Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2007, v.

77, 2–12
Perspectives
DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2007.005

AUTOSTRATIGRAPHY: A FRAMEWORK NORM FOR GENETIC STRATIGRAPHY

TETSUJI MUTO,1 RON J. STEEL,2 AND JOHN B. SWENSON3

1
Faculty of Environmental Studies, Nagasaki University, 1-14 Bunkyomachi, Nagasaki 852-8521, Japan
, 2Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, C-1100, Austin, Texas 78712, U.S.A.
3
Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Minnesota Duluth, 1114 Kirby Drive SE, Duluth, Minnesota 55812, U.S.A.
e-mail: tmuto@nagasaki-u.ac.jp

ABSTRACT: Autostratigraphy is the stratigraphy generated by large-scale autogenic processes, and needs to be heeded because
of a current overreliance on allogenic controls in sequence stratigraphy. Key principles of autostratigraphy, emerging from the
theory of autoretreat and a new understanding of alluvial grade, derive from the non-equilibrium stratigraphic response, i.e., the
general lack of equilibrium configuration of depositional systems. The non-equilibrium behavior of fluvial deltas during times
(T ) of steady dynamic forcing leads to variable stratigraphic response that is the inevitable result of length (D) and time (t)
scaling particular to the depositional system, rather than necessarily reflecting any sudden or unsteady change in the rate of
allogenic forcing. Some abrupt breaks in the stratigraphic record are not necessarily associated with changes in allogenic
conditions but can result from purely autogenic processes of the system. When T is comparable to or longer than t, (1) the
depositional system takes the non-equilibrium, large-scale autogenic response, (2) the superposition of autogenic and allogenic
components of the forcing is prominently nonlinear, and thus (3) sequence stratigraphic models that have been built on the
assumption of equilibrium response are incorrect. Autostratigraphic analysis makes it possible to detect and identify complex
autogenic responses and unsteady allogenic events in the stratigraphic record by quantifying a temporal change in the
magnitude of D. Autostratigraphy thus functions as a ‘‘norm’’ for genetic stratigraphy.

INTRODUCTION
A stratigraphic example that captures the essence of our discomfort
with the practice of much of conventional sequence stratigraphy is shown
in Figure 1. The deltaic stratigraphy (Fig. 1A) preserves clear evidence of
a transition from regressive to transgressive conditions, via aggradational
and moderately transgressive stages.
Interpretation of this shoreline trajectory within conventional sequence
stratigraphy would normally require that the ratio of rate of relative sea-
level rise (A) to rate of sediment supply (S) changed with time, from less
than unity to far exceeding unity (Fig. 1B). With a constant magnitude of
S, the landward turnaround of the shoreline would be attributed to an
increase in A, and further discrete increase in A would account for the
accelerated transgression in the late stage. The aggradational stage at the
transition from regression to transgression would be explained with A/S
being unity or A tentatively balancing with S. These stratigraphic
interpretations are consistent, implicitly or explicitly, with the notion of
the A/S ratio concept (Shanley and McCabe 1994; Muto and Steel 1997;
Kim et al. 2006), that (1) there can exist an equilibrium state between A
and S to allow the shoreline to remain stationary for some time, and
(2) transgressive and regressive behavior of the deltaic shoreline reflects
unsteady allogenic forcing of the basin (i.e., changes in A and/or S)
whereby the equilibrium is broken.
In actuality, the stratigraphic architecture of Figure 1 was produced in
a flume experiment with steady dynamic conditions, i.e., constant
sediment supply and constant sea-level rise (Fig. 1C; for detailed
experimental conditions see Muto 2001), suggesting that a set of steady
or linear dynamic conditions (i.e., A 5 constant, S 5 constant) of the
basin can give rise to an autogenic behavior of deltaic shoreline that can
be nonsteady and nonlinear, and even associated with an abrupt break in
sedimentation and depositional geometry. This diagram therefore
illustrates a common misinterpretation of stratigraphic successions,
calling on unsteady allogenic control to explain the stratigraphy of
fluviodeltaic systems.
As well as the above-mentioned example, a recent body of theoretical,
experimental, and field-based work (Muto and Steel 1992, 1997, 2002a,
2002b, 2004; Swenson et al. 2000; Muto and Swenson 2005a, 2005b, 2006;
Swenson et al. 2005; Swenson and Muto 2005, in press) has shown
convincingly that fluviodeltaic systems lack an equilibrium configuration
under steady dynamic forcing (A 5 constant, S 5 constant) and that in
general the stratigraphic response of the depositional system proceeds in
a non-equilibrium and nonlinear manner. This fundamental aspect of
stratigraphic response has not been recognized in conventional sequence
stratigraphy (e.g., Jervey 1988; Posamentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier
et al. 1988) and in its derivatives including the Galloway model (Galloway
1989a, 1989b), the regime model (Thorne and Swift 1991a, 1991b), the
four-systems-tract model (Hunt and Tucker 1995), the shoreline
trajectory model (Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg 1994), and the T–R
Model (Embry 1995).
Autostratigraphy, here advocated in terms of the intrinsic non-
equilibrium response, is the stratigraphy that takes full account of
potential large-scale autogenic changes in the depositional systems in
response to steady dynamic forcing of basins. Purely autostratigraphic
successions are likely to be rare in the geological record, because (1)
natural sedimentary processes are rarely entirely autogenic, and (2) on
longer time scales, autogenic processes cannot continue to operate

Copyright E 2007, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/07/077-002/$03.00

JSR AUTOSTRATIGRAPHY 3

FIG. 1.— Autostratigraphic versus conventional sequence-stratigraphic models in explanation of a regressive-to-transgressive shoreline turnaround. A) Longitudinal
profile of a delta that was built during experimental run conducted with constant rates of sediment supply (S 5 1.029 6 0.020 cm2/s), upstream water discharge
(q 5 4.36 6 0.02 cm2/s), and sea-level rise (A 5 0.0251 cm/s). See Muto (2001) for details of the experimental runs. B) Interpretation from the conventional models of
sequence stratigraphy. C) Interpretation from the viewpoint of autostratigraphy, which is consistent with the actual experimental conditions. Note that, even without any
change in the dynamic parameters, (1) shoreline advance (regression) is halted after a short growth period, turned to a landward retreat (transgression), and (2) sometime
after the initiation of retreat the delta attains an autobreak event, after which its original clinoform is no longer sustained.

