May 2023 LIP of the Month

The characteristics of magmatic rocks during the ‘boring billion’ period in the North China, South China and Tarim blocks and their geological implications

Yuansheng Geng1, Hongwei Kuang1, Lilin Du1, Yongqing Liu1

1 Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing, China

Email: ys-geng@cags.ac.cn; kuanghw@126.com

Extracted from:

Geng Y.S., Kuang H.W., Du L.L. and Liu Y.Q., 2020. The characteristics of Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic rocks in North China, South China and Tarim blocks and their significance of geological correlation Acta Petrologica Sinica, 36(8): 2276-2312, doi:10.18654/1000-0569/2020.08.02

Geng Y.S., Kuang H.W., Du L.L., Liu Y.Q. and Zhao T.P., 2019. On the Paleo-Mesoproterozoic boundary from the breakupevent of the Columbia supercontinent. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 35(8): 2299-2324, doi: 10.18654/1000-0569/2019.08.02

1.8 ~ 0.8 Ga is a very special stage in the history of the Earth. The Earth experienced the breakup of the Columbia Supercontinent at the beginning of this period, and the formation of the Rodinia supercontinent at the end. However, the composition of atmosphere and ocean is relatively stable, and the biological evolution on Earth is slow, so some scholars call this stage as Earth middle age (Evans and Mitchell, 2011; Zhai et al., 2015), the Boring Billion in Earth's history (Holland, 2006; Roberts, 2013; Mukherjee et al., 2018), or the dullest period (Young, 2013), the "Columbian Period" (Van Kranendonk, 2012). Although the composition of the atmosphere and ocean was relatively stable during this stage, magmatic activity did never stop.

Globally, in the early Mesoproterozoic (1.8 ~ 1.5 Ga), The Laurentia paleocontinent, São Francisco-Congo Craton, Northern Australia, Ukrainian Shield and Indian Craton all have strong magmatic activity, from intermediate-mafic volcanic rocks to granitic intrusive rocks, from widely distributed mafic dyke swarms to plagioclase-gabbro-gabbro monzonite assemblages, a variety of rock assemblages, most of which were formed in the extension-rifting environment (Peterson et al., 2015; Jackson et al., 2000; Neumann et al., 2006; Danderfer et al., 2009, 2015; Mccourt et al., 2004; Shumlyanskyy et al., 2016; Shankar et al., 2018; Kaur et al., 2017; Ernst et al., 2017).

During the late Mesoproterozoic period (1.32 ~ 1.27 Ga), a significant number of mafic sills were formed in North China and Australia, leading to the development of Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) (Zhang et al., 2017; Goldberg, 2010; Pirajno and Hoatson, 2012; Zhang and Zhao, 2018). The Mackenzie mafic dyke swarm, which formed around 1.27 Ga, is also widely distributed in North America (Ernst et al., 2008, 2017; Ernst, 2014). In the early Neoproterozoic, the formation of the Rodinia supercontinent was accompanied by the development of a significant amount of volcanic rocks and magmatic rocks related to island arcs on the margins of many ancient continents (Boger et al., 2000; Fitzsimons, 2000; Kelly et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2015a; Chen et al., 2009a, b).

The main continents in China are composed of several ancient blocks that have been joined together by young orogenic belts. The North China Block (NCB), South China Block (SCB), and Tarim Block (TRB) are the three most significant continental blocks in China. Recently, our research group has compiled a map of the distribution and ages of magmatic thermal events in China during the Meso-Neoproterozoic (1:5,000,000 scale) （Fig. 1）. Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic activity occurred not only in the three blocks, but also in some of the ancient blocks in the Phanerozoic orogenic belts. The products of this activity include both volcanic and intrusive rocks. From the perspective of magmatic activity, the period from 1.8 to 0.8 Ga is not a 'Boring Billion'. The Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic rocks are closely related to the rifting and assembling of supercontinents. The magmatic evolution of different continental blocks is constrained by their peripheral environments due to their different positions within the supercontinent, resulting in differential evolutionary characteristics.


Download PDF version here.
Fig. 1: Chronology and distribution map of Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic events in China (Unpublished)

North China block (NCB)

The early Precambrian metamorphic basement of NCB is widely exposed, and the Mesoproterozoic (cover beds) strata are mainly exposed in the Xiong’er Rift across the southern margin of NCB and the Yanliao Aulacogen in the northern NCB. There are also sporadic outcrops in the northwest margin, eastern Liaoning Peninsula and Xuhuai area. From 1.78 Ga to Neoproterozoic, the NCB experienced several rifting events and was always in an extensional tectonic environment. Based on a large number of geochronologic data, the Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic events in the NCB can be divided into seven stages (1.78 Ga, 1.70 Ga, 1.63 Ga, 1.32 Ga, 1.23 Ga, 0.92 Ga and 0.82 Ga), in which 1.78 Ga and 1.32 Ga magmas have a large influence range and form the LIPs, respectively. The Mesoproterozoic magmatic rocks in the NCB formed in the intracontinental extensional environment indicating that NCB was not involved in the assembly process of the Rodinia supercontinent (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).

