How to make a 350-m-thick lowstand systems tract in 17,000 years: The Late Pleistocene Po River (Italy) lowstand wedge

Pellegrini, Claudio; Maselli, Vittorio; Gamberi, Fabiano; Asioli, Alessandra; Bohacs, Kevin M.; Drexler, Tina M.; Trincardi, Fabio

doi:10.1130/g38848.1

Cited by 72 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The case of lowstand shelf-edge deltas is not shown here, but is characterized by significantly faster "delta-like" rates (e.g. c. 10 4 m/kyr, see Pellegrini et al, 2017Pellegrini et al, , 2018.…”

Section: Delta Scale Clinoformsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Exceptions to this rule are represented by for example the continental shelf off Carolina, eastern U.S. (Figs. 10A, 18) and by the Pleistocene lowstand mid-Adriatic shelf-edge delta (Pellegrini et al, 2017(Pellegrini et al, , 2018 Fig. 14C).…”

Section: Shelf-edge Scale Clinoforms (Figs 14-16)mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…At these times, the deposition of carbonate cement, mudstone linings or organic matter enables the preservation of a paleobathymetric profile in the stratigraphic record, turning it into a clinoform that is visible in outcrops, detectable in cores and/or resolvable in seismic (Wood and Gorin, 1998;Saito et al, 2000;Savrda et al, 2001;Holgate et al, 2014). Major clinoforms represent more significant hiatuses or erosion, and are marked by reflector terminations and/or unconformities linked to key sequence stratigraphic boundaries (Mitchum et al, 1977;Neal and Abreu, 2009;Pellegrini et al, 2017). Since a clinoform represents a "frozen" or "fossilized" palaeo-depositional interface preserved in the sedimentary record, its geometry gives direct information about past bathymetry and shoreface-shelf 3D morphology, as well as reflecting primary external forcing like accommodation, sediment supply and sediment-grade (Ross et al, 1994;Postma, 1995;Pirmez et al, 1998;Driscoll and Karner, 1999;Adams and Schlager, 2000;Steel and Olsen, 2002;Quiquerez and Dromart, 2006;Patruno et al, 2015a;Anell and Midtkandal, 2017).…”

Section: Sequence Stratigraphic Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The stratigraphic architecture of clinoforms sets, furthermore, provides a link in the understanding of how sediments are transported to deeper water settings (e.g., sediment partitioning between aggradational topset storage versus degradational topset bypass), as well as a physical record of the interplay between changes in sea-level, tectonics (uplift and subsidence), sediment supply, basin physiography, hydrodynamics, climate and other environmental forcing (e.g., Mitchum et al, 1977;McKee et al, 1983;Steel and Olsen, 2002;Bullimore et al, 2005;Løseth et al, 2006;Ponce et al, 2008;Helland-Hansen and Hampson, 2009;Neal and Abreu, 2009;Charvin et al, 2010Charvin et al, , 2011Patruno et al, 2015c;Reeve et al, 2016;Pellegrini et al, 2017).…”

Section: Sequence Stratigraphic Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Patruno

