Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439 – 457

www.elsevier.com/locate/sedgeo

Research paper

Accommodation/sedimentation development and massive

early marine cementation: Latemar vs. Concarena
(Middle/Upper Triassic, Southern Alps)
Michael SeelingT, Axel Emmerich, Thilo Bechstädt, Rainer Zühlke
Geologisch-Paläontologisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 234, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
Received 26 April 2004; received in revised form 15 September 2004; accepted 29 September 2004

Abstract

Massive early marine cementation (MEC) is a major diagenetic feature of some carbonate platforms. The comparison of two
Triassic buildups of similar size and preservation but contrasting degree of MEC (Latemar, Dolomites, and Concarena,
Lombardic Alps) allows for the investigation of differential cementation on carbonate platforms. The assessment of the response
of platform cementation to changes in accommodation/sedimentation led to the identification of fundamental boundary
conditions for MEC: (1) the time interval available, i.e. a low rate of creation in accommodation space and (2) low carbonate
production. Other important factors are: (3) margin topography (e.g. walled reefs) and (4) effective fluid flow (e.g. wave energy,
open and connected cavities provided by rigid frameworks). The Latemar–mainly aggrading and locally retrograding–lacks
MEC due to a high AV/SV ratio (i.e. creation/destruction of accommodation in time, AV=dA/dt, vs. changes in sediment supply
in time, SV=dS/dt) and a low relief of the reefal margin. In contrast, the Concarena–in the beginning slowly and later rapidly
prograding–indicates MEC owing to a low AV/SV ratio and a distinct topography of the reef. Particular features of the
Concarena are cement arrangements of lenticular shape and considerable size in the back-reef domain (up to 3 m in diameter
and 2 m in height). These arrangements consist of botryoids and isopachous crusts of radiaxial fibrous calcite cements. They
represent one of the main components of the platform margin at Concarena. Cathodoluminescence analyses of cements from
both platforms quantifies the influence of shallow and deep burial diagenesis and shows that the majority (60–90%) of all
cements are of early marine origin.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sequence stratigraphy; Cementation; Dolomites; Lombardic Alps; Middle Triassic; Upper Triassic

1. Introduction
T Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 6221 544831; fax: +49 6221
545503. For more than a hundred years, the Southern Alps
E-mail address: michael.seeling@urz.uni-heidelberg.de have been a key area for the study of Triassic
(M. Seeling). carbonate platform development (e.g. Bosellini,
0037-0738/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2004.09.004
440 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457

1984; Biddle et al., 1992; Jadoul et al., 1992; and
references therein). Much research has been carried
out on the cementation and diagenesis of Triassic
carbonate platforms in this area (e.g. Stoppani, 1858;
Assereto and Kendall, 1977; Mutti, 1994). Several
studies underline the importance of massive early
marine cementation at the upper slope and margin of
some Middle to Upper Triassic carbonate platforms
(e.g. Grigna: Frisia-Bruni et al., 1989; Marmolada:
Russo et al., 2000; Sella: Keim and Schlager, 2001).
The precipitation of these early marine cements plays
a key role for the stabilisation of the buildups.
Furthermore, it contributes a significant portion to
the carbonate production (Blendinger, 1994). How-
ever, the degree of early marine cementation from one
platform to another is highly variable. Other Middle/
Upper Triassic carbonate platforms with minor early
marine diagenetic features are among others: Dosso
dei Morti (Lombardic Alps: Unland, 1975) and
Latemar (Dolomites: Emmerich et al., in press). These
differences in early marine cementation of Triassic
carbonate platforms have not yet been investigated. In
order to shed some light on differential cementation,
two carbonate platforms in the Southern Alps were
chosen as case studies.
In the Dolomites, the Anisian/Ladinian Latemar
records platform architecture in primary lithofacies.
Despite their similar high degree of preservation and
absence of dolomitisation, the Ladinian/Carnian
platforms of the Lombardic Alps and especially the
Concarena are far less studied than those of the
Dolomites. Because of their similar size but con-
trasting architecture and cementation, Latemar and
Concarena are ideally suited for an integrated
approach to investigate the controls on massive early
marine cementation. Hence, the aims of this study
are: (1) to compare the architecture of the Concarena
and the Latemar, (2) to investigate zonation of
lithofacies along transects through the margins, (3)
to assess the link between massive early marine
cementation and accommodation/sedimentation
development.
2. Geological setting
The two study areas–Latemar and Concarena–are
located in the Southern Alps of Northern Italy (Fig. 1).
According to Dercourt et al. (2000, and references
therein), the Southern Alps are situated at latitudes of
15–208N on the western termination of the Tethys
from Anisian to Carnian (Fig. 1a). Global climate
models of Triassic Pangaea suggest strong monsoonal
circulation patterns for the western termination of the

Ea s te r n Alp s Carbonate Platforms (Schlern

SE-Asia 0km 100km Pu s t e r t a l Fm - Dolomites; Esino Lst -
Lin Lombardic Alps)
Carbonates Subduction e
C e n tr a l lomites Pelagic Basins (Buchenstein &
Do
L.

Alp s Zoppé Fm - Dolomites;

e
* Wengen Fm - Lombardic Alps)
ie

Basins Spreading Insubric Lin

car

ps
Laurussia ic Al Hochalpe
a rd Southern
di

QT mb * Alp s Geisler Group

Lo
iu

Peitlerkofel
G

r
Me ato
ga
-Lh Equ 0km 5km 10km
TETHYS Zop
as N Sella
pé
a-B Langkofel
BM loc Tu
ds

Schlern
k
Be

Concarena
rb

Cernera
id

ei
n

PO Rosengarten
ite

Pizzo n st
LA
s

Camino ds he
Be uc Marmolada
Preso- ngen
B

Dol lana We Latemar

Civetta

Mt. Pora
ni

Mt. Agnello
a zo
W-Gondwana E-Gondwana b Preda z z o/Mo n Pale di S. M.

Fig. 1. (a) Simplified palaeogeographic map of the western Tethys during the Middle Triassic (after Dercourt et al., 2000). Abbreviations: LA,
Lombardic Alps; Dol, Dolomites; BM, Bohemian Massif; PO, Pindos-Olonos trough; QT, Qiantang-Terrane. Legend of map units/symbols in
the upper left corner. (b) Schematic map illustrating platform–basin relationships of the western Dolomites during the Late Anisian/Early
Ladinian and of the Lombardic Alps during the Ladinian to Early Carnian. Legend of lithostratigraphic units in the upper right corner, influx of
siliciclastic/volcaniclastic turbidites into pelagic basins marked by large arrows. Inset: generalised map of the Southern Alps with an indication
of major tectonic lines, asterisks mark the areas of study.
 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457 441

a b Pso. di Campelli 1892m

. ca

C
.d i
i Plau r e nt

i B aio n e
G
e
p l
ä nk ?

e
Kirchtag- Schenon 2757m

n
.d
weide a

.c

io
Cresta De Do Peniola Cc Cma. della Bacchetta
2616m Latemartürme
.
2463m

Ba
E Bivacco 2549m

2
rz
la
2842m E. Rigatti Cma. della Bagozza 2409m
2 1 a r e n a
a r n

le del
Erzlahnspitze
m

La Ta
o
h

2719m
.
n

e 3
1 3
Erzlahnscharte
r
Pso. di Lifretto
1996m
C
. M. Vaccio
vo
la
E

Bivacco

Val
Eggentaler
t
zla

Latemar 2265m
Horn
hnsch

2799m

.
Il Cornone
a

ar
t
? 1944m
e

Cima Legend Lozio

Legend
L

Valsorda Lagoonal-facies (Esino Lst)

2752m Lagoon-facies (Schlern Fm)
Reef-facies (Esino Lst)
Rifugio Torre Reef-facies (Schlern Fm) (dashed = presumed) 4 Pratotondo
Di Pisa (dashed = presumed)
Slope-facies (Esino Lst +
Pizzo Alto

N
Cima Feudo
2654m 1
0m
Slope-facies (Schlern Fm)
studied outcrops

1000m 0m
1
Pratotondo Fm + Wengen Fm)
studied outcrops

2500m
1339m
. N
Fig. 2. (a) Schematic geological map of the Latemar; legend of map units in the lower right corner; numbers 1 to 3 refer to outcrops described in
this study (1: Eggentaler Horn, 2: Erzlahn, 3: Erzlahnscharte). (b) Schematic geological map of the Concarena; legend of map units in the lower
right corner; numbers 1 to 4 refer to outcrops described in this study (1: Cima della Bacchetta, 2: Valle del Baione, 3: La Tavola, 4: Pratotondo).

