Three-dimensional controls on subsidence of a foreland basin associated with a thrust-belt recess: Black Warrior basin, Alabama and Mississippi

Whiting, Brian M.; Thomas, William A.

doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1994)022<0727:tdcoso>2.3.co;2

Cited by 30 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3C) (Mack et al, 1983;Sestak, 1984;Pashin et al, 1991;Pashin, 1994;Whiting and Thomas, 1994). The down-to-southeast subsidence in the Appalachian foreland imposed an interference pattern on down-to-southwest subsidence of the greater Black Warrior foreland basin toward the Ouachita thrust load.…”

Section: Foreland Subsidencementioning

confidence: 91%

“…Through the Upper Mississippian and Lower Pennsylvanian succession, siliciclastic sedimentary facies (Parkwood and Pottsville Formations) thicken and generally coarsen southwestward toward the Ouachita thrust front, indicating that the tectonic load of the Ouachita orogen drove foreland subsidence and supplied clastic sediment (Mack et al, 1983;Thomas, 1988;Whiting and Thomas, 1994).…”

Section: Foreland Subsidencementioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Genetic relationship of rift-stage crustal structure, terrane accretion, and foreland tectonics along the southern Appalachian-Ouachita orogen

Thomas

2004

Journal of Geodynamics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Foreland Subsidencementioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Foreland Subsidencementioning

confidence: 97%

Genetic relationship of rift-stage crustal structure, terrane accretion, and foreland tectonics along the southern Appalachian-Ouachita orogen

Thomas

2004

Journal of Geodynamics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Combined with orogenic supracrustal loading (load of the mountain belt exerted on the continental lithosphere), these are the primary subsidence mechanisms that control accommodation and sedimentation patterns in retro-foreland basin (DeCelles & Giles 1996;Pysklywec & Mitrovica 1999;Catuneanu 2004). Local-scale mechanisms such as reactivation of weak structures (Bayona & Thomas 2003), threedimensional (3D) confi guration of the orogenic load (Whiting & Thomas 1994) or variable strengths of the lithosphere can also play an important role in subsidence within a foreland basin.…”

Section: The Amazonian Foreland Basin System 63mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cenozoic Sedimentary Evolution of the Amazonian Foreland Basin System

Roddaz

Hermoza

Mora

et al. 2009

Amazonia: Landscape and Species Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter we present a synthesis of the Cenozoic evolution of the Amazonian foreland basin system, based on a review of the estimated ages, lithology and sedimentary structures, palaeontological content, and inferred depositional environments of sedimentary units in the basin. In addition, we have calculated maximum sedimentation rates for the Cenozoic formations of the northern Peruvian foreland basin and integrated these with existing data on sedimentation rates, subsidence analysis, migration of depocentre and depositional environments. Based on this information we propose a model for the Cenozoic evolution of the Amazonian foreland. The sedimentary architecture of this foreland basin indicates that Cenozoic evolution was marked by several periods, which were roughly synchronous and of similar effect, along the entire Amazonian foreland basin system. Tectonic loading of the Andes of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and northern Bolivia, and development of the Amazonian foreland, was initiated during Late Cretaceous-Paleocene times and followed by an unloading stage during the Early-Middle Eocene period. The Middle-Late Eocene marine transgression and the increase in sedimentation rates, associated with westward migration of the depocentre, were all indicative of a renewed phase of tectonic loading of the Peruvian Western Cordillera and the Ecuadorian and Colombian Eastern Cordillera. Subsequent Oligo-Miocene increase in sedimentation rates and further migration of the depocentres towards the present-day sub-Andean zone, are all indicative for a thrust-induced uplift and loading of the Eastern Cordilleras of Peru, Bolivia and Colombia. This Oligo-Miocene loading stage maintained high subsidence rates that favoured the sedimentation of aggradational fl oodplain and coastal plain and tidally infl uenced deposits. Nevertheless, the processes that controlled the Early-Middle Miocene marine ingressions remain to be determined. Late Miocene ongoing thrust tectonic loading of the Eastern Cordillera, initial structuring of the sub-Andean zone and the onset of the main phase of Andean surface uplift induced fl exural subsidence in the foredeep depozones of the entire Amazonian foreland basin. This process also drove the Late Miocene marine transgressions that characterized the fi lled stage of the Ecuadorian, Peruvian and Bolivian Amazonian foreland basin system. Valley incisions and full relief development in the hinterland during the Late Miocene-Pliocene provided increased sediment supply and overfi lled the Amazonian foreland basin system. Finally, the fl at-slab subduction of the Nazca ridge induced Pliocene (~4 Ma) uplift of the Fitzcarrald Arch and subdivided the Amazonian foreland basin into the northern and southern Amazonian foreland basins.