Helland‐Hansen

2018

Earth-Science Reviews

173

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TClinoforms are inclined and normally basinward-dipping horizons developed over a range of spatial and temporal scales in both siliciclastic and carbonatic systems. The study of clinoform successions underpins sequence stratigraphy and all efforts to reconstruct the relative partitioning of reservoir, seal and source rocks along shoreline to basin-floor profiles.Here, we review clinoform research and propose a more systematic description and classification of clinoforms. This is a crucial step to improve predictions of facies and lithology distribution within shoreline to continental shelf and abyssal plain successions, together with the genesis, drivers and dynamics of their constituent sedimentary units.Four basic clinoform types are here distinguished in delta/shorelines, lacustrines and marine environments, on the basis of their overall spatial and temporal scale, morphology, outbuilding dynamic and geodynamic and depositional setting: (1, 2) delta-scale clinoforms, which in turns are sub-divided into shoreline and delta-scale subaqueous clinoforms; (3) shelf-edge clinoforms; and (4) continental-margin clinoforms. Delta-scale clinoform sets are tens of metres high and typically represent 1-10 3 kyr, with progradation rates ranging from 1,000-100,000 m/kyr for shorelines and "subaerial deltas" to 100-20,000 m/kyr for subaqueous deltas; shelfedge clinoform sets are hundreds of metres high and are nucleated and accreted in 0.1-20 Myr (usual progradation rates of 1-100 m/kyr) by successive cross-shelf transits of delta-scale clinoforms; continental-margin clinoform sets are thousands of metres high, hallmark key geodynamic/crustal boundaries (e.g., continent/ocean transition) and slowly prograde basinwards in ca. 5-100 Myr, with typical rates of 0.1-10 m/kyr. As a consequence of the very different progradation rates and of the difficulty of large-scale clinothems to backstep during transgressions, shorelines are the most dynamic clinoforms with regards to position, continental margins the least, and shelf-edges are intermediate. Shortly after a transgression, therefore, the four clinoform types may prograde synchronously along shoreline-to-abyssal plain transects, forming "compound clinoform" systems. During the subsequent regressive cycle, however, due to the dissimilarity in progradation rates, different clinoform types will normally merge progressively with each other, giving rise to "hybrid clinoforms" (e.g., shelf-edge deltas), and fewer depositional breaks-in-slope are distinguished along a single shoreline-toabyssal plain transect. Overall, all clinoform systems are the result of the dynamic evolution of compound and hybrid clinoforms along a temporal and spatial continuum, regulated by the cyclical backstepping of the smallerscale system within natural progradational-retrogradational cycles of larger-scale clinothem outbuilding.All clinothem types may show either an accretionary/active or draping/passive style, depending on the proximity to the sediment source. Draping clinothems are nearly...

show abstract

Section: Delta Scale Clinoformsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Shelf-edge Scale Clinoforms (Figs 14-16)mentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Sequence Stratigraphic Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sequence Stratigraphic Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Patruno

Helland‐Hansen

2018

Earth-Science Reviews

173

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1) with a shelf break and continental slope and rise seaward, and are therefore building the shelf segment of the basin (sedimentary shelves of Helland-Hansen et al [2012]). The topset-foreset-bottomset nomenclature has been employed for intermediate-scale clinoforms that developed on deep shelves (e.g., Steel and Olsen, 2002;Anell et al, 2014;Patruno et al, 2015;Pellegrini et al, 2017) or in lakes (e.g., Fongngern et al, 2016).…”

Section: Geological Setting and Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sedimentology, Stratigraphic Context, and Implications of Miocene Intrashelf Bottomset Deposits, Offshore New Jersey

Browning¹,

Hodgson²,

Miller³

et al. 2017

Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drilling of intrashelf Miocene clinothems onshore and offshore New Jersey has provided better understanding of their topset and foreset deposits, but the sedimentology and stratigraphy of their bottomset deposits have not been documented in detail. Three coreholes (Sites M27-M29), collected during Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Expedition 313, intersect multiple bottomset deposits, and their analysis helps to refine sequence stratigraphic interpretations and process response models for intrashelf clinothems. At Site M29, the most downdip location, chronostratigraphically well-constrained bottomset deposits follow a repeated stratigraphic motif. Coarse-grained glauconitic quartz sand packages abruptly overlie deeply burrowed surfaces. Typically, these packages coarsen then fine upwards and pass upward into bioturbated siltstones. These coarse sand beds are amalgamated and poorly sorted and contain thin-walled shells, benthic foraminifera, and extrabasinal clasts, consistent with an interpretation of debrites. The sedimentology and mounded seismic character of these packages support interpretation as debrite-dominated lobe complexes. Farther updip, at Site M28, the same chrono strati graphic units are amalgamated, with the absence of bioturbated silts pointing to more erosion in proximal locations. Graded sandstones and dune-scale cross-bedding in the younger sequences in Site M28 indicate deposition from turbidity currents and channelization. The sharp base of each package is interpreted as a sequence boundary, with a period of erosion and sediment bypass evidenced by the burrowed surface, and the coarse-grained debritic and turbiditic deposits representing the lowstand systems tract. The overlying fine-grained deposits are interpreted as the combined transgressive and highstand systems tract deposits and contain the deepwater equivalent of the maximum flooding surface. The variety in thickness and grain-size trends in the coarse-grained bottomset packages point to an autogenic control, through compensational stacking of lobes and lobe complexes. However, the large-scale stratigraphic organization of the bottomset deposits and the coarse-grained immature extrabasinal and reworked glauconitic detritus point to external controls, likely a combination of relative sea-level fall and waxing-and-waning cycles of sediment supply. This study demonstrates that large amounts of sediment gravity-flow deposits can be generated in relatively shallow (~100-200 m deep) and low-gradient (~1°-4°) clinothems that prograded across a deep continental shelf. This physiography likely led to the dominance of debris flow deposits due to the short transport distance limiting transformation to low-concentration turbidity currents.

