ATLAS of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif

Atlas
of plutonic rocks and
orthogneisses in the
Bohemian Massif
Introduction
Josef Klomínský
Tomáš Jarchovský
Govind S. Rajpoot
Czech Geological Survey
Prague 2010
CZECH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
ATLAS
of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif
INTRODUCTION
Compiled by Josef KlS. Rajpoot
Compiled by
Josef Klomínský
Tomáš Jarchovský
Govind S. Rajpoot
The Introduction volume is a part of the Atlas of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the
Bohemian Massif which consists of six chapters:
INTRODUCTION
1. BOHEMICUM
2. MOLDANUBICUM
3. SAXOTHURINGICUM
4. LUGICUM
5. BRUNOVISTULICUM AND MORAVOSILESICUM
In the Introduction volume are summarized general characteristics of the plutonic rocks and
orthogneisses from a point of view of their composition, age, 3-D shape, zonation, metallogeny and
spatial distribution.
The territorial chapters 1–5 comprise structured geological parameters of the plutonic rocks and
orthogneisses located within boundaries of the principal geological zones in the Bohemian Massif.
The compilation work was supported by the Radioactive Waste Repository Authority of the Czech
Republic (RAWRA) and by the Czech Geological Survey.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following colleagues who have helped in the compilation and correction
of this review: A. Dudek, F. Fediuk, M. Chlupáčová, V. Janoušek J. Kotková, M. René, Z. Vejnar,
P. Vlašímský, P. Schovánek and S. Vrána. We are grateful for technical assistance to P. Kopecký,
M. Toužimský, J. Holeček, M. Fifernová, J. Kušková, J. Karenová, V. Čechová, and L. Richtrová.
In spite of the negative view on our work and unrealistic comments we thank also to M. Štemprok and
F. V. Holub for their criticism which helped us to improve the original manuscript.
* Corresponding author Josef Klomínský, Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 131/3, Prague 1, Czech
Republic.
Fax (+420) 257 531 376. E-mail address: [email protected]
© J. Klomínský, T. Jarchovský, G. S. Rajpoot, 2010
ISBN 978-80-7075-751-2
THE ATLAS OF PLUTONIC ROCKS AND ORTHOGNEISSES
IN THE BOHEMIAN MASSIF
INTRODUCTION
Josef Klomínský a*, Tomáš Jarchovský a, Govind S. Rajpoot b
a
Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 131/3, Praha 1, b Náchodská 2030, Praha 9, Czech Republic
Contents
FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................ 3
ANATOMY OF THE ATLAS .................................................................................................................. 4
1.
TOPOGRAPHY AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAGMATIC BODIES...................... 7
2.
NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF PLUTONIC ROCKS ................................ 11
2.1. TERMINOLOGY AND HIERARCHIC CLASSIFICATION....................................................... 11
2.2. COMPOSITIONAL CLASSIFICATION ...................................................................................... 13
2.3. GENETIC CLASSIFICATION...................................................................................................... 15
ALPHABETIC (I-S-M-A) CLASSIFICATION ....................................................................................... 15
ILMENITE-MAGNETITE (I-M) CLASSIFICATION................................................................................ 16
GENETIC CLASSIFICATION OF PLUTONITES BASED ON ZIRCON TYPOLOGY ..................................... 17
2.4. GEOTECTONIC CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................... 18
2.5. CHRONOMETRIC CLASSIFICATION ....................................................................................... 19
CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE VOLCANO-PLUTONIC SEQUENCES................................................ 27
3.
FORMATIONAL AND HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS OF PLUTONS ..................................... 28
4.
PETROCHEMISTRY OF PLUTONITES....................................................................................... 29
CHANGES IN THE GRANITE COMPOSITION OF THE PLUTONS THROUGH TIME .................................. 31
5.
3-D SHAPE, EROSION LEVEL AND DEPTH OF SOLIDIFICATION OF PLUTONIC
BODIES............................................................................................................................................. 32
EXO- AND ENDOCONTACTS OF THE GRANITIC PLUTONS ................................................................. 39
INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES OF PLUTONS .............................................. 39
6.
ZONATION IN PLUTONITES ........................................................................................................ 41
CAUSES OF ZONED ASYMMETRY ..................................................................................................... 43
RELATIVE HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT MAGNITUDE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLUTONIC PHASES ...... 43
1
TRENDS OF PLUTONIC “REJUVENATION”......................................................................................... 43
7.
POSITION OF THE PLUTONS IN THE GEOPHYSICAL FIELD ............................................ 44
8.
RELATION OF PLUTONITES TO VOLCANISM ....................................................................... 50
9.
MINERALIZATION AND METALLOGENY OF THE PLUTONITES .................................... 51
10.
HEAT PRODUCTION OF GRANITES IN THE BOHEMIAN MASSIF.................................. 56
11.
PRINCIPLES OF THE ROCK CLASSIFICATION SCHEME ................................................. 60
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS AND STATISTICS ...................................................................................... 62
12.
GENERAL REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 64
PLATES 1–6 (PHOTOS OF SELECTED PLUTONIC ROCKS AND ORTHOGNEISSES) ………….….….….83
TABLE I CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF THE SELECTED GRANITIC ROCKS OF THE BOHEMIAN MASSIF... 96
The locality map of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif (folded)
2
FOREWORD
enclaves and schlieren reflect flow of these crystalrich magmas during emplacement. In the Bohemian
Massif the magmatic origin of the Central
Bohemian Pluton was strongly advocated by
Steinocher (1969). A theory based on the
assumption that granitic magmas commonly carry
substantial proportions of restite has led some
workers (e.g. Chappel et al. 1987) to suggest that
restite immixing is a major cause of compositional
variation in granitic plutons. Hypotheses proposed
to explain the genesis of granitic rocks by magmamixing processes have been summarized by
Janoušek et al. (2004). Many recent field, structural
and petrographic studies of volcanic rocks,
migmatites and granitic plutons have found
evidence which supports the view that granitic
intrusions were initiated as crystal-poor silicic
liquids rather than largely crystalline magmas
(Pitcher 1993).
Clusters of magmatic dykes often associated with
volcanic rocks help to locate original volcanoes
above the roofs of their deep-seated equivalents –
plutonites. In the Bohemian Massif these volcanoplutonic centres are usually eroded but few remnants
of calderas are associated with gold and tin
mineralization (e.g. Petráčkova hora gold deposit
and Cínovec tin-tungsten deposit).
The position of plutonites of a certain age and
their composition enable to reconstruct the original
continental margins and/or oceanic basins during
subduction and/or the lithospheric plate boundaries
(Wilson 1989). However, as the geotectonic
interpretation of the Bohemian Massif is in part
controversial, details of geotectonic setting of
individual plutons are not fully clarified (e.g. Matte
1986).
Igneous rocks are ranked among important
geological objects in the Bohemian Massif and
attract the attention of geologists for more than two
centuries. The most common member of this family
of rocks – granite – is the major representative of
the construction and dimension stones within the
territory of the Bohemian Massif. The JizeraKrkonoše Composite Massif became a study area
for well-known textbook on granite tectonics by H.
Cloos (1925). In the Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge),
the granite is the host rock and a source of the
historically well-known tin deposits. Granite
weathering e.g. in the Karlovy Vary area gave rise
to important deposits of kaolin – material used for
famous china production in this region. Mineralised
Granitoids are the most abundant rocks (about 86
vol %) in the Earth´s upper continental crust;
Wedepohl 1991). Even now, the proportion of
granitoids and associated volcanic rocks present on
Earth is low, about 0.1 % of the bulk Earth (Clarke
1996). Like other igneous rocks, they represent
probes into the deep planetary interiors and they are
closely connected with tectonics and geodynamics
(Bonnin 2007). Granitic material (A-type granite)
was even found in the meteoritic and lunar samples
(Bonnin et al. 2002).
The multiple use of igneous rocks requires an
increasingly better knowledge of the composition,
internal structure, geometry and depth extent of the
individual bodies. Igneous rocks have been quarried
for building and sculpture use since pre-historical
time (e.g. Rybařík 1994). Very representative set of
granite, granodiorite and gabbro polished slabs from
the traditional quarrying regions of the Czech part of
the Bohemian Massif has been used for flooring and
facing of the Prague underground interior
(Březinová et al. 1996).
Homogeneity, hardness, compactness and
durability of plutonites are favourable not only for
the architecture but also for the transport and storage
of natural gas, drinking water and for the deposition
of industrial highly toxic or radioactive wastes in
underground cavities, tunnels and repositories. Háje
cavern storage south-west of Prague is the first
commercial gas storage in the world constructed in
granite. Igneous rocks are used now as a source of
many elements (e.g. Ta-granites) utilized in both
industry and agriculture. The High Heat Production
(HHP) granites have been tested as a source of the
dry geothermal energy (e.g. the Soultz hot dry rock
project).
A review on the granite origin concepts was
published in the Czech literature by Havlena and
Pouba (1953). They stressed the conflict between
transformists and magmatists in the first half of the
last century. In the Czech geological literature
Palivcová (1967) and Palivcová et al. (1968, 1989,
2001) highlighted the theory on non magmatic
origin of the granitic rocks and summarized main
problems of modern granitology.
It was the plutonic concept, which finally
prevailed,
probably
thanks
to
laboratory
experiments (e.g. Tuttle – Bowen 1958). For many
years most “plutonic“ geologists (plutonists) seem
to have accepted that granitic plutons were
emplaced as highly viscous, crystal-rich magmas,
and that internal structures such as aligned minerals,
3
granitic intrusions can be studied also in several
underground mines and waterworks tunnels in
various parts of the Bohemian Massif. These are
located e.g. in the Saxothuringicum (the Svornost
uranium mine in Jáchymov up to a depth of about
800 m in the Karlovy Vary Massif, the Stannum tin
mine in the Krudum Massif, the Cínovec and
Krupka tin-tungsten mine in the Cínovec-Krupka
Massif), and in the Bohemicum (Bohutín lead-zinc
mine over 1,400 m deep in the Bohutín Stock and
the Vítkov II uranium mine over 600 m deep in the
Bor Massif). In the Příbram Mining District (the
Bohemicum) 15 km of the mining openings and
galleries were driven into the NW endocontact of
the Central Bohemian Pluton. A source of new
information on granitoids of the Central Bohemian
Pluton offers the underground gas repository near
Příbram in depth of over 1,000 metres (Sokol et al.
2000). In the Lugicum, almost 9 kilometres of
waterworks tunnels in the western part of the
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif in depth of up to
200 metres and several kilometres long road tunnel
through the Königshain Stock in the Lusatian
Composite Batholith in Germany were excavated. In
the northern part of the Nasavrky Composite Massif
the Křižanovice waterwork tunnel in length of 863
m cut the contact of the Křižanovice Granite and the
Křižanovice Tonalite. The longest horizontal profile
through the granitic intrusion in the Bohemian
Massif is the waterworks Želivka tunnel (the total
length of 53 km), which intersects the Central
Bohemian Pluton in a length of 23 km at depth of
about 100 m (Vejnar et al. 1975 and Mácha et al.
1972).
hot springs pour from granites in the same area e.g.
in Karlovy Vary, Jáchymov or Teplice v Čechách.
Almost 140 boreholes over 500 m deep were
drilled in the Czech Republic into the granitic
plutons (Suk and Ďurica 1991). Most of these
boreholes are located in the areas of coal and/or gas
basins where plutons make part of the crystalline
basement (the Carpathian Foredeep, the Bohemian
Cretaceous Basin and Central Bohemian PermoCarboniferous Basins). The deepest borehole hit the
granites basement at a depth of 4,500 m (Těšany
Těš-1, 25 km SE of Brno). Only a few boreholes
were drilled completely into granitic outcrops (Bor
borehole – 650 m in the Bor Massif, Milevsko
borehole – 625 m in the Milevsko Massif, a set of
deep boreholes in the Třebíč Massif, Zlatý Kopec
borehole – about 1000 m in the Blatná Massif and
Krásno K-25 borehole – 800 m in the Hub Stock).
The borehole Cs-1, 1596.6 m deep was drilled into
the Cínovec-Krupka Massif in the Erzgebirge
(Štemprok 1963). The deepest drill hole into granite
within the Bohemian Massif was sunk in the
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif. The C-1 well in
the Jelenia Góra-Cieplice health resort in Poland
(Dowgiałło 2000) was drilled through the mediumto coarse-grained porphyritic granite, often broken
up, and mylonitic rock to a depth of 2002.5 m.
Drilling combined with geophysical survey
provided sufficient data to construct a contour map
of the hidden granite surface of the Smrčiny-Krušné
hory Mts. Batholith. Several granitic intrusions have
been detected by drillings under the Cretaceous and
Permian-Carboniferous cover in the central and
northern part of the Bohemian Massif. Interior of
Anatomy of the atlas
geological zones (Fig. 1): the Bohemicum,
Moldanubicum, Saxothuringicum, Lugicum
and Brunovistulicum (including the MoravoSilesicum). A new subdivision of the pre-Permian
rocks of the Bohemian Massif (Chaloupský 1986,
1989, Franke 1989, Matte et al. 1990, Franke and
Weber 1995, Franke et al. 2000, Chlupáč et al.
2002 and Cháb et al. 2008) into terranes is based
on structural, kinematic and radiometric studies.
Igneous activity within these segments of the
Bohemian Massif has been summarized by a
group of authors in Dallmayer et al. (1995).
Magmatic bodies in the Bohemian Massif are
shown as isolated outcrops and/or their clusters of
different shapes, sizes and composition in the
geological maps of different scales (mostly
1 : 25,000, 1 : 50,000, and 1 : 200,000 and
1 : 500,000, e.g. see the Locality map of plutonic
rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif
Voluminous magmatic intrusions (mostly
granites and granodiorites) and orthogneisses are
dominant geological objects in the Bohemian
Massif (the Locality map and Tab. 1). Their
surface covers over one third of the whole
territory (~ 40,000 km2, including the area under
the sedimentary cover). These granitic plutons and
orthogneisses are one of the principal evidence of
the tectonothermal complexity of the Bohemian
Massif (Sallmeyer and Urban 1994, Dallmeyer et
al. 1995). They represent traces of subduction
and/or collision events during the amalgamation
processes of the Bohemian Massif. Behrmann and
Turner (1997) presumed that the total volume of
postectonic Variscan granitoids in the Bohemian
Massif (176 000 km3) required 8.8 Ma to
segragate from their partially molten substrate.
Individual magmatic bodies are located within
and/or at the boundary of its five principal
4
on regional position, rock types, size and shape,
age according to methods of the isotopic dating,
lithology of country rocks, contact aureole,
zonation, mineralization, heat production and
principal references. Dendrograms represent
hierarchic infrastructure of the magmatic bodies to
show relationship among their individual
members, phases and facies. Selection of over
4,421 chemical rock analyses (see Tab. 6) mostly
from literature are summarized in tables of
individual magmatic bodies showing their statistic
parameters mean, maximal, minimal content,
quartiles of major oxides) and principal
geochemical parameters (defining petrologic
classifications) according to Chappell and White
(1974), Ishihara (1977), Debon and Le Fort
(1983a,b), Middlemost (1994), De La Roche
(1980), Cox et al. (1979), Peccerillo and Taylor
(1976). These parameters have been used for
petrologic classification of the individual rock
type root names and qualifiers (see Fig. 24).
A brief attention is given to orthogneisses in the
Bohemian Massif. They are mostly members of
the metamorphic core complexes. These
predominantly magmatic gneiss domes are cored
by metamorphic rocks, and their geometry is
defined by outward-dipping gneissic foliation
(e.g. the Svratka Dome, Thaya Dome, Desná and
Keprník Dome and Catharine Dome). The
description of the orthogneisses due to a multiple
mechanism of their origin (Yin 2004) is given in
the separate chapter of the territorial sections of
this atlas.
in the folder). The time span of their ages is at
least about 1,800 Ma (isotopically dated between
2,100 and 290 Ma – Early Proterozoic to
Permian).
The
Early
Proterozoic
to
Neoproterozoic and some Early Palaeozoic
igneous rocks, transformed to ortogneisses, occur
as allochthonous slices incorporated in the
Variscan structure of the Bohemian Massif.
However, the majority of plutonic rocks are of a
late Variscan and late Pan-African (CambrianNeoproterozoic) age. Many of them were deeply
eroded, tectonically segmented and some of them
metamorphosed or transported (see sections on
orthogneisses). In some places the Late Variscan
intrusions are accompanied by remnants of
volcanic ejecta (the Teplice and Walbrich
Calderas) and dyke swarms allow speculations on
the former presence of the volcanic cones above
intruding plutons (e.g. the Central Bohemian
Pluton). According to their size, the magmatic
intrusions are classified as batholiths, plutons,
massifs, and stocks with own internal lithologic
content. Nomenclature of metamorphosed plutons
is based mostly on the lithologic composition and
locality name (e.g. Selb Orthogneiss, Bítouchov
Metagranite).
This review of plutons (its first version has been
adopted by Vrána and Štědrá 1997) is organized
as a condensed information and database with a
unified structure, giving basic characteristics of
individual plutonic objects in the form of
important parameters, tables of chemical analyses,
diagrams, and maps. The text gives information
Table 1. Areal estimate (in square kilometres) of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif
(including the area under the sedimentary cover)
Principal geological zones
Bohemicum
Moldanubicum
Saxothuringicum
Lugicum
Brunovistulicum and
Moravosilesicum
Total km2
Plutonic rocks
4,500
9,700
4,000
4,800
6,300
29,300
Orthogneisses
50
3,400
1,000
3,800
2,000
10,250
Total
4,550
13,100
5,000
8,600
8,300
39,550
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following colleagues who have helped in the compilation and correction of this
review: A. Dudek, F. Fediuk, M. Chlupáčová, V. Janoušek J. Kotková, M. René, Z. Vejnar, P. Vlašímský, P.
Schovánek and S. Vrána. We are grateful for technical assistance to P. Kopecký, M. Toužimský, J. Holeček,
M. Fifernová, J. Kušková, J. Karenová, V. Čechová and L. Richtrová.
In spite of the negative view on our work and unrealistic comments we thank also due to M. Štemprok and
F. V. Holub for their criticism which helped us to improve this manuscript.
5
Fig. 1. Plutonites and orthogneisses incorporated in this review and principal geological zones (units) of the Bohemian
Massif. 1 – Magmatic rocks, 2 – orthogneisses, 3 – boundaries of the principal geological zones: (1) Bohemicum, (2)
Moldanubicum, (3) Saxothuringicum, (4) Lugicum, (5) Moravosilesicum and Brunovistulicum, 4 –faults, 5 – state
borders.
6
1.
TOPOGRAPHY AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAGMATIC
BODIES
1984). 1 – granitic rocks partly intrusive, 2 – anatectic
rocks, 3 – Brno Composite Batholith, 4 – faults.
Erosional sections (outcrops) of plutonic bodies
on the pre-Carboniferous, Permian platform surface
of the Bohemian Massif represent approximately 1/3
of its total area (the Locality map of the plutonic
rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif –
folded and Fig. 1). Late-orogenic plutonism in the
Bohemian Massif led to the emplacement of least
176,000 km3 of granitoids. Melt flux through the
Moldanubicum may have been as high as 0.2
km/m.y., allowing the estimated volume of
granitoids to be segregated by partial anatexis of the
continental crust within a time span of
approximately 8.8 million years (Behrmann and
Tanner 1997). Granites and granodiorites form the
largest plutonic bodies covering the area of up to
5,000 km2 (e.g. Eisgarn and Weinsberg types of the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith).
An estimation of the area extent of the plutonic
bodies, surficially known at the level of 0 m above
sea level, at depth 3 km and 10 km (Figs 2 and 3)
made by Suk and Vacek (1984) (according to
gravity field and distribution of rock dykes)
indicates a considerable change of sub-surface
configuration of the Variscan plutons and
substantial reduction in the area of the K-Mg-rich
durbachite plutons at a depth of 3 km. On the other
hand, some additional cupolas of plutonites appear
at this level, namely in the Krušné hory Mts.
(Erzgebirge), in eastern Bohemia and below the
central part of the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin (e.g.
the Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton).
Tilting of the Moldanubian Zone towards north is
indicated by the difference in the erosion level
between the northern and southern part of the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith. The southern
part of this Batholith shows a deeper section than its
northern part. The Mutěnín Stock intruded into
Moldanubian crust at a level of –23 ± 4 km and the
Babylon Stock was emplaced into the Bohemicum
Unit in the west (see the Locality map of the
plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian
Massif – folded) at < 12 km depth. Both
emplacement depths, together with mineral cooling
ages, result in a minimum vertical displacement of
10 km between 340 and 320 Ma. This can be related
to the vertical component of movements of the
Moldanubian crust along the West Bohemian shear
zone (Zulauf et al. 2000).
The composition of the eroded parts or of still
present outcrops of plutonic and volcanic bodies is
reflected by pebble composition in conglomerates of
the Neoproterozoic (Fiala 1948, Dörr et al. 2002),
Lower Cambrian (Fiala 1980), Ordovician
(Chaloupský 1963) and Lower Carboniferous (Štelcl
1960, Kotková et al. 2007) ages. Plutonic bodies not
exposed on the present surface are indicated by
drillings, gravity anomalies or xenoliths in the
Tertiary volcanics of the České středohoří Mts.,
Krkonoše Mts. piedmont area and in the Ordovician
palaeobasalt diatreme at Otmíč in the centre of the
Bohemicum (Fiala 1977, 1983). Most of the
plutonic bodies lie in close proximity of important
structural or lithologic boundaries (Röhlich and
Šťovíčková 1968 and Pokorný et al. 1970).
Klomínský and Bernard (1974) suggest the regional
Fig. 2. Model of the geological structure of the Czech
Republic at depth of 3 km (modified after Suk and Vacek
1984). 1 – basic intrusions, 2 – durbachites, 3 – Brno
Composite Batholith, 4 – autochthonous granitoids at
depth of 3 km, 5 – granitic intrusions at depth of 3 km, 6
– major faults.
Fig. 3. Model of the geological structure of the Czech
Republic at depth of 10 km (modified after Suk and Vacek
7
Cadomian and Variscan plutons and massifs (e.g.
the Kdyně Massif, the Čistá-Jesenice Composite
Pluton the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Nasavrky
Composite Massif, the Bor Massif).
2.
Moldanubicum
(Moldanubian
Zone)
represents a major crystalline segment of the
Bohemian Massif. Geological background and
definitions of intra-Moldanubian units have been
summarized by Finger et al. (2007). The Variscan
evolution of the Moldanubian sector in the
Bohemian Massif consists of at least two distinct
tectonometamorphic phases” – the MoravoMoldanubian Phase (345–330 Ma) and Bavarian
Phase (330–315 Ma).
The Moravo-Moldanubian Phase involved
displacement of the Moldanubian segment over the
Moravian Zone. The tectonic emplacement of the
HP-HT rocks (the Gföhl Unit) was accompanied by
intrusion of distinct magnesio-potassic granitoid
melts (the 335–338 Ma old Durbachite plutons),
which contain components from a strongly enriched
lithospheric mantle source (Finger et al. 2007).
The Bavarian Phase (330–315 Ma) represents a
fully independent stage of the Variscan orogeny in
the Bohemian Massif. It is defined by a significant
reheating (LP-HT regional metamorphism combined
with voluminous granitic plutonism) and a tectonic
remobilisation of crust in the southwestern sector of
the Bohemian Massif (Finger et al. 2007).
Three geological subunits can be distinguished in
the Moldanubian sector: The Gföhl and Drosendorf
metamorphic units, which represent pre-Variscan
(Precambrian/Early Palaeozoic) crust, and the
Variscan granitoids (e.g. Holub et al. 1995).
The Drosendorf Unit includes the Variegated and
Monotonous series (all metamorphic rocks that do
not belong to the Gföhl Unit).
The Gföhl Unit consists of the rocks (e.g.
granulites and Gföhl Gneiss), which experienced
Variscan HP-HT metamorphism and a subsequent
rapid exhumation and re-equilibration at mid-crustal
level (Finger et al.,2007). According to Finger et al.
(2007) two parallel belts of HP-HT rocks (Gföhl
unit) are associated with Durbachite intrusions (the
western and eastern belt).
According to Fiala et al. (1995) four terranes
can be distinguished within the Moldanubicum:
(1) The Gföhl terrane consists of various
metaigneous and metasedimentary rocks, which
include granulites, eclogites, and peridotites. The
lower crustal high-pressure granulites are associated
with ultramafics as well as with high-grade gneisses
(e.g. the Gföhl Gneiss).
(2) The Drosendorf terrane consists of
metasedimentary sequences of problematic protolith
displacements of the eastern and western wings of
the Bohemian Massif against its core along major
NW-SE faults. The separation of the crustal
segments is evidenced by the interruption of linear
chains of Variscan plutons (e.g. the Krušné hory
Mts. Batholith, the Central Bohemian Pluton). The
displacement of these segments in north-eastern part
of the Bohemian Massif is interpreted in terms of
late Variscan tectonic activity in the foreland of the
Alpine-Carpathian orogenic belt (Pouba 1969).
The map of the plutonic rocks and orthogneisses
of the Bohemian Massif (folded) is adapted after
Mahel (1973), Chaloupský (1989) and Cháb et al.
(2007). This map shows the general shape, size and
regional distribution of magmatic bodies and
orthogneisses (the coding corresponds to the
reference numbers of the individual objects in the
territorial sections) included in this review and
summarized in the proposal of the Sub-commission
for Regional Geological Classification of the
Czechoslovak Stratigraphic Commission (sine 1976,
Čech et al. 1994), in the Geology of the ČSSR –
Bohemian Massif (Mísař et al. 1983) and in the
Geological Atlas of the Czech Republic –
Stratigraphy (Klomínský 1994a). The plutonic
bodies and orthogneisses are described in the
territorial sections according to their position within
principal geological zones of the Bohemian Massif
(Fig. 1) using the subdivision according to Chab et
al. (2008) and Chaloupský (1986, 1989):
1. Bohemicum (Bohemian Zone or TepláBarrandian Zone). The Bohemicum is the faultbounded and arc-like unit in the core of the
Bohemian Massif with its pre-Mid-Cambrian
Barrovian metamorphism. The Teplá-Barrandian
segment is composed of a Neoproterozoic basement
and it’s Cambrian to Middle Devonian sedimentary
cover. According to a new concept of the accretion
of the Bohemian Massif (Konopásek and
Schulmann 2005) the Bohemicum domain is
underlain by the Moldanubian middle crust. These
both principal geological zones have been subducted
during Lower Carboniferous by Saxothuringian
crust. Therefore, it can be speculated that this
principal suture in the Bohemian Massif lies now
within the southeastern
margin
of the
Saxothuringian and Lusatian domains.
One of the principal characteristics of the
Bohemicum interior is the relative scarcity of
plutonic rocks (Dudek 1995). The overall positive
gravity data indicate that granitoid plutonites there
are missing also in deeper crustal levels. The
voluminous granitic and mafic intrusions are mostly
located along or close to tectonic boundaries of the
Bohemicum. They are represented by both the
8
Neoproterozoic to Ordovician age prove their
magmatic origin.
The most variegated igneous rocks within the
Saxothuringicum undoubtedly were formed during
the Variscan orogeny in response to continentcontinent collision with crustal stacking and
thrusting (e.g. the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts.
Composite Batholith).
4. Lugicum (Sudetes – eastern segment of the
Saxothuringian Belt) consists of Neoproterozoic
greywackes and granodiorites (in Lusatia) and a
mosaic of tectonostratigraphic domains, some of
which were folded and metamorphosed before the
deposition of Upper Devonian and Lower
Carboniferous sediments (Franke et al. 1993,
Zelazniewicz and Bankwitz 1995, Franke and
Zelazniewicz 2000).
Cadomian intrusions are recorded as spatially
coexisting orthogneisses and (meta) granitesgranodiorites within medium- and high-grade
metamorphic complexes (e.g. the Sněžník Dome,
Jizera-Krkonoše
Orthogneiss,
the
Lusatian
Composite Batholith).
Variscan igneous rocks (Kryza 1995) are
represented by (1) widespread granitic intrusions of
Upper Carboniferous age (e.g. the Krkonoše-Jizera
Composite Massif, the Strzegom-Sobótka Massif,
and the Kłodzko-Złoty Stok Massif) and (2) less
frequent Lower Carboniferous tonalites (the Great
Tonalite Dyke – Zábřeh Massif), which have formed
during a subduction along the continental margin
(Štipská et al. 2004).
5. Brunovistulicum and Moravosilesicum
comprise foreland units along the eastern margins of
the Bohemian Massif (Finger et al. 1989, 2000).
This assemblage includes a variety of units
including a Cadomian basement and Cambrian to
Carboniferous cover sequences. Structural evolution
involved Neoproterozoic to Cambrian subduction
underneath the Moravo-Silesian basement, SilurianDevonian
extension,
Carboniferous
plate
convergence, post-Variscan extension, and probable
effects of Alpine collision (Fritz and Neubauer
1995). Although only a minor part directly exposed
at the surface, the plutonites are known from
boreholes and geophysical survey to occupy at least
one third of the entire basement of the West
Carpathian Foredeep (Finger et al. 1995 and Dudek
1995). These Cadomian (Neoproterozoic-Cambrian)
igneous rocks comprise the Thaya Dome, the
Svratka Massif, the Keprník Orthogneiss, Desná
Orthogneiss and the much larger Brno Composite
Batholith. To the northeast, some separate plutonic
bodies have been defined (e.g. the Olomouc Massif,
Vlkoš, Rusava and Jablunkov Plugs).
age (? Lower Palaeozoic), dominated by sillimanitebiotite (± cordierite) paragneisses (referred to as the
Monotonous Group) and with abundant lens-shaped
bodies of metaquartzites, marbles and amphibolites
(summarily referred to as the Variegated Group).
Estimation of the PT conditions of regional
metamorphism of the Drosendorf Unit range from
630 to 750 oC and 3–6 kbar (Petrakakis 1997). The
Drosendorf Unit starts in tectonostratigrafic sense
with either the Dobra Gneiss, the Světlík
Orthogneiss, the Stráž Orthogneiss or the Spitz
Gneiss (according to different areas and/or authors).
Their ages reach up to Early Proterozoic (2110 Ma
for the Světlík Orthogneiss, Wendt et al. 1993).
(3) The Ostrong terrane encompasses the
polymetamorphic,
monotonous,
high-grade,
migmatitic paragneisses and several leucocratic
orthogneisses rich in alkali-feldspar. They form few
major bodies or thin intercalations in the
paragneisses.
(4) The Bavarian terrane is largely composed of
Variscan HT-LP-metamorphic anatexites having
migmatite, pearl gneiss, or diatexite character.
The Moldanubicum is characterized by an
abundance of Variscan (Carboniferous) granitic
rocks (e.g. the Moldanubian Composite Batholith
and the K-Mg-rich durbachite massifs). They are
intruding in all Moldanubian terranes and/or
subunits (e.g. Finger and Clemens 1995, Holub et al.
1995). Granitic intrusions at 338–300 Ma occurred
shortly after the thermal peak of the regional
metamorphism (ca. 338–340 Ma).
3. Saxothuringicum (the western segment of the
Saxo-Thuringian Belt). According to Franke and
Stein (2000) the Saxo-Thuringian Belt resulted from
SE-ward subduction of a Cambro-Ordovician rift
basin under the northern margin of TepláBarrandian Zone (Bohemicum). It contains
metamorphic rocks of variable grade, which are now
exposed in different tectonostratigraphic settings,
and were exhumed in different modes, under
different thermal regimes. The Neoproterozoic to
Palaeozoic polymetamorphic volcano-sedimentary
rocks represent some of them. Repeatedly changing
tectonic
regimes
during
NeoproterozoicPhanerozoic evolution resulted in the formation of
numerous
distinct
plutonic-volcanic
suites
(Tischendorf et al. 1995).
Multiply
deformed
Neoproterozoic-Early
Palaeozoic metagranitoids are a characteristic
feature of the Saxothuringian crust. They are
represented by orthogneisses, primarily weakly
differentiated calc-alkaline granites. Effects of
contact metamorphism on their country rocks of
9
Fig. 4. Lithologic classification of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif. 1 – alkali-feldspar granite,
2 – two-mica to biotite granite (granodiorite), 3 – biotite granite (granodiorite), 4 – durbachite (pyroxene-amphibolebiotite melagranite, syenite and granodiorite), 5 – amphibole-biotite granodiorite, tonalite and quartzdiorite, 6 –
gabbro, diorite, 7 – faults, 8 – boundaries of principal geological zones (units), 9 – state borders.
10
2.
NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF PLUTONIC
ROCKS
Although granitoids are the most abundant rock types in the continental crust, no single classification
scheme has achieved widespread use. Part of the problem in granite classification is that the same mineral
assemblage, quartz and feldspars with a variety of ferromagnesian minerals, can be achieved by a number of
processes (e.g. crustal and mantle derived melts). Because of this complexity, petrologists have relied upon
geochemical and petrographic classifications to distinguish between various types of granitoids.
Approximately 20 different schemes have evolved over past 30 years (see Barbarin 1999).
2.1. TERMINOLOGY AND HIERARCHIC CLASSIFICATION
though not obligatorily, called by geographic
names.
Phase is a member or its part having a specific
petrographic composition, chemical composition,
texture and structure.
Facies is a rock differing from the prevailing or
normal type (phase) in unessential characteristics
(e.g. grain size, size of phenocrysts, ratio of rockforming minerals).
Variety is a rock differing from the facies in
unessential characteristics (e.g. colour, alteration).
Batholith is a large, generally discordant
plutonic mass that has more than 100 km2 of
surface exposure and not known floor. According
to Pitcher (1979) the batholith represents a set of
plutons the arrangement of which follows a
general rule for magma formation and the
mechanism of its emplacement.
Pluton was originally defined by Cloos (1925)
as a general term for igneous units (e.g. batholith,
laccolith, ethmolith, stock). In the strictest sense,
the pluton is a body of igneous rock that has
formed beneath the surface of the earth by
consolidation from magma. According to Pitcher
(1979), a pluton is a body formed by one or
several related magmas that were emplaced more
or less simultaneously and are bound by a single
contact plane.
Massif is defined as a body of intrusive igneous
rock of at least 15 to 30 km in diameter occurring
as a structurally resistant mass in an uplifted area
that may have been a mountain core.
Stock (boss) is a body of plutonic rock that
covers less than 100 km2, has steep contacts
(generally dipping outward), and although
generally discordant may be concordant.
Geographic names are commonly used in
detailed descriptions of plutonic bodies.
Terminology and hierarchic classification of
plutonic objects of the Bohemian Massif have
been suggested, summarized and/or revised by
Svoboda et al. (1966, 1964, 1983), Čech et al.
(1994), Kouznyetsof (1964), Tomek (1975),
The term plutonic rocks approximately covers
the ancient term „deep-seated igneous rocks“ of
granitic to gabbroic compositions. Terminology
and hierarchic classification of plutonic bodies
consists of a series of abstract and concrete terms.