  1. 1.8~1.75 Ga mafic dykes in the Taihang and Wutai area and volcanic rocks of the Xiong 'er Group

  2. 1.72~1.67 Ga a series of rapakivi granite, anorthosite, tsingtauite, alkali feldspar granite in the Miyun-Chengde area and mafic dykes in the Miyun and Beitai area had formed, which represent the extensional environment.

  3. 1.64~1.60 Ga Potassium-rich volcanic rocks of the Tuanshanzi and Dahongyu formations, Taishan mafic dykes

  4. 1.33~1.30 Ga A large number of mafic sills with characteristic of continental basalt

  5. 1.24~1.20 Ga Mafic dykes in Jilin, eastern Hebei, western Shandong, etc.

  6. 0.94~0.89 Ga Mafic dykes in the Xuhuai area (Northern Jiangsu and Anhui Provinces)

  7. 0.85~0.80 Ga Trachyte eruption of the Luanchuan Group in the southern NCB, acid volcanic rocks eruption in the Langshan area and mafic dyke in the Qianlishan are in the northern NCB.

Fig. 2 Distribution and ages of the Meso-Neoproterozoic strata and magmatic rocks in the NCB The color-coded age data in the figure represent the different stages of the magmatism. Geochronologic data in the figure come from: 1-Pei et al., 2013; 2-Wang et al., 2015b; 3-Zhang et al., 2016; 4-Zhang et al., 2012a; 5-Zhang et al., 2017; 6-Wang et al., 2014a; 7-Xiang, 2014; 8-Wang et al., 2013; 9-Liu et al., 2011; 10-Zhao et al., 2004; 11-Zhang et al., 2007a; 12-Ren et al., 2006; 13-Yu et al., 1996; 14-Mo et al., 1997; 15-Zhang et al., 2012a; 16-Wang et al., 2012; 17-Yang et al., 2011; 18-Peng et al., 2010; 19-Geng and Zhou, 2010; 20-Peng et al., 2018; 21-Yang et al., 2019; 22-Xu et al., 2007; 23-Wang et al., 2014b; 24-Han et al., 2007; 25-Wang et al., 2016; 26-Li et al., 2001; 27-Peng, 2015; 28-Peng et al., 2012; 29-Ramo et al., 1995; 30-Yang et al., 2005; 31-Gao et al., 2008; 32-Lu et al., 2008a; 33-Gao et al., 2008; 34-Wang et al., 2015c; 35-Lu et al., 2008; 36-Xiang et al., 2012; 37-Peng et al., 2013; 38-Liu et al., 2006; 39-Cai et al., 2018; 40-Hu et al., 2010; 41-Zhao and Zhou, 2009a; 42-Shi et al., 2017; 43-Zhang et al., 2013a; 44-Zhao et al., 2004a; 45-He et al., 2009; 46-Wang et al., 2010; 47-Bao et al., 2008; 48-Chen et al., 2006; 49-Cui et al., 2010; 50-Lu et al., 2003a; 51-Bao et al., 2009; 52-Li et al., 2016a; 52-Liu et al., 2011; 53-Wang et al., 1998; 54-Lu et al., 2003b; 55-Chen et al., 2004; 56-Deng et al., 2015

Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic evolution in NCB. 1-Archean Paleoproterozoic metamorphic basement; 2-conglomerate; 3-clastic rocks; 4-carbonate rocks; 5-intermediate mafic volcanic rocks; 6-intermediate acid volcanic rocks; 7-mafic sills; 8-1.78 Ga mafic dyke swarms in Taihangshan; 9-later mafic dykes; 10-anorthosite + mangerite + gabbro; 11-granitoids; 12-gabbro; 13-unconformity boundary; 14-stratigraphic hiatus

South China block (SCB)

The Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic events in the SCB can be divided into eight stages (1.78 Ga, 1.72 Ga, 1.67 Ga, 1.5 Ga, 1.42 Ga, 1.0 Ga, 0.85 Ga and 0.78 Ga), the four stages of magmatic events from 1.78 Ga to 1.5 Ga were formed in extensional environment. The sporadic 1.4 Ga magmatic rocks likely formed in a converging setting in local area. The magmatism around or younger than 1.0 Ga performed differently in different parts of the SCB, indicating the different blocks have been assembled (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).

  1. 1.80~1.76 Ga It appears sporadically in the Cathaysia Massif.

  2. 1.76~1.70 Ga Bimodal magmatism (diabase, granite-porphyry, gabbro, A-type granite) in the South margin.

