Download The Neoarchean Ophiolite in the North China Craton: Early

Journal of Earth Science, Vol. 23, No. 3, p. 277–284, June 2012
Printed in China
DOI: 10.1007/s12583-012-0253-6
ISSN 1674-487X
The Neoarchean Ophiolite in the North China
Craton: Early Precambrian Plate Tectonics and
Scientific Debate
Timothy M Kusky*
Three Gorges Research Center for Geo-hazards, Ministry of Education, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan
430074, China; State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of
Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
Mingguo Zhai (翟明国)
State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
ABSTRACT: Archean greenstone belts and their possible inclusion of fragments of ophiolites is an important research subject, since it is correlated with the nature of early oceanic crust, and can yield information on the nature of early planetary lithospheres, the origin of TTG (tonalite-trondhjemitegranodiorite) continental crust, the formation of early cratons and continents, and is related to when
plate tectonics started in the Earth’s evolutionary history. This article briefly reviews the North China
craton’s Archean ophiolite argument and proposes further studies aimed at understanding the generation of greenstone belts and Archean ophiolites, and suggests some key scientific questions that remain
to be answered.
KEY WORDS: Archean, ophiolite, greenstone belt, North China craton.
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the early history of the Earth is
one of the major challenges to the Earth Science
community. Early crust formation is represented by
massive tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite (TTG), and
its peak formation time is about 2.7 Ga. The formation
of this stage of TTG is generally considered to be related to mantle plumes (e.g., Condie, 1997), although
This study was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 91014002, 40821061), and Ministry
of Education of China (No. B07039).
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
© China University of Geosciences and Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg 2012
Manuscript received January 12, 2012.
Manuscript accepted March 5, 2012.
other models suggest that the TTG terranes may have
formed from partial melting of shallowly subducted
buoyant oceanic slabs (e.g., Tappe et al., 2011; Rapp
and Watson, 1995; Rapp et al., 1991). However, some
cratons preserve a tectonic framework of high-grade
granulite-gneiss and greenstone belts formed in the
Early Archean. Greenstone belts consist of low-grade
metamorphic volcanic-sedimentary rocks which are
typically exposed as linear fold belts around
high-grade rocks (e.g., Kusky and Vearncombe, 1997).
For the tectonic setting of greenstone belt rocks, there
are different opinions including intracontinental rifts,
island arcs, back-arc basin—small ocean basin combinations, although these models are not mutually exclusive. These different ideas led to a debate of
whether plate tectonics existed in the Archean and
when did plate tectonics begin to operate (e.g., Stern,
278
2007).
Archean ophiolite discrimination is one of the
main bases to explore the issues of whether or not
plate tectonics existed in the Archean and when did
plate tectonics begin to operate, thus many scientists
have been dedicated to this study for many years.
There are a number of papers related to this aspect
published in international journals. “Precambrian
Ophiolites and Related Rocks” edited by Kusky (2004)
focused on Archean and Proterozoic ophiolites, and
also discussed the oceanic crust evolution model
which changes with time. The assumed oldest ophiolite is from the Isua supracrustal rocks in West
Greenland (Furnes et al., 2009, 2007a, b), with an
isotopic age of ~3.8 Ga. The ophiolites that are assumed to be around 3.0–2.7 Ga age include the 3.0 Ga
ophiolite of Olondo in the Aldan Shield, East Siberia,
2.8 Ga SSZ-type ophiolite of the North Karelian belt
in the NE Baltic Shield, Russia, and 2.7 Ga ophiolites
in the Slave craton, Canada, and Zimbabwe (Cocoran
et al., 2004; Hofmann and Kusky, 2004; Puctel, 2004;
Shchipansky et al., 2004; Kusky, 1998, 1991, 1990,
1989; Kusky and Kidd, 1992), and 2.5 Ga ophiolites
in the North China craton (NCC). All above ophiolites
are still controversial, mainly because of their differences compared to the rock association, occurrence
and geochemistry of modern spreading ridges. Since
documentation of Archean ophiolites is a key scientific issue, the debate and further research will continue and its progress will promote the understanding
of early continental evolution and the beginning of
plate tectonics.
