The evolution of the early Carboniferous Limestone province in southwest Britain

Wright, V. Paul

doi:10.1017/s0016756800017052

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evolution from a homoclinal into a distally steepened ramp or rimmed shelf recurs through the Phanerozoic platforms (Wilson, 1975; Read, 1982, 1985; Wright, 1987). Since most carbonate production occurs in the photic zone, an increase in accommodation space will necessarily result in some degree of slope gradient increase although, in detail, it will depend on the production differences between the euphotic, oligophotic and aphotic zones, and on the efficiency of basinward transport of sediments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Types of carbonate platforms: a genetic approach

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many types of carbonate platforms have been described, from homoclinal ramps to rimmed shelves and a full spectrum of variations in between; the distinction between these different types can be problematic. Nevertheless, classification of carbonate platforms is not just a semantic or academic issue. For example, it is clearly important for the accurate interpretation of seismic images of facies geometry and for assessing the potential of stratigraphic traps. Even though predictive efficiency of conceptual models depends on the degree of comprehension of the genetic factors controlling depositional profiles and the distribution of facies belts, current models for classification of carbonate platforms are basically descriptive and mainly based on depositional profile, size, and attachment to or detachment from a landmass. A genetic approach considers the variability of depositional profiles among carbonate platforms as a function of the type of sediment that was produced (basically grain size), the locus of sediment production, and the hydraulic energy. Three groups of carbonate‐producing biota may be distinguished according to their dependence upon light: (1) euphotic (good light) in shallow, wave‐agitated areas; (2) oligophotic (poor light) in deeper, commonly non‐wave‐agitated areas; and (3) photo‐independent biota in all water‐depth ranges. Several platform types in wave‐dominated seas can be considered in relation to genetic factors, even when simplifying the many possible scenarios. Euphotic framework‐producing biota create rimmed shelves similar to modern reef platforms. Soft‐substrate‐dwelling biota, which produce gravel‐sized carbonate in the shallow euphotic zone, create flat‐topped open shelves. Oligophotic gravel‐producing biota, such as some larger foraminifera and red algae, generate distally steepened ramps. Mud‐dominated carbonate production, in either euphotic or oligophotic zones, generate homoclinal ramps. Carbonate production dominated by photo‐independent biota (crinoids, sponges, bryozoans, etc.) above wave base give rise to open shelves or ramps, depending upon grain size, but may produce mounds if carbonate production occurs below the base of wave/current sweeping.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Types of carbonate platforms: a genetic approach

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depositional pro¢les and facies assemblages of ancient ramps have been extensively studied (Permian of Upper San Andres Formation of Guadalupe Mountains of New Mexico, Sonnenfeld & Cross, 1993; Cretaceous of Apennines, Carannante et al, 1997;see Pomar, 2001 for a review). There are two classic morphological ramp pro¢les (Wright & Faulkner, 1990;Burchette & Wright, 1992).The ¢rst pro -¢le, used as initial condition in our simulations, and referred to as homoclinal ramp, displays a low-angle, uniform slope. The second pro¢le, i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…15^251) depositional slope in the distal part. Moreover, homoclinal to distally-steepened ramp evolution has been documented many times for the Phanerozoic (Wilson, 1975;Read, 1982Read, , 1985Wright, 1987;Pomar, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of storms on mixed carbonate and siliciclastic shelves: insights from combined diffusive and fluid‐flow transport stratigraphic forward model

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A quantitative stratigraphic model of mixed carbonate/siliciclastic continental shelves is presented to investigate the relationships between depositional processes and stratigraphic responses at long‐term, large spatial scales. A diffusion model is combined with a fluid‐flow approach to simulate both long‐term factors, i.e. the processes controlling large‐scale architecture, and short‐term processes, i.e. sediment redistribution by storms. Any net sediment accumulation is the result of the succession of a storm and a fair‐weather period. Sediments are mobilized by waves and advected by low‐frequency currents during storm events. Sediments are then reworked and redistributed downslope by diffusive processes during fair‐weather period. The results are successful in capturing several major characteristics of both modern and ancient depositional systems (geometry, differential preservation, net accumulation rates). The study highlights the importance of waves and unidirectional currents. Depositional geometry and shelf morphology depend on the balance between available sediment supply (generated in situ or detrital) and the transport energy, which is related to the style of sediment transport (diffusive or advective), and to the magnitude and frequency of storms.

show abstract

“…The evolution from a homoclinal into a distally steepened ramp or rimmed shelf recurs through the Phanerozoic platforms (Wilson, 1975;Read, 1982Read, , 1985Wright, 1987). Since most carbonate production occurs in the photic zone, an increase in accommodation space will necessarily result in some degree of slope gradient increase although, in detail, it will depend on the production differences between the euphotic, oligophotic and aphotic zones, and on the ef®ciency of basinward transport of sediments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Types of carbonate platforms : a genetic approach

Pomar

2001

geolm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many types of carbonate platforms have been described, from homoclinal ramps to rimmed shelves and a full spectrum of variations in between; the distinction between these different types can be problematic. Nevertheless, classi®cation of carbonate platforms is not just a semantic or academic issue. For example, it is clearly important for the accurate interpretation of seismic images of facies geometry and for assessing the potential of stratigraphic traps. Even though predictive ef®ciency of conceptual models depends on the degree of comprehension of the genetic factors controlling depositional pro®les and the distribution of facies belts, current models for classi®cation of carbonate platforms are basically descriptive and mainly based on depositional pro®le, size, and attachment to or detachment from a landmass.A genetic approach considers the variability of depositional pro®les among carbonate platforms as a function of the type of sediment that was produced (basically grain size), the locus of sediment production, and the hydraulic energy. Three groups of carbonate-producing biota may be distinguished according to their dependence upon light: (1) euphotic (good light) in shallow, wave-agitated areas; (2) oligophotic (poor light) in deeper, commonly non-wave-agitated areas; and (3) photo-independent biota in all water-depth ranges.Several platform types in wave-dominated seas can be considered in relation to genetic factors, even when simplifying the many possible scenarios. Euphotic framework-producing biota create rimmed shelves similar to modern reef platforms. Soft-substrate-dwelling biota, which produce gravel-sized carbonate in the shallow euphotic zone, create¯at-topped open shelves. Oligophotic gravel-producing biota, such as some larger foraminifera and red algae, generate distally steepened ramps. Mud-dominated carbonate production, in either euphotic or oligophotic zones, generate homoclinal ramps. Carbonate production dominated by photo-independent biota (crinoids, sponges, bryozoans, etc.) above wave base give rise to open shelves or ramps, depending upon grain size, but may produce mounds if carbonate production occurs below the base of wave/current sweeping.

show abstract

The evolution of the early Carboniferous Limestone province in southwest Britain

Cited by 23 publications

References 17 publications

Types of carbonate platforms: a genetic approach

Types of carbonate platforms: a genetic approach

Impact of storms on mixed carbonate and siliciclastic shelves: insights from combined diffusive and fluid‐flow transport stratigraphic forward model

Types of carbonate platforms : a genetic approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About