Shoreline Trajectory and its Impact on Coastal Depositional Environments: an Example from the Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, Northwestern Colorado, U.S.A.

Bullimore, Scott; Helland‐Hansen, William; Henriksen, S. D.; Steel, Ronald J.

doi:10.2110/pec.08.90.0209

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…13E). These trends reflect the dominance of short-term progradation and long-term aggradation in cycles of continental-shelf outbuilding (Bullimore et al, 2008;Helland-Hansen and Hampson, 2009). However, sand-prone subaqueous delta clinoform sets contain a larger spread of trajectories (from − 0.4°to +3.5°), even in the short term (b10 kyr) (Table 4; Fig.…”

Section: Clinoform Trajectories and Progradation Resistance Ratiomentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Fig. 13I, Table 4), reflecting the dominance of short-term progradation and long-term aggradation in cycles of continental-shelf outbuilding (Bullimore et al, 2008;Helland-Hansen and Hampson, 2009).…”

Section: Significance Of Chronostratigraphically-constrained Parametementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall aggradation of shelfal strata is therefore generated by vertical stacking of successive deltaic and shoreline clinothem sets (Bullimore et al, 2008;Helland-Hansen and Hampson, 2009). The repeated, regressive-transgressive transit of deltas and shorelines across the shelf is the process responsible for the outbuilding of continental-shelf successions (Johannessen and Steel, 2005), and can, through time, contribute to the basinward accretion and morphological evolution of the larger-scale, shelf-prism and continental-margin clinoforms (e.g., via the establishment of shelfedge deltas; Burgess and Hovius, 1998;Olariu and Steel, 2009;Helland-Hansen and Hampson, 2009).…”

Section: Deltaic Shallow-marine and Continental-margin Compound Clinmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quantitative characterisation of deltaic and subaqueous clinoforms

Patruno

Hampson

Jackson

2015

Earth-Science Reviews

217

272

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinoforms are ubiquitous deltaic, shallow-marine and continental-margin depositional morphologies, occurring over a range of spatial scales (1-10 4 m in height). Up to four types of progressively larger-scale clinoforms may prograde synchronously along shoreline-to-abyssal plain transects, albeit at very different rates. Paired subaerial and subaqueous delta clinoforms (or 'delta-scale compound clinoforms'), in particular, constitute a hitherto overlooked depositional model for ancient shallow-marine sandbodies. The topset-to-foreset rollovers of subaqueous deltas are developed at up to 60 m water depths, such that ancient delta-scale clinoforms should not be assumed to record the position of ancient shorelines, even if they are sandstone-rich. This study analyses a large dataset of modern and ancient delta-scale, shelf-prism-and continental-margin-scale clinoforms, in order to characterise diagnostic features of different clinoform systems, and particularly of deltascale subaqueous clinoforms. Such diagnostic criteria allow different clinoform types and their dominant grain-size characteristics to be interpreted in seismic reflection and/or sedimentological data, and prove that all clinoforms are subject to similar physical laws. The examined dataset demonstrates that progressively larger scale clinoforms are deposited in increasingly deeper waters, over progressively larger time spans. Consequently, depositional flux, sedimentation and progradation rates of continental-margin clinoforms are up to 4-6 orders of magnitude lower than those of deltas. For all clinoform types, due to strong statistical correlations between these parameters, it is now possible to calculate clinoform paleobathymetries once clinoform heights, age spans or progradation rates have been constrained. Muddy and sandy delta-scale subaqueous clinoforms show many different features, but all share four characteristics.(1) They are formed during relative sea-level stillstands (e.g., Late Holocene); (2) their stratigraphic architecture and facies character are dominated by basinal processes, and are quite uniform; (3) their plan-view morphology is shore-parallel and laterally extensive; (4) their sigmoidal cross-sectional geometry contrasts with the oblique profiles of most subaerial deltas. Holocene-age, delta-scale, sand-prone subaqueous clinoforms occur on steep (≥0.26°) and narrow (5-32 km) shelves, at typical distances of 0.6-7.2 km from the shoreline break. That contrasts with mud-prone subaqueous deltas, which form clinoforms on gently-sloping (0.01-0.38°), wide (23-376 km) shelves, at usual distances of 7.5-125 km from the shoreline. Delta-scale sand-prone subaqueous clinoforms have diagnostically steep foresets (0.7-23°). Similarly steep gradients were observed in much larger shelf-prism-and continental-margin-scale clinoforms. Gentler foreset gradients are shown by sand-prone subaerial deltas (0.1-2.7°), and mud-prone subaqueous and subaerial deltas (0.03-1.50°). Due to the lack of connections with river mouths, Holocene delta-scale sa...

