Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T21:36:33.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Origin of the internal basement massif of the Guatemala Suture Zone: evidence from U-Pb geochronology and Sm-Nd and Lu-Hf isotope systematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2024

Roberto Maldonado*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
Luigi A. Solari
Affiliation:
Instituto de Geociencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Campus Juriquilla, Querétaro, Mexico
Helen Morán-Chen
Affiliation:
Centro Universitario del Norte, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Cobán, Guatemala
Guillermo A. Ortiz-Joya
Affiliation:
School of Earth Atmosphere and Environment, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Roberto Maldonado; Email: robertom@geologia.unam.mx
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The origin of eclogite-bearing granitoid gneisses and metapelites of the Chuacús Complex is investigated. This complex represents the internal basement massif of the Guatemala Suture Zone, a part of the western North America–Caribbean plate boundary. LA-ICP-MS U-Pb and trace element zircon data are combined with whole-rock Sm-Nd and Lu-Hf isotopes to re-evaluate granitoid petrogenesis and inquire into the sedimentary record. New granitoid ages of ca. 1030–1010 Ma are reported, adding to those already known of ca. 1100, 990 and 225 Ma. Stenian A-type granitoids within the bimodal Cubulco unit formed by mixing of magmas derived from late Palaeoproterozoic crust and mantle-derived melts produced in an extensional setting during Rodinia assembly. During the Tonian, an extended (or later) period of extensional tectonics produced peraluminous granitoids (Pachajob gneiss) by anatexis of rejuvenated late Mesoproterozoic crust. After a hiatus encompassing most of the Neoproterozoic, marine sedimentation occurred between the Ediacaran and the early Palaeozoic as recorded by the Palibatz schist, a sequence formed by detritus sourced from peri-Gondwanan continental areas. No evidence of middle to late Palaeozoic magmatism or sedimentation was found in the studied area. Late Triassic granitoids (Agua Caliente unit) were produced by mixing melts from late Mesoproterozoic crust with enriched mantle magmas in response to post-collisional thinning during the western Pangea breakup. This extensional stage led to considerable thinning of the Chuacús crust and its evolution into a passive margin that would be prone to subduct during the Cretaceous.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Geological setting of the Guatemala Suture Zone with inset of location within the Circum-Caribbean region. (a) Tectonic overview of the North American-Caribbean-Cocos triple junction region showing the location of the Guatemala Suture Zone (white rectangle) as well as major basement exposures of southern Mexico, Guatemala and Belize (modified after Kesler et al. 1970; Anderson et al.1973; Ortega-Gutiérrez et al.2007, 2018; Ratschbacher et al.2009; Martens et al. 2010; Weber et al.2018). (b) Geological map of the Guatemala Suture Zone indicating the study area. Relevant basement units are labelled with black cursives, whereas major fault zones are indicated by bold lines and blue cursives. NMM: North Motagua mélange; SMM: South Motagua mélange.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Simplified geological map and interpretative section of the Chuacús high-pressure suite exposed in the Sierra de Chuacús (modified after Maldonado et al.2018b, 2018a). Geometric symbols highlight sample locations, eclogite occurrences and type localities of relevant lithodemic units in the area. Sample labels, including previously studied eclogites, are shown together with their corresponding U-Pb zircon ages in million years. Ages marked with superscripts were obtained previously by 1: Maldonado et al. (2018a) and 2: Maldonado et al. (2023). MDA: maximum depositional age; MiPA: minimum protolith age. BVFZ: Baja Verapaz fault zone; NMM: North Motagua mélange.

Figure 2

Table 1. Studied samples from the Chuacús high-pressure suite

Figure 3

Figure 3. Post-ablation cathodoluminescence images of representative zircon crystals from (a–b) the Cubulco unit, (c) the Palibatz schist and (d) the northern Chuacús metapelite. Laser spots (white open circles) are labelled with the corresponding 206Pb/238U ages in million years. Note that each zircon is shown at a different scale.

