Sm–Nd and U–Pb Isotope Geochemistry of the Palaeoproterozoic Mafic Magmatism in Eastern and Northern Finland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Geological Survey of Finland GeologicalGeological SurveySurvey ofof FinlandFinland 2018 Sm–Nd and U–Pb isotope geochemistry of the Palaeoproterozoic mafic magmatism in eastern and northern Finland Hannu Huhma, Eero Hanski, Asko Kontinen, Jouni Vuollo, Irmeli Mänttäri and Yann Lahaye Bulletin 405 • Monograph Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin The Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland publishes the results of scientific research that is thematically or geographically connected to Finnish or Fennoscandian geology, or otherwise related to research and innovation at GTK. Articles by researchers outside GTK are also welcome. All manuscripts are peer reviewed. Editorial Board Prof. Pekka Nurmi, GTK, Chair Dr Stefan Bergman, SGU Dr Asko Käpyaho, GTK Dr Antti Ojala, GTK Dr Timo Tarvainen, GTK, Scientific Editor Instructions for authors available from the Scientific Editor. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF FINLAND Bulletin 405 Sm–Nd and U–Pb isotope geochemistry of the Palaeoproterozoic mafic magmatism in eastern and northern Finland by Hannu Huhma, Eero Hanski, Asko Kontinen, Jouni Vuollo, Irmeli Mänttäri and Yann Lahaye Unless otherwise indicated, the figures have been prepared by the authors of the publication. Layout: Elvi Turtiainen Oy Espoo 2018 Huhma, H.1) , Hanski, E.2), Kontinen, A.3), Vuollo, J.4), Mänttäri, I.1) & Lahaye, Y.1) 2018. Sm–Nd and U–Pb isotope geochemistry of the Palaeoproterozoic mafic magmatism in eastern and northern Finland. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 405, 150 pages, 128 figures, 1 table and 11 appendices. The extensive isotopic studies performed at the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) since the early 1970s have shown that mafic magmas in the Karelia province of the Fennoscandian Shield were emplaced in several stages, including ca. 2.5 Ga, 2.44 Ga, 2.3 Ga, 2.22 Ga, 2.15 Ga, 2.12 Ga, 2.05 Ga, 2.0 Ga, 1.88 Ga and 1.78 Ga. Most of the rock associations formed during these events are related to episodes of shield-wide extension and rifting of the Archaean lithosphere and may be re- garded as examples of ancient large igneous provinces. The Sm–Nd whole-rock and mineral data produced by GTK on Palaeoproterozoic mafic rocks in the Karelia province consist of ca. 800 analyses from ca. 100 rock units. The Sm–Nd mineral ages from well-preserved samples are mostly consistent with the available U–Pb zircon ages and provide reliable estimates for the initial isotope composition of the rocks in question. These data, together with geochemical and other geological information, are used to constrain the age and origin of mafic magmas and the evolution of the lithosphere. The initial εNd values in the studied mafic rocks range from very positive to strongly negative and suggest that some of them were derived from a depleted mantle source, whereas others record a large contribution from old enriched lithosphere. Long-term mantle heterogeneity is evident from the isotopic data on high-REE mantle-derived rocks. Nearly chondritic initial εNd values were obtained from the 2.6 Ga Siilinjärvi carbonatite, the 2.0 Ga Jormua OIB and 1.8 Ga lamprophyres, whereas the 2.0 Ga Laivajoki and Kortejärvi carbonatites have yielded clearly posi- tive initial εNd values of +2.5. Further evidence for a depleted mantle source (by εNd = +4) is provided, for example, by the 2.0–2.1 Ga komatiites and some basalts in Lapland and 2.3 Ga dykes in eastern Finland. The positive εNd(T), particularly at 2.0–2.1 Ga, may indicate major attenuation of the lithosphere, which eventually allowed material from convective mantle to ascend uncontaminated to the surface. Deep-crustal contamination of ultramafic magma may explain many features of the studied mafic-ultramafic rocks, such as the 2.44 Ga layered intrusions with an εNd value of –2. Occasionally, contamination of country rock material at the final emplacement site of an intrusion may have been important, for example in the case of the 2.06 Ga Kevitsa mafic intrusion, showing an initialε Nd value from –3.4 to –6.4. The age and initial Nd isotope composition, together with other relevant infor- mation, provide tools for correlating dykes, intrusions and mafic extrusive units within the Fennoscandian Shield. The data are useful in constraining the ages of the Karelian lithostratigraphic units and their correlation. The results can also be used in correlating events between different cratons, particularly across the Atlantic to the Canadian Shield. Electronic appendices are available at http://tupa.gtk.fi/julkaisu/liiteaineisto/bt_405_ appendix_1_11.xlsx Electronic table is available at http://tupa.gtk.fi/julkaisu/liiteaineisto/bt_405_table_1. xlsx Keywords: Karelia Province, mafic magmas, gabbros, dykes, isotopes, absolute age, U/Pb, Sm/Nd, Proterozoic, Finland, Fennoscandian Shield 1) Geological Survey of Finland, P.O. Box 96, FI-02151 Espoo, Finland 2) Oulu Mining School, P.O. Box 3000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland 3) Geological Survey of Finland, P.O. Box 1237, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland 4) Geological Survey of Finland, P.O. Box 77, FI-96101 Rovaniemi, Finland E-mail: [email protected] ISBN 978-952-217-394-2 (PDF) ISSN 0367-522X (print) ISSN 2489-639X (online) 2 CONTENTS DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 PREFACE ...............................................................................................................................................................7 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2 ANALYTICAL METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Nd isotope analysis ...............................................................................................................................8 2.2 U–Pb isotope analysis ......................................................................................................................... 10 3 LAPLAND ......................................................................................................................................................12 3.1 Geological background ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.2 The 2.4–2.5 Ga intrusions in Lapland ............................................................................................... 16 3.2.1 Tshokkoaivi intrusion .............................................................................................................16 3.2.2 Koitelainen intrusion and associated felsic volcanic rocks .................................................. 17 3.2.3 Peuratunturi and Koulumaoiva intrusions ............................................................................19 3.2.4 Lehtomaa intrusion ..................................................................................................................21 3.2.5 Onkamonlehto dyke ............................................................................................................... 22 3.3 The 2.22 Ga Palovaara intrusion ........................................................................................................24 3.4 The 2.15 Ga intrusions ........................................................................................................................25 3.4.1 Rantavaara intrusion ............................................................................................................... 25 3.4.2 Tanhua intrusions ................................................................................................................... 26 3.5 The 2.05 Ga intrusions ........................................................................................................................29 3.5.1 The Kevitsa intrusion .............................................................................................................. 29 3.5.2 Kevitsa dykes.............................................................................................................................32 3.5.3 The Moskuvaara intrusion ...................................................................................................... 34 3.5.4 The Puijärvi and Satovaara intrusions ...................................................................................35 3.6 The 2.0 Ga intrusions in Kittilä..........................................................................................................36 3.7 The 1.8 Ga Tainio and Lotto intrusions ............................................................................................ 40 3.7.1 Tainio intrusion ....................................................................................................................... 40 3.7.2 Lotto dyke ..................................................................................................................................41 3.8 Intrusions with unknown age ............................................................................................................ 41 3.8.1 Väkkärävaara intrusion ............................................................................................................41 3.8.2 Värriö intrusion ....................................................................................................................... 42 3.9 Volcanic rocks ......................................................................................................................................43