GENERAL
CHARACTERISTICS
OF
GREENSTONE BELTS AND OPHIOLITES
Greenstone Belt
Generally, the term greenstone belt refers to a
supracrustal rock belt distributed in linear to arcuate
zones in Precambrian shields. Greenstone belts typically contain products of several generations of mafic
volcanic-sedimentary rocks. The main rocks consist of
basalts, komatiites, intermediate-acidic calc-alkaline
volcanic rocks and sedimentary rocks, gabbros and
diabases, and minor serpentinized ultramafic rocks
(e.g., de Wit and Ashwal, 1997). Metamorphic grades
range from sub-greenschist to granulite, with
Timothy M Kusky and Mingguo Zhai
greenschist-amphibolite facies being most characteristic. The chlorite, epidote, actinolite and other metamorphic minerals give the rocks their characteristic
dark green color. A complete set of strata of greenstone belt rocks is typically comprised of early volcanic rocks and later clastic sedimentary rocks or volcanic clastic sedimentary rocks, which are mainly turbidites. Underlying volcanic/plutonic rocks are mainly
ultramafic-mafic rocks also in some cases including
komatiites. Overlying volcanic rocks are typically
calc-alkaline volcanic rocks. There are generally ultramafic lenses underlying the greenstone belt, which
are explained to represent fragments of ancient mantle.
Greenstone belts are structurally complex with a complex series of deformation events, yet many exhibit a
broad synclinal shape surrounding high-grade
gneiss-granulite zones, formed in the late stages of
deformation of these belts (e.g., Kusky and Vearncombe, 1997).
Ophiolite
An ophiolite is a rock suite that consists of serpentinized ultramafic rocks, a mafic intrusive complex,
mafic lavas and marine sediments. The classical
“Penrose” (Anonymous, 1972) representative ophiolitic sequence includes, from base upward, peridotites,
gabbros, sheeted dikes, mafic lavas and marine sediments, in which peridotites and gabbros can be repeated several times. During deformation and metamorphism, peridotites are generally serpentinized with
a density reduction, and then can be easily uplifted
and undergo plastic deformation and significant
structural displacement. Overlying the igneous rocks
are pelitic and sandy rocks, which may be intercalated
with chert and limestone. Many ophiolitic rocks from
around the world have similar sequences, which can
be compared with sequences of current ocean floors,
so ophiolites are generally thought to be fragments of
oceanic crust attached to the continental margin or island arc. However, the integrity of ophiolitic sequences is always damaged because of the subduction
of oceanic crust, tectonic emplacement that forms
overthrust nappes, and in most cases just some sections of the sequence or mixed rocks from hybrid accumulation can be observed. The origin of ophiolite is
generally interpreted to be generated by the emplace-
The Neoarchean ophiolite in the North China Craton: Early Precambrian Plate Tectonics and Scientific Debate
ment of oceanic lithosphere which is formed because
of ocean floor spreading along a mid oceanic ridge, or
spreading in a fore-arc environment (e.g., Dilek and
Furnes, 2011; Robinson et al., 2008). There are close
relations between ophiolites and the evolution of oceTable 1
Indicator
279
anic lithosphere, therefore, research on ophiolite
composition, components and origin is the main way
to understand the structure, change, and dynamics of
oceanic lithosphere. Recent work (e.g., Dilek and
Furnes, 2011; Kusky et al., 2011) shows that there is a
Criteria for Recognition of a Rock Sequence as an Ophiolite
Importance
Status in
Status in Dongwanzi
Conclusion
Suggested, needs
Not
Documentation
conclusive
Phanerozoic
ophiolites
Full Penrose sequence
Diagnostic
Rare, about 10%
In order
And verification.
Podiform chromites w/
Diagnostic
About 15%
Present
Diagnostic
Convincing
About 30%–50%
Dismembered units
Convincing
nodular textures
Full sequence
dismembered
Present
3 or 4 of 7 main units
Typical for accepting
present
Phanerozoic. Ophiolite
About 80%
6 of 7 units known
Convincing
Dikes still not convincing
Uncertain (age)
Sheeted dikes
Distinctive, nearly diagnostic About 10%
Suggested, age needs
Not
Verification
conclusive
Mantle tectonites
Distinctive
About 20%–30%
Present
Distinctive
Cumulates
Present, not distinctive
About 70%
Present
Supportive
Layered gabbro
Typical
About 70%
Present
Supportive
Pillow lavas
Typical not distinctive
About 85%
Present
Supportive
Chert, deep water seds
Typical
About 85%
Present
Supportive
Co-magmatic dikes and
Necessary, rare to observe
About 15%
Present
Distinctive
About 10%
Present
Distinctive
About 60%
Present
Supportive
Distinctive, almost diagnostic About 15%
Not determined
Inconclusive
Sea floor metamor
Distinctive
All
Present
Supportive
Hydrothermal vents
Distinctive
Rare
Present
Strongly
gabbro
High-T silicate defm. ins Rare, but distinctive
inclus. in melt pods
Basal thrust fault
Necessary (except in rare
cases), not diag.
