Alkaline Igneous Rocks of Magnet
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
American Mineralogist, Volume 74, pages I I3-13 I, 1989 Alkaline igneousrocks of Magnet Cove, Arkansas: Metasomatizedijolite xenoliths from Diamond Jo quarry M.cnrA,J. K. Fr,onn, Mlr,cor,vr Ross 959 National Center,U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Reston, Viryinia 22092,U.5.4. Ansrucr Ijolite xenoliths occur in garnet-pseudoleucitesyenite that forms part of the outer ring of the Magnet Cove alkaline ring-dike complex. Xenoliths were collected from the Dia- mond Jo quarry located in the southern part of the complex. The xenoliths contain abun- dant diopside and Ti-rich andradite garnets and have been extensively metasomatized. Garnet-pseudoleucitesyenite and nepheline syenite are identified as possible sourcesof the volatile-rich fluids responsiblefor the metasomatismof the ijolite xenoliths. Residual, volatile-rich fluids from the ijolites may have also produced autometasomaticalteration before the ijolites were entrained as xenoliths in the garnet-pseudoleucitesyenite. Non- isotropic hydrogarnet,formed during metasomatism,contains up to 3.5 wto/oF. Aegirine, biotite, and melanite garnet, also formed during metasomatism, contain relatively high amounts of V andlor Ti, indicating that these elementswere transported by the metaso- matic fluids. Mineral compositions and geochemicaldata indicate that the ijolite xenoliths share many characteristicswith the intrusive ijolites that form the inner rings of the Magnet Cove complex. INrnolucrroN then consider the petrogeneticrelationships ofthe ijolite The Magnet Cove complex is an alkaline ring-dike xenoliths to the garnet ijolite and biotite-garnet ijolite complex that crops out in an area of approximately 12 that form the inner rings of the complex. km2 in Hot Spring County, Arkansas. The igneousrocks of the complex intrude deformed Paleozoic sedimentary Gnor,ocv rocks of the Ouachita Mountains. Biotite K-Ar and Rb- The rocks of Magnet Cove are host to numerous min- Sr agesobtained by Zartman (1977) indicate a Cretaceous eral species,and much of the early literature about the age of 95-102 Ma for the complex. Fission-track ages complex dealswith the minerals. The first detailed petro- (Eby, 1987) indicate two periods of igneous activity at graphic study and geologic map of Magnet Cove were Magnet Cove. The mean spheneage for the emplacement made by Williams (1891).Erickson and Blade(1963) re- of the silicaterock units is 101.4 + 1.0 Ma, whereasthe mapped the Magnet Cove complex and presenteda de- carbonatite,which occursin the core of the complex, was tailed lithologic and geochemical study of the igneous emplacedabout 5 m.y. later, as indicated by a mean apa- rocks and the surrounding country rocks. A generalized tite ageof 95.9 + 0.4 Ma. MagnetCove is one of several geologicmap of the complex basedon their detailed map alkaline igneous intrusions in central Arkansas. Morris is given in Figure l. Erickson and Blade (1963) concluded (1987)described this diversesuite ofrocks and discussed that phonolites and trachytes were intruded first, fol- possible petrologic relationships among them. One pur- lowed by jacupirangite and the syenitesofthe outer ring, pose of the current study of the igneousrocks from Mag- then the inner-ring ijolites, and finally carbonatite,which net Cove is to elucidate the relationships among the var- is found in the core of the complex. Erickson and Blade ious rock types and to compare the petrologic evolution (1963) proposedthat the igneousrocks of the Magnet of Magnet Cove to that of the other intrusions of the Cove complex are related by differentiation and fraction- Arkansas alkaline province. al crystallization of a residual, volatile-enriched phono- Metasomatism has played an important role in the pet- lite magma and that this magma was derived by fraction- rogenetichistory of these rocks. All of the samplesfrom al crystallization of an undersaturated olivine basalt the Diamond Jo quarry examinedthus far show extensive magma. replacementof primary magmatic minerals by secondary Exposuresof fresh rocks are scarcewithin the complex. phases.In this paper, which is the first ofa serieson the However, the opening of the Diamond Jo quarry in the Magnet Cove complex, we describeboth the primary and latter part ofthe l9th century to supply stone ballast for secondarymineral assemblagesfound in ijolite xenoliths the Hot Springs Railroad exposedmuch fresh unweath- from the garnet-pseudoleucitesyenite that forms part of ered rock. This quarry, which is located in the southern the outer syenite ring of the Magnet Cove complex. We part of the complex and within the outer syenitering (Fig. 0003-004x/89/ol024r I 3$02.00 I t3 rt4 FLOHR AND ROSS: METASOMATIZED IJOLITE XENOLITHS ffilacupirangite E '":;:;;i,'p he Ii ne f,l carnet-paeudo- leucite syeniie ffiPnonolirE, Trachyte Ifl carnet-biotite melteigita El Garnet ijotite Q eiorite-sarnet iiolite N rine-grainea ijolite I Carbonatite n Metagediments Fig. 1. Generalizedgeologic map of the Magnet Cove