without allogenic interruptions. However, autogenic processes and
resulting autostratigraphic successions have been demonstrated to be
important, from theoretical consideration, from numerical modeling, and
from laboratory experiments under controlled steady forcing. For the
analysis of stratigraphic successions, the methodology of autostratigra-
phy provides an economic explanation in terms of potential autogenic
mechanisms and steady forcing, and should initially be used to explain as
much of the stratigraphic response as possible. For the remaining signals
that cannot then be explained, allogenic processes should be brought into
play. Autostratigraphy therefore provides a logical basis for the
identification of allogenic effects in the stratigraphic record, i.e., in terms
of discrepancy from an autostratigraphic prediction.
We make here a first step in the direction of exploring principles,
strategy, and methodology of autostratigraphy. The present study limits
the ‘‘forcing’’ to changes in relative sea level and focuses on fluviodeltaic
systems. The latter are the basic building blocks of stratigraphic
successions, the locus for changes in relative sea level, and thus the key
depositional environment considered in sequence stratigraphic models.
AUTOGENESIS AND NON-EQUILIBRIUM RESPONSE
Autogenic vs. Allogenic
The term autogenic, as used here, refers to the intrinsic stratigraphic
response to the steady component of external dynamic forcing (Blum and
Törnqvist 2000; Muto and Steel 2001, 2004; Swenson et al. 2005; Muto
and Swenson 2006). Allogenic refers to the stratigraphic response to the
nonsteady component of external dynamic forcing (Muto and Swenson
2005a, 2005b). For example, sedimentation responding to accelerating
sea-level rise can be regarded as an allogenic process (with respect to sea-
level change), whereas sedimentation responding to constant rate of sea-
level rise is regarded as an autogenic process (with respect to sea-level
change). It is important to note that ‘‘steady sea-level forcing’’ means
forcing by sea level that is changing at a constant rate.
In standard sedimentologic usage, an autogenic response arises from
internal feedback between transport processes, independent of temporal
changes in external forcing. Common examples include river avulsion and
delta-lobe switching (Beerbower 1965; Miall 1996), which can be regarded
as local or stochastic processes and can occur multiple times under
a constant regime of the depositional system. Though the usage of
‘‘autogenic’’ here is essentially unchanged from classic sedimentological
usage, the autogenic processes that we treat here are mostly those that
operate over the entire system, are deterministic, and occur only a single
time during the entire period of a given steady forcing. Our use of
‘‘autogenic’’ does not imply a particular, absolute spatiotemporal scale,
and it is possible that the time scale for the intrinsic non-equilibrium
response of the fluviodeltaic system overlaps with the time scales of other
autogenic responses. Whenever we refer to ‘‘large-scale autogenic
processes’’ in this paper, it is only in the relative sense in terms of the
length and time scales intrinsic to a given depositional system (see below).
A fundamental geological problem is that stratigraphic products of large-
scale autogenic processes are very likely to be easily misinterpreted as
those of allogenic processes.
The large-scale autogenic processes in fluviodeltaic systems are
a manifestation of their intrinsic, non-equilibrium response to steady
forcing, which in turn arises from the nature of the moving boundaries of
the system (Paola et al. 1992; Swenson et al. 2000; Swenson and Muto in
press). Major moving boundaries in the fluviodeltaic system include the
shoreline, the delta toe, and the alluvium-basement transition (i.e.,
upstream end of the alluvial river) (Fig. 2). Under conditions of constant
rate of change in relative sea level, the natural tendency of the
fluviodeltaic wedge is to grow through some combination of onlap and
offlap at the alluvium-basement transition, and progradation and
retrogradation of the delta slope. The reasons for this are tied to how
the basic shape of the fluviodeltaic clinoform (wedge) is maintained and,
as a consequence, how the system must partition its sediment budget
between the subaerial and subaqueous depositional environments. It is
this dynamic nature of the lateral boundaries on the fluviodeltaic wedge
that, in general, prevents equilibration of the fluviodeltaic system
(Swenson et al. 2000; Swenson et al. 2005; Swenson and Muto in press).
Importance of Time Scale
The intrinsic non-equilibrium behavior of a fluviodeltaic system
depends on how sedimentary bodies accumulate in response to the trinity
of sediment supply, subsidence, and eustatic sea level. The question then
becomes fundamentally one of time scale. The importance of autostrati-
graphic concepts hinges on the time scale of fluctuations in external
forcing (T) relative to the time scale (t) of the non-equilibrium response of
the fluviodeltaic system. Given that sediment transport in our system is
slope driven, we might expect this autogenic time scale to be a function of
4 T. MUTO ET AL.
some characteristic length scale D and some effective diffusivity u that
embodies the efficiency of transport processes. Any fluviodeltaic system
with a steady sediment supply (S 5 constant) and steady rise or fall of
relative sea level (A 5 constant) has a characteristic length scale (Muto
2001; Muto and Steel 2001, 2002a, 2002b, 2004; Muto and Swenson
2005a, 2005b, 2006; Swenson and Muto in press)
S Contrary to this conventional wisdom, however, the non-equilibrium
D~ : ð1Þ
jAj
A natural time scale for dispersive systems is
D2 S S
t~ ~ : ð2Þ
u jAj2 u
If we assume that fluvial morphodynamics sets the overall time scale for
the fluviodeltaic system, then u represents the fluvial diffusivity (Paola et
al. 1992; Paola 2000) and the term S/u is the characteristic slope a of the
alluvial surface. In this case, we can write the autogenic time scale as
D2 S (Fig. 3B; Muto and Swenson 2005a). Steady fall of sea level can allow an
t~ ~a 2: ð3Þ
u jAj
This t scale provides a first-order estimate for the onset of individual
autogenic events. For a physically plausible range of sediment and water
supply and rate of sea-level change, this time scale can vary by orders of
magnitude between fluviodeltaic systems. Equation 3 suggests that gentle-
gradient, small alluvial systems are far more sensitive to autogenic
responses than high-gradient, large systems. Although there could be
multiple superimposed scales of autogenic processes, defined by
simultaneously superimposed characteristic lengths and times, we here
consider only t and D to focus on the ‘‘large-scale’’ autogenic processes.
LARGE-SCALE AUTOGENIC PROCESSES IN FLUVIODELTAIC SYSTEMS
The arguments presented below address idealized river-dominated
deltas that develop on an underlying surface with characteristic landward
and seaward slopes c and w, respectively (Fig. 2). The alluvial river and
delta foreset have characteristic slopes of a and b, respectively. Our
arguments are focused primarily on alluvial responses to steady dynamic
forcing, so we assume initially that the shelf surface beyond the delta toe
is not affected significantly by marine processes.
Sea-Level Conditions for Attaining Alluvial Grade
Alluvial-river response to changes in relative sea level has been
conventionally assumed to be controlled by the ‘‘equilibrium’’ alluvial
profile. The equilibrium profile is believed to correspond to a hypothetical
alluvial river that neither aggrades nor degrades along its entire length
and thus bypasses its entire sediment supply to the shoreline (e.g.,
Posamentier et al. 1988). In essence, this equilibrium alluvial river is in
JSR
FIG. 2.— Geometrical parameters of the flu-
viodeltaic system considered in the
present discussion.
a state of large-scale ‘‘grade’’ (sensu Mackin 1948). Conventional
sequence stratigraphy holds that (1) rivers basically aggrade in response
to relative sea-level rise and degrade in response to relative sea-level fall,
respectively (Fig. 3A), and (2) grade is the final, stable state of an alluvial
river system and is attained with stationary base level (Gilbert 1877;
Davis 1902; Green 1936; Kesseli 1941; Mackin 1948; Leopold and Bull
1979; Posamentier and Vail 1988; Thorne and Swift 1991a).
behavior of alluvial rivers allows grade to be attained with falling sea level
(Fig. 3B, C; Muto and Swenson 2005a, 2005b, 2006). The critical
condition discriminating aggradation and degradational regimes of
alluvial systems is the fall of sea level. Rivers can, in principle, remain
aggradational not only with rising and stationary sea level but also
throughout the duration of sea-level fall, provided the sea-level history
does not cross the grade curves (Fig. 3B, C). For the graded state to be
sustained, the fall of sea level has to follow a particular pattern that
depends in part upon the alluvial and basal slopes (a, w). For
a fluviodeltaic system prograding on a uniform, relatively high-gradient,
preexisting surface (a , w 5 c), A (, 0) must be decreasing with time
alluvial river to become graded only where a 5 w, such as where the
fluviodeltaic system progrades onto a drowned, antecedent alluvial river
bed (Muto and Swenson 2006). In this latter case, grade can finally be
attained and sustained at any magnitude of A (, 0) provided that it is
kept constant. This alternative concept of grade provides a new level of
understanding as to how base level functions to control aggradation and
degradation in alluvial systems and, as such, provides a basis for
interpreting sea-level history from the stratigraphic records of fluviodel-
taic deproits.
Autoretreat and Autobreak: Responses to Steady Sea-Level Rise
With a constant rate of rise (A) in relative sea level, the deltaic shoreline
migrates basinwards during an early stage (precursory advance) but
inevitably begins to retreat landwards some time after the beginning of
delta progradation. This is the phenomenon called autoretreat (Muto and
Steel 1992, 1997, 2002a; Milton and Bertram 1995; Swenson et al. 2000).
Subsequently there is a break in the geometry and sedimentation of the
system, referred to as autobreak, after which the existing subaqueous
slope is starved of sediment and thereby loses its clear delta-front
configuration (Fig. 4A, B; Muto 2001; Muto and Steel 2001; Parker and
Muto 2003; Akamatsu et al. 2005).
Shoreline autoretreat arises from a progressive increase of the entire
surface area (the subaerial and subaqueous environments) of the
fluviodeltaic clinoform, because of an increase in the storage capacity
of the system during relative rise of sea level and from a concomitant
decrease of aggradation rate on the delta. Autobreak occurs when there is
a further increase of the surface area of the delta, and the supplied
sediment is entirely consumed by the growth of the subaerial plain. It
should be noted that abrupt changes in sedimentation have been
JSR AUTOSTRATIGRAPHY 5