Tethys (Kutzbach and Gallimore, 1989). This area (Blendinger, 1985; Doglioni, 1987) and mixed carbo-
represents a highly dismembered, passive continental nate-clastic sedimentation from the Anisian to Carnian
margin with transpressive–transtensive tectonics (Fig. 1b).

Litho- and sequence stratigraphy (schematic) Biostratigraphy Age [Ma]

after Gianolla & after Brack & Rieber (1993)
Concarena Area Latemar Area Jacquin (1998)

Carnian
Platform Basin Platform Basin
Julian
? top of preserved
Lozio Shale
Car1 Aonoides
succession at Concarena
Pratotondo Fm

Regoledanus
Esino Lst Lad3
Wengen Fm Schlern Fm II
Ladinian

(Schlernplateau Beds)
Wengen Fm Longo-
? Schlern Fm II (Rosetta Dolomite) Archelaus bardian

Bänderkalk Mbr Mundil et al. (1996)

Lad2 238.0 –0.7/+0.4
Gredleri
Schlern Fm I Buchenstein Fm
Buchenstein Fm
Knollenkalk Mbr Curionii Fassanian
top of preserved succession at Latemar Lad1 Mundil et al. (2003)
Secedensis 241.7 –0.7/+1.5
"Lower Edifice" Plattenkalk Mbr Reitzi Illyrian Vörös et al. (2003)
Prezzo Lst Contrin Fm Moena Fm 240.5 ±0.5
An4 Trinodosus
Anisian

Richthofen & Morbiac Fm

Camorelli Lst An3 Balatonicus Pelsonian
Angolo Lst Ismidicum
An2 Bithynian
Osmani

Paracro- Aegean Base of Anisian:

