Metamorphic zircon formation by solid‐state recrystallization of protolith igneous zircon

Abstract

Protolith zircon in high‐grade metagranitoids from Queensland, Australia, partially recrystallized during granulite‐grade metamorphism. We describe the zircon in detail using integrated cathodoluminescence, U–Pb isotope, trace element and electron backscatter diffraction pattern (EBSP) analyses. Primary igneous oscillatory zoning is partially modified or obliterated in areas within single crystals, but is well preserved in other areas. A variety of secondary internal structures are observed, with large areas of transgressive recrystallized zircon usually dominant. Associated with these areas are recrystallization margins, interpreted to be recrystallization fronts, that have conformable boundaries with transgressive recrystallized areas, but contrasting cathodoluminescence and trace element chemistry. Trace element analyses of primary and secondary structures provide compelling evidence for closed‐system solid‐state recrystallization. By this process, trace elements in the protolith zircon are purged during recrystallization and partitioned between the enriched recrystallization front and depleted recrystallized areas. However, recrystallization is not always efficient, often leaving a ‘memory’ of the protolith trace element and isotopic composition. This results in the measurement of ‘mixed’ U–Pb isotope ages. Nonetheless, the age of metamorphism has been determined. A correlation between apparent age and Th/U ratio is indicative of incomplete re‐setting by partial recrystallization. Recrystallization is shown to probably not significantly affect Lu–Hf ages. Recrystallization has been determined by textural and trace element analysis and EBSP data not to have proceeded by sub‐grain rotation or local dissolution/re‐precipitation, but probably by grain‐boundary migration and defect diffusion. The formation of metamorphic zircon by solid‐state recrystallization is probably common to high‐grade terranes worldwide. The recognition of this process of formation is essential for correct interpretation of zircon‐derived U–Pb ages and subsequent tectonic models.