Depositional styles in a low accommodation foreland basin setting: an example from the Basal Quartz (Lower Cretaceous), southern Alberta

Zaitlin, Brian A.; Warren, Marian J.; Potocki, Daniel J.; Rosenthal, L.; Boyd, Ron

doi:10.2113/50.1.31

Cited by 79 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The differentiation between units and surfaces that develop at different hierarchical levels may be a function of several criteria, including: temporal duration of stratigraphic cycles; magnitude of stratigraphic hiatuses captured within sequence-bounding unconformities; degree of compositional and geochemical change across sequence-bounding unconformities; degree of structural deformation across sequence-bounding unconformities; regional extent of sequence-bounding unconformities; magnitude of fluvial valley incision associated with sequence-bounding unconformities; magnitude of downstepping (offlap) associated with sequence-bounding unconformities; magnitude of facies shifts across sequence stratigraphic surfaces; and degree of change in paleoflow directions across sequence-bounding unconformities (e.g., Vail et al, 1991;Embry, 1995;Zaitlin et al, 2002;Catuneanu, 2006). The applicability and relative importance of these criteria may vary between studies, depending on stratigraphic age (e.g., Phanerozoic versus Precambrian), depositional setting, and the types of data set available (e.g., biostratigraphic, geochronologic, sedimentologic, geochemical, seismic, etc.).…”

Section: Concept Of Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concepts such as transgression and regression do not apply, unless correlation with a coeval coastline can be established (e.g., Kerr et al, 1999;Figure 27), but unconventional systems tracts such as "low-accommodation" versus "high-accommodation" may be useful for regional correlation (e.g., Olsen et al, 1995;Martinsen et al, 1999;Boyd et al, 2000;Arnott et al, 2002;Zaitlin et al, 2002;Leckie and Boyd, 2003;Ramaekers and Catuneanu, 2004;Leckie et al, 2004;Figure 28). Such systems tracts are defined by the ratio between fluvial architectural elements.…”

Section: Nonmarine Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards the standardization of sequence stratigraphy

Catuneanu

Abreu

Bhattacharya

et al. 2009

Earth-Science Reviews

1,273

726

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Part of the Earth Sciences CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -Lincoln. AbstractSequence stratigraphy emphasizes facies relationships and stratal architecture within a chronological framework. Despite its wide use, sequence stratigraphy has yet to be included in any stratigraphic code or guide. This lack of standardization reflects the existence of competing approaches (or models) and confusing or even conflicting terminology. Standardization of sequence stratigraphy requires the definition of the fundamental model-independent concepts, units, bounding surfaces and workflow that outline the foundation of the method. A standardized scheme needs to be sufficiently broad to encompass all possible choices of approach, rather than being limited to a single approach or model.A sequence stratigraphic framework includes genetic units that result from the interplay of accommodation and sedimentation (i.e., forced regressive, lowstand and highstand normal regressive, and transgressive), which are bounded by "sequence stratigraphic" surfaces. Each genetic unit is defined by specific stratal stacking patterns and bounding surfaces, and consists of a tract of correlatable depositional systems (i.e., a "systems tract"). The mappability of systems tracts and sequence stratigraphic surfaces depends on depositional setting and the types of data available for analysis. It is this high degree of variability in the precise expression of sequence stratigraphic units and bounding surfaces that requires the adoption of a methodology that is sufficiently flexible that it can accommodate the range of likely expressions. The integration of outcrop, core, well-log and seismic data affords the optimal approach to the application of sequence stratigraphy. Missing insights from one set of data or another may limit the "resolution" of the sequence stratigraphic interpretation. 1 2 c a t u n e a n u e t a l . i n e a r t h -science r e v i e w s 92 (2009)

show abstract

Section: Concept Of Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nonmarine Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards the standardization of sequence stratigraphy

Catuneanu

Abreu

Bhattacharya

et al. 2009

Earth-Science Reviews

1,273

726

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The thickness variations that do exist in Lower Cretaceous deposits are significantly influenced by differential erosion on the angular sub-Cretaceous unconformity, with thicker sediment accumulations occupying paleovalley systems incised into Jurassic and pre-foreland sedimentary rocks (Jackson, 1984;Hayes, 1986;Ranger and Pemberton, 1988;Wightman and Pemberton, 1997;Ardies et al, 2002;Zaitlin et al, 2002).…”

Section: Early Cretaceous-aptianmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous record of orogenic wedge evolution in the Western Interior basin, USA and Canada

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous fill of the Western Interior foreland basin is characterized using geochronological data in order to assess the stratigraphic expression of wedge-top geomorphology, as controlled by sediment cover and denudation. In northern Montana, USA, and Alberta, Canada, wedge-top deposits are poorly preserved; however, their former presence may be inferred from the detrital record in the foreland basin. We present new U/Pb detrital zircon data from nine samples collected near Great Falls, Montana, augmented with field data. The stratigraphy at Great Falls is characterized by Late Jurassic marine and nonmarine deposits, which are truncated by a basinwide sub-Cretaceous unconformity. Aptian and lower Albian strata overlying the unconformity are dominated by nonmarine deposits, which transition up-section into a predominantly marine succession related to a major transgression of the Boreal Seaway in the Albian.Detrital zircon grains from Great Falls strata yield age spectra that can be subdivided into three groups using multidimensional scaling. Group 1 is characterized by diverse zircon populations, which are interpreted to record recycling of pre-Cordilleran sedimentary strata transported via foreland basin-axial river systems with headwaters in the southwestern United States. Group 2 is characterized by the dominance of Mesozoic detrital zircon grains, which are interpreted to record sediment dispersal by fluvial systems with headwaters in the Cordillera. Group 3 is intermediate between groups 1 and 2, based on its proportion of Mesozoic zircon grains. This group records a diversification of the provenance from one dominated by Cordilleran igneous rocks to include recycled sedimentary strata.New data are integrated with three other data sets from Montana and Alberta such that stratal thicknesses (a proxy for accommodation development) and provenance evolution can be compared across the basin. The detrital record in each area, which transitions from diverse provenance to predominantly Cordilleran through the entire stratigraphic section, can be linked to the burial of the pre-foreland strata in the wedge-top depozone. This record elucidates a period of evolution of the western margin of North America to a more Andean-type system with primary input to the basin from an active magmatic arc.

show abstract

“…Most of the researchers believe in a glacio-eustatic origin for the relative sea-level fall at the Late Aptian (e.g. Ferguson et al, 1999;Zaitlin et al, 2002;Medvedev et al, 2011;Maurer et al, 2013),…”

Section: Meteoric Realmmentioning

confidence: 99%