Bovegno Fm An1 chordiceras Lehrmann et al. (2002)
247.2 ±0.4

Fig. 3. Middle Triassic litho- and sequence stratigraphic succession and platform-to-basin relationships of the two study areas. In the case of the
Latemar area, strata overlying present day topography (as marked by zig-zag line) were projected from immediate surroundings (i.e.
Rosengarten and Schlern platforms). Formations in bold letters were studied in detail. Chronostratigraphy after Lehrmann et al. (2002), Mundil
et al. (1996, 2003) and Vörös et al. (2003). Biozones, substages and position of Anisian/Ladinian boundary after Brack and Rieber (1993).
Sequence stratigraphic subdivision after Gianolla and Jacquin, (1998); for the Anisian, a more detailed scheme of Zühlke (2000) exists.
442 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
After the Permian/Triassic faunal crisis, first
carbonate buildups in the Southern Alps reappear in
the earliest Anisian and are characterised by microbial
carbonates (Flügel, 2002, and references therein).
Higher diversified reef communities develop since
the Late Anisian, but lack abundant frame-building
organisms, such as scleractinians. One example of
these Late Anisian reefs is the Latemar (position of
Anisian/Ladinian boundary according to Brack and
Rieber, 1993), an atoll-like platform with a diameter of
approximately 3 km (Fig. 2a). It is entirely made up of
the bLatemar limestoneQ (Gaetani et al., 1981), which
is part of the Schlern Formation 1 (sensu Brandner et
al., 1991; Fig. 3). The transition towards the basin is
characterised by slope breccia interfingering with the
pelagic Buchenstein Formation (e.g. Viel, 1979).
Water depths of the coeval basins during the ultimate
stages of Anisian/Ladinian platform evolution range
from 800 to 1000 m (Brack and Rieber, 1993).
Ladinian/Carnian platform generations record a
return of walled reefs with the principal guild being
scleractinians capable of resisting wave energy
(Flügel, 2002, and references therein). One example
of these carbonate platforms is the Concarena in the
Val Camonica north of Brescia (Fig. 2b). Correlation
with ammonoid and conodont fossil findings in distal
slope areas (Balini et al., 2000), indicate a Late
Ladinian/Early Carnian age for the Concarena (Fig.
3). Primary lithofacies distribution of the clinostrati-
fied platform slope, fossil assemblages of the marginal
reef rim and the cyclic arrangement of the at least 800
m thick lagoonal deposits are part of the Esino
Limestone (sensu Stoppani, 1858). Clinostratified
slope deposits interfinger with basinal sediments of
the Wengen and Pratotondo Formation (Fig. 3).
3. Database and methods
3.1. Facies analysis
Detailed facies, sedimentological and palaeonto-
logical analyses (logging, facies mapping, lateral
tracing of physical surfaces, thin sections) were
carried out on representative sections and platform
margin transects. The facies zonation of the respective
margins was investigated at several outcrops (see Fig.
2a and b) and sampled with 2 m increments.
Quantitative microfacies analyses were carried out
on polished slabs (up to several dm in size) and thin
sections (46cm). Overall, 382 rock specimens and
189 thin sections were collected and analysed.
3.2. Sequence stratigraphy
Platform geometries and cementation patterns were
analysed with sequence stratigraphic means in order
to determine the accommodation/sedimentation (A/S)
development in both areas. In this study, we follow
the sequence stratigraphic concept of Cross (e.g.
Cross and Lessenger, 1998) and Schlager (e.g.
1993). Cross and Lessenger (1998) point out that
repeated successions of stratigraphic sequences result
from base-level cycles of increasing and decreasing
accommodation/sedimentation (A/S) conditions. They
also refer to the original definition of Wheeler (1964)
where base-level is an bimaginary potentiometric
energy surface that describes the changes in energy
required to move the earth’s surface up or down
through timeQ. The turnaround points from base-level
rise-to-fall (maximum A/S) and fall-to-rise (minimum
A/S) are correlated across all facies tracts within a
basin (e.g. Cross and Lessenger, 1998). Schlager (e.g.
1993) considers the creation/destruction of accommo-
dation in time (AV=dA/dt) and changes in sediment
supply in time (SV=dS/dt) as the two principal
controls on development of sedimentary systems/
basins. In this case, AV as well as SV represent
changes in volume in time (VV=dV/dt). We, however,
would like to refine Cross’ A/S conditions (e.g. Cross
and Lessenger, 1998) as AV/SV ratio sensu Schlager
(1993). The application of this refined definition led
to the following fundamental boundary conditions for
the relationship between sequence stratigraphy and
geometric evolution of carbonate platforms: (1) AV/SV
ratios vary on a basin-wide scale. Proximal settings
may reveal a higher or seldomly lower ratio of AV/SV
than coeval basinal settings. In the following para-
graphs, we refer to AV/SV ratios in the shallow marine
carbonate platform setting only. (2) If AVV0, erosion
can occur. The carbonate platform setting is then
mainly governed by extensive subaerial exposure (e.g.
dissolution, karst features and meteoric diagenesis).
Thus, in the following paragraphs, we refer to AV/SV
ratios only, when early marine phreatic diagenesis
prevails, i.e. if AVN0. (3) Progradation, aggradation
 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
and retrogradation of carbonate platforms reflect
different AV/SV ratios. Progradation occurs when
AV/SVb1, aggradation occurs when AV/SV=1 and the
platform retrogrades when AV/SVN1.
3.3. Cements and cathodoluminescence
In the following chapters, we refer to massive early
cementation (MEC) as a marine phreatic diagenetic
process recorded by isopachous crusts and/or
botryoids forming cementstones sensu Wright (1992)
in sheltered environments (e.g. primary cavities, inter-
reef voids, etc.). Wright’s definition of a cementstone
is ba limestone [composed] almost totally of fibrous
cement (commonly replaced and/or recrystallised), in
which grains or in situ biogenic material do not
constitute a frameworkQ. Isopachous crusts of MEC are
made up of radiaxial-fibrous calcite and are thought to
reflect primary features (e.g. Kendall, 1985).
Cathodoluminescence techniques were used to
identify different generations of cements from both
platforms, especially to separate early marine to
shallow burial cements (e.g. radiaxial fibrous cements,
dog-tooth cement) from burial cements (e.g. zoned
blocky calcites; cf. cement stratigraphy of the North-
ern Calcareous Alps: Zeeh and Bechstädt, 1994). The
application of cathodoluminescence was necessary in
order to estimate the amount of early marine cements
with respect to whole rock cementation. A Leica/Leitz
DM RP microscope equipped with Leica N Plan
2.5/0.07 P and Pl Fluotar 5/0.12 P lenses was
combined with a Citl cold cathode apparatus of the
type CCL 8200 mk3. Thin sections were placed on a
tray controlled by X-Y manipulators in a vacuum
chamber with an upper window for microscopic
observations. An electron beam was deflected on the
sections by means of an obliquely arranged gun. A
beam voltage of 20 kV and a current of 400 to 600 AA
was used. Images were acquired using a Leica DFC
480 digital camera.
4. Latemar
4.1. Previous research
The Latemar is a model Mesozoic platform
(primary lithofacies, geometries, cyclostratigraphic
443
interior, etc.) and hence has been studied in detail
(e.g. Gaetani et al., 1981; Zühlke et al., 2003; and
references therein). Although most of the past studies
focus on the stacking patterns of the lagoonal deposits
(e.g. Goldhammer and Harris, 1989), more recent
studies also deal with the reef and slope (e.g.
Emmerich et al., in press, and references therein).
4.1.1. Platform development
Platform cycles of the cyclostratigraphic interior
consist of decimetre- to metre-thick beds recording
shallowing-upward conditions (e.g. Egenhoff et al.,
1999, and references therein) with a sub-Milanko-
vitch frequency (Zühlke et al., 2003). An alternative
model of cycle generation is proposed by Blendinger
(2004), where the origin of the cyclic stacking pattern
is thought to be related to diagenesis in a hydro-
thermal field. In contrast, research on the reef of the
Latemar is comparatively rare (Gaetani et al., 1981;
Harris, 1993). These studies emphasise the impor-
tance of microbial encrustations; recent research
(Emmerich et al., in press) shows the affinity to
Anisian fossil assemblages of the Dolomites but with
a distinctly higher diversity. The results of the studies
on the slope of the Latemar by Harris (1994) are in
accordance with Bosellini’s bLadinianQ model (1984)
where late stage progradation is observed. Emmerich
et al. (in press) have proposed a differentiated
concept of the Latemar slope. Depending on the
aspect, aggradation, progradation and backstepping
of the margin occurs simultaneously. Even contrast-
ing sedimentological settings (erosional, bypass and
depositional sensu Schlager and Ginsburg, 1981) are
simultaneously present at different exposures. In
contrast to Harris’ model (1994), Emmerich et al.
(in press) report an initially much larger platform
with backstepping during later stages of platform
evolution.
4.1.2. Bio- and sequence stratigraphy
Biostratigraphic data from the lagoonal interior
indicate a stratigraphic range of the preserved Latemar
buildup from the upper Reitzi- until the uppermost
Secedensis/basal Curionii-zone (Zühlke et al., 2003,
and references therein; Fig. 3). According to Gianolla
et al. (1998), the Anisian and Ladinian marks a major
1st-order transgressive–regressive (T–R) cycle. Strong
increase in accommodation during Anisian and Early
444 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
Ladinian times allowed the deposition of great sedi-
ment thicknesses and forced carbonate platforms to
backstep in the domain of the Southern Alps (Gianolla
and Jacquin, 1998). The peak transgression occurred
in the Secedensis /Curionii boundary interval
(bChiesense grooveQ sensu Brack and Rieber, 1993;
Gianolla and Jacquin, 1998). This sequence strati-
graphic surface is represented by a thin condensed
micritic layer in the basinal Buchenstein Formation
documenting a very slow sedimentation rate (e.g.
Bagolino section, Lombardic Alps) and by drowning/
backstepping of coeval Schlern Formation 1 carbonate
platforms in the Dolomites (drowning: Cernera; Brack
and Muttoni, 2000; local backstepping: Latemar;
Emmerich et al., in press). At the moment it is still
a matter of debate whether the Schlern Formation 1
belongs to the 3rd-order L1 (Brandner et al., 1991),
La1 (Gianolla and Jacquin, 1998) or An5 (Zühlke,
2000) sequence (bsequenceQ sensu Van Wagoner et al.,
1988). All authors define the basal sequence boundary
at a subaerial unconformity on top of the Contrin
Formation. At Latemar, the TST corresponds to the
lower part of the succession (Lower Edifice/Lower
Platform Facies: Gaetani et al., 1981; Goldhammer
and Harris, 1989; Egenhoff et al., 1999). According to
our observations, the MFS at Latemar corresponds to
the peak transgression recorded by local retreat of the
platform margin in the upper part of the cyclic
succession. The HST and upper sequence boundary
of L1/La1/An5 is not preserved in the present day
Latemar succession and is defined differently on a
basin-wide scale by each one of the above mentioned
authors.
4.1.3. Diagenesis and cementation
Diagenesis and cementation of the Latemar are
investigated in detail by Dunn (1991) and Harris
(1993). Dunn (1991) investigates the differing styles of
cementation in the bLower EdificeQ and the cyclic part
of the Latemar succession and describes the highest
amount of cementation in the tepee belt (N50%) and in
vadose crusts capping cycles of the lagoonal interior
(40%). However, it is also stressed that field, petro-
graphic and isotopic evidence does not support a
significant role for freshwater diagenesis. In spite of
frequent subaerial exposure of the Latemar platform
top during the deposition of the cyclic facies, seawater
is still the dominant diagenetic solution. Dunn (1991)
applies cathodoluminescence techniques and identifies
up to three shallow to late burial cement generations
within spar filled voids between isopachous crusts of
early marine diagenetic origin. Harris (1993) observes
early marine cements mainly in the boundstone facies
of the platform margin where radiaxial or radial fibrous
calcite typically makes up 15–30% of the rock volume.
Only in a few cases, cements may constitute 50–70%
of total rock volume—an observation supported by
recent studies (Emmerich et al., in press-a). A detailed
quantitative analysis of the Latemar cements has not
yet been published.
4.2. Platform development
The description and interpretation of the architec-
ture of the Latemar platform and its platform to basin
transitions is shown using the example of the
Eggentaler Horn transect (locations 1–3 in Fig. 2a;
Fig. 4a–c). The buildup of the lagoon-, reef- and
slope-facies of the Schlern Formation 1 at Eggentaler
Horn starts on top of an initially emersed part of the
Contrin Formation (area (A) in Fig. 4b). A lagoonal
facies conformably overlies this palaeo-karst surface
and forms an isolated btowerQ-like structure (B). The
contact of the slope-facies to the SE (left-hand side in
Fig. 4b) is erosional, as displayed by the uncon-
formity cutting right down to the formation boundary
between Contrin Formation and Schlern Formation.
Area (C) cannot safely be attributed to neither the
lagoon- nor slope-facies due to missing sedimentary
structures; it most probably is a remnant part of outer
lagoon or reefal domains. (C) is in turn overlain by
lagoonal facies (D). Towards the upper part of the
Eggentaler Horn section, lagoonal facies is absent and
two units within the slope are separated by major
erosional unconformities mapped around the Erzlahn-
scharte (for further details refer to Emmerich et al., in
press). The common feature of all platform–basin
transitions at Eggentaler Horn is the missing reefal
margin apart from the small area around the
Erzlahnscharte (Fig. 4c). Only the central part of the
reef-facies characterised by massive microbial encrus-
tations is preserved at this locality (locality 3 in Fig.
2a). This area is therefore being referred to as
bmicrobial ridgeQ.
The Eggentaler Horn transect witnesses at least
four stages of major collapse of the platform margin,
 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457 445