FIG. 3.—Conventional and new views of alluvial grade in terms of sea-level control. A) Conventional model in which alluvial systems aggrade (degrade) in response to
sea-level rise (fall) and eventually attain an equilibrium, bypassing state if sea level remains constant. B, C) New view of alluvial grade, which is incorporated into the
framework of autostratigraphy, in which grade is attained only during sea-level fall and never attained with stationary sea level. The sea-level trajectory (Rsl—t curve)
required for grade depends on alluvial slope (a) and basin slope (w) onto which the depositional system progrades.

documented to occur during linearly varying base-level changes, and that
the autoretreat and autobreak points do not necessarily coincide with
inflection points. If b $ c and T .. t, both autoretreat and autobreak
are inevitable, and D simply functions to determine the length and height
of the maximum advance position and autobreak point of the shoreline.
However, if b , c, autobreak is not attained because any progressive
increase in the surface area of the foreset can be fully compensated by
a progressive decrease in the surface area of the alluvial system (Fig. 4C;
Muto and Steel 1992; Swenson et al. 2000).
If the feeder river system exhibits autocyclic shifting of stream
channels, a stepped topography inevitably forms above the submerged
(i.e., abandoned) alluvial plain after the attainment of autobreak
(autosteps; Muto and Steel 2001). Each autostep consists of a single, thin
regressive delta lobe that forms part of an overall ‘‘backstepping’’ deltaic
system. Because autostepping requires spatial and temporal localization
of active sedimentation, during aggradation of any active lobe the rest of
the system is starved of sediment. Autocyclicity also causes eventual
reoccupation of earlier abandoned delta-lobe sites. In the transgressive
phase, it is unlikely to be common that active delta lobes will prograde
beyond and therefore cover older lobes. This unburied surface of older
delta-front lobes produces the autosteps during transgression.
Autogenic Processes During and After Sea-Level Stillstand
The fluviodeltaic system does not have any particular length (D) and
time (t) scales related to stationary sea level (A 5 0; see Eq. 3). As long
as sea level is stationary, the system remains aggradational (Fig. 3B, C)
and monotonously progrades basinwards at an ever-decreasing rate.
Shelf-platform topography affects this long-lived progradation, i.e.,
seaward-increasing bathymetry slows the rate of fluviodeltaic prograda-
tion relative to a flat-bottomed bathymetry.
The duration of a stationary sea-level period can exert a significant
influence on how the shoreline migrates during any subsequent period of
rising sea level, suggesting a sort of ‘‘age dependence’’ in fluviodeltaic
behavior. If a sea-level stillstand persists for a long time, the autobreak
event occurs soon after sea level begins to rise (Fig. 5), and the shoreline
jumps landwards for a long distance (Fig. 6A). Physically, this age
dependence can be explained in terms of the characteristic alluvial
aggradation rate. This aggradation rate is simply the ratio of the steady
sediment supply to the alluvial river length (shoreline to alluvium-
basement transition). For constant S, the longer the duration of
progradation at sea-level stillstand, the longer the alluvial river—and
the smaller the characteristic aggradation rate—at the onset of the
ensuing sea-level rise or fall. With a smaller initial characteristic
aggradation rate, the system quickly experiences autoretreat (autobreak)
during the sea-level rise. For the effects of this age dependence to be
important, the duration of stillstand progradation must be long relative
to a characteristic time scale (ts and tb in Fig. 5). A similar age
dependence of an abrupt autogenic event (‘‘autoincision,’’ see below) is
likely when a long period of stillstand sea-level stage is followed by steady
sea-level fall (Fig. 6B).
Autoincision with Falling Sea Level
Autoretreat principles can be extended to conditions of sea-level fall.
When sea level falls, the shoreline does not, of course, retreat. However,
the alluvium–basement transition does mimic a shoreline subject to sea-
level rise (Muto and Steel 2002a, 2004). There is apparent ‘‘symmetry’’ in
autogenic processes for steady rise and fall of relative sea level (Table 1).
During steady sea-level fall, the alluvium–basement transition initially
migrates landward and the entire deltaic system aggrades (Muto and Steel
2002a, 2004; Swenson and Muto 2005, in press). This landward migration
and aggradation is arrested after some time, and if a , w the entire
subaerial plain begins to be affected by feeder-channel erosion, or
autoincision (Fig. 7A). Autoincision can be physically explained in terms
of a characteristic aggradation rate for the alluvial river system. The
progressive increase in length of the alluvial river continuously reduces
the characteristic alluvial aggradation rate. The rate of foreset prograda-
tion on the delta front eventually decreases to a point where the alluvial
river incises at the shoreline, thereby triggering upstream-propagating
knickpoints and signaling the onset of autoincision (Swenson and Muto
2005, in press; Muto and Swenson 2005b). After the autoincision
threshold has been attained, all the supplied sediment bypasses the
subaerial plain and is deposited below sea level on the delta foreset. In this
way, despite widespread alluvial degradation and sediment bypassing, the
entire fluviodeltaic system continues to grow seawards via accretion on
the delta foreset. This is conventional forced regression. If a $ w, on the
6 T. MUTO ET AL.
other hand, autoincision does not occur. When a 5 w, in particular,
alluvial grade is attained, after which the alluvium–basement transition is
stationary and the height and length of deltaic foresets remain constant
(Fig. 7B; Muto and Swenson 2006).
In a three-dimensional system, regression after the autoincision
threshold can be characterized by valley incision and formation of paired
stream terraces on the abandoned delta-plain surface, as autogenic
response to steady sea-level fall (Muto and Steel 2004; see also Blum and
Törnqvist 2000). After this first major incision, the subaerial plain of the
delta is no longer able to recover its original valley-free surface. During
the subsequent steady fall of sea level, the locus of active sedimentation
migrates progressively seawards. The active locus of sedimentation
downstream of the valley mouth can be analogous in shape to the delta
that was seen before the first major incision. The next major incision
JSR
FIG. 4.— Chronostratigraphic charts showing
autogenic responses of the fluviodeltaic system
to steady rise of relative sea level. With rising sea
level, shoreline autoretreat is inevitable, and
there are three different patterns in autoretreat-
related evolution of the depositional system
dependent on the geometrical conditions.
A) Where b . c, the subaqueous surface of the
delta becomes starved of sediment (autobreak)
shortly after, or possibly at the same time as, the
beginning of the retreat. In a three-dimensional
system where active sedimentation can be
localized and shift its position, delta lobes appear
to be backstepping (autostepping) during this
transgression (Muto 2001; Muto and Steel 2001).
B) Where b 5 c, autobreak is attained at some
time after the beginning of the retreat. The
supplied sediment is consumed by covering the
entire alluvial plain and barely supplied to the
subaqueous surface of the delta. This critical
state is sustained during the transgression (Muto
2002). C) Where b , c, autobreak is not
attained, and thus the subaqueous surface of the
delta remains aggradational and progradational
during the entire transgression (Swenson et al.
2000; Muto 2002).
event occurs when the migrating stream returns to an axial position on
