(1)

Závada, P., Schulmann, K., Racek, M., Hasalová, P., Jeřábek, P., Weinberg, R.F.,

Štípská, P., and Roberts, A., 2017, Role of strain localization and melt flow on

exhumation of deeply subducted continental crust: Lithosphere,

https://doi.org/10.1130/L666.1.

GSA Data Repository Item 2017403

Data Repository File (Role of strain localization and melt flow on exhumation of deeply

subducted continental crust)

This data repository file presents the additional information about the methodology

and provides extra datasets associated with the manuscript. The first section, the “Image

analysis of melt topology”, explains in detail the image analysis procedure (segmentation) of

the cathodoluminescence image mosaics (Fig. DR1). The second section, “Thermodynamic

modeling of PT equilibria”, includes the details of the phase equilibria modeling for the

pressure and temperature estimations.

“Additional datasets” shows seven phase maps and details of the microstructures in

hand line-drawings alongside the cathodoluminescence images that are also presented as a

shorter version in the Fig.8 of the manuscript (Fig. DR2A-G and DR3A-G). Another panel

(Fig. DR4) reveals the pseudosection calculated using the thermodynamic equilibria

modeling. In addition, the isocon and volume-composition diagrams show the comparison of

the element contents between the studied anatectic samples and are presented in Fig. DR5.

Compositional data for representative mineral paragenesis that were obtained by electron

microanalysis and used later for the P-T calculations (P-T pseudosection in Fig. DR3), are

presented in Table DR1. Whole rock compositional data of the studied samples are shown in

Table DR2. Volume-composition calculations displayed in Fig. DR5, are also shown in Table

DR3.

Image analysis of melt topology

Image analysis processing was performed in order to discern the contrasting phases in

the cathodoluminescence images (CITL Mk5-2) interpreted as new phases that crystallized

from interstitial melt (e.g. Hollness and Sawyer, 2008; Hasalová et al., 2008b; 2011). The

segmentation worked well for albitic overgrowths on plagioclase grains (e.g. in plagioclase

bands, K-feldspar bands or inclusions in quartz) that have contrasting dark purple or dark blue

(2)

colors with respect to pinkish plagioclase and light blue K-feldspar in the optical

cathodoluminescence images (Fig. DR1). Post-processing including manual correction of the

automatically segmented images to obtain best estimate of the modal content of individual

ized in the interstices.

In the first step, a set of cathodoluminescence images (~90-150 pcs) were stitched

together using a software “kolor auto pano GIGA” (www.kolor.com) that included automatic

blending of the sutures between the stitched images and exposure correction. Resulting

images were then subjected to image segmentation in ArcView 10.2.1 using the “Maximum

likelihood classification” method for selected color samples. Resulting classified image was

corrected by smoothing procedure (‘Boundary clean’ function in Spatial Analyst toolbox) and

transformed to a shapefile (‘Raster to Polygon’ conversion tool). Finally, resulting shapefiles

were corrected with ‘Eliminate’ tool to merge small polygons with larger ones to decrease

size of the shapefiles (typically exceeding 100 000 polygons after raster to polygon

conversion). Manual correction by merging and splitting of the individual polygons was

applied in the last step. Melt content and modal analysis from fine-grained samples (EC12-8G

– mylonite; EC12-8C2, EC12-K6 – granofelses), was carried out by manual tracing of

representative areas (at least 500 grains), since automatic segmentation method did not

correctly identify the small melt pockets. Migmatite sample EC12-3C2 was also interpreted

only by manual tracing of pseudomorphed melt pools. Shape preferred orientation of the melt

pockets was obtained by line tracing (2 node lines) of ‘melt films’ primarily in the K-feldspar

aggregates. Shapefiles (line) were then statistically analyzed in Matlab™ using the PolyLX

Matlab™ toolbox (function „prose“) (Lexa et al., 2005).