In the abstract terms (plutonic series, suite,
plutonic-magmatic series, plutonic formation or
suite, member, phase, facies, variety, batholith,
pluton, massif, and stock) general characteristics
play an important role depending on the
proportion of plutonic bodies in a unit of a higher
order. In the concrete terminology local
geographic names are taken into account as well
as specific features of the plutonic bodies –
preferentially their size, form and lithology (e.g.
the Kladruby Composite Massif, the Great
Tonalite Dyke, the Jizera-Krkonoše Orthogneiss).
The terms of plutonic series, suite, batholith,
pluton, massif, and stock (boss) have been
summarised by Pitcher (1979), Morehead,
Webster English College Dictionary (1998),
Glossary of Geology – 4th Edition Jackson (1997),
Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (1996) and
Webster II New Riverside University Dictionary
(1994). Their definitions are summarized as
follows:
Plutonic (magmatic) series is a group of
different igneous rocks that evolved from the
same original material through various
metamorphic and magmatic stages until final
crystallization ceased.
Plutonic formation or suite is a group of
magmatites with notable lithologic features, which
may indicate genetic relationship. The age or
dating of granites of a single suite need not be the
same. According to Hine et al. (1978), suites may
be composed of one or more plutons of common
chemical, petrographic and field characteristics.
Member is a part of formation or suite of
specific lithological character or of only a local
extent. Names of members denote parts of a
variegated formation or suite of a larger
geological extent. The members are usually,
11
pluton and batholith) have been applied in this
review as root terms of the plutonic bodies of the
Bohemian Massif. They represent the geological
objects with increasing capacity to accommodate
smaller bodies and/or rock types. These terms are
solely based on size of their map surface in square
kilometres. The 2D shape and size of the plutonic
body can be usually well described by its outcrops
in the map rather than from its 3D shape. The area
of their outcropso or erosion level has been
arbitrarily chosen according to their description in
the reference books.
Stock (plug) with the area of less than 30 km2.
Massif with the area from 30 to 1,000 km2.
Pluton with the area from 1,000 to 3,000 km2.
Batholith with the area over 3,000 km2.
Compositional, spatial and time complexity,
usually indicated by clusters of the magmatic
intrusions is stressed by a qualifier (term)
COMPOSITE (a substitute term for the complex,
e.g. the Meissen Composite Massif, the Central
Bohemian Composite Batholith).
Terminology of the metamorphosed igneous
bodies – orthogneisses is based on local
geographic names and root names of the main
rock types or their dominant composition (e.g. the
Bítouchov Metagranite, Bíteš Gneiss, Keprník
Orthogneiss).
In each of the plutonic bodies a few to
numerous intrusive phases can be distinguished.
They form the elementary members of plutons.
Each intrusive phase can be represented by one or
several rock types (facies and/or varieties).
Granitoid types are distinguished by features of
their petrographic and geochemical autonomy and
features of demarcation within the individual
tectonomagmatic units (series or suits).
Homogeneity of the fabric (grainsize, colour
and texture of the rock) and modal composition
(within a certain range of variation) are the most
important features for macroscopic field
identification of the granitoid types.
Sharp contacts between a relatively older
granitoid type and a relatively younger one are the
most obvious features of intrusive demarcation of
contacts between two granitoid types. Sharp
contacts and abrupt changes of the position of
contact planes between two granitoid types and
the partly angular shape of granitoid enclaves
indicate, that the relatively older granitoid must
have reached the state of brittle failure during its
cooling. These indications of rate of cooling and
crosscutting of dykes of a younger granitoid also
indicate a temporal hiatus between the intrusions.
The features of intrusive demarcation directly
Palivcová (1977), Sattran and Klomínský (1970),
Klomínský and Dudek (1978), Vejnar (1974),
Zoubek (1988), Štemprok (1991), Holub (1997),
Holub et al. (1997), Schust and Wasternack
(2002).
According to Zoubek (1988) the term “massif”
designates single bodies that appear at the
denudation level as separate areas occupied by
plutonic rocks. The term “pluton” is used
according to the same author for composite
systems of igneous bodies (massifs, sheets, dykes)
related in structure, material composition, genesis
and time. Spatially extensive groups of granitoid
rocks often of different age, chemical composition
and genesis are called plutons in the Czech
literature (Svoboda et al. 1983). Within these
regional geological units, individual massifs or
rock types can be further distinguished. The term
“massif” is the most frequent term for magmatic
bodies in the Czech literature (Svoboda et al.
1964). The term pluton has, however, a different
meaning in the foreign literature (Pitcher 1979).
The term pluton, as used in the Czech literature,
rather corresponds to the term batholith. Recently,
the terms the complex and/or batholith are applied
for intricate magmatic bodies, differing in size,
showing the complexity in composition, ages, and
structure (e.g. the Central Bohemian Plutonic
Complex after Holub et al. 1997, the Krušné hory
Mts. Batholith after Štemprok 1986, and the South
Bohemian Batholith after Gerdes et al. 2000).
Some names applied to unexposed hidden plutons,
such as the Putim Batholith or Říčany-Kutná Hora
Batholith (Tomek 1975), were not later accepted
(Čech et al. 1994).
3D shape typology of igneous objects was
suggested by many geologists (e.g. H. Cloos, E.
Raguin, R. Kettner) but no general terminology
was internationally accepted yet They introduced
the terms of the batholith, pluton, massif, sill,
laccolith, lopolith and stock to describe more or
less their shape rather than size.
Their structural levels within the crust also
control the shape of the plutonic intrusions. In the
surface level: caldera’s volcano, feeder radial and
ring dykes, and domes. Subvolcanic 1–4 km-deep
level: ring complex, cone sheets, and dyke
swarms. Intermediate 7–15 km level (at the brittle
and ductile boundary): mixed cumulate-liquid
rapakivi granite batholiths, and in 15–30 km
plutonic level mafic and intermediate layered
lopoliths.
Due to an absence of unified, codified and
internationally accepted terminology, four
principal terms (stock (pipe and plug), massif,
12
indicate the autonomous character of the typerelated magma intrusion within a pluton (massif
or stock). Chilled margins can indicate
a significant time difference between individual
rock types (e.g. marginal facies of the Liberec
Granite at the contact with the older Tanvald
Granite in the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite
Massif). They are generally characterized by
a reduced grain-size and limited thickness along
the endocontact of the intrusion.
2.2. COMPOSITIONAL CLASSIFICATION
field comprising dark (mela) variety of the
granite, quartz syenite, syenite, quartz monzonite
and granodiorite of the IUGS classification (Le
Maitre et al. 2002).
These classes of rocks characterize an average
composition of the main phases (types) of
plutonic bodies of larger regional extent. The
internal structure of the individual bodies is,
however, much more complex in composition and
this complexity are not directly proportional to the
size of the body. Small massifs and stocks often
show petrographic composition spanning across
several fields of the IUGS classification diagram.
As an example, the Bohutín Stock of 1 km in
diameter has the same range in petrographic
composition as the whole tonalite-granodiorite
suite of the Central Bohemian Pluton.
Composition of rock-forming minerals and
accessory minerals has been studied by Dudek
(1954), Fediuková (1963), Tischendorf et al.
(1969), Pivec (1970), Fediuk (1972), Neužilová
(1973), Vejnar (1973, 1974), Kodymová and
Vejnar (1974), Poubová (1974), Minařík (1975),
Fiala et al. (1976), Minařík and Povondra (1976),
Cimbálníková et al. (1977), Pivec (1982), Jiránek
(1983), Minařík et al. (1988), Stone et al. (1997),
Frýda and Breiter (1995), Buda et al. (2004) and
others.
Buda et al. (2004) distinguished the calcalkaline Mg biotite in durbachites and
peraluminous Fe-biotite in the Moldanubian
Composite Batholith.
The material composition of the plutonites can
be characterized in terms of petrography,
mineralogy or chemistry. In general, they are
subdivided according to the IUGS classification
into granites (monzogranite and syenogranite),
granodiorites, monzonites, syenites, quartz
diorites, diorites, gabbros and ultramafics. The
composition of the plutonic rocks of the
Bohemian Massif has been summarized in several
monographs and many papers (e.g. Svoboda et al.
1966, Kouznyetsof 1964, Vejnar, 1974, Palivcová
1977, Klomínský and Sattran 1978, Klomínský
and Dudek 1978, Cambel et al. 1980, Hejtman
1984, Förster and Tischendorf 1996, Siebel et al.
1995, 1997, Breiter and Sokol 1997, Förster et al.
1999 and Cháb et al. 2008).
On the basis of petrography, granitic bodies of
the Bohemian Massif are divided into five major
groups (Klomínský and Dudek 1978):
1. Alkali-feldspar granites and leucogranites
(two-mica and so-called poly-mica Ligranites)
2. Biotite and two-mica granites
3. Biotite and two-mica granodiorites
4. Tonalites
and
amphibole-biotite
granodiorites
5. Durbachites (pyroxene-amphibole-biotite
mela-granite and granodiorite).
This division (Fig. 4) is compatible with the
IUGS classification for the granite, granodiorite
and tonalite field fields. Only the durbachite group
represents petrographically very heterogeneous
13
Fig. 5. I-A-S-type classification of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif.
14
2.3. GENETIC CLASSIFICATION
Alphabetic (I-S-M-A) classification
Genetic classifications of granitoids are based on
chemical as well as mineralogical composition of
the rocks. Chappel and White (1974, 1987)
subdivided plutonites into S-types originated from
sedimentary rocks and I-types, which originated
from older magmatites and their source material was
never involved in weathering process. I-type
granites, contain amphibole, an alumina-deficient
mineral, and yield metaluminous to slightly
peraluminous (ASI < 1.1). Two subtypes are
recognized low temperature I-type contains
abundant inherited zircon, and high-temperature
I-type lacks inherited zircon.
S-type granites are basically peraluminous with
Alumina Saturation Index (ASI) higher than 1.1
(Clements 2003). Two main subtypes are
recognized: (a) two-mica leucogranite representing
pure crustal melts of thermal minimum composition,
(b) cordierite- or garnet-bearing granitoids explained
as retaining a strong Al-rich restite component
(Chappel et al. 1987, Bonin 2007).
A-granites have been originally defined as
relatively dry (anhydrous), and they have high
contents of alkali metals (either sodiun or
potassium) and most high field strength trace
elements. They are associated with a variety of
different mineralization types (e.g. Sn, F, Nb, Ta,
Au, Fe, U, and rare earth elements). A-type granites
are commonly associated with mafic and
intermediate
rocks,
which
constitute
a
compositionally expanded association with real
unity (Bonin 2007). They are likely to form through
mineral fractionation, not partial melting, of mafic
magmas, even in absence of significant amounts of
H2O (Bonin et al. 2002).
Differences between I-types and S-types are
explained by Chappel and White (1974) by the loss
of sodium and calcium and by the enrichment in
aluminium in the source rocks (sediments) of the Stype plutonites. Low oxygen fugacity indicated by a
low Fe3+/Fe2+ ratio in S-types is explained by the
reducing role of carbon and hydrocarbons originally
present in sediments, which have undergone
metamorphism and partial melting. I/S classification
of plutonites can be correlated with their
metallogenic potential. Some sulphide deposits of
base metals including copper and molybdenum are
spatially related to I-type plutonites (oxidized-type
granites), whereas greisen tin deposits are associated
with S-type plutonites (reduced type granites). The
genesis of oxidized-type (magnetite series) and
reduced-type (ilmenite series) granites is attributed
to a difference in SO2 contents and SO2/H2S ratios in
their source magmas (Takagi and Tsukimura 1997).
The I-S classification of the Bohemian plutons has
been applied by Klomínský et al. (1981), Jakeš and
Pokorný (1983), Palivcová et al. (1989) and Malý
and Suk (1989), and critically revised by Holub
(2002). Genetic classification of Variscan granitoids
of the Bohemian Massif has been summarized by
René (1995).
I-S classification of the Bohemian plutonites (Fig.
5) is based on statistics of sodium, corundum,
diopside content, alumina ratio and state of
oxidation (Klomínský et al. 1981). Most of the
Palaeozoic granites in the Bohemian Massif are of
the S-type or I/S types. Granitoids of the tonalite
series of the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Nasavrky
Composite Massif and Brno Composite Batholith
are typical I-type granitoids. Also some bodies in
western Bohemia are grouped within the I-type.
Förster et al. (1997) used the I-S-A granite
classification for discrimination of the Erzgebirge/
Krušné hory Mts. granites. According to Breiter
(2009) S-type granites appear only in the western
and central part of the Erzgebirge/Krušné hory Mts.
Batholith. A-type granites and volcanites are
distributed irregularly through the whole
Erzgebirge/Krušné hory Mts. Batholith (e.g. Krásno,
Podlesí, Krupka, Sadisdorf, Gottesberg stocks
and/or pipes).
Van Breemen et al. (1982) described in the
Bohemian Massif the belt of diorite-tonalitegranodiorite plutons (e.g. the Central Bohemian
Pluton) often hornblende-bearing and inferred to be
I-types and a group of two-mica granite plutons (the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith) that are very
likely S-type (Liew and Hofmann 1988). Also Jakeš
and Pokorný (1983) state that S-type plutonites are
present in the Moldanubian Composite Batholith,
the Krušné hory Mts. Batholith, Lusatian Composite
Batholith and Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif. In
addition, they correlate the Karlovy VaryEibenstock Massif, the Kynžvart Massif (part of the
Lesný-Lysina Massif) and the Říčany Massif with
A-type granites. According to Malý and Suk (1989)
the most of granitoids of the Brno Composite Pluton
belongs to I-type plutonites. But in general the
plutonic rocks of the Bohemian Massif cannot be
assigned unambiguously to certain type of the I/S
classification (Holub 1997, Malý and Suk 1989).
15
Finger et al. (1997) distinguished five genetic
groups of Variscan granitoids in Central Europe
according to their typology and age relationships:
1. Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous
“Cordilleran” I-type granitoids (ca. 370–340
Ma). These Early Variscan granitoids are
mainly tonalites and granodiorites (e.g. the
Central Bohemian Pluton, the Nasavrky
Composite Massif). In terms of existing
models, they can be interpreted as volcanic
arc granitoids, related to the early Variscan
subduction. Model involves mantle sources.
2. Early Carboniferous deformed S-type
granite/migmatite assemblage (ca. 340 Ma).
These occur in the footwall of thick thrust in
southern Bohemia (Gföhl Nappe) and seem to
represent a phase of water-present, syncollisional crustal melting related to nappe
stacking.
3. Late Viséan and early Namurian S-type and
high-K, I-type granitoids (ca. 340–310 Ma).
These granitoids are mainly granitic in
composition and particularly abundant along
the central axis of the orogen (Moldanubian
Zone). These granitoids have been formed
through high-T fluid absent melting of the
lower crust. Enriched mantle melts interacted
with some crustal magmas on a local scale to
form durbachites. Partial melting events in the
middle crust produced a number of highT/low-P, S and I-type diatexites and some Stype granite magmas. According to Förster et
al. (1999) the late-collision Krušné hory Mts.
(Erzgebirge) granites (ca 325–318 Ma) were
emplaced at shallow crustal levels in the
Variscan metamorphic basement shortly after
large-scale extension caused by orogenic
collapse. These granites comprise mildly
peraluminous transitional I-S types and
strongly peraluminous S-type rocks.
4. Post-collisional, epizonal I-type granodiorites
and tonalites (ca. 310–290 Ma). Such late Itype granitoids could be related to renewed
subduction along the fold belt flank and/or to
extensional decompression melting near the
crust/mantle boundary.
5. Late Carboniferous to Permian leucogranites
(ca. 300–250 Ma). Many of these rocks are
similar to subalkaline A-type granites.
Potential sources for this final stage of
plutonism could be melt-depleted lower crust
or lithospheric mantle.
According to Henk et al. (2000) the large volume
of Viséan S-type and high-K2O I-type granitoids
(durbachites) in the Moldanubicum are mainly
products of intracrustal anatexis (e.g. Gerdes et al
1998). They are generally characterized by a crustal
chemical and isotopic signature, as opposed to the
pre-Viséan Variscan granites, which include several
primitive calc-alkaline I-type magmas (Janoušek et
al. 1995). They are often associated with migmatites
(diatexites), some of which may have been newly
produced in the contact aureoles of the granites, but
others appear to be slightly older than the granites
(Finger and Clements 1995). In the Moldanubian
Composite Batholith, high formation temperatures
of almost 900oC, at probable pressures of 5–7 kbar,
have been inferred for some of the Viséan granite
magmas, e.g. the prominent Weinsberg Granite
(Henk et al. 2000).
Ilmenite-magnetite (I-M) classification
Ishihara (1977) emphasized the role of crustal
carbon in the origin of the ilmenite series and the
role of carbon-free protoliths the origin of the
magnetite series. He empirically concluded that the
presence of magnetite or ilmenite in granitoids has
an importance in metallogeny. Molybdenum and
base metals including porphyry copper ores are
associated with magnetite series granites whereas tin
deposits of the greisen type are characteristic of
ilmenite-series ones. All granites of magnetite series
can be defined as I types but the ilmenite series
includes granitoids of both I types and S types.
According to Takagi and Tsukimura (1997) the
genesis of oxidized-type (magnetite series) and
reduced-type (ilmenite series) granites is attributed
to a difference in SO2 contents and SO2/H2S ratios
in their source magmas. When the magma contains
250 to 1,700 ppm SO2 as the dominant sulphurous
species, SO2 oxidizes iron silicates to crystallize 0.2
to 1.5 modal percent of magnetite. This produces
oxidized-type granites. In contrast, when the
magmas contain H2S as the dominant sulphurous
spacies and its SO2 content is below 250 ppm, no or
only traces of magnetite will crystallize. This
produces reduced-type granites.
In this review, data on modal magnetite and
ilmenite contents from 40 Bohemian plutonic bodies
of Variscan and pre-Variscan age were used for the
application of the I-M classification. The data used
can be subdivided into three groups: group 1
contains prevalent magnetite, or its distinct
prevalence over ilmenite. Group 2 is characterised
by the presence of ilmenite and the absence of
magnetite. Group 3 includes granitoids with
ilmenite and magnetite in equal amounts. The map
distribution of magnetite – and ilmenite – type
16
granitoids regardless of their geological age is
classified into two regions. Most of the ilmenite
granitoids lie in the western part whereas magnetite
granites are situated in the eastern part of the
Bohemian Massif (e.g. the Nasavrky Composite
Massif).
Majority of the late Variscan granitoids in the
Bohemian Massif is classified as the ilmenite series.
Early Variscan granitoids belong to the magnetite
series (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton).
Cadomian plutonites are represented in both
granitoid series.
The distribution of magnetite and ilmenite
granites in the Bohemian Massif often spatially
coincides with the distribution of specific ore
associations. The tin mineralization is restricted to
the north-western part of the Bohemian Massif, i.e.
to the region of ilmenite granites. On the other hand,
this type of mineralization is almost missing in the
eastern and central part of the Bohemian Massif,
where magnetite granites prevail.
Genetic classification of plutonites based on zircon typology
Another genetic classification of plutonites was
elaborated by Pupin and Turco (1972) and Pupin
(1980). It is based on zircon grain typology and on
empirical results of the correlation with geochemical
and petrographic characteristics of different granite
types (Fig. 6). The shape of zircon is a function of
chemical composition of magma, its temperature
and water content. Bipyramid (211) is frequently
formed in a low-alkaline or Al-rich environment.
Bipyramid (101), on the other hand, originates in a
high-alkaline
or
Al-depleted
environment.
Bipyramid (301) is linked within alkaline, K-rich
environment.
Fig. 6. Zircon genetic classification (Pupin) of the plutonites of the Bohemian Massif (after Kodymová 1984). IA –
agpaicity index, IT – temperature index, 1 – granitoids originated from crustal rocks, 2,3 – granitoids originated by
mixing of different portions of the mantle and crustal rocks, 4 – granitoids generated from mantle rocks, 5 – Krušné
hory-Smrčiny Batholith (OIG – Older Igneous Complex, YIC – Younger Igneous Complex), 6 – Moldanubian
Composite Batholith, 7 – Ultrapotassic plutonites (Durbachites), 8 – Central Bohemian Pluton (CBP), 9 – Dyje (Thaya)
Composite Massif, 10 – Brno Composite Pluton, 11 – individual plutonic bodies in the Bohemicum and Lugicum, 12 –
S-I type demarcation line. G – granite, Gr – granodiorite, T – tonalite, S – syenite, Tr – trondhjemite.
17
From the morphologic analysis of zircon crystals
Pupin (1980) derives the so-called Agpaicity Index
I.A. (Al vs. Alkali ratio) and an index of their
crystallization temperature (I.T).
Pupin (1980) states that zircon populations reflect
both the generation conditions and magma
temperature and deuteric and postmagmatic
processes never influence them.
Pupin distinguishes three petrographically and
petrochemically different groups with the use of
IA/IT diagram (Fig. 6):
1. Granites prevailingly of crustal origin (1, 3)
2. Hybrid granites of mixed crust-mantle origin
(2, 3)
3. Granites of prevailingly mantle origin (4).
This classification is comparable with the genetic
division into I- and S-granites of Chappel and White
(1987). The first group (trends 1 and 2 in the
diagram in Fig. 6) coincides with S-granites. Second
group (3) includes both I- and S-granites
contaminated by the granitization of the host rocks
of sedimentary origin or the mantle rocks; the third
group (4) can be correlated exclusively with
I-granites (Fig. 6).
The Pupin classification was applied to the
plutonic rocks of the Bohemian Massif by
Kodymová (1984), Kodymová and Štemprok
(1993). Despite the fact that zircon populations of
only selected plutonites were studied, these results
are in good agreement with the I-S classification of
the plutonites in the Bohemian Massif (Fig. 5 and
Fig. 6).
2.4. GEOTECTONIC CLASSIFICATION
P. E. Eskola, E. Wegmann, H. H. Read and A.
Buddington studied space-time relations between
the regional metamorphism, rock deformation,
production and emplacement of granites. This led
them to postulating of the categories of epitectonic,
mesotectonic and catatectonic plutons. Their
classification is better known as epi-, meso-, and
cata-zonal plutons and characterizes the differences
in plasticity of the intruding bodies and the country
rocks. According to Pitcher (1979), it also reflects
lithologic differences, relative position of the
emplacement process and regional metamorphism.
As a consequence of such relations, granite may be
an end product of progressive regional ultra
metamorphism. According to Gerdes et al. (2000)
the example of such congruence, between the
granite emplacement and the peak of the regional
metamorphism, is generation of the Eisgarn and
Weinsberg Granites in the Moldanubian Composite
Batholith (Fig. 7).
On the basis of energetic disharmony and/or
harmony of intrusions and their country rocks, the
following types are distinguished (White et al.
1974):
Granites and metagranites of regional aureoles,
surrounded by concentric zones of progressive static
metamorphism.
Granites of contact aureoles, with thermal
aureoles hundreds of meters wide, overprint all
zones of any regional metamorphism older than the
granite emplacement.
Subvolcanic granites with narrow contact aureoles
(tens of metres) associated with volcanites
(rhyolites, dacites, less commonly also andesites or
the respective ash tuffs and ignimbrites).
Contact metamorphism associated with the
plutonites in the Bohemian Massif has been studied
mainly as the mineral assemblage within their
thermal aureoles and according to affects of the
interaction (partial melting) between granitoid
magma and country rocks (e.g. Fiala 1958, Krupička
1968, Vejnar 1980, 1990, Oberc-Dziedzic 1985,
Cháb and Žáček 1994). Thermo-barometry has been
applied to estimate temperatures and pressures in
time of the emplacement and crystallization of
plutons (e.g. Souček 1987, Losos et al. 1988).
Granites of regional aureoles contain sillimanite,
andalusite and cordierite but mostly lack kyanite.
Their mineral assemblage is close to that of the
ambient regionally metamorphosed country rocks.
This indicates that these granites originated through
partial melting of sediments afected by high/grade
metamorphism in proximity of their present
location. Most plutonite bodies in the Bohemian
Massif are grouped among the granites of contact
aureoles. Granites of regional aureoles (harmonic
plutons) occur primarily in the regions of high-grade
metamorphism. Their typical examples are the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith and small bodies
such as the Olešnice Massif in the Orlické hory Mts.
Subvolcanic plutonites (disharmonic plutons)
intruding into their own volcanic ejecta are known
from the Eastern Krušné hory Mts. Composite
Pluton (the Cínovec and Krupka Massifs), the
Nasavrky Composite Massif (the Křižanovice
Granite) and from the Jílové Volcanic Belt (Jílové
Alaskite-Trondhjemite).
Breiter and Sokol (1997) defined four groups of
Variscan granitoids located in different geotectonic
environment:
18
Group of tonalite-granite plutons located at major
block boundaries (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton
and the Nasavrky Composite Massif).
Group of granodiorite-granite plutons within
consolidated crystalline blocks (e.g. the Karlovy
Vary-Eibenstock
Massif,
the
Moldanubian
Composite Batholith and the Krkonoše-Jizera
Composite Massif). This group corresponds
temporally to the culminating post-orogenic
magmatic stage of the Variscan Orogeny.
Group of acidic volcano-plutonic complexes
linked with late Variscan extensional tectonics in
the eastern Krušné hory Mts.
Group of granodiorites with a primitive chemistry
(e.g. the Čistá Massif and the Štěnovice Stock).
Specific group are Variscan ultrapotassic
magmatic rocks (mostly quartz melasyenites to
melagranites), which are characterized by high
content of MgO, K2O, Cr, Ni, Rb, Cs, U, and Th.
According to Verner et al. (2006) in the Bohemian
Massif, these plutons comprise two rock groups
differing in assemblages of mafic minerals: (1)
amphibole-biotite rocks dominated by the
durbachite series (mostly K-feldspar-phyric
melasyenites to melagranites) are the most
widespread, and (2) biotite-two pyroxene rocks
(mostly quartz melasyenites, e.g. the Jihlava
Massif). Verner et al. (2006) demonstrate that in
spite of the similar age and geochemical
characteristics of these intrusions, kinematic setting,
and material transfer processes during emplacement
vary not only from one pluton to another, but also
within a single body.
2.5. CHRONOMETRIC CLASSIFICATION
> 800 C U-Pb and Pb-Pb in zircon
650 > 800 C Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr isochrone for
crystalline rocks
> 550 C Rb-Sr in muscovite
320 ± 40 C Rb-Sr in biotite
500-550 C K-Ar in amphibole
530 ± 40 C Ar-Ar in amphibole
280  40 C K-Ar in biotite
~ 350 C K-Ar in muscovite
280 ± 40 C Ar-Ar in biotite
~350 C Rb-Sr in K-feldspar.
Composite data set of K-Ar – Rb-Sr – U-Pb
ages for the individual granitic bodies is widely
used for the modelling of their thermal regime, the
cooling history and source depth of the Bohemian
plutons (e.g. Zulauf et al. 1997, Gerdes et al.
2000). An example of this model is shown in Fig.
7 which presents two schematic end-member
scenarios for the granite generation in the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith after Gerdes et
al. (2000).
The geological life of the granitic plutons
consists of the events beginning by the birth of
granite magma, its differentiation, mixing, act of
intrusion, emplacement, stopping and cooling
below the magmatic temperature, radiothermal
heating and eventually reheating by a younger
intrusion or regional metamorphism under
different P-T conditions. These events can be
differentially registered in radiogenic isotope
composition of the rock-forming and accessory
minerals. For decoding of the isotope timing of
the magmatic intrusions and orthogneisses is
necessary to know:
1. Model age for different isotopic systems in
different rock-forming minerals for different
closing temperatures.
2. Thermal field of the regional metamorphism
around plutons.
3. Time difference between the pluton
emplacement and regional metamorphism.
4. Heat production of plutons (e.g. uranium,
thorium and potassium content).
Closing temperatures of the individual isotopic
systems in rocks and their minerals are given
below (Harland et al. 1989):
19
Fig. 7. Two schematic end-members scenarios for the Carboniferous HT-LP metamorphism and granite generation in
the Moldanubian Composite Batholith (after Gerdes et al. 2000). WbG –Weinsberg Granite, RbP – Rastenberg Pluton,
EsG – Eisgarn Granite. Number 1 and 2 indicate P-T data of the country rocks at time of granite emplacement (0.36–
0.5 GPa, ca. 600C and 0.23–0.35 GPa, < 510C).
to Kempe and Belyatsky (1994) all granites of the
Younger and Older Igneous Complex in the
Krušné hory Mts. Composite Batholith give
approximately the same Rb-Sr age. It is a result of
alteration by Li-F granite-related fluids effecting
whole-rock isochronal age.
The problems of age determination of the
Bohemian Massif plutonites have been addressed
since the beginning of their systematic scientific
study (Šmejkal 1964, Šmejkal and Melková 1969,
Šmejkal and Vejnar 1965, Dudek and Melková
1975, Bergner et al. 1988). Through long time
periods, much knowledge, often contradictory, has
been gathered on the relative ages of the
individual rock types and on their relation to the
biostratigraphically dated country rocks. The
traditional division into the Variscan (Hercynian)
and pre-Variscan (pre-Hercynian) plutonites is
based primarily on geochronological data (Pb-Pb,
U-Pb zircon, K-Ar whole rock, biotite or
hornblende and, less commonly, Rb-Sr wholerock methods), direct (chronostratigraphic) and
indirect (structural) criteria. Only in a few cases is
the age of the plutonites verified by the
biostratigraphic dating of their country rocks (e.g.
the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Eastern Krušné
hory Mts. Pluton and Zloty Stock Massif). Most
plutonites of the Bohemian Massif are Palaeozoic
in age.
A review of radiometric ages was compiled by
Dubanský (1984) and Klomínský (1994b) for the
Czech part of the Bohemian Massif. The basic
Sm-Nd isotopic results for late-and post-tectonic
granitoids of the Bohemian Massif indicate that
the source of the granites contained well-mixed
material from a range of formations of different
age. Two-stage Nd model ages (TDM) of the
granitoids are in the range 1.1–1.7 Ga.
The field relationship of the plutonic rocks in
the Czech part of the Bohemian Massif (Fig. 8)
has been summarized by Klomínský (1994b).
The present state of the emplacement ages of the
plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Bohemian
Massif is mainly based on the U-Pb isotopic
dating of zircon (Fig. 9). It allows their
chronostratigraphic classification, i.e. division of
magmatites into different age groups referring to
different geological periods (Fig. 10). However,
the radiometric dating of the Bohemian Massif
plutonites contains data obtained from different
laboratories, different methods (e.g. Rb-Sr, K-Ar,
Sm-Nd, U-Pb, Pb-Pb and Ar-Ar) applied to either
rocks or minerals. Therefore, this mosaic is of a
variable degree of reliability for the classification
of the individual bodies according to their age.
Isotopic
measurements
checked
by
biostratigraphic dating of the surrounding
sediments are the most important. The degree of
reliability of other radiometric data depends on
the closing temperature values of the individual
systems: the higher the closing temperature, the
higher the reliability of the chronostratigraphic
classification. In practice there are some other
factors controlling the isotope systems. According
20
(1988) and Cháb et al. (2008). Ages of Polish
granitoids were summarized by Wiszniewska, et
al. (2007) and Mazur et al. (2007). Age data from
magmatic rocks of the western margin of the
Bohemian Massif have been compiled by Klein et
al. (2008) and Finger et al. (2009).
The age determinations from Late-Variscan
granites in the Erzgebirge were compiled by
Romer et al. (2007) and Förster and Romer
(2009). Granites and primary tin mineralization in
Erzgebirge were dated using conventional U-Pb
dating of uraninite inclusions in mica, Rb-Sr
dating of inclusions in quartz, Re-Os dating of
molybdenite and chemical Th-U-Pb dating of
uraninite (Romer et al. 2007).
The age of most plutonic rocks lying partly or
completely outside the territory of the Czech
Republic is determined by the Rb-Sr method
(isochrones) applied to rock samples (Köhler and
Müller-Sohnius 1986). Rb-Sr analyses have been
made also in the case of several magmatites lying
exclusively on the Czech territory (e.g. the
Nasavrky Composite Massif (Scharbert 1987),
and the Blatná Granodiorite of the Central
Bohemian Pluton (Bendl and Vokurka 1989). UPb and Pb-Pb analyses of zircon and Nd-Sm
isotopic analyses of rocks are available from
majority of the plutonic intrusions and
orthogneisses of the Bohemian Massif (e.g.
Kröner et al. 1994, Kröner and Hegner 1998,
Siebel et al. 1995).
division of the Bohemian plutonites into Variscan
(Hercynian) and pre-Variscan (pre-Hercynian), or
even Cadomian (Precambrian) plutonites, was
specified in more detail (e.g. Klomínský and
Dudek 1978, Dudek 1979, Suk et al. 1984, Dörr et
al. 1998, 2000).
According to Suk et al. (1984), Bohemian
Massif plutonites can be divided into:
Metagranites of Neoproterozoic up to
Palaeozoic age in metamorphosed regions.
Plutonites linked with the Cadomian Orogeny.
Plutonites linked with the Variscan Orogeny.
Plutonites within the Tertiary Volcanic Ohře
(Eger) Rift (not referred to in this review).
Many radiometric analyses using the K-Ar, RbSr, Ar-Ar and U-Pb methods were carried out
and/or summarised by Šmejkal and Vejnar (1965),
Haake (1972), Besang et al. (1976), van Breemen
et al. (1982), Gerstenberger et al. (1983),
Gorochov et al. (1983), Köhler et al. (1986),
Scharbert (1987), Bergner et al. (1988), Teufel
(1988), Pin et al. (1988), Scharbert and Veselá
(1990), Gerstenberger (1989), Holl et al. (1989),
Liew et al. (1989), Kreuzer et al. (1989, 1991,
1992), Kröner et al. (1989, 1994, 2001), Wendt et
al. (1993), Oliver et al. (1993), Dörr et al. (1995,
1998), Kennan et al. (1999) Tichomirova et al.
(2001), Marheine et al. (2002), and Schulmann et
al. (2005). A selection of the most important
radiometric analyses of intrusive rocks from the
Bohemian Massif was compiled by Bergner et al.
The plutons in the Bohemian Massif intruding the palaeontologically dated sedimentary sequences
Carboniferous sediments (300–311 Ma up to 360 Ma)
Cínovec Massif
Krupka Massif
Meissen Massif
Złoty Stok Massif
Devonian sediments (~ 400 Ma)
Markersbach Stock
Žulová Massif
Central Bohemian Pluton: Marginal Granite, Blatná Granodiorite
Nasavrky Composite Massif: Skuteč Granodiorite
Milevsko Massif: Čertovo břemeno Granodiorite
Silurian sediments (~ 428 Ma)
Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif
Ordovician sediments (~ 470 Ma)
Strzegom Massif
Smrčiny-Fichtelgebirge Composite Massif
Říčany Massif
Cambrian sediments (~ 500 Ma)
Königshain and Stolpen Stocks.
21
metamorphic zone, or they are intruded along
metamorphic
zone
boundaries.