Dynamothermal
sole
black smoker type
supports
Ophiolites are defined on the basis of field relationships and the overall rock sequence. Many workers have added
chemical criteria to the ways to recognize and distinguish between different types of ophiolites. Some of the more
common traits are
MORB chem.
Common
About 40%
Present
Distinctive
Arc tholeiite chem.
Common
About 60%
Present
Distinctive
Flat REE
Distinctive
About 65%
Present
Distinctive
Calc-alkaline chem.
Common
About 25%
Present in some units
Inconclusive
Boninite chem.
Distinctive
About 40%
Uncertain
Inconclusive
280
much greater variation in young ophiolites and oceanic lithosphere than proposed by the Penrose definition (Anonymous, 1972), and workers in ancient Precambrian shields need to appreciate the variation in
Phanerozoic ophiolites and modern oceanic lithosphere, when interpreting the tectonic setting of mafic/
ultramafic/sedimentary sequences in greenstone belts.
Because ophiolites are mostly dismembered and
disordered fragments, there are different criteria and
descriptions in formal research for how to determine
whether or not a rock sequence may be an ophiolite.
Kusky (2004) presented a list of criteria for determining whether or not a rock sequence is an ophiolite or
not. This list is modified and reproduced above (also
after Kusky et al., 2011) where geologists can compare the different indicators of ophiolitic characteristics of a rock sequence against well-known Phanerozoic ophiolites, to determine how well their sequence
of rocks compares to established ophiolite sequences.
The main problem is that even if a rock sequence had
a sea-floor spreading ridge origin, it is typically dismembered and only partly preserved because of the
structural and metamorphic consequences of the emplacement process. It has to be asked, how many of
the characteristics of a full Penrose-style ophiolite are
needed to recognize a rock sequence as having a
sea-floor spreading origin? In Table 1, the presence or
absence of different units in the Archean DongwanziZunhua ophiolite belt of the North China craton are
compared to typical Phanerozoic ophiolites, but these
columns can be replaced with the rocks present in any
other given rock sequence to see how well it compares
to other recognized ophiolites.
PREVIOUS AND FURTHER STUDY OF
ARCHEAN OPHIOLITES IN THE NCC
As originally reported in Science (Kusky et al.,
2001), a group of circa 2.5 Ga mafic/ultramafic rocks
in eastern Hebei, China, was interpreted to represent
one of the world’s oldest, most complete yet dismembered and metamorphosed ophiolite sequences. This
sequence was named the Dongwanzi ophiolite and has
been the focus of much scientific debate since the
original proposal (Kusky and Li, 2010, 2008, 2002;
Kusky et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2007; Zhang et al.,
2003; Zhai et al., 2002). The main focus point of the
Timothy M Kusky and Mingguo Zhai
debate is documenting if rocks in this belt have genetic relationships with each other. The ophiolite belt
was later (Li et al., 2002) extended to the south to the
Zunhua area (Fig. 1) to include a group of ophiolitelike fragments in high grade mélange, including podiform chromites, and the belt has since been referred to
as the Dongwanzi-Zunhua ophiolite belt (e.g., Kusky
and Li, 2010). The Dongwanzi ophiolite, in the original reconnaissance maps and definition of Kusky et al.
(2001) included three belts of rocks, namely the
northern, central, and southern zones. In these belts,
the sequence of rocks was suggested to grade upwards
from tectonized harzburgites, through lower crustal
ultramafic and mafic cumulates, into a thick gabbro
unit, then into a unit of metamorphosed mafic amphibolites that locally include remnants of pillow lavas
and dike complexes.
