Transformation, partitioning and flow–deposit interactions during the run‐out of megaflows

Abstract

Four megabeds (I to IV) were recognized throughout the Cerro Bola inlier, a glacially influenced depositional area of the Carboniferous Paganzo Basin, south-western La Rioja Province, Argentina. Such anomalous thick beds are associated with the collapse of an unstable basin margin after periods of large meltwater discharge and sediment accumulation. Failure of these previously deposited sediments triggered mass flows and associated turbidity currents into the basin. Megabed I is up to 188 m thick and was deposited during a transgressive stage by re-sedimentation of ice-rafted debris. Also part of the transgressive stage, Megabeds II, III and IV are up to 9 m thick and are associated with a dropstone-free period of flooding. Megabeds were subdivided into three divisions (1 to 3) that represent a spectrum of flow properties and rheologies, indicative of a wide range of grain support mechanisms. These divisions are proposed as an idealized deposit that may or may not be completely present; the Cerro Bola megabeds thus display bipartite or tripartite organization, each division inferred to reflect a rheologically distinct phase of flow. Division 1 is a basal layer that consists of clast-supported and matrixsupported, pebble conglomerate, rarely followed by weak normally graded to ungraded, very coarse-to coarse-grained sandstone. This lower interval is interpreted to be the deposit of a concentrated density flow and is absent in bipartite megabeds. Division 2 is represented by a mud-rich sandstone matrix with dispersed granule to pebble-size crystalline and mudstone clasts. It also includes fragments of sandstone up to boulder size, as well as rafts of cohesive muddy material and wood fragments. Division 2 is interpreted to be a result of debris-flow deposition. A debrite-related topography, resulting from the freezing of high yield strength material, captures and partially confines the succeeding upper division 3, which fills the topographic lows and pinches out against topographic highs. Division 3 is rich in mudstone chips and consists of very coarse-grained, dirty sandstones grading upward to siltstones and mudstones. It is interpreted to be a deposit of a co-genetic turbidity current. Spectral gamma ray and petrographic analyses indicate that both debrite and co-genetic turbidite have high depositional mud content and are of similar composition. One of the megabeds is correlated with an initial slumpderived debris flow, which suggests that the mass flow becomes partitioned both at the top, generating a co-genetic turbidity current and, at the base, segregating into a concentrated density flow that seems to behave as a gravelly traction carpet. 359

Tabularity of individual turbidite beds controlled by flow efficiency and degree of confinement

“…The overall shallowing‐upward succession ranges from Carboniferous to Permian over a total stratigraphic thickness exceeding 1 km (Fig. B, Milana et al ., ; Dykstra et al ., ; Fallgatter et al ., ). Correlative strata occur at Sierra de Maz, ca 10 km to the north‐west, restoring to perhaps 15 km after removal of thrust displacement (Milana et al ., ; Valdez Buso et al ., ), where Mississippian/Pennsylvanian rocks are seen to onlap metamorphic Precambrian basement, uplifted along the currently active Valle Fertil fault.…”

“…Within the Bashkirian (early Pennsylvanian), part of the Cerro Bola succession is a unit of turbidites (Milana et al ., ; Dykstra et al ., ; Fallgatter, ; Fallgatter et al ., ). These turbidites have been divided into five stages (named TS1 to TS5; Fig.…”

“…(B) Stratigraphic column of Cerro Bola, represented by an alternation of fluvio‐deltaic sediments, turbidite intervals and mass transport deposits ( MTD ): TS 2 and TS 4 in the Upper Turbidites interval are the subjects of this study. (Fallgatter et al ., ; modified after Milana et al ., ).…”

Exhumed lateral margins and increasing flow confinement of a submarine landslide complex

“…The quasi‐instantaneous modification of the seascape by these events leads to the rerouting, capture and ponding of subsequent flows (e.g. Alves & Cartwright, ; Ortiz‐Karpf et al ., ; Kneller et al ., ; Fallgatter et al ., ; Qin et al ., ). Therefore, understanding of the formation and infill of major submarine landslides is required to assess their geohazard potential and the stratigraphic evolution of continental margins.…”

“…Alves & Lourenço, ; Dakin et al ., ), and process interactions between subsequent flows and submarine landslide relief (e.g. Armitage et al ., ; Jackson & Johnson, ; Ortiz‐Karpf et al ., ; Kneller et al ., ; Sobiesiak et al ., ; Fallgatter et al ., ), to be investigated. However, exhumed submarine landslide systems of scales comparable to modern and subsurface examples are beyond the scale of most outcrops.…”