1968
DOI: 10.1086/627342
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coastal Erosion and Transgressive Stratigraphy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
177
0
3

Year Published

1989
1989
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 371 publications
(183 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
3
177
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…These characteristics arise from incomplete preservation and pronounced reworking of shoreline systems during their overall retreat (e.g., Curray 1964), however, thick net-transgressive shallow-marine successions containing abundant stacked sandbodies have been documented (Olsen et al 1999;Allen and Johnson 2011). Conceptual models indicate that preservation of nettransgressive shallow-marine strata requires overall retreat of the shoreline punctuated by periods of limited shoreline regression (e.g., Swift 1968;Swift et al 1991;Cattaneo and Steel 2000). Field studies have provided supporting evidence in the form of detailed facies relationships and stratigraphic architectures that match the model predictions (Sixsmith et al 2008;Allen and Johnson 2011) though the number of field cases documented are significantly fewer than those for regressive systems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These characteristics arise from incomplete preservation and pronounced reworking of shoreline systems during their overall retreat (e.g., Curray 1964), however, thick net-transgressive shallow-marine successions containing abundant stacked sandbodies have been documented (Olsen et al 1999;Allen and Johnson 2011). Conceptual models indicate that preservation of nettransgressive shallow-marine strata requires overall retreat of the shoreline punctuated by periods of limited shoreline regression (e.g., Swift 1968;Swift et al 1991;Cattaneo and Steel 2000). Field studies have provided supporting evidence in the form of detailed facies relationships and stratigraphic architectures that match the model predictions (Sixsmith et al 2008;Allen and Johnson 2011) though the number of field cases documented are significantly fewer than those for regressive systems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The toe of the shoreface is the narrow relatively steeply sloping zone between the seaward limit of the shore at low water and the nearly horizontal inner-continental shelf. It is widely assumed to approximate the depth of storm wave base (limit of wave-induced sediment transport) and has been used as a minimum estimate for the depth of shoreface ravinement (e.g., Swift, 1968;Nummedal and Swift, 1987). However, erosion, transport and deposition of sediment in deeper-water, innercontinental shelf settings have been well documented (e.g., Pilkey and Field, 1972;Sternberg and Larsen, 1975;Gadd et al, 1978;Lavelle et al, 1978;Cacchione and Drake, 1982;Cacchione et al, 1984Cacchione et al, , 1987Vincent et al, 1982;Wiberg and Smith, 1983;Wright et al, 1986Wright et al, , 1994.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under rising sea level conditions, the natural condition today along 53 most of the U.S. east coast, barrier islands will back-step (retreat landward) by erosion on the 54 seaward side and deposition on the landward side (Bruun, 1962;Swift and Thorne, 1991; Thorne 55 and Swift, 1991). Large storms, with consequent high waves, strong currents and above-normal 56 tidal ranges/surges, are thought to be primary drivers of such shoreface erosion (Swift, 1968; 57 Swift and Thorne, 1991). Such storms are also considered important contributors to landward 58 3 aggradation through overwash deposition (Lentz et al, 2013), although island breaching and 59 inlet formation/closure are also major drivers over the short term (Leatherman, 1985).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%