Figure 4

Figure 4. U-Pb zircon isotope data of granitoid gneisses from the Cubulco unit. (a–b) Wetherill concordia diagrams plotted with error ellipses at the 2σ level (MSWD = mean square of the weighted deviates for age homogeneity or isochron fit). Grey open ellipses were discarded for the upper intercept age calculation.

Figure 5

Figure 5. U-Pb zircon isotope data of metapelite samples from the Palibatz schist and northern Chuacús. (a–d) Wetherill concordia diagrams plotted with error ellipses at the 2σ level. Insets show single-grain discordia trends (blue lines) and kernel density estimates (KDEs) (Vermeesch, 2012) for data below a discordance cut-off value of 10%, where x-axis denotes single-grain concordia age in million years and y-axis shows the frequency of data. Discordance is defined as the log ratio distance to the maximum likelihood composition on the concordia line (Vermeesch, 2021).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Zircon trace element data for metamorphosed granitoids from the Chuacús high-pressure suite. (a) Th vs. U (μg/g); dashed lines indicate Th/U values of 0.1, 0.5 and 1. (b) Ti vs. Hf (μg/g) (c) (Eu/Eu*)/Y × 104 vs. ΔFMQ; ΔFMQ values are calculated as 3.998 × LOG(((Ce/U) × (U/Ti))0.5) + 2.284 (after Lu et al.2016; Loucks et al.2020). (d) U/Yb vs. Nb/Yb tectonic discrimination diagram (Grimes et al.2015); MOR: mid-ocean ridge, OI: ocean-island.

Figure 7

Table 2. Sm-Nd and Lu-Hf data for metamorphic rocks from the Chuacús high-pressure suite

Figure 8

Figure 7. Sm-Nd and Lu-Hf isotope data of whole-rock samples from the Chuacús high-pressure suite. (a) Initial εHf vs. εNd recalculated to estimated protolith ages shown in Table 2. εNd and εHf values are plotted with respect to the chondritic uniform reservoir (CHUR), using the data of Bouvier (2008). The present-day Terrestrial Array, calculated as εHf = 1.55εNd + 1.21 (Vervoort et al. 2011), is shown together with lines of constant deviation of Hf (ΔεHf) from this expression. The Seawater Array is as follows: εHf = 0.55εNd + 7.1 (Albarède et al.1998). The Metapelite line corresponds to a regression through the isotope compositions calculated at ages younger than the estimated maximum depositional ages. (b) 176Hf/177Hf vs. time diagram showing the isotopic evolution of the samples. The Depleted Mantle line is after Vervoort et al. (2000). Dotted lines are deviations in +5 and −5 εHf increments from CHUR. (c) 143Nd/144Nd vs. time diagram showing the isotopic evolution of the samples. The Depleted Mantle line is after Liew & Hofmann (1988). Analogous to the Hf plot, dotted lines are deviations in +5 and −5 εNd increments from CHUR.

Figure 9

Figure 8. 143Nd/144Nd vs. time plots showing the isotopic evolution of whole rocks from the Chuacús high-pressure suite together with reference data used for comparison, as discussed in the text. The parameters and nomenclature are the same as in Figure 7. Whole-rock reference data is from (1) Maldonado et al. (2023); (2) Lopez et al. (2001); (3) Patchett and Ruiz (1987), Ruiz et al. (1988), Weber and Köhler (1999), Weber et al. (2010); (4) Weber et al. (2018); (5) Restrepo-Pace et al. (1997), Ibanez-Mejia (2015); (6) Spikings et al. (2016); (7) Cochrane et al. (2014); (8) Solari et al. (2011); (9) Tazzo-Rangel et al. (2019); (10) Ortega-Obregon et al. (2010); (11) Murphy et al. (2005); (12) González-Guzmán et al. (2016); (13) Weber et al. (2012).

Supplementary material: File

Maldonado et al. supplementary material 1

Maldonado et al. supplementary material
Download Maldonado et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 29.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Maldonado et al. supplementary material 2

Maldonado et al. supplementary material
Download Maldonado et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 126.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Maldonado et al. supplementary material 3

Maldonado et al. supplementary material
Download Maldonado et al. supplementary material 3(File)
File 123.1 KB