2008
DOI: 10.1016/s0070-4571(08)10010-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chapter 10 Traction Structures in Contourites

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
45
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
2
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2; Table 2). Bi-gradational trends have been previously described in contourite sediments and 495 interpreted to record an increase followed by decrease in the current velocities (e.g., Martín-Chivelet et al, 2008). The bi-gradational patterns in the Zr/Ba and MS plots (Figs.…”
mentioning
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2; Table 2). Bi-gradational trends have been previously described in contourite sediments and 495 interpreted to record an increase followed by decrease in the current velocities (e.g., Martín-Chivelet et al, 2008). The bi-gradational patterns in the Zr/Ba and MS plots (Figs.…”
mentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Within the cross laminae, mud offshoots and internal erosional surfaces are distinctive features of fluctuating currents where successive traction and suspension events are super-imposed, indicating bottom-currents sedimentation as the principal process for the F1 laminated claystones (Shanmugam et al, 1993;Stow et al, 2002). Based on these observations, we interpret F1 as glacial laminated muddy contourites during peak current velocities (Lucchi and Rebesco, 2007;Martín-Chivelet et al 2008;Rebesco et al, 2014). 485 Bioturbated sediments in F2 were previously interpreted as interglacial hemipelagic deposits (Escutia et al, 2011).…”
mentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Within the cross laminae, mud offshoots and internal erosional surfaces are distinctive features of fluctuating currents where successive traction and suspension events are super-imposed, indicating bottom-currents sedimentation as the principal process for the F1 laminated claystones (Shanmugam et al, 1993;Stow et al, 2002). Based on these observations, we interpret F1 as glacial laminated muddy contourites 480 following the classification of Stow and Faugères (2008) during peak current velocities (Lucchi and Rebesco, 2007;Martín-Chivelet et al 2008;Rebesco et al, 2014). 485 Bioturbated sediments in F2 were previously interpreted as interglacial hemipelagic deposits (Escutia et al, 2011).…”
Section: Glacial and Interglacial Contourite Sedimentation Off Wilkesmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…11) (e.g., Martin-Chivelet et al, 2008). Furthermore, tripartite subdivision grain size distribution patterns observed in ungraded sand lithofacies are also not a character of turbidites (Fig.…”
Section: Lithofacies Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 93%