Discrimination between wave‐ravinement surfaces and bedset boundaries in Pliocene shallow‐marine deposits,Crotone Basin,southern Italy: An integrated sedimentological,micropalaeontological and mineralogical approach          下载免费PDF全文

Massimo Zecchin  Mauro Caffau  Octavian Catuneanu  Davide Lenaz 《Sedimentology》2017,64(7):1755-1791

The lower Pliocene Belvedere Formation, cropping out in the Crotone Basin, southern Italy, exhibits a metre‐scale to decametre‐scale shallow‐marine cyclicity that shares features of both high‐frequency sequences linked to shoreline shifts and controlled by minor relative sea‐level and/or sediment supply changes, and sedimentological cycles unrelated to shoreline shifts. In order to better understand the high‐frequency sequence stratigraphic framework of this succession, an integration of sedimentological, micropalaeontological (micro‐foraminifera assemblages) and mineralogical (heavy mineral abundance) data is used. From a sedimentological/stratigraphic point of view, wave‐ravinement surfaces bounding high‐frequency sequences, and associated substrate‐controlled ichnofacies, are prominent in outcrop and document environmental and water‐depth changes, whereas bedset boundaries separating sedimentological cycles have a more subtle field appearance and are only associated with changes of environmental energy. Moreover, condensed deposits are present only above wave‐ravinement surfaces, and the high‐frequency sequences bounded by these surfaces have a thickness that is an order of magnitude greater than that of the bedsets. Micro‐foraminifera assemblages may change, and the content of heavy minerals usually increases, across wave‐ravinement surfaces, whereas both parameters do not change significantly across bedset boundaries. The abundance of heavy minerals is systematically higher, with respect to the underlying and overlying deposits, in the condensed shell beds that overlie wave‐ravinement surfaces. An integrated sedimentological, micropalaeontological and mineralogical approach represents a powerful tool to discriminate between wave‐ravinement surfaces bounding high‐frequency sequences and bedset boundaries, and in general to investigate at the intra high‐frequency sequence scale. This integrated approach is expected to be very useful in the study of potentially all shallow‐marine successions composed of small‐scale cycles, in order to delineate a detailed sequence stratigraphic framework and understand the factors that controlled the cyclicity.  相似文献   

Intra‐parasequence architecture of an interpreted asymmetrical wave‐dominated delta     

KARL CHARVIN  GARY J. HAMPSON  KERRY L. GALLAGHER  RICHARD LABOURDETTE 《Sedimentology》2010,57(3):760-785

Although modern wave‐dominated shorelines exhibit complex geomorphologies, their ancient counterparts are typically described in terms of shoreface‐shelf parasequences with a simple internal architecture. This discrepancy can lead to poor discrimination between, and incorrect identification of, different types of wave‐dominated shoreline in the stratigraphic record. Documented in this paper are the variability in facies characteristics, high‐resolution stratigraphic architecture and interpreted palaeo‐geomorphology within a single parasequence that is interpreted to record the advance of an ancient asymmetrical wave‐dominated delta. The Standardville (Ab1) parasequence of the Aberdeen Member, Blackhawk Formation is exposed in the Book Cliffs of central Utah, USA. This parasequence, and four others in the Aberdeen Member, record the eastward progradation of north/south‐trending, wave‐dominated shorelines. Within the Standardville (Ab1) parasequence, distal wave‐dominated shoreface‐shelf deposits in the eastern part of the study area are overlain across a downlap surface by southward prograding fluvial‐dominated delta‐front deposits, which have previously been assigned to a separate ‘stranded lowstand parasequence’ formed by a significant, allogenic change in relative sea‐level. High‐resolution stratigraphic analysis of these deposits reveals that they are instead more likely to record a single episode of shoreline progradation characterized by alternating periods of normal regressive and forced regressive shoreline trajectory because of minor cyclical fluctuations in relative sea‐level. Interpreted normal regressive shoreline trajectories within the wave‐dominated shoreface‐shelf deposits are marked by aggradational stacking of bedsets bounded by non‐depositional discontinuity surfaces. Interpreted forced regressive shoreline trajectories in the same deposits are characterized by shallow incision of fluvial distributary channels and strongly progradational stacking of bedsets bounded by erosional discontinuity surfaces that record enhanced wave‐base scour. Fluvial‐dominated delta‐front deposits most probably record the regression of a lobate delta parallel to the regional shoreline into an embayment that was sheltered from wave influence. Wave‐dominated shoreface‐shelf and fluvial‐dominated delta‐front deposits occur within the same parasequence, and their interpretation as the respective updrift and downdrift flanks of a single asymmetrical wave‐dominated delta that periodically shifted its position provides the most straightforward explanation of the distribution and relative orientation of these two deposit types.  相似文献