One of the most contentious issues has been the
age of the relatively small central belt of the Dongwanzi ophiolite. Kusky et al. (2001) interpreted this
belt to be part of the main ophiolite preserved in the
southeastern belt, but stated that the central belt is intruded by several generations of younger intrusions,
and in 2004 (Kusky et al., 2004) dated these younger
intrusions as circa 300 Ma. Later, Zhao et al. (2007)
confirmed that gabbro, leucogabbro and mafic dikes
of only the central belt of the Dongwanzi complex are
later intrusions, and considered that Kusky et al. regarded this rockmass as a part of the Archean Dongwanzi complex by mistake. Based on the new data,
there are at least two current possible interpretations to
explain this discrepancy. One possibility is that Zhao
et al. (2007) only dated the younger intrusions in the
central belt, and missed the older rocks. The other interpretation is that the zircons that Kusky et al. (2001)
dated may have been old xenocrystic cores caught in
younger intrusions. Therefore, until further work can
resolve this ambiguity, Kusky et al. abandon the correlation of the central belt with the main southeastern
belt of the Dongwanzi-Zunhua mafic-ultramafic belt.
Yet they emphasize that most of the data and interpretation of the Dongwanzi-Zuhua belt as ophiolitic
comes from the southeastern belt, and its extensions to
Palaeoarchean terrains along strike which contain extensively serpentinized ultramafic rocks from
Qinglong, Zunhua, Zhangjiakou of Hebei, Miyun of
The Neoarchean ophiolite in the North China Craton: Early Precambrian Plate Tectonics and Scientific Debate
Beijing to some areas of Shanxi-Henan (Fig. 1, Polat
and Kusky, 2007). They consider that there once existed a relatively large scale ophiolite belt of ~2.5 Ga,
90 o
281
hence to explain the Neoarchean tectonic evolution of
the North China craton.
110 o
120 o
130 oE
Changchun
North Hebei orogenic belt
40 oN
Duolun
Bayan Obo
3
1
rog
Xi’an
en
1.8 Ga granulites
Proterozoic granite
(1.9 Ga)
Khondalites and
S-type granite
(2.2 - 1.9 Ga)
2.5 Ga ophiolitic
fragments
elt
*
** ** **
COB
35 o
ch
eo
nb
u fa
Ta n
l
Qingdao
block
Su
Songpan
*
Eastern
Paleoproterozoic
orogenic belt
Archean orogenic
belt
Qi
nli
ng
-D
Xinyang
ab
Wuhan
ie b
Shanghai
elt
Thrust boundary
30 o
ao
Western
block
Imjingang
belt
Og
hin
Taiyuan
**
6
**
**
Jiaoliao
belt
lt
al C
4
be
ntr
Datong-Wuqi
fault
Beijing
lu
Ce
**
* * ** *
*** ** 5
ult
2
Jiayuguan
Yellow Sea
Fault
City
0
400 km
Figure 1. Tectonic sketch map of the North China craton (modified after Kusky et al., 2007) showing the
eastern and western blocks separated by the central orogenic belt (COB). Note the location of suggested
Archean ophiolitic fragments in the central orogenic belt. Proposed ophiolitic fragments include 1. Dongwanzi; 2. Zunhua; 3. West Liaoning; 4. North Taihang; 5. Wutaishan; 6. South Taihang.
Since the initial report in 2001 of the possible
Archean ophiolite in North China, it has led to widespread concern of scholars at home and abroad. In this
period, Li and Kusky (2003) have led two international field trips to the Dongwanzi-Zunhua belt. The
problems concerned are also about the interpretations
of mantle peridotite, gabbro, sheeted dike complex,
pillow lava, podiform chromite, and geochemistry of
igneous rocks besides the ages of mafic-ultramafic
rocks in the Dongwanzi area. Respective evidence has
been presented for different opinions (Zhang et al.,
2003; Kusky et al., 2010, 2004; Zhao et al., 2007;
Polat et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2004; Li et al., 2002).
However, because these Precambrian rocks experienced complicated metamorphism and deformation,
and were overprinted by later magmatism, the re-
search is very complicated when compared to the
Phanerozoic, so far, there still exist many differences
in interpretations.
To these different views, there are three main aspects which need to be emphasized. The first one is
detailed geological research, including making formal
detailed geological maps and geochronology research
on some terrains, and to map, date, and reject later intrusions as not being part of the Archean complex. At
the same time, we suggest that different researchers
can have the chance to do the field investigation together and discuss problems on the spot, to avoid the
variance in the object of study and sample collection.