show abstract

Topset-to-forest rollover trajectories as reliable predictors of sediment-volume partitioning into deep-lake areas

Zhao¹,

Gong

Zhou³

et al. 2021

Pet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Topset-to-forest rollover trajectories and their relation to sediment- and sand-budget partitioning into deep-lake areas are far from being well understood, as compared with their marine counterparts of shelf edges. Two quantitatively distinctive topset-to-forest rollover trajectories and clinothem-stacking patterns were recognized in the Oligocene Qikou Sag of the Bohai Bay Basin and are quantified in terms of trajectory angles (Tse), topset thickness (Tt), forest thickness (Tf), bottomset thickness (Tb), and clinothem-set relief (Rc). Rising topset-to-forest trajectories have positive Tse of 0.15°–0.51° (averaging 0.35°). Ranges in Tt, Tf, Tb, and Rc of their associated progradational and aggradational clinothem sets are, respectively, 32.4–58.7 m (averaging 42.7 m), 76.9–176.2 m (averaging 148.3 m), 0 m, and 167.8–320.8 m (averaging 272.9 m). Falling topset-to-forest rollover trajectories, in contrast, have negative Tse of − 0.12° to − 0.02° (averaging − 0.06°). Ranges in Tt, Tf, Tb, and Rc of their associated progradational and downstepping clinothem sets are, respectively, 0 m, 266.0–395.7 m (averaging 333.4 m), 441.1–542.5 m (averaging 464.1), and 874.9–922.6 m (averaging 892.5 m). These two topset-to-forest rollover trajectories and clinothem-stacking patterns are closely linked to two distinctive patterns of sediment- and sand-volume partitioning into deep-lake areas, which are quantified in terms of Tt, Tb, and differential sediment aggradation of topset segments and forest-to-bottomset compartments (As/Ad). Rising topset-to-forest rollover trajectories and associated progradational and aggradational clinothem sets are characterized by aggradational topsets (reported as Tt of 32.4–58.7 m), a lack of time-equivalent bottomsets, and As/Ad of 0.22–0.87 (averaging 0.33), and are fronted by mud-dominated depositional deposits, with sporadic occurrence of thinner and regionally localized forest sands. They are, therefore, inefficient at delivering terrestrial sediments or sands into deep-lake settings. Falling topset-to-forest rollover trajectories and associated progradational and downstepping clinothem sets, in contrast, are characterized by toplap, erosional terminations but aggradational bottomsets (reported as Tb of 266.0–473.4 m), and As/Ad of 0, and are fronted by sand-rich depositional deposits, with widespread occurrence of thicker and regionally extensive time-equivalent deep-lake bottomset sands. They are, thus, efficient at delivering terrestrial sediments or sands into deep-lake settings. Topset-to-forest rollover trajectories and associated clinothem-stacking patterns are thus reliable predictors of sediment- and sand-volume partitioning into deep-lake areas, assisting greatly in developing a more dynamic stratigraphy.

show abstract

How to make a 350-m-thick lowstand systems tract in 17,000 years: The Late Pleistocene Po River (Italy) lowstand wedge

Cited by 72 publications

References 18 publications

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Sedimentology, Stratigraphic Context, and Implications of Miocene Intrashelf Bottomset Deposits, Offshore New Jersey

Topset-to-forest rollover trajectories as reliable predictors of sediment-volume partitioning into deep-lake areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About