show abstract

Section: Clinoform Trajectories and Progradation Resistance Ratiomentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Significance Of Chronostratigraphically-constrained Parametementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Deltaic Shallow-marine and Continental-margin Compound Clinmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantitative characterisation of deltaic and subaqueous clinoforms

Patruno

Hampson

Jackson

2015

Earth-Science Reviews

217

272

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7-8; Vanney and Stanley, 1983;Steckler et al, 1999;Steel and Olsen, 2002;Patruno et al, 2015a). Because of the dominance of short-term progradation and long-term aggradation in cycles of continental shelf outbuilding (Bullimore et al, 2008;, shelf-edge clinoforms show lower progradation/aggradation ratios (with clinoform trajectories as high as 2.4°) and higher progradation resistance ratios (10 −2 -1) than delta-scale clinoforms (Patruno et al, 2015a) (Fig. 8).…”

Section: Shelf-edge Scale Clinoforms (Figs 14-16)mentioning

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

Self Cite

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

“…He suggested that the incised valleys correlated with long sandstone tongues (descending or low-angle, ascending regressive shoreline trajectory), whereas normal channels correlated with short sandstone tongues (high-angle, ascending regressive shoreline trajectory). Bullimore et al (2008) in a study of the shallow marineTrout Creek Member and coastal plain Mount Harris Fork Member (Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, CO, USA) subdivided the succession into di¡erent trajectory classes and demonstrated that aggradation in the continental realm is largely generated during the turnarounds from regressive to transgressive, or transgressive to regressive trajectories. They also used this dataset to synthesize typical vertical successions for each class of shoreline trajectory.…”

Section: Applications Of Trajectory Concepts Shoreline Trajectoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trajectory analysis: concepts and applications

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shoreline and shelf‐edge trajectories describe the migration through time of sedimentary systems, using geomorphological breaks‐in‐slope that are associated with key changes in depositional processes and products. Analysis of these trajectories provides a simple descriptive tool that complements and extends conventional sequence stratigraphic methods and models. Trajectory analysis offers four advantages over a sequence stratigraphic interpretation based on systems tracts: (1) each genetically related advance or retreat of a shoreline or shelf edge is viewed in the context of a continuously evolving depositional system, rather than as several discrete systems tracts; (2) subtle changes in depositional response (e.g. within systems tracts) can be identified and honoured; (3) trajectory analysis does not anticipate the succession of depositional events implied by systems‐tract models; and (4) the descriptive emphasis of trajectory analysis does not involve any a priori assumptions about the type or nature of the mechanisms that drive sequence development. These four points allow the level of detail in a trajectory‐based interpretation to be directly tailored to the available data, such that the interpretation may be qualitative or quantitative in two or three dimensions. Four classes of shoreline trajectory are recognized: ascending regressive, descending regressive, transgressive and stationary (i.e. nonmigratory). Ascending regressive and high‐angle (accretionary) transgressive trajectories are associated with expanded facies belt thicknesses, the absence of laterally extensive erosional surfaces, and relatively high preservation of the shoreline depositional system. In contrast, descending regressive and low‐angle (nonaccretionary) transgressive trajectories are associated with foreshortened and/or missing facies belts, the presence of laterally extensive erosional surfaces, and relatively low preservation of the shoreline depositional system. Stationary trajectories record shorelines positioned at a steeply sloping shelf edge, with accompanying bypass of sediment to the basin floor. Shelf‐edge trajectories represent larger spatial and temporal scales than shoreline trajectories, and they can be subdivided into ascending, descending and stationary (i.e. nonmigratory) classes. Ascending trajectories are associated with a relatively large number and thickness of shoreline tongues (parasequences), the absence of laterally extensive erosional surfaces on the shelf, and relatively low sediment supply to the basin floor. Descending trajectories are associated with a few, thin shoreline tongues, the presence of laterally extensive erosional surfaces on the shelf, and high sediment supply to basin‐floor fan systems. Stationary trajectories record near‐total bypass of sediment across the shelf and mass transfer to the basin floor.

show abstract

Shoreline Trajectory and its Impact on Coastal Depositional Environments: an Example from the Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, Northwestern Colorado, U.S.A.

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Quantitative characterisation of deltaic and subaqueous clinoforms

Quantitative characterisation of deltaic and subaqueous clinoforms

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

Trajectory analysis: concepts and applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About