  3. 1.69~1.66 Ga Volcanism associated with mineralization in the southwest margin

  4. ~1.5 Ga Mafic dykes in Huilin county, at the southwest margin

  5. ~1.4 Ga Gneissic granodiorite outcropped from Baoban, Hainan Island

  6. 1.08~0.96 Ga Granite, volcanic rock of Tianbaoshan Fm., ophiolite

  7. 0.93~0.82 Ga Volcanic rocks and related granites in the Jiangnan orogenic belt

  8. 0.82~0.72 Ga Different areas of South China have different forms


Fig. 4 Distribution and ages of the Meso-Neoproterozoic strata and magmatic rocks in the SCB. The color-coded age data in the figure represent the different stages of the magmatism. Geochronologic data in the figure come from: 1-Liu et al., 2010; 2-Liu et al., 2017; 3-Cao et al., 2017; 4-Hu et al., 2015; 5-Deng et al., 2013; 6-Shi et al., 2007; 7-Xu et al., 2016a; 8-Lu et al., 2003b; 9-Zhu et al., 2008; 10-Ling et al., 2008，11-Wang et al., 2017a; 12-Deng et al., 2016; 13-Liu et al., 2011; 14-Niu et al., 2006; 15-Xia et al., 2009; 16-Ling et al., 2003; 17-Zhou et al., 2002a; 18-Dong et al., 2011; 19-Zhao et al., 2010a; 20-Dong et al., 2012; 21-Luo et al., 2018; 22-Zhao et al., 2006; 23-Zhao and Zhou，2009b; 24-Wang et al., 2016b; 25-Ling et al., 2006; 26-Li，2010; 27-Yan et al., 2004; 28-Lai et al., 2007; 29-Xiao et al., 2007; 30-Pei et al., 2009; 31-Li et al., 2018; 32-Meng et al., 2015; 33-Geng et al., 2008; 34-Zhou et al., 2002b; 35-Li et al., 2003a; 36-Liu et al., 2009; 37-Hu et al., 2007; 38-Lin et al., 2007; 39-Lin,2010; 40-Li et al., 2001a; 41-Zhuo et al., 2015; 42-Huang et al., 2008; 43-Chen et al., 2005; 44-Li et al., 2003b; 45-Du et al., 2014; 46-Li et al., 2002a; 47-Yang et al., 2009; 48-Du et al., 2009; 49-Zhou et al., 2006a; 50-Li and Zhao, 2018; 51-Zhao and Zhou, 2007; 52-Li et al., 2009a; 53-Chen et al., 2014; 54-Chen et al., 2018; 55-Jin et al., 2017; 56-Zhao and Zhou, 2011; 57-Yang et al., 2012; 58-Geng et al., 2007a; 59-Guo et al., 2007; 60-Fan et al., 2013; 61-Wang et al., 2013; 62-Lu et al., 2019; 63-Geng et al., 2020; 64-Zhou et al., 2011; 65-Yu et al., 2017; 66-Geng et al., 2017; 67-Wang et al., 2012; 68-Wang et al., 2013; 69-Yang et al., 2015; 70-Guo et al., 2014; 71-Li et al., 2013; 72-Ling et al., 2006; 73-Zhao et al., 2013b; 74-Peng et al., 2012b; 75-Deng et al., 2012; 76-Deng et al., 2017; 77-Gao and Zhang,2009; 78-Wei et al., 2012; 79-Wang et al., 2006; 80-Wang et al., 2006; 81-Li, 1999; 82-Li,1999; 83-Yao et al., 2014; 84-Li et al., 1999; 85-Lin et al., 2016; 86-Wang et al., 2012b; 87-Li et al., 1996; 88-Wang et al., 2014d; 89-Zhou et al., 2007; 90-Sun et al., 2013; 91-Bai et al., 2010; 92-Zhang et al., 2014; 93-Zhao et al., 2011; 94-Zhou et al., 2009; 95-Wang et al., 2016; 96-Xue et al., 2012; 97-Wang et al., 2011; 98-Zhao and Zhou,2013; 99-Gao et al., 2012; 100-Zhang et al., 2015a; 101-Ma et al., 2009; 102-Xin et al., 2017; 103-Zhang and Wang,2016; 104-Zhang et al., 2013b; 105-Xin et al., 2017; 106-Li et al., 2003c; 107-Li et al., 2001b; 108-Li et al., 2013; 109-Gao et al., 2013a; 110-Zhang et al., 2015; 111-Wang et al., 2018; 112-Zhang et al., 2015b; 113-Li et al., 2017; 114-Wang et al., 2015; 115-Gao et al., 2009; 116-Jiang et al., 2017; 117-Wang et al., 2015a; 118-Li et al., 1994; 119-Li et al., 2008a; 120-Xue et al., 2010; 121-Wu et al., 2005; 122-Deng et al., 2016; 123-Xia et al., 2015; 124-Liu et al., 2015; 125-Jiang et al., 2015; 126-Wu et al., 2006; 127-Li et al., 2002; 128-Zhang et al., 2013c; 129-Cui et al., 2017; 130-Yin et al., 2013; 131-Zhang et al., 2010; 132-Ding et al., 2008; 133-Chen et al., 2009a; 134-Chen et al., 2016; 135-Gao et al., 2014; 136-Chen et al., 2009b; 137-Ye et al., 2007; 138-Wang et al., 2015; 139-Zhang et al., 2012b; 140-Xu et al., 2006; 141-Qin et al., 2006; 142-Zhang et al., 2012b; 143-Chen et al., 2017a; 144-Li et al., 1998


