No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Holocenereef models generallyemphasizethe role of in-placeandinterlocking framework in the creationof a rigid structure thatrises aboveits surroundings. By extension, a numberof ancientbiohermaldepositshave been disqualifiedas "true reefs" owing to their lack of recognizable framework, Fifty-four cores from several eastern Caribbean sites ( Fig. 1) clearly demonstrate that in-place and interlocking frameworkis notconunon in thesereefs thatarecomprisedof varyingmixturesof recognizablecoral (primaryframewerkj.Ioose sediment/rubble and secondary frameworkmade up mostly of coralgalfragments bound togetherby submarinecementationandbiological encrustation. Recoveryofprimaryandsecondaryframeworkrangedfrom22%(avg.)in branching-coral faciesto 33% in intervals dominated byhead corals. Accretionrate decreased as expectedwith waterdepth. However. therecoveryof recognizablecoralgenerallyincreasedwith water depth. inversely to presumed coral-growth rates.This pattern reflects a spectrum in the relative importanceof coral growth(primaryconstruction), bioerosion,hydromechanicalbreakdown andthe transportof sedimentand detritus. The relativeimportance of each is controlledby the physical-oceanographic conditionsat the site of reef developmentandwilldictateboththe architecture of the reef and thecharacterof its internalfabric. We donot proposethat framework reefs do no exist, as they most assuredlydo. However, the fact that so many modem reefs are not dominated by in-place andinterlocking frameworksuggeststhat its use as the primarydeterminantof ancientreefs may be unreasonable. We, therefore, propose the abandomnent of framework-based models in favor of those that treat framework generation, physical/biological degradation, sedimentation, and encrustation as equal partners in the development of modem and ancientreefs alike.

No abstract