The second one is understanding and discussion
to the concept of ophiolites. For example, the origin of
podiform chromites; so far podiform chromites are
Timothy M Kusky and Mingguo Zhai
282
only known from ophiolites, but deep mantle rocks
from other environments are rarely preserved so we
can not be sure if they can form in different tectonic
environments. The significance of pillow lava, and
geochemical indication, identification and formation
mechanism of sheeted dikes as well as the relationship
between the rate of extension and the rate of magma
supply, and the change of geochemical characteristics
of rocks in metamorphic processes all need to be
carefully assessed as to whether they are unique to
ophiolites, or if ophiolites may have different characteristics between older and younger ages.
The last one is the recognition to Archean oceanic crust, for example, if old oceanic crust was
thicker and hotter than that of the Mesoproterozoic
and younger times. If there are disparities in physics
and geochemical characteristics, what are the similarities and differences of the formation environment of
Archean greenstone belts with arcs or oceanic basins,
and what is the relationship between the formation of
TTG and possible old oceanic crust? Study of possible
Archean ophiolites will yield clues about if the amalgamation mechanism of micro-continental blocks in
the Palaeo-Mesoarchean NCC is the same or similar to
plate tectonics.
might be the oldest, most integral yet dismembered
and metamorphosed Archean oceanic crust and mantle
fragment in the world. Mingguo Zhai (e.g., Zhai et al.,
2005) emphasizes more about the differences of the
Archean oceanic crust and the oceanic crust after that,
considering the genetic relationship between the formation of the huge amount of TTG rocks and the ultramafic rocks. The North China craton is one of the
oldest cratons in the world, with a variety of rock
types, colorful geological phenomenon, and a complex
geological record of the events. The NCC is the ideal
place to study early Precambrian geology. This paper
calls for researchers to give more study on Precambrian North China, especially on Archean ophiolites,
Paleoproterozoic high pressure-high temperature and
ultra-high temperature granulites, Precambrian mineral deposits and other key scientific issues, so as to
make innovative contributions to earth science.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funds were provided by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Nos. 91014002,
40821061) and Ministry of Education of China (No.
B07039).
REFERENCES CITED
ENDING REMARKS
In short, the Early Precambrian ophiolite is a
very active scientific issue, its meaning is the character and recognition of the Early Precambrian oceanic
crust, when did plate tectonics begin to work in the
evolution of Earth’s history, and are there any differences of evolutionary mechanism between the continent and the ocean. The problem of the possible Archean ophiolite within the North China craton had
been discussed very early, and the article of Kusky et
al. (2001) on the Dongwanzi ophiolite has triggered a
great interest among domestic and foreign scholars.
Different views of the controversy impetus the Precambrian research of North China to a certain extent,
showing the importance of this research topic. There
are also different views from the two authors of this
paper. Timothy M Kusky emphasizes that this belt
contains most of the ingredients that a typical ophiolite should include, although it is controversial. The
existing data still supports this interpretation that it
Anonymous, 1972. Ophiolites. Geotimes, 17: 24–15
Cocoran, P. L., Mueller, W. U., Kusky, T. M., 2004. Inferred
Ophiolites in the Archean Slave Craton. In: Kusky, T. M.,
ed., Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian Geology, 13: 363–404
Condie, K. C., 1997. Plate Tectonics and Crustal Evolution (4th
Edition). Elsevier, Burlington
de Wit, M. J., Ashwal, L. D., 1997. Greenstone Belts. Oxford
Science Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 809
Dilek, Y., Furnes, H., 2011. Ophiolite Genesis and Global
Tectonics: Geochemical and Tectonic Fingerprinting of
Ancient Oceanic Lithosphere. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 123(3–4): 387–411,
doi:10.1130/
B30446.1
Furnes, H., de Wit, M. J., Staudigel, H., et al., 2007a. A Vestige
of
Earth’s
Oldest
Ophiolite.
Science,
315(5819):
1704–1707, doi:10.1126/science.1139170
Furnes, H., de Wit, M. J., Staudigel, H., et al., 2007b. Response
to Comments on “A Vestige of Earth’s Oldest Ophiolite”.