Only
exceptionally some plutons crosscut more than
two metamorphic isograds (facies). In these
respect, the largest span is displayed by the
Blatná Granodiorite in the Central Bohemian
Pluton,
penetrating
through
the
unmetamorphosed Palaeozoic rocks of the
Barrandian as well as the Moldanubian
paragneisses, i.e. amphibolite facies of low
pressures (sillimanite-almandine subfacies).
About one half of the Central Bohemian pluton
is clearly younger than regional metamorphism
of the country rocks. 25 % displays signs of the
contemporaneous emplacement with the peak
of
Variscan
metamorphism
in
their
surroundings (e.g. the Weinsberg Granite).
Another 25 % of plutons (Cadomian in age)
have been affected by regional metamorphism
of the greenschist (e.g. the Brno Composite
Pluton, the Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton)
up to the amphibolite facies (e.g. orthogneisses
in the Bohemicum and Saxothuringicum,
Lugicum and Moldanubicum).
A typical feature of regional metamorphism
in the Bohemian Massif is its polymetamorphic
character, because the products of the younger
high-temperature Variscan orogeny ( 335
Ma)-periplutonic metamorphism are usually
course of Cadomian metamorphism and domal
one of the Variscan metamorphism. The latter
is associated with regional migmatitization in
the periphery of both the Central Bohemian
Pluton and the Moldanubian Composite
Batholith. Both metamorphic events display a
regular and complete sequence of phases from
the syntectonic dynamic metamorphism up to
the phase of retrograde alterations.
The peak temperatures have most likely
exceeded 750 °C and may locally have been
higher than 800 °C during Variscan regional
metamorphism.
Plutonic bodies of the Bohemian Massif
intruded across all the zones of regional
metamorphism. But in case of pre-Variscan
plutons, the metamorphic isograds even
crosscut these bodies. At the level of the
present Earth’s surface however, the majority
of plutons penetrate only through one
22
Fig. 8. Field relationship of the plutonic rocks in the Czech part of the Bohemian Massif (Klomínský 1994b).
23
List of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses in the Czech part of the Bohemian Massif (see Fig. 8)
1 – Sázava Tonalite
2 – Blatná Granodiorite
3 – Marginal Granite
4 – Klatovy Granodiorite
5 – Červená Granodiorite
6 – Nýrsko Granite
7 – Kozlovice Granite
8 – Těchnice Granodiorite
9 – Něčín Granodiorite
10 – Kozárovice
Granodiorite
11 – Požáry Trondhjemite
12 – Maršovice Granodiorite
13 – Sedlčany Granodiorite
14 – Čertovo břemeno
Granodiorite
15 – Tábor Syenite
16 – Říčany Granite
17 – Jevany Granite
18 – Ondřejov Tonalite
19 – Benešov Granodiorite
20 – Milevsko Dyke Swarm
21 – Mirovice Orthogneiss
22 – Jílové Volcanic Belt
23 – Neratovice Gabbro
24 – Hoštice Granodiorite
25 – Tis Granite
26 – Bechlín Diorite
27 – Čistá Granodiorite
28 – Černá Kočka Granite
29 – Todice Gabbro
30 – Petrovice Gabbro
31 – Bohutín Tonalite
32 – Lešetice Granodiorite
33 – Štěnovice Granodiorite
34 – Benešovice Granite
35 – Milevo Granodiorite
36 – Prostiboř Granodiorite
37 – Sedmihoří 1 Granite
38 – Sedmihoří 2 Granite
39 – Merklín Granodiorite
40 – Drnovka Granite
41 – Kdyně Metatonalite
42 – Všepadly Granodiorite
43 – Orlovice Gabbro
44 – Poběžovice Gabbro
45 – Podolsko Orthogneiss
46 – Drahotín Gabbro
47 – Babylon Granite
48 – Rozvadov Granite
49 – Bärnau Granite
50 – Bor Redwitzite
51 – Bor 1 Granite
52 – Bor 2 Granite
53 – WeissenstadtMarktleuthen Granite
54 – Zinn Granite
55 – Selb Granite
56 – Core Granite
57 – Marginal Granite
58 – Selb Orthogneiss
59 – Loket Granite
60 – Nejdek Granite
61 – Kfely Granite
62 – Eibenstock Granite
63 – Blauenthal Granite
64 – Kynžvart-Žandov
Granite
65 – Red Orthogneiss
66 – Fláje Granite
67 – Moldava Granite
68 – Loučná Granite
Porphyry
69 – Teplice Rhyolite
70 – Cínovec Granite
71 – Preisselberg Granite
72 – Roztoky Volcanic
Centre
73 – Doupov Volcanic
Centre
74 – Mariánské Lázně
Complex
75 – Stolpen Granite
76 – Lužice Granodiorite
77 – Königshain Granite
78 – Rumburk Granite
79 – Jizera-Krkonoše
Orthogneiss
80 – Liberec Granite
81 – Tanvald Granite
82 – Nový Hrádek Granite
83 – Olešnice-Kudowa
Granite and
Granodiorite
84 – Špičák Gabbro
85 – Orlica-Sněžník
Orthogneiss
86 – Zábřeh Tonalite
87 – Žulová Granite
88 – Strzelin Granite
89 – Keprník Orthogneiss
90 – Šumperk Granite
91 – Lukavice
Metavolcanites
92 – Žumberk Granite
93 – Křižanovice Granite
24
94 – Švihov Quartz diorite
95 – Skuteč Tonalite
96 – Všeradov Granite
97 – Benátky-Babákov
Porphyry
98 – Ransko Gabbro
99 – Chvaletice Granite
100 – Stvořidla Granite
101 – Číměř and Zvůle
Granite
102 – Eisgarn Granite
103 – Weinsberg Granite
104 – Mauthausen Granite
105 – Freistadt Granodiorite
106 – Rastenberg
Granodiorite
107 – Dobra Orthogneiss
108 – Gföhl Orthogneiss
109 – Třebíč Granodiorite
110 – Svratka Metagranite
111 – Tasovice Granite
112 – Znojmo Quartz diorite
113 – Doubravice
Granodiorite
114 – Blansko Granodiorite
115 – Královo Pole
Granodiorite
116 – Veverská Bítýška
Granodiorite
117 – Hlína Granite
118 – Tetčice Granodiorite
119 – Kounice Granodiorite
120 – Granodiorite
121 – Krumlovský les
Granodiorite
122 – Vedrovice
Granodiorite
123 – Olbramovice
Granodiorite
124 – Jablunkov Gabbro
125 – Rusava Gabbro
126 – Dražovice Gabbro
127 – Lubná Granite
128 – Slavkov Tonalite
129 – Stupava Granodiorite
130 – Ždánice Tonalite
131 – Nikolčice
Granodiorite
132 – Mušov Diorite
133 – Mikulov Granite
Fig. 9. Diagram of the emplacement ages of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif.
25
Fig. 10. Chronometric map of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif. 1–3 – zircon and monazite ages
according to Finger et al. (2008).
26
Chronostratigraphy of the volcano-plutonic sequences
Tertiary (Miocene-Palaeocene) magmatic rocks
(not discussed in this review) form several volcanic
centres mainly along the so-called Ohře rift.
Primarily extrusive and effusive alkali basalts and
trachytes represent them. Small stocks of alkaline
igneous
rocks
(theralites,
essexites
and
rongstockites) occur rarely in the centre of the
Doupovské hory Mts. Volcanic Centre and in the
core of the Roztoky Volcanic Caldera. The Osečná
Polzenite Subvolcanic Centre in the Česká Lípa area
(the Osečná Centre) also belongs to this age
category.
Permian igneous rocks are abundant in the
Intrasudetic, Krkonoše Piedmont and Mnichovo
Hradiště basins. Plutonites form smaller granite
massifs and stocks (Strzegom Massif, CínovecKrupka Massif, Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif
and Zelezniak Stock). Permian age of the youngest
bodies of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith is
still considered hypothetical (e.g. the Nákolice
Granite – 296 ± 31 Ma, subvolcanic felsic dykes –
295 ± 5 Ma, Rb-Sr whole rock and subvolcanic
dacitic/andesitic Dehetník dykes, approx. 270 Ma
(Ar-Ar).
The single evaporation SHRIMP ages of zircon
297 ± 8 Ma is confirmed by Kempe et al. (2004)
from rhyolite stocks and dykes in the endoexocontact of the Eibenstock Granite, the Karlovy
Vary-Eibenstock Massif.
Upper Carboniferous magmatic rocks are
arranged into a ring following the roughly circular
contour of the Bohemian Massif. They are
represented by several volcanic centres (e.g. the
Mnichovo Hradiště Basin, Teplice Rhyolite Caldera,
Walbrzych Caldera in Poland and the porphyry
extrusion within the Karlovy Vary Massif) the
Smrčiny Composite Massif, the Older Igneous
Complex of the Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge)
Batholith, and by many massifs and stocks chiefly
of the Eisgarn type in the Moldanubian Composite
Batholith, Žumberk Granite of the Nasavrky
Composite Massif, the Žulová Massif and the
Meissen Composite Massif. The Krkonoše-Jizera
Composite Massif and granitic bodies in Poland
(e.g. Sobotka Massif – Mt. Sleza) also fall into this
age category.
Finger et al. (2009) proposed that the midCarboniferous (from 315 to 325 Ma) in the
Fichtelgebirge/Erzgebirge Batholith and the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith belong to one
coherent and cogenetic, ca. 400 km long plutonic
megastructure – the Saxo-Danubian Granite Belt.
Lower Carboniferous magmatic rocks lack
volcanic component completely. They occur in large
outcrops over a relatively consistent area of the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith (Weinsberg
Granite Pluton) and of most types and bodies of the
Central Bohemian Pluton (Sázava Tonalite, Požáry
Trondhjemite,
Blatná
Granodiorite).
Lower
Carboniferous granitic rocks are known from the
Bor Massif and the Kladruby Composite Massif, the
Skuteč type of the Nasavrky Composite Massif and
tonalites of the Hrubý Jeseník Mts. (e.g. the Great
Tonalite Dyke).
Devonian magmatic rocks are represented by
metabasalts in the Nízký Jeseník Mts. The Čistá
Massif (Košler et al. 1993, 1995) the Mirotice and
Staré Sedlo Orthogneisses (Košler et al. 1996), the
Benešov Massif, Popovice Orthogneiss and
Podolsko Orthogneiss may be considered their
plutonic equivalents.
Ordovician or Cambro-Ordovician magmatic
rocks are represented mainly by metagranites
(dynamically metamorphosed plutonites). These are
the Orlice-Sněžník Orthogneiss, Krkonoše-Jizera.
Orthogneiss, the Münchberg Orthogneiss, and
plutons such as the Čistá-Jesenice Composite
Pluton, the Chvaletice Massif, the Rumburk Granite
(the Lusatian Composite Batholith) and the Stod
Massif. Similar Early Palaeozoic emplacement ages
of ~480 Ma for granitoid rocks have also been
reported from the Gföhl Gneiss in Moldanubicum.
Volcanic rocks of the Cambro-Ordovician age are
known mostly from the Barrandian area (e.g. the
Křivoklát-Rokycany Zone and the Strašice Zone).
Neoproterozoic to Lower Cambrian magmatic
rocks form basic massifs and stocks on one hand
and spatially extensive plutons of granodiorite and
tonalite composition on the other hand (e.g. The
Lusatian Composite Batholith, the Brno Composite
Pluton, the Krušné hory Mts. (Erzgebirge)
Orthogneisses (“granite-gneisses”) and the Thaya
(Dyje) Massif as well as volcano-plutonic
complexes such as the Kdyně Massif, and the
Neratovice Massif).
Neoproterozoic age (552 ± 11 Ma) has been also
confirmed for the Stráž Orthogneiss in the
Moldanubian Zone (Košler et al. 1996).
Neoproterozoic magmatites (Vendian-Rifean) are
represented by volcanites and as well as by
granitoids. The Jílové Volcanic Belt and the
Všeradov Granite in the Železné hory Mts. contains
plutonites
(alkali-feldspar
granites
and
trondhjemites) of the similar age. Neoproterozoic
ages of granitic rocks are well documented in the
27
Lusatian Composite Batholith where the Pulsnitz
and Radeberg-Löbau Complexes show the age in
range of 587–540 Ma (U-Pb zircon).
Most of these Neoproterozoic-Lower Cambrian
rocks of the magmatic origin crop out in the
Moldanubian Zone and correlate with leucocratic
two-mica and biotite granites. The largest bodies are
represented by the Gföhl Orthogneiss (partly
Cambrian-Ordovician in age). Smaller outcrops
(less than 30 sq. km) are formed by the Hluboká,
Choustník, Svratka, and Blaník orthogneisses. Some
of the bodies mentioned also contain relict
3.
metagranites, which document their intrusive
character (Zikmund 1983).
Moldanubian orthogneisses show a high
chronological span. The oldest rocks of the
magmatic origin found so far in the Bohemian
Massif are tonalitic-dioritic orthogneisses in the
Moldanubian Zone pointing at intrusion ages of
2060 ± 12 Ma to 2104 ± Ma for these rocks (the
Světlík Gneiss). The Dobra Gneiss exhibits an
emplacement age of 1377 ± 10 Ma (Gebauer and
Friedl 1994).
FORMATIONAL AND HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS OF PLUTONS
Formational analysis allows geological correlations among
plutonites on the basis of their material composition and
tectonic setting in time and space.
Tauson et al. 1979, Afanasyef et al. 1977,
Klomínský and Sattran 1970; Palivcová et al.
1968, 1978, 1989, Tomek 1975; Rajlich and
Vlašímský 1975, Holub 1991, Holub et al. 1997,
and Janoušek et al. 2000). In the following text
there are several examples of the formational
and/or hierarchical analyses of plutons (see also
the Bohemicum Fig. 1.1 and 1.3.).
According to Holub et al. (1997) seven
compositional and genetic groups can be
distinguished among plutonic rocks of the Central
Bohemian Composite Batholith:
Calc-alkaline group represented by gabbroic to
dioritic and tonalitic rocks and Sázava type,
Ca-rich acid granitoids (Požáry and Nečín
types),
High-K group of shoshonitic and high-K calcalkaline rocks (the Kozárovice, Těchnice, Blatná,
Marginal, Červená and Nýrsko types),
Ultrapotassic group (“durbachites” of
the Čertovo břemeno and Tábor types),
High-K, high-Mg granites (the Sedlčany,
Zbonín, Říčany types)
The peraluminous granodiorites (the Kozlovice,
Maršovice and Kosova Hora types),
The group of leucogranites of the polygenetic
origin.
These genetic groups can be attributed to three
major pulses of the plutonic activity: I – calcalkaline group, II – high-K group, III –
ultrapotassic, the high-K, high-Mg granitoids and
probably the peraluminous granodiorites (Holub
et al. 1997).
The Central Bohemian Composite Batholith
comprises according to Janoušek et al. (2000) five
granitoid suites: Sázava suite (Sázava and Požáry
intrusions), Blatná suite (the Blatná and
Kozárovice intrusions with the Červená facies),
Čertovo břemeno suite (Sedlčany, Čertovo
břemeno and Tábor intrusions), Říčany suite
An
analysis
of
petrographic,
chemical
composition and textural characteristics of
plutonites is necessary for the definition of
relationships among individual bodies but also
among their parts. This analysis shows some
geotectonic and metallogenetic implications.
Recognition of these relations is the basis for the
so-called formational analysis of plutonites
defined by Kouznyetsof (1964) and applied to the
Bohemian Massif by Afanasyef et al. 1977,
Palivcová (1977) and Palivcová et al. (1968, 1978,
1989), Sattran and Klomínský (1970), Klomínský
and Dudek (1978), Tauson et al. (1977), Holub
(1991), Breiter and Sokol (1997), Holub et al.
(1997), Janoušek et al. (2004), Hanžl and
Melichar (1997) and others using the field,
petrological and geochemical data. Results of
these classifications led to grouping of individual
rock types and bodies into genetic successions,
groups, suites, and formations of plutons or
batholiths. Hierarchical analysis, defining
common characters of plutonic generations,
families and their members, is a more advanced
form of formational analysis of plutonites.
Internal relations between individual components
and an estimation of their share on the total
material variability of plutonic bodies allow their
comparison at the same level of hierarchical
importance.
The history of formational analysis of the
individual plutonic bodies in the Bohemian Massif
can be demonstrated on the Central Bohemian
Composite Batholith (see the Bohemicum Fig.
1.1. and 1.3.). A .descriptive rock typology by
Kodym and Suk (1960) has been later modified by
many attempts to set the formational analysis of
the Batholith (Svoboda et al. 1964; Steinocher,
1969; Vejnar, 1974, Kodymová and Vejnar 1974;
28
5.
Sudetic Granite Belt with ~315 to 300 Ma
I-type granodiorites, I/S- and S-type
granites.
According to Siebel et al. (2008) in the western
wing of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith
granites in the Bavarian Terrane (high Ca-Sr-Y
granites) and the Ostrong Terrane (low Ca-Sr-Y
granites) define two distinct granite types, which
formed at about the same time but from different
source materials in two compositionally distinct
Variscan basement units separated by the Pfahl
Shear Zone.
Sattran and Klomínský (1970) defined in a
group of petrometallogenic series of the
Bohemian Massif four principal granitic series
(see Tab. 4 and Fig. 20):
1. The Sn-W series represented by the
Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Composite
Batholith and highly differentiated granites
of the Moldanubian Composite Batholith
(e.g. the Landštejn Granite).
2. the “transitional” W-Mo series represented
by the OIC of the Smrčiny-Krušné hory
Mts. Composite Batholith and the
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif
3. The “transitional” Mo-Au series represented
by the Bor, Kladruby, Čistá, Žulová
Massifs, and Štěnovice Stock.
4. The Au series represented by tonalites and
granodiorites of the Central Bohemian
Pluton and the Nasavrky Composite Massif
(Říčany intrusion) and Maršovice suite
(Maršovice, Kozlovice and Kosova Hora
intrusions).
Grouping of the granitic rocks in the Weinsberg
Composite Pluton (Moldanubian Composite
Batholith) into the Weinsberg, Mauthausen and
Eisgarn Groups was applied by Koller (2000).
Granitoids of the Desná Unit in the Silesicum
were classified according to field criteria,
petrological and geochemical data into the
tonalite, granite and leucogranite suites (Hanžl et
al. 2007).
According to the concept of Finger et al. (1997,
2009) Variscan granites in the Bohemian Massif
form on basis of the synchronicity of
geochronological data and similarity of granite
types at least five independent magmatic systems
with individual tectonothermal backgrounds:
1. A “North Variscan Granite Belt” with ca.
330 to 350 Ma I-type granite and
granodiorite plutons.
2. A “Central Bohemian Granite Belt” with
ca. 360 to 335 Ma I-type tonalites and
granodiorites.
3. A “Durbachite Plutons” with 335 to 340
Ma high-K to shoshonitic (mela)granites,
granodiorites and syenites/monzonites.
4. Saxo-Danubian Granite Belt with 330 to
310 Ma of the Moldanubian and
Saxothuringian granites of batholithic
dimensions.
.
4.
PETROCHEMISTRY OF PLUTONITES
(1997) Holub et al. (1997), Siebel et al. (1999),
Breiter et al. (1999) and Janoušek et al. (2000,
2004). These studies are based on large data sets
of major and trace elements and have been
focused
mainly
on
the
geotectonic,
metallogenic,
genetic
implications,
and
formational and hierarchic classifications of
plutons. The most complete geochemical
database of the granitic rocks (2174 rock
samples) and orthogneisses (586 rock samples)
has been summarized (Fig. 11) by the Czech
Geological
Survey
(Gürtlerová
2004).
Geochemistry and petrochemical variability of
the Bohemian Massif plutons have been studied
and summarised by Sattran and Klomínský
(1970), Vejnar (1974), Vlašímský (1975).
Rajlich and Vlašímský (1983), Holub et al.
(1997), Steinocher (1969), Štemprok and Škvor
(1974), Tauson et al. (1977), Klomínský and
Dudek (1978), Jarchovský and Štemprok (1979),
Cambel et al. (1980), Čadková et al. (1984,
1985), Tischendorf (1989), Liew et al. (1989),
Štemprok (1991), Breiter et al. (1991), Holub
(1991), Jelínek and Dudek (1993), Bowes and
Košler (1993), Breiter (1994), Breiter and Sokol
29
Fig. 11. Regional distribution of granitoid samples in the geochemical database of the Czech Geological Survey
(Gürtlerová 2004). The granitoids (red) and orthogneisses (blue).
Fig. 12. AFM (atomic ratios) and Ab-Q-Or (normative
ratios) diagrams of the Bohemian Massif plutonites of the
Cadomian (A, B) and Variscan (C, D) age. Green –
tonalites, yellow – granodiorites, red – granites, blue –
durbachites.
Petrochemical variability of the plutonites of the
Bohemian Massif was demonstrated by Klomínský
and Dudek (1978) in a data set of chemical analyses
of the major oxides representing the majority of the
Bohemian plutonites. Data on average composition
of the individual plutons and massifs are
summarized in ternary diagrams AFM, and Ab-QOr (Fig. 12). The distribution areas of petrochemical
data dispersion for the main petrographic types
(two-mica and biotite granites, biotite granodiorites,
tonalites and biotite-amphibole and durbachites) of
the groups of Variscan (C, D) and pre-Variscan
plutonites (A, B) are shown in Fig. 12.
According to Klomínský and Dudek (1978) the
granite-granodiorite and the tonalite series may be
distinguished in both Variscan and pre-Variscan
plutonites, the latter particularly showing
remarkable compositional differences.
All Variscan plutons in the Bohemian Massif have
a calc-alkaline composition. As is shown in Fig. 12.
C, it is impossible to eliminate the interference with
the alkali-feldspar series, which is represented by
auto-metamorphosed granites (the youngest group
of Variscan plutonites). The field of ultrapotassic
(durbachite) plutons is completely offset of the main
differentiation trend (Fig. 12 C, D). Their specific
position argues for their different source and
genesis. Some granites in a field of limited extent
represent one end-member of the genetic series
while the other end- member is represented by the
group of tonalites and related diorites and gabbros in
a field of a much wider range. The group of biotite
granodiorites overlaps the field of granites and has a
limited extent. The diagram shows a certain gap
between the granite (granodiorite) and tonalite
fields. This discontinuity in the dispersion fields
30
may indicate differences in time and spatial
distribution of chemically distinct groups of
Variscan plutonites.
In the Q-Ab-Or diagram (Fig. 12 D), most of the
Variscan granites are concentrated in its centre
between the cotectic lines corresponding to 0.5 and
5 MPa of the Q-Or-Ab-H2O system (e.g. the
Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Batholith, the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith). The position of
biotite granodiorites (yellow) closer to the Ab-Q
side again indicates closer relations of this granite
group. Ultrapotassic (durbachite) plutons are
represented by an isolated field clearly shifted
toward the Or apex (Fig. 12 D). Its specific
chemical position is indicated by the notable
prevalence of potassium over sodium.
Data dispersion fields of the material composition
of the pre-Variscan plutonites are characterized by a
different tectonic position relative to their Variscan
equivalents in both the Q-Ab-Or and the AFM
diagrams (Fig. 12 A, B). This is true in particular for
tonalities and granodiorites, the fields of which are
distinctly shifted towards the Ab apex and the F
apex, respectively. It indicates the sodic character of
the pre-Variscan plutonites. Some Variscan and preVariscan plutonites also differ in the mafic mineral
content (colour index). Tonalites of pre-Variscan
plutonites are obviously more leucocratic than the
corresponding Variscan types. The granites are more
leucocratic, too. Chemical reflection of this
difference cannot be demonstrated clearly in the
ternary diagrams, it is, however, well defined when
Niggli’s differentiation diagrams are used (Cambel
et al. 1980).
Changes in the granite composition of the plutons through time
The most significant systematic change in granitic
composition in the Bohemian Massif in time is that
of the Na content of the large batholiths, with Na
being most abundant in the Cadomian and Lower
Palaeozoic (Caledonian?) granites, and lowest in the
Upper Palaeozoic (Variscan) granites. This
evolution in Na content is probably coupled with the
change from garnet to plagioclase dominance in the
source regions of the granites, with Na being lower
in those granites that were derived from plagioclasebearing source regions. The two distinct patterns,
dominated by either garnet or plagioclase in the
source, are obviously related to depth of partial
melting, with the plagioclase-bearing sources
occurring at shallower levels than the garnet-bearing
sources. The latter would have resided at depths
greater than 45 km, and probably greater than 60
km.
The second systematic change is the variation in
K, Th and U contents in granites from depletion in
the Cadomian and Lower Palaeozoic granites, to
strong enrichment in the Upper Palaeozoic granites.
It can indicate again their source at a shallower
depth. Finally, some Variscan and pre-Variscan
igneous rocks differ from each other in their colour
index. Tonalites of the Cadomian age are notably
lower in mafic components than Variscan ones
(Klomínský and Dudek 1978).
31
5.
3-D SHAPE, EROSION LEVEL AND DEPTH OF SOLIDIFICATION
OF PLUTONIC BODIES
by one or more vertical conducts, but the bulk of
magma flow at the emplacement level is
horizontal. The role of their lateral displacement
in creating space diminishes with decreasing
ductility of the wall rocks.
3-D shape analysis of plutonic bodies in the
Bohemian Massif is based primarily on
geophysical (gravity and seismic) models but also
on detailed studies of the outer contacts and the
petrographic composition of the magmatic
intrusions (e.g. the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite
Massif by Cloos 1925 and Watzenauer 1935 –
Fig. 13, the Abertamy Redwitzite by Kovaříková
et al. 2005, the Smrčiny-Fichtelgebirge Composite
Massif by Hecht et al. 1997, and the Oberpfalz
Composite Massif by Trzebski et al. 1997).
Ethmolithic and/or sheet-like shape with a flat
roof and/or floor as inclined sheets have been
suggested for many plutons (e.g. the Karlovy Vry
Massif, the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif,
the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Milevsko
Massif, the Třebíč Massif, Čistá-Jesenice
Composite Pluton and the Oberpfalz Composite
Massif). On the other hand, some granitic stocks
have been modelled as sub-vertical cigar-like
bodies (e.g. the Čistá Massif, the Bohutín Stock,
the Štěnovice Stock). The roof morphology of
some plutonic bodies has been traced according to
position and size of the country rock enclaves and
rafts (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton) The roof
shape of plutons has been mapped in detail by
drilling and geophysical survey only in the Krušné
hory Mts. (Erzgebirge) Composite Batholith with
the aim to determine first of all the subsurface
extension and form of the major granite cupolas
(e.g. Krupka Massif in the eastern Krušné hory
Mts. and minute stocks in the Western Krušné
hory Mts. Pluton – e.g. the Hub Stock in
Jarchovský 2006, see fig. 14).
The crystalline schists of almost the whole
Krušné hory Mts. area are underlain by large
bodies of granitic rocks, which, at a number of
places, were found to be seated at relatively
shallow depths (Watznauer 1954). The extension
of post-Carboniferous denudation of the late
Variscan plutons was estimated by Sattran (1957),
at the maximum of 1,500 m, based on the material
removal in the Krušné hory Mts. crystalline rocks.
Models of the shape and thickness of the
Karlovy Vary Massif (about 10 km), the Lusatian
Composite Batholith (over 10 km), Krkonoše-
Morphogenesis and tectonic setting of the
postkinematic intrusions was studied by
Vigneresse (1995a, b). According to Trzebski et
al. (1997) this author distinguished three regimes
of regional deformation as controls of granite
emplacement: (a) compression, (b) extension and
(c) shear deformation. According to Trzebski et
al. (1997) several authors suggested late- to
postkinematic
granite
emplacement
in
transpressional and transtensional shear zones.
Vigneresse (1995a) pointed out the following
characteristics
of
shear-induced
granite
emplacement:
(a) Association with major strike-slip faults, (b)
elliptical shape at outcrop level, (c) subvertical
shear plane and horizontal shear-related
lineations, (d) steep pluton walls controlled by the
shear plane, (e) pluton floor with depth 5 ± 2 km
and a single root with depths 6–12 km and (f)
volume > 15,000 km3.
In contrast, granites intruded into extentional
structures are (a) very thin (< 3 km), (b) with
subhorizontal foliation planes, (c) volume >1,500
km3 and (d) several root zones with depths 5–6
km.
Geophysical investigations reveal that many
granitoid plutons possess a tabular shape: either
laccolithic (convex roof and straight floor) or,
lopolithic (straight roof and concave foor) or
phacolithic (biconvex) shape Dietl and Koyi
(2008). Despite their differences in emplacement
level and tectonic setting, the development of
lensoidal shapes of all these plutons can be
described as a three-stages process (l.c). In the
first stage a vertical dyke is established, where
magma is transported upward until it reaches a
horizontal unconformity along which the magma
then – in second stage – speads laterally to form
sill. In the third stage additional magma ascends
through the feeder dyke to be emplaced into the
sill, which inflates due to the magma overpressure
by doming of the roof and/or depression of the
floor of the growing pluton. According to Dietl
and Koyi (2008) these three stages are
incremental processes and intimately entangled
with each other, in particular in the case of
composite plutons which consist of several
magma banches.
According to Cruden (2006) granite plutons are
emplaced as tabular to wedge-shaped bodies with
thicknesses ranging from 1 to 10 km. They are fed
32
Jizera Composite Massif (4 to 10 km) and Jizera
Orthogneiss (up to 6 km) have been suggested by
Jeliński et al. (1963) and Sedlák et al. (2007).
Fig. 13. Examples of the vertical sections across some granitic intrusions in the Bohemian Massif.
A. Longitudinal profile across the assymetric ethmolith model of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif (modified
according to Watznauer 1935). 1 – Krkonoše-Jizera granites, 2 – Tanvald Granite, 3 – crystalline rocks.
B. Geological model of the Krudum Massif along NNW-SSE gravity profile (modified according to Švancara et
al.2000). 1 – mica-schists and phyllites, 2 – Mariánské Lázně Basic Complex, 3 – Karlovy Vary Granites.
C. Geological model of the Krudum Massif along NW-SE gravity profile (modified according to Blecha et al., 2009).
1 – paraautochthon, 2 – mica-schists and phyllites, 3 – Mariánské Lázně Basic Complex, 4 – granites of the YIC,
5 – granites of the OIC.
D. Geological model of the Bor Massif along the N-S gravity profile (modified according to Trzebski et al., 1997). 1 –
crystalline rocks, 2 – basic complexes, 3 – Bor granites.
E. Geological model of the Karlovy Vary Massif along the N-W-SE gravity profile (modified according to Hofmann et
al. 2003). 1 – crystalline rocks, 2 – Karlovy Vary granites.
F. Interpretative block-diagram of theŘíčany Massif internal structure (modified according to Trubač et al. 2009).
1 – strongly porphyritic granite, 2 – weakly porphyritic granite, 3 – K-feldspar foliation, 4 – inferred magma flow
direction, 5 – magnetic lineation, 6 – broad gradational contact.
33
pendants, stopped blocks and discordant intrusive
contacts in the Central Bohemian Pluton suggests
that magmatic stopping was a widespread process
during its final construction. They argue that
extensive magmatic stopping may, in general, be
an important mechanism of final construction of
upper-crustal plutons. Magmatic stopping is also
likely to significantly modify preserved structural
patterns around plutons and obscure the evidence
for earlier emplacement processes due to removal
of large parts of structural aureoles. The magmatic
stopping may have significantly contributed as a
large-scale exchange process to vertical recycling
and downward transport of crustal material within
magma plumbing systems in the crust during
Variscan orogeny, similarly to Mesozoic Andean
and Cordilleran plutonic systems (Žák et al.
2006).
The shape and the extension of the Central
Bohemian Composite Batholith were discussed by
Kettner (1930a,b), Orlov (1935) Dudek and
Fediuk 1957, Kodym and Suk (1958) and Marek
and Palivcová (1968). According to the existing
views it may be assumed that the contacts of the
Central Bohemian Pluton (a principal member of
the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith, see
the Bohemicum) are in general approximately
vertical or dip steeply towards the SE (especially
in the northern part of the Pluton) or to the NW
(mainly in its southern part). In the Příbram
mining district the Central Bohemian Pluton
penetrated to its present-day level along a preexisting tectonic lineament. Its boundary with the
Proterozoic and the Palaeozoic sediments of the
Teplá-Barrandian basin dips therefore very
steeply to the SE to a depth exceeding 1,500 m
(Dudek and Fediuk 1956). In general, the abyssal
character of the Central Bohemian Pluton
increases from N to S and from W to E. In the
northern and northwestern part of the Pluton,
thermal contact metamorphism prevails and on the
endocontact porphyritic facies of granodiorites
considered to be typical of shallow depth plutons
often appears (Dudek and Fediuk 1957, Kodym
and Suk 1958). Towards east and south gneissic
rocks and migmatites occur at the contacts with
increasing frequency and the migmatite aureole
continues to widen.
The original thickness of the Palaeozoic and
Proterozoic sediments in the roof of the Central
Bohemian Pluton is estimated at the value of
2,000 ± 500 m (Dudek and Suk 1965). According
to Zoubek (1960) this Pluton is a shallow
intrusion 1,500–600 m below the original surface.
The depth reached by individual intrusions of the
Central Bohemian Pluton (CBP) was summarised
by Dudek and Suk (1965) in the interval, from
1,000 m for the Říčany and Marginal Granite
(northern part of CBP) and up to 4,000–5,000 m
for the Červená Granodiorite (southern part of
CBP).
In the Bohemicum, Krupička (1950) states that
in the central part of the Jílové Volcanic Belt there
may be assumed a depth difference of
approximately 1,200 m over 10 km along SSW
direction with rocks of gradually showing more
deep-seated character ranging from effusive types
in the north to marked intrusive types in the south.
Magmatic
stopping
as
an
important
emplacement mechanism of Variscan plutons has
been studied by Žák et al. (2006) using the
evidence from roof pendants in the Central
Bohemian Pluton. The presence of numerous roof
Fig. 14. The Hub and Schnöd Stocks (the Krásno
Stock) – longitudial section and isohypses of the
granite surface under the gneiss country rocks
(according to Jarchovský 2006). 1 – gneiss, 2 –
greisen and gneiss breccia, 3 – leucocratic granite,
partly altered, 4 – leucocratic granite, 5 – Li-F granite,
6 – fault.
The depth relief of the granitoid plutons of the
Moldanubicum has been studied by Dudek and
Suk (1965). Subsurface topography of the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith roof was
modelled by Mottlová and Suk (1970) and Suk
and Weiss (1975) on the basis of mapping of the
periplutonic
metamorphism
and
gravity
measurements. The maximum real width of the
periplutonic migmatite zones fluctuates from
several hundred meters up to 1 km, so that it may
be assumed that their occurrences indicate the
presence of granitic rocks in proximity or at a
depth not exceeding that width on the average.
34
At least two durbachite intrusions (the Milevsko
and Třebíč massifs) in the Moldanubicum are
relatively thin sheets according to gravity survey
and indications of the underlying country rocks.