SE NW

SE NW

SE NW

Schlern Fm
Slope-facies

s
C
B
Schlern Fm
Lagoon-facies
es

Sc
S Cont
ntrin Fm
La s A

0m 40 m 80 m
c b 0m 75 m 150 m

Fig. 4. Platform architecture of the Latemar. Legends on the respective figures; for further explanations refer to the text. (a) Panoramic view of
the SE flank of Eggentaler Horn with an indication of pictured areas in (b) and (c). (b) Magnification of the middle part of the Eggentaler Horn
transect with an interpretation of sedimentary structures. Letters (A) to (D) correspond to different stages of platform development. (c)
Magnification of the upper part of the Eggentaler Horn transect (i.e. Erzlahnscharte, locality 3 in Fig. 2b) with an interpretation of sedimentary
structures. The reef-facies displaying massive microbial encrustations is well exposed.
446 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
which remove large quantities of outer lagoon- and
reef-facies and bypass sediment to the lower slope.
The platform margin subsequently backsteps and the
slope reveals mainly bypass/erosional characteristics
during the development at this exposure. The NE
area of the Latemar records more depositional and
less erosional characteristics on the slope, but
erosional intervals are still common as indicated by
a distinct timeline of an erosional slope at for
instance the Cresta De Do Peniola (Fig. 2a;
Emmerich et al., in press).
4.3. Margin configuration
The general organisation of the margin at Latemar
is documented using the description and interpretation
of the Erzlahnscharte area (location 3 in Fig. 2a; Fig.
6a). Other locations reveal a slightly different biotic
content/lithofacies arrangement and have been dis-
cussed in Emmerich et al. (in press) in detail. They
show the importance of calcisponges (inozoans,
sphinctozoans), Porostromata and Microproblematica
for the organisation of the reefal margin. The outcrops
of the reef-facies at Erzlahnscharte–with a width of
20-30 m–belong to the back reef and reef-crest
domain (Fig. 6a). A particular feature of the back
reef at this locality is the presence of bTubiphytesQ
multisiphonatus thrombolites sensu Riding (1991) of
up to 0.7 m in height and 3 m in diameter (Emmerich
et al., in press). For a more detailed description of the
first finding of this species outside its type locality
(Hydra, Greece, Carnian bPantokrator LimestoneQ) the
reader should refer to Emmerich et al. (in press). The
reef crest displays massive microbial encrustations
with minor abundance of scleractinian framestones.
The reef has a low topography with strata gently
sloping towards the centre of the lagoonal platform
top and to the upper slope. Evidence for subaerial
emersion is absent, suggesting that the reef always
remains submerged. The palaeobathymetrically most
elevated part of the Latemar platform is the tepee belt,
located between back reef and lagoon (Egenhoff et al.,
1999; Fig. 6a).
4.4. Carbonate cementation
As mentioned in previous studies, major volumes
of carbonate cement occur mainly in the platform
margin at Latemar. The palaeobathymetrically most
elevated part of the Latemar platform–the tepee belt–
is exposed to subaerial conditions during certain
periods of platform development (Goldhammer and
Harris, 1989; Egenhoff et al., 1999) and is governed
by vadose to marine-phreatic cementation. The tepee-
facies in the cyclic succession of the Latemar is
characterised by the presence of pisoids, red internal
sediments, dissolution features, isopachous radiaxial-
fibrous cements and less commonly small botryoids
within the central fissure of the tepees (Goldhammer
and Harris, 1989; Egenhoff et al., 1999; Fig. 7a). The
principal characteristics of the tepee belt are: (1) it is a
very narrow part of the margin, (2) it is not present
during all stages of platform evolution and (3)
cements are mainly restricted to the central cavity
between the inclined flanks. Only one location on the
uppermost slope reveals abundant early marine
cements (Schenon, Fig. 2a). This setting is charac-
terised by cavities between blocks of a proximal talus
fan facilitating the formation of bEvinospongiaeQ-like
crusts (Fig. 7b). This restricted occurrence of massive
cementation precludes its volumetric importance
during the development of the entire platform. The
absence of significant volumes of MEC at Latemar,
however, does not allow for ruling out early lithifica-
tion of the platform margin. In contrast, the occur-
rence of abundant megabreccia at the entire slope and
neptunian dykes at two localities at Latemar stresses
the importance of early lithification. A large portion of
the carbonate deposits at Latemar records synsedi-
mentary tectonic activities because of their brittle
behaviour due to early cementation (cf. Kerans et al.,
1986).
Our investigations on cement succession at
Latemar are generally in accordance with the scheme
of Dunn (1991). The majority of all cements are of
early marine phreatic origin (60–80%), burial
cements play a minor role only. Burial cements can
be subdivided in at least two generations, locally
maybe three. The isopachous crusts representing
early marine cement precipitation are non-lumines-
cent and are followed by sparry calcitic cement. The
first generation of spar cement is dully luminescent
and displays a sharp to transitional contact towards
the isopachous cements. The second main generation
of spar cement consists of several bright luminescent
layers of calcite (Fig. 8a–c).
 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
5. Concarena
5.1. Previous research
The Concarena carbonate platform is one of the
least studied carbonate platforms in the Southern
Alps. Most of the scarce information is derived from
two studies (Rossetti, 1966; Brack, 1984). Much more
work has so far been carried out on the surrounding
areas (e.g. Assereto and Casati, 1965; Frisia-Bruni et
al., 1989; Balini et al., 2000).
5.1.1. Platform development
Rossetti (1966) is the first to recognise the lateral
transition from platform facies (Esino Limestone) to
distal slope (Pratotondo Formation). Six of his
sections covering an interval from Buchenstein For-
mation to Lozio Shale (Fig. 6) enable a basic
geometric reconstruction of the Concarena platform.
Brack (1984) describes the progradation of the upper
part of the Concarena succession.
5.1.2. Bio- and sequence stratigraphy
In the literature, no biostratigraphic data is reported
from the Esino Limestone of the Concarena platform.
However, lateral correlation of age-indicative intervals
from coeval, adjacent basins is possible. These basins
are infilled by sediments pertaining to two successive
formations: Wengen and Pratotondo Formation (Ros-
setti, 1966; Brack, 1984; Balini et al., 2000; Fig. 3).
Age-diagnostic fossils (ammonoids, conodonts, dao-
nellids) are known from several units of the Wengen
Formation (e.g. Assereto and Casati, 1965; Balini et
al., 2000) indicating a Longobardian age. The over-
lying Pratotondo Formation contains a Late Longo-
bardian/Early Julian conodont fauna with the
Ladinian/Carnian boundary located approximately
35 m above the base of the Pratotondo Formation
(Balini et al., 2000). The Concarena buildup is
therefore ascribed to the latest Ladinian/earliest
Carnian.
The sequence stratigraphic framework for the
Lombardic Alps is provided by Gaetani et al. (1998)
and Gianolla and Jacquin (1998). The Esino Lime-
stone of the Concarena platform belongs to the 2nd
Triassic 1st-order T–R cycle and is part of its
regressive phase. In the Lombardic Alps, this regres-
sive phase is documented by decreasing water depths
447
and basin-ward progradation of shorelines. The
Triassic of the Lombardic Alps is further subdivided
into 3rd-order sequences sensu Van Wagoner et al.
(1988). Following the different schemes, the Concar-
ena platform belongs to the Lad3/Car1 sequences
(Gianolla and Jacquin, 1998) or the L2–C1 sequences
(Gaetani et al., 1998). Both sequence stratigraphic
subdivisions are based on a compilation of data from
different regions of the Lombardic Alps. Up to now,
no sequence stratigraphic framework has been estab-
lished for the Concarena platform.
5.1.3. Diagenesis and cementation
bEvinospongiaeQ- or bGrogoolithQ structures within
the Esino Limestone at Concarena are briefly men-
tioned by Rossetti (1966). Basic diagenetic features of
the platform top like botryoids and pisoids are
described by Brack (1984). However, existing studies
of the Concarena area lack detailed information on
diagenesis and/or cementation.
5.2. Platform development
The onset of platform development of Concarena is
obscured, but the eastern part of the platform shows
the contact between Esino Limestone and underlying
Wengen Formation. Approximately 800 m of lagoonal
facies with shallowing upward cycles are preserved in
the northwestern part of the platform (Fig. 5a).
Stacking patterns of 1:5 are common in the lower part
of the lagoon where metre-scale, mainly sub- and
intertidal cycles prevail. The upper part of the lagoon
is characterised by a distinct decrease of bed and cycle
thicknesses (Fig. 5b: Valle del Baione view of Cima
della Bacchetta). In this part of the succession, inter- to
supratidal horizons with tepees, pisoids, vadose and
phreatic cements are frequent. MEC in the lagoon
cause early lithification and stabilisation of sediment.
An exact differentiation of these two different stages in
platform development is difficult as the lagoon-facies
records a slow transition between these two intervals.
The platform margin shows moderate progradation
during the first platform stage, whereas the second
platform stage is characterised by pronounced pro-
gradation (Fig. 5a and c). The maximum thickness of
the Concarena carbonate platform slope is preserved
in its eastern part (La Tavola area, location 3, Fig. 2b)
with a succession of at least 1500 m thick stacked
448 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457