Thermodynamic modeling of PT equilibria

In order to get constraints on the P-T conditions of coupled deformation and melt flux,

the P-T pseudosection was calculated for the representative sample of the banded orthogneiss

(sample EC12-K1), the results of the modelling were then compared with the observed

mineral assemblage and corresponding mineral chemistry, namely of muscovite and garnet

(see Table DR1 for representative analyses). The P-T pseudosection was calculated using the

software Perple_X (Connolly, 2005, version Perple_X 07) with dataset 5.5 (Holland &

Powell, 1998, November 2003 upgrade), in the system MnO–Na2O–CaO–K2O–FeO–MgO–

Al2O3–SiO2–H2O–TiO2 (MnNCKFMASHT). The following activity models were used: Mn-

bearing model for cordierite is a combination of formulations by Mahar et al. (1997) and

Holland & Powell (1998), garnet is from White et al. (2007), biotite from White et al. (2005),

(3)

silicate melt from White et al. (2007), muscovite and paragonite from Coggon & Holland

(2002), plagioclase and K-feldspar from Holland & Powell (2003). Ilmenite is considered to

be an ideal solution of Fe–Mg–Mn endmembers; albite, titanite, rutile, kyanite, sillimanite,

and quartz are considered as pure endmembers. The whole rock composition used for the

modelling was obtained by standard wet chemical methods in the Bureau Veritas laboratories

(Vancouver, Canada). Since it cannot be assumed that the studied metagranitic rocks were

metamorphosed in H2O-saturated conditions, it was necessary to estimate the H2O content

used for the calculations. This was done based on modal proportions of present H2O bearing

minerals (muscovite and biotite) and their composition, which resulted in 1.5 mol.% of H2O.

The microanalyses of the rock forming minerals were done at the Laboratory of

electron microscopy and microanalysis at the Institute of Petrology and Structural Geology

(Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic). They were acquired using

the FEG-EPMA JXA-8530F (manufactured by Jeol) under following analytical conditions:

accelerating voltage 15 kV, beam current 20 nA. Garnet was analyzed with focused beam,

feldspars and micas were analyzed with beam defocused to diameter of 5µm. The same

equipment was used for acquisition of the map of Ca distribution (Fig. DR1b), which was

acquired with 15 kV and 40 nA (step size 8 µm, dwell time 40 ms per point).

The mineral abbreviations follow the abbreviations used in the THERMOCALC (see:

http://www.metamorph.geo.uni-mainz.de/thermocalc/documentation/abbreviations/index.html),

following definitions of end-members and ratios are used for characterization of mineral

chemistry: XFe = Fetot/(Fetot + Mg), Alm = Fetot/(Fetot + Mg + Ca + Mn), Py = Mg/(Fetot + Mg

+ Ca + Mn), Grs = Ca/(Fetot + Mg + Ca + Mn), Sps = Mn/(Fetot + Mg + Ca + Mn), Ab =

Na/(Na+ Ca + K), An = Ca/(Na+ Ca + K), Or = K/(Na+ Ca + K), apfu = atoms per formula

unit. Coupled cathodoluminescence imaging and compositional mapping in selected areas

were acquired using the JXA 8530F (Jeol) at IPSG (Prague) equipped with five wavelength

dispersive spectrometers, energy dispersive spectrometer and a cathodoluminescence

spectrometer.

The chemical analyses of major and trace elements in the selected samples were

carried out in order to correlate the element content between the different types of anatectic

rocks for possible melt flux related element transfer. The samples were crushed with a jaw

crusher and pulverized in an agate mill in the Laboratories of the Czech Geological Survey

(Prague, Czech Republic). Pulverized and homogenized samples were analyzed in the Bureau

Veritas Mineral Laboratories (Vancouver, Canada). The total whole rock characterization

(code LF202, see http://acmelab.com/pdfs/FeeSchedule-2016.pdf) was done using the lithium

(4)

borate fusion ICP-ES (major and minor elements, code LF302) the lithium borate fusion ICP-

MS (trace elements, code LF100), and Aqua Regia ICP-ES/MS (trace elements, code AQ200)

methods.

Fig. DR1. Cathodoluminescence images (A,C), compositional map (B) and image

segmentation result of image shown in (D) for a migmatite sample 3A2 (Fig. DR2b). EPMA

image (A) and corresponding compositional map of relative calcium content (B) contain an

overlay of hatched polygons with interpreted topology of pools interpreted as crystallized

interstitial melt (also indicated with white fields on grey background in inset of (B)). An

optical cathodoluminescence image (C) of the same area was used for the image

segmentation resulting in a phase map (D) including post-processing in ArcGIS 10.2.1. Note

an inset in (B) showing schematically the melt topology with white patches. Mineral

abbreviations: pl—plagioclase; q—quartz; ksp—potassium feldspar, g—garnet.