3-D shape of the Milevsko Massif was modelled
by Dobeš and Pokorný (1988) according to the
gravity survey as a thin ethmolitic sheet in the
western part and as a deep root in the eastern
segment of the intrusion (Fig. 15).
Houzar and Novák (1998) interpreted several
“windows” of metamorphics of Drosendorf and
Gföhl units within the Třebíč Massif. Drillings
through the Milevsko Massif hit the Blatná
Granodiorite at depth of 450 m in its western part
(Hamtilová 1971).
The Želnava (Knížecí stolec) Massif shape is
interpreted by Verner et al. (2006) as a ring
complex with numerous durbachite cone-sheets
around the central homogenous massif.
Interactive gravity modelling of the 3-D shape,
subsurface extent and basal morphology of the
late-Variscan granites was carried out by Trzebski
et al. (1997) in the north-western Bohemian
Massif (Fig. 16). For the subsurface shaping two
gravity methods were used: the Linsser filtering
and the 2.5-D density modelling. At depth,
granites show steep- and flat-sided, wedge-like
plutons, which are generally elongated, in northnorthwest-south-southeast direction (Trzebski et
al. 1997). The maximum basal depths between 3
and 10 km occur along the root zones indicated by
high gravity magnitudes (Fig. 16).
Another important criterion may be found in the
extension of dyke rocks whose space distribution
in the Moldanubicum is almost always linked with
the granitoid massifs and the area closely
adjoining their contact. In spite of this regularity,
the extension of dykes reaches in places
considerably beyond the surface occurrences of
the plutons and thus can indicate the subsurface
extension of the latter.
In the Moldanubian Composite Batholith, a
number of preserved islets and rafts of crystalline
schists are found. Together with shape and
position of the Batholith, they bring evidence that
only its apical part was laid bare. The depth
reached by individual intrusions of the
Moldanubian
Composite
Batholith
was
summarised by Dudek and Suk (1965) in the
interval from 1,000 m for the Eisgarn Granite and
up to 8,000 m for the Schärding Granite (in situ
anatectic granite). According to Gerdes et al.
(2000) the Eisgarn Pluton intruded into the higher
level of the Moldanubian crust than the
Weinsberg Pluton further to the south.
The estimated volume of the Moldanubian
Composite Batholith of around 80,000 km3 was
estimated from its average thickness of about 8
km (Gerdes et al. 2000a).
Ethmolithic delimitation and flat tabular shape
of plutonic bodies has been interpreted by Dobeš
and Pokorný (1988) and Bubeníček (1968) from
regional gravity profiles mostly in the durbachite
bodies (e.g. the Milevsko Massif and the Třebíč
Massif). On the other hand the durbachite
intrusion of the Jihlava Massif is reported as a
steeply dipping tabular intrusion (Verner et al.
2006).
Fig. 15. Isolines depth plots of the basal morphology
(in km scale) of the Milevsko Massif (Čertovo břemeno
Granodiorite) according to Dobeš and Pokorný (1988).
35
Table 2. Geometrical parameters of the granitic plutons in the northwestern Bohemian Massif (after Trzebski et al.
1997).
Granite type
Leuchtenberg
Falkenberg
Steinwald/Friedenfels
Flossenbürg
Bärnau
Waidhaus/Rozvadov
Bor
Mitterteich
Kynžvart
Surface
(km2)
140
58
64
60
40
250
370
126
66
Max. depth
(km)
10
4
7
5
8
9
7
5
7
Total:
Volume
(km3)
2,900
470
550
780
320
2,100
2,500
990
880
11,490
Fig. 16. Isoline depth plots of the basal morphology of plutons in the northwestern part of the Bohemian Massif (after
Trzebski et al. 1997).
According to Madel (1975) the Flossenbürg
Granite in the Oberpfalz Composite Massif is a
NW-SE trending laccolith of more than 500 m
thickness, having a rather steep contact at its SW
margin, and gently dipping towards the NW
underneath the Falkenberg Granite.
The western- and easternmost granites (e.g.
Leuchtenberg, Bor) are deeply eroded (east-sided
basal asymmetry), whereas the granites in the
central part (e.g. Falkenberg, Rozvadov) are
greatly buried in the metamorphic host rocks and
show a west-sided basal asymmetry (Trzebski et
al. 1997).
36
now been removed by erosion (Zulauf, Maier and
Stöckhert 1997). The Falkenberg Granite cooling
rate to 400 and 350 °C lasted over approximately
6 and 15 Ma, respectively (Zulauf, Maier and
Stöckhert 1997).
The Leuchtenberg Granite most probably has
the shape of a nearly vertical sheet with an
approximate width of some 3 km. The shape of
the Falkenberg Granite is approximately that of a
horizontal plate which has solidified at a depth of
approximately 9–12 km with an assumed original
thickness of about 9 km, 3 km of which having
Fig. 17. Map of the depth (in km) of the floor of the Smrčiny (Fichtelgebirge) Composite Massif (adapted after Hecht et
al. 1997).A – outline of the surface outcrops, B – fault.
interpret the shape of this granite massif as a
continuous desk whose floor is horizontal (or
subhorizontal) and varies along its whole
extention about a depth of 10 km. According to
Hofmann et. al. (2003) the Karlovy Vary Massif
has a maximum depth of 13 km with volume of
20, 000 km3 this body is characterized by a sawlike lower boundary shown in Fig. 13E.
The tabular ethmolitic shape of the ČistáJesenice Composite pluton is also indicated
according to its subhorizontal contacts with
country rocks (Smetana 1927, Klomínský and
Sattran 1965). A steeply inclined wedge-like
ethmolith of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite
Massif has been interpreted from the gravity data
(Klomínský 1969 and Sedlák et al. 2007). The
tabular model of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite
Massif below the Izera Metamorphic complex
constructed Michniewitz et al. (2006) also
according to the geophysical data.
In general, the tabular shape of the plutons in
the Bohemian Massif is accepted in the majority
of granite studies.
The depth extent of some granitic plutons in the
Bohemian Massif according to gravity data has
been calculated by Šrámek and Mrlina (1997):
Karlovy Vary Massif 10–15 km, Smrčiny
Composite Massif 6–8 km, Lesný-Lysina
(Kynžvart) 3–4 km, Čistá-Jesenice Composite
The shape and thickness of the Smrčiny
(Fichtelgebirge) Composite Massif (Fig. 17) has
been modelled by Hecht et al. (1997). The OIC
unit (Wiessenstadt-Marktleuthen Granite) is thin,
except on its eastern site (6 km). The average
depth of the floor is approximately 2–3 km. In
YIC, (the Central Massif) presents a great
thickness averaging 6–7 km. The satellite stocks
of the YIC (the Waldstein and Kornberg Stocks)
have a restricted thickness of less than 2 km.
According to Siebel et al. (1997b), the late
Variscan granitoids of the NW Bohemian Massif,
the Bor, Falkenberg, Flossenbürg, Bärnau and
Waidhaus-Rozvadov granites can be modelled,
using gravity data, as steeply inclined slab- and
wedge-like bodies with thickness between 4 and 8
km (average depths of 6 km), whereas the granites
of the Smrčiny (Fichtelgebirge) Composite Massif
extend to 2–8 km below the surface. The basal
depths of the older granites (Bor, Leuchtenberg)
show the lowest thickness (< 4 km). The geometry
of the Variscan granites in the Oberpfalz was
estimated as laccolithic or sheet-like bodies (in
volumes more than 15,000 km3) with average
thickness of 4–5 km dipping slightly to the east.
The Eibenstock-Karlovy Vary Massif is a
laccolith 10–15 km thick according to gravity data
(Šrámek and Mrlina 1997, Polanský 1973, and
Švancara et al. 2000). Blecha et al. (2009)
37
the Variscan granites in Krušné hory Mts.Erzgebirge is laccolithic, not the batholithic one.
Seismic reflection lamination of the Eibenstock
Massif points to an interfingering pattern between
granite and gneiss (Bankwitz and Bankwitz 1994).
The depth of emplacement of the post-tectonic
vertical granites in Krušné hory Mts.-Erzgebirge
was about 2–4 km from the surface (Thomas et al.
1991).
The depth of intrusion of Variscan granitic
plutons in the Bohemian Massif has been
estimated by Dudek et al. (1991) using various pT
thermometers and barometers according to
published data on distribution of albite in
coexisting plagioclase and K-feldspar in granites
(locally
also
the
muscovite-andalusite
association).
Main granitoid bodies intruded successively
under changing pT conditions in connection with
the gradual erosion of the mountain chain. The
distribution of four depths categories of granitoids
is shown on the Fig. 18. The last intrusions are of
subvolcanic type and solidified not deeper than 2
km (Dudek et al. 1991).
The Variscan intrusions had been brought out to
the surface by erosion already in Late
Carboniferous/Permian
times,
and
were
subsequently covered by Permian and Mesozoic
sediments.
Pluton 6–8 km, Bor Massif 6–8 km, Kladruby
Massif 2–4 km, Rozvadov Composite Massif 6–7
km, Kdyně Massif 3–5 km, Drahotín Stock 0.5
km, Poběžovice Massif, 2 km, Babylon Stock 3
km, Sedmihoří Stock 8–10 km, Štěnovice Stock
6–8 km, Klatovy Massif 3 km, Central Bohemian
Pluton 3–5 km, Prášily Massif 5 km. The Žulová
Massif has been modeled according to gravity
anomaly up to depth of 3.3 to 5–6 km
(Zachovalová et al. 2002). The Cambrian plutons
and related dykes in western part of the
Bohemicum intruded at levels of 5–9 km, most of
them
synkinematically
within
dextral,
transtensional ENE-WSW trending shear zones
(Zulauf, Maier and Stöckhert 1997 and Zulauf et.
al., 2002).
Subsurface shaping of granites in seismic
reflection patterns was studied on the subsurface
extent of the Oberpfaltz Composite Massif
(Trzebski et al. 1997). The greatest thickness
partly exceeding depths of < 9 km was traced in
the Falkenberg Granite. In contrast, the
Leuchtenberg Granite reaches maximum depths
les than 4.3 km.
According to seismic sounding data (Bankwitz
and Bankwitz 1994) the recognizable granite
bodies extend down to 2 km (Eichigt Massif), 2.5
km (Altenberg Stock), 4–12 km (Karlovy VaryEibenstock Massif). The most probable shape of
Fig. 18. Expected depth of intrusion of Variscan granitic plutons in the Bohemian Massif (adapted after Dudek et al.
1991). 1 – < 2.5 km, 2 – to 7 km, 3 – to 10 km, 4 – to 15 km.
38
Exo- and endocontacts of the granitic plutons
Stock in Bavaria), ten centimetres up to several
tens to hundreds of meters thick, in sub-vertical
(Kettnerová 1920, the Žampach profile – the
Central Bohemian Pluton) as well as
subhorizontal arrangement (Smetana 1927, the
Žihle profile – the Čistá-Jesenice Composite
Pluton).
Contact planes of the plutonites of the Central
Bohemian Pluton (e.g. the Marginal Granite),
dipping inwards to their surface outcrops have
been detected infrequently in the underground
mining works of the Příbram mining district.
Uncommon contact plane between two granite
intrusions – the Liberec and Tanvald Granite (the
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif) has been
described by Klomínský Ed. (2006). The alkalifeldspar Tanvald Granite is intruded by the calcalkaline Liberec Granite with effects of the
thermal metamorphism, partial melting and
mylonitization (pseudotachylites) of the Tanvald
Granite (see Plate 6-b).
Two spacially separated outcrops of the Tanvald
granite in the exocontact of the Liberec granite in
the western part of the Krkonoše-Jizera
Composite Massif comprise relics of the former
size of Tanvald Massif. Its substantial part has
been destructed by the magmatic erosion into the
rafts, and xenoliths by intrusive activity of the
younger Liberec granite. This unusual fenomenon
of the magmatic canibalism in the Bohemian
Massif is documented by the Tanvald and Liberec
granite relationship, contrast in their magmatic
fabric, and the Tanvald granite lithological and
geochemical internal zonation (Klomínský et al.
2009).
Many types of contacts between the granitic
plutons and their surroundings have been
described as a result of material and structural
interaction between magma and country rocks.
Intrusive contacts of plutonites contain a
variegated mineral assemblage in both endo- and
exocontacts depending on their dip angles and
volatile component contents in the granitic melt.
A typical pegmatite (Stockscheider) greisens, and
greisenization and tourmalinization are products
of tin-bearing granites. Granitic breccia pipes of
alkali-feldspar Li-mica granite, pegmatite, greisen
and topaz-quartzolite (e.g. the Sneckenstein Rock,
Mühlleithen,
Geyer,
Seiffen,
Sadisdorf,
Sachsenhöhe, Altenberg, Krupka, Krásno Stocks)
often with tin mineralization are related to YIC
(Younger Igneous Complex) granites of the
Krušné hory Mts. Batholith. Intense greisenization
and selective tourmalinization is also reported
from the exocontact of the Krkonoše-Jizera
Composite Massif (Klomínský and Táborský
2003, Klomínský et al. 2004). According to
Tischendorf (1989), the breccia pipes in the
Krušné hory Mts. Batholith seem to be genetically
multiphase activated “valves of pressure release”
for fluids generated in connection with periodic
crystallization processes of granitic magma.
Mechanism of the breccia formation is interpreted
as fluid explosive process connected with hydro
fracturing and decompression before and during
granite emplacement in a subvolcanic crustal level
(Seltmann 1990).
Finger-like, foliation-concordant intrusions of
plutonites into country rocks are common (e.g. the
Rozvadov Composite Massif and the Lalling
Internal structure and depositional features of plutons
masses of mafic to intermediate enclaves, which
represent according to Wiebe and Collins (1998)
the input of higher temperature, more mafic
magma during crystallization of the granitic
plutons. Stratigraphic relations, preserved in
depositional sequences, suggest that the plutons
formed from many separate pulses of crystal-poor
granitic magmas with lesser input of more mafic
magmas.
Commonly, sub-concordant rafts of country
rock and mafic to intermediate enclaves, separate
some sheets. This is often described as ”ghost
stratigraphy” (Pitcher 1970).
Depositional plutons are characterized by sheetlike bodies which are marked generally by a
Depositional (layered) plutons and contrasting
sheeted plutons may represent two end-members
of
granitic
intrusions
characterized
by
replenishment. In the depositional plutons,
replenishment of felsic and mafic material would
have occurred rapidly enough to maintain a single
active chamber, which was capable of undergoing
at least partial homogenization. In sheeted
plutons, earlier injections would have crystallized
almost completely prior to new replenishments, so
that felsic and mafic injections can be recognized
as individual intrusions (Wiebe and Collins 1998).
Sheeted plutons are characterized by
compositional differences between individual
sheets. Many sheeted plutons contain sheet-like
39
OIC of the Karlovy Vary Massif, Čistá Massif,
Štěnovice and Bohutín Stocks).
Magmatic flow and fracture fabrics of some
plutons in the Bohemian Massif have been studied
by Cloos (1925), Beneš (1971, 1974a, b),
Klomínský (1969), Suk (1973), Schust (1967),
Máška (1954) and recently Žák, Schulmann and
Hrouda (2005), Žák et al (2006), and Verner et al.
(2006) mostly applying the AMS technique.
Structural criteria of the plutonic rocks were
first applied by Beneš (1974a, b) to classification
of plutons in the Bohemian Massif according to
the degree of the homogeneity and entropy of
their fabric. The most important structural element
is flow fabric defined by planar parallel
orientation of tabular minerals (feldspars, micas
and hornblendes), by planar parallel orientation of
aplitic and biotitic schlieren and xenoliths and
lineation manifested by parallel orientation of
long axes of the feldspar phenocrysts.
Dominant planar parallel fabric is developed in
the Čistá Granodiorite, Benešov Granodiorite,
Červená Granodiorite and in the marginal part of
the Čertovo břemeno Melagranite.
Definite plan-parallel fabric (defined planar
alignment of tabular minerals in the groundmass
or of phenocrysts) is exhibited by the Sázava
Tonalite,
Blatná
Granodiorite,
Skuteč
Granodiorite, Třebíč Melagranite (durbachite),
Weinsberg Granite, Zvůle (Landštejn) Granite,
Jizera Granite, and in the Loket Granite.
Distinct plan-parallel fabric is manifested by
poorly defined planar parallel orientation of
tabular minerals in the groundmass and by distinct
planar and/ linear orientation of feldspar
phenocrysts. This structural type is mostly
complemented by distinct orientation of
inclusions and in places also of mafic schlieren. It
is developed in durbachites of the Třebíč Massif
and the Milevsko Massif, in the Karlovy VaryEibenstock Massif (e.g. Schust 1967), Číměř
Granite, Bor Granite and Kladruby Granodiorite.
Indistinct plan-parallel fabric is developed in
the Žumberk Granite, Marginal Granite (the
Central Bohemian Pluton), Liberec Granite,
Říčany Granite, Požáry Trondhjemite, Mrákotín
Granite, Freistadt Granodiorite, and Karlovy Vary
Granite.
According to Beneš (1971) and Cloos (1925)
plutons in the Bohemian Massif show a very close
genetic relationship between the flow fabric and
fracture fabric, as well as conformity of the fabric
planes in country rocks. These conclusions have
been disputed e.g. by Žák et al. (2007).
relatively sharp, although irregular, base and a
gradational or hybrid top. These distinctive
features of these depositional portions of plutons
allow them to be distinguished from sheeted
intrusion, which usually preserve mutual intrusive
contacts and “dyke-sill” relations of different
magma types (e.g. Breiter 2005).
Interior of the granitic plutons of the Bohemian
Massif has been hitherto studied by the means of
geological, petrologic, geochemical, structural and
geophysical mapping of their surface outcrops
(e.g. the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif, the
Čistá Massif, the Třebíč Massif, the Jihlava
Massif, the Central Bohemian Pluton, the Karlovy
Vary-Eibenstock Massif, the Fláje Massif, the
Oberpfalz Composite Massif, the Rozvadov
Composite Massif). Deep parts of plutons have
been investigated by means of single bore holes
(e.g. Cínovec Cs-1 borehole, by Štemprok and
Šulcek 1969, the C-1 well in the Jelenia Góra –
Cieplice, by Dowgiałło 2000), or by a network of
deep drillings (Třebíč Massif), and the
underground workings in the Příbram ore mines at
the depth up to 1800 m (e.g. the Bohutín Stock).
Mapping of many granitic plutons in the
Bohemian Massif shows that only a layer of
granite several hundreds of metres (100–500 m)
thick can be studied due to relatively flat
topography.
Material and structural anisotropy have been
tested with the use of multivariate trend-surface
analysis and factor analysis in the Central
Bohemian Pluton, the Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock
Composite
Massif,
the
Krkonoše-Jizera
Composite Massif, the Central Bohemian Pluton,
Štěnovice Stock, Fláje Massif, Benešov Massif,
Stolpen Stock (e.g. Rajlich and Vlašímský 1983,
Sattran 1960, Klomínský 1969). The results have
contributed to the discrimination of palimpsest
(relict) textures (ghost stratigraphy) preserved in
the granitic rocks due to selective assimilation of
the country rocks due to the magmatic stopping
and/or granitic – basic magma mixing in studies
of the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif,
Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif, Bohutín Stock,
Cínovec Massif and Hub and Schnöd Stocks
(Klomínský 1969, Jarchovský 1994, Štemprok
and Šulcek 1969).
According to these studies the Central
Bohemian Pluton (Vlašímský et al. 1992) and
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif can represent
typical sheeted plutons in sense of Wiebe and
Collins classification (1998). Depositional plutons
are less frequent in the Bohemian Massif (e.g.
40
crystal framework and that the bulk laminar
magma flow in the channels was partitioned into
flow laminae to produce schlieren cross-beds. Žák
et al. (2007) combined the AMS technique and Kfeldspar phenocrysts orientation in mapping of the
magmatic anisotropy in the Jizera Granite (the
Jizera-Krkonoše Composite Massif).
A post-emplacement change in position – tilting
of plutons has been recorded only rarely on the
territory of the Bohemian Massif. This type of
movement can be most easily identified in
elongated sills and bodies of large areal extent
(e.g. the Jílové Volcanic Zone, the Moldanubian
Composite Batholith). The tilting effect is
revealed by a notable difference in the level of
erosion at opposite parts of their surface outcrops.
Möbus (1956) reported tilting of the Lusatian
Composite Batholith to the northwest, which
caused a deeper erosion of the intrusion in the
southeast. Northeastern extension of the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith represents the
apical part of this large intrusion. Deeper portions
of the Batholith are exposed farther to the south
and southwest in the present erosion section
(Dudek and Suk 1965, Dudek et al. 1991,
Scharbert, Breiter and Frank 1997 – Ar-Ar
cooling ages). Based on the distribution of
andalusite, sillimanite, and cordierite, the deepest
erosion section of the Eisgarn Composite Pluton is
exposed in its southern part (D´Amico et al. 1981,
Novotný 1986).
Plutons usually imitate the internal structure of
the country rocks and adopt in slightly modified
form their main fracture pattern. Application of
the AMS method in the structural mapping of the
Central Bohemian Pluton (Žák et al. 2006)
revealed multiple magmatic fabric and lateral
variation and magnetic fabric intensity in case of
the Sázava Tonalite. The central part of this
intrusion yields prolate shapes of the AMS
ellipsoid and a low degree of anisotropy with
preserved steep magnetic lineation, whereas,
along the intrusion margins, oblate AMS
ellipsoids are associated with a high degree of
anisotropy (Žák et al. 2006). Similarly the AMS
method has been applied for recognition of the
foliations parallel to the margin of the Jihlava
Massif (Verner et al. 2006).
According to Žák and Klomínsky (2007) the
magmatic structures in the Jizera and Liberec
granites preserve field evidence for localized
magmatic differentiation, multiphase laminar flow
and other physical processes that operated in
crystal-rich granitic magma after the chamberscale dynamic mixing and hybridisation. The
formation of mafic schlieren presumably involved
gravitational settling, velocity gradient flow
sorting, and interstitial melt escape within the
crystal mush along flow rims. The schlieren
geometry indicates that the flowing, mobile
magma utilized a network of small-scale weaker
channel-like domains through the high-strength
6.
ZONATION IN PLUTONITES
Zonal character is a typical feature of most of the
magmatic bodies. It is reflected in compositional
changes in direction from the margins to the centre
of ntrusions. The zonation pattern of granitic plutons
is generally discussed in terms of normal or reverse
zonation. Most granitic intrusions are normally
zoned from a more mafic margin towards a more
differentiated core. Popular hypotheses to explain
normal zoning in plutons are fractional
crystallization, assimilation, sidewall crystallisation,
thermo-gravitational separation or vapour-phase
transport. In some cases reverse zoning exists which
has been attributed mainly to sequential intrusions
of more mafic magmas or to several stages of
crystallisation and upwelling of more fractionated
magmas (Hecht et al. 1997).
Zoned plutons are often composed of a number of
successively differentiated phases with the younger
phases intruding into the older phases. If spatial
compositional zonation is considered, it is generally
discussed in relation to the surface contour of the
pluton or sometimes with respect to a third
dimension
given
by
distinct
outcrop
geomorphology. Zonation of plutons has been
studied in this sense by Klomínský (1963, 1965,
1969) in the Čistá Massif, the Štěnovice Stock, and
the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif, by Janoušek
et al. (1997) and Trubač et al. (2008) in the Říčany
Massif, by Dudek (1957) in the Sedmihoří Stock, by
Sattran (1960) in the Fláje Massif, by Madel (1975)
in the Oberfaltz Composite Massif, by Fediuk and
René (1996) in the Kladruby Massif, by Jarchovský
(1994) in the Schnöd and Hub Stocks and by Breiter
and Koller (2000) in the Eisgarn Composite Pluton
(the Eisgarn Massif and Zvůle Stock).
41
Fig. 19. Zonal patterns of some granitic bodies (in the map projection) of the Bohemian Massif (adapted after
Klomínský 1994). 1 – Zonation pattern from older phase to younger phase is shown in colours from older phase (1) to
youngest phase (4).
According to Hecht et al. (1997) the internal
zonation patterns of the OIC (Older Intrusive
Complex) and YIC (Younger Intrusive Complex) in
the Smrčiny (Fichtelgebirge) Composite Massif are
asymmetrical and cannot be simply classified as
normal or reverse with respect to the exposed
granite outline. Important additional information can
emerge if the compositional zoning of granite
bodies is regarded with relation to their root zones,
as reflected by the granite shape at depth.
Zonation symmetry and the character of contacts
between the individual phases define various genetic
types of zonation. Hence, zoned plutons formed
through in-situ differentiation of a single magmatic
pulse can be recognized (e.g. the Štěnovice Stock)
as well as granitic bodies composed of phases
representing individual intrusive pulses from a
common source (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton).
Asymmetrical zoned plutons in particular may serve
as a tool for the identification of regional tectonic
regime. Correlation of radiometric ages of the
individual intrusive phases with the displacement
magnitude of their centres may reflect the rate of
tectonic processes in the time of the intrusion or
during the post-intrusion deformation of the plutons.
The classification of pluton zonation after Nozawa
and Tainosho (1990) is based upon the cross-section
of the individual phases in a surface outcrop
(Klomínský 1994, see Fig. 19).
1. Bull’s eye plutons
a) With normal zonation (e.g. Sedmihoří
Stock, Štěnovice Stock)
b) With reverse zonation (e.g. Mutěnín Stock)
c) With normal asymmetry (e.g. Čistá Massif,
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif).
2. Nested plutons
a) With concentric zonation (e.g. Kladruby
Composite Massif)
b) The “stuffed bag” type (e.g. the Central
Bohemian Pluton)
c) With irregular (complex) zonation (e.g. the
Smrčiny Composite Massif)
d) With chain zonation (the Kdyně-Neukirchen
Massif and the Stod Massif).
Possible explanation of the (reverse) zoning is
formation by:
42
a) Mixing (including assimilation and/or
periodic influx of fresh, little-fractionated
magma into the centre of the intrusion)
b) Emplacement of granite in several separate
batches possibly associated with cauldron
subsidence, or
c) Emplacement of an essentially single pulse
of magma from deeper level of a magma
chamber with vertical compositional
gradient.
Concentric zonation is a prominent feature of
post-tectonic granitic plutons. Bodies with normal
zonation are related to a pre-heated and thicker
crust. Reverse zonation is related to shallow
processes in a thin crust (Nozawa and Tainosho
1990).
Asymmetrical zoned plutons are of the greatest
importance for tectonic implications. The highest
number of asymmetrical plutons lies in the western
and northern Bohemia. Among these, the Kladruby
Composite Massif is the most notable one.
Causes of zoned asymmetry
In erosion sections (surface outlines), most of the
zoned plutons have a relatively symmetrical fabric.
However, there are bodies with a strong zonation
asymmetry. Its causes lie in regional tectonic
processes controlling the emplacement and in situ
differentiation of plutons. Two models of the
zonation pattern were suggested by Hecht et al.
(1997) in the Smrčiny-Fichtelgebirge Composite
Massif. Both models show a drift of individual
intrusions from north to south, towards the root zone,
as a result of increasing degree of magmatic.
differentiation.
A systematic progressive migration of the centres
of the individual plutonic phases may result either
from a relative movement of the source zone beneath
the intruding plutons, or from progressive transport
of the region with plutons over stable source areas of
magma. The former case can be explained by
subduction mechanism or by plunging of lithospheric
plates; the latter can be explained by the presence of
nappes. In these cases, the individual magmatic
pulses intersect the older pulses and intrude in the
terminal or marginal parts of a gradually tilting
stock. During lateral relaxation of the orogene
margin the arc structure displays a ductile relaxation
away from the magmatic axis. Therefore, the
intruding plutons rotate in direction away from this
axis. Zonal asymmetry of plutons is thus caused by
their lateral tilting and may show asymmetry both in
shape and in composition across the eroded crosssection from roof to root.
Relative horizontal displacement magnitude of the individual plutonic phases
The size of surface exposures of zoned plutons in
the Bohemian Massif varies significantly, ranging
from 1 km2 (e.g. the Bohutín Stock) to several
hundreds up to more than 1,000 of square km (e.g.
the Central Bohemian Pluton a principal member of
the Central Bohemian Composite Batholith). The
systematic displacement of the centres of their
lithological phases is of different magnitudes and is
probably related to both the pluton size and the time
interval between the individual plutonic phases.
Gastil et al. (1991) estimated the magnitudes of the
horizontal displacement at one to several kilometres
per 1 Ma according to published data. Based on this
assumption, symmetrical zoned intrusions such as
the Sedmihoří Stock have a specific importance: it is
obvious that the intrusion velocity was either high
with scarce opportunity for lateral migration from a
deep-seated source, or there was no displacement in
the time of the intrusion.
Trends of plutonic “rejuvenation”
Asymmetrical zoned plutons of Variscan age
southwest of the Labe (Elbe) lineament, i.e. in the
Bohemicum and the Moldanubicum, show
a uniform rejuvenation trend indicating a systematic
movement of the centres of their lithological phases
to the north and northwest. On the other hand,
asymmetrical zoned plutons of pre-Variscan age
east of the Labe (Elbe) lineament are rejuvenated in
the direction to the south and southeast.
Zoned Variscan plutons of the Bohemian Massif
contain information on the direction and rate of the
displacement of the Earth’s crust into which they
intruded 375 Ma to 296 Ma ago (Klomínský 1994a).
In the western Bohemia, the trend of the
asymmetrical zonation (rejuvenation) of plutons is
directed prevailingly towards north and northwest.
During the Lower Carboniferous, these movements
were in order of several tens of kilometres. Design
of the plutonic zonation from the times of the Upper
Carboniferous and Lower Permian indicates
a significant decrease in velocity of all subhorizontal
movements and, eventually, their entire cessation
43
(Klomínský 1994). The Variscan collision of
lithospheric plates is documented by plutons of
different ages on the present surface, which are
related to different tectonic regimes of the Variscan
orogeny. Collision zone is marked by syn-collision
plutons (e.g. the Central Bohemian Pluton) whereas
the post-orogenic plutons (Upper Carboniferous-
7.
Lower Permian) are concentrated at greater
distances in the northern margin of the Bohemian
Massif (Krušné hory Mts. and Smrčiny Mts. areas).
Metallogenetic importance of the zoned plutons is
obvious from the fact that the concentration of ore
mineralization increases in the direction of their
rejuvenation.
POSITION OF THE PLUTONS IN THE GEOPHYSICAL FIELD
Moldanubian Composite Batholith are expected at
relatively shallow depth (Motlová and Suk 1970).
According to density measurements and gravity
anomalies in the Central Bohemian Composite
Batholith (see Bohemicum) its assumed batholitic
character is not probable (Marek and Palivcová
1968).
The distribution of the positive and negative
gravity fields in the form of total Bouguer
anomalies, residual gravity anomalies and partly
also „regional“ anomalies coincides very well
with the distribution of certain groups of Variscan
mineral associations and with the distribution of
Variscan plutonites of special chemistry (Bernard
et al. 1976).
According to Šalanský (2002) the regional
geomagnetic field of the Bohemian Massif shows
a similar pattern as the gravity field. Regional
geomagnetic elevations, as far as they correspond
to the regional gravity positive zones, indicate
usually the presence of mafic rocks at various
depths. Northern part of the Central Bohemian
Pluton corresponds to a many kilometres long
geomagnetic anomalous belt, where the Sázava
Tonalite, Požáry Trondhjemite, and Marginal
Granite are frequently manifesting distinct
magnetization. Similar relations are obvious in the
Nasavrky Composite Massif, partly in the Brno
Composite Pluton and in other plutonic bodies.
The Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Batholith and
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif occur
predominantly on background of low and/or high
geomagnetic elevations. At the surface their
granitic rocks contains strongly magnetized,
magnetite-bearing horizons indicating the
presence of subhorizontal layering (Gnojek and
Šťovíčková 1974). Magnetic stratification has
been recognized between the high-magnetic
Liberec Granite (in the foot-wall) and the lowmagnetic Jizera Granite (in the hanging-wall) of
the
Krkonoše-Jizera
Composite
Massif
(Klomínský et al. 2006). Magnetic anomalies of
this character can be recognized in the
endocontact zone of the Kirchberg Massif, as well
as within the western part of the Krkonoše-Jizera
Overall geophysical pattern of the Czech part of
the Bohemian Massif has been summarized by
Buday et al. (1969), Ibrmajer and Suk (1989),
Bližkovský et al. (1985), Bucha and Bližkovský
(1994), Šafanda (2004), Bielik et al. (2006)) and
in Oberpfalz by Casten et al. (1997) and Trzebski
et al. (1997).
Interactive gravity modelling of the 3-D shape,
subsurface extent and basal morphology of the
granitic bodies in the Bohemian Massif were used
by Marek and Palivcová (1968), Mottlová (1971),
Mottlová and Suk (1970), Tomek (1975, 1976),
Polanský (1973), Klomínský and Dudek (1978),
Bernard et al. (1976), Dobeš and Pokorný (1988),
Trzebski et al. (1997), Šrámek and Mrlina (1997),
Siebel et al. (1997b), Hecht et al. (1997),
Švancara, et al. (200), Sedlák et al. (2007), Sedlák
et al. (2009) and Bucha et al. (2009).
Position of the magmatites in the gravity and
geomagnetic fields of the Bohemian Massif is
summarized by Pokorný (1997), Šalanský (1983,
1989, 1995 and Šalanský and Gnojek (2002)
respectively. These plutonic bodies occur mostly
above the slopes between the elevations and
depression of the Moho-relief. The homogeneous
positive regional gravity field is typical for preVariscan intrusions (i.e. the Lusatian Composite
Batholith, the Brno Composite Batholith and the
Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton). On the other
hand Variscan (Upper Carboniferous) plutons are
located within areas of highly negative regional
gravity anomalies (Fig. 20). These magmatic
bodies show a large vertical extent (up to 15 km)
and crop out within area > 20 μgal (Polanský
1973). The Devonian-Lower Carboniferous
plutons and massifs are located in gravity gradient
zones, between the zones of regional positive
gravity anomalies and the negative ones (within
the interval –20 to –10 mlg (i.e. the Central
Bohemian Pluton (a member of the Central
Bohemian Composite Batholith, see Bohemicum)
and the Nasavrky Composite Massif). According
to the outstanding gravity gradient south of the
Central Bohemian Composite Batholith (see
Bohemicum) the granitic rocks of the
44
(1989). Radioactivity of rocks is characterized by
following parameters: gamma dose rate of rocks
Da (nGy.h-1), mass concentration of potassium (%
K), uranium (ppm eU), and thorium (ppm eTh).
Manová and Matolín (1995) compiled the map of
the gamma dose rate of rocks of the Czech
Republic on scale 1 : 500,000. The map shows
values between 6 to 245 nGy.h-1, with a mean
value of 65.6 ± 19 nGy.h-1. The gamma dose rate
of rocks Da can be recalculated to total
radioactivity using the equation 8.69 Gy.h-1 =
1μR.h. Variscan igneous rocks belong to the rocks
with the highest radioactivity. Radioactivity
parameters of the main igneous rocks and
orthogneisses are listed in Table 3.