the alluvial system where the stream gradient is highest. Multiple stream
terraces thus form, one by one, arranged in an offset manner adjacent to
the active feeder stream.
PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF THE GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS
The autogenic stratigraphic response of fluviodeltaic systems depends
on the geometrical parameters of the receiving basin (e.g., c, w) and the
river delta (e.g., a, b), if D remains constant with time. The geometrical
parameters function to determine the subaerial and subaqueous
partitioning of the supplied sediment, and thereby they exert great
influence on the autogenic processes in deltas. As already noted above, it
is also the geometrical parameters that control whether or not critical
JSR AUTOSTRATIGRAPHY
FIG. 5.— Effects of a stationary sea-level period (ts) on shoreline migration
during the subsequent period of constant sea-level rise, under the geometrical
condition that b . c and w 5 c. Height, distance, and time are dimensionless. As
soon as the sea level begins to rise, the shoreline begins to migrate upwards. If the
sea-level stillstand stage is shorter than the time interval for the attainment of
autobreak (tb) in case of ts 5 0, the rising shoreline follows a curved trajectory
(segment of autoretreat curve) and soon attains autobreak. As ts (, tb) becomes
longer, autobreak is attained at a lower height and in a shorter time (tb 2 ts) after
the beginning of the sea-level rise. There is a critical value of ts (5 tb) for which
sea-level rise results immediately in autobreak. With a large value of ts (. tb), the
deltaic shoreline advances basinwards for a longer distance, but autobreak can be
attained immediately after the beginning of the rise, accompanied by a very rapid
landward retreat of shoreline.
thresholds (e.g., autobreak, autoincision) are attained during steady sea-
level rise or fall, and whether or not the alluvial system can attain grade
during sea-level fall (Figs. 3, 7). Even the intrinsic time scale can be
dependent at least partly on the geometrical parameters (Eq. 3). The
importance of these parameters has commonly been underestimated in
conventional sequence stratigraphy.
When A 5 constant . 0, it is w and b that are mostly responsible
for the manner of shoreline migration (Muto 2001). As w and b de-
crease, autoretreat and autobreak tend to occur at earlier stages of
delta development. When w is very small (say, ,, 1u), (1) the
initial regression of the shoreline can be very brief relative to the
period of subsequent autoretreat, and (2) the autobreak threshold is
reached as soon as autoretreat commences, almost regardless of the
values of a and b. When A 5 constant , 0, on the other hand, a and c
play a critical role in whether and when autoincision, alluvial grade, or
long-lived aggradation are attained (Fig. 3; Swenson and Muto 2005).
When a is much smaller than w, the autoincision threshold is attained
sooner (Muto and Steel 2002a). Alluvial grade, on the other hand, is
likely to be attained earlier when a is close to w (Muto and Swenson
2005a, 2006).
Response to sea-level fall can vary significantly between fluviodeltaic
systems with different geometrical parameters. For a particular pattern of
relative sea-level fall, a river system may remain aggradational, whereas
a nearby system may maintain grade, and a third one may incise. Hence,
stratigraphic correlation on the basis of observed aggradation or
degradation in neighboring alluvial strata should be made with caution
and take full account of the geometrical parameters of the depositional
system.
7
GENERAL STRATIGRAPHIC RESPONSE
The general stratigraphic response is the superposition of components
due to steady (autogenic) as well as fluctuating terms of the external
forcing. In principle, reconstructing the history of external forcing thus
involves a decomposition of the stratigraphic signature into its steady and
fluctuating components. We might first attempt to explain as much of the
stratigraphic signal as possible in terms of an autogenic response; the
remainder of the signal might then be attributed to fluctuations in
external forcing. However, this decomposition can be a nontrivial exercise
and can lead to erroneous stratigraphic interpretations. To illustrate this,
consider the stratigraphic response shown in Figure 8B, where there is
a morphodynamic model of fluviodeltaic sedimentation that treats the
shoreline as a moving boundary (Swenson et al. 2000). External forcing
for the model system consists of steady sediment supply and subsidence
rate and sinusoidal fluctuations in eustatic sea level (Fig. 8A). Steady
sediment supply and subsidence rates allow computation of D and t
scales. Sediment supply matches the rate at which subsidence creates
space, i.e., S 5 sD. The period of eustatic fluctuations (T) is equal to the
autogenic time scale, i.e., T 5 t. In the model, physical time is
normalized with the autogenic time scale. Similarly, eustatic sea level
(Zsl) is normalized with an elevation scale (aD) constructed from the
product of the autogenic length scale and the characteristic fluvial slope.
The amplitude of eustatic fluctuations is relatively small, minimizing the
complexity in the corresponding stratigraphic response and, therefore,
better illustrating the potential for erroneous stratigraphic interpretation.
Note that the external forcing of the model problem closely resembles the
assumed forcing in the conventional sequence-stratigraphic framework.
By inspection, the corresponding shoreline response to external forcing
appears to consist of a fluctuating component superimposed on the
autogenic response (Fig. 8B). In this example we know the external
forcing and thus we can easily compute the autogenic shoreline response,
sauto(t), in the absence of eustatic fluctuations. We can easily decompose
the shoreline trajectory into an autogenic component and a residual
component, sres(t), where sres(t) 5 s(t) 2 sauto(t). The residual response
clearly displays a periodicity (Fig. 8B). Hence, one might naturally
associate the residual shoreline response with the time-varying component
of external forcing to the fluviodeltaic system. Note, however, that the
amplitude of the residual response decays strongly with increasing time,
or with decreasing age in the stratigraphic record. If we were to apply
directly the equilibrium response, we would likely infer that the amplitude
of external forcing (eustatic sea level, in this case) decreased significantly
over the life of the basin, thereby giving rise to an incorrect sea-level
reconstruction, as the amplitude of eustatic forcing did not change
(Fig. 8A).
This simple example illustrates clearly the potential for complex
superposition of stratigraphic responses to steady and fluctuating external
forcing. The physical reason for the progressive decay in the amplitude of
the residual shoreline response is tied to the autoretreat phenomenon.
During autoretreat, the fluviodeltaic system partitions progressively more
of its sediment budget (S) to the subaqueous realm in order to maintain
the geometry of the delta foreset. This increased subaqueous partitioning
results in the landward migration of the shoreline that is the hallmark of
autoretreat. The increase in sediment delivered onto the delta requires an
increase in the sediment flux reaching the shoreline; in other words,
progressively less sediment is sequestered in the ever-shrinking fluvial
system during autoretreat, thereby leading to an increase in the fraction
of the sediment supply that reaches the shoreline. An increase in the
sediment supply at the shoreline is accompanied by an increase in the
slope of the fluvial surface at and near the shoreline. By simple geometric
reasoning, the amplitude of shoreline excursions driven by eustatic
fluctuations is inversely proportional to the slope of the fluvial surface
near the shoreline. Consequently, during autoretreat, the shoreline
8 T. MUTO ET AL. JSR

