Shallow to Deep Water Facies Development in the Dimple Limestone (Lower Pennsylvanian), Marathon Region, Texas

Thomson, Alan; Thomasson, M. Ray

doi:10.2110/pec.69.03.0057

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both cases deposition below calcite compensation depth of the carbonate-free interturbidites is in accordance with the known depth-fluctuations of Tertiary calcite compensation levels (Berger, 1973;Van Andel & Moore, 1974) and the assumed tectonic history of the drilling sites (Oligocene tectonic uplift of Cantabria Seamount, Laughton et al, 1972, ocean-floor subsidence associated with sea-floor spreading, Hesse et al, 1974, p. 167).…”

Section: Modern Examples Of the Model Basinsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Andel & Komar (1969) are particularly interesting because they indicate deposition of coccolith ooze from a turbidity current which was still moving while depositing and which was actually reflected repeatedly from the basin walls. In general, basins with a horizontal sea-floor do not present a problem for the deposition of fines from turbidity currents, because the settling of the fine-grained particles may occur from a stationary turbid cloud left after the passage of the turbidity current.…”

Section: Deposition Of Fine-grained Sediment By Turbidity Currentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The finer grained rocks alternating with the coarser turbidites have been largely neglected and have only recently attracted some attention. The occurrence of both turbiditic and non-turbiditic layers among these fine-grained rocks is now generally acknowledged (Enos, 1969;Hesse, 1969Hesse, , 1972Hesse, , 1973Thomson & Thomasson, 1969;Roy, 1970;Weiler, 1970;Scholle, 1971;Hall & Stanley, 1972;Mutti & Ricci Lucchi, 1972;Piper, 1972Piper, , 1973Lajoie & Chagnon, 1973;Wezel, 1973;Rupke & Stanley, 1974. Earlier references are given by Kuenen, 1964).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Turbiditic and non‐turbiditic mudstone of Cretaceous flysch sections of the East Alps and other basins

Hesse

1975

Sedimentology

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition of the occurrence and extent of hemipelagic and pelagic deposits in turbidite sequences is of considerable importance for environmental analysis (palaeodepth, circulation, distance from land, hemipelagic or pelagic versus turbidite sedimentation rates) of ancient basins. Differentiation between the finegrained parts (E‐division) of turbidites and the (hemi‐) pelagic layers (F‐division of turbidite‐pelagite alternations) is facilitated in basins where carbonate turbidites were deposited below the carbonate compensation depth (CCD) such as the Flysch Zone of the East Alps but may be difficult in other basins where less compositional contrast is developed between the fine‐grained turbidites and hemipelagites. This difficulty pertains particularly in Palaeozoic and older basins. For Late Mesozoic‐Cenozoic oceans with a relatively deep calcite compensation level three other types of turbidite basins may be distinguished for which differentiation becomes increasingly more difficult in the sequence from (1) to (3): (1) terrigenous turbidite basins above the CCD; (2) carbonate turbidite basins above the CCD; (3) terrigenous turbidite basins below the CCD. Criteria and methods useful for the differentiation between turbiditic and hemipelagic mudstone in the Upper Cretaceous of the Flysch Zone of the East Alps include calcium carbonate content, colour, sequential analysis, distribution of bioturbation, and microfaunal content. In modern turbidite basins clay mineral content, organic matter content, plant fragments, and grain‐size (graded bedding, maximum grain diameter) have reportedly also been used as criteria (see Table 3). Deposition of muddy sediment by turbidity currents on weakly sloping sea bottoms such as the distal parts of deep‐sea fans or abyssal plains is not only feasible but may lead to the accumulation of thick layers. Contrary to earlier speculation it can be explained by the hydrodynamic theory of turbidity currents, if temperature differences between the turbidity current and the ambient deep water as well as relatively high current velocities for the deposition of turbiditic muds (an order of magnitude higher on mud surfaces than commonly assumed) are taken into consideration. The former add to the capacity of turbidity currents to carry muddy sediment without creating a driving force on a low slope.

show abstract

Section: Modern Examples Of the Model Basinsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Deposition Of Fine-grained Sediment By Turbidity Currentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Turbiditic and non‐turbiditic mudstone of Cretaceous flysch sections of the East Alps and other basins