Composite Massif, the Čistá Massif and the
Sedmihoří Stock. An anomalous magnetization
(Bartošek et al. 1969) caused by accessory
magnetite and showing concentric zoning has
often been found in small granitic massifs and
stocks (e.g. the Čistá Massif, Štěnovice Stock,
Fláje Massif).
Petrophysical properties of the Brno Composite
Pluton and their tectonic implications have been
studied by Hrouda and Rejl (1973) and Hrouda
(1999).
Radioactivity of rocks and results of regional
airborne survey of the Czech territory have been
studied by Matolín (1970), Fiala et al. (1983),
Manová and Matolín (1995), Chlupáčová et al.
45
Fig. 20. Distribution of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the gravity field of the Bohemian Massif.
46
Table 3. Radioactivity parameters of the main igneous rocks and orthogneisses of the Bohemian Massif, adapted
according to Manová and Matolín (1995), Just (1991) and Hanák et al. (2008).A = 0.081 (K2O%) + 0.261 (U ppm) +
0.072 (Th ppm) in µW . m-3.
Batholith / Pluton / Massif / Stock
Th (ppm) U (ppm)
Central Bohemian Composite Batholith
Čertovo břemeno Melagranite
Tábor Melasyenite
Sedlčany Granodiorite
Dehetník Granodiorite
Sedlec Granodiorite
Říčany and Kšely Granite
Kozlovice Granodiorite
Kosova Hora and Maršovice Granodiorite
Benešov Granodiorite
Central Bohemian Pluton
Sázava Tonalite North
Sázava Tonalite South
Blatná Granodiorite
Červená Granodiorite
Těchnice Granodiorite North
Klatovy Granodiorite
Těchnice Granodiorite South
Marginal Granite
Požáry Trondhjemite
Igneous rocks in the roof of the CBP
Jílové Volcanic belt (granites)
Jílové Volcanic belt (granodiorites)
Jílové Volcanic belt (tonalites)
Jílové Volcanic belt (syenites)
Jílové Volcanic belt (metatonalites)
Mirotice Orthogneiss
Staré Sedlo Orthogneiss
Bor Massif
(Bor I Granite)
(Bor II Granite)
Kladruby Composite Massif
Sedmihoří Stock
Štěnovice Stock
Kdyně Composite Massif
Diorites and tonalites
Stod Massif
Merklín Granodiorite
Drnov granite
Poběžovice Massif (diorites)
Čistá-Jesenice Composite Pluton
Tis Granite
Tis Granite
Tis Granite (Mutějovice)
47
K (%)
A
39.4
30.4
34.6
31.4
22.2
24.2
13.4
14.6
21.0
15.2
9.8
13.3
8.7
9.7
5.2
3.4
4.8
6.3
5.20
5.20
4.50
4.20
3.70
4.30
2.50
3.40
4.00
7.25
5.21
6.35
4.90
4.45
3.48
2.08
2.61
3.51
19.7
18.1
18.2
24.2
34.0
1.3
19.7
24.4
11.5
5.5
6.1
6.1
4.9
7.5
4.1
5.5
4.7
2.6
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.90
4.30
16.70
3.30
3.10
2.40
3.15
3.19
3.20
3.37
4.78
2.76
3.15
3.25
1.72
22.0
10.2
8.7
55.6
3.3
6.0
13.0
3.7
17.2
2.3
12.3
1.0
2.5
4.4
3.50
3.07
1.62
5.20
0.61
1.50
1.62
2.90
5.49
1.37
7.65
0.55
1.22
2.22
22.2
13.8
7.1
8.6
3.98
3.79
3.80
3.58
11.2
14.5
4.3
4.3
3.50
2.00
2.25
2.34
12.5
4.1
1.50
2.10
8.2
12.3
11.4
3.7
4.1
4.2
1.90
2.10
1.80
1.73
2.14
2.07
11.2
10.6
7.3
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.77
3.82
3.50
2.33
2.19
1.84
Čistá Massif
Hůrky Fenite
Lower Vltava Composite Massif
Hoštice Stock
Chotělice Massif
Chvaletice Massif (granity)
Nasavrky Composite Massif
Granodiorites
Tonalites
Diorites
Hlinsko Granite
Skuteč Granodiorite
Žumberk Granite
Křižanovice Tonalite
Křižanovice Granite
Polom Massif
Hanov Orthogneiss
Moldanubian Composite Batholith
Eisgarn Composite Pluton
Eisgarn Granite s.l.
Ševětín Massif (light facies)
Melechov Massif
Stvořidla Granite
Lipnice Granite
Kouty Granite
Melechov Granite
Číměř Granite
Mrákotín Granite
Weinsberg Composite Pluton
Weinsberg Granite
Ultrapotassic Plutonites
Třebíč Massif
Třebíč Massif (syenites)
Třebíč Massif (leucogranites)
Jihlava Massif
Rastenberg Massif
Želnava Massif
11.2
50.1
4.5
15.5
3.77
3.10
5.1
24.1
16.8
2.7
7.0
6.4
1.41
2.57
2.90
2.33
7.89
1.20
3.78
3.79
2.58
13.8
8.7
4.1
5.9
19.0
22.0
11.7
21.0
13.7
5.6
4.7
2.3
1.6
2.0
8.0
5.5
6.5
6.0
2.3
1.5
2.40
1.92
0.63
4.50
3.30
4.35
2.50
4.35
2.40
1.40
2.43
1.40
0.77
1.37
3.75
3.41
2.76
3.47
1.80
0.92
25.0
18.1
6.7
9.3
4.37
4.08
3.94
4.10
2.4
46.9
22.7
2.7
20.5
15.5
5.1
7.5
6.1
11.2
7.8
7.5
4.00
4.71
4.63
3.70
3.40
3.80
1.88
5.73
3.64
3.46
3.81
3.42
26.4
5.8
3.85
3.75
30.9
44.3
18.9
30.6
25.0
36.8
10.5
14.1
6.3
5.2
8.0
16.9
4.92
5.18
4.36
4.60
4.00
5.75
5.40
7.31
3.40
4.00
4.24
7.56
Mutěnín Stock
5.4
1.1
1.60
0.82
Gföhl Orthogneiss
Podolsko Orthogneiss
Smrčiny-Krušné hory Batholith
Selb Granite
Western Krušné hory Composite Pluton
Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif
Eibenstock Granite
Kirchberg Massif
Krudum Massif
Kynžvart Massif
13.6
20.4
26.5
24.8
7.4
7.5
14.0
40.0
7.5
14.0
5.1
7.9
20.1
6.6
32.0
21.9
12.0
15.0
23.4
9.0
3.70
3.80
3.60
4.04
4.34
3.38
3.40
3.80
3.35
4.00
2.65
3.87
7.45
3.87
9.26
6.55
4.44
7.11
6.94
3.72
48
Eastern YIC Granites
Fláje Massif (granites)
Fláje Massif (porphyry)
Teplice Rhyolite
Cínovec-Krupka Massif
Krupka Granite
Cínovec Granite
Krušné hory Mts. Orthogneisses
Inner Red Orthogneiss
Outer Red Orthogneiss
Lusatian Composite Batholith
West Lusatian Granodiorite
East Lusatian Granodiorite
Rumburk Granite
Krkonoše-Jizera Orthogneiss
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif
Tanvald Granite
Jizera Granite
Liberec Granite
Olešnice-Kudowa Massif (dark facies)
Nový Hrádek Stock
Great Tonalite Dyke
Litice Massif
Javorník Massif
Brno Composite Batholith
Brno Composite Pluton
Diorites
Krumlovský les Granodiorite
Réna Granite
Kounice Granodiorite
Vedrovice Granodiorite
Tetčice Granodiorite
Královo Pole Granodiorite
Veverská Bítýška Granodiorite
Red granites (Tetčice suite)
Blansko Granodiorite
Slavkov Massif
Slavkov Tonalite
Ždánice Massif
Ždánice Tonalite
Lubná Massif
Lubná Granite
Strachotín (Mikulov) Massif
Stupava Massif
Svratka Massif
Bíteš Gneiss
Jablunkov Massif
Žulová-Strzelin Massif (tonalites)
Šumperk Massif
Rudná Stock
49
31.9
9.8
7.8
37.3
12.6
8.5
6.9
10.6
4.80
3.67
4.79
4.04
6.00
3.26
2.81
5.79
39.8
43.2
16.8
17.8
3.86
3.80
7.56
8.06
8.5
6.4
2.8
9.3
3.70
3.90
1.69
3.25
12.0
14.9
10.6
7.4
2.9
3.8
4.3
5.1
3.05
2.58
3.43
3.35
1.90
2.29
2.20
2.17
6.9
20.4
29.4
16.3
15.3
6.8
37.5
22.4
8.1
5.2
10.2
4.4
2.9
2.3
8.2
6.3
3.40
3.53
3.49
2.93
3.65
2.38
3.90
3.24
2.92
3.14
5.07
2.58
2.19
1.31
5.17
3.54
0.6
10.9
14.6
10.1
7.4
10.8
6.5
10.5
21.7
5.1
0.3
2.0
2.3
1.4
2.1
1.4
1.0
1.1
2.2
0.9
0.83
3.24
2.99
2.38
2.76
3.32
2.33
3.14
4.10
1.84
0.20
1.61
1.92
1.31
1.34
1.45
0.95
1.33
2.5
0.2
1.76
0.40
2.1
2.1
2.48
0.93
25.0
4.0
2.8
3.7
4.4
6.9
10.7
20.8
21.0
3.9
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.4
2.2
2.4
2.6
4.4
3.56
3.05
2.89
0.56
1.43
1.60
2.55
3.44
2.79
3.13
0.79
0.63
0.63
0.81
1.22
1.63
2.48
2.90
0.77
8.
RELATION OF PLUTONITES TO VOLCANISM
Petrologists and volcanologists still face the
problem whether large volumes of plutons may have
intruded with no volcanic association and, similarly,
whether large volumes of volcanic material may
have extruded on the Earth’s surface without their
intrusive counterpart. Geological coincidence
between volcanic and intrusive processes is
generally accepted, but plutonic rocks and volcanics
within a single province are always separated only
on basis of their different age. According to Thorpe
and Francis (1979), the ratio between extrusive and
intrusive products is a function of water content in
the intruding magma. The amount of volcanites
generally decreases with increasing water content in
magma. The hypothesis of a close genetic and time
relation between plutonites and volcanites is based
on the idea that the plutonites may represent deeply
eroded magmatic chambers of the above lying
volcanic products, now completely removed. This
relation generally results from different rates of the
extrusion and intrusion processes, but the real time
relations between volcanics and plutonic rocks may
be more complicated. Erosion in the Andean region
indicates that the volcanic “cover” will disappear
completely within 10 Ma after the plutonic rocks
intruding beneath the present active volcanoes are
exposed. In deeply eroded regions such as the
Bohemian Massif, the outcrops of Variscan and
particularly Cadomian plutonites may, therefore,
contain only traces of volcanic products.
Time-space coincidence of volcanic and plutonic
activities occurs also in the Bohemian Massif region
(Palivcová and Šťovíčková 1968). Unambiguous
overlapping of both processes is documented in the
Teplice Volcanic Caldera (Breiter 1997), Všeradov
Complex, Jílové Volcanic Belt, but also in the
centres of the Tertiary alkaline basaltoid volcanites.
Relics of subvolcanic members have the form of
thick dykes or clusters of linear, radial or ring
arrangement, e.g. the Teplice Volcanic Caldera (e.g.
Jiránek et al. 1988) or the dyke swarm around the
Roztoky Caldera and the Osečná Polzenite Centre.
These volcanic centres also include diatremes so far
sporadically reported from the Tertiary volcanics as
well as from the Palaeozoic (Carboniferous and
Ordovician) volcanics (e.g. the Otmíč Diatreme).
According to Palivcová and Šťovíčková (1968),
not only plutonic but also volcanic complexes are
indicative of deep-seated tectonic structures and
help to determine their role in the geological setting
of the region. The material composition of volcanic
rocks not only reflects the composition of their
source magmas but also provides additional
information on the depth of their origin. Such data
are very useful for the support of mobility models of
the Bohemian Massif geology.
Intricate, dense networks of dyke rocks (dyke
swarms) occur in the areas of surface outcrops of
some plutons and massifs such as the Lusatian
Composite Batholith (Dolerite Dyke Swarm),
Central Bohemian Composite Batholith (e.g.
Příbram Dyke Swarm), Karlovy Vary Massif (e.g.
Jáchymov Dyke Swarm) Moldanubian Composite
Batholith (e.g. Kaplice Dyke Swarm) or the
Štěnovice Stock. Their local accumulation may
indicate traces of deep roots of volcanic structures
(plumes) imprinted in the plutonic intrusion
interiors. In the Central Bohemian Pluton, a multiple
successive sequence is characteristic of such dyke
intersections, with different petrographic types
either older or younger than the plutonites
themselves (Vlašímský 1976).
Palaeozoic volcanics are useful for the dating of
the volcanics/plutonites relationships in the
Bohemian Massif. The upper and lower boundaries
of their major sequences are dated reliably in all
Palaeozoic stages. Material composition of their
small-scale cycles is also known. Traces of volcanic
equivalents of deeply eroded plutonites in the
Bohemian Massif are often well preserved in the
temporally related sedimentary rock complexes. It is
best documented by the Upper Palaeozoic
magmatism and composition of contemporaneous
sediments in adjacent basins (Kukal 1984).
Volcanic and subvolcanic products of a
dominantly bimodal magmatism there started during
the late Visean (?) and ended during the Cisuralian.
Like in other Late Palaeozoic basin of central
Europe, a major magmatic pulse took place around
300 Ma at the northern margin of the Bohemian
Massif. They are possible subvolcanic counterparts
of the Variscan Basement-rich granitoids and dykes
(Awdankiewicz et al., 2009 and Rapprich et al.,
2009).
Less preserved relationship can be observed
between the Lower Palaeozoic plutons and
contemporaneous volcanites of the Lower
Palaeozoic age (e.g. the Čistá-Jesenice Composite
Pluton and the Křivoklát Volcanic Belt).
Petránek (1978, 1984) formulated a hypothesis
that rhyolites (ignimbrites) and associated volcanics
and their tuffs became the sources for the arkoses in
the Permian-Carboniferous basins of the Bohemian
Massif long before the Variscan granite plutons
were exposed at the surface. Explosive character of
the
Permian-Carboniferous
volcanites
is
documented by large areal extent of rhyolite
ignimbrites and volcano-sedimentary horizons of
50
the tuff-bearing “brousek” type and tonstein type.
These horizons are still well preserved in the fillings
of most Permian-Carboniferous basins of the
Bohemian Massif (Jelínek et al. 2003,
Awdankiewicz 2003, Ulrych et al. 2003, 2004,
2006). Episodic origin of such volcanic material is
precisely documented by Ar-Ar radiometric dating
(Lippold et al. 1986). The Teplice Volcanic Caldera
is an example where the Upper Carboniferous
granites (the Cínovec-Krupka Massif) intruded into
own volcanic ejecta (Teplice Ignimbrite).
9.
The significant time gap of at least 20 Ma between
granite intrusion (320 ± 8 Ma) and rhyolite
formation (297 ± 8 Ma) in the endo- and exo-contact
of the Eibenstock granite, the Karlovy VaryEibenstock Massif, has been found by Kempe et al.
(2004). According to Förster et al. (2007) a suite of
rhyolite dykes (305–295 Ma) in the western
Erzgebirge is about 10 Ma younger than the major
granite magmatism (325–318 Ma).
MINERALIZATION AND METALLOGENY OF THE PLUTONITES
Fig. 21. The atomic K/Na and Mg/Na ratios of the petrometallogenic series of the Bohemian plutonites (after Sattran
and Klomínský 1970). 1 – field of the Sn genetic series, 2 – field of the Au genetic series, Mo-W and Mo-Au fields of the
transitional genetic series characterised by occurrences of Mo, W and Au, Bu – average value for magmatites “red
rocks”, Bushveld, D – average value for Sn-bearing granites from Dartmoor, P – average value for the Pannonian
province, K – average value for the typical tin-bearing Krušné hory granites, S – average value for magmatites of the
Au genetic series of the Central Bohemian Pluton.
Plutonic rocks of the Bohemian Massif play role
in formation of endogenous ore deposits. There is
some dispute about the role of granitoids in the
concentration of ore components (Sattran et al.
1964, Sattran and Klomínský 1970,
Bernard and Klomínský 1975, Tischendorf 1970,
1988, 1989, Bernard et al. 1976, Bernard and Pouba
et al. 1986, Bernard 1991, Štemprok 1979, 1992,
Štemprok and Seltmann 1994, Breiter et al. 1999,
and Kempe et al. 2004.
The chemical zonation and paragenetic sequences
of the endogenous ore deposits are interpreted in
terms of temperature control. The cooling regime of
Late Variscan granite plutons and heat generated by
radioactive decay of the elements U, Th and K,
which are considerably enriched in the younger
granites, are suggested to have been responsible for
51
ore (e.g. uranium, lead, zinc, silver, gold)
mineralization (Dill 1985).
Granitoids may directly give rise to ore deposits
during their evolution and emplacement having
either a genetic (parental) relation to the endogenous
ore deposits or so called “granite-induced” (e.g.
being in paragenetic relation to the deposits). The
term the petrometallogenic series (Sattran and
Klomínský 1970) is an example of a concept based
on direct genetic relation (Tab. 4) of the granitoids
and ore deposits. It presumes that the magmatites
now exposed on the surface have certain spatial and
genetic relation to the corresponding metallogenic
associations (Fig. 21).
Geological model of Sn-W deposits imply that the
ore depositional events followed immediately the
emplacement and solidification processes of granitic
melt (Breiter et al. 1999 and Romer et al. 2007).
According to Kempe et al. (2004) the significant
time gap of at least 20 Ma between granite intrusion
(the Eibenstock Granite in Erzgebirge) and tin
mineralization suggests that the late magmatic
evolution of this granite cannot be regarded as
a source for tin-ore forming fluids.
According to Štemprok (1979), there exist four
different models explaining the concentration of ore
particles by the intruding magma: a) emanation
differentiation, b) fractionated differentiation, c)
lateral secretion and d) subcrustal or intracrustal
differentiation.
The idea of fractionated differentiation is based on
the experimentally documented gradual change in
magma composition dependent on the crystallizing
rock-forming minerals. Sattran and Klomínský
(1970) used a crystallochemical explanation for the
concentration of tin in the crystallizing granitic
magma. The degree of saturation of the principal
cation of the ore element (e.g. Sn, W, Li) is
classified as subcritical, critical or supracritical
amount of the subsidiary cation of the rock-forming
elements (e.g. Fe, Mg, Ti). The supracritical amount
of the ore element is higher than the critical amount
theoretically needed for a full saturation of
potentially available diadochic position of a certain
principal cation (e.g. Fe, Mg, Ti).
Quantification of supracritical and critical
amounts of a certain metal was made empirically by
Sattran and Klomínský (1970) for tin. Their
determination of the saturation limit is based on the
accepted fact that in biotite and two-mica granites
dark mica acts as a specific concentrator of tin due
to the crystallochemical similarity between tin and
Mg and Fe cations. The overall amount of tin in the
biotite and the amount of biotite in the rock must be
determined for the estimation of saturation. Critical
amount of tin completely diadochically bound in
dark mica in the above given granites equals to 25
ppm Sn in the rock (Fig. 22). Supracritical amount
of tin in granites is indicated by content higher than
25 ppm in the whole rock, but the amount of tin
bound in dark mica relative to its modal content in
the rock (per 1 ton of rock) should not exceed 25
ppm. The YIC granites of the Erzgebirge/Krušné
hory Mts. Batholith lie completely in the field of tinbearing granites with supracritical amounts of Sn
(Fig. 22).
Tischendorf
(1970)
summarized
main
mineralogical and geochemical criteria for the
evaluation of the tin-bearing granites for practical
assessment of the metallogenic potential of
prospective areas (Tab. 5).
Extreme thermal effects of plutons at their
exocontacts may
cause
mobilization and
redistribution of the older mineralization (Au, AgPb-Zn association) as can be documented in the
Moldanubicum. The old mineralization probably
had the form of stratiform and/or stratabound ore
accumulations (e.g. Český Krumlov Ore District).
Endogenous ore deposits within the exocontact of
Variscan plutons are considered to be products of
the same magmatic centres as the adjacent plutonites
themselves, but these deposits greatly differ in their
age from the plutons. The difference between the
age of plutonites and their ore mineral associations
may exceed 100 Ma (e.g. Mesozoic fluorite-barite
mineralization). According to Bernard et al. (1976),
one possible origin of the Mesozoic fluorite-barite
deposits is deep-reaching leaching process and
decomposition of the Variscan granitic rocks caused
by the circulation of connate NaCl waters as
a product of the high heat production of these
granites.
52
53
Table 5. Metallogenic indicators of tin-bearing and tin-barren granites of the Krušné hory Mts. (according to
Tischendorf 1970)
Granite
Mineralogy
plagioclaseAn
K-feldspar microclinization
quartz
dark mica
heavy minerals
topaz
zircon
Whole rock Geochemistry
Sn ppm
F ppm
Li ppm
Rb ppm
Mg %
Ti ppm
Ba ppm
Sr ppm
Zr ppm
V ppm
Dark mica
Sn ppm
F%
Li2O %
MgO %
Ti2O %
tin-bearing
tin-barren
10–15
20–30
none
pronounced
40–33 % of the mass
27–37 % of the mass
zinwaldite, protolithionite,
Mg-biotite, Fe-biotite, siderophylite,
Li-siderophylite, Li-lepidomelane
lepidomelane
topaz-fluorite-tourmaline, relative
apatite-zircon-tourmaline, opaque
enrichment in cassiterite and xenotime
minerals (ilmenite)
(20)100–600 g/t
10 g/t
traces to 70 (100) g/t
(40) 100–900 g/t
20–50
2,000–10,000
300–1,200
750–2,200
0.05–0.25
100–700
50–250
20–70
20–130
1–3
5–18
150–1,400
50–300
180–750
(0.2) 0.5–1.1
700–3,000
100–1,000
40–300
40–250
10–60
200–600
2.0–6.2
0.4–2.6
0.8–3.2
0.5–2.0
30–350
0.5–1.8
0.1–0.6
3.2–10.0
2.0–4.5
Fig. 22. Saturation limit of tin content in granites and their
biotites (after Sattran and Klomínský 1970). Yellow (III) –
supracritical amount of tin, green – critical amount of tin, blue
(II) – subcritical amount of tin, isolines are constructed
according to data of the tin-bearing granites of the Krušné hory
Mts. (Erzgebirge) Batholith, Lt – line of total amount of Sn in
rock captured in biotite and/or other mafic mineral.
54
Fig. 23. Heat production of the plutonites and orthogneisses in the Bohemian Massif.
55
10.
HEAT PRODUCTION OF GRANITES IN THE BOHEMIAN MASSIF
Thermal – kinematics modelling shows that the
internal crystal heat production by decay of
radioactive elements during and after crystal
thickening can be essential source for heat required
for metamorphism and granite magmas (Gerdes,
Wörner and Henk 2000). Two schematic endmember scenarios for the Carboniferous HT-LP
metamorphism and granite generation in the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith are shown in Fig.
7. In first case melting of fertile layers due to
adjective heating though mantle magmatism derives
granites. An alternative scenario to explain
widespread crustal anatexis is an increasing
radiogenic heat production in a thickened crust.
The research on economic extraction of dry heat
from rocks has been conducted for many years
already in different places of the world. The most
advanced experiments have been conducted in
a volcanic caldera near Los Alamos, in the
Carnmenellis granite in south-western England and
in the granite in the Vosges Mts. (Bresee Ed.1992,
the Soultz hot dry rock project) The possibilities of
utilization of geothermal heat from dry rocks were
studied in the Czech Republic in 1979 and 1982
(Hazdrová et al. 1981 and Pačes et al. 1983). A
special attention was concentrated on the northwestern and northern parts of the Czech territory
(Krušné hory Mts. and the basement of the
Bohemian Cretaceous Basin). Geothermic research
of the Fichtelgebirge granites has been conducted by
Richter et al. (1988). Fundamental parameters,
which control fluid transport and heat transfer in
fractured granitic rocks, were studied in the
Falkenberg Granite Massif (part of the Oberpfalz
Composite Massif), NE Bavaria (Kappelmeyer and
Rummel 1987).
The so-called dry heat is produced in granites by
radioactive element decay. These elements can be
found in accessory minerals, mostly in zircon (U
and Th) and in potassium feldspar (40K isotope).
According to Rybach (1976), heat production in
µW.m-3 can be calculated from the uranium content
(QU) in ppm, thorium content (QTh) in ppm,
potassium content (QK) in weight percent and rock
density (O*) using the equation:
A = 0.133 O*(0.718 QU+ 0.193 QTh + 0.262
QK).
If the value of density is not known in a specific
case, the formula of Birch (1954) can be used for the
mean value of granite density 2.67 g.cm-3 in the
equation A = 0.26 QU + 0.071 QTh + 0.096 QK. If
only summary gamma activity QUe (ppm) is
known, we may also use the empirical formula of
Čermák (1977) for heat production calculation A =
0.177 QUe + 0.0012 QUe-2. The average heat
production of granite is 3 W.m-3 (Rybach and
Čermák 1982).
The formula A = 0.081 (K2O %) + 0.261 (U ppm)
+ 0.072 (Th ppm) in µW.m-3 (according to
Vigneresse 1988) has been used for the calculation
of heat production of plutonic rocks and
orthogneisses from the Bohemian Massif:
The half time decays of 238U (4.5 . 1010 y) and
232
Th (1.41 . 109 y) indicate that approximately only
about 3 to 5 % of the primary U and Th contents
have been lost due to radioactive decay to nonradioactive elements in the magmatic rocks and
orthogneisses of the Bohemian Massif.
High heat production as recorded particularly in
the Krušné hory (Erzgebirge) granites (Tischendorf
1989, Ostřihanský 1992, Förster et al. 2003) reaches
or even exceeds the values of 15 W.m-3. The heat
of the thermal waters from the Karlovy Vary hot
springs, showing temperatures of over 70 oC, can be
generated by radiothermal heat production of the
Karlovy Vary-Eibenstock Massif.
The heat production data of granites from Czech
part of the Bohemian Massif are shown in Table 3
(Manová and Matolín 1995, Matolín 1977 and
Hanák et al., 2008). Summary of the heat production
of the Bohemian Massif granites is illustrated in Fig.
23.
According to Vaňková et al. 1979, Ostřihanský
1997) many granite types from the Bohemian
Massif are ranked into groups with elevated (about 4
W.m-3) to anomalous (6 W.m-3) heat production.
Granites with high heat production (HHP granites)
in the Bohemian Massif can be found primarily at
its northern margin and in the Moldanubian Zone.
These facts were revealed by measurements shown
in a radiometric map 1 : 500,000 (Manová and
Matolín 1995), by field measurements of rock
radioactivity (Matolín 1977) and by well log
measurements (Čermák 1977 and Pokorný et al. in
Pačes 1983).
The heat released from rocks as a result of
radioactive decay can be measured on the Earth’s
surface and/or in boreholes as heat flow. According
to Čermák (1979), the average heat flow in the
Bohemian Massif reaches 68  24 W.m-2. The
highest values of heat flow in the northern part of
the Bohemian Massif 80 to 100 W.m-2 are related
to higher radioactivity of the late Variscan granites
of the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Batholith and the
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif.
56
Pokorný in Pačes et al. (1983) estimate that these
granites contribute by their heat production to the
surface heat flow by approx. 50%. At the heat flow
of 80 W.m-2, the heat production of these granites
represents 4 W.m-3. Maps of 130 C and 180 C
isotherms were constructed on the basis of heat flow
magnitude by Čermák (1979) for different depth
levels of the Czech Republic. The depths of 5 to 6
km for the temperature of 180 C are expected in the
Smrčiny-Krušné hory Mts. Batholith, namely in the
Karlovy Vary Massif area.
The C-1 borehole in the Jelenia Góra-Cieplice
Health Resort in Poland was drilled in the
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif through the
porphyritic granite, to depth of 2002.5 m
(Dowgiałło 2000). Strong inflows of thermal water
were observed at depth of 731 m and below. At the
depth of 1601 m an important inflow of thermal
water was intercepted, its temperature reaching
76.4 oC, at the ultimate depth the temperature had
increased to 87.8 oC. After flow tests the save yield
(artesian flow) was estimated at 49.5 m3.h-1 with
water temperature 86.5 oC. The chemical type of
water shows SO4-HCO3-Na-F-Si composition and
the TDS (Total Diluted ) varies between 600 to 630
ppm. The maximum temperature recorded inside the
well by thermal logging is 97.7 oC. Assuming that
the geothermal gradient has an average value of
3 oC/100 m, finding mineral water with
temperature 115–120 oC at depth of 2,500 m is more
than probable (Dowgiałło 2000, Fistek and
Dowgiałło 2003).
The total heat production of granites and the rate
of surface-directed release of the produced heat is
controlled by many geological and anatomical
characteristics of the individual plutonic bodies.
The following characteristics should be listed
among the most important:
1 – geological age of the granite massifs,
2 – morphology of outcrops and roofs of granite
intrusions,
3 – geometry of granite bodies, their depth range
and/or total volume,
4 – fault structures intersecting the HPP granites
and relics of volcanic vents in the hanging wall of or
within the granites.
All Variscan granites (in the NW and N parts of
the Bohemian Massif) have considerably higher
values of heat production than the pre-Variscan
granites (Pokorný et al. 1982, Klomínský 1993).
Thermal production of the lateVariscan granites is
by approx. 20–30 % higher than that of the early
Variscan granites and by up to 100 % higher than
the mean values of 2.5 and 3.0 W.m-3 for the
Bohemian Massif and the world granites,
respectively. Heat production of all pre-Variscan
granites averages by 20 to 30 % less than the above
given mean values (Pokorný in Pačes et al. 1983).
A similar conclusion was also found by Matolín
(1970), who noted that magmatic rocks of preVariscan age show lower radioactivity than their
Variscan equivalents. This may result from natural
decay of radioactive elements the content of which
in rocks decreases with the increasing age.
According to Matolín (1970), the total radioactivity
(expressed as uranium concentration equivalent) of
the Proterozoic magmatites has decreased from the
original value of 20 ppm by more than 3 ppm since
the time of their origin.
Mountain topography of granite outcrops, unlike
flat and basin (through)-like landscape, accelerates
the mixing process of the surface water with thermal
water along the principal fault structures
(Klomínský 2006). An example of this is the
Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif within the
Czech territory, which, despite anomalous values of
heat production, holds cold (about 14 oC) mineral
springs (e.g. Vratislavice mineral water). Thermal
waters occur on its southern margin only (Janské
Lázně) where the heat produced in the root zone of
considerable thickness (11 to 15 km, Polanský
1973) is condensed in the country rock of this
granite massif.
In the Smrčiny-Krušné hory Batholith, heat
production is concentrated in the hidden cupolas in
the footwall of the crystalline country rocks (Zlatý
Kopec) and in the cupolas of the accompanying
granitic stocks (Cínovec and Preisselberk Massifs –
4 to 9 Wm-3) intruded into own volcanic products.
A similar effect of the heat concentration also
functions in the outcrops of granites buried under
a thick cover of younger sediments (e.g. in the
Bohemian Cretaceous Basin and in the Krušné hory
Piedmont Basin).
Lateral variation in heat production of the granite
massif interior depends on petrographic composition
of the individual rock types and also, to a large
extent, on the geometry and depth range of the
granite bodies. A detailed gamma-spectrometric
mapping of the Melechov Massif (Novotný 1986)
revealed a considerable areal variability in heat
production not only between individual subordinate
intrusions of the Massif but also within a single
intrusion.
Depth range of granite bodies is essential for their
total heat production potential. As indicated by
gravimetric data, the “thickness” of the Western
Krušné hory (Erzgebirge) Composite Pluton varies
between 5–15 km (Polanský 1973). The geometry of
57
the Krkonoše-Jizera Composite Massif is much
alike.
On the other hand, areally extensive bodies of the
Milevsko Massif, Rastenberg Massif and of the
Třebíč Massif with extremely high values of heat
production have a tabular shape and wedge out
rapidly in the downward direction. Such massifs
contribute only very little to the heat flow, hence,
their total heat production potential is greatly
reduced.
Fault structures intersecting granite massifs may
indicate a presence of recent or palaeothermal cells,
the activity of which may be directly dependent on
heat production of the ambient granite. Circulation
of underground water within fissure radiators
originated through hydraulic fracturing leads to
alteration and mineralization of the granite and its
country rocks, often accompanied by ascent of
heated and mineralised water up to the Earth’s
surface (e.g. thermal springs in Karlovy Vary and
Teplice, Jelenia Góra-Cieplice Health Resort).
However, fault structures may also accelerate the
cooling of the surface part of the granite body, most
often by large-scale infiltration of cold surface
waters in a mountain relief of granite massifs (e.g.
the Vratislavice mineral spring in the KrkonošeJizera Composite Massif).
Granites are exposed on the Earth’s surface in the
northwestern and northern parts of the Czech
Republic over an area of more than 5,000 km2.
Some of the granites of the Central Bohemian
Pluton, Nasavrky Composite Pluton and of the
Moldanubian Composite Batholith (Blatná Granite,
Marginal Granite, Říčany type, Žumberk type and
Eisgarn type) are also classified as magmatites with
elevated heat production. The level of heat flow in
northern part of the Czech Republic and the values
of heat production of the HHP granites indicate that
the temperature reaches approx. 200 C at a depth of
5 km. Such depths and temperatures meet
requirements for the commercial production of
thermal energy from dry rocks.
58
Fig. 24. Flow sheet of the chemical classification procedure of the Bohemian igneous rocks used in review – example of
the Leuchtenberg Granite from the Oberpfalz Composite Massif (Moldanubicum). Leuchtenberg Granite – quartz-rich,
sodic-potassic, weakly peraluminous, mesocratic, S-I type monzogranite.
59
11.
PRINCIPLES OF THE ROCK CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
A comprehensive
contribution
to
the
interpretation of whole-rock geochemical data in
igneous geochemistry was developed by Janoušek
et al. (2006) by introducing the Geochemical Data
Toolkit (GCDkit) – a program for handling and
recalculation of geochemical data from igneous
and metamorphosed rocks.
We present here an attempt to take into account
the chemical parameters applied by Debon and Le
Fort (1983) and modified by Rajpoot (1992). It is
based mainly on the treatment of major element
analytical data in ABQ and TAS diagrams to
obtain the root name for the individual rock
samples or the average composition of certain
rock type. Root names are accompanied by five
major qualifiers in the petrochemical tables in
section of magmatic objects. Chemicalmineralogical classification procedure is shown in
the flow diagram in Fig. 24.