FIG. 6.—Chronostratigraphic charts showing possible autogenic responses of the fluviodeltaic system to sea-level stillstand and subsequent change. A) Case where sea-
level stillstand is followed by constant rise under the geometrical condition b . c. At the onset of sea-level rise, autobreak can be attained immediately and shoreline
begins to migrate landward very rapidly. B) Case where sea-level stillstand is followed by constant fall under the geometrical condition a , w, showing that the
autoincision threshold can be attained some time after the beginning of sea-level fall (for this time lag see Swenson and Muto 2005), and then the alluvium–basement
transition abruptly starts to migrate basinward.

response to superimposed eustatic fluctuations is progressively attenuat-
ed, thereby giving rise to the progressive damping of the residual shoreline
response in Figure 8B (Kim et al. 2006).
AUTOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
An important aim of autostratigraphy is to identify autostratigraphic
units in the geological record, thereby to identify and reconstruct
unsteady changes in basin forcing (allogenic events) affecting the
depositional system. The autostratigraphic unit can be defined as
a succession of strata that accumulated under a discrete set of steady
basin-boundary conditions. For example, if sea level is rising at a constant
rate and sediment supply is constant, then all of the resulting strata would
constitute a single autostratigraphic unit. If there occurs an allogenic
change in basin forcing (e.g., sea-level rise changed to sea-level fall), this
event would mark or create a boundary between autostratigraphic units.
We do not assume, at least in the early stages, that basin forcing changed
continuously with time, because (1) allogenic change in basin forcing can be
detected only after testing a primary hypothesis that there was no allogenic
change, and (2) it is reasonable to treat unsteady forcing as a series of
discrete changes of steady forcing because of the intrinsic incompleteness
and limited chronological resolution of the stratigraphic record.

TABLE 1.— Apparent ‘‘symmetry’’ in autogenic processes for steady rise and fall of relative sea level.

