Architecture of growth basins in a tidally influenced, prodelta to delta‐front setting: The Triassic succession of Kvalpynten, East Svalbard

Smyrak-Sikora, Aleksandra; Osmundsen, Per Terje; Braathen, Alvar; Ogata, Kei; Anell, Ingrid; Mulrooney, Mark Joseph; Zuchuat, Valentin

doi:10.1111/bre.12410

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 107 publications

(195 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Distributed normal faulting in the monocline limb indicates extension, consistent with the development of a tri‐shear zone (Fossen, ) above a fault tip. Other clear examples of syn‐sedimentary movement along these faults exist on Edgeøya (Ogata et al, ; Osmundsen et al, ; Smyrak‐Sikora et al, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mesozoic‐Cenozoic Regional Stress Field Evolution in Svalbard

Maher

Senger²,

Braathen

et al. 2020

Tectonics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooling fracture orientations in diabase sills associated with the Cretaceous High Arctic Large Igneous Province and syn-sedimentary Triassic faults help constrain a model for Svalbard's (NE Barents Shelf) Mesozoic stress field evolution. Fracture data from Edgeøya and adjacent islands in SE Svalbard, from S Spitsbergen, and from literature were used to model preferred orientations and temporal relationships. Orthogonal, roughly E-W and N-S, joints and veins in sills from SE Svalbard are interpreted as cooling fractures influenced by the ambient stress field. Aligned preferred orientations within the Triassic host strata are associated with a regional Cretaceous jointing episode driven by sill emplacement and/or erosional unloading. The regional maximum horizontal stress (likely σ1) is inferred to have been parallel to a dominant ≈E-W set. Spitsbergen's more complex joint patterns are associated with proximity to the Cenozoic West Spitsbergen Fold-and-Thrust Belt, but ≈E-W and ≈N-S orientations occur and are typically the earlier set. Syn-sedimentary, ≈NW-SE striking, Triassic normal faults in SE Svalbard aligned with the maximum horizontal stress indicate a Triassic to Cretaceous counterclockwise stress field shift, with additional counterclockwise shifting during Cenozoic dextral transpression between Svalbard and Greenland. Localized joint preferred orientations consistent with both decoupled and coupled transpression occur. Changes in the regional maximum horizontal stress and deformation regime may reflect timing of which plate margin was crucial in influencing Svalbard's plate interior stress field, starting with Triassic Uralian activity to the E, then Cretaceous Amerasian Basin development to the NW, culminating with Cenozoic dextral transpression and transtension to the SW.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anell et al () and Osmundsen et al () provide more detailed description, arguing that there was a tectonic influence. Braathen, Midtkandal, et al () argue that differential delta‐front compaction was involved, a model that Ogata et al () and Smyrak‐Sikora et al (Smyral‐Sikora et al, ) elaborate on.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mesozoic‐Cenozoic Regional Stress Field Evolution in Svalbard

Maher

Senger²,

Braathen

et al. 2020

Tectonics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Kongsfjorden-Cowanodden fault zone and associated overprints align with WNW-ESE-to NW-SE-striking normal faults onshore southern and southwestern Edgeøya in Kvalpynten, Negerpynten, and Øhmanfjellet (Osmundsen et al, 2014;Ogata et al, 2018). These faults display both listric and steep planar geometries in cross-section and bound thickened synsedimentary growth strata in lowermost Upper Triassic sedimentary rocks of the Tschermakfjellet and De Geerdalen formations (Ogata et al, 2018;Smyrak-Sikora et al, 2020). The Norwegian Barents Sea and Svalbard are believed to have remained tectonically quiet throughout the Triassic apart from minor deep-rooted normal faulting in the northwestern Norwegian Barents Sea (Anell et al, 2013) and Uralides-related contraction in the (south-) east (Müller et al, 2019).…”

Section: Mild Triassic Overprintmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In the Mesozoic, Svalbard and the Barents Sea remained tectonically quiet and were only affected by minor Triassic normal faulting (e.g., Anell et al, 2013;Osmundsen et al, 2014;Ogata et al, 2018;Smyrak-Sikora et al, 2020). In the Early Cretaceous, Svalbard was affected by a regional episode of magmatism recorded by the intrusion of numerous dykes and sills of the Diabasodden Suite (Senger et al, 2013).…”

Section: Mesozoic Sedimentation and Magmatismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Timanian thrust systems on the late Neoproterozoic–Phanerozoic tectonic evolution of the Barents Sea and Svalbard