Average compositions of main world rock types
after Debon and Le Fort (1983) were used for
presentation in several types of petrological
diagrams (see Fig. 25 and 26). Abbreviations of
igneous rocks root names used in diagrams: gr –
granite, mgr – monzogranit, sygr – syenogranit,
afgr – alkalickoživcový granit, grd – granodiorite,
d – diorite, qd – quartz diorite, gb – gabbro, qgb –
quartz gabbro, gbd – gabbroic diorite, du – dunite
(peridotite), mo – monzonite, qmo – quartz
monzonite, sy – syenite, md – monzodiorite, mgb
– monzogabbro, pgb – peridotite gabbro, fs – foid
syenite, fms – foid monzosyenite, fmd – foid
monzodiorite, fd – foid gabbro, fo – foidolites.
Two types of classification diagrams were used
for characterization of the igneous rock root
names and variation of within the individual rock
types:
A triangular ABQ diagram (Fig. 25) developed
by Rajpoot (1992). It represents the major
components of igneous rocks in the form of three
multicationic parameters: A = Na + K as a sum of
alkaline elements, B = Fe + Mg + Ti as colour
index and Q = Si/3-(Na + K + 2Ca/3). Both last
parameters were applied also by Debon and Le
Fort (1983, 1988) in several types of their
diagrams.
A TAS (total alkali vs silica) diagram
introduced in 1984 by the IUGS Sub commission
for classification of plutonic rocks (Fig. 25).
Validity of this diagram and its discriminated
Description of plutons and their main
characteristics are summarized according to the
literature sources, listed in the sections of
references. Their anatomies are based on
hierarchy of the main components – their rock
types. Rock type classification comprises the root
name with descriptive attributes – traditional
qualifiers of the granitic rocks such as mineral
composition (e.g. biotite, muscovite, hornblende),
textural terms (e.g. porphyritic) colour indicators
(e.g. melanocratic, leucocratic), and grain size
(e.g.
coarse-grained)
using
the
IUGS
nomenclature (Fediuk 1996, Le Maitre et al.
2002). But in contrast to the IUGS classification
scheme we have applied the chemicalmineralogical classification for reason of general
lack of the modal analyses. To keep our
classification relatively simple and essentially
descriptive the qualifiers in the atlas are restricted
to mineral names, textural terms and colour
indicators. Approved names that consist of more
than one word are hyphenised (alkali-feldspar
granite). All qualifiers are linked by hyphens
(biotite-muscovite).
Grain size definition is an important parameter
in classifying the majority of rock types. The
recommended boundaries between crystal-size of
igneous rocks are: very coarse-grained ≥ 16 mm
(not used in Czech terminology), coarse-grained ≥
5 < 16 mm, medium grained ≥ 2 < 5 mm, minute
(small) grained ≥ 0.25 < 2 mm (not applied in the
atlas), and fine-grained ≥ 0.132 < 0.25 mm.
Prefixes leuco- and mela-precede the root name
(e.g. biotite leucogranite). They are used to
designate the more felsic (lower colour index) and
mafic (higher colour index) types within each
rock group, when compared with the “normal”
types in that group. As the threshold values of the
colour index of the IUGS classification vary from
one rock group to another one, we applied the
molar quotient value (Fe + Mg + Ti) as the colour
index with uniform thresholds for leuco- mesomela- prefixes of most granitoid root names.
Visual presentations of the chemicalmineralogical typology of igneous rocks of the
Bohemian Massif (e.g. Klomínský and Dudek
1978, Holub et al. 1997, Janoušek et al. 2004)
indicate not only the interest in this typological
approach, but also how difficult is to attain
a satisfactory solution and a general consensus.
60
Therefore figurative points of some basic rock
may fall out of the triangle without distortion of
their grouping.
Both diagrams can express the whole extent of
rock composition better than other diagrams
proposed merely for granitoids. Rocks formed in
particular magmatic cycle or phase may have
common chemical characteristics and hence may
be grouped together as rock series. Graphic
computer programmes as e.g. Janoušek et al.
(2006) can be applied for calculations and
diagram construction.
fields for plutonites was confirmed by Cox et al.
(1979), Wilson (1989), and Middlemost (1994).
In the ABQ diagram the olivine-rich rocks fall
toward the B apex and muscovite-rich rocks lie
close to the A-Q line. The alkali-rich rocks
(syenite, monzonite) are shifted to the apex A. On
the other hand, quartz diorite and quartz gabbro
points are shifted toward the Q apex. The
feldspathoid-dominant and quartz free (quartz
deficient) rocks are located close to the A-B line
or even outside the triangle while their Qparameter shows negative values (Fig. 25).
+
Fig. 25. TAS and ABQ diagrams: ABQ diagram (adapted after Rajpoot 1992), TAS diagram after Middlemost (1994.
Standard rock averages after Debon and Le Fort (1983). 1 – granite, 2 – monzogranite, 3 – granodiorite, 4 – tonalite, 5
– quartz syenite, 6 – quartz monzonite, 7 – quartz monzodiorite, 8 – quartz diorite, 9 – syenite, 10 – monzonite, 11 –
monzogabbro, 12 – gabbro.
61
Fig. 26. Classification diagrams according to: a – Debon and Le Fort (1983), b – Streckeisen and Le Maitre (1989), c –
Debon and Le Fort (1983), d – De la Roche (1967). R1 = 4Si – 11 (Na +K) – 2 (Fe + Ti), R2 = 6Ca + 2Mg + Al
(cationic values). Standard rock averages after Debon and Le Fort (1983). 1 – syenogranite, 2 – monzogranite, 3 –
granodiorite, 4 – tonalite, 5 – quartz syenite, 6 – quartz monzonite, 7 – quartz monzodiorite, 8 – quartz diorite, 9 –
syenite, 10 – monzonite, 11 – monzogabbro, 12 – gabbro.
Chemical parameters and statistics
local presence of deviating values may disturb
their normal distribution needed for statistical
treatment using arithmetical mean, standard
deviation and their confidence limits. Therefore
we prefer a non-parametric robust method
(Meloun and Militký 1994) for the computation,
applied to main element oxides and various
petrological indexes as well.
Number of chemical analyses applied for
chemical classification of the plutonic rocks and
orthogneisses are summarized in Tab. 6 according
to principal geological zones of the Bohemian
Massif (see tables with statistical parameters).
The chemical analyses mostly taken from
published sources were at first revised for
completeness (sum of determined components)
and accuracy. Only fresh rock samples (e.g. low
H2O+ values) were selected for parameter
calculations. We have found that the main source
of scatter is natural variability (differentiation) of
rocks. In some cases the scatters are remarkably
high (e.g. the Great Tonalite Dyke), in some on
the contrary conspicuously low even in rocks,
showing textural variation (e.g. Bohutín Quartz
diorite).
Selected chemical analyses form typically small
populations (from 4 to 20 samples). Moreover
62
Table 6. Numbers of chemical analyses applied in
classification of granitoids and orthogneisses
Principal
geological zones
Bohemicum
Moldanubicum
Saxothuringicum
Lugicum
Moravosilesicum
Sum
Magmatic Ortho
rocks
gneisses
493
19
802
73
298
117
302
32
90
38
1,984
279
Sum
3.
512
875
415
333
128
2,263
4.
5.
Rock classifications in the table heads (see the
rock types in the territorial sections) are based
both on chemical parameters and on
petrochemical diagrams.
The mean chemical composition of the granitic
types are characterized by approved root names of
igneous rocks (granite, diorite) and are usually
refined further by prefixing additional chemical,
and genetic qualifiers. These qualifiers are based
on parameters developed by Debon and Le Fort
(1983, 1988), Peccerillo and Taylor (1976) for the
chemical classification and Chappel and White
(1974), and Ishihara (1977), for genetic
classification of igneous rocks (I-S series and I-M
types respectively).
Grouped rock types were summarized in tables
of the individual rock types, showing mean values
(Median), minimal and maximal content (Min,
Max) of all components and their 1st and 3rd
quartiles (Qu1, Qu3).
Such arrangement of median and quartiles
allows further easy calculations. For example, the
quartile range R = Qu3 – Qu1 serves for
estimation of mean standard deviation Sr =
0.7413*R and can be used for testing of extreme
values, which should eventually exceed the
intervals Qu3 + 1.5R or Qu1 – 1.5R.
When only a small number of analyses were
available for individual rock type (up to 5
samples), we have put these analyses (with no
statistical parameters) directly in tables of the rock
types in the regional sections with their original
codes according to the source references or CGS
data base.
Parameters (derived usually from cationic
proportions) shown in tables are as follows:
1. Mg-ratio (Mg/ (Fe + Mg) distinguishes
magnesian and ferroan granitoids and may
show differences in the metallogenetic
potential and/or reflect different genetic
source.
2. Alkalinity (AR ratio) alkali balance (K/(Na +
K) specifies the sodic and/or potassic
alkalinity. It may show large fluctuation
within a single group. Potassic rocks are
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
63
having the AR ratio higher or equal to 0.50,
sodic-potassic between 0.45 and 0.50, and AR
ratio of sodic rocks is less than 0.45.
CIPW normative minerals (nor. Or, nor. Ab,
nor. An and nor. Q) enable an easy calculation
of plagioclase An content or construction of
diagrams.
Sum of alkalies Na + K belongs to parameters
of the ABQ diagram (Rajpoot 1992) as well
as
Free quartz value Q (here denoted *Si). This
parameter was introduced by De La Roche
(1964) for typology of igneous rocks. It is
defined by *Si = Si/3 – (K + Na + Ca/3). It
shows quartz rich- (feldspar + muscovite
poor), quartz normal- (alkali feldspar-normal)
and quartz poor (rich in feldspar) associations.
Fig. 26a in Debon and Le Fort (1983, 1988)
diagram can serve as an example.
K-(Na+Ca) is used as a parameter in Q-P
diagram (Debon and Le Fort 1983, 1988).
Positive values show higher K-feldspar (or
muscovite) content, negative values high
plagioclase (Fig. 26a).
Colour index Fe + Mg + Ti, Rajpoot (1992),
Debon and Le Fort (1983, 1988) defines the
amount of ferromagnesian minerals (biotite,
amphibole, and pyroxene) in igneous rocks.
Leucocratic rock types have this parameter
less than 40, mesocratic up to 150 and
melanocratic rocks even more than 200 (Fig.
26c).
Alumina balance is defined as A= Al – (K +
Na + 2Ca) (Debon and Le Fort 1983, 1988).
The rocks with A positive values are
peraluminous while the rocks with A negative
values are metaluminous (Fig. 26c). The
granites are mostly peraluminous if they do
not contain pyroxene or amphibole. The
peraluminosity is low for A 10 to 20),
moderate for A values between 20 to 40 and
high if A is higher than 40.
Alkali/calcium ratio = (Na + K)/Ca) is called
also differentiation status used in diagrams
versus Rb (Rajpoot 1992) to distinguish the
degree of differentiation of granites.
Aluminous character (A/CNK) of igneous
rocks is an essential criterion of their
classification with genetic implications
concerning the nature of the source material.
Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O + K2O) ratio (in mol
values) higher than 1.1 can discriminate Stypes granites (being derived by partial
melting of sedimentary source) from I-types
(igneous source) granites.
12.
GENERAL REFERENCES
AFANASYEF, G. D. et al. (1977): Granitoidy sredněčešskogo plutona. In: Afanasyef, G. D. Ed.: Opyt
korreljaciji magmatičeskich, metamorfičeskich porod Čechoslovakiji i nekotorych rajonov SSSR. – 286
pp. Nauka, Moskva.
AWDANKIEWICZ, M. – BREITKREUZ, Ch. – RAPPRICH, V. (2009): Late Palaeozoic volcanism in
intermontane basins at the northern margin of the Bohemian Massif: new results from Poland, Germany
and Czech Republic. – SDGG, Heft 63 – GeoDresden 2009, p. 133.
AWDANKIEWICZ, M. – KUROWSKI, L. – MASTALERZ, K. – RACZYŃSKI, P. (2003): The IntraSudetic basin – a record of sedimentary and volcanic processes in late-to post-orogenic tectonic setting. –
GeoLines 16, 165–175.
BANKWITZ, P. – BANKWITZ, E. (1994): Crustal structure of the Erzgebirge. In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf,
H. – Möller, P. Eds: Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 91–95. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
BARBARIN, B. (1999): A review of the relationship between granitoid types, their origins and their
geodynamic environments. – Lithos 46, 605–626.
BARTOŠEK, J. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – ŠŤOVÍČKOVÁ, N. (1969): Petrogenesis and structural position of
small granitoid intrusions in the aspect of petrophysical data. – Sbor. geol. Věd, užitá Geofyz. 8, 37–68.
BEHRMANN, J. H. – TANNER, D. C. (1997): Carboniferous tectonics of the Variscan basement collage in
eastern Bavaria and western Bohemia. – Int. J. Earth Sci. 86, Suppl., 15–27.
BENDL, J. – VOKURKA, K. (1989): Strontium isotope model of formation of Blatná granodiorite. – Geol.
Zbor. Geol. carpath. 40, 5, 655–664.
BENEŠ, K. (1971): Flow and fracture fabrics and their relationship in some granitic bodies of Bohemian
Massif. – Krystalinikum 8, 149–166.
BENEŠ, K. (1974a): Distribution of granitoid bodies in the Bohemian Massif and their relationship to fold
and fracture tectonics. – Krystalinikum 10, 31–38.
BENEŠ, K. (1974b): Structural Criteria Applied to the Division of Plutonites of the Bohemian Massif. –
Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 26, 169–176.
BERGNER, R. – HOFMANN, J. – DUBANSKÝ, A. – GUNIA, T. – WOJCIECHOWSKA, I. –
HOFMANN, J. – KÖHLER, H. – POVONDRA, P. – SCHARBERT, S. – ZOUBEK, V. (1988): Isotopic
ages obtained from Precambrian Complexes in the Bohemian Massif. In: Zoubek, V. – Cogné, J.
Kozhoukharov, D. – Kräutner, H. Ed.: Precambrian in Younger Fold Belts-European Variscides, the
Carpathians and Balkans. – 885 pp. Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
BERNARD, J. H. (1967): Minerogenetic subprovinces and epochs of hydrothermal deposits in the
Czechoslovak part of the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 42, 4, 263–274.
BERNARD, J. H. (1991): Empirical types of ore mineralizations in the Bohemian Massif. – 181 pp. Czech
Geol. Survey, Prague.
BERNARD, J. H. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1974): A comparison between the Variscan petrometallogenic units
of the Bohemian Massif (Central Europe) and Massif Central (France). In: Metallization associated with
acid magmatism, Vol. 1, Int. Geol. Correlation Programme, 23–28. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
BERNARD, J. H. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1975): Geochronology of the Variscan plutons and mineralization in
the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 50, 71–81.
BERNARD, J. H. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – POLANSKÝ, J. (1976): Relationship between the metallogeny and
the gravimetric pattern of the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 51, 65–74.
BERNARD, J. H. – POUBA, Z. et al. (1986): Rudní ložiska a metalogeneze čs. části Českého masivu. – 320
pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
BESANG, C. – HARRE, W. – KREUZER, H. – LENZ, H. – MÜLLER, P. – WENDT, I. (1976):
Radiometrische Datierung, geochemische und petrographische Untersuchung der Fichtelgebirgsgranite. –
Geol. Jb., R. E. Geophysik 8, 3–71.
BIELIK, M. – KLOSKA, K. – MEURERS, B. – ŠVANCARA, J. – WYBRANIEC, S. (2006): Gravity
anomaly map of the CELEBRATION 2000 region. – Geologica Carpathica, June 2006, 57, 3, 145-156.
BIRCH, F. (1954): Heat from Radioactivity. In: Faul H. et al. (Eds): Nuclear Geology – a symposium on
nuclear phenomena. – 555 pp. Wiley and Sons, New York.
BLECHA, V – ŠTEMPROK, M. – FISCHER, T. (2009): Geological interpretation of gravity profiles
through the Karlovy Vary Granite Massif (Czech Republic). – Stud. Geophys. Geod., 53 (2009), 295-314.
64
BLIŽKOVSKÝ, M. – NOVOTNÝ, M. – SUK, M. (1985): Přehled tíhových struktur Českého masivu. –
Review of gravity elements in the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 60, 143–154.
BONIN, B. (2007): A-type granite and related rocks: Evolution of a concept, problems and prospects. –
Lithos 97, 1–29.
BONIN, B. (2008): Death of super-continents and birth of oceans heralded by discrete A-type granite
igneous events: the case of Variscan-Alpine Europe. – J. Geosci. 53, 237–252.
BONIN, B. – BÉBIEN, J. – MASSON, P. (2002): Granite: a planetary point of view. – Gondwana Res. 5,
261–273.
BOWES, D. R. – KOŠLER, J. (1993): Geochemical comparison of the Subvolcanic Appinite Suite of the
British Caledonides and the Durbachite Suite of the Central European Hercynides: Evidence for
Associated Shoshonitic and granitic magmatism. – Mineralogy Petrology 48, 47–63.
BREEMEN, VAN O. – BOWES, D. R. – DUDEK, A. – MÍSAŘ, Z. – POVONDRA, P. – VRÁNA, S.
(1982): Geochronological studies of the Bohemian Massif, Czechoslovakia, and their significance in the
evolution of Central Europe. – Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, Earth Sci. 73, 89–108.
BREITER, K. (1994): Variscan rare metal-bearing granitoids of the Bohemian Massif. In: Seltmann, R. –
Kämpf, H. – Möller, P. Eds: Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 91–95. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
BREITER, K. (1997): The Teplice rhyolite (Krušné hory Mts., Czech Republic) – chemical evidence of a
multiply exhausted stratified magma chamber. – Věst. Čes. geol. Úst. 72, 205–213.
BREITER, K. (2005): Interpretace vrstevnatých a usměrněných textur v granitech. 2. sjezd České geologické
společnosti, Slavonice 2005. In: Breiter, K. Ed.: Sborník abstrakt a exkurzní průvodce, 31 pp. – Czech
Geol. Survey, Prague.
BREITER, K. (2009): Two contrasting granite magma types in late-Variscan Erzgebirge: areal distribution
and chemical and mineralogical characteristic. – SDGG, Heft 63 – GeoDresden 2009, p. 137.
BREITER, K. – FÖRSTER, H. J. – SELTMANN, R. (1999): Variscan silicic magmatism and related tintungsten mineralization in the Erzgebirge-Slavkovský les metallogenic province. – Mineralium Depos.
34, 505–521.
BREITER, K. – KOLLER, F. (2000): Contrasting styles of magmatic zoning in the Central Moldanubian
Pluton. – GeoLines 8, 10–11.
BREITER, K. – SOKOL, A. (1997): Chemistry of Bohemian granitoids: Geotectonic and metallogenic
implications. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 31, 75–96.
BREITER, K. – SOKOLOVÁ, M. – SOKOL, A. (1991): Geochemical specialization of the tin-bearing
granitoid massifs of NW Bohemia. – Mineralium Depos. 26, 298–306.
BRESEE, J. Ed. (1992): Geothermal energy in Europe: The Soultz hot dry rock project. – 356 pp. Gordon
and Breach Sci. Publ.
BŘEZINOVÁ, D. – BUKOVANSKÁ, M. – DUDKOVÁ, I. – RYBAŘÍK, V. (1996): Praha Kamenná. –
Národní muzeum, Praha. pp. 287. (in Czech).
BUBENÍČEK, J. (1968): Geology and petrography of the Třebíč massif. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 13, 133–
164. (English summary)
BUDA, G. – KOLLER, F. – KOVÁCS, J. – ULRYCH, J. (2004): Composition of biotite in Variscan
granitoids occuring in Central Europe: a statistical evalution. – Acta Mineral. Petrogr. Szeged 44, 1, 17–
33.
BUDAY, T. – DUDEK, A. – IBRMAJER, J. (1969): Některé výsledky interpretace gravimetrické mapy
ČSSR v měřítku 1 : 500 000. – Sbor. geol. Věd, užitá Geofyz. 8, 7–36. (English abstract)
BUCHA, V. – BLÍŽKOVSKÝ, M. et al. (1994): Crustal structure of the Bohemian Massif and the West
Carpathians. – 355 pp. Academia, Prag, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
ČADKOVÁ, Z. – HAKOVÁ, M. – JAKEŠ, P. (1984): Katalog analýz regionální geochemické sítě. – MS
Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
ČADKOVÁ, Z. – JAKEŠ, P. – HAKOVÁ, M. – MRÁZEK, P. (1985): Katalog geochemických dat základní
regionální sítě. In: Litogeochem. databáze ČGS. – MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
CAMBEL, B. – KAMENICKÝ, L. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. (1980): Petrochemical
correlation of granitoids of the Bohemian Massif and the West Carpathians. – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath.
31, 3–26.
CASTEN, U. – GÖTZE, H.-J. – PLAUMANN, S. – SOFFEL, H. C. (1997): Gravity anomalies in the KTB
area and their structural interpretation with special regard to the granites of the northern Oberpfalz
(Germany). – Geol. Rdsch. 86, 79–86.
65
CRUDEN, A. R. (2006): Emplacement and growth of plutons: implications for rates of melting and mass
transfer in continental crust. – In: Brown, M. and Rushmer, T. (Eds.), Evolution and Differentiation of the
Continental Crust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 455-519.
ČECH, S. – DUDEK, A. – ELIÁŠ, M. et al. (1994): Regional geological subdivision of the Bohemian
Massif on the territory of the Czech Republic. – J. Czech. Geol. Soc. 39, 127–144.
ČERMÁK, V. (1977): Geothermal models of the Bohemian Massif (Variscan) and the Western Carpathians
(Alpine) and their mutual relation. – Tectonophysics, 41, 127–167.
ČERMÁK, V. (1979): Geothermal studies and heat flow map of Czechoslovakia. In: Čermák, V. Ed.:
Geodynamic investigations in Czechoslovakia. Final Report, 129–132. – Veda. Bratislava.
CHÁB, J. – BREITER, K. – FATKA, O. – HLADIL, J. – KALVODA, J. – ŠIMŮNEK, Z. – ŠTORCH, P. –
VAŠÍČEK, Z. – ZAJÍC, J. – ZAPLETAL, J. (2008): Stručná geologie základu Českého masivu a jeho
karbonského a permského pokryvu. – 284 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. (In Czech)
CHÁB, J. – STRÁNÍK, Z. – ELIÁŠ, M. Eds (2007): The geological map of the Czech Republic 1 : 500 000.
– Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
CHÁB, J – ŽÁČEK, V. (1994): Geology of the Žulová pluton mantle (Bohemian Massif, Central Europe). –
Věst. Čes. geol. Úst., 69, 4, 1–12.
CHALOUPSKÝ, J. (1963): Konglomeráty z krkonošského krystalinika. – Sbor. Ústř. Úst. geol., Odd. geol.
28, 143–190.
CHALOUPSKÝ, J. (1975): Notes on the age of granitoid rocks in the Bohemian Massif. – Věst. Ústř. Úst.
geol. 50, 317–320.
CHALOUPSKÝ, J. (1986): Tectonostratigraphic units of the Bohemian Massif. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 31,
387–393.
CHALOUPSKÝ, J. (1989): Major tectonostratigraphic units of the Bohemian Massif. – Geol. Soc. Amer.
Spec. Pap. 230, 101–196.
CHAMBERS 21st Century Dictionary. – 1664 pp. Chambers Harrap.
CHAPPEL, B. W. – WHITE, A. J. R. (1974): Two contrasting granite styles. – Pacif. Geol. 8, 173–174.
CHAPPEL, B. W. – WHITE, A. J. R. – WYBORN, D. (1987): The importance of residual source material
(restite) in granite petrogenesis. – J. Petrology 28, 1111–1138.
CHLUPÁČ, I. – BRZOBOHATÝ, R. – KOVANDA, J. – STRÁNÍK, Z. (2002): Geologická minulost České
Republiky. – 436 pp. Academia.
CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. (1974): The radioactivity of granites of the W and NW Bohemia. Postgradual thesis. –
– MS Fac. Sci. Charles Univ. Prague. (In Czech)
CIMBÁLNÍKOVÁ, A. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. – HEJL, V. – ARAKELJANC, M. M. (1977): Biotit iz
ržičanskogo granita i ego bogatych biotitom ksenolitov (ČSSR, Sredněčešskij pluton). In: Afanasjev, G.
D. Ed.: Opyt korrelacii magmatičeskzch i metamorfičeskych porod Čechoslovakiji i někotorych rajonov
SSSR, 178–187. – Nauka, Moskva. (In Russian)
CLARKE, D. B. (1996): Two centuries after Hutton´s “Theory of the Earth”: the status of granite science. –
Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, Earth Sci. 87, 353–359.
CLEMENS, J. D. (2003): S-type granitic magmas – petrogenetic issues, models and evidence. – Earth Sci.
Rev. 61, 1–18.
CLOOS, H. (1925): Das Riesengebirge in Schlesien: Einführung in die tektonische Behandlung
magmatischer Erscheinungen. – 194 pp. Berlin.
COX, K. G. – BELL, J. D. – PANKHURST, R. J. (1979): The Interpretation of the Igneous Rocks. – 445 pp.
George Allen and Unwin, London.
D´AMICO, C. – ROTHURA, A. – BARGOSI, G. M. – MANETTI, M. (1981): Magmatic genesis of
andalusite in peraluminous granites, example from Eisgarn type granites in Moldanubicum. – Rend. Soc.
Ital. Mineralogy Petrology38, 15–25.
DALLMEYER, R. D. – FRANKE, W. – WEBER, K. Eds (1995): Pre-Permian Geology of Central and
Eastern Europe. – 604 pp. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
DALLMEYER, R. D. – URBAN, M. (1998): Variscan vs Cadomian tectonothermal activity in northwestern
sectors of the Teplá-Barrandian zone, Czech Republic: constraints from 40Ar/39Ar ages. – Geol. Rdsch.
87, 94–106.
DE LA ROCHE, H. (1964): Sur l’expression graphique des relations entre la composition chimique et la
composition minéralogique quantitative des roches cristallines. – Sci. de la Terre 9, 293–337.
66
DE LA ROCHE, H. et al. (1980): A classification of volcanic and plutonic rocks using R1 and R2 diagram
and major-elements analyses; its relationship with current nomenclature. – Chem. Geol. 29, 183–210.
DEBON, F. – LE FORT, P. (1983): A chemical-mineralogical classification of common plutonic rocks and
associations. – Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, Earth Sci. 73, 135–149.
DEBON, F. – LE FORT, P. (1988): A cationic classification of common plutonic rocks and their magmatic
association, principles, methods, applications. – Bull. Minéral. 111, 493–510.
DIETL, C. – KOYI, H. (2008): Formation of tabular plutons – results and implications of centrifuge
modelling. – J. Geosci. 53, 253–261.
DILL, H. G. (1985): Granite-related and granite-induced ore mineralization on the western edge of the
Bohemian Massif. In: High heat production (HHP) granites, hydrothermal circulation and ore genesis,
55–70. – IMM, London.
DOBEŠ, M. – POKORNÝ, L. (1988): Gravimetry applied to the interpretation of the morphology of the
Čertovo břemeno durbachite body in the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Bull. Geol. Survey Prague 63, 129–
135. (In Czech)
DOMEČKA, K. – SOKOL, A. – BREITER, K. (1998): Petrological characteristics of plutonites of the
Přibram underground gas reservoir. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 1997, 131–140.
DOWGIAŁŁO, J. (2000): Thermal water prospecting results at Jelenia Góra-Cieplice (Sudetes, Poland)
versus geothermometric forecasts. – Environment. Geol. 39, 433–435.
DÖRR, W. – FIALA, J. – FRANKE, W. – HAACK, U. – PHILIPPE, S. – SCHASTOK, J. – SCHEUVENS,
D. – VEJNAR, Z. – ZULAUF, G. (1998): Cambrian vs. Variscan tectonothermal evolution within the
Teplá-Barrandian: evidence from U-Pb zircon ages of syn-tectonic plutons (Bohemian Massif, Czech
Republic). – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 42, 229–230.
DÖRR, W. – FIŠERA, M. – FRANKE, W. (1992): Cadomian magmatic events in the Bohemian Massif – UPb data from felsic magmatic pebles. – 7th geol. workshop: Styles of superposed Variscan nape tectonics,
Kutná Hora, ČSFR. (Abstract)
DÖRR, W. – PHILLIPE, S. – FIALA, J. – VEJNAR, Z. – ZULAUF, G. (1995): U-Pb dating on zircons of
meta-granitoids of the Teplá crystalline unit (Bohemian Massif) – evidence for pervasive Cambrian
plutonism. – Terra Abstracts, Abstract suppl. 1 to Terra Nova 7, EUG 8, 352 pp. Strasbourg.
DÖRR, W. – ZULAUF, G – FIALA, J. – FRANKE, W. – VEJNAR, Z. (2002): Neoproterozoic to Early
Cambrian history of an active plate margin in the Teplá-Barrandian unit – a correlation of U-Pb isotopicdilution-TIMS ages (Bohemia, Czech Republic). – Tectonophysics 352, 65–85.
DUBANSKÝ, A. (1984): Stanovení radiogenního stáří kalium-argonovou metodou (geochronologická data z
Českého masívu v oblasti ČSR). – Sbor. Věd. Prací Vys. Šk. báň., Ř. horn.-geol. 30, 137–170.
DUDEK, A. (1954): Biotity hlubinných vyvřelin a jejich vztah k chemismu matečných hornin. – Rozpr. Čs.
Akad. Věd, 64, 6, 19–61.
DUDEK, A. (1957): The geomorphological features of the Sedmihoří composite stock. – Čas. Čs. Společ.
zeměp. 62, 206–209. (English summary)
DUDEK, A. (1979): Prevariské plutonity Českého masívu. In: Vážnějšie problémy geologického vývoja a
stavby Československa. Klúčové územia a metody riešenia IB. Geológia rudných ložisk. Sekcia A, 221–
235. – Bratislava.
DUDEK, A. (1995): Teplá-Barrandian Zone (Bohemicum) – Igneous Activity. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. –
Franke, W. – Weber, K. Eds: Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 398–402. – Springer
Verlag, Berlin.
DUDEK, A. – FEDIUK, F. (1956): Bohutínský křemenný diorit. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 2, 2, 149–169.
DUDEK, A. – FEDIUK, F. (1957): Basic inclusions and fluidal phenomena in the granodiorite at the border
of the Central Bohemian Pluton near Teletín (English summary). In: Sbor. k osmdesátinám akad. F.
Slavíka, 97–112. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
DUDEK, A. – FROLÍKOVÁ, I. – NEKOVAŘÍK, Č. (1991): The depth of intrusion of Hercynian granitoid
plutons in the Bohemian Massif. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol., Kettner Vol. 3–4, 249–256. (In Czech)
DUDEK, A. – MELKOVÁ, J. (1975): Radiometric age determination in the crystalline basement of the
Carpathian Foredeep and of the Moravian Flysch. – Bull. Czech Geol. Surv. 50, 257–264.
DUDEK, A. – SUK, M. (1965): The depth relief of the granitoid plutons of the Moldanubicum. – Neu. Jb.
Geol. Paläont., Abh. 123, 1–19.
FEDIUK, F. (1972): Verwachsungeigenschaften der Plagioklase in den Granitoigesteinen der Böhmischen
Masse. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 3, 161–183.
67
FEDIUK, F. (1996): Zásady nomenklatury, klasifikace a typologie plutonitů se zvláštním zřetelem ke
granitoidům pro potřeby úkolu ÚLOŽIŠTĚ Ústavu jaderného výzkumu v Řeži. MS Úst, jader. výzk., 45.
FEDIUK, F. – RENÉ, M. (1996): Contribution to the concentric zonality of the Kladruby Massif (WBohemia). – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 1995, 66–68.
FEDIUKOVÁ, E. (1963): Těžké minerály v liberecké a železnobrodské žule. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 8, 1, 12–
20. (In Czech)
FIALA, F. (1948): Algonkické slepence ve středních Čechách. – Sbor. St. Geol. Úst. Čs. Republ., 15, 399612. (English summary).
FIALA, F. (1977): The xenoliths of albitized granitoids in granulated diabase from Otmíče. – Acta Univ.
Carol., Geol. 8, 115–127.
FIALA, F. (1980): The granitoid pebbles from the Lower Cambrium Žitec Conglomerates. – Čas. Mineral.
Geol. 25, 351–368. (English summary)
FIALA, F. (1983): Xenolity albitizovaných granitoidů v granulovaném diabasu od Otmíčů. – Acta Univ.
Carol., Geol. 4, Hejtman Vol., 345–361.
FIALA, J. – FUCHS, G. – WENDT, J. I. (1995): Moldanubian Zone-Stratigraphy. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. –
Franke W. – Weber, K. Eds: Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 417–428. – Springer
Verlag, Berlin.
FIALA, J. – VAŇKOVÁ, V. – WENZLOVÁ, M. (1983): Radioactivity of selected durbachites and syenites
of the Bohemian Massif. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 28, 1–16.
FIALA, J. – VEJNAR, Z. – KUČEROVÁ, D. (1976): Composition of the biotites and the coexisting biotitehornblende pairs in granitic rocks of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Krystalinikum 12, 76–111.
FINGER, F. – CLEMENS, J. D. (1995): Migmatitization and “secondary” granitic magmas: effects of
emplacement and crystallization of “primary” granitoids in Southern Bohemia, Austria. – Contr. Mineral.
Petrology 120, 311–326.
FINGER, F. – FRASL, G. – DUDEK, A. – JELÍNEK, E. – THÖNI, M. (1995): Igneous Activity (Cadomian
Plutonism in the Moravo-Silesian Basement. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke, W. – Weber, K. Eds: PrePermian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 495–507. – Springer Verlag, Berlin.
FINGER, F. – FRASL, G. – HÖCK, V. – STEYRER, H. P. (1989): The granitoids of the Moravian Zone of
Northeast Austria: Products of a Cadomian active continental margin? – Precambr. Res. 45, 234–245.
FINGER, F. – GERDES, A. – JANOUŠEK, V. – RENÉ, M. – RIEGLER, G. (2007): Resolving the Variscan
evolution of the Moldanubian sector of the Bohemian Massif: the significance of the Bavarian and
Moravo-Moldanubian tectonometamorphic phases. – J. Geosci. 52, 9–28.
FINGER, F. – GERDES, A. – RENÉ, M. – RIEGLER, G. (2009): The Saxo-Danubian Granite Belt:
magmatic response to post-collisional delamination of mantle lithosphere below the south-western sector
of the Bohemian Massif (Variscan orogen). – Geol. carpath. 60, 3, 205–212.
FINGER, F. – HANŽL, P. – PIN, C. et al. (2000): The Brunovistulian: Avalonian Precambrian sequence at
the eastern end of the Central European Variscides? In: Franke, W. – Haak, V. – Oncken, O. – Tanner, D.
Eds: Orogenic Processes: Quantification and Modelling in the Variscan Belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec.
Publ. 179, 103–112.
FINGER, F. – ROBERTS, M. P. – HAUNSCHMID, B. – SCHREMAIER, A. – STEYRER, H. P. (1997):
Variscan granitoids of central Europe: their typology, potential sources and tectonothermal relations. –
Mineralogy Petrology 61, 67–96.