Science, 318(5851), doi: 10.1126/science.1144231
The Neoarchean ophiolite in the North China Craton: Early Precambrian Plate Tectonics and Scientific Debate
Furnes, H., Rosing, M., Dilek, Y., et al., 2009. Isua Su-
283
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 273: 227–230
pracrustal Belt (Greenland)—A Vestige of a 3.8 Ga Su-
Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., Glass, A., et al., 2004. Origin and Em-
prasubduction Zone Ophiolite, and the Implications for
placement of Archean Ophiolites of the Central Orogenic
Archean Geology. Lithos, 113(1–2): 115–132
Belt, North China Craton (Chapter 7). In: Kusky, T. M.,
Hofmann, A., Kusky, T. M., 2004. The Belingwe Greenstone
Belt: Ensialic or Oceanic? In: Kusky, T. M., Precambrian
Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian Geology, 13: 487–538
ed., Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian Geology, 13: 223–274
Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., Tucker, R. D., 2001. The Archean
Dongwanzi Ophiolite Complex, North China Craton:
Huang, X. N., Li, J. H., Kusky, T. M., et al., 2004. Microstructures of the Zunhua 2.50 Ga Podiform Chromite, North
2.505 Billion Year Old Oceanic Crust and Mantle. Science,
292: 1142–1145, doi:10.1126/science.1059426
China Craton and Implications for the Deformation and
Kusky, T. M., Vearncombe, J., 1997. Structure of Archean
Rheology of the Archean Oceanic Lithospheric Mantle
Greenstone Belts (Chapter 3). In: de Wit, M. J., Ashwal, L.
(Chapter 10). In: Kusky, T. M., ed., Precambrian Ophio-
D., eds., Tectonic Evolution of Greenstone Belts. Oxford
lites and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian
Monograph on Geology and Geophysics, 95–128
Kusky, T. M., Wang, L., Dilek, Y., et al., 2011. Application of
Geology, 13: 321–337
Kusky, T. M., 1989. Accretion of the Archean Slave Province.
the Modern Ophiolite Concept with Special Reference to
Precambrian Ophiolites. Science China (Sers. D), 54(3):
Geology, 17: 63–67
Kusky, T. M., 1990. Evidence for Archean Ocean Opening and
Closing in the Southern Slave Province. Tectonics, 9(6):
1533–1563, doi:10.1029/TC009i006p01533
315–341, doi:10.1007/s11430-011-4175-4
Kusky, T. M., Windley, B. F., Zhai, M. G., 2007. Tectonic
Evolution of the North China Block: From Orogen to
Kusky, T. M., 1991. Structural Development of an Archean
Craton to Orogen. In: Zhai, M. G., Windley, B. F., Kusky,
Orogen, Western Point Lake, Northwest Territories. Tec-
T. M., et al., eds., Mesozoic Sub-Continental Lithospheric
tonics, 10(4): 820–841, doi:10.1029/91TC00765
Thinning Under Eastern Asia. Geological Society of Lon-
Kusky, T. M., 1998. Tectonic Setting and Terrane Accretion of
the Archean Zimbabwe Craton. Geology, 26(2): 163–166,
doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1998)026<0163:TSATAO>2.3.
CO; 2
don
Special
Publication,
280:
1–34,
doi:10.1144/SP280.10305-8719/07/$15
Li, J. H., Kusky, T. M., 2003. A Field Trip Guidebook to the
Dongwanzi Ophiolite and Zunhua Mantle Tectonites and
Kusky, T. M., 2004. Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks:
Podiform Chromites. Interridge Program of NSF
Introduction. In: Kusky, T. M., Precambrian Ophiolites
Li, J. H., Kusky, T. M., Huang, X., 2002. Neoarchean Podiform
and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian Geol-
Chromitites and Harzburgite Tectonite in Ophiolitic Me-
ogy, 13: 1–35, doi:10.1016/S0166-2635(04)13027-2
lange, North China Craton, Remnants of Archean Oceanic
Kusky, T. M., Kidd, W. S. F., 1992. Remnants of an Archean
Mantle. GSA Today, 12(7): 4–11
Oceanic Plateau, Belingwe Greenstone Belt, Zimbabwe,
Polat, A., Herzberg, C., Munker, C., et al., 2006. Geochemical
Geology, 20(1): 43–46, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1992)
and Petrological Evidence for a Suprasubduction Zone
Origin of Neoarchean (ca. 2.5 Ga) Peridotites, Central
020<0043:ROAAOP>2.3.CO;2
Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., 2010. Origin and Emplacement of Ar-
Orogenic Belt, North China Craton. Bulletin of the Geo-
chean Ophiolites of the Central Orogenic Belt, North
logical
China Craton. Journal of Earth Science, 21(5): 744–781,
doi:10.1130/B25845.1
Society
of
America,
118(7–8):
771–784,
Polat, A., Kusky, T. M., 2007. Discussion of Geochemistry of
doi:10.1007/s12583-010-0119-8
Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., 2002. Is the Dongwanzi Complex an
the Late Archean (ca. 2.55–2.50 Ga) Volcanic and Ophio-
Archean Ophiolite? Response to Zhai, M. G., Zhao, G. C.,
litic Rocks in the Wutaishan Greenstone Belt, Central
Zhang,
Orogenic Belt, North China Craton: Implications for
Q.,
Science,
295(5557):
923,
doi:10.1126/science.295.5557.923a
Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., 2008. Discussion of “U-Pb Zircon Age
Constraints on the Dongwanzi Ultramafic-Mafic Body,
North China, Confirm It Is not an Archean Ophiolite”.