(5)

(6)

Fig. DR2. Optical cathodoluminscence (CITL Mk5) images of selected representative

microstructures and line-drawings showing distribution of individual phases and interpreted

melt topology (on the right side of each image). Line-drawings and related images

(7)

correspond to small insets in Fig.8 of the manuscript. Note that the prefix "EC12-" is not

included in the sample labels. Note relatively thick interstitial grains in K-feldspar bands (a)

and corroded shape of garnet showing embayments and holes, where melt precipitated as

quartz, K-feldspar and plagioclase (banded orthogneiss, sample EC12-A); (b) anatectic

orthogneiss (sample EC12-3A2) with corroded quartz band containing numerous inclusions

of feldspars that are also interpreted as precipitates from interstitial melt; (c) large pools in

granular framework of a metatexite sample (sample EC12-3C2), note the irregular thick

overgrowths of albite (dark purple color) in an elongate pool in the middle part of the image.

Banded mylonite sample EC-8G shows K-feldspar band with numerous albite (dark blue and

pinkish colors in CITL images on left) and quartz (black) interstitial grains (d); granofels

sample with small pools and transgranular cracks, indicated by white triangles (e); banded

orthogneisses EC12-K1, where melt topology was influenced by fold axial crenulation

cleavage (f) and shows pockets oriented primarily at high angles to the layer (parallel to fold

axial cleavage); granofels sample EC12-K6 showing only isolated melt pockets on boundaries

of feldspar grains that are oriented obliquely to the shape preferred orientation of the grains.

Scalebars are 1 mm long.

(8)

Fig. DR3. Cathodoluminiscence images (EPMA) of the migmatite and a granofels are shown

in (a) and (b), respectively. Same images with interpreted topology of pseudomorphs after

melt are highlighted by hatched fields in (c) and (d). Estimated melt volumes (ϕ) are

indicated. Schematic map of interpreted melt topology as white fields on grey background is

shown also in inset (c, d). Mineral abbreviations: pl—plagioclase; q—quartz; ksp—potassium

feldspar, bi—biotite, mu—muscovite, g—garnet.

Additional datasets

P-T conditions and maximum melt volume produced in situ

In order to estimate the pressure-temperature (P-T) conditions of the deformation and

pervasive melt flux and estimate the potential of the banded orthogneisses to produce melt, a

PT pseudosection was calculated (Fig. DR4) for a sample EC12-K1/K1 (Fig. DR2f, sample

shown in Fig. 7C (manuscript); composition (K1) shown in Table DR2). The rock-forming

minerals K-feldspar, plagioclase, quartz, biotite, muscovite and garnet are accompanied by

rutile, occasionally rimmed by ilmenite. Accessory phases are represented by apatite, zircon

(9)

and monazite. Garnet forms grains up to 0.5 mm in diameter and shows compositional zoning

represented by increase of almandine and spessartine and decrease of pyrope and grossular

components from core to rim (Alm72→79; Py11→8; Grs16→11; Sps2→3; XFe = 87→91). Muscovite

composition varies mainly with respect to Si (3.16−3.28 apfu) and Ti contents (0.08−0.11

apfu). Biotite has XFe ratio 0.71 and Ti content of 0.18 apfu, K-feldspar has composition of

Or86−90, Ab10−14 and An0, while plagioclase corresponds to oligoclase (Ab86−90, An10−13, Or1)

and has albite-rich rims in places (Ab96, An3, Or1).

The P-T conditions derived from intersection of the compositional isopleths

corresponding to the garnet core composition (Alm72; Py11; Grs16; Sps2; XFe = 87) indicate c.