FISTEK, J. – DOWGIALLO, J. (2003): Thermal waters at Cieplice Slaskie Spa in the light of geological
investigations carried out in the years 1969-1973 and 1997-1998. In: Ciezkowski A. et al. Eds: Sudety
Zachodnie: od wendu do czwartorzedu, 207–224. – WIND, Wroclav. (In Polish)
FÖRSTER, H.-J. – DAVIS, J. C. – TISCHENDORF, G. – SELTMANN, R. (1999): Multivariate analyses of
Erzgebirge granite and rhyolite composition: implications for classification of granites and their genetic
relations. – Comp. Geosci. 25, 533–546.
FÖRSTER, A. – FÖRSTER, H.-J. – STROMEYER, D. (2003): An internally consistent present-day thermopetrological model of the Erzgebirge crust. – J. Czech Geol. Soc. 48, 49–50.
FÖRSTER, H.-J. – GOTTESMANN, B. – TISCHENDORF, G. – SIEBEL, W. – RHEDE, D. –
SELTMANN, R. – WASTERNACK, J. (2007): Permo-Carboniferous subvolcanic rhyolitic dikes in the
western Erzgebirge/Vogtland, Germany: a record of source heterogeneity of post-collisional felsic
magmatism. – Neu. Jb. Mineral., Abh. 183, 123–147.
68
FÖRSTER, H.-J. – ROMER, R. L. (2009): Carboniferous magmatism. In: Linnemann, U. – Kroner, U. –
Romer, R. L. Eds: From the Cadomian Active Margin to the Variscan Orogen: The pre-Mesozoic
Geology of Saxo-Thuringia (NW Bohemian Massif). – E. Schweizerbart Sci. Publ.
FÖRSTER, H.-J. – TISCHENDORF, G. (1996): Compositional heterogeneity of silicic magmatic rocks from
the German Variscides. – Z. geol. Wiss. 24, 467–482.
FÖRSTER, H.-J. – TISCHENDORF, G. – GOTTESMANN B. – SELTMANN, R. – TRUMBULL, R. B.
(1997): Die variszischen Granite des Erzgebirges – neue Aspecte. – Exkurs. Veröfftl. GGW, Berlin, 200,
17–18.
FÖRSTER, H.-J. – TISCHENDORF, G. – TRUMBULL, R. B. – GOTTESMANN B. (1999): LateCollisional Granites in the Variscan Erzgebirge, Germany. – J. Petrology 40, 1613–1645.
FRANKE, W. (1989): Tectonostratigraphic units in the Variscan belt of central Europe. – Geol. Soc. Amer.
Spec. Pap. 230, 67–90.
FRANKE, W. – HAAK, V. – ONCKEN, O. – TANNER, D. Eds (2000): Orogenic processes: Quantification
and modelling in the Variscan belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 459 pp.
FRANKE, W. – STEIN, E. (2000): Exhumation of high-grade rocks in the Saxo-Thuringian Belt: geological
constraints and geodynamic concepts. In: Franke, W. – Haak, V. – Oncken, O. – Tanner, D. Eds:
Orogenic Processes: Quantification and modelling in the Variscan Belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ.
179, 337–354.
FRANKE, W. – WEBER, K. Eds (1995): Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe. – 604 pp.
Springer Verlag, Berlin.
FRANKE, D. – ZELAZNIEWICZ, A. (2000): The eastern termination of the Variscides: terrane correlation
and kinematic evolution. In: Franke, W. – Haak, V. – Oncken, O. Eds: Orogenic processes:
Quantification and modelling in the Variscan Belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 63–86.
FRANKE, W. – ZELAZNIEWICZ, A. – POREBSKI, S. J. – WAJSPRYCH, B. (1993): Saxothuringian zone
in Germany and Poland: differences and common features. – Geol. Rdsch. 82, 583–599.
FRITZ, H. – NEUBAUER, F. (1995): Kinematics of crustal stacking and dispersion in the southeastern
Bohemian Massif. – Geol. Rdsch. 82, 556–565.
FRÝDA, J. – BREITER, K. (1995): Alkali feldspars as a main phosphorus reservoirs in rare metal granites:
three examples from the Bohemian Massif (Czech Republic). – Terra Nova 7, 315–320.
FUSÁN, O. – KODYM, O. – MATĚJKA, A. Eds (1967): Geological map of Czechoslovakia 1 : 500,000. –
Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
GASTIL, G. – NOZAWA, T. – TAINOSHO, Y. (1991): The tectonic implications of asymmetrically zoned
plutons. – Earth planet Sci. Lett. 102, 302–309.
GEBAUER, D. – FRIEDL, G. (1994): A 1.38 Ga protolith age for the Dobra orthogneiss (Moldanubian Zone
of the southern Bohemian Massif, NE-Austria): Evidence from ion-microprobe (SHRIMP) dating of
zircon. – J. Czech Geol. Soc. 39, 34–35.
GERDES, A. – WÖRNER, G. – FINGER, F. (2000): Hybrids, magma mixing and enriched mantle melts in
post-collisional Variscan granitoids: the Rastenberg Pluton, Austria. In: Franke, W. et al. Eds: Orogenic
processes: Quantification and Modelling in the Variscan Belt. – Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 415–
431.
GERDES, A. – WÖRNER, G. – HENK, A. (2000): Post-collisional granite generation and HT-LP
metamorphism by radiogenic heating: The Variscan South Bohemian Batholith. – J. Czech Geol. Soc.
157, 577–587.
GERSTENBERGER, H. (1989): Whole rock isotope systematics of granitoids in Central Europe. – ZfIMitt., 5th Working Meeting Isotopes in Nature Proceedings II, 99–130. – Leipzig.
GERSTENBERGER, H. – HAASE, G. – HABEDANK, M. (1983): Rb/Sr Datierungen der jüngeren Granite
in Ehrenfriedersdorf. In: Schröter, R. Ed.: Isotopen und elementgeochemische sowie
radiogeochronologische Untersuchungen an der Zinnerzlagerstätte Ehrenfriedersdorf. – Zentralinst.
Isotop. Strahlenforsch., Mitt. 76, 125–133.
GNOJEK, I. – ŠŤOVÍČKOVÁ, N. (1974): The ring structure of the Sedmihoří granite stock. – Sbor. geol.
Věd, užitá geofyz. 12, 113–130.
GOROCHOV, I. M. et al. (1983): Rb-Sr dating of magmatic and metamorphic events in the eastern part of
the Bohemian Massif. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 28, 349–361.
GÜRTLEROVÁ, P. (2004): Lithogeochemical database, Czech Geological Survey. Internal File. – Czech
Geol. Survey, Prague.
69
HAAKE, R. (1972): Zur Alterstellung granitoider Gesteine im Erzgebirge. – Geologie (Berlin) 21, 641–676.
HAMTILOVÁ, M. (1971): Petrographic study of plutonic rocks using statistical methods. – Acta Univ.
Carol., Geol. 1, 63–77.
HANÁK, J. – MACHEK, M. – ULRICH, S. – HROUDA, F. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – ONDRA, P. (2008):
Expertní odhad vybraných fyzikálních, mikrotektonických a geomechanických vlastností masivu. –
Projekt SÚRAO: Výzkum procesů pole vzdálených interakcí HÚ vyhořelého jaderného paliva a vysoce
aktivních odpadů. 330 pp. MS Čes. geol. služba, Praha.
HANŽL, P. – JANOUŠEK, V. – ŽÁČEK, V. – WILIMSKÝ, D. – AICHLER, J. – ERBAN, V. –
PUDILOVÁ, M. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – BURIÁNKOVÁ, K. – MIXA, P. – PECINA, V. (2007):
Magmatic history of granite-derived mylonites from the southern Desná Unit (Silesicum, Czech
Republic). – Mineralogy Petrology 89, 45–75.
HANŽL, P. – MELICHAR, R. (1997): The Brno Massif: A section through the active continental margin or
a composed terrane? – Krystalinikum 23, 33–58.
HARLAND, W. B. – ARMSTRONG, R. L. – COX, A. V. – CRAIG L. E. – SMITH, A. V. – SMITH, D. V.
(1989): A Geologic time scale. – 263 pp. Cambridge Univ. Press.
HAVLENA, V. – POUBA, Z. (1953): O současném stavu otázky vzniku žul. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 28, 57–
82.
HAZDROVÁ, M. –PAČES, T. – ŠPIČKA, J. – ČERMÁK, V. – MATOLÍN. M. – JURZA, F. (1981):
Geotermální energie a její využití. – Knihovna Ústř. Úst. geol. 56, 128 pp.
HECHT, L. – VIGNERESSE, J. L. – MORTEANI, G. (1997): Constraints on the origin of zonation of the
granite complexes in the Fichtelgebirge (Germany and Czech Republic): evidence from a gravity and
geochemical study. – Geol. Rdsch. 86, 93–109.
HEJTMAN, B. (1984): Petrografie vyvřelých hornin Českého masívu. Část I, Intruzivní vyvřelé horniny
západních a severozápadních Čech. – 186 pp. Praha.
HENK, A. – VON BLANCKENBURG, F. – FINGER, F. – SCHALTEGGER, U. – ZULAUF, G. (2000):
Syn-convergent high-temperature metamorphism and magmatism in the Variscides: a discussion of
potential heat sources. In: Orogenic processes: Quantification and modeling in the Variscan belt. – Geol.
Soc. London Spec. Publ. 179, 387–399.
HINE, R. – WILLIAMS, I. S. – CHAPPELL. B. W. – WHITE, A. J. R. (1978): Contrasts between I- and Stype granitoids of the Kosciusco Batholith. – J. Geol. Soc. Aust., 25, 219–234.
HOFMANN, Y. – JAHR, T. – JENTZSCH, G. (2003): Three-dimentional gravimetric modeling to detect the
deep structure of the region Vogtland/NW-Bohemia. – J. Geodynamics, 35, 1–2, 209–220.
HOLL, P. K. – VON DRACH, V. – MÜLLER-SOHNIUS, D. – KÖHLER, H. (1989): Caledonian ages in
Variscan rocks: Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd isotopic variations in dioritic intrusives from the northwestern
Bohemian Massif, West Germany. – Tectonophysics 157, 179–194.
HOLUB, F. (1991): Příspěvek k petrochemii středočeského plutonu. In: Souček, J. Ed.: Horniny ve vědách o
Zemi, 117–140. Charles Univ. Prague. (Abstract in English)
HOLUB, F. V. (1997): Ultrapotassic plutonic rocks of the durbachite series in the Bohemian Massif:
Petrology, geochemistry and petrogenetic interpretation. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 31, 5–
26.
HOLUB, F. V. (2002): Obecná a magmatická petrologie. – 214 pp. Karolinum, Praha.
HOLUB, F. V. – KLEČKA, M. – MATĚJKA, D. (1995): The Moldanubian Zone – Igneous activity. In:
Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke, W. – Weber, K. Eds: Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe,
444–455. – Springer Verlag, Berlin.
HOLUB, F. V. – MACHART, J. – MANOVÁ, M. (1997): The Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex:
Geology, chemical composition and genetic interpretation. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 31,
27–50.
HOUZAR, S. – NOVÁK, M. (1998): Fluorine-enriched rocks on exocontact of the Třebíč durbachite massif:
evidence from underlying chondrodite marbles. – Acta Univ. Carol. Geol. 42, 267.
HROUDA, F. (1999): Petrophysical properties of the Brno Massif and their tectonic implication. – Geolines
8, 30.
HROUDA, F. – REJL, L. (1973): Studium tektoniky v brněnském masivu na základě magnetických
výzkumů. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 48, 1–9.
IBRMAJER, J. – SUK, M. et al. (1989): Geofyzikální obraz ČSSR. – 354 pp. Ústř. úst. geol. Praha.
ISHIHARA, S. (1977): The magnetite series and ilmenite series granitic rocks. – Mining Geol. 17, 293–305.
70
JACKSON, J. A. (1997): Glossary of Geology. 4th Edition. – 769 pp. Alexandria.
JANOUŠEK, V. (2002): Guide Abschluss. Exkursion 2002. Central and Southern Bohemia 4–7 July 2002
Excursion. – 26 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
JANOUŠEK, V. – BOWES, D. R. – BRAITHWAITE, C. J. R. – ROGERS, G. (2000a): Microstructural and
mineralogical evidence for limited involvemant of magma mixing in the petrogenesis of a Hercynian
high-K calc-alkaline intrusion: the Kozárovice granodiorite, Central Bohemian Pluton, Czech Republic. –
Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Earth Sci. 91, 15–26.
JANOUŠEK, V. – BOWES, D. – ROGERS, G. – FARROW, C. M. – JELÍNEK, E. (2000b): Modelling
diverse processes in the petrogenesis of a composite batholith: the Central Bohemian Pluton, Central
European Hercynides. – J. Petrology 41, 511–543.
JANOUŠEK, V. – BRAITHWAITE, C. J. R. – BOWES, D. R. – GERDES, A. (2004): Magma-mixing in the
genesis of Hercynian calc-alkaline granitoids: an integrated petrographic and geochemical study of the
Sázava intrusion, Central Bohemian Pluton, Czech Republic. – Lithos 78, 67–99.
JANOUŠEK, V. – FARROW, C. M. – ERBAN, V. (2006): Technical note interpretation of whole-rock
geochemical data in igneous geochemistry: Introducing geochemical data toolkit (GCD kit). – J.
Petrology 47, 1255–1259.
JANOUŠEK, V. – HOLUB, F. V. (2007): The causal link between HP-HT metamorphism and ultrapotassic
magmatism in collisional orogens: case study from the Moldanubian Zone of the Bohemian Massif. –
Proc. Geol. Assoc. 118, 75–86.
JANOUŠEK, V. – ROGERS, G. – BOWES, D. R. – VAŇKOVÁ, V. (1997): Cryptic trace-element variation
as an indicator of reverse zoning in a granitic pluton: the Říčany granite, Czech Republic. – J. Geol. Soc.
London 754, 807–815.
JARCHOVSKÝ, T. (1994): Inner structure of tin-tungsten bearing cupolas near Krásno (Slavkovský les
Mts). In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. – Möller, P. Eds: Mineralization of Collisional Orogens. 61–69. –
Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
JARCHOVSKÝ, T. (2006): The nature and genesis of greisen stocks at Krásno, Slavkovský les area. – J.
Czech Geol. Soc. 51/3-4, 201–215.
JARCHOVSKÝ, T. – ŠTEMPROK, M. (1979): Geochemistry of granites of the Slavkovský les Mts. – Sbor.
geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 20, 111–149.
JELÍNEK, E. – DUDEK, A. (1993): Geochemistry of subsurface Precambrian plutonic rocks from the
Brunovistulian complex in the Bohemian Massif, Czechoslovakia. – Precambr. Res. 62, 103–125.
JELÍNEK, E. – PEŠEK, J. – BOUŠKA, V. (2003): Late Palaeozoic volcanism in the West and Central
Bohemian basins (Czech Republic). – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 45, 33–40.
JELIŃSKI, A – LIS, J. – PRZENIOSŁO, S. (1963): Uwagi o północzym kontaktie granitu karkonoskiego na
zachód od Szklarskiej Poŗeby – Biul. Pań. Inst. geol. 170, 9, 5–13.
JIRÁNEK, J. (1983): Geochemie alkalických živců karlovarského masívu. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 3,
216–236.
JIRÁNEK, J. – SCHOVÁNKOVÁ, D. – SCHULMANN, K. (1988): Stavba tělesa teplického ryolitu. – Sbor.
Západočes. Muz. (Plzeň), Přír. 67, 56–62.
JUST, G. (1991): The radioactivity of rocks and the radioactive heat production in the former GDR. –
Geophys. Geol. (Univ. Leipzig) 4, 65–89.
KAPPELMEYER, O. – RUMMEL, F. Eds (1988): Terrestrial heat from impervious rocks. Investigations in
the Falkenberg Granite Massif . – Geol. J., R. E, 39, 252 pp.
KLEIN, T. – KIEHM, S. – SIEBEL, W. – SHANG, C. K. – ROHRMÜLLER, J. – DÖRR, W. – ZULAUF,
G. (2008): Age and emplacement of late-Variscan granites of the western Bohemian Massif with main
focus on the Hauzenberg granitoids (European Variscides, Germany). – Lithos 102, 478–507.
KEMPE, U. – BELYATSKY, B. V. (1994): Sm-Nd ages of wolframites from the western Erzgebirge –
Vogtland region: possible genetic implications. In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. – Möller, P. Eds:
Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 142–149. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
KEMPE, U. – BOMBACH, K – MATUKOV, D. – SCHLOTHAUER, T. – HUTSCHENREUTER, J. –
WOLF, D. – SERGEEV, S. (2004): Pb/Pb and U/Pb zircon dating of subvocanic rhyolite as a time
marker for Hercynian granite magmatism and Sn mineralisation in the Eibenstock granite, Erzgebirge,
Germany: Considering effects of zircon alteration. – Mineralium Depos. 39, 646–669.
71
KENNAN, P. S. – DZIDZIC, H. – LORENC, M. W. – MIERZEJEWSKI, M. P. (1999): A review of Rb-Sr
isotope patterns in the Carboniferous granitoids of the Sudetes in SW Poland. – Geol. sudetica 32 (1), 49–
53.
KETTNER, R. (1930a): O postavení metamorfovaných ostrovů v oblasti středočeského žulového masívu. –
Sbor. St. geol. Úst. Čs. Republ. 9, 302–308.
KETTNER, R. (1930b): Geologie českého žulového masívu. – Příroda 23, 431–437.
KETTNEROVÁ, M. (1920): Kontakt středočeské žuly u Žampachu na Sázavě. – Čas. Mus. Král. čes. 19–28.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1963): Geology of the Čistá Massif. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 3, 75–99. (English
summary)
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1965): The Štěnovice granodiorite massif. (English summary) – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 8,
75–99.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1969): Krkonošsko-jizerský granitoidní masiv. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 15, 7–133.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1993): Granity v Českém masivu produkují teplo. In: Reichmann, F. Ed.: Geologové proti
ničení životního prostředí, 140–141. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1994a): Zonation of Plutons – its tectonic implications. In: Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. –
Möller, P. Eds: Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 313–317. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. Ed. (1994b): Geological Atlas of the Czech Republic – Stratigraphy. – Czech Geol.
Survey, Prague.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. Ed. (2006): Základní geologická mapa České republiky 1 : 25 000 s Vysvětlivkami, 03143 Liberec. – 62 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (2006): Geotermální pole v západní části krkonošsko-jizerského masivu – fikce nebo
realita? – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2005, 179–182.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – BERNARD, J. H. (1974): Segmentation of the Bohemian Massif in the light of Variscan
magmatism and metallogeny. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 49, 149–157. Praha.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – DUDEK, A. (1978): The plutonic geology of the Bohemian Massif and its problems. –
Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 31, 47–66.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – FEDIUK, F. – SCHOVÁNEK, P. – JARCHOVSKÝ. T. (2009): Tanvald Massif – relict
of the magmatic body in the Krkonoše–Jizera Composite Massif. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2008, 158–
161.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – FEDIUK, F. – VESELOVSKÝ, F. – SCHOVÁNEK, P. – JARCHOVSKÝ, T. –
TÁBORSKÝ, Z. (2004): Topazový kvarcolit (greisen) u Chrastavy v severních Čechách jako
metalogenetický indikátor W-Sn mineralizace. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2003, 112–114.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. – CAMBEL, B. – GURBANOV, A. G. (1981): Petrochemická
korelace a I/S klasifikace granitoidů Českého masívu, Západních Karpat a Velkého Kavkazu. – Geol.
Zbor. Geol. carpath. 32, 307–315.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – RAJPOOT, G. S. (1993): The review of plutons in the Bohemian Massif – western
section. – MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – SCHOVÁNEK, P. – JARCHOVSKÝ, T. – SULOVSKÝ, P. – TOUŽIMSKÝ, M.
(2007): Kontakt tanvaldského a libereckého granitu u Jablonce nad Nisou. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce
2006, 24–29.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – SATTRAN, V. (1965): Podloží svrchnokarbonských sedimentů v oblasti západně od
Labe. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 9, 109–115. (In Czech)
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – SATTRAN, V. (1978): Inventory of two-mica granites of the Bohemian Massif.
Proceedings of GEPIC Meeting, Nancy-Vandoeuvre (France), IGCP Project 154. – Sci. de la Terre, Sér.
Inform. Gèol. 13, 123–136.
KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – TÁBORSKÝ, Z. (2003): Wolframitové zrudnění u jižního okraje tanvaldského granitu v
severních Čechách. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 2002, 169–170.
KLÖTZLI, U. S. – KOLLER, F. – SCHARBERT, S. – HÖCK, V. (2001): Cadomian lower-crustal
contributions to Variscan Granite Petrogenesis (South Bohemian Pluton, Austria): Constraints from
zircon typology and geochronology, whole-rock, and feldspar Pb-Sr isotope systematics. – J. Petrology
42, 1621–1642.
KODYM, O. – SUK, M. (1958): Přehled geologických a petrografických poměrů Blatenska a Strakonicka.–
Geol. Práce 50, 71–121. (In Czech)
KODYM, O. – SUK, M. (1960): Přehled geologie západní části středočeského plutonu. – Věst. Čes. geol.
Úst. 35, 269–277.
72
KODYMOVÁ, A. (1984): Morfologie akcesorického zirkonu z některých hlubinných vyvřelin Českého
masívu. – 25 pp. MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague. (In Czech)
KODYMOVÁ, A. – ŠTEMPROK, M. (1993): Typology and internal structure of zircons from the granites
of the Krušné hory-Erzgebirge batholith and associated rhyolite and granite porphyry (Czech Republic). –
J. Czech Geol. Soc. 38, 3–4, 149–164.
KODYMOVÁ, A. – VEJNAR, Z. (1974): Accessory heavy minerals of the Central Bohemian Pluton. –
Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 16, 89–128. (English summary)
KÖHLER, H. – MÜLLER-SOHNIUS, D. (1986): Rb-Sr Altersbestimmungen und Sr-Isotopen Systematik an
Gesteien des Regensburger Waldes (Moldanubikum NE Bayern). Teil 2: Intrusivgesteine. – Neu. Jb.
Mineral., Abh. 155, 219–241.
KOLLER, F. (1994): The South Bohemian Pluton – A complex batholith with a multiple intrusion history. –
Mitt. Österr. mineral. Gesell. 139, 28, 258–313.
KONOPÁSEK, J. – SCHULMANN, K. (2005): Contrasting Early Carboniferous field geotherms: evidence
for accretion of a thickened orogenic root and subducted Saxothuringian crust (Central European
Variscides). – J. Geol. Soc. London 162, 463–470.
KOŠLER, J. – AFTALION, M. – BOWES, D. R. (1993): Mid-late Devonian plutonic activity in the
Bohemian Massif: U-Pb zircon isotopic evidence from the Staré Sedlo and Mirotice gneiss complexes,
Czech Republic. – Neu. Jb. Mineral., Mh. 9, 417–431.
KOŠLER, J. – AFTALION, M. – VOKURKA, K. – KLEČKA, M. – SVOJTKA, M. (1996): Early Cambrian
granitoid magmatism in the Moldanubian zone: U-Pb zircon isotopic evidence from the Stráž orthogneiss.
– MS Fac. Sci. Charles Univ. Prague.
KOŠLER, J. – ROGERS, G. – RODDICK, J. C. – BOWES, D. R. (1995): Temporal association of ductile
deformation and granitic plutonism: Rb-Sr and Ar-Ar isotopic evidence from roof pendants above the
Central Bohemian Pluton, Czech Republic. – J. Geol. (Chicago) 103, 711–717.
KOSSMAT, F. (1927): Gliederung des varistischen Gebirgsbaues. – Abh. Sächs. Geol. Landesamt. 1, 39 pp.
KOTKOVÁ, J. – GERDES, A. – PARRISH, R. R. – NOVÁK, M. (2007): Clasts of Variscan high-grade
rocks within Upper Viséan conglomerates – constraints on exhumation history from petrology and U-Pb
chronology. – J. metamorph. Geol. 25, 781–801.
KOUZNYETSOF, YU. A. (1964): Glavnyje tipy magmatičeskich formacij. – Izd. Nedra, Moskva.
KOVAŘÍKOVÁ, P. – JELÍNEK, E. – ŠTEMPROK, M. – KACHLÍK, V. – HOLUB, F. V. – BLECHA, V.
(2005): Petrochemické srovnání redwitzitů severozápadní části Českého masivu. – Zpr. geol. Výzk.
v Roce 2004, 103–106. (In Czech)
KREUZER, H. – MÜLLER, P. – OKRUSCH, M. – PATZAK, M. – SCHÜSSLER, U. – SEIDEL, E. –
ŠMEJKAL, V. – VEJNAR, Z. (1991): Ar-Ar confirmation of Cambrian, early Devonian, and MidCarboniferous events in tectonic units at the western margin of the Bohemian Massif. – Zbl. Geol.
Paläont., H. 5, 6. Rundgespräch Geodynamik des europäischen Variszikums.
KREUZER, H. – SEIDEL, E. – SCHÜSSLER, U. – OKRUSCH, M. – LENZ, K. L. – RASCHKA, H.
(1989): K-Ar geochronology of different tectonic units at the northwestern margin of the Bohemian
Massif. – Tectonophysics 157, 149–178.
KREUZER, H. – VEJNAR, Z. – SCHÜSSLER, U. – OKRUSCH, M. – SEIDEL, E. (1992): K-Ar dating in
the Teplá-Domažlice Zone at the western margin of the Bohemian Massif. In: Kukal Z. Ed.: Proceedings
of the 1st International Conference on the Bohemian Massif, 168–175. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
KRÖNER, A. – HEGNER, E. (1998): Geochemistry, single zircon ages and Sm-Nd systematics of granitoid
rocks from the Góry Sowie (Owl Mts), Polish West Sudetes: evidence for Early Palaeozoic arc-related
plutonism. – J. Geol. Soc. London 155, 711–724.
KRÖNER, A. – HEGNER, E. – HAMME, J. et al. (1994): Geochronology and Nd-Sr systematics of
Lusatian granitoids: significance for the evolution of the Variscan orogen in east-central Europe. – Geol.
Rdsch. 83, 357–376.
KRÖNER, A. – JAECKEL, P. – HEGNER, E. – OPLETAL, M. (2001): Single zircon ages and whole-rock
Nd isotopic systemarics of early Palaeozoic granitoid gneisses from the Czech and Polish Sudetes
(Jizerské hory, Krkonoše Mts. and Orlice-Sněžník Complex). – Int. J. Earth. Sci. 90, 304–324.
KRUPIČKA, J. (1950): Metamorfismus ve střední části jílovského pásma. – Sbor. Ústř. Úst. geol., Odd.
geol. 17, 1–103.
KRUPIČKA, J. (1968): The contact zone in the North of the Moldanubian Pluton. – Krystalinikum 6, 7–39.
Praha.
73
KRYZA, R. (1995): Western Sudetes (Lugicum) – Igneous Activity. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke, W. –
Weber, K. Eds (1995): Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 341–350. – Springer Verlag,
Berlin.
KUKAL, Z. (1984): Granitoidové plutony byly hlavním zdrojem živců permokarbonských sedimentů. – Čas.
Mineral. Geol. 29, 193–196.
LE MAITRE, R. W. et al. (2002): Igneous rocks A Classification and Glossary of Terms. – 236 pp. The
Cambridge University Press URL.
LIEW, T. C. – FINGER, F. – HÖCK, V. (1989): The Moldanubian granitoid plutons of Austria: Chemical
and isotopic studies bearing on their environmental setting. – Chem. Geol. 76, 41–55.
LIEW, T. C. – HOFMANN, A. W. (1988): Precambrian crustal components, plutonic associations, plate
environment of the Hercynian Fold Belt of central Europe: Indications from a Nd and Sr isotopic study. –
Contr. Mineral. Petrology 98, 129–138.
LIPPOLD, H.-J. – HESS, J. C. – HOLUB, V. – PEŠEK, J. (1986): Correlation of Upper Carboniferous
Deposits in the Bohemian Massif (Czechoslovakia) and in the Ruhr District (FR Germany). Evidence
from 40Ar/39Ar Ages of Tuff Layers. – Z. Dtsch. geol. Gesell. 137, 447–464.
LOSOS, Z. – HLADÍKOVÁ, J. (1988): Izotopické složení grafitů a karbonátů z pláště žulovského masívu a
jeho využití pro výpočet teplot metamorfózy. – Scr. Univ. Purkyn. Brun. Geol. 18, 261–272.
MÁCHA, J. et al. (1972): Želivka tunelem do Prahy. – 196 pp. Podzem. inž. stavby, Praha.
MADEL, J. (1975): Geochemical structures in multiple intrusion granite massif. – Neu Jb. Mineral., Abh.
124, 103–127.
MAHEL, M. et al. (1973): Tectonic map of the Carpathian-Balkan mountains system and adjacent areas. –
D. Štúr Geol. Inst. Bratislava.
MALÝ, J. – SUK, M. (1989): I/S klasifikace granitoidních hornin východního okraje Českého masívu. –
Čas. Mineral. Geol. 34, 59–74.
MANOVÁ, M. – MATOLÍN, M. (1995): Radiometric map of the Czech Republic 1: 500,000. – Czech Geol.
Survey, Prague.
MAREK, F. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. (1968): Deeper structure of the Central Bohemian Pluton on basis of
density measurements and gravity anomalies (English summary). – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 13, 3, 333–346.
MARHEINE, D. – KACHLÍK, V. – MALUSKI, H. et al. (2002): The 40Ar/39Ar ages from the West
Sudetes (NE Bohemian Massif): constraints on the Variscan polyphase tectonothermal development. In:
Winchester, J. A. – Pharaoh, T. C. – Verniers, J. Eds: Palaeozoic Amalgamation of Central Europe. –
Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 201, 133–155.
MAŠÍN, J. (1952): Magnetismus gabrových vyvřelin středočeského plutonu. – Sbor. Ústř. Úst. geol., Odd.
geol. 19, 185–211.
MÁŠKA, M. (1954): K tektonické analýze krystalinika (Drobná tektonika Krkonoš). – Knih. Ústř. Úst. geol.
27, 259 pp.
MATOLÍN, M. (1970): The radioactivity of rock of the Bohemian Massif. – Knih. Czech Geol. Surv. 41, 1–
100. (In Czech)
MATTE, A. W. (1986): Tectonics and plate tectonic model for the Variscan belt in Europe. –
Tectonophysics 126, 329–374.
MATTE, PH. – MALUSKI, H. – RAJLICH, P. – FRANKE, W. (1990): Terrane boundaries in the Bohemian
Massif: Result of large-scale Variscan shearing. – Tectonophysics 177, 151–170.
McCANN, T. Ed. (2008): The geology of Central Europe. Volume 1: Precambrian and Palaeozoic. 748 pp.
MICHNIEWITZ, M. – BOBIŃSKI, W. – SIEMĄRKOWSKI, J. (2006): Mineralizacja cynowa w środkowej
części pasma łupkowego Starej Kamienicy (Sudety zachodnie). – Prace Pol. Inst. Geol. 185, 136 pp. (In
Polish)
MAZUR, S. – ALEKSANDROWSKI, P. – TURNIAK, K. – DANKIEWITZ, A. W. (2007): Geology,
tectonic evolution and Late Palaeozoic magmatism of Sudetes – an overview. In: Kozlowski, A. –
Wiszniewska, J. Eds: Granitoids in Poland. – Arch. mineral. 1, 59–87.
MELOUN, M. – MILITKÝ, J. (1994): Statistické zpracování experimentálních dat. – 839 pp. Plus. Praha.
MIDDLEMOST, A. K. (1994): Naming materials in the magma/igneous rock system. – Earth-Sci. Rev. 37,
215–224.
MINAŘÍK, L. (1975): Distribuce prvků v hlavních horninotvorných minerálech plutonitů. – Čas. Mineral.
Geol. 20, 185–199.
74
MINAŘÍK, L. – CIMBÁLNÍKOVÁ, A. – ULRYCH, J. (1988): Coexisting amphibole-biotite pairs in
durbachitic rocks of the Central Bohemian Pluton . – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 3, 259–287.
MINAŘÍK, L. – POVONDRA, P. (1976): Geochemie draselných živců durbachitů Čertova břemene. – Stud.
Čs. Akad. Věd. 9, 7–63.
MÍSAŘ, Z. – DUDEK, A. – HAVLENA, V. – WEISS, J. (1983): Geologie ČSSR I. Český masív. – St.
pedag. nakl. Praha.
MOREHEAD, P. D. (1998): The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary. – 850 pp. Penguin.
MOTTLOVÁ, L. (1971): Hlubší stavba kutnohorského krystalinika s. s. na základě interpretace regionálního
tíhového pole. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 16, 3, 247–254.
MOTTLOVÁ, L. – SUK, M. (1970): Distribution of granitoid rocks in the subsurface structure of the
Moldanubian Zone. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 15, 383–392. (English summary).
MÖBUS, G. (1966): Petrographisch-tectonische Untersuchungen im Lausitzer Granitmassiv. – Abh.
Deutsch. Akad. Wiss. Kl. Chemie, Geol. u. Biol., 1955 (8) (Abh. Geotectonik 7) 1-40.
NEUŽILOVÁ, M. (1973): Chemické složení alkalických živců. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 18, 309–318.
NOVOTNÝ, P. (1986): Peraluminické granity melechovského masívu. – Zpr. geol. Výzk. v Roce 1984, 149–
150.
NOZAWA, T. – TAINOSHO, Y. (1990): Characteristic of zoned plutons in Japan: A summary. In: Shomizo,
M. – Gastil, G. Eds: Recent advances in concepts concerning zoned plutons in Japan and Southern and
Baja California, 115–242. – The Univ. Mus., Univ. Tokyo.
OBERC-DZIEDZIC, T. (1985): Wplyw granitu karkonoskiego na gneisy izerskie. – Kwart. Geol. 29, 571–
588.
OLIVER, G. J. H. – CORFU, F. – KROGH, T. E. (1993): U-Pb ages from SW Poland: evidence for a
Caledonian suture zone between Baltica and Gondwana. – J. Geol. Soc. London 150, 355–369.
ORLOV, A. (1935a): Zur Kenntnis der Petrochemie des mittelböhmischen Plutons. – Mineral. petrogr. Mitt.,
N.F. 46, 416–446.
OSTŘIHANSKÝ, L. (1992): The structure of the Earth’s crust and the heat-flow – heat production
relationship in the Bohemian Massif. In: Kukal Z. Ed.: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
the Bohemian Massif, Prague, Czechoslovakia, Sept. 26–Oct. 3, 1988, 210–217. – Czech Geol. Survey,
Prague.
PAČES, T. et al. (1983): Možnosti využití zemského tepla suchých hornin v ČSR. Závěrečná zpráva. – 35
pp. MS Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
PÄLCHEN, W. – THIERGÄRTNER, H. (1970): Anwendung der Trendanalyse zum Studium des Aufbaus
von Granitkörpern am Beispiel des Granitmassivs von Königshain, Oberlausitz. – Geologie (Berlin) 19,
55–71.
PALIVCOVÁ, M. (1967): Řešení granitového problému v některých současných teoriích. – Čas. Mineral.
