Contribution to the understanding of the Ionian Basin sedimentary evolution along the eastern edge of Apulia during the Late Cretaceous in Albania

Abstract

Integrated in the peri-Adriatic domain, the Ionian Basin extended along a NW-SE direction during the Late Cretaceous, limited on its sides by the Apulian and the Kruja platforms. The basinal/slope succession was studied in seven outcrops exposed in the Albanian fold-and-thrust belt. Sedimentological investigations, supported by bio-and chronostratigraphy were performed on calcareous Upper Cretaceous hemipelagites, gravity-flow deposits and slumps. The western part of the basin was studied, revealing a strong influence of the Apulian margin, alternatively shedding sediment basinward, by means of a tectonically controlled edge. The Late Albian to Cenomanian period is characterized by the settling of muddy debrites along the margin. A deep basinal environment characterizes this period which prolongs until the Santonian, with no significant influx of the platform basinward. This sedimentary setting abruptly changed at the end of the Santonian, with an important influx derived from both platforms. Coarsening and thickening upward sequences show a progressive increase in sediment shedding during the Campanian. The Late Campanian-Early Maastrichtian period points out a major change on the resedimentation processes with the settling of several slumped units reworking thick sediment packages. The latter can be traced along the Apulian margin, testifying of instabilities along the edge of Apulia.

Distinguishing tectonically-and gravity-driven synsedimentary deformation structures along the Apulian platform margin (Gargano Promontory, southern Italy)

“…Along the Italian eastern shoreline, the Apulian Mesozoic shelf also crops out at Majella Mountain in central Italy, where the transition from platform to slope/ramp facies is well exposed (Accarie et al, 1986;Casabianca et al, 2002;Eberli et al, 2004;Morsilli et al, 2002). Coarse deposits and mass-transport deposits (MTDs) largely constitute the Apulian paleoslope, being re-deposited during the Upper Albian -Cenomanian due to tectonic instabilities at the shelf margin (Le Goff et al, 2015). Based on field evidence (Bosellini et al, 1999) and seismic data (Santantonio et al, 2012) the paleoslope of the Apulian platform is characterised by the following orientations ( Fig.…”

Geometry, spatial arrangement and origin of carbonate grain‐dominated, scour‐fill and event‐bed deposits: Late Jurassic Jubaila Formation and Arab‐D Member, Saudi Arabia

“…The majority of the clasts, including corals and stromatoporoids, originated from above fair‐weather wave base, where seawater was constantly mixed, which would have prevented the formation of a pycnocline. Conglomeratic rudstones of similar calibre are generally attributed to slope failures or submarine gravity flows that form on steep slopes (>2°) (Mullins & Cook, ; Janson et al ., ; Le Goff et al ., ) and are not associated with low‐angle ramps. Storm wave action is a common triggering mechanism of both cohesive and frictional flows by liquefaction or suspension (Walker, ; Prior et al ., ; Madsen et al ., ; Seguret et al ., ; Alfaro et al ., ; Paull et al ., ).…”

Heterozoan carbonate deposition on a steep basement escarpment (Late Miocene, Almería, south‐east Spain)

“…In both the classic apron model and the study case, sediment shedding from the platform to the base of slope was favoured by steep margin‐slope profiles, but significant differences between the two models are the facies types and their distribution. Coarse‐grained debris including slides, slumps, mud‐supported and clast‐supported breccias and conglomerates, extending from the margin to the basin, are common in carbonate aprons (Valladares, ; Hairabian et al ., ; Le Goff et al ., ) following a relatively organized proximal–distal distribution (Mullins & Cook, ) and intercalating with grain‐dominated deposits (Playton et al ., ). In contrast, the Almería lobes lack the collapse facies, and the coarse‐grained breccias and conglomerates are mostly found in the feeder‐canyon infill (Fig.…”

“…The predominant facies type in the carbonate deposits is indicated; see text for details. supported breccias and conglomerates, extending from the margin to the basin, are common in carbonate aprons (Valladares, 1995;Hairabian et al, 2015;Le Goff et al, 2015) following a relatively organized proximal-distal distribution (Mullins & Cook, 1986) and intercalating with grain-dominated deposits (Playton et al, 2010). In contrast, the Almer ıa lobes lack the collapse facies, and the coarse-grained breccias and conglomerates are mostly found in the feeder-canyon infill (Fig.…”