Sea-level rise Sea-level fall

Horizontal turnabout of moving boundary shoreline (downstream end of alluvial slope) alluvium–basement transition (upstream end of alluvial
slope)
- direction of turnabout from landward to basinward from basinward to landward
Break event in geomorphic and sedimentary regime autobreak autoincision
- slope condition b . c a , w
- when it occurs during transgression during regression
Discrete 3-dimensional topography forming after the break autosteps autogenic stream terraces
event by autocyclic behavior of the feeder system
Equilibrium state sustained autobreak threshold sustained alluvial grade
- slope condition b 5 c a 5 w
- what are in balance rate of subaerial aggradation rate of subaqueous aggradation and rate of sea-level fall
and rate of sea-level rise
JSR AUTOSTRATIGRAPHY
In autostratigraphic analysis of fluviodeltaic deposits, attention needs
to be paid to the geometrical patterns of shoreline trajectory (for sea-level
rise) and the trajectory of the alluvium–basement boundary (for sea-level
fall) and to the internal architecture of the deposit. There could be various
methods of performing this autostratigraphic analysis. A numerical
method suggested by Muto and Steel (2002b) is to detect a temporal
change in the magnitude of D (possibly t too; see Equations 2 and 3) from
9
FIG. 7.— Chronostratigraphic charts showing
the autogenic responses of the fluviodeltaic
system to steady fall of relative sea level. For the
autogenic processes of falling sea level, attention
is paid to the upstream end of alluvial river, or
the alluvium–basement boundary, which, under
a particular geometrical condition, can mimic
shoreline movement during sea-level rise. A)
Where a , w, the upstream end of alluvial river
onlaps landward at early stages but then begins
to migrate basinward. This critical moment of
change from onlapping to offlapping corre-
sponds with the autoincision threshold, which
represents change from aggradational to degra-
dational regimes of the alluvial system (Muto
and Swenson 2005a; Swenson and Muto 2005,
2006). B) Where a 5 w, the upstream end of the
alluvial river can become stationary within
a finite time after the beginning of sea-level fall.
This is the state of sustained grade, during which
supplied sediment simply bypasses the alluvial
system and accumulates basinward of the
shoreline (mostly, on the subaqueous slope of the
delta) (Muto and Swenson 2006).
observed shoreline trajectory, by finding autoretreat curves to fit
individual segments of the trajectory. An autoretreat curve passing an
arbitrary spatial position x[x: horizontal distance, z; height], measured
from a particular shoreline position x0[x0, z0], can be specified with
a particular magnitude of D and geometrical parameters (e.g., a, b, c, w).
Suppose the shoreline migrated from x0[x0, z0] at time t0, through site 1
(x1[x1, z1]) at time t1 and then site 2 (x2[x2, z2]) at time t2 (Fig. 9). If A or S
FIG. 8.—Theoretical fluviodeltaic response to
a combination of steady and fluctuating external
forcing. A) External forcing consists of two
eustatic cycles superimposed on steady sediment
supply and subsidence rate. B) Decomposition of
the shoreline trajectory, s(t), into an (autogenic)
component, sauto(t), which represents the strati-
graphic response to steady sediment supply and
subsidence, and a residual shoreline response,
sres(t) 5 s(t) 2 sauto(t). The corresponding
shoreline response to external forcing appears to
consist of a fluctuating component superimposed
on the autogenic response. The residual response
displaying a clear periodicity would imply that
the residual shoreline response was associated
with the time-varying component of external
forcing to the fluviodeltaic system. Note, how-
ever, that the amplitude of the residual response
decays strongly with increasing time, or with
decreasing age in the stratigraphic record.
10 T. MUTO ET AL. JSR

FIG. 9.— A numerical method of autostrati-

graphic analysis for fluviodeltaic deposits that
accumulated with relative rise of sea level.
Attention is here paid to if and how the
magnitude of D, i.e., ratio of rate of sediment
supply (S) to rate of sea-level rise (A), changed
with time. If we can specify autoretreat curves
(C01, C02) that satisfy the geological data
obtained from each of sites 1 and 2, we can
estimate numerically how D (5 S/A) changed
with time (i.e., D12/D01) while shoreline migrates
from the assumed initial position (x0) to site 2
(x2), via site 1 (x1). For detailed explanation
see Muto and Steel (2002b).

changes during shoreline migration from x1 to x2, the magnitude of D respectively. If A, instead of S, is assumed to be constant, on the other
changes as well, thus causing the trajectory to deviate from the original hand:
autoretreat curve that is assumed for the x0–x1 migration. As noted above    {1
(Eq. 1), it is common that any change in A (. 0) cannot be calculated S12 D02 {1 A12
~ ðz2 { z0 Þ { ðz1 { z0 Þ ðz2 { z1 Þ ~ ð5Þ
without specifying or assuming S beforehand, and vice versa. On the S01 D01 A01
assumption that S 5 constant, a potential change in A during shoreline
where S01, S12 are the averaged magnitudes of S for time intervals
migration from site 1 to site 2 is described by
t 5 t02t1, t 5 t02t2, t 5 t02t2, respectively. A temporal change in A
 {1 (with constant S) or S (with constant A) can thus be estimated provided
A12 D02
~ ðz2 { z0 Þ { ðz1 { z0 Þ ðz2 { z1 Þ ð4Þ that the numerical values of D01, D02, z0, z1, and z2 are given.
A01 D01
Muto and Steel (2002b) applied the above method to a lower Eocene
where A01, A12 are the averaged magnitude of A for time intervals regressive shelf-margin succession on Spitsbergen, showing that it was
t 5 t02t1, t 5 t12t2, respectively, and D01, D02 are the magnitude of D formed under an overall (i.e., long-term) decelerating rise of relative sea
for autoretreat curves assumed for the x02x1 and x02x2 intervals, level. In this local case, there are great uncertainties in the geological data

TABLE 2.— Comparison bewteen sequence stratigraphy and autostratigraphy.