720 °C and 13 kbar, in the stability field of g+bi+mu+pl+kfs+q+ru+liq, consistent with the

observed mineral assemblage. The isopleth of maximum Si content in muscovite (3.28 apfu)

is located in slightly higher pressure (c. 14 kbar). The composition of the garnet rim points to

lower P-T conditions (680 °C and 10 kbar), which also corresponds to minimum Si content in

muscovite (3.16 apfu) and being located right at the low-temperature boundary of the

g+bi+mu+pl+kfs+q+ilm+liq field, representing the solidus line. In result, the garnet core

composition is supposed to represent the peak P-T conditions 720°C and 13−14 kbar

(corresponding to granulite-eclogite facies transition) recorded by the banded orthogneiss

sample, while the garnet rims, low-Si muscovite and ilmenite are connected presumably with

later retrograde re-equilibration in upper amphibolite facies (680 °C and 10 kbar) during

exhumation of the ECC.

Since the textural characteristics of the observed metagranitic rocks indicate that they

are connected with partial melting (Fig. 8, manuscript), it is important to estimate what

volume of melt can be generated in such granitic rock at the calculated P-T conditions. The

core composition of garnet corresponds to conditions close to the low-T limit of the

g+bi+mu+pl+ksp+q+ru+liq, where melt forms only ~1 vol.% of the rock. Even if we were to

assume that garnet composition was partially re-equilibrated during retrogression and that the

temperature is slightly underestimated, the study of large number of samples shows that they

(except for the granulites) probably never left the stability field of muscovite. This constrains

the upper temperature to c. 800 °C (at 13 kbar) and the maximum melt content, to less than c.

6 vol. %. We therefore infer that most of the interstitial melt in these rocks must have come

from external sources.

(10)

Fig. DR4. P-T pseudosection calculated by thermodynamic equilibria modeling for the

layered orthogneiss sample EC12-K1/K1 (see Fig. 7d in the manuscript, Fig. DR2F, and

Table DR2 for hand specimen, microstructure overview and composition, respectively).

(11)

(Figure continues on next page)

(12)

Fig. DR5. Isocon diagrams of Grant (1986) and diagrams of Potdevin (Potdevin and

Marquer, 1987) displaying the loss-gain relationships for a range of elements for five pairs of

selected samples. The volume-composition relationships displayed in the diagrams of

Potdevin (diagrams on the right side) were calculated using a freeware Microsoft Excel

macro created by López-Moro (2012). See the Table DR2 and Table DR3 for the whole rock

composition data and the results of these calculations, respectively. The Fv volume factor in

the diagrams of Potdevin is given by the volume ratio between the transformed rock and the

initial one. The difference in relative abundance of specific element (i) is expressed by:

∆𝑚𝑖 = 𝐹𝑣 . (𝜌𝑎

𝜌0) 𝐶𝑎

𝑖 − 𝐶0𝑖 mi is the relative gain or loss of mass, and 𝐶0

𝑖 and 𝐶𝑎𝑖 are the

initial and final concentrations and 0 and a the densities of these rocks, respectively. Note,

that the relative gain or loss of mass is normalized by the initial mass 𝑚0𝑖 in the volume-

composition diagrams. Shaded area corresponds to an artificial fluctuation range, for which

the elements are considered as relatively immobile. Note, that while isocon diagrams (Grant,

(13)

1986) on the left display the comparison of only major elements, the composition-volume

diagrams on the right (Diagrams of Potdevin; Gresens, 1967; Potdevin and Marquer, 1987)

show the selected 32 major and minor elements, including the REE (Rare Earth Elements).

For locations of the selected samples see Figs. 5,6,7 (manuscript).

g - rim g - rim g - core g - core mu mu mu bi ksp pl pl-rim

Na2O 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.25 0.33 0.20 1.15 10.44 11.70

MgO 2.07 2.13 2.81 2.80 2.22 2.18 1.71 5.57 0.00 0.00 0.00

Al2O3 20.75 20.87 21.07 21.02 28.70 28.31 29.91 15.90 18.45 21.77 20.19

SiO2 37.08 37.05 37.62 37.50 48.13 48.13 46.27 36.48 65.71 66.46 69.21

K2O 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.94 10.79 10.85 9.51 15.12 0.41 0.17

CaO 3.80 3.77 5.72 5.55 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.36 0.57

TiO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 1.73 1.68 2.91 0.00 0.00 0.00