Fig. 5 Schematic diagram of Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic evolution in SCB. 1-Archean Paleoproterozoic metamorphic basement; 2-clastic rocks; 3-carbonate rocks; 4-moraine breccia; 5-intermediate mafic volcanic rocks; 6-intermediate acid volcanic rock; 7-ophiolite sequence; 8-bimodal volcanics; 9-mafic dykes; 10-gabbro; 11-granite porphyry dykes; 12-granitoids; 13-unconformity boundary; 14-stratigraphic hiatus

Tarim block (TRB)

The Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic events in the TRB can be divided into 8 stages (1.78 Ga, 1.5 Ga, 1.42 Ga, 1.12 Ga, 0.92 Ga, 0.85 Ga, 0.72 Ga and 0.64 Ga)

The magmatic events of 1.78 Ga and 1.5 Ga are only locally distributed, and they formed in the extensional setting. 1.4 Ga magmatic events performed differently in the northern and southwestern margins of the Tarim Block, i.e., continental magmatic arc setting in the northern margin and extensional environment in the southwestern margin. ~1.12 Ga magmatic events only developed in the southwestern margin of Tarim Block with the characteristics of A2-type granite and in the extensional setting. The difference of magmatic rock assembles in different locations and stages of the Tarim Block denotes that the Tarim Block originally is not a unified block, but likely assembled by different massifs in different periods (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7).

  1. 1.79~1.77 Ga The mafic dykes in the western Yecheng in the southwest margin and the rapakivi granite in the Yingfeng area in the northwest of Da Chaidan in the north margin of Qaidam

  2. ~1.50 Ga The mafic dykes at the Kuruktag on the north margin

  3. 1.45~1.40 Ga Gneiss granodiorites and monzogranites in the northeastern Alatag, Weiya, Xingxingxia and other area in TRB.

  4. ~1.12 Ga Granodiorite, eyeball granite and pale granite in the northwest of Kusraff in the southwest margin.

  5. 0.96~0.88 Ga The different regions of the Tarim Basin and its periphery exhibit varying characteristics.

  6. 0.88~0.82 Ga The northern margin of the basin showed strong activity in the Kuluktag area, resulting in the formation of numerous hornblende-bearing granodiorite, garnet-muscovite granite, two-mica granite, and some light-colored granite and granite veins in migmatite. In the Yingfeng area of the southeastern Chaidam North margin, the magmatic event during this period was characterized by coarse basalt dyke, and basalt and rhyolite in the Aolaoshan Formation.

  7. 0.82~0.72 Ga The Kuluktag area on the northern margin of TRB witnessed a large number of granitic rocks, mafic intrusive rocks, mafic dikes, and volcanic rocks of the Beiyesi Formation, etc.

  8. 0.68~0.60 Ga The Korla-Kuluktag area on the northern margin of TRB experienced the intrusion of various granitic bodies such as monzonitic granite, syenogranite, and quartz syenite, as well as mafic dikes.


Fig. 6 Distribution and ages of the Meso-Neoproterozoic strata and magmatic rocks in TRB.Geochronologic data in the figure come from: 1-Fu et al., 2015; 2-Xu et al., 2016b; 3-Zhang et al., 2011; 4-Yu et al., 2013; 5-Wang et al., 2017; 6-Hu et al., 2006; 7-Huang et al., 2015; 8-Hu et al., 2010; 9-Wang et al., 2014e; 10-Shi et al., 2010; 11-Huang et al., 2014; 12-Peng et al., 2012; 13-Cao et al., 2011; 14-Cao et al., 2010; 15-Xu et al., 2008; 16-Xu et al., 2009; 17-Ge et al., 2014; 18-Long et al., 2011b; 19-Luo et al., 2007; 20-Zhang et al., 2007b; 21-Shu et al., 2011; 22-Zhang et al., 2012c; 23-Cao et al., 2014; 24-Tang et al., 2016; 25-Chen et al., 2017b; 26-Qin et al., 2012; 27-He et al., 2014; 28-Zhang et al., 2018; 29-Wu et al., 2014; 30-Wang et al., 2017c; 31-Zhang et al., 2014; 32-Zhu et al., 2011; 33-Yang et al., 2008; 34-Wang et al., 2010; 35-Zhang et al., 2012d; 36-Xu et al., 2013; 37-Zhang et al., 2014; 38-Zhang et al., 2009b; 39-Zhan et al., 2007; 40-Chen et al., 2004; 41-Zhang et al., 2019; 42-Ye et al., 2016; 43-Huang et al., 2012; 44-Zhang et al., 2003; 45-Zhang et al., 2006; 46-Wang et al., 2015d; 47-Wang et al., 2015e