Cma. della Bacchetta (2549m)

N a S

Cma. dei Ladrinai (2403m) Esino Lst 1

Lagoon-facies Esino Lst
Reef-facies

Esino Lst
Slope-facies

Valle del Baione

2
(~ 2000m)
1 Studied outcrops
Hiking path 81A
Progradation of platform top

b ~ 2450m
NW c Monte Vaccio (2265m) Second platform stage

Esino Lst - Lagoon-facies

agoon-facies
Second platform stage
SE

Esino Lst
Reef-facies

First platform stage

Esino Lst - Slope-facies

Spluga
(2050m) ~ 2050m

Fig. 5. Platform architecture of the Concarena. Legends on the respective figures; for further explanations refer to the text. (a) Drawing of the
NW flank of Cima della Bacchetta with an interpretation of geometric platform–basin relationships and an indication of studied outcrops. (b)
Enlargement of the lagoonal succession. Note the two distinct stages of lagoonal development. (c) Panoramic view of the NW flank of the
Monte Vaccio area (also Fig. 2a) with an interpretation of geometric platform–basin relationships. Reefal margin of the second stage of platform
evolution shows pronounced progradation over a depositional slope.

debris flows. Slope-facies is preserved at all sides of
the Concarena buildup: large-scale clinoforms are
well visible at its eastern and southern termination
(Fig. 5c). The geometries of the platform–basin
transition indicate depositional characteristics sensu
Schlager and Ginsburg (1981). Climbing progradation
of megabreccia clinoforms and intercalation with the
basinal Wengen Formation (volcaniclastics) character-
ise the slope-basin relationship in the La Tavola area
(eastern termination of Concarena; location 3 in Fig.
2b). The thickness and amount of carbonate debris-
flows increases upward in these adjacent basinal
parts. The relatively high amount of clastic input into
the basin and the moderate progradation of slope
clinoforms determine the base relationships of the
platform in this area. In the Pratotondo area (southern
margin of Concarena; location 4 in Fig. 2b) the
geometric configuration of clinoforms is different
from the La Tavola area. Slope strata are younger
with respect to La Tavola, showing thinner clinoforms
and flatten out to well bedded, dm-thick, dark micritic
limestones (Pratotondo Limestone). Most likely,
poorly oxygenated conditions develop, preventing
distinct bioturbation.
5.3. Margin configuration
Large parts of the margin are exposed around the
summit of Cima della Bacchetta, being the topo-
graphically and stratigraphically highest part of the
Concarena (location 1 on hiking path 81A; Figs. 2b
and 5a). Similar to the tepee belt at Latemar, a zone of
 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
early marine cementation is present at the transition
from lagoon to back reef. However, this zone is
characterised by lenticular cement structures of con-
siderable size (2–3 m across and 1–2 m in height). The
situation at Latemar is paralleled once again, the main
features of the back reef at Concarena are bTubiphytesQ
multisiphonatus framestones forming thrombolites of
up to 1.5 m in height and 4 m in lateral extent
interfingering with wacke-/packstones of the back reef
lagoonal setting. Apart from bTubiphytesQ multisipho-
natus associated with isopachous cement crusts
(Fig. 6b) the only other components are fine-grained
bioclasts (e.g. pelecypods, gastropods), peloids, ses-
sile encrusting foraminifers, porostromate algae and
micritised worm tubes.
In contrast to Latemar, Concarena’s reef is charac-
terised by the abundance of in situ scleractinian
coralline framestones representing the Tethys wide
reappearance of scleractinians towards the end of the
Ladinian (Flügel, 2002). The scleractinian colonies
are up to 3–4 m in height and 10 m in diameter,
interfingering each other and building a laterally
continuous rim within the 15–60 m broad reefal
margin. Framestones of this fossil assemblage are
characterised by Margarosmilia sp.-like corallites
with a diameter of up to 15 mm. Trapped sediment
is rare, components being mainly peloids and grains
with micritic envelopes, only in few cases foramini-
fers and algae. The scleractinian rim is rich in primary
cavities and vugs, lined by radiaxial fibrous cements.
Towards the upper slope, dm-sized talus blocks are
increasing in size and abundance. These deposits are
mainly stabilised by synsedimentary cements. At
Concarena–in contrast to the Latemar–bTubiphytesQ
multisiphonatus thrombolites occur up to the transi-
tion to the foreslope. These thrombolites exhibit the
same features as in the back reef environment.
5.4. Carbonate cementation
At Concarena, the distribution of carbonate cements
and cementstones follows the zonation of facies belts:
(1) the lagoon is characterised by vadose cements
indicating frequent subaerial exposure, (2) the tran-
sition towards the back reef by botryoids and
isopachous crusts, (3) the reef by several generations
of marine phreatic cements and (4) the uppermost
slope by bEvinospongiaeQ-like isopachous crusts.
449
Pisoids and oncoids are common in the upper part
of the lagoonal succession. Another diagenetic feature
is brecciation with infiltration of fine-grained micro-
crystalline dolomite in a red argillaceous matrix
related to near-surface processes (bterra rossaQ Asser-
eto and Kendall, 1977; Mutti, 1994). Some localities
contain botryoids covered by fine-grained peloidal
sediment pointing towards an early marine origin (Fig.
8d). Some samples contain dripstone cements, sym-
metric and asymmetric meniscus cements—indicators
for inter- to supratidal conditions with frequent
exposure.
The striking feature of the transition from the
lagoon towards back reef settings are the cement
arrangements of lenticular shape (convex-upward,
decimetre to metre size in diameter and height; Fig.
7c). The base of each cement lens is formed by cm- to
dm-thick botryoids closely linked to microbial crusts.
Massive isopachous cements cover the dark coloured
botryoids (Fig. 7c–e). These isopachous crusts are
formed entirely by up to 5 mm thick alternating light
and dark layers of fibrous calcite. Each cementation
phase consists of small mm-sized calcite fibres
showing undulous extinction with radiaxial fibrous
pattern. Isopachous crusts and botryoids are indicators
for synsedimentary marine cementation (e.g. Kendall,
1985; Frisia-Bruni et al., 1989). At Concarena, these
precipitates form cementstones (sensu Wright, 1992)
in lagoon/back reef settings.
With respect to the other facies belts, the reefal
margin of the Concarena platform has the lowest
volumetrical content of early cement. Cementation
mainly took place within the bTubiphytesQ multi-
siphonatus zone and the scleractinian rim. The coral-
line part of the reef exhibits features such as large
open cavities, precipitation of radiaxial fibrous calcite
(layers with a thickness of up to 3 mm) together with
late blocky calcite inside small vugs and/or coral
branches. Like in other facies belts, the reefal margin
also shows early cementation and later recrystallisa-
tion of components.
The occurrence of massive, grey isopachous
crusts–consisting of several mm to cm-thick layers
of fibrous calcite–is also a common feature of reef
front/uppermost slope settings. Multiple generations
of these crusts form globose structures ranging up to
several dm in size (Fig. 7f). These structures are
known as bRiesenoolithQ, bGrogoolithQ and/or
450 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457