alkaline igneous complex, Hot Spring County, Arkansas, after Erickson and Blade (1963). The Diamond Jo quarry (solid triangle) is the sampling site of the ijolite xenoliths describedin this paper. The open and solid circles mark, respectively,the approximate sampling locations ofgarnet ijolites99423/7 and 85-13B-RSS;tfe open and solid squaresmark, respectively,the approximate sampling locations of biotite-garnet ijolites 99423/6 and 85- I 6-RSS. l), was mapped in detail by Owens and Howard (1989), Wrror,B-nocK coMPosrrroNs oF and a simplified version of part of their map is shown in M,LcnBr CovB rror,rrps Figure 2. The two rock types exposed on the walls of the Whole-rock major-, minor-, and trace-element com- quarry (originally are nepheline syenite mapped by Erick- positionsof ijolite xenoliths 5-DJ7, l-166, and l-143 son and Blade, 1963, as nepheline syenite pegmatite) and (Tables l, 2) reflect the modal diversity of the ijolite xe- garnet-pseudoleucite syenite. The contact between these nolith suite (Table 3). Included in Tables I and 2 are garnet-pseudoleu- two rock types is relatively sharp. The analysesofa garnetijolite and a biotite-garnet ijolite from cite syenite contains abundant xenoliths ofijolite, ranging the inner-ring ijolite for preliminary comparison with the from a few millimeters to 3 m in diameter. Xenoliths of ijolite xenoliths. Major- and minor-element composi- Stanley shale, now metamorphosed to hornfels, are also tions ofseveral additional ijolites from the inner ring are found within garnet-pseudoleucite the syenite. Prelimi- reportedby Erickson and Blade (1963, rheir Table l7). nary petrographic and electron-microprobe data from the Descriptions by Erickson and Blade indicate that these given Diamond Jo syenites and ijolite xenoliths were by samplesare similar to the inner-ring ijolites included in Ross (1984) (1985a, and Flohr and Ross 1985b). this study. Overall, the inner-ring ijolites are slightly more Mrrrrors oF ANALYSTs magnesianand contain significantly less F and CO, than the ijolite xenoliths. Mineral compositions were obtained by using an automated Of the three analyzedijolite xenoliths, l-143 contains AnL-sruqr electron microprobe operating at 15 kV with a beam the highest abundanceof clinopyroxene plus garnet and current of 0. I pA using either an 8- or 9-spectrometerconfigu- Fe, in Al, ration. Correction procedures of Bence and Albee (1968) and is enriched in Ti, and Ca and depleted Si, and alpha-factor modifications of Albee and Ray (1970) were used. Na comparedwith samplesl-166 and 5-DJ7. Xenolith During analysis of cancrinite and natrolite, the electron beam l-143 is alsoenriched in V, Y, andZr, comparedto sam- was rasteredover an area of 4 pm'?in order to minimize loss of ples 5-DJ7 and l-166. These are trace elementscom- Na due to mobilization. Data collection procedureswere out- monly found in notable concentrations in garnets from lined by McGee (1983, 1985),and backgroundswere calculated alkaline igneous rocks (e.g., Deer et al., 1982 and this using an interpolation routine describedby M. Mangan and J. study). Schnetzlerand Philpotts (1970) also reported that J. McGee (written comm., 1985).A variety of natural and syn- garnet has high distribution coefrcients for the heavy rare- thetic materials were used as standards.Traverses of clinopy- earth elements(HREEs) compared to other common rock- roxeneswere obtained using an ARL-EMx3-channel electron mi- forming minerals. In the ijolite xenoliths, as the abun- croprobe. X-ray single-crystaland powder-diffraction data were garnet from 100/oin obtained on selectedcrystals. Whole-rock analyses were ob- dance of increases 5-DJ7 to an av- - tainedon threeijolite xenoliths(l-166B, 1-143,and 5-DJ7)and erageof 37o/oin I I 4 3, the HREE concentrationincreases two inner-ringijolites (85-13B-RSSand 85-16-RSS)using ana- (Fig. 3). Garnet ijolite 85-I3B-RSS from the inner-ring lytical methodsdescribed by Baedecker(1987). ijolite has REE concentrations(Table 2) and a REE pat- tern similar to those of the ijolite xenoliths, whereasbio- much t Any use of trade names in this report is for descriptive pur- tite-garnetijolite 85-16-RSShas a more fraction- posesonly and does not imply endorsementby the U.S. Geo- ated REE pattern. Ijolites from the Fen complex, Norway logical Survey. (Mitchell and Brunfelt, 1975), Seabrook Lake, Ontario FLOHR AND ROSS: METASOMATIZED IJOLITE XENOLITHS ll5 mssr '2-D J 12 J:1-116 ^'{ffi3^}-5t7+s ^-e.99,11 6-DJ 10 n\ "t. 4-DJ 10 :r"-"?if#ii ;>9'$' TALUS ii;:ii:ili::\-G ,. 2-Dr7 a?,_ 01-DJ7 \_ri_!- Is-DJlO , l;':".o]-', DIAilOND JO OUARRY O CORE SAMPLE I BULK SAMPLE ./ coNTAcr Fig. 2. Geologic map of the Diamond Jo quarry, Magnet Ms, Stanley shale; f, fenite; ns, nepheline syenite xenoliths (?); Cove complex, after Owens and Howard (1989) indicating lo- gi, garnet ijolite xenoliths; ms, metamorphosed Stanley shale cations of all core and bulk samplesof ijolite xenoliths and sy- xenoliths; MCZ, mafic clot zone; CH and TH, crest and toe enitescollected. Samples 84-1-RSS-A and B are grab samples respectively,of highwall.