Responses of River Deltas to Sea-Level and Supply Forcing: Autostratigraphic View

Muto, Tetsuji; Petter, Andrew; Steel, R. J.; Swenson, John B.; Tomer, Arti; Parker, Gary

doi:10.5772/26643

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Once the feeder alluvial system has attained a graded state, autocyclic lateral shifting of delta distributary channels is suppressed by being inside the valley. In a moving-boundary setting with falling sea-level, on the other hand, a channel-lobe system at autogenic grade can simply extend basinward without lateral shifting (Muto et al 2012). The above new views of alluvial grade cast doubt on the rationale of the conventional grade model Fig.…”

Section: Alluvial Gradementioning

confidence: 97%

“…Steady external forcing produces not only steady stratigraphic configuration but also unsteady stratigraphic configuration, by the response referred to in Figure 2 as non-equilibrium response (Muto et al 2012). Typical examples of non-equilibrium response include shoreline autoretreat and subsequent autobreak with constant sealevel rise (Muto 2001), and an inevitable transition from aggradational regime to degradational regime with constant sealevel fall .…”

Section: Intrinsic Stratigraphic Responsesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Numerical models have shown that alluvial grade can be realized by three mechanisms (Table 1): (1) autogenic grade attained by equilibrium response to constant sea-level fall in a moving-boundary setting (Muto & Swenson 2006); (2) allogenic grade attained by non-equilibrium response to decelerating sea-level fall in a moving-boundary setting (Muto & Swenson 2005a); (3) forced grade attained by equilibrium response to stationary sea-level in a downstream-fixed boundary setting (Muto & Swenson 2005b;Postma et al 2006;Cantelli & Muto 2014). These three processes of attaining grade are also affected by geomorphological conditions, particularly alluvial slope (α) and subaqueous basin slope (φ): α = φ for autogenic grade, α < φ for allogenic grade, and a very large value of φ for forced grade (Muto et al 2012). In the case of a moving-boundary setting (both cases of autogenic and allogenic grade), the critical condition to discriminate between aggradation and degradation is not stationary sea-level, but falling sea-level.…”

Section: Alluvial Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, alluvial rivers can continue to aggrade, even though sea-level continues to fall, as long as the sea-level curve stays above the grade curve. The geometrical pattern of this grade curve can vary significantly, dependent on the geomorphological conditions of the delta and the basin (Petter & Muto 2008;Muto et al 2012).…”

Section: Alluvial Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, autogenesis is more than this; there is another type of autogenesis that encompasses the entire system, that is deterministic and noncyclic. In fact, the concept of large-scale deterministic autogenesis (Muto & Steel 2002;Paola et al 2009;Muto et al 2012) can account for broader spatial and temporal changes in stratigraphic successions, such as a regressive to transgressive turnaround as a result of autogenic response to steady rise of relative sea-level (autoretreat; see Muto & Steel 1992;Muto 2001;Petter et al 2009;Leva-López et al 2013), highstand regressive shelf-delta transits as a process of self-regulated equilibrium regression (Burgess et al 2008) and the aggradational-to-degradational transition of deltas as an autogenic response to steady fall of relative sea-level (autoincision; see Muto & Steel 2004;. It has generally become accepted that large-scale autogenesis of depositional systems can play a key role in building distinctive stratigraphic architectures, leaving an important imprint on stratigraphy (Muto 2001;Kim & Paola 2007;Martin et al 2009;Paola et al 2009;Steel & Milliken 2013).…”

Section: Autogenesis and Allogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Contributions to sequence stratigraphy from analogue and numerical experiments

Muto

Steel

Burgess

2016

JGS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sequence stratigraphic model, although no longer focused on eustasy and accommodation, has been until recently based largely on observation and interpretation of outcrop and subsurface data. This approach may be restrictive if the current model places limits on what is observed and how observations are interpreted. To make progress in our understanding of strata, the sequence stratigraphic model and method should be tested against and fully incorporate theoretical and experimental results that provide new knowledge of (1) autogenesis, (2) intrinsic stratigraphic responses, (3) alluvial grade, and (4) scales appropriate to single depositional systems evolving with relative sea-level changes. More extensive inclusion of analogue and numerical experimental results could lead to significant modification and refinement of existing sequence stratigraphic models.The emergence of the seismic and sequence stratigraphy method and model in the 1970s is often described as a revolution in the science of stratigraphy, and has been compared to the origination and establishment of plate tectonics theory (e.g. Miall 1995;Catuneanu 2006). Certainly, sequence stratigraphy, especially through the use of seismic data, has had a huge impact on the study and interpretation of strata in the late 20th century. It showed that sedimentary strata imaged by seismic data were commonly organized into discrete, repetitive unconformity bounded onlapping-to-downlapping depositional sequences. The early model used long-standing ideas that gave priority to eustasy as the best-known repetitive driving mechanism to create sequences. However, a simple eustasy-based interpretation of the repetitive stratal packages attracted criticism (e.g. Christie-Blick et al. 1988Miall & Miall 2001, and references therein) and the more recent sequence stratigraphic models (e.g. Wilgus et al.

show abstract

Section: Alluvial Gradementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Intrinsic Stratigraphic Responsesmentioning

confidence: 98%