Fig. 6. Schematic reef model of the Latemar (a) and Concarena (b) indicating the three main zones (reef front, reef crest and back reef) and the
relationship with the lagoonal succession. Legend in the lower part of the figure. The common feature of both margin models is the bTubiphytesQ
multisiphonatus zone in back-reef settings. Vertical exaggeration, not to scale. (a) Latemar’s reef is always below sea level, the bathymetrically
highest point of its margin is the tepee belt separating the back reef from the lagoonal interior of the platform (also Egenhoff et al., 1999).
Organisms with more delicate/branching growth are found beneath the mean wave base, whereas the more or less wave resistant area within the
surf zone is marked mainly by algae and minor corals. (b) The reef of the Concarena is always below sea level, the bathymetrically highest point
of its margin is the lagoon. This is indicated by the geometrical relationship between reef and lagoon and the absence of emersive features at the
reef (abundant at the lagoon). The walled, wave resistant area within the surf zone is marked by corals. The position of the mean wave base is
unclear. bTubiphytesQ multisiphonatus thrombolites also occur on the uppermost slope.

bEvinospongiaeQ (e.g. Frisia-Bruni et al., 1989; Russo Under cathodoluminescence, botryoidal cements–
et al., 2000). Under crossed polars, the fibrous calcite restricted to lagoonal areas of the Concarena plat-
shows undulous extinction with radiaxial fibrous form–show patchy, dull luminescence. The common
patterns. radiaxial fibrous cements–forming isopachous cement
 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457 451

Fig. 7. Cements at Latemar and Concarena. (a) Sample from the central cavity between the inclined flanks of tepees showing multiple
generations of cement and terra rossa (Latemar, tepee-facies, Erzlahnspitze area; scale bar is 1 cm with subdivisions of 2 mm). (b) Photograph of
polished slab from talus blocks with isopachous crusts (Latemar, breccia of slope-facies, Schenon; scale bar is 1 cm with 2 mm subdivisions). (c)
MEC at the lagoon in the cement zone. Lower part of the lens-like structure is entirely made up of botryoids whereas the upper part contains
isopachous crusts (Concarena, Cima della Bacchetta, scale bar in cm and inches). (d) Enlargement of a botryoid from (c) (approx. 3 cm in
length; Concarena, Cima della Bacchetta, scale bar in cm with subdivision of 5 mm). (e) MEC at the lagoon in the cement zone (Concarena,
Cima della Bacchetta, scale bar in cm and inches). (f) MEC at the uppermost slope (Concarena, Cima della Bacchetta, scale bar in cm and
inches).

crusts in lagoon/back-reef and slope settings–are non-
luminescent. Shallow burial cements like dog-tooth
cement are common in all facies belts of the
Concarena. They often cover early radiaxial fibrous
calcite and show insignificant or dull luminescence
with multiple, bright luminescing outer rims. Their
equant crystals can be easily distinguished from
acicular crystals of radiaxial fibrous calcite. Dog-
tooth cement is followed by blocky calcite filling most
of the remaining porosity and late fractures. A
452 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457

Fig. 8. Photomicrographs of cements at Latemar and Concarena. (a) Isopachous cement crust from the tepee-facies at Latemar. The boundary
between the first generation of cements (1: isopachous crusts; marine phreatic) and burial cements (2) is well visible (transmitted light; Latemar,
Erzlahnspitze area, scale bar is 1 mm with subdivisions of 200 Am). (b) The same thin section of (a) under crossed polars. Cement phase 2 of (a)
can be subdivided into two generations. (c) The same thin section of (a) under cathodoluminescence. Burial cements (3) show bright
luminescence. Boundary between 1 and 2 is faint. (d) Botryoidal cement from the lagoonal facies covered by peloids (Concarena, Cima della
Bacchetta, scale bar is 1 mm with subdivisions of 200 Am). (e) Burial cements of sample (d) under transmitted light (scale bar is 1 mm with
subdivisions of 200 Am). (f) The same thin section of (e) under cathodoluminescence. Five generations of cement are distinguishable by their
differing degrees of luminescence.

