isotopes of xenocrystic
zircons from Triassic kimberlites of North Korea. Geol. Mag. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0016756818000900.
Zou, Y., Zhai, M.G., Santosh, M., Zhou, L., Zhao, L.G., Lu, J.S., Shan, H.X., 2017. High-
pressure pelitic granulites from the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, North China Craton: a complete
P–T path and its tectonic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 134, 103–121.
Zou, Y., Zhai, M.G., Santosh, M., Zhou, L.G., Zhao, L., Lu, J.S., Liu, B., Shan, H.X., 2018.
Contrasting P–T–t paths from a Paleoproterozoic metamorphic orogen: petrology,
phase equilibria, zircon and monazite geochronology of metapelites from the Jiao-
Liao-Ji belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 311, 74–97.
Zou, Y., Zhai, M., Zhou, L., Zhao, L., Lu, J., Wang, Y., Shan, H., 2019. Relics of a
Paleoproterozoic orogen: new petrological, phase equilibria and geochronological
studies on high-pressure pelitic granulites from the Pingdu-Laiyang areas, southwest
of the Jiaobei terrane, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 322, 136–159.