Koehl

Magee

Anell

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Svalbard Archipelago is composed of three basement terranes that record a complex Neoproterozoic–Phanerozoic tectonic history, including four contractional events (Grenvillian, Caledonian, Ellesmerian, and Eurekan) and two episodes of collapse- to rift-related extension (Devonian–Carboniferous and late Cenozoic). These three terranes are thought to have accreted during the early–mid Paleozoic Caledonian and Ellesmerian orogenies. Yet recent geochronological analyses show that the northwestern and southwestern terranes of Svalbard both record an episode of amphibolite (–eclogite) facies metamorphism in the latest Neoproterozoic, which may relate to the 650–550 Ma Timanian Orogeny identified in northwestern Russia, northern Norway and the Russian Barents Sea. However, discrete Timanian structures have yet to be identified in Svalbard and the Norwegian Barents Sea. Through analysis of seismic reflection, and regional gravimetric and magnetic data, this study demonstrates the presence of continuous, several kilometers thick, NNE-dipping, deeply buried thrust systems that extend thousands of kilometers from northwestern Russia to northeastern Norway, the northern Norwegian Barents Sea, and the Svalbard Archipelago. The consistency in orientation and geometry, and apparent linkage between these thrust systems and those recognized as part of the Timanian Orogeny in northwestern Russia and Novaya Zemlya suggests that the mapped structures are likely Timanian. If correct, these findings would indicate that Svalbard’s three basement terranes and the Barents Sea were accreted onto northern Norway during the Timanian Orogeny and should, hence, be attached to Baltica and northwestern Russia in future Neoproterozoic–early Paleozoic plate tectonics reconstructions. In the Phanerozoic, the study suggests that the interpreted Timanian thrust systems represented major preexisting zones of weakness that were reactivated, folded, and overprinted by (i.e., controlled the formation of new) brittle faults during later tectonic events. These faults are still active at present and can be linked to folding and offset of the seafloor.

show abstract

“…Although some SfM-MVS-based software also includes visualization and measurement tools, specific computational environments often provide faster and more convenient resources for data collection. The most commonly used programs to measure geological surface orientation from virtual outcrops in previous works are CloudCompare (GPL software;Dewez et al, 2016;Thiele et al, 2017), MeshLab (Cignoni et al, 2008;Viana et al, 2016), OpenPlot (Tavani et al, 2011(Tavani et al, , 2014, VRGS (Hodgetts et al, 2015;Burnham & Hodgetts, 2019) and LIME (Virtual Outcrop Group, Buckley et al, 2019;Greenfield et al, 2019;Smyrak-Sikora et al, 2019;Mattsson et al, 2020;Korus et al, 2020): LIME was used in this study because it allowed easy and simple measurement of palaeocurrent data from cross-strata.…”

Section: Data Extraction From Virtual Outcropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐strata palaeocurrent analysis using virtual outcrops

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although virtual outcrops or digital outcrop model applications in geological studies are becoming increasingly common, virtually no attention has been given to acquisition of palaeocurrent data from cross-strata. Palaeocurrent indicators are abundant in the sedimentary record, mainly as cross-strata, and present compelling implications for basin analysis, plate tectonics and palaeoenvironmental reconstructions, as well as for sediment transport systems. Palaeocurrents from cross-strata also comprise a quantifiable parameter in sedimentary successions that can be used in quantitative modelling of depositional architecture with implications for reservoir characterization through outcrop analogue studies. A common obstacle in obtaining large cross-strata orientation datasets is the limited access to steep and high outcrop faces, as well as financial and time restrictions on field work. To overcome these issues, the simplest workflow for drone-based acquisition, photogrammetric processing and analysis of virtual outcrops aiming at the attainment of palaeocurrent data from cross-strata is appraised here. The results show that orientations of cross-beds measured on virtual outcrops, with and without ground control points, and using two different levels of resolution downsampling, are comparable to field measurements using analogue and electronic devices. Time and financial resources can thus be saved by using the straightforward method presented here to supplement palaeocurrent mapping across wide areas and distinct stratigraphic intervals.

show abstract

Architecture of growth basins in a tidally influenced, prodelta to delta‐front setting: The Triassic succession of Kvalpynten, East Svalbard

Abstract: Syn-sedimentary growth faults are often associated with deltas discharging sediments into shallow seas, as recognized in: (a) foreland basins (Bhattacharya & Davies,

Cited by 11 publications

References 107 publications

Mesozoic‐Cenozoic Regional Stress Field Evolution in Svalbard

Mesozoic‐Cenozoic Regional Stress Field Evolution in Svalbard

Impact of Timanian thrust systems on the late Neoproterozoic–Phanerozoic tectonic evolution of the Barents Sea and Svalbard

Cross‐strata palaeocurrent analysis using virtual outcrops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About