Hesse

1975

Sedimentology

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those bipartite beds would be described as sgbceSM in the present scheme, but a separated new subfacies (sglSM, plane-stratified to graded to laminated sand-mud couplets) might also be distinguished for descriptive and classification purposes. The same is true of other, relatively uncommon bed types, such as gsmGS (Aalto, 1989), sgGyS (Slaczka & Thompson, 1981), gxlSM (Hubert, 1966a, b;Thompson & Thomasson, 1969;Spalletti et al, 1989), xlSM (Thompson & Thomasson, 1969;Rocheleau & Lajoie, 1974;Mutti, 1979;Mutti & Normark, 1987), glMT Anastasakis &Piper, 1991) and mM (McCave &Jones, 1988;Jones & McCave, 1990). Moreover, some additional descriptive code-keys may be introduced to denote specific sedimentary structures and to distinguish new, less typical subfacies, if necessary (e.g.…”

Section: Subfacies Designationmentioning

confidence: 85%

Subaqueous sediment gravity flow deposits: practical criteria for their field description and classification

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new method for the description and classification of subaqueous sediment gravity flow deposits is proposed. The classification scheme employs a convenient letter code and divides deposits (individual beds) into descriptive categories of two hierarchical levels: facies and subfacies. Facies, as the higher rank categories, are distinguished chiefly on the basis of sediment type (i.e. bed grain size/texture). A total of 13 facies have been distinguished: G= gravel; GS = gravel‐sand couplet; GyS = gravelly sand; S = sand; SM = sand—mud couplet; MS = mud—sand couplet; TM = silt—mud couplet; MT = mud—silt couplet; M = mud; MyS = muddy sand; SyM = sandy mud; MyG = muddy gravel; GyM = gravelly mud. Subfacies, as the lower rank categories, are distinguished within the individual facies on the basis of the bed's internal structures. The number of subfacies is unlimited, and their labelling code includes particular facies symbols (see above) preceded by lower—case letters denoting specific sedimentary structures and their vertical arrangement. Subfacies thus refer to the bed's intervals, or divisions, which are labelled as follows: m = massive (unstratified and ungraded); g = graded (unstratified and graded); s = plane‐stratified; x=cross‐stratified; 1 = parallel– and/or cross‐laminated; q = liquefied. For example, subfacies gsG (graded to plane‐stratified gravel) are gravel beds that have a lower graded interval and an upper plane‐stratified interval; subfacies xG (cross‐stratified gravel) are gravel beds that are cross‐stratified throughout; subfacies slS (plane‐stratified to laminated sand) are sand beds that have a lower plane‐stratified interval and an upper laminated (parallel‐ and/or cross‐laminated) interval.

show abstract

“…One locality of the Dimple is along US Highway 90 ≈ 34 km east of the town of Marathon, and the other locality is 10 km to the south along a ranch road. The Dimple at these localities is composed of calcisiltite and calcarenite turbidites rhythmically interbedded with calcitic pelagic shale, rocks that were deposited in a slope‐to‐basinal setting (Thomson & Thomasson, 1969). The rocks were structurally deformed during the Late Pennsylvanian–Early Permian Ouachita Orogeny (King, 1937; Tauvers, 1988).…”

Section: General Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pseudofaults resulting from compartmentalized Liesegang bands: update

McBride

2003

Sedimentology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liesegang bands with apparent offset along fractures are common in some calcisiltite beds. Thin sections show, however, that primary laminations are not offset along the fractures. Following the development of fracture sets in the calcisiltite, the fractures were cemented by calcite. This formed polyhedral compartments of low‐permeability calcisiltite bounded by impermeable walls of calcite. Liesegang bands formed when oxygen in ground water diffused into polyhedra containing soluble ferrous iron in pore water. Each joint‐bounded polyhedral compartment behaved as an independent diffusion cell. Liesegang bands with nearly the same pattern and thickness tended to develop in adjacent compartments, but not at the same stratigraphic level; this resulted in the formation of pseudofaults.

show abstract

Shallow to Deep Water Facies Development in the Dimple Limestone (Lower Pennsylvanian), Marathon Region, Texas

Cited by 19 publications

References 1 publication

Turbiditic and non‐turbiditic mudstone of Cretaceous flysch sections of the East Alps and other basins

Turbiditic and non‐turbiditic mudstone of Cretaceous flysch sections of the East Alps and other basins

Subaqueous sediment gravity flow deposits: practical criteria for their field description and classification

Pseudofaults resulting from compartmentalized Liesegang bands: update

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About