1998
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3121.1998.00210.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discriminating between tectonic and eustatic controls on the stratigraphic record in the Paris basin

Abstract: The quantification of tectonic and eustatic factors in the control of the sedimentary record is one of the main questions in sedimentary basin dynamics. We propose two methods allowing: (i) 3D measurement of accommodation at basin scale and (ii) to decipher between local (10–100 km wavelength) and basin‐scale accommodation. The local signal is necessarily of tectonic origin, the basin‐scale signal is of both eustatic and large tectonic origin. The measurement of accommodation requires (a) high‐resolution time‐… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
(28 reference statements)
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the main drawback is that, in this method, only vertical movements are measured. This approximation is acceptable for an intracratonic basin (Robin, 1997; Robin et al , 1998; Robin et al , 2000) or a vertical normal fault (Dromart et al , 1998); however, we can seldom ignore horizontal displacements associated with growth faults on the kilometre to tens of kilometre scale.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…However, the main drawback is that, in this method, only vertical movements are measured. This approximation is acceptable for an intracratonic basin (Robin, 1997; Robin et al , 1998; Robin et al , 2000) or a vertical normal fault (Dromart et al , 1998); however, we can seldom ignore horizontal displacements associated with growth faults on the kilometre to tens of kilometre scale.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…The next step is to discriminate the tectonic forcing from the eustatic component in a downward migration of the shoreline. Three conditions can be considered where the shoreline migration is likely to be a direct measure of uplift: Based on published eustatic charts [ Haq et al ., ; Miller et al ., ], which can sometimes be contradictory, the studied time interval does not correspond to a period of sea level fall.The amplitude of the downward migration of the shoreline is larger than the maximum rate of sea level fall accepted for greenhouse or icehouse periods, i.e., around 100 m of sea level fall over a 1 Ma period and around 150 m for a duration of 100 Ka, respectively.For any given time interval, noticeable spatial variations in relative sea level fall are observed, which must therefore be related to tectonic forcing [ Robin et al ., ] as eustasy is, by definition, a function of time only, not space.…”
Section: Geological Constraints On Late Cretaceous Erosionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Des manifestations tectoniques similaires à la même époque ont été mises en évidence et largement discutées pour la marge continentale subbetique (Vera, 1988 ;Rey, 1998 ;Ruiz-Ortiz et al, 2004) et pour le bassin français (Robin et al, 1996).…”
Section: Discussion Et Conclusionunclassified