Geodynamic Setting and Continental Growth. Reply to
Zhao, G., Kroner, A., Geological Society of America Bulletin, 119: 490–492
Puchtel, I. S., 2004. 3.0 Ga Olondo Greenstone Belt in the
Timothy M Kusky and Mingguo Zhai
284
Aldan Shield, E. Siberia. In: Kusky, T. M., ed., Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in
Precambrian
Geology,
13:
405–424,
doi:10.1016/S0166-2635(04)13013-2
doi:10.1007/s11434-007-0073-8
Tappe, S., Smart, K. A., Pearson, D. G., et al., 2011. Craton
Formation in Late Archean Subduction Zones Revealed by
First Greenland Eclogites. Geology, 39(12): 1103–1106,
Rapp, R. P., Watson, E. B., 1995. Dehydration Melting of Me-
doi:10.1130/G32348.1
tabasalt at 8–32 kbar: Implications for Continental Growth
Zhai, M. G., Guo, J. H., Liu, W. J., 2005. Neoarchean to Pa-
and Crust-Mantle Recycling. Journal of Petrology, 36(4):
leoproterozoic Continental Evolution and Tectonic History
891–931, doi:10.1093/petrology/36.4.891
of the North China Craton: A Review. Journal of Asian
Rapp, R. P., Watson, E. B., Miller, C. F., 1991. Partial Melting
Earth Sciences, 24: 547–561
of Amphibolite/Eclogite and the Origin of Archean
Zhai, M. G., Zhao, G. C., Zhang, Q., 2002. Is the Dongwanzi
Trondhjemites and Tonalites. Precambrian Research,
Complex an Archean Ophiolite? Science, 295(5557): 923,
51(1–4): 1–25
doi:10.1126/science.295.5557.923a
Robinson, P. T., Malpas, J., Dilek, Y., et al., 2008. The Sig-
Zhang, Q., Ni, Z. Y., Zhai, M. G., 2003. Comments on the Ar-
nificance of Sheeted Dike Complexes in Ophiolites. GSA
chean Ophiolites in Eastern Hebei. Earth Sci. Front., 10(4):
Today, 18(11): 4–10
429–437 (in Chinese with English Abstract)
Shchipansky, A. A., Samsonov, A. V., Bibikova, E. V., 2004.
Zhao, G. C., Sun, M., Wilde, S. A., 2005. Late Archean to Pa-
2.8 Ga Boninite-Hosted Partial Suprasubduction Zone
leoproterozoic Evolution of the North China Craton: Key
Ophiolite Sequences from the North Karelian Greenstone
Issues Revisited. Precambrian Research, 136: 177–202,
Belt, NE Baltic Shield, Russia. In: Kusky, T. M., ed., Pre-
doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2004.10.002
cambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in
Zhao, G. C., Wilde, S. A., Li, S. Z., et al., 2007. U-Pb Zircon
Precambrian Geology, 13: 425–486, doi:10.1016/S0166-
Age Constraints on the Dongwanzi Ultramafic-Mafic
2635(04)13014-4
Body, North China, Confirm It Is not an Archean Ophio-
Stern, R. J., 2007. When and How Did Plate Tectonics Begin?
Theoretical and Empirical Considerations. Chinese Science
Bulletin,
52(5):
578–591,
lite. Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
85–93, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2006.12.007
255(1–2):