Assembly of the Siberian Craton: Constraints from Paleoproterozoic granitoids
Graphical abstract
Introduction
The Siberian craton, a major Precambrian tectonic unit in Northern Eurasia, had completed its assembly in the Paleoproterozoic (Khain, 2000, Rosen, 2003, Gladkochub et al., 2006, Mazukabzov et al., 2006, Smelov and Timofeev, 2007, Glebovitsky et al., 2008a). Some aspects of the structure and history of the carton still remain poorly understood. Both early models (Grishin et al., 1977, Gafarov et al., 1978, Rundkvist et al., 1988) and recent reconstructions based on new geological, geophysical, and isotope-geochemical data (Rosen, 2003, Gladkochub et al., 2006, Smelov and Timofeev, 2007, Glebovitsky et al., 2008a, Priyatkina et al., 2020) bear much uncertainty, because the craton is buried under Neoproterozoic–Phanerozoic sediments over more than 70% of its territory.
The history of large tectonic units can be read from granitic rocks which formed in island arc, active continental margin, collisional, within-plate or other tectonic settings (Pitcher, 1983, Pearce et al., 1984, Barbarin, 1999, Rosen and Fedorovsky, 2001). The ages, structure, isotope systematics, and formation conditions of Paleoproterozoic granitoids widespread in uplifted and exposed basement inliers throughout the Siberian craton can provide insights into its evolution.
This paper presents a synthesis of available geological, geochronological, geochemical, and isotopic data on Paleoproterozoic granitic rocks and related felsic volcanics from the Siberian craton, which allow reconstructing the main stages of the Paleoproterozoic craton evolution, including its assembly.
Section snippets
Geological background
The Siberian craton is a collage of Archean and Paleoproterozoic terranes that are delineated by orogenic belts and suture zones (Fig. 1). The basement is exposed in the Aldan and Anabar shields, as well as in several uplifts (basement inliers): Kan, Sayan and Sharyzhalgay in the southwestern part of the craton; Baikal and Tonod in the south; Stanovoy in the southeast; and Olenek in the north (Fig. 1).
The origin of the craton has been explained by two basic models. According to one model (
Paleoproterozoic granitic rocks of the Siberian craton
Synthesis of geological, geochronological, geochemical, and isotopic data on Paleoproterozoic granitoids and, in some cases, volcanics related with the granitic rocks (summarized in Table 2S, available online as Supplementary material) can provide basis for correlations among rocks from different basement inliers of the craton (Fig. 3) and shed light on the history of granitic magmatism that records the craton evolution.
Discussion
Different models explaining the consolidation of the Siberian craton have been tested using the assemblage of geological, geochronological, and geochemical data on Paleoproterozoic granitic rocks in different terranes and blocks, with reference to the age of related metamorphism.
Conclusion
- •
Geological, geochronological, geochemical, and isotopic studies of Paleoproterozoic granitoids and, in some cases, related volcanics in the Siberian craton reveal major events of magmatic activity which record different evolution stages of the craton, including its assembly.
- •
Granitoids with ages of 2.5–2.4 Ga and 2.15–2.04 Ga are of local scale being restricted to separate blocks and terranes which later entered the craton structure. These rocks are of different types and represent different
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank D.P. Gladkochub and A.M. Mazukabzov (Institute of the Earth’s Crust, Irkutsk) for discussions on Paleoproterozoic magmatism and the related history of the Siberian craton. Thanks are extended to T.I. Perepelova who improved the style and writing of the manuscript. The research was partly supported by Grant No. 18-05-00764 from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and by Grant No. 075-15-2019-1883 from the Ministry of Science and High Education of the Russian Federation.
References (176)
A review of the relationships between granitoid types, their origins and their geodynamic environments
Lithos
(1999)- et al.
Evidence and implications for a widespread magmatic shutdown for 250 My on Earth
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
(2009) - et al.
Stratotype of the Chaya Formation of the Akitkan Group in the North Baikal volcanoplutonic belt: age and time of sedimentation
Russ. Geol. Geophys.
(2007) - et al.
Discovery of Archaean crust within the Akitkan orogenic belt of the Siberian craton: new insight into its architecture and history
Precambr. Res.
(2009) - et al.
Paleoproterozoic granitoids of the Chuya and Kutima complexes (southern Siberian craton): age, petrogenesis, and geodynamic setting
Russ. Geol. Geophys.
(2013) - et al.
Early Proterozoic postcollisional granitoids of the Biryusa block of the Siberian craton
Russ. Geol. Geophys.
(2014) - et al.
Early Proterozoic granitoids of the Olenek complex (northern Siberian craton): petrogenesis and geodynamic setting
Russ. Geol. Geophys.
(2018) - et al.
Evidence for extensive Proterozoic remobilization of the Aldan Shield and implications for Proterozoic plate tectonic reconstructions of Siberia and Laurentia
Precambr. Res.
(1998) - et al.
Using the isotope dating of endocontact hybrid rocks for the age determination of mafic rocks (southern Siberian craton)
Russ. Geol. Geophys.
(2013) - et al.
The unique Katugin rare-metal deposit (southern Siberia): Constraints on age and genesis
Ore Geol. Rev.
(2017)