Sequence stratigraphy Autostratigraphy

Primary view of strata
Response of depositional system to
external forcing
Key principles
Function of sea level
View of alluvial grade
Interest in sedimentology
Interest in stratigraphy
Methology of stratigraphic analysis
Methodology of exploring principles
Preferred sea-level changes to
be considered
Allogenic (autogenic secondary)
Equilibrium
The A/S ratio concept
Erosional base level
A final stable stage of river system attained with
stationary sea level, controlling subaerial
accommodation
Allogenic control of the formation of sequences
Global or regional correlations, primarily in terms
of eustatic events
Identification and recognition of sequences and
sequence boundaries
Primarily inductive from the real stratigraphic
record (e.g., outcrops, cores, seismic profiles)
Sinusoidal patterns of eustatic or relative sea-level
changes
Autogenic (allogenic secondary)
Non-equilibrium
Autoretreat principles
Level to control relative height of subaerial-subaqueous
geometrical contrast
A non-equilibrium state of river system sustained only with sea-
level fall of a particular pattern determined by geometrical
parameters of the depositional system
Autogenic response of depositional systems to steady dynamic
forcing
Detection of allogenic events which might be available to
correlations for different basins
Identification and recognition of autostratigraphic units and unit
boundaries
Mostly deductive from forward-modeling (e.g., theoretical
modeling, laboratory experiments)
Linear-segmented patterns of relative sea-level changes
JSR AUTOSTRATIGRAPHY
as to the initial shoreline position, the geometrical and topographical
parameters, and the decompacted thickness of the deposit. In combina-
tion with a large number (. 106) of runs of numerical simulation,
however, the analysis successfully brought about a reconstruction of
changes in A and S in terms of probabilistic distribution of possible
changes in D. A change in D represents an interruption of the preceding
autogenic stratigraphic response by the occurrence of an allogenic event,
and the start of a new autogenic stratigraphic response.
A COMPLEMENTARY RELATIONSHIP WITH SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY
Conventional sequence stratigraphy interprets the formation of major
systems-tract bounding surfaces (e.g., sequence boundaries, flooding
surfaces) as being formed at the inflection points during sinusoidal
eustatic changes (superimposed on linear subsidence). Autostratigraphy,
in contrast, suggests that abrupt changes in sedimentation occur during
linearly varying base-level changes, and that the autoretreat and
autoincision points do not necessarily coincide with inflection points.
The autostratigraphic analysis allows responses resulting from linear
change to be distinguished from those of nonlinear change. The argument
on time scale presented above suggests strongly that many of the
conventional sequence-stratigraphic notions do not hold in general (Muto
and Steel 1997) but are valid only when the time scale of external
fluctuations is very short relative to the time scale for the non-equilibrium
response of the system to steady forcing (i.e., T ,, t). In other words,
the conventional sequence-stratigraphic model represents a specific
(limiting) case of the more general model developed above.
Time scale (T) can be an issue for consideration when evaluating
whether the depositional system has taken an equilibrium or non-
equilibrium response to external forcing. If the latter is the case, then we
can probably assume the existence of a ‘‘local,’’ quasi-equilibrium
state independent of base level. In this case the A/S ratio concept might
provide the best insight to interpretation of the stratigraphic record
(Muto and Steel 1997; Kim et al. 2006). Sequence stratigraphy and
autostratigraphy can thus be complementary (Table 2). Autostratigraphy
primarily assumes hypothetical and simple (or simplistic) conditions.
Sequence stratigraphy deals with realistic, natural environments in which
both autogenic and allogenic processes are in operation. An important
caution in the application of sequence stratigraphy to the stratigraphic
record is that there needs to be careful consideration of T and t. If slow
fluctuation in an external control is superimposed on the non-equilibrium
response to the steady (average) component of allogenic forcing (i.e.,
T $ t), the conventional sequence-stratigraphic model is likely to be
insufficient.
CONCLUSIONS
Some of the principles of autostratigraphy, the stratigraphy of large-
scale autogenic processes of depositional systems and their geological
products, have been explored, particularly as related to fluviodeltaic
systems under sea-level forcing. Key notions of autostratigraphy are as
follows:
1. The large-scale autogenic behavior of fluviodeltaic systems, in-
cluding autoretreat, autobreak, autoincision, and attainment of
grade, arises from their intrinsic non-equilibrium response to steady
forcing. There is unlikely to be an equilibrium configuration in the
depositional system subject to steady forcing.
2. Abrupt breaks and discrete topographic features are not necessarily
associated with sudden changes in rate of base-level movement but
can result from purely autogenic responses of the system. On the
other hand, stratigraphic responses that fall on a break-free curve
can result from an unsteady change in allogenic forcing.
11
3. Fluviodeltaic systems developing during a change in relative sea
level have particular spatiotemporal scales (length D, time t) that
are characteristic of a particular depositional system and are
defined with parameters of external forcing including rate of the
sea-level change (A) and rate of sediment supply (S). Manifestation
of the non-equilibrium response is dependent on t relative to the
periodicity (T) of sea-level forcing or the time interval considered. If
T is comparable to or longer than t, the non-equilibrium response is
prominent.
4. The superposition of allogenic (or equilibrium) and autogenic (or
non-equilibrium) responses is nonlinear. This nonlinear superposi-
tion can be decomposed into the two effects by autostratigraphic
analysis. Possible methods of autostratigraphic analysis to identify
non-autogenic events in the stratigraphic record include numerical
detection of a temporal change in magnitude of D from observed
shoreline trajectory.
5. Autostratigraphy is complementary to sequence stratigraphy.
Sequence stratigraphy represents a limiting case of a more general
model (autostratigraphy), and functions to be valid only when
T ,, t.
Nomenclature
Dimensions (L length, T
Symbol Meaning time, 1 dimensionless)
A rate of relative sea-level change LT21
D length scale L
S rate of sediment supply in unit width L2T21
T time T
X horizontal distance of shoreline L
Z height of shoreline L
a alluvial slope 1
b delta foreset slope 1
c basal slope at alluvium–basement transition 1
w basal slope at delta toe 1
t time scale T
u fluvial diffusivity LT21
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was financially supported in part by a Japanese Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (15340171) to TM. RS appreciates the continued support
and encouragement of many individuals in the WOLF-consortium compa-
nies. JBS appreciates grants from the Office of Naval Research (Grant
N00014-02-01-0233) and the University of Minnesota Graduate School. We
appreciate encouragement and discussion of ‘‘self organization’’ in sedimen-
tary systems by Chris Paola, Gary Parker, Janok Bhattacharya, Bob
Dalrymple, Szczepan Porebski, and Piret Plink-Björklund. Critical comments
provided by JSR reviewers (Brian Willis, Rudy Slingerland, Janok
Bhattacharya, Colin North) were constructive and very helpful in revision
of an early version of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
AKAMATSU, Y., PARKER, G., AND MUTO, T., 2005, Effect of sea level rise on rivers flowing
into the ocean: application to the Fly–Strickland river system, Papua New Guinea, in
Parker, G., and Garcia, M.H., eds., River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics,
v. 2: London, Talor and Francis, p. 685–695.
BEERBOWER, J.R., 1965, Cyclothems and cyclic depositional mechanisms in alluvial plain
sediments: Kansas State Geological Survey, Bulletin 169, p. 31–42.
BLUM, M.D., AND TÖRNQVIST, T., 2000, Fluvial responses to climate and sea-level
