Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T00:20:32.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Neoproterozoic passive margin formation and evolution during the Rodinia–Gondwana supercontinent cycle at the eastern margin of the West African Craton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2024

Daniel Kwayisi
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park Kingsway Campus, Johannesburg, South Africa Department of Earth Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Prince Ofori Amponsah*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Naa Afi Agra
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Samuel Nunoo
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Joseph Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Raymond Webrah Kazapoe
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Engineering, University for Development Studies, Nyankpala, Ghana
Chris Yao Anani
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Daniel Asiedu
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Prosper M. Nude
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
*
Corresponding author: Prince Ofori. Amponsah; Email: pamponsah@ug.edu.gh
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Petrographical and geochemical data from the Togo structural unit (TSU), also referred to as the Atacora structural unit, are presented together with the existing dataset; geochemical and age data from the sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks from the passive margin sequences of the Dahomeyide belt in Ghana to infer their provenance and depositional setting and expand the discussion on the Rodina–Gondwana supercontinent assembly during the Pan-African orogeny. The metasedimentary rocks of the TSU are quartzites and phyllites. The framework grains of the quartzites consisting dominantly of quartz and small amounts of feldspar grains and relict lithic fragments classify them as quartz arenite, subarkose and sublitharenite. Generally, the studied rocks show similar rare-earth element and multi-element patterns, which imply derivation from similar sources. Elemental ratios, including (La/Lu)N, Th/Sc and La/Sc, suggest sediments sourced from intermediate to felsic rocks. Provenance and depositional setting indicators of the TSU suggest deposition in a passive margin setting, with the West African and Amazonian cratons’ granitoids and granitic gneisses as possible provenance, akin to siliciclastic rocks of the Buem structural unit and the Voltaian Supergroup of the Volta Basin. The deformational history of the TSU is similar to those of the Buem structural unit and the eastern margin of the Voltaian Supergroup, indicating the effect of the Pan-African orogeny on the passive margin of the Dahomeyide belt. We, therefore, propose the formation and evolution of a Neoproterozoic passive margin unit, which was tectonically deformed during the Rodinia–Gondwana supercontinent cycle.

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. (a) A schematic map of Africa and South America showing the various cratons and Pan-African orogenic belts and (b) geological map of West Gondwana orogen (modified after Kwayisi et al., 2022a).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Schematic cross-section of the Dahomeyide belt from west to east showing the relationship between the external nappes, suture and internal nappes zones (modified after Kwayisi et al., 2022b). 1Clauer (1976); 2Clauer et al. (1982); 3Ganade de Araujo et al. (2014a); 4Sakyi et al. (2014); 5Amponsah et al. (2023); 6Kalsbeek et al. (2012); 7Attoh et al. (2013).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Geological map of the Dahomeyide belt, showing the lithological distribution of the Buem and TSUs and their relationship to the Voltaian Supergroup of the Volta Basin (Modified after Ganade de Araujo et al., 2016).

Figure 3

Table 1. A summary of data pattern across the external nappes zone of the Dahomeyide belt (modified after Kwayisi et al., 2022b)

Figure 4

Figure 4. Field photos of (a) foliated quartzite and (b) massive quartzite, photomicrographs of (c) foliated quartzite showing elongated quartz grains in a preferred orientation, (d) foliated quartzite showing proto-mylonitic texture, (e) massive quartzite and (f) massive quartzite showing cataclastic texture. All photomicrographs were taken in crossed polars. Qz = quartz, Ms = muscovite and Lt = lithic fragment. Mineral abbreviations are from Dickinson et al. (1983) and Whitney and Evans (2010).

Figure 5

Figure 5. (a) Field photo of phyllite interbedded in foliated quartzite and (b) photomicrographs of phyllite showing quartz–seritcite–chlorite mineral assemblage. The photomicrographs were taken in cross-polars. Qz = quartz, Pl = plagioclase, Chl = chlorite and Lt = lithic fragment. Mineral abbreviations are from Dickinson et al. (1983) and Whitney and Evans (2010).