MnO 1.10 1.11 0.78 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00

FeO 35.34 34.77 32.22 32.63 2.89 2.72 3.13 24.51 0.01 0.03 0.01

BaO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.07 0.00 0.00

F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.05 0.69 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 100.14 99.70 100.21 100.17 96.01 95.16 94.56 96.52 100.51 101.48 101.85

Na 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.10 0.88 0.97

Mg 0.25 0.26 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00

Al 1.98 1.99 1.98 1.98 2.29 2.27 2.42 1.46 0.99 1.11 1.02

Si 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.26 3.28 3.17 2.84 3.01 2.88 2.97

K 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.02 0.01

Ca 0.33 0.33 0.49 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.03

Ti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mn 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fe 2.39 2.35 2.15 2.18 0.16 0.16 0.18 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ba 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00

F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

XFe 0.91 0.90 0.87 0.87 0.42 0.41 0.51 0.71

Alm 0.79 0.78 0.71 0.72

Py 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.11

Grs 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.16

Sps 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01

Ab 0.10 0.87 0.96

An 0.00 0.11 0.03

Or 0.89 0.02 0.01

Table DR1. Representative compositional data used for thermodynamic modeling of

metamorphic equilibrium for the sample K1. Corresponding P-T pseudosection is presented

in Fig. DR4.

(14)

Lithology

Banded

Orthog.

Banded

Orthog.

Banded

Orthog. Granofels Granofels Migmatite

S1

leucos. Leucosomes

Leucos.

average Sample EC27 K1 2B K2 2H EC86 2E

slab E,

S1

slab E,

S2

slab D,

S1

slab D,

S2

SiO2 68.86 70.95 74.37 72.41 73.90 72.88 74.28 71.73 71.45 69.74 71.50 71.11

TiO2 0.48 0.38 0.27 0.31 0.51 0.26 0.12 0.20 0.17 0.10 0.19 0.17

Al2O3 16.02 14.52 13.24 14.00 12.62 13.98 13.31 14.72 15.08 16.01 14.97 15.20

Fe2O3 3.18 2.97 2.26 2.46 3.07 2.22 1.60 2.23 2.09 1.34 1.92 1.90

MnO 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02

MgO 0.9 0.63 0.41 0.52 0.90 0.45 0.18 0.29 0.25 0.17 0.29 0.25

CaO 1.3 1.10 0.76 1.02 1.01 0.72 0.60 0.97 1.06 0.73 0.90 0.92

Na2O 3.01 2.61 2.41 2.56 3.10 2.74 1.94 3.04 3.41 2.99 3.03 3.12

K2O 5.03 5.46 5.17 5.55 3.49 5.35 6.94 6.28 6.08 8.61 6.74 6.93

P2O5 0.271 0.25 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.25 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.11

As 10.30 1.50 1.40 1.90 1.70 13.00 1.10 2.20 1.50 2.00 2.60 2.08

Cs 10.57 12.90 6.40 8.60 7.50 9.50 6.50 4.00 4.40 8.40 6.80 5.90

Rb 201.84 258.10 242.30 246.00 199.10 305.50 277.60 239.00 229.70 320.90 267.50 264.28

Ba 725.19 411.00 312.00 443.00 237.00 345.00 229.00 471.00 405.00 714.00 543.00 533.25

Sr 107.5 67.00 57.30 81.30 64.10 59.40 54.60 89.60 94.70 110.80 103.60 99.68

Pb 33.21 1.40 1.30 1.10 1.70 18.90 3.80 13.70 7.60 17.40 11.10 12.45

Ni 6.87 5.10 2.60 4.00 11.00 7.70 1.20 3.90 1.80 4.90 3.20 3.45

V 39.47 28.00 25.00 24.00 42.00 21.00 10.00 15.00 11.00 8.00 12.00 11.50

Ga 20.78 19.50 16.30 15.80 16.50 18.20 14.70 16.50 16.20 15.50 16.10 16.08

Zn 48.65 32.00 31.00 27.00 50.00 82.00 8.00 13.00 17.00 12.00 24.00 16.50

U 4.41 2.70 2.00 2.10 1.90 4.90 1.60 1.60 1.70 1.20 2.50 1.75

Zr 83.82 181.10 129.00 147.30 1.90 121.00 36.60 101.70 93.80 40.00 84.10 79.90

Hf 2.60 4.80 4.50 4.00 3.80 3.70 1.40 3.00 2.90 1.00 2.60 2.38

Y 56.51 49.50 40.20 46.80 28.60 37.00 29.90 36.00 29.90 14.00 25.50 26.35

Nb 46.18 12.10 9.10 9.60 8.50 7.90 6.10 11.50 25.80 3.60 29.70 17.65

Ta 1.04 1.20 0.70 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.60 1.30 12.50 0.60 14.20 7.15

Th 18.65 17.50 12.90 11.00 9.90 13.40 2.00 6.90 5.60 6.90 24.30 10.93

La 33.83 24.90 19.20 22.60 20.50 16.50 11.50 15.40 15.00 14.40 21.70 16.63

Ce 79.16 53.40 41.60 49.70 45.00 37.10 26.70 32.60 29.00 28.00 46.40 34.00

Pr 9.24 5.99 4.59 5.72 4.97 4.31 3.23 3.50 3.17 2.88 4.87 3.61

Nd 33.83 23.70 17.70 20.70 18.80 17.30 12.60 11.60 11.50 10.70 18.20 13.00

Sm 7.85 4.54 3.58 4.84 4.05 3.95 3.06 2.69 2.65 2.35 3.22 2.73

Eu 0.96 0.59 0.41 0.58 0.49 0.37 0.33 0.49 0.48 0.74 0.64 0.59

Gd 7.49 5.60 4.40 5.64 4.42 4.14 3.73 3.43 3.18 2.30 3.59 3.13

Tb 1.41 1.15 0.83 1.13 0.83 0.86 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.45 0.68 0.63

Dy 9.14 7.74 6.15 7.44 5.03 5.70 4.88 5.00 4.64 2.38 4.11 4.03

Ho 2.09 1.55 1.26 1.53 1.05 1.26 0.99 1.12 1.06 0.48 0.90 0.89

Er 5.86 5.30 4.10 4.78 2.90 3.30 3.00 3.38 3.23 1.25 2.48 2.59

Tm 0.81 0.76 0.60 0.74 0.43 0.54 0.45 0.50 0.47 0.18 0.34 0.37

Yb 5.05 5.12 3.87 4.40 2.84 3.45 3.21 3.11 2.74 1.18 2.49 2.38

Lu 0.7 0.67 0.53 0.63 0.34 0.50 0.46 0.44 0.39 0.20 0.31 0.34

LOI 1.11 1.00 0.80 0.80 1.10 1.00 0.70 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20

Table DR2. Whole rock compositional data for selected samples and leucosomes oriented

parallel to S1 and S2 fabrics, respectively (see slab D, E, Fig. 7).

(15)

Sample

pair K1/K2 2B/2E 2B/2H K1-EC86

K1/avg.

leucosomes

Gain/Loss Gain/Loss Gain/Loss Gain/Loss Gain/Loss

rel. to

Ci0

wt.% or

ppm

rel. to

Ci0

wt.% or

ppm

rel. to

Ci0

wt.% or

ppm

rel. to

Ci0

wt.% or

ppm

rel. to

Ci0

wt.% or

ppm

ΔCi/C

i0 ΔC

i ΔC

i/C

i0 ΔC

i ΔC

i/C

i0 ΔC

i ΔC

i/C

i0 ΔC

i ΔC

i/C

i0 ΔC

i

SiO2 0.03 1.81 0.00 0.19 0.01 0.81 0.03 1.98 0.02 1.12

TiO2 -0.18 -0.07 -0.55 -0.15 0.92 0.25 -0.32 -0.12 -0.56 -0.21

Al2O3 -0.03 -0.45 0.01 0.12 -0.03 -0.40 -0.04 -0.53 0.06 0.88

Fe2O3 -0.17 -0.50 -0.29 -0.65 0.38 0.86 -0.25 -0.75 -0.35 -1.05

MnO -0.25 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.50 0.02 -0.43 -0.02

MgO -0.17 -0.11 -0.56 -0.23 1.23 0.51 -0.29 -0.18 -0.60 -0.38

CaO -0.07 -0.08 -0.21 -0.16 0.35 0.27 -0.34 -0.38 -0.16 -0.17

Na2O -0.01 -0.04 -0.19 -0.46 0.31 0.74 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.55

K2O 0.02 0.12 0.35 1.80 -0.31 -1.62 -0.02 -0.11 0.29 1.56

P2O5 -0.12 -0.03 0.19 0.04 0.07 0.01 -0.16 -0.04 -0.55 -0.14

As 0.27 0.41 -0.21 -0.30 0.24 0.33 7.67 11.51 0.40 0.60

Cs -0.33 -4.26 0.02 0.12 0.19 1.23 -0.26 -3.39 -0.54 -6.92

Rb -0.04 -10.90 0.15 36.35 -0.16 -39.75 0.18 47.63 0.04 9.75

Ba 0.08 34.17 -0.26 -82.14 -0.23 -70.89 -0.16 -65.74 0.32 129.47

Sr 0.22 14.70 -0.04 -2.49 0.14 7.91 -0.11 -7.56 0.51 34.02

Pb -0.21 -0.29 1.93 2.51 0.33 0.43 12.51 17.51 8.01 11.22

Ni -0.21 -1.08 -0.54 -1.40 3.30 8.59 0.51 2.61 -0.31 -1.60

V -0.14 -3.88 -0.60 -14.96 0.71 17.73 -0.25 -6.98 -0.58 -16.34

Ga -0.19 -3.62 -0.09 -1.54 0.03 0.49 -0.07 -1.29 -0.16 -3.21

Zn -0.15 -4.87 -0.74 -22.97 0.64 19.87 1.56 50.06 -0.48 -15.28

U -0.22 -0.59 -0.20 -0.39 -0.03 -0.07 0.82 2.20 -0.34 -0.93

Zr -0.18 -33.08 -0.72 -92.26 -0.99 -127.07 -0.33 -60.01 -0.55 -100.12

Hf -0.16 -0.78 -0.69 -3.09 -0.14 -0.63 -0.23 -1.10 -0.50 -2.39

Y -0.05 -2.47 -0.25 -10.19 -0.28 -11.10 -0.25 -12.47 -0.46 -22.79

Nb -0.20 -2.45 -0.33 -2.98 -0.05 -0.45 -0.35 -4.19 0.48 5.79

Ta -0.16 -0.20 -0.14 -0.10 -0.27 -0.19 -0.58 -0.70 5.04 6.05

Th -0.37 -6.45 -0.84 -10.89 -0.22 -2.83 -0.23 -4.09 -0.37 -6.43

La -0.09 -2.19 -0.40 -7.66 0.09 1.66 -0.34 -8.39 -0.32 -8.05

Ce -0.06 -3.46 -0.36 -14.80 0.10 4.18 -0.30 -16.27 -0.35 -18.94

Pr -0.04 -0.24 -0.29 -1.35 0.10 0.47 -0.28 -1.68 -0.39 -2.34

Nd -0.12 -2.90 -0.29 -5.05 0.08 1.43 -0.27 -6.39 -0.44 -10.52

Sm 0.07 0.32 -0.14 -0.51 0.15 0.54 -0.13 -0.59 -0.39 -1.78

Eu -0.01 -0.01 -0.19 -0.08 0.22 0.09 -0.37 -0.22 0.01 0.01

Gd 0.01 0.07 -0.15 -0.66 0.02 0.10 -0.26 -1.46 -0.43 -2.43

Tb -0.01 -0.01 -0.09 -0.08 0.02 0.01 -0.25 -0.29 -0.44 -0.51

Dy -0.03 -0.26 -0.20 -1.25 -0.17 -1.03 -0.26 -2.04 -0.47 -3.65

Ho -0.01 -0.01 -0.21 -0.27 -0.15 -0.19 -0.19 -0.29 -0.42 -0.65

Er -0.09 -0.50 -0.27 -1.09 -0.28 -1.15 -0.38 -2.00 -0.51 -2.68

Tm -0.02 -0.02 -0.25 -0.15 -0.27 -0.16 -0.29 -0.22 -0.50 -0.38

Yb -0.14 -0.70 -0.17 -0.65 -0.25 -0.98 -0.33 -1.67 -0.53 -2.71

Lu -0.06 -0.04 -0.13 -0.07 -0.35 -0.18 -0.25 -0.17 -0.49 -0.33

LOI -0.20 -0.20 -0.12 -0.10 0.40 0.32 0.00 0.00 -0.80 -0.80

(16)

Table DR3. Results of volume-composition data calculations, where ∆𝐶𝑖is the difference

between the original and altered (e.g. modified by reactive melt flow) rock, 𝐶0𝑖 represents the

initial concentration of the element i in the unaltered rock. Note that the positive and negative

values represent the gain and loss, respectively, of each element in the altered rock in

contrast to the unaltered rock.

References:

Coggon, R., and Holland, T.J.B., 2002, Mixing properties of phengitic micas and revised

garnet-phengite thermobarometers: Journal of Metamorphic Geology, v. 20, no. 7, p. 683–

696, doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1314.2002.00395.x.

Grant, J.A., 1986, The Isocon Diagram - A Simple Solution to Gresens Equation for

Metasomatic Alteration: Economic Geology, v. 81, no. 8, p. 1976–1982.

Gresens, R., 1967, Composition-volume relationships of metasomatism: Chemical Geology,

v. 2, no. C, p. 47–65.

Hasalová, P., Schulmann, K., Lexa, O., Štípská, P., Hrouda, F., Ulrich, S., Haloda, J., and

Týcova, P., 2008a, Origin of migmatites by deformation-enhanced melt infiltration of

orthogneiss: a new model based on quantitative microstructural analysis: Journal of

Metamorphic Geology, v. 26, no. 1, p. 29–53, doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1314.2007.00743.x.

Hasalová, P., Weinberg, R.F., and Macrae, C., 2011, Microstructural evidence for magma

confluence and reusage of magma pathways: implications for magma hybridization,

Karakoram Shear Zone in NW India: Journal of Metamorphic Geology, v. 29, no. 8, p. 875–

900, doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1314.2011.00945.x.

Holland, T.J.B., and Powell, R., 1998, An internally consistent thermodynamic data set for

phases of petrological interest: Journal of Metamorphic Geology, v. 16, no. 3, p. 309–343,

doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1314.1998.00140.x.

Holness, M.B., and Sawyer, E.W., 2008, On the pseudomorphing of melt-filled pores during

the crystallization of migmatites: Journal of Petrology, v. 49, no. 7, p. 1343–1363, doi:

10.1093/petrology/egn028.

Lexa, O., Štípská, P., Schulmann, K., Baratoux, L., and Kröner, A., 2005, Contrasting textural

record of two distinct metamorphic events of similar P-T conditions and different durations:

Journal Of Metamorphic Geology, v. 23, no. 8, p. 649–666.

Lopez-Moro, F.J., 2012, EASYGRESGRANT-A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to quantify

volume changes and to perform mass-balance modeling in metasomatic systems: Computers

& Geosciences, v. 39, p. 191–196, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2011.07.014.

(17)

Mahar, E.M., Baker, J.M., Powell, R., Holland, T.J.B., and Howell, N., 1997, The effect of

mn on mineral stability in metapelites: Journal of Metamorphic Geology, v. 15, no. 2, p. 223–

238, doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1314.1997.00011.x.

Potdevin, J.L., and Marquer, D., 1987, Quantitative methods for the estimation of mass

transfers by fluids in deformed metamorphic rocks [Méthodes de quantification des transferts

de matiére par les fluides dans les roches métamorphiques déformées]: Geodinamica Acta,

v. 1, no. 3, p. 193–206, doi: 10.1080/09853111.1987.11105138.

White, R.W., Pomroy, N.E., and Powell, R., 2005, An in situ metatexite-diatexite transition in

upper amphibolite facies rocks from Broken Hill, Australia: Journal of Metamorphic Geology,

v. 23, no. 7, p. 579–602, doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1314.2005.00597.x.

White, R.W., Powell, R., and Holland, T.J.B., 2007, Progress relating to calculation of partial

melting equilibria for metapelites: Journal of Metamorphic Geology, v. 25, no. 5, p. 511–527,

doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1314.2007.00711.x.