No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The Guadalquivir Basin is the Neogene foreland basin of the central and western Betic thrust belt in southern Spain. At the boundary between the basin and the outcrops of thrust nappes of Mesozoic limestones of the Prebetic and Subbetic is a broad belt of outcrops of Triassic evaporitic sediments with scattered younger rocks: the so-called 'Olistostrome' unit. This is highly deformed, in places chaotic, and its mode of emplacement has been attributed by various authors to olistostromal debris flow, diapirism, or tectonic melange. Studies of outcrop data in conjunction with seismic and well data, integrated using restorable cross-sections lead us to propose the following sequence of emplacement mechanisms. (a) Loading above a Triassic evaporite formation, probably in the Intermediate Units depositional zone, by north vergent thrusting of thick nappes of Mesozoic sediments, causes northward expulsion of evaporitic sediments between a basal thrust and the base of the limestones. (b) Continued thrust loading drives the diapiric body forwards ahead of the thrust belt, into the floor of the deepening Miocene foreland basin. The body includes blocks of Triassic rocks in normal stratigraphic sequence, as well as blocks of younger rocks broken off the leading hanging-wall cutoffs of the nappes. (c) When the diapiric body reaches the sea-floor of the basin, its top becomes subject to modification by sedimentary processes such as dissolution of evaporites leaving a cap rock and debris flow, both submarine and subaerial but rarely, if ever, forming true olistostromes. (d) At the leading edge of the diapir, northward compression of Miocene basin sediments results in thin-skinned thrusting within these sediments, and formation of duplex structures with a north-dipping monoclinal deformation front. Results from analogue and numerical modelling match the main geological features observed in the study area, thus supporting the plausibilty of the proposed lateral diapiric emplacement of the chaotic unit.

No abstract

No counterparts to epeiric-sea carbonate ramps are known in present-day environments. This hinders the interpretation of the factors controlling the growth and evolution of these depositional settings. In this study we analyse the facies and geometries of two Jurassic examples both from outcrop study and through computer modelling. This analysis is constrained by two important features of these Oxfordian and Kimmeridgian ramps: firstly, they are very well exposed, allowing accurate reconstruction of a 200-km section from proximal to distal ramp environments, and, secondly, a time framework for correlation, section reconstruction and modelling is provided by a well-defined ammonite biostratigraphy. The modelling results in a synthetic stratigraphy which closely matches the reconstructed cross-sections and, when integrated with the field study, constrains and provides additional quantitative data on the following aspects of carbonate ramp systems.Resedimentation by storms is an important process in maintaining the ramp profile through time. Down-ramp transport distances of between 25 and 40 km are indicated from the distribution of storm beds and shallow-water allochems and from model-matching known stratigraphic thicknesses and geometries.biozones indicates that shallow-water carbonate production was 1-2 orders of magnitude less than that predicted for present-day open-marine carbonate platforms. Deeper-water production rates were reduced by lesser amounts. These proportionally higher, outer-ramp production rates also help to maintain ramp geometries through time.The enigmatic slope crest of ramps is shown to result from a combination of higher, shallow-water production and erosion rates, together with loss of accommodation during highstands and high-stillstands in the modelled sea-level curves.The most parsimonious modelling of the two ramp sequences comes from a relative sea-level curve composed of a linear subsidence component superposed by 20-and 100-kyr cycles on a third-order cycle. The third-order cycles and their timing do not correspond to those of the Exxon curve.Modelling sediment production within the time constraints from the ammonite

No abstract