succession of three to five cement generations with
different degree of luminescence is observed (Fig. 8d–
e). In a few cases, red luminescing crystals of deep
burial saddle dolomite follows zoned blocky calcite.
The cement succession of the Concarena is in
accordance with schemes from other Esino Limestone
platforms (e.g. Grigna and Valle Brembana; Frisia-
Bruni et al., 1989).
In lagoonal and back-reef domains of the Concar-
ena, early marine cements represent up to 90% of the
total cement volume in these rocks. The reefal margin
of the Concarena platform contains lesser amounts of
early marine cements, values around 60% are common.
The slope of the Concarena platform contains similar
amounts of cement like lagoonal/back reef areas (up to
90% with respect to whole rock cementation).
6. Discussion
6.1. Comparison of platform development
Despite laterally traceable cycles of the lagoonal
interior—the Latemar reveals a complex pattern of
different, even contrasting sedimentological character-
istics lacking a uniform evolution in space and time.
The development of the slope-facies at Latemar is
governed by synsedimentary tectonics at the south-
western, western and west–northwestern parts of the
platform where the platform margin is mutilated.
Other outcrops are not influenced by tectonics and
show mainly aggradation or at one locality even faint
progradation (Emmerich et al., in press). The bLower
EdificeQ, building up directly from the Contrin ramp,
records platform retreat due to multiple collapses on
the slope, margin and even platform top. Autocyclic
processes of collapse–fast accommodation fill–over-
steepening–collapse together with synsedimentary
tectonics result in a mainly aggrading platform (AV/
SV=1). These observations together with local retro-
gradation (AV/SVN1 and increasing) during the last
stages of platform development indicate that the
carbonate factory at Latemar is stretched to its limits
(cf. Emmerich et al., 2005).
The Concarena carbonate platform shows a less
differentiated, but two-phased development. This
evolution of the Concarena carbonate platform is
controlled by a pronounced decrease in the AV/SV
 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
ratio triggering distinct progradation (AV/SVb1).
Ladinian/Carnian boundary sections in the area
indicate a fall in relative sea level (Gaetani et al.,
1998), slowing down the creation of accommodation
space in the Lombardic Basin significantly. The
combination of this relative sea-level fall with a
compartmentalisation of basins (Assereto and Casati,
1965; Brack, 1984) and subsequent local development
of starved basinal conditions decreased carbonate
production (extrinsic factors sensu Schlager, 1993).
This indicates that the decline in AV is more important
for the progradation than the decline in SV.
The Latemar and Concarena carbonate platforms
are case studies for the sensitive interplay between
carbonate production (S) and accommodation (A).
Schlager et al. (1994) report that during times of
positive AV (=increasing accommodation) carbonate
platforms produce an excess of carbonate sediment
(positive SV). Much of this carbonate is shed into
surrounding basin areas (highstand shedding, Schlager
et al., 1994), forming a large amount of prograding
gravity flow deposits on the slope (e.g. first platform
stage of Concarena and entire Latemar slope). During
times of decreasing accommodation and carbonate
production thin-bedded carbonate turbitide deposits
derived from the slope are common (e.g. second
platform stage of Concarena; not present at Latemar).
6.2. Comparison of the reefal margins
Detailed microfacies and palaeontological inves-
tigations at the margins of the two Middle and Upper
Triassic carbonate platforms show that bTubiphytesQ
multisiphonatus is an important reef builder. Apart
from previous findings at Aggtelek (Hungary), Hydra
(Greece) and Latemar (Italy) the Concarena is only the
fourth locality where this enigmatic microproblema-
ticum occurs (for a detailed list refer to Emmerich et
al., in press). In contrast to all other locations where
bTubiphytesQ multisiphonatus thrombolites are found
in the back-reef area (e.g. Erzlahnscharte, Latemar), at
Concarena they are also part of the reef front to
uppermost slope. Additionally, the size and abundance
of bTubiphytesQ multisiphonatus bioconstructions at
Concarena exceeds observations from all previously
described localities, it is one of the main constituents
of its reefal margin. Up to now, the occurrence of this
biota is observed in the central Tethys area only. This
453
might point to (1) endemism and/or (2) specific
environmental conditions, which are required for the
growth of bTubiphytesQ multisiphonatus (e.g. compo-
sition of seawater, temperature, nutrient supply,
marine currents, etc.). A further difference to Late-
mar’s reef is the abundance of in situ scleractinian
coralline framestones at Concarena (see also Section
5.3). This feature is the main reason behind the
difference in topography of the respective reefal
margins (microbially dominated reef at Latemar vs.
walled reef at Concarena; Fig. 6a and b). The
scleractinian bioconstructions at Concarena are
responsible for the wave-resistant nature and abundant
cavities of its reef.
6.3. Massive early marine cementation (MEC)
At Latemar, massive early marine cementation
(MEC) plays a minor role—it is only present at one
locality on the upper slope (see Section 4.4). The
insignificant distribution of MEC owes mainly to the
Anisian nature of this reef. It is made up to a large
extent of low-growing, encrusting organisms. These
construct a small reefal margin with only small and
isolated voids and a low topography inhibiting
effective fluid pumping. Another cause might be the
close relationship between carbonate production and
MEC (Lighty, 1985). According to Lighty (1985),
high amounts of cementation generally occur in reef
environments that have low carbonate production/
framework accumulation rates (low SV). It is, how-
ever, more precise to link MEC to a low AV/SV ratio.
Again, this means a decrease in creation of accom-
modation space (AV; i.e. total subsidence plus sea-
level rise; e.g. Jervey, 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988)
combined with low carbonate production rates (SV). A
high rate of creation of accommodation space together
with a high rate of sedimentation/production shortens
the amount of time available for marine phreatic
diagenesis–and the formation of e.g. botryoids–as the
sediments more quickly reach the realm of shallow
marine burial diagenesis. As the Latemar reveals very
high rates of total subsidence/net carbonate accumu-
lation (650–800 m/Ma; Zühlke et al., 2003; Emmerich
et al., 2005), it is obvious that MEC must be low.
MEC is much more likely to develop in Late
Ladinian/Carnian rimmed platforms like the Concar-
ena. The reefal margins of these buildups are
454 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
characterised by an increased amount in rigid bio-
constructors (e.g. scleractinians; Flügel, 2002 and
references therein). Another feature is the change in
morphology towards walled, wave resistant margins
enabling effective fluid flow through inter-reef pore
spaces. According to Ginsburg et al. (1971), James et
al. (1976) and Marshall (1986) only seaward margins
of walled reefs show MEC related to environmental
factors such as high-energy conditions supplying
effective pumping of marine fluids. Isolation of
primary voids through encrusting organisms and
subsequent infill with peloids impedes MEC. In the
case of the Concarena, the local development of
starved basinal conditions decrease carbonate produc-
tion (extrinsic factors sensu Schlager, 1993), possibly
a further important factor to favour MEC. Additional
major players in the cementation of carbonate plat-
forms are physicochemical and -biological processes
and aspects (e.g. alkalinity, pH, microbial activity).
Most of them–however–are hard to assess on fossil
carbonate platforms and hence are not investigated
within the context of this study.
The excellent porosity of many modern hydro-
carbon reservoirs in carbonates is tied to basins
undergoing rapid total subsidence at times of high sea
level (Moore and Haydari, 1993) leaving insufficient
time for pervasive cementation. It is, however, more
precise to link this diagenetic evolution of porosity-
prone, MEC-poor platforms to periods of fast sea-
level rise and/or rapid total subsidence (i.e. high AV).
Nevertheless, a certain amount of cementation is
necessary in order to counterbalance compaction and
to preserve porosity. Leaving burial cementation
aside, porosity seems best to be preserved in a
certain window of creation of accommodation space
