Tectonic interpretation of metamorphic tectonites: integrating compositional mapping,microstructural analysis and in situ monazite dating |
| |
| Authors: | M L WILLIAMS M J JERCINOVIC |
| |
| Institution: | Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003‐9297, USA (mle@geo.umass.edu) |
| |
| Abstract: | Interpreting tectonic histories from metamorphic tectonites requires an understanding of the linkages and feedbacks between deformation and metamorphism. Relationships between deformation and metamorphism can be divided into two broad groups: active and passive. Active relationships involve direct interactions whereby deformation directly influences metamorphic reactions or metamorphism directly affects the rate or style of deformation. One of the most important ‘active’ relationships is the role that deformation plays in helping to remove unstable reactant phases and to promote the growth of stable product phases. Passive relationships are correlations or linkages that allow the deformation history to be integrated with the metamorphic history. Compositional mapping of major and accessory phases and especially maps of larger thin section domains are particularly valuable for evaluating strain partitioning, scales of equilibrium, relationships between metamorphic textures and deformational fabrics, and in particular, for interpreting geochronological data. Petrological pseudosections are an increasingly utilized tool for interpreting microtextures and for linking deformation, metamorphism, and large‐scale tectonics. In situ geochronology and petrological analysis of chronometer phases (i.e. monazite, xenotime, titanite, allanite, etc.) are a critical part of tectonic analysis of metamorphic rocks. The electron microprobe plays an essential role in characterizing chronometer phases and placing them into the context of silicate fabrics and textures. |
| |
| Keywords: | compositional map monazite geochronology pseudosection P– T– t– D path tectonite |
|
|