show abstract

“…In an ideal foreland basin, crustal loads, tectonic subsidence and the basin's cross‐sectional geometry are constant along strike (Flemings & Jordan, 1989). But in nature, spatially and temporally variable tectonic shortening (Whiting & Thomas, 1994; DeCelles & Mitra, 1995), exhumation (Flemings & Nelson, 1991; Schlunegger, 1999), climate and/or sediment supply (Horton, 1999) create crustal loads that are variable both in space and time. These loads are imposed on a basin's underlying lithosphere that may also have spatially and even temporally variable strength (Beaumont, 1981; Watts, 1992; Clark & Royden, 2000), resulting in tectonic subsidence and stratal geometries that are variable in space and time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causes of spatially variable tectonic subsidence in the Miocene Bermejo Foreland Basin, Argentina

Cardozo¹,

Jordan²

2001

Basin Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tectonic subsidence in the 20–9 Ma Bermejo basin resulted from spatially variable crustal loading on a lithosphere of spatially variable strength (e.g. elastic thickness). Reconstruction of the crustal loads added between 20 and 9 Ma, and assessment of the effects of these loads on an elastic, isotropic lithosphere confirm this hypothesis. Elastic models effectively explain tectonic subsidence east of the Iglesia–Calingasta basin, but west of it crustal loads were locally compensated. Elastic models also prove that the 20–9 Ma Frontal Cordillera loading is of no importance in the mechanical system of the Bermejo basin. 2D and 3D elastic models of a uniformly strong lithosphere under 20–9 Ma crustal loads corrected for post‐9 Ma erosion successfully replicate the 9 Ma Bermejo basin's proximal palaeotopography. However, they fail to replicate the 9 Ma basin's medial and distal palaeotopography. A 3D finite element model of a lithosphere with bimodal strength (weak below the Bermejo basin and west of the Precordillera, and strong below the Precordillera and east of the Valle Fértil lineament) successfully replicates the 9 Ma basin's palaeotopography. That variable strength model introduces a southward decrease in the wavelength of flexural deformation, which results in a basin that narrows southward, consistent with the 9 Ma Bermejo basin. The preferred 9 Ma lithospheric strength distribution is similar to the present lithospheric strength field derived from gravity data, suggesting that the bimodal strength signature was retained throughout the entire basin's evolution. Late Miocene flattening of the subducting slab, tectonic change to a broken foreland, or deposition of a thick (∼8–10 km) sedimentary cover did not affect the strength of the lithosphere underlying the Bermejo basin. The long‐term bimodal strength field does not correlate with the documented thickness of the seismogenic crust.

show abstract

Three-dimensional controls on subsidence of a foreland basin associated with a thrust-belt recess: Black Warrior basin, Alabama and Mississippi

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Genetic relationship of rift-stage crustal structure, terrane accretion, and foreland tectonics along the southern Appalachian-Ouachita orogen

Genetic relationship of rift-stage crustal structure, terrane accretion, and foreland tectonics along the southern Appalachian-Ouachita orogen

Cenozoic Sedimentary Evolution of the Amazonian Foreland Basin System

Causes of spatially variable tectonic subsidence in the Miocene Bermejo Foreland Basin, Argentina

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About