Figure 6

Table 2. Mineralogical compositions of the quartzites of the TSU

Figure 7

Figure 6. QFL diagram (Dickinson et al., 1983) for the quartzites of the TSU compared with the sandstones of the Buem structural unit (Osae et al., 2006; Kwayisi et al., 2022b) and the Kwahu-Bombouaka Group of the Voltaian Supergroup (Anani et al., 2017). Q = quartz, F = feldspar and L = lithic fragment (excluding polycrystalline quartz).

Figure 8

Figure 7. (a) F1 recumbent fold with near horizontal axial plane, (b) partially transposed S1 foliation by D2 event and the development of S2 foliation, (c) down-dip stretching L2 lineation on S2 foliation plane and (d) photomicrograph showing the relationship between S1 and S2 foliation plane in microscopic view (crossed polars).

Figure 9

Table 3. Whole-rock major and trace elements compositions of the rocks of the TSU

Figure 10

Figure 8. Chondrite-normalized REE plot for the rocks of the TSU (a) quartzites, (b) phyllites. The TSU data are compared to published data from the sandstones and shales of the Buem structural unit, Kwahu-Bombouaka Group of the Voltaian Supergroup and phyllites from the TSU (Osae et al., 2006; Kalsbeek and Frei, 2010; Abu and Zongo, 2017; Anani et al., 2017; 2019; Amedjoe et al., 2018; Abu et al., 2020). Normalizing values for UCC from Rudnick and Gao (2003) and Chondrite from Palme and O’Niel (2014). PAAS is from McLennan (1989).

Figure 11

Figure 9. Multi-elements plot normalized to UCC for the rocks of the TSU (a) quartzites, (b) phyllites. The TSU data are compared to published data from the sandstones and shales of the Buem structural unit, Kwahu-Bombouaka Group of the Voltaian Supergroup and phyllites from the TSU (Osae et al., 2006; Kalsbeek and Frei, 2010; Abu and Zongo, 2017; Anani et al., 2017; 2019; Amedjoe et al., 2018; Abu et al., 2020). Normalizing values for UCC from Rudnick and Gao (2003) and Chondrite from Palme and O’Niel (2014). PAAS is from McLennan (1989).

Figure 12

Figure 10. (a) Th/Sc versus Zr/Sc after (McLennan et al., 1993). Note that data points from TTG, granite, felsic volcanic rocks, andesite and basalt are from Condie (1993) The TSU data are compared to published data from the sandstones and shales of the Buem structural unit, Kwahu-Bombouaka Group of the Voltaian Supergroup and phyllites from the TSU (Osae et al., 2006; Kalsbeek and Frei, 2010; Abu and Zongo, 2017; Anani et al., 2017, 2019; Amedjoe et al., 2018; Abu et al., 2020).

Figure 13

Table 4. Elemental ratios of the rocks of the TSU compared with sediments derived from felsic and mafic rocks

Figure 14

Figure 11. Tectonic setting discrimination diagrams for the rocks of the TSU (a) Q–F–L diagram (Dickinson et al., 1983), (b) DF(A-P)M diagram (after Verma and Armstrong-Altrin, 2016) and (c) Th–Sc–Zr/10 plot (Bhatia and Crook, 1986). The TSU data are compared to published data from the sandstones and shales of the Buem structural unit, Kwahu-Bombouaka Group of the Voltaian Supergroup and phyllites from the TSU (Osae et al., 2006; Kalsbeek and Frei, 2010; Abu and Zongo, 2017; Anani et al., 2017, 2019; Amedjoe et al., 2018; Abu et al., 2020). DF = Discriminant function, A and P are active and passive margin, respectively, and M = major element composition.

Figure 15

Figure 12. Space–time plot showing the age range of principal rock units and major events of the Dahomeyide belt. Published age data are from Clauer (1976), Clauer et al. (1982), Ganade de Araujo et al. (2014b) and Ganade de Araujo et al. (2016).

Figure 16

Figure 13. The palaeogeography reconstruction of Rodinia (modified after Antonia et al. 2021), which suggests that during Rodinia time, the WAC and the Amazonian Craton were likely not separated by any major seas. It is postulated that these cratons may have been connected from the Paleoproterozoic era until the break-up of Pangea.