Geol. 12, 2, 195–218.
PALIVCOVÁ, M. (1977): Formační analýza magmatických hornin. – Miner. slov. 9, 213–220.
PALIVCOVÁ, M. – BENEŠ, K. – ZOUBEK, Vl. (1968): Genesis of Granitoids in the Bohemian Massif.
Guide to Excursion 29 AC, Czechoslovakia, Int. Geol. Congress 22 session Prague 1968, 42 pp. – Czech
Geol. Survey, Prague.
PALIVCOVÁ, M. – CIMBÁLNÍKOVÁ, A. – HEJL, V. (1978): Problemy formacionogo analiza granitoidov
Češskogo masiva. – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath. 29, 1, 43–66. Bratislava. (In Russian)
PALIVCOVÁ, M. – ŠŤOVÍČKOVÁ, N. (1968): Volcanism and plutonism of the Bohemian Massif from the
aspect of its segmented structure. – Krystalinikum 6, 169–199.
PALIVCOVÁ, M. – WALDHAUSROVÁ, J. – LEDVINKOVÁ, V. (1989a): Precursors lithology and the
origin of the Central Bohemian Pluton (Bohemian Massif). – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath., 40, 5, 521–526.
PALIVCOVÁ, M. – WALDHAUSROVÁ, J. – LEDVINKOVÁ, V. (1989b): Granitization problem – once
again. – Geol. Zbor. Geol. carpath., 40, 4, 423–452.
PALIVCOVÁ, M. – WALDHAUSROVÁ, J. – LEDVINKOVÁ, V. (1989c): Granitologie – věda o granitech
na konci druhého tisíciletí (Ke druhému vydání Pitcherova díla o granitu 1997 a ke Clarkovu hodnocení
granitového paradigmatu 1996). – Miner. slov. 33 (2001), 389–402. (In Czech)
PEARCE, J. A. – HARRIS, N. B. W. – TINDLE, A. G. (1984): Trace element discrimination diagrams for
the tectonic interpretation of granitic rocks. – J. Petrology 25, 956–983.
PECCERILLO, A. – TAYLOR, S. R. (1976): Geochemistry of Eocene calc-alkaline volcanic rocks from the
Kastamonu area, Northern Turkey. – Contr. Mineral. Petrology 58, 63–81.
75
PETRAKAKIS, K. (1997): Evolution of Moldanubian rocks in Austria: review and synthesis. – J.
Metamorph. Geol. 15, 203–222.
PETRÁNEK, J. (1978): Byly variské plutony Českého masívu tak rychle obnaženy, že se staly zdrojem
materiálu karbonských arkóz? – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 23, 381–387.
PETRÁNEK, J. (1984): Karbonské arkózy, variské granitoidy a subsekvenční vulkanismus. – Čas. Mineral.
Geol. 29, 197–210.
PIN, C. – MAJEROVICZ, A. – WOJCIECHOVSKA, I. (1988): Upper Palaeozoic oceanic crust in the Polish
Sudetes: Nd-Sr isotope and trace element evidence. – Lithos 21, 195–209.
PITCHER, W. S. (1970): Ghost stratigraphy in intrusive granites: a review. In: Newall, G. – Rast, N. Eds:
Mechanism of Igneous Intrusion. – Geol. J. Spec. Publ. 2, 123–140.
PITCHER, W. S. (1979): Comments on the Geological Environments of Granites. In: Atherton, M. P. –
Tarney, J. Eds: Origin of Granite Batholiths,1–33. – Black. Acad. Profess. London.
PITCHER, W. S. (1993): The Nature and Origin of Granite. – 321 pp. Black. Acad. Profess. London.
PIVEC, E. (1970): On the origin of phenocrysts of potassium feldspars in some granitic rocks of the Central
Bohemian Pluton. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 1, 11–25.
PIVEC, E. (1982): Dvojživcová geotermometrie aplikovaná na intruzi granitoidů „okrajového“ typu na
Příbramsku. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 27, 4, 421–428.
POKORNÝ, L. (1997): Geophysical position of granitoid plutons in the Bohemian Massif. – Sbor. geol.
Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 31, 67–73.
POKORNÝ, L. – POLANSKÝ, J. – ŠŤOVÍČKOVÁ, N. (1970): Evidence of the deep segmented structure
of the Bohemian Massif based on geophysical data. – Sbor. geol. Věd, užitá Geofyz. 9, 7–18.
POLANSKÝ, J. (1970): Granitoid plutons in the subsurface structure of the Krušné hory Mts. crystalline
complex. In: Deep geological structure in Czechoslovakia (Loučná), 88–92. – Brno. (In Czech)
POLANSKÝ, J. (1973): Hloubkové řezy Českým masivem. – Geol. Průzk. 6, 15, 161–167.
POUBA, Z. (1969): Beziehungen zwischen der Bruchtektonik in den Erzgängen der Böhmische Masse. –
Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 10, 7–23. (In German)
POUBOVÁ, M. (1974): Composition of amphiboles and rock type subdivisions in the Central Bohemian
Pluton. – Krystalinikum 10, 149–169.
PUPIN, J. P. (1980): Zircon and granite petrology. – Contr. Mineral. Petrology 73, 207–220.
PUPIN, J. P. – TURCO, G. (1975): Typologie de zircon accessoire dans les roches plutonique dioritiques,
granitiques et syénitiques. Facteures essentiets déterminant les variations typologiqueas. – Pétrologie 1,
139–156.
RAJLICH, P. – VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. (1983): Regionální trendy chemismu ve středočeském plutonu. – Acta
Univ. Carol., Geol. 3, 193–213.
RAJPOOT, G. S. (1992): Granites in Sn metallogenic provinces of Hercynian fold belt (SW England and
NW Bohemia) and their comparison with the granites of Himalayas. Ph. D. Thesis. – 212 pp. Czech Geol.
Survey, Prague.
RAJPOOT, G. S. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1993): Typology and origin of granite in the Cornubian and the
Krušné hory-Smrčiny batholiths. – Bull. Czech Geol. Surv. 3, 66 pp.
RAPPRICH, V. – STÁRKOVÁ, M. – BREITKREUZ, Ch. (2009): Monogenetic volcanism in the Levín
Volcanic Field (Krkonoše Piemont Basin, Permian): eruptive styles and interactions with environment. –
GeoDresden 2009, p. 147.
RENÉ, M. (1995): Genetic classification of Variscan granitoids of the Bohemian Massif and their
mineralization. In: Kříbek, B. – Pašava, J. Eds: Mineral deposits: From their origin to their environmental
impacts, 501–504. – Balkema, Rotterdam.
RICHTER, P. – OKRUSCH, M. – BOHLENDER, F. (1988): Die Geothermie-Bohrung Neusorg im
Fichtelgebirge: Petrographie und Geochemie des Kernmaterials. – Geol. Forsch. 38, 125–168.
ROMER, R. L. – THOMAS, R. – STEIN, H. J. – RHEDE, D. (2007): Dating multiply overprinted Snmineralized granites – examples from the Erzgebirge, Germany. – Mineralium Depos. 42, 337–359.
RYBACH, L. – ČERMÁK, V. (1982): Radioactive heat generation in rocks. In: Čermák, V. et al. Eds:
Physical properties of rocks. Vol. 1, Subvol. A. – 373 pp. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
RYBAŘÍK, V. (1994): Ušlechtilé stavební a sochařské kameny České republiky. – 218 pp. Nadace Střední
prům. školy kamenické a sochařské v Hořicích v Podkrkonoší.
SATTRAN, V. (1957): Odnos krystalinika v prostoru východních Krušných hor. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 32,
316–322.
76
SATTRAN, V. (1960): Flájská žula a loučensko-flajský žulový porfyr. – Sbor. Ústř. Úst. geol., Odd. geol.,
26, 1, 75–99.
SATTRAN, V. – FIŠERA, M. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1964): O genetickém vztahu endogenních ložisek cínu a
zlata k variskému magmatismu Českého masivu. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 39, 435–439.
SATTRAN, V. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (1970): Petrometallogenetic series of igneous rocks and endogeneous ore
deposits in the Czechoslovak part of the Bohemian Massif. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 12,
65–154.
SEDLÁK, J. – GNOJEK, I. – SCHEIBE, R. – ZABADAL, S.– (2009): Gravity response of igneous rocks in
the northwestern part of the Bohemian Massif. – J. Geosci., 54, 325–342.
SEDLÁK, J. – GNOJEK, I. – ZABADAL, S. – FARBISZ, J. – CWOJDZINSKI, S. – SCHEIBE, R. (2007):
Geological interpretation of a gravity low in the central of the Lugian unit (Czech Republic, Germany and
Poland). – J. Geosci. 52, 181–198.
SCHARBERT, S. (1987): Rb-Sr Analysen des Tonalits und Granits von der Lokalität Křižanovice (Železné
hory). – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 32, 411–412.
SCHARBERT, S. (1998): Some geochronological data from the South Bohemian Pluton in Austria – a
critical review. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 42, 114–118.
SCHARBERT, S. – BREITER, K. – FRANK, W. (1997): The cooling history of the southern Bohemian
Massif. – J. Czech Geol. Surv. 42, 24 pp.
SCHARBERT, S. – VESELÁ, M. (1990): Rb-Sr systematics of intrusive rocks from the Moldanubicum
around Jihlava. In: Minaříková, D. – Lobitzer, H. Eds: Thirty years of geological cooperation between
Austria and Czechoslovakia, 262–272. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
SCHEUVENS, D. – ZULAUF, G. (2000): Exhumation, strain localization, and emplacement of granitoids
along the western part of the Central Bohemian shear zone (Bohemian Massif). – Int. J. Earth Sci. 89,
617–630.
SCHULMANN, K. – KRÖNER, A. – HEGNER, E. – WENDT, I. – KONOPÁSEK, J. – LEXA, O. –
ŠTÍPSKÁ, P. (2005): Chronological constraints on the pre-orogenic history, burial and exhumation of
deep-seated rocks along the eastern margin of the Variscan orogen, Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic. –
Amer. J. Sci. 305, 407–448.
SCHUST, F. (1967): Die Kornregelung von Feldspäten in magmatischen Gesteinen. Tektonik und Magma,
Teil I. – Freiberg. Forsch.-H., R. C 215, 81–94.
SCHUST, F. – WASTERNACK, J. (2002): Granitoid-Typen in postkinematischen Granitoidplutonen:
Abbilder von autonomen Intrusionsschüben – Beispiele vom Nordrand des Böhmischen Massivs
(Erzgebirge – Harz – Flechtinger Scholle – Lausitz). – Z. geol. Wiss. Berlin 30, 77–117.
SELTMANN, R. (1990): Structurelle Position magmatischer Intrusions und Explosionsbrekzien im Bereich
der Erzgebirgischen Antiklinalzone in Verbindung zur Mineralisation. – Sci. Rep. Zentralinst. Physik
Erde Potsdam, 228 pp.
SIEBEL, W. – BREITER, K. – WENDT, I. – HÖHNDORF, A. – HENJES-KUNST, F. – RENÉ, M.
(1997a): Petrogenesis of contrasting granitoid plutons in western Bohemia (Czech Republic). –
Mineralogy Petrology65, 207–235.
SIEBEL, W. – HÖHNDORF, A. – WENDT, I. (1995): Origin of late Variscan granitoids from NE Bavaria,
Germany, exemplified by REE and Nd isotope systematics. – Chem. Geol. 125, 249–270.
SIEBEL, W. – SHANG, C.K. – RITTER, E. – ROHRMÜLLER, J. – BREITER, K. (2008): Two distinctive
granite suites in the SW Bohemian Massif and their record of emplacement constraints from
geochemistry and zircon 207Pb/206Pb chronology. – J. Petrology 49, 1853–1872.
SIEBEL, W. – TRZEBSKI, R. – STETTNER, G. – HECHT, L. – CASTEN, U. – HÜHNDORF, A. –
MÜLLER, P. (1997b): Granitoid magmatism of the NW Bohemian massif revealed: gravity data,
composition, age relationss and phase concept. – Geol. Rdsch. 86, S45–S63.
SMETANA, V. (1927): Zpráva o mapování listu Podbořany-Rakovník v r. 1927 – okolí Žihle. – Sbor. St.
geol. Úst. Čs. Republ. 7, 430–452.
SOKOL, A. – DOMEČKA, K. – BREITER, K. – JANOUŠEK, V. (2000): The underground gas storage near
Příbram – a source of new information about granitoids of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Věst. Čes.
geol. Úst. 75, 89–104.
SOUČEK, J. (1987): Minerální asociace hornin pláště žulovského plutonu. – Práce Odb. přír. Věd Vlastivěd.
Muz. 36, 78–83. Olomouc.
77
STEINOCHER, V. (1969): Composition and petrology of the Central Bohemian Pluton.– Rozpr. Čs. Akad.
Věd, Ř. mat. přír. Věd 79, 100 pp. (German summary)
STONE, M. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – RAJPOOT, G. S. (1997): Composition of trioctahedral micas in the
Karlovy Vary pluton, Czech Republic and a comparison with those in the Cornubian batholith, SW
England. – Mineral. Mag. 61, 791–807.
STRECKEISEN, A. – LE MAITRE, R. W. (1979): A chemical approximation to the modal QAPF
classification of the igneous rocks. – Neu. Jb. Mineral, Abh. 136, 169–206.
SUK, M. (1973): Reconstruction of the mantle of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 18,
345–364.
SUK, M. – BUDAY, T. – CHLUPÁČ, I. – CICHA, I. – DUDEK, A. – DVOŘÁK, J. – ELIÁŠ, M. –
HOLUB, V. – IBRMAJER, J. – KODYM, O. – KUKAL, Z. – MALKOVSKÝ, M. – MENČÍK, E. –
MÜLLER, V. – TYRÁČEK, J. – VEJNAR, Z. – ZEMAN, A. (1984): Geological history of the territory
of the Czech Socialist Republic. – 400 pp. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
SUK, M. – ĎURICA, D. et al. (1991): Deep boreholes in the Czech Republic. – 171 pp. Gabriel, Praha.
(English abstract)
SUK, M. – VACEK, J. (1984): Horizontální řezy Českým masívem. – Geol. Průzk. 8/9, 226–230.
SUK, M. – WEISS, J. (1975): Interpretation of subsurface structure of plutons in the Moldanubian Zone. In:
Deep geological structure of Czechoslovakia (Loučná, 1974), 195–206. – Geofyzika, Brno.
SVOBODA, J. et al. (1964): Regionální geologie ČSSR, díl I. Český masív, Krystalinikum 1. – 380 pp.
Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
SVOBODA, J. et al. (1966): Regional geology of Czechoslovakia. Part I. The Bohemian Massif. – 668 pp.
Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
SVOBODA, J. et al. (1983): Encyklopedický slovník geologických věd, I. – Academia, Praha.
ŠALANSKÝ, K. (1955): Geofyzikální průzkum ve sv. Petru v Krkonoších. – MS Czech Geol. Survey –
Geofond, Prague.
ŠALANSKÝ, K. (1983): Regionální magnetické struktury Českého masivu na území ČSR. – Věst. Ústř. Úst.
geol. 58, 275–286.
ŠALANSKÝ, K. (1989): Geofyzikální indikace cirkulárních struktur Českého masivu. – Geol. Průzk. 10,
301–304.
ŠALANSKÝ, K. (1995): Geomagnetická mapa České republiky 1 : 500 000. – Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
ŠALANSKÝ, K. – GNOJEK, I. (2002): Geomagnetické anomálie v České republice. – Czech Geol. Surv.
Spec. Pap. 14, 142 pp. (English summary)
ŠKVOR, V. (1986): The granite pluton of the Krušné hory and its interpretation. – Bull. Czech Geol. Surv.
65–71 (In Czech)
ŠMEJKAL, V. (1960): Absolutní stáří některých granitoidů a metamorfitů Českého masívu stanovené
kalium-argonovou metodou. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 35, 441–449.
ŠMEJKAL, V. (1964): The absolute age of some plutonic and metamorphic rocks of the Bohemian Massif
determined by K/Ar method (part II). (English summary) – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 4, 121–136.
ŠMEJKAL, V. – MELKOVÁ, J. (1969): Notes of some potassium-argon dates of magmatic and
metamorphic rocks from the Bohemian Massif. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 14, 331–338.
ŠMEJKAL, V. – VEJNAR, Z. (1965): Zur Frage der prävariszischen Alters einiger Granitoide des
Böhmischen Massivs. In: Geochemie v Československu, Sbor. prací 1. geochem. konfer. v Ostravě, 123–
128. – Ostrava.
ŠRÁMEK, J. – MRLINA, J. (1997): Gravity field – its features and geological interpretation. In: Vrána, S. –
Štědrá, V. Eds: Geological model of western Bohemia related to the KTB borehole in Germany. – Sbor.
geol. Věd, Geol. 47, 27–32.
ŠTELCL, J. (1960): Petrografie kulmských slepenců jižní části Drahanské vysočiny. – Folia Fac. Sci. Nat.
Univ. Purk. Brun. 1, 103 pp.
ŠTEMPROK, M. (1986): Petrology and geochemistry of the Czechoslovak part of the Krušné hory Mts.
pluton. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 27, 111–156.
ŠTEMPROK, M. (1991): The geochemistry of the Czechoslovak part of the Smrčiny (Fichtelgebirge) granite
pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 37, 1–19.
ŠTEMPROK, M. (1992): Granitoid-related tin and tungsten mineralization of the Bohemian Massif.
In: Kukal, Z. Ed.: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Bohemian Massif, 291–297. –
Czech Geol. Survey, Prague.
78
ŠTEMPROK, M. – SELTMANN, R. (1994): The metallogeny of the Erzgebirge (Krušné hory). In:
Seltmann, R. – Kämpf, H. – Möller, P. Eds: Metallogeny of Collisional Orogens, 61–69. – Czech Geol.
Survey, Prague.
ŠTEMPROK, M. – ŠKVOR (1974): Composition of tin-bearing granites from the Krušné hory metallogenic
province of Czechoslovakia. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 16, 7–87.
ŠTEMPROK, M. – ŠULCEK, Z. (1969): Geochemical profile through an ore-bearing lithium granite. –
Econ. Geol. 64, 392–404.
ŠTÍPSKÁ, P. – SCHULMANN, K. – KRÖNER, A. (2004): Vertical extrusion and middle crustal spreading
of omphacite granulite: a model of syn-convergent exhumation (Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic). – J.
metamorph. Geol. 22, 179–198.
ŠVANCARA, J. (2004): Gravimetrická mapa České republiky. – Čs. Čas. Fyz. 54/2004, 217-220.
ŠVANCARA, J. – GNOJEK, I. – HUBATKA, F. – DĚDÁČEK, K. (2000): Geophysical field pattern in the
west Bohemian geodynamic active area. – Studia geoph. geod. 44, 307–326.
TAKAGI, T. – TSUKIMURA, K. (1997): Genesis of Oxidized- and Reduced-Type Granites. – Econ. Geol.
92, 81–86.
TAKATASHI, – ARAMAKI, S. – ISHIHARA, S. (1980): Magnetite-series/Ilmenite-series vs. I-type/S-type
granitoids. – Min. Geol. Spec. Issue 8, 13–28. Tokyo.
TAUSON, L. V. – KOZLOV, V. D. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. – CIMBÁLNÍKOVÁ, A. (1977): Geochimičeskije
osobenosti granitoidov sredněčešskogo plutona i nekotoryje voprosy ich genezisa. In: Opyt korelacii
magmatičeskich i metamorfičeskich porod Čechoslovakii i nekotorych rajonov SSSR, 145–161. – Izd.
Nauka, Moskva.
TEUFEL, S. (1988): Vergleichende U-Pb und Rb-Sr Alterbestimmungen an Gesteinen des
Übergangsbereiches Saxothuringikum/Moldanubikum, NE Bayern. – Göttinger Arb. Geol. Paläont. 35,
87 pp.
THOMAS, R. – FÖRSTER, H. J. – TISCHENDORF, G. (1991): PTX-signatures of Hercynian oreproducing granites, Erzgebirge, Germany. In: Pagel, M. – Leroy, J. A. Eds: Source, Transport and
Deposition of Metals, 231–234. – Rotterdam.
THORPE, R. S. – FRANCIS, P. W. (1979): Strontium isotope evidence. – Nature 277, 5671, 44–45.
TICHOMIROVA, M. – BERGER, H. J. – KOCH, E. A. – BELYATSKI, B. V. – GÖTZE, J. – KEMPE, U. –
NASDALA, L. – SCHALTEGGER, U. (2001): Zircon ages of high-grade gneisses in the Eastern
Erzgebirge (Central European Variscides) – constraints on origin of the rocks and Precambrian to
Ordovician magmatic events in the Variscan foldbelt. – Lithos 56, 303–332.
TIMMERMAN, M. J. (2008): Palaeozoic magmatism. In: McCann, T. Ed. The geology of Central Europe.
Volume 1: Precambrian and Palaeozoic. 665–748.
TISCHENDORF, G. (1970): Zur geochemischen Spezialisierung der Granite des Westerzgebirgischen
Teilplutons. – Geologie (Berlin) 19, 25–40.
TISCHENDORF, G. (1988): On the genesis of tin deposits related to granites: The example Erzgebirge. – Z.
geol. Wiss. 16, 407–420.
TISCHENDORF, G. (1989): Silicic magmatism and metalogenesis of the Erzgebirge. – Veröff. Zent.-Inst.
Phys. Erde 107, 316 pp.
TISCHENDORF, G. – FÖRSTER, H. J. – FRISCHBUTTER, A. – KRAMER, W. – SCHMIDT, W. –
WERNER, C. D. (1995): Saxothuringian Basin. Igneous Activity. In: Dallmeyer, R. D. – Franke, W. –
Weber, K. Eds: Pre-Permian Geology of Central and Eastern Europe, 249–259. – Springer Verlag, Berlin.
TISCHENDORF, G. – FRIESE, G. – SCHINDLER, R. (1969): Die Dunkelglimmer der westererzgebirgischvogtländischen Granite und ihre Bedeutung als petrogenetische und metallogenetische Indikatoren. –
Geologie (Berlin) 18, 384–399.
TOMEK, Č. (1974): The inverse gravimetric task and its application on morphology of the Central
Bohemian Pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 19, 217–220.
TOMEK, Č. (1975): Hlubší stavba a petrogeneze středočeského plutonu. In: Výzkum hlubinné stavby
Československa. Sbor. referátů Loučná 1974, 187–194. – Geofyzika, Brno.
TOMEK, Č. (1976): Deep structure, petrogenesis and emplacement of the Central Bohemian Pluton. In:
Nagy, M. Ed.: Proc. 20th Geophysical Symposium, 123–134. – OMKDK-Technoinform, Budapest.
TRUBAČ, J. – ŽÁK, J. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – JANOUŠEK, V. (2009): Magnetic fabric of the Říčany
granite, Bohemian Massif: A record of helicoidal magmatic flow? – Volcan. Geotherm. Res. 181, 25–34.
79
TRZEBSKI, R. – BEHR, H. J. – CONRAD, W (1997): Subsurface distribution and tectonic setting of the
late-Variscan granites in the northwestern Bohemian Massif. – Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rdsch.) 86, Suppl.
S64–S78.
TUTTLE, O. F. – BOWEN. L. N. (1958): Origin of granite in the light of experimental studies in the system
NaAlSi3O8-KAl Si3O8-SiO2-H2O. – Memoir (Geol. Soc. Amer.) 74.
ULRYCH, J. – FEDIUK, F. – LANG, M. – MARTINEC, P. (2004): Palaeozoic volcanics of the Czech part
of the Intra-Sudetic Basin, Bohemian Massif: petrological and geochemical characteristics. – Chem. Erde
63, 329–348.
ULRYCH, J. – PEŠEK, J. – ŠTĚPÁNKOVÁ-SVOBODOVÁ, J. – BOSÁK, P. – LLOYD, F. E. – VON
SECKENDORFF, V. – LANG, M. – NOVÁK, J. K. (2006): Permo-Carboniferous volcanism in late
Variscan continental basins of the Bohemian Massif (Czech Republic): geochemical characteristic. –
Chem. d. Erde, Geochemistry 66, 37–56.
ULRYCH, J. – ŠTĚPÁNKOVÁ, J. – NOVÁK, J. K. – PIVEC, E. – PROUZA, V. (2003): Volcanic activity
in Late Variscan basins of northern Bohemia: petrological and geochemical constraints. – Slovak Geol.
Mag. 33, 219–235.
VACEK, J. et al. (1984): Přehledné prognózní ocenění rudonosnosti Českého masívu. – MS Czech Geol.
Survey, Prague.
VACHTL, J. – KNOTEK, M. (1979): Magmatity křižanovické štoly (Železné hory). – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol.
33, 123–145.
VAŇKOVÁ, V. – BARTOŠEK, J. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. – MATOLÍN, M. (1979): Radioactivity and heat
production of rocks from the Bohemian Massif and the West Carpathians. In: Geodynamic Investigations
in Czechoslovakia, 257–263. – Veda, Bratislava.
VEJNAR, Z. (1973): Trace elements in rocks of the Poběžovice basic pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 18, 75–
79. (English summary)
VEJNAR, Z. (1974): Trace elements in rocks of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 49,
29–34.
VEJNAR, Z (1980): Contact metamorphism associated with the Poběžovice basic massif, South-West
Bohemia. – Věst. Ústř. Úst. geol. 55, 321–330.
VEJNAR, Z. (1990): The contact aureole around the Kdyně pluton in SW Bohemia. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol.
45, 9–35. (English summary)
VEJNAR, Z. – ŽEŽULKOVÁ, V. – TOMAS, J. (1975): Granitoids from the water-supply gallery of the
Želivka water-work, Central Bohemian Pluton. – J. Geol. Sci., Geol. 27, 31–54. (In Czech)
VERNER, K. – ŽÁK, J. – HROUDA, F. – HOLUB, F. V. (2006): Magma emplacement during exhumation
of the lower- to mid-crustal orogenic root: The Jihlava syenitoid pluton, Moldanubian Unit, Bohemian
Massif. – J. Struct. Geol. 28, 1553–1567.
VERNER, K. – ŽÁK, J. – NAHODILOVÁ, R. – HOLUB, F. V. (2006): Magmatic fabric and emplacement
of the cone-sheet-bearing Knížecí Stolec durbachitic pluton (Moldanubian Unit, Bohemian Massif):
implication for mid-crustal reworking of granulitic lower crust in the Central European Variscides. – Int.
J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rdsch.) 97, 19–33.
VIGNERESSE, J. L. (1988): Forme et volumes des plutons granitiques. – Bull. Soc. Geol. France. 8, 4, 6,
897–906.
VIGNERESSE, J. L. (1995a): Control of granite emplacement by regional deformation. – Tectonophysics
249, 173–186.
VIGNERESSE, J. L. (1995b): Crustal regime of deformation and ascent of granitic magma.–
Tectonophysics 249, 187–202.
VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. (1975): The geochemistry of the plutonic rocks of the Central Bohemian Pluton in the
Příbram area. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 3, 115–137.
VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. (1976): Development of dyke rocks in the Příbram area. – Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 4,
377–402.
VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. (1982): Geochemie hornin a otázka možných zdrojů hydrotermální mineralizace v
příbramské rudní oblasti. – Sbor. geol. Věd, ložisk. Geol. Mineral. 24, 49–99.
VLAŠÍMSKÝ, P. – LEDVINKOVÁ, V. – PALIVCOVÁ, M. – WALDHAUSROVÁ, J. (1992): Relict
stratigraphy and the origin of the Central Bohemian Pluton. – Čas. Mineral. Geol. 37, 31–44. (English
summary)
80
VRÁNA, S. – ŠTĚDRÁ, V. Eds (1997): Geological model of western Bohemia related to the KTB borehole
in Germany. – Sbor. geol. Věd, Geol. 47, 5–240.
WATZNAUER, A. (1935): Die Geologie des Bezirkes Gablonz. – Heimatkunde des Bezirkes Gablonz. Neue
Ausgabe. – 119 pp. Gablonz-Tannwalder Lehrerverein.
WATZNAUER, A. (1954): Die erzgebirgischen Granitintrusionen. – Geologie 3, 688–706.
WEBSTER’s II New Riverside University Desk Dictionary (1995) – 512 pp. Hougton Mifflin Co. Boston.
WEDEPOHL, K. H. (1991): Chemical composition and fractionation of the continental crust. – Geol. Rdsch.
80, 207–223.
WENDT, J. I. – KRÖNER, A. – FIALA, J. – TODT, W. (1993): Evidence from zircon dating for existence
of approximately 2.1 Ga old crystalline basement in southern Bohemia, Czech Republic. – Geol. Rdsch.
82, 42
WHITE, A. J. R. – CHAPPELL, B. W. (1987): Ultrametamorphism and granitoid genesis. – Tectonophysics
43, 7–22.
WIEBE, R. A. – COLLINS, W. J. (1998): Depositional features and stratigraphic sections in granitic plutons:
implications for the emplacement and crystallization of granitic magma. – J. Struct. Geol. 20, 1273–1289.
WIEGAND, B. (1997): Isotopengeologische und geochemische Untersuchungen zur prävariszischen
magmatischen und sedimentären Entwicklung im saxothuringisch-moldanubischen Übergangbereich
(Grenzgebiet BRD/CR). – Geotekt. Forsch. 88, 1–177.
WILSON, M. (1989): Igneous petrogenesis. – 486 pp. Unwin, London.
WISZNIEWSKA, J. – KRZEMIŃSKA, E. – MAZUR, S. – GAWĘDA, A. – KOZŁOWSKI, A. (2007):
Forword – brief outline of geology of Poland. In: Kozlowski, A. – Wiszniewska, J. Eds: Granitoids in
Poland. – Arch. Mineral. 1, 5–7.
WÖRNER, G. – HENK, A. (2000): Post collisional granite generation and HAT-LP metamorphism by
radiogenic heating: the Variscan South Bohemian batholith. – J. Geol. Soc. (Bath) 157, 577–587.
YIN, A. (2004): Gneiss domes and gneiss dome systems. In: Whitney, D. L. – Teyssier, Ch. – Siddoway, S.
Eds: Gneiss Domes in Orogeny, 1–14. – Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pap. 380, 393 pp.
ZACHOVALOVÁ, K. – LEICHMANN, J. – ŠVANCARA, J. (2002): Žulová Batholith: a post-orogenic,
fractionated ilmenite-allanite I-type granite. – J. Czech Geol. Soc. 47, 35–44.
ZELAZNIEWICZ, A. – BANKWITZ, P. (1995): Cadomian basement of the Palaeozoikum platform in
central Europe. – Stud. geophys. geod. 39, 302–308.
ZIKMUND, J. (1983): Relict granites and the genesis of the Blaník type orthogneisses (Bohemian Massif). –
Čas. Mineral. Geol. 28, 81–87. (In Czech)
ZOUBEK, V. (1964): The Variscan granitoid magmatism. Guide des excursions dans le noyau du Massif de
la Boheme 1964, 53–56. – Čs. akad. věd. Praha.
ZOUBEK, V. (1988): Precambrian in the Bohemian Massif. In: Zoubek, V. – Cogné, J. – Kozhoukharov, D.
– Kräutner, H.-G. Eds: Precambrian in younger fold belts. European Variscides, the Carpathians and
Balkans, 69–74. – Wiley.
ZULAUF, G. (2001): Structural style, deformation mechanism and paleostress along an exposed crustal
section: constraints on the rheology of quartzfeldspathic rocks at supra- and infrastructural levels (TepláBarrandian unit, Bohemian Massif). – Tectonophysics 332, 211–237.
ZULAUF, G. – AHRENDT, H. – DÖRR, W. – FIALA, J. – VEJNAR, Z. – WEMMER, K. (1995): Der
Westrand des Teplá-Barrandiums: Cadomisches basement variszisch überprägt. In: Geologisches
Untersuchungen im Umfeld der Kontinentalen Tiefbohrung. – Bayer. Geol. Landesamt. München.
ZULAUF, G. – BUES, C. – DÖRR, W. – VEJNAR, Z. (2002): 10 km Minimum throw along the West
Bohemian shear zone: Evidence for dramatic crustal thickening and high topography in the Bohemian
Massif (European Variscides). – Int. J. Earth Sci. 91, 850–864.
ZULAUF, G. – DÖRR, W. – FIALA, J. – VEJNAR, Z. (1997): Late Cadomian crustal tilting and Cambrian
transtension in the Teplá-Barrandian unit (Bohemian Massif, Central European Variscides). – Geol.
Rdsch. 86, 571–584.
ZULAUF, M. – MAIER, M. – STÖCKHERT, B. (1997): Depth of intrusion and thermal modelling of the
Falkenberg granite (Oberpfalz, Germany). – Geol. Rdsch. 86, S87–S92.
ŽÁK, J. – HOLUB, F. V. – KACHLÍK, V. (2006): Magmatic stoping as an important emplacement
mechanism of Variscan plutons: evidence from roof pendants in the Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex
(Bohemian Massif). – Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rdsch.) 95, 771–789.
81
ŽÁK, J. – HOLUB, F. V. – VERNER, K. (2005): Tectonic evolution of a continental magmatic arc from
transpression in the upper crust to exhumation of mid-crustal orogenic root recorded by episodically
emplaced plutons: the Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex (Bohemian Massif). – Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol.
Rdsch.) 94, 385–400.
ŽÁK, J. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. (2007): Magmatic structures in the Krkonoše-Jizera Plutonic Complex:
evidence for localized multiphase flow and small-scale thermal-mechanical instabilities in a granitic
magma chamber. – J. volcanol. geotherm. Res. 164, 254–267.
ŽÁK, J. – SCHULMANN, K. – HROUDA, F. (2005): Multiple magmatic fabrics in the Sázava pluton
(Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic): a result of superposition of wrench-dominated regional
transpression on final emplacement. – J. Struct. Geol. 27, 805–822.
ŽÁK, J. – VERNER, K. – KLOMÍNSKÝ, J. – CHLUPÁČOVÁ, M. (2008): “Granite tectonics“ revisited:
insights from comparison of K-feldspar shape-fabric, anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) and
brittle fractures in the Jizera granite, Bohemian Massif. – Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rdsch).
ŽÁK, J. – VYHNÁLEK, B. – KABELE, P. (2006): Is there a relationship between magmatic fabrics and
brittle fractures in plutons? A view based on structural analysis, anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility and
thermo-mechanical modeling of the Tanvald pluton (Bohemian Massif). – Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 157,
286–310.
82
Plate 1–6
(photos of selected plutonic rocks and orthogneisses)
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Atlas of plutonic rocks and orthogneisses
in the Bohemian Massif
Introduction
J. Klomínský, T. Jarchovský, G. S. Rajpoot
Published by the Czech Geological Survey
Prague 2010
First edition
Printed in the Czech Republic
03/9 446-412-10
ISBN 978-80-7075-751-2
Správa úložišť radioaktivních odpadů
Dlážděná 6, 110 00 Praha 1
Tel.: 221 421 511
E-mail: [email protected]
www.surao.cz