balanced by carbonate production allowing enough
cementation to stabilise the platform. Consequently,
the link between the AV/SV ratio and MEC allows
constraining this early diagenetic development to
platform types with certain geometries: (1) aggrada-
tional or retrogradational platforms are unlikely to
develop features of MEC, (2) platforms with pro-
gradational characteristics are prone to MEC. This
hypothesis is confirmed if it is tested against other
Triassic platforms in the western Tethys area. Boni et
al. (1994) and Climaco et al. (1997) describe
strikingly similar features from bpathologically pro-
gradingQ (Bosellini, 1989) Upper Triassic platforms
of Calabria (Southern Italy). Like at Concarena, the
last stages of platform development are governed by
a slow-down in accommodation increase in combi-
nation with the development of anoxic conditions in
the surrounding basins. Strong similarities also exist
with platforms of the Northern Calcareous Alps
(Brandner and Resch, 1981; Henrich and Zankl,
1986; Zeeh et al., 1995) where MEC is always linked
to progradation and reefs with a high degree of
primary porosity.
7. Conclusions
The comparison of the Triassic carbonate buildups
of Latemar (Late Anisian/Early Ladinian, Dolomites)
and Concarena (Late Ladinian/Early Carnian, Lom-
bardic Alps) stresses the importance of bTubiphytesQ
for the development of Triassic carbonate platforms.
The degree and style of cementation vary strongly at
Latemar and Concarena. The tepee belt at Latemar is
governed by meteoric diagenesis, whereas the cement
zone at Concarena is dominated by early marine
phreatic cements.
The comparison of the Latemar and the Concarena
lead to the identification of several boundary con-
ditions for MEC: (1) abundant open and connected
cavities provided by e.g. rigid frameworks of reef
building organisms or inter-particle space of talus
breccias, (2) effective fluid flow mechanisms like
wave activity in combination with matching platform
margin morphology (walled reefs), (3) slow increase
in accommodation (low AV) prolonging the time
interval of early marine phreatic diagenesis (i.e. AV/
SVV1), (4) low carbonate production/framework
accumulation rates (low SV) prolonging the time
available for early marine phreatic diagenesis and
fluid flow permeability.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express special thanks to
F. Jadoul, University of Milano (Italy), F. Berra and G.
B. Siletto, Servizio Geologico Regione Lombardia
(Italy) and P. Brack, ETH Zürich (Switzerland). We
also thank K. Carrière for improving the English of
our manuscript. This project has been financed in part
 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
by the bDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftQ (funding
M. Seeling; Project Be-641/33), the bStudienstiftung
des deutschen VolkesQ (funding A. Emmerich) and the
International Postgraduate Programme in geosciences
at the University of Heidelberg (Germany). To L.
Keim, A. Immenhauser and an anonymous reviewer
we owe important comments on the manuscript.
References
Assereto R, Casati P. Revisione della Stratigrafia Permo-Triassico
della Val Camonica meridonale (Lombardia). Riv Ital Paleontol
Stratigr 1965;71(4):999 – 1097.
Assereto RLAM, Kendall CStGC. Nature, origin and classification
of peritidal tepee structures and related breccias. Sedimentology
1977;24:153 – 210.
Balini M, Germani D, Nicora A, Rizzi E. Ladinian/Carnian
ammonoids and conodonts from the classic Schilpario-Pizzo
Camino area (Lombardy) Reevaluation of the biostratigraphic
support to chronostratigraphy and paleogeography. Riv Ital
Paleontol Stratigr 2000;106(1):19 – 58.
Biddle KT, Schlager W, Rudolph KW, Bush TL. Seismic model of a
progradational carbonate platform, Picco di Vallandro, the
Dolomites, Northern Italy. AAPG Bull 1992;76(1):14 – 30.
Blendinger W. Middle Triassic strike-slip tectonics and igneous
activity of the Dolomites (Southern Alps). Tectonophysics 1985;
113(1–2):105 – 21.
Blendinger W. The carbonate factory of Middle Triassic buildups in
the Dolomites, Italy: a quantitative analysis. Sedimentology
1994;41:1147 – 59.
Blendinger W. Sea level changes versus hydrothermal diagenesis:
origin of Triassic carbonate platform cycles in the Dolomites,
Italy. Sediment Geol 2004;169:21 – 8.
Boni M, Iannace A, Torre M, Zamparelli V. The Ladinian-Carnian
reef facies of Monte Caramolo (Calabria Southern Italy). Facies
1994;30:101 – 18.
Bosellini A. Progradation geometries of carbonate platforms:
examples from the Triassic of the Dolomites, northern Italy.
Sedimentology 1984;31:1 – 24.
Bosellini A. Dynamics of Tethyan carbonate platforms. In: Crevello
PD, Wilson JJ, Sarg JF, Read JF, editors. Controls on Carbonate
Platform and Basin Development. Soc Sediment Geol, (SEPM)
Spec Publ, vol. 44. 1989. p. 3 – 13.
Brack, P. Geologie der Intrusiva und Rahmengesteine des Suedwest-
Adamello. Diss. ETH Nr. 7612, Zürich; 1984. 253 pp.
Brack P, Muttoni G. High-resolution magnetostratigraphic and
lithostratigraphic correlations in Middle Triassic pelagic carbo-
nates from the Dolomites (northern Italy). Palaeogeogr Palae-
oclimatol Palaeoecol 2000;161:361 – 80.
Brack P, Rieber H. Towards a better definition of the Anisian/
Ladinian boundary: new biostratigraphical data and correlations
of boundary sections from the Southern Alps. Eclogae Geol
Helv 1993;86(2):415 – 527.
455
Brandner R, Resch W. Reef development in the Middle Triassic
(Ladinian and Cordevolian) of the Northern Limestone Alps
near Innsbruck, Austria. In: Toomey DF, editor. European
fossil reef models. Soc Sediment Geol, (SEPM), Spec Publ,
vol. 30. 1981. p. 203 – 31.
Brandner R, Flügel E, Senowbari-Daryan B. Microfacies of
carbonate slope boulders; indicator of the source area (Middle
Triassic; Mahlknecht Cliff, western Dolomites). Facies 1991;
25:279 – 96.
Climaco A, Boni M, Iannace A, Zamparelli V. Platform margins,
microbial/serpulids bioconstructions and slope-to-basin sedi-
ments in the Upper Triassic of the bVerbicaro UnitQ (Lucania
and Calabria Southern Italy). Facies 1997;36:37 – 56.
Cross TA, Lessenger MA. Sediment volume partitioning: rationale
for stratigraphic model evaluation and high resolution strati-
graphic correlation. In: Gradstein FM, Skandvik KO, Milton NJ,
editors. Sequence stratigraphy—concepts and applications. NPF,
Spec Publ, vol. 8. 1998. p. 171 – 95.
Dercourt, J, Gaetani, M, Vrielynck, B, Barrier, E, Biju-Duval, B,
Brunet, M.F, et al. Atlas Peri-Tethys, palaeogeographical maps.
CCGM/CGMW, Paris, 24 maps and explanatory notes, 2000.
269 pp.
Doglioni C. Tectonics of the Dolomites (Southern Alps, northern
Italy). J Struct Geol 1987;9(2):181 – 93.
Dunn, PA. Cyclic stratigraphy and early diagenesis: an example
from the Triassic Latemar platform, Northern Italy. PhD thesis.
The Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore; 1991. 837 pp.
Egenhoff SO, Peterhänsel A, Bechstädt T, Zühlke R, Grötsch J.
Facies architecture of an isolated carbonate platform: tracing the
cycles of the Latemar (Middle Triassic Northern Italy).
Sedimentology 1999;46:893 – 912.
Emmerich, A, Zamparelli, V, Bechstädt, T, Zühlke, R. The reefal
margin and slope of a Middle Triassic carbonate platform: The
Latemar (Dolomites Italy). Facies. In press-a. [doi:10.1007/
s10347-004-0033-6].
Emmerich, A, Glasmacher, UA, Bauer, F, Bechstädt, T, Zühlke, R.
Meso-/Cenozoic basin and carbonate platform development in
the SW-Dolomites unraveled by basin modelling and apatite F-T
analysis: Rosengarten and Latemar (Northern Italy). Sediment
Geol. In press-b. doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2004.12.022.
Flügel E. Triassic reef patterns. Soc Sediment Geol, (SEPM),
Spec Publ, vol. 72. 2002. p. 391 – 463.
Frisia-Bruni S, Jadoul F, Weissert H. Evinosponges in the Triassic
Esino Limestone (Southern Alps): documentation of early
lithification and late diagenetic overprint. Sedimentology 1989;
36:685 – 99.
Gaetani M, Fois E, Jadoul F, Nicora A. Nature and evolution of the
Middle Triassic carbonate buildups in the Dolomites (Italy). Mar
Geol 1981;44(1):25 – 57.
Gaetani M, Gnaccolini M, Jadoul F, Garzanti E. Multiorder
sequence stratigraphy in the Triassic system of the western
Southern Alps. In: de Graciansky PC, Hardenbol J, Jacquin T,
Vail PR, editors. Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy
of European basins. Soc Sediment Geol, (SEPM), Spec Publ,
vol. 60. 1998. p. 701 – 17.
Gianolla P, Jacquin T. Triassic sequence stratigraphic framework of
western European basins. In: de Graciansky PC, Hardenbol J,
456 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
Vail PR, Vail PR, editors. Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence
stratigraphy of European basins. Soc Sediment Geol, