Major-Element Geochemistry, Redox Systematics, and Petrogenesis of the Estonian Rapakivi Intrusions, Finnish Wiborg Batholith, and Onas intrusion: A Revised Analysis of Fennoscandian AMCG Magmatism
Abstract. Rapakivi granitoids are a distinctive expression of Proterozoic intracontinental magmatism and provide constraints on crust–mantle interaction, lithospheric reworking, and the thermal evolution of stabilised continental crust. In Fennoscandia, the Wiborg suite represents the earliest major rapakivi–AMCG (anorthosite–mangerite–charnockite–granite) magmatic episode, emplaced at ∼1.65–1.62 Ga following the Svecofennian orogeny and comprising the Wiborg Batholith and broadly coeval intrusions in southern Finland and Estonia. Here, we integrate 186 whole-rock analyses from this older suite, including the Wiborg Batholith and the Taebla, Ereda, Neeme, Onas, Märjamaa, Kloostri, and Naissaare granites, together with the younger Riga Batholith (∼1.59 Ga) as a temporal and geochemical comparator. Major-element and iron-speciation data, CIPW normative mineralogy, and thermobarometric proxies are used to test whether the older Fennoscandian rapakivi–AMCG suite records a common regional evolution or distinct magma-reservoir histories. The granitoids are predominantly high-K, ferroan, alkali-calcic to alkaline, and metaluminous to marginally peraluminous, but their major-element systematics define distinct intrusion- and phase-specific evolutionary trends rather than a uniform regional differentiation path. This compositional heterogeneity is also captured by centred log-ratio principal component analysis (CLR-PCA), in which the first two components account for 74.01% of the total variance. PC1 primarily contrasts relative enrichment in P₂O₅, TiO₂, and MgO with relative enrichment in SiO₂, K₂O, Na₂O, and Al₂O₃. Multiphase intrusions record internally systematic but contrasting evolutionary trajectories along these compositional gradients, including shifts towards more silicic and alkali-rich compositions and variable depletion of components associated with calcic plagioclase, Mg-bearing silicates, Fe–Ti oxides, and apatite. Hierarchical clustering similarly separates several evolved phases from their earlier counterparts, reinforcing the interpretation of phase-specific differentiation. These compositional differences are consistent with variable fractional crystallisation, locally modified by crystal accumulation, magma recharge, volatile evolution, and wall-rock assimilation. Ferroan indices and Mg# primarily record Fe–Mg fractionation, whereas Fe³⁺# reveals non-monotonic, reservoir-dependent redox evolution. The resulting discordance between major-element affinity, normative oxide proportions, and ferric-iron speciation indicates that ferroan character and whole-rock oxidation state evolved only partly in tandem. Temperature proxies indicate crystallisation over approximately 620–900 °C, while most normative pressure estimates remain below ∼5 kbar, consistent with predominantly shallow- to mid-crustal emplacement. Collectively, the results indicate that these intrusions represent related but independently evolving A-type magma reservoirs within the Fennoscandian rapakivi–AMCG system, whose contrasting compositions record local differentiation and redox histories superimposed on a shared post-orogenic tectono-magmatic framework.
The manuscript compares the chemical composition of A-type granitoids from several Estonian intrusions with that of the Wiborg (and Onas) and the Riga Batholith. The study is based on whole-rock geochemical data, major oxide concentrations, which are used to compare the chemical composition of individual intrusions and different phases identified within them.
The whole-rock geochemical data are subsequently used for statistical analyses, including principal component analysis (PCA; PC1 and PC2) and cluster analysis, with the results presented as a dendrogram illustrating the geochemical similarities among intrusions. The whole-rock chemical compositions are also used to calculate CIPW normative mineralogy and to estimate redox conditions, as well as crystallization temperatures and pressures. The study therefore encompasses a broad range of geochemical and statistical analyses, which the Author used to compare the investigated intrusions and interpret their magmatic evolution.
The title generally reflects the content of the manuscript and identifies its main topics, including major-element geochemistry, redox systematics, and petrogenesis of the investigated intrusions. The abstract generally outlines the topics addressed in the manuscript and provides an overview of what the paper aims to investigate. However, it could more clearly highlight the main findings and the scientific contribution of the study.
General comments
Detailed comments
[113[: Oblique to which structural or geological reference direction are these blocks oriented?
[150]: Please use a consistent format for reporting ages throughout the manuscript, particularly since some of the values are given to three decimal places.
[Chapter 2.3]: It would be more logical to describe the lithologies and magmatic phases first, followed by the relevant geochronological data, clearly indicating which phases or rock types were dated.
[190-191]: Please clarify whether the peripheral melanocratic granite and the central leucocratic granite correspond to Phase I and Phase II, respectively.
[196]: I cannot see the Taadikvere intrusion in Figure 1. Add reference to this figure in the text.
[254]: Why not consider using an alternative normative mineral calculation method that includes biotite and amphibole, especially that these phases are present in the rocks?
[Chapter 4.1]: Of course that the Wiborg spans the widest range. You have 81 samples from this batholith.
[325]: The TiO2 concentrations exceed 1 wt.% only in two samples.
[397]: The stronger negative An–Or correlation indicates a clearer inverse relationship between these components, but does not necessarily demonstrate greater compositional heterogeneity. Please clarify what evidence supports this interpretation.
[399]: What does ‘reorganised residual magma’ mean in this context?
[424]: Could this be r < 0.05?
[474 and Figure S2a]: There is CaO+Al2O3 in the figure, while in the text you have only CaO on X axis.
[486]: In Figure 5c samples plot more like in the alkali-calcic and calc-alkalic fields.
Figure 2. The distribution of MnO is not presented in Figure 2.
Figure 3. The same logarithmic axis ranges should be used to facilitate comparison between the different intrusions and magmatic phases.
Figure 6c: Where exactly is the boundary between the low-pressure and high-pressure fields?
Table 2. I do not think it is necessary to report temperature and pressure estimates to two decimal places. On the other hand, other parameters are once shown with two decimal places and sometimes with one decimal place.