Nearshore along-strike variability: Is the concept of the systems tract unhinged?

Madof, Andrew S.; Harris, Ashley D.; Connell, Sean D.

doi:10.1130/g37613.1

Cited by 70 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…18). In other cases, progradation, erosion and retrogradation may take place at the same time in different sectors of a shoreline to abyssal plain transect (e.g., Madof et al, 2016).…”

Section: Spatial Associations Of Coeval Clinoforms: Compound Versus Hmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Patruno

Helland‐Hansen

2018

Earth-Science Reviews

200

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TClinoforms are inclined and normally basinward-dipping horizons developed over a range of spatial and temporal scales in both siliciclastic and carbonatic systems. The study of clinoform successions underpins sequence stratigraphy and all efforts to reconstruct the relative partitioning of reservoir, seal and source rocks along shoreline to basin-floor profiles.Here, we review clinoform research and propose a more systematic description and classification of clinoforms. This is a crucial step to improve predictions of facies and lithology distribution within shoreline to continental shelf and abyssal plain successions, together with the genesis, drivers and dynamics of their constituent sedimentary units.Four basic clinoform types are here distinguished in delta/shorelines, lacustrines and marine environments, on the basis of their overall spatial and temporal scale, morphology, outbuilding dynamic and geodynamic and depositional setting: (1, 2) delta-scale clinoforms, which in turns are sub-divided into shoreline and delta-scale subaqueous clinoforms; (3) shelf-edge clinoforms; and (4) continental-margin clinoforms. Delta-scale clinoform sets are tens of metres high and typically represent 1-10 3 kyr, with progradation rates ranging from 1,000-100,000 m/kyr for shorelines and "subaerial deltas" to 100-20,000 m/kyr for subaqueous deltas; shelfedge clinoform sets are hundreds of metres high and are nucleated and accreted in 0.1-20 Myr (usual progradation rates of 1-100 m/kyr) by successive cross-shelf transits of delta-scale clinoforms; continental-margin clinoform sets are thousands of metres high, hallmark key geodynamic/crustal boundaries (e.g., continent/ocean transition) and slowly prograde basinwards in ca. 5-100 Myr, with typical rates of 0.1-10 m/kyr. As a consequence of the very different progradation rates and of the difficulty of large-scale clinothems to backstep during transgressions, shorelines are the most dynamic clinoforms with regards to position, continental margins the least, and shelf-edges are intermediate. Shortly after a transgression, therefore, the four clinoform types may prograde synchronously along shoreline-to-abyssal plain transects, forming "compound clinoform" systems. During the subsequent regressive cycle, however, due to the dissimilarity in progradation rates, different clinoform types will normally merge progressively with each other, giving rise to "hybrid clinoforms" (e.g., shelf-edge deltas), and fewer depositional breaks-in-slope are distinguished along a single shoreline-toabyssal plain transect. Overall, all clinoform systems are the result of the dynamic evolution of compound and hybrid clinoforms along a temporal and spatial continuum, regulated by the cyclical backstepping of the smallerscale system within natural progradational-retrogradational cycles of larger-scale clinothem outbuilding.All clinothem types may show either an accretionary/active or draping/passive style, depending on the proximity to the sediment source. Draping clinothems are nearly...

show abstract

“…18). In other cases, progradation, erosion and retrogradation may take place at the same time in different sectors of a shoreline to abyssal plain transect (e.g., Madof et al, 2016).…”

Section: Spatial Associations Of Coeval Clinoforms: Compound Versus Hmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Patruno

Helland‐Hansen

2018

Earth-Science Reviews

200

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This negative (local) sediment budget results in a pulse of coastline retreat diffusing outwards 461 away from the river mouth even as the distal portions of the delta continue to grow, with 462 potentially important consequences not only for interpretations of modern deltaic change but also 463 the stratigraphic record of delta growth (Madof et al, 2016). 464 5 Discussion 465…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Littoral steering of deltaic channels

Nienhuis

Ashton

Giosan

2016

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Vail, ; Posamentier & Vail, ; Posamentier et al ., ) to stratigraphic successions in tectonically active regions, such as the Cretaceous Western Cordilleran Foreland Basin (WCFB), has been questioned on the grounds of their inherent simplicity (e.g. Madof et al ., ). These original sequence stratigraphic models do not account for lateral variations in thickness, stratal stacking patterns or facies that are increasingly being documented from the WCFB stratigraphic record.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tectonic control on deltaic sediment dispersal in the middle to upper Turonian Western Cordilleran Foreland Basin, USA

Hutsky

Fielding

2017

Sedimentology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tectonic forcing of delta progradation is increasingly being invoked to explain stratal stacking patterns in foreland basins. Nonetheless, the recognition of different types of tectonic forcing and their consequences for the spatial and temporal distribution of accommodation often rely on incomplete data sets and indirect sequence stratigraphic criteria. Previous work has concluded that the Cenomanian–Turonian Frontier Formation of northern Utah, north‐west Colorado and south‐west Wyoming (‘Vernal Delta’) owes its origin largely to tectonic overprinting of depositional patterns, although the lack of a comprehensive sequence stratigraphic framework for the unit has hampered evaluation of this claim. This study provides detailed facies and sequence stratigraphic analyses based on outcrop sections and wireline log suites from the Uinta, Piceance and Green River basins. Four genetically related intervals were defined and mapped by using regionally traceable stratigraphic horizons (flooding surfaces and sequence boundaries). Internally, intervals are composed of distal and proximal delta front lithologies, and coastal plain facies. Overall, Intervals 1 to 4 form a major basinward projection of coarse clastic strata generated in response to four separate, high‐frequency regressions. Furthermore, a change through time from southward projection of elongate lobes (Intervals 1 and 2) to eastward dispersal and development of a broad, arcuate planform (Intervals 3 and 4) can be explained in terms of changes in prevailing tectonic forcing mechanisms. North–south trending Sevier Orogeny forebulge structures controlled Intervals 1 and 2. West–east progradation (Intervals 3 and 4) was probably controlled by Proterozoic basement lineament reactivation due to Laramide foreland uplifts. Therefore, this study provides direct geological evidence for the initiation of local Laramide deformation as early as 90 Ma. These findings contribute to a more complete understanding of tectonic forcing of coastal to shallow marine successions in foreland basins and the tectonic evolution of the western USA.

show abstract

Nearshore along-strike variability: Is the concept of the systems tract unhinged?

Cited by 70 publications

References 11 publications

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Littoral steering of deltaic channels

Tectonic control on deltaic sediment dispersal in the middle to upper Turonian Western Cordilleran Foreland Basin, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About