change: a review and look forward: Sedimentology, v. 47, suppl. 1, p. 2–48.
DAVIS, W.M., 1902, Base-level, grade, and peneplain: Journal of Geology, v. 10, p.
77–111.
12 T. MUTO ET AL.
EMBRY, A.F., 1995, Sequence boundaries and sequence hierarchies: problems and
proposals, in Steel, R.J., Felt, V.L., Johannessen, E.P., and Mathieu, C., eds.,
Sequence Stratigraphy on the Northwest European Margin: Norwegian Petroleum
Society, Special Publication 5, p. 1–11.
GALLOWAY, W.E., 1989a, Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin analysis—part I:
architectures and genesis of flooding-surface bounded depositional units: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 73, p. 125–142.
GALLOWAY, W.E., 1989b, Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin analysis—part II:
application to Northwest Gulf of Mexico Cenozoic basin: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 73, p. 143–154.
GILBERT, G.K., 1877, Geology of the Henry Mountains: Washington, D.C., U.S.
Government Printing Office, 170 p.
GREEN, J.F.N., 1936, The terraces of southernmost England: Geological Society of
London, Quarterly Journal, v. 92, p. LVIII–LXXXVIII (Presidential Address).
HELLAND-HANSEN, W., AND GJELBERG, J.P., 1994, Conceptual basis and variability in
sequence stratigraphy: a different perspective: Sedimentary Geology, v. 92, p. 31–52.
HUNT, D., AND TUCKER, M.E., 1995, Stranded parasequences and the forced regressive
wedge systems tract: deposition during base-level fall—reply: Sedimentary Geology,
v. 95, p. 147–160.
JERVEY, M.T., 1988, Quantitative geological modeling of siliciclastic rock sequences and
their seismic expression, in Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Kendall, C.G.St.C.,
Posamentier, H.W., Ross, C.A., and Van Wagoner, J.C., eds., Sea-Level Changes:
An Integrated Approach: SEPM, Special Publication 42, p. 47–69.
KESSELI, J.E., 1941, The concept of the graded river: Journal of Geology, v. 49, p.
561–588.
KIM, W., PAOLA, C., VOLLER, V.R., AND SWENSON, J.B., 2006, Experimental
measurement of the relative importance of controls on shoreline migration: Journal
of Sedimentary Research, v. 76, p. 207–283, DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2006.019.
LEOPOLD, L.B., AND BULL, W.B., 1979, Base level, aggradation, and grade: American
Philosophical Society, Proceedings, v. 123, p. 168–202.
MACKIN, J.H., 1948, Concept of the graded river: Geological Society of America,
Bulletin, v. 59, p. 463–512.
MIALL, A.D., 1996, The Geology of Fluvial Deposits; Sedimentary Facies, Basin
Analysis, and Petroleum Geology: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 582 p.
MILTON, N.J., AND BERTRAM, G.T., 1995, Topset play types and their controls, in Van
Wagoner, J.C., and Bertram, G.T., eds., Sequence Stratigraphy of Foreland Basin
Deposits, Outcrop and Subsurface Examples from the Cretaceous of North America:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 64, p. 1–9.
MUTO, T., 2001, Shoreline autoretreat substantiated in flume experiments: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 71, p. 246–254.
MUTO, T., 2002, Evolution of fluvio-marine deltaic depositional systems under the
control of sea-level rise: an experimental study: Proceedings of The 7th Joint
Symposium between Nagasaki University and Cheju National University on Science
and Technology, p. 281–286.
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 1992, Retreat of the front in a prograding delta: Geology,
v. 20, p. 967–970.
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 1997, Principles of regression and transgression: the nature
of the interplay between accommodation and sediment supply: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 67, p. 994–1000.
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 2001, Autostepping during the transgressive growth of
deltas: Results from flume experiments: Geology, v. 29, p. 771–774.
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 2002a, In defense of shelf-edge delta development during
falling and lowstand of relative sea level: Journal of Geology, v. 110, p. 421–436.
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 2002b, Role of autoretreat and A/S changes in the
understanding of deltaic shoreline trajectory: a semi-quantitative approach: Basin
Research, v. 14, p. 303–318.
JSR
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 2004, Autogenic response of fluvial deltas to steady sea-level
fall: Implications from flume-tank experiments: Geology, v. 32, p. 401–404.
MUTO, T., AND SWENSON, J.B., 2005a, Large-scale fluvial grade as a non-equilibrium
state in linked depositional systems: Theory and experiment: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 110 (F), F03002, DOI: 10.1029/2005JF000284.
MUTO, T., AND SWENSON, J.B., 2005b, Controls on alluvial aggradation and degradation
during steady fall of relative sea level: Flume experiments, in Parker, G., and Garcia,
M.H., eds., River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics, v. 2: London, Talor and
Francis, p. 665–674.
MUTO, T., AND SWENSON, J.B., 2006, Autogenic attainment of large-scale alluvial grade
with steady sea level fall: An analog tank/flume experiment: Geology, v. 34, p.
161–164.
PAOLA, C., 2000, Quantitative models of sedimentary basin filling: Sedimentology, v. 47,
p. 121–178.
PAOLA, C., HELLER, P.L., AND ANGEVINE, C.L., 1992, The large-scale dynamics of grain-
size variation in alluvial basins, 1: Theory: Basin Research, v. 4, p. 73–90.
PARKER, G., AND MUTO, T., 2003, 1D numerical model of delta response to rising sea
level: 3rd International Association of Hydrological Research Symposium, River,
Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics, Proceedings, p. 558–570.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND VAIL, P.R., 1988, Eustatic controls on clastic deposition II—
sequence and systems tracts models, in Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Kendall,
C.G.St.C., Posamentier, H.W., Ross, C.A., and Van Wagoner, J.C., eds., Sea-Level
Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM, Special Publication 42, p. 125–154.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., JERVEY, M.T., AND VAIL, P.R., 1988, Eustatic controls on
clastic deposition I—Conceptual framework, in Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S.,
Kendall, C.G.St.C., Posamentier, H.W., Ross, C.A., and Van Wagoner, J.C., eds.,
Sea-Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM, Special Publication 42, p.
109–124.
SHANLEY, K.W., AND MCCABE, P.J., 1994, Perspectives on the sequence stratigraphy of
continental strata: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 78, p.
544–568.
SWENSON, J.B., AND MUTO, T., 2005, Controls on alluvial aggradation and degradation
during steady fall of relative sea level: Theory, in Parker, G., and Garcia, M.H., eds.,
River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics, v. 2: London, Talor and Francis, p.
675–684.
SWENSON, J.B., AND MUTO, T., in press, Response of coastal-plain rivers to falling
relative sea level: Allogenic controls on the aggradational phase: Sedimentology, v. 53.
SWENSON, J.B., VOLLER, V.R., PAOLA, C., PARKER, G., AND MARR, J.G., 2000, Fluvio-
deltaic sedimentation: A generalized Stefan problem: European Journal of Applied
Mathematics, v. 11, p. 433–452.
SWENSON, J.B., PAOLA, C., PRATSON, L., VOLLER, V., AND MURRAY, A.B., 2005, Fluvial
and marine controls on combined subaerial and subaqueous delta progradation:
Morphodynamic modeling of compound clinoform development: Journal of Geo-
physical Research, v. 110 (F), F03007, DOI: 10.1029/2004JF000208.
THORNE, J.A., AND SWIFT, D.J.P., 1991a, Sedimentation on continental margins, II:
application of the regime concept, in Swift, D.J.P., Oertel, G.F., Tillman, R.W., and
Thorne, J.A., eds., Shelf Sand and Sandstone Bodies: International Association of
Sedimentologists, Special Publication 14, p. 33–58.
THORNE, J.A., AND SWIFT, D.J.P., 1991b, Sedimentation on continental margins, VI:
a regime model for depositional sequences, their component systems tracts, and
bounding surfaces, in Swift, D.J.P., Oertel, G.F., Tillman, R.W., and Thorne, J.A.,
eds., Shelf Sand and Sandstone Bodies: International Association of Sedimentologists,
Special Publication 14, p. 189–255.
Received 11 December 2005; accepted 30 August 2006.