Fig. 7 Schematic diagram of Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic evolution in TRB. 1-Archean Paleoproterozoic metamorphic basement; 2-clastic rocks; 3-carbonate rocks; 4-moraine breccia; 5-intermediate mafic volcanic rocks; 6-bimodal volcanics; 7-mafic sills; 8-mafic dykes; 9-granitoids; 10-gabbro; 11-unconformity boundary; 12-stratigraphic break

Implications

  1. The response to the rifting and assembling of Columbia and Rodinia Supercontinent

According to the comparison of Mesoproterozoic magma events, the three continental blocks formed in the stretching background and participated in the rifting process of the Columbia supercontinent in the early stage. Since about 1.4 Ga, the magmatic evolution of the South China and Tarim Blocks has been significantly different from that of North China. It indicates that they have experienced different magmatic evolution, are in different tectonic backgrounds, and are in different positions in the global tectonic evolution. South China experienced different magmatic tectonic events at different periods and in different parts of the continent, and they were probably fused by different small blocks at about 1.0 Ga after extensive magmatic tectonic events. The Tarim Block also has similar magmatic evolution characteristics, while North China is a unified block formed in the late Paleoproterozoic. The NBC did not experience the convergence process of the Rodinia supercontinent, while the SCB and TRB experienced the convergence and breakup process of the Rodinia supercontinent.

Previous studies have confirmed that the North China Craton has neither 1200-1000 Ma strata nor contemporaneous magmatic events, so there are no Greenville orogenic belt products associated with the convergence of the Rodinia supercontinent. Therefore, it is speculated that although the North China Craton was involved in the convergence of the Columbia supercontinent at the end of the Paleoproterozoic, it experienced a long period of extension and evolution, and was far away from the Columbia supercontinent at the peak of supercontinent rifting around 1300 Ma. Recently, Liu et al. (2023) concluded that North China was together with North Australia 1 billion years ago, and then separated from North Australia and drifted northward.

As we can see the Figure 8 (modified from Li et al., 2023) that LIPs of about 1.25 Ga exist in the East Antarctica, Laurentia Paleocontinent, Congo/Brazil and other places. The Elzevirian period (1.25~1.19 Ga) in North America was a subduction accretive orogenic event (Rivers, 1997), which can be compared with magmatic events in these regions in time. While those magmatic events related to collision in SCB and TRB may end at 0.82 Ga. Therefore, we suggest that the convergent period of the Rodinia supercontinent should be from 1.25 Ga to 0.82 Ga.

  1. The implication for the definition to the bottom boundary of Mesoproterozoic

Although the proposal has suggested that 1.8 Ga (or 1.78 Ga) is more suitable as the Mesoproterozoic bottom age, the 1.6 Ga is still used today as the Mesoproterozoic bottom limit (Shields et al., 2022) and the Chinese scientists have proposed 1.8 Ga as the boundary by magmatic events and Earth evolution in recent years (Geng et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019).

The traditional geological timescale for the Precambrian is based on Global Standard Stratigraphic Ages (GSSA). This involves assigning an arbitrary numerical age to the base of each chronostratigraphic unit, such as era, period, and epoch. However, this approach often results in a disconnect between the rock record and the Earth's evolution, as the inferred ages of these chronostratigraphic boundaries do not necessarily correspond to key geological events. To address this issue, Bleeker (2004) proposed a recommendation schedule for 2004-2008 for Precambrian chronostratigraphy in the GTS 2004. This schedule suggests using key geological events as boundaries for stratigraphic units and adopting the Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Points (GSSP) method, which relies on the objective physical standard of the existing rock record. By identifying key events or transitions in the rock record, a "natural" Precambrian geological timescale can be established.

The volcanic rocks of Xiong 'er Group at 1.80~1.75 Ga are rifting products and magmatic events (Geng et al., 2019) in the west-north margin of the Yangtze Block at 1.8~1.7 Ga (Geng et al., 2020a). The volcanic events and mafic dykes in 1.8-1.7 Ga are common in both North and South China, indicating that the Columbia supercontinent has begun to rift since 1.8 Ga. The Nuna/Columbia supercontinent at 1750 Ma with locations of representative 1.73~1.77 Ga anorogenic granite provinces and mafic dyke swarms (Peterson et al., 2015). From North China, 1.8~1.4 Ga is continuously extension without depositional discontinuity at 1.6 Ga and it is continuous on the northern margin from 1.65~1.4 Ga, and is basically continuous from 1.8~1.6 Ga on the southern margin. From late Paleoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic, red bed, oxidation and even aeolian events (Brazil, North America) initially occurred at 1.8~1.6 Ga, rather than the first at 1.6 Ga (Rainbird et al., 2003; Alkmim and Martins-Neto, 2012; Gibson et al., 2012; Peterson et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2015). Further research indicate that the three continents have basically the same age and the same tectonic properties of the Paleoproterozoic basement; The cratonic stable time is consistent; the three stable continental blocks were all involved in the formation of the Columbia supercontinent, and may have initiated or undergone the process of continental crust extension and transformation after 1.8 Ga and the initial rifting evolution and sedimentation. The onset time of extension and rifting in the early Mesoproterozoic (1.8 Ga) is also very consistent and globally comparable. 1.8 Ga has been adopted as the Meso-Neoproterozoic boundary, and which has been accepted by the Stratigraphic Chart of China (Editorial Committee of《Stratigraphic Chart of China》, National Commission on Stratigraphy of China, 2014; Yao et al., 2016 and Fig. 9.


Fig. 8 Bar code diagrams showing the 1.8~0.7 Ga LIPs in different cratonic blocks

(modified after Li et al., 2023). Black and grey from Li et al., 2023, black for LIPs; gray boxes indicate events with age uncertainty. The green is the magma event associated with extension, and the red is the magma event associated with extrusion in the three continental blocks of China.


Download PDF version here.
Fig. 9 Stratigraphic Chart of China

* Note: References in figures 2~7 come from Geng et al (2020b).

Reference

Alkmim, F.F., and Martins-Neto, M.A., 2012. Proterozoic first-order sedimentary sequences of the São Francisco craton, eastern Brazil. Marine and Petroleum Geology, First-and second-order global sequence stratigraphic correlations for the Precambrian, 33(1): 127-139.

Bleeker, W., 2004. Towards a ‘natural’ time scale for the Precambrian–A proposal. Lethaia, 37(1): 219-222.

Boger, S.D., Carson, C.J., Wilson, C.J.L., and Fanning, C.M., 2000. Neoproterozoic deformation in the Radok Lake region of the Northern Prince Charles Mountains, East Antarctica:Evidence for a single protracted orogenic event. Precambrian Research, 104(1-2): 1-24.

Chen, Z.H., Guo, K.Y., Dong, Y.G., Chen, R., Li, L.M., Liang, Y.H., Li, C.H., Yu, X.M., Zhao, L., and Xing, G.F., 2009b. Possible Early Neoproterozoic magmatism associated with slab window in the Pingshui segment of the Jiangshan-Shaoxing suture zone:Evidence from zircon LA-ICP-MS U-Pb geochronology and geochemistry. Science in China (Series D), 52(7): 925-939.

Chen, Z.H., Xing, G.F., Guo, K.Y., Dong, Y.G., Chen, R., Zeng, Y., Li, L.M., He, Z.Y., and Zhao, L., 2009a. Petrogenesis of keratophyes in the Pingshui Group, Zhejiang: Constraints from zircon U-Pb ages and Hf isotopes. Chinese Science Bulletin, 54(9): 1570-1578 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Danderfer, A., De Waele, B., Pedreira, A.J., and Nalini, H.A., 2009. New geochronological constraints on the geological evolution of Espinhaço basin within the São Francisco Craton-Brazil. Precambrian Research, 170(1-2): 116-128.

Danderfer, F.A., Lana, C.C., Nalini Júnior, H.A., and Costa, A.F.O., 2015. Constraints on the Statherian evolution of the intraplate rifting in a Paleo-Mesoproterozoic paleocontinent: New stratigraphic and geochronology record from the eastern São Francisco Craton. Gondwana Research, 28(2):668-688.

Editorial Committee of National Commission on Stratigraphy of China. 2014. Stratigraphic Chart of China (2014). Beijing: Geological Publishing House (in Chinese).

Ernst, R.E., Bond, D.P.G., Zhang, S.H., Buchan, K.L., Grasby, S.E., Youbi, N., El Bilali, H., Bekker, A., and Doucet, L.S., 2021. Large Igneous Province Record Through Time and Implications for Secular Environmental Changes and Geological Time-Scale Boundaries, in: Large Igneous Provinces. American Geophysical Union (AGU), GM 255, pp. 1-26.

Ernst, R.E., Jowitt, S.M, Blanchard JA and Liikane DA. 2017. Large Igneous Provinces and Their Mafic-Ultramafic Intrusions. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 110: 012005.

Ernst, R.E., Wingate, M.T.D., Buchan, K.L., and Li, Z.X., 2008. Global record of 1600~700 Ma Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs): Implications for the reconstruction of the proposed Nuna (Columbia) and Rodinia supercontinents. Precambrian Research, 160(1-2):159-178.

Ernst, R.E., 2014. Large Igneous Provinces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-65.

Evans, D.A.D., and Mitchell, R.N., 2011. Assembly and breakup of the core of Paleoproterozoic-Mesoproterozoic supercontinent Nuna. Geology, 39(5): 443-446.

Fitzsimons, I.C.W., 2000. Grenville-age basement provinces in East Antarctica:Evidence for three separate collisional orogens. Geology, 28(10): 879-882.

Geng, Y.S., Du, L.L., Kuang, H.W., and Liu, Y.Q., 2020a. Ca. 1.7 Ga magmatism on southwestern margin of the Yangtze Block: Response to the breakup of Columbia. Acta Geologica Sinica-English Edition, 94(6): 2031-2052.

Geng, Y.S., Kuang, H.W., Du, L.L., and Liu, Y.Q., 2020b. The characteristics of Meso-Neoproterozoic magmatic rocks in North China, South China and Tarim blocks and their significance of geological correlation Acta Petrologica Sinica, 36(8): 2276-2312, doi:10.18654/1000-0569/2020.08.02.

Geng, Y.S., Kuang, H.W., Du, L.L., Liu, Y.Q., and Zhao, T.P., 2019. On the Paleo-Mesoproterozoic boundary from the breakup event of the Columbia supercontinent. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 35(8): 2299-2324 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Gibson, G.M., Henson, P.A., Neumann, N.L., Southgate, P.N., and Hutton, L.J., 2012. Paleoproterozoic-earliest Mesoproterozoic basin evolution in the Mount Isa region, northern Australia and implications for reconstructions of the Nuna and Rodinia supercontinents. Episodes, 35(1): 131-141.

Goldberg, A.S., 2010. Dyke swarms as indicators of major extensional events in the 1.9~1.2 Ga Columbia supercontinent. Journal of Geodynamics, 50(3-4): 176-190.

Holland, H.D., 2006. The oxygenation of the atmosphere and oceans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1470): 903-915.

Jackson, M.J., Scott, D.L., and Rawlings, D.J., 2000. Stratigraphic framework for the Leichhardt and Calvert Superbasins:Review and correlations of the pre-1700 Ma successions between Mt Isa and McArthur River. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 47(3): 381-403.

Kaur, P., Zeh, A., Chaudhri, N., and Eliyas, N., 2017. Two distinct sources of 1.73~1.70 Ga A-type granites from the northern Aravalli orogen, NW India: Constraints from in situ zircon U-Pb ages and Lu-Hf isotopes. Gondwana Research, 49: 164-181.

Kelly, N.M., Clarke, G.L., and Fanning, C.M., 2002. A two-stage evolution of the Neoproterozoic Rayner structural episode: New U-Pb sensitive high resolution ion microprobe constraints from the Oygarden Group, Kemp Land East Antarctica. Precambrian Research, 116(3-4): 307-330.

Li, Z.X., Liu, Y., and Ernst, R., 2023. A dynamic 2000-540Ma Earth history: From cratonic amalgamation to the age of supercontinent cycle. Earth-Science Reviews, 238: 104336.

Liu, C.H., Zhao, G.C., Liu, F.L., Xu, W., and Sun, X., 2023. New geochronological results from late Mesoproterozoic to early Neoproterozoic successions in the eastern North China Craton and implications for the reconstruction of Rodinia. GSA Bulletin. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/B36645.1.

Mccourt, S., Armstrong, R.A., Kampunzu, A.B., Mapeo, R.B.M., and Morais, E., 2004. New U-Pb SHRIMP ages on zircons from the Lubango region, Southwest Angola: Insights into the Proterozoic evolution of South-Western Africa. In: Proceedings of the 20th CAG. Orleans, France: Geological Society of South Africa, 438-439.

Mukherjee, I., Large, R.R., Corkrey, R., and Danyushevsky, L.V., 2018. The Boring Billion, a slingshot for Complex Life on Earth. Scientific Reports, 8: 4432.

Neumann, N.L., Southgate, P.N., Gibson, G.M., and McIntyre, A., 2006. New SHRIMP geochronology for the western fold belt of the Mt. Isa Inlier: Developing a 1800~1650 Ma event framework. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 53(6): 1023-1039.

Peterson, T.D., Scott, J.M.J., Le Cheminant, A.N., Jefferson, C.W., and Pehrsson, S.J., 2015. The Kivalliq Igneous Suite: Anorogenic bimodal magmatism at 1.75 Ga in the western Churchill Province, Canada. Precambrian Research, 262: 101-119.

Pirajno, F., and Hoatson, D.M., 2012. A review of Australia's Large Igneous Provinces and associated mineral systems: Implications for mantle dynamics through geological time. Ore Geology Reviews, 48: 2-54.

Rainbird, R.H., Hadlari, T., Aspler, L.B., Donaldson, J.A., Le Cheminant, A.N., and Peterson, T.D., 2003. Sequence stratigraphy and evolution of the Paleoproterozoic intracontinental Baker Lake and Thelon basins, western Churchill Province, Nunavut, Canada. Precambrian Research, 125(1-2): 21-53.

Rivers, T., 1997. Lithotectonic elements of the Grenville Province: Review and tectonic implications. Precambrian Research, 86(3-4): 117-154.

Roberts, N.M.W., 2013. The boring billion?-Lid tectonics, continental growth and environmental change associated with the Columbia supercontinent. Geoscience Frontiers, 4(6): 681-691.

Scott, J.M.J., Peterson, T.D., Davis, W.J., Jefferson, C.W., and Cousens, B.L., 2015. Petrology and geochronology of Paleoproterozoic intrusive rocks, Kiggavik uranium camp, Nunavut. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 52(7): 495-518.

Shankar, R., Sarma, D.S., Babu, N.R., and Parashuramulu, V., 2018. Paleomagnetic study of 1765 Ma dyke swarm from the Singhbhum Craton: Implications to the paleogeography of India. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 157: 235-244.

Shields, G.A., Strachan, R.A., Porter, S.M., Halverson, G.P., Macdonald, F.A., Plumb, K.A., De Alvarenga, C.J., Banerjee, D.M., Bekker, A., Bleeker, W., Brasier, A., Chakraborty, P.P., Collins, A.S., Condie, K., Das, K., Evans, D.A.D., Ernst, R., Fallick, A.E., Frimmel, H., Fuck, R., Hoffman, P.F., Kamber, B.S., Kuznetsov, A.B., Mitchell, R.N., Poiré, D.G., Poulton, S.W., Riding, R., Sharma, M., Storey, C., Stueeken, E., Tostevin, R., Turner, E., Xiao, S., Zhang, S., Zhou, Y., and Zhu, M., 2022. A template for an improved rock-based subdivision of the pre-Cryogenian timescale. Journal of the Geological Society, 179(1): jgs2020-222.

Shumlyanskyy, L., Ernst, R.E., Söderlund, U., Billström, K., Mitrokhin, O., and Tsymbal, S., 2016. New U–Pb ages for mafic dykes in the Northwestern region of the Ukrainian shield: coeval tholeiitic and jotunitic magmatism. GFF, 138(1): 79-85.

Van Kranendonk, M.J., 2012. A chronostratigraphic division of the Precambrian: Possibilities and challenges. In: Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Schmitz, M.D., and Ogg, G.M., (eds.). The Geological Time Scale 2012. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 299-392.

Wang, X.S., Gao, J., Klemd, R., Jiang, T., Zhai, Q.G., Xiao, X.C., and Liang, X.Q., 2015a. Early Neoproterozoic multiple arc-back-arc system formation during subduction-accretion processes between the Yangtze and Cathaysia blocks: New constraints from the supra-subduction zone NE Jiangxi ophiolite (South China). Lithos, 236-237: 90-105.

Yao, J.X., Bo, J.F., Hou, H.F., Wang, Z.J., Ma, X.L., Liu, F.S., Hu, G.X., Ji, Z.S., Wu, G.C., Wu, Z.J., Li, S.P., Guo, C.Q., and Li, Y., 2016. Status of Stratigraphy Research in China. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 90(4): 1069-1081.

Young, G.M., 2013. Precambrian supercontinents, glaciations, atmospheric oxygenation, metazoan evolution and an impact that may have changed the second half of Earth history. Geoscience Frontiers, 4(3): 247-261.

Zhai, M.G., Hu, B., Zhao, T.P., Peng, P., and Meng, Q.R., 2015. Late Paleoproterozoic-Neoproterozoic multi-rifting events in the North China Craton and their geological significance: A study advance and review. Tectonophysics, 662: 153-166.

Zhang, S.H., and Zhao, Y., 2018. The 1.33~1.30Ga mafic large igneous province and REE-Nb metallogenic event in the northern North China Craton. Earth Science Frontiers, 25(5): 34-50 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Zhang, S.H., Zhao, Y., Li, X.H., Ernst, R.E., and 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 and Planetary Science Letters, 465: 112-125.

Zhao, T.P., Pang, L.Y., Qiu, Y.F., Zhu, X.Y., Wang, S.Y., and Geng, Y.S., 2019. The Paleo-Mesoproterozoic boundary: 1.8 Ga. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 35(8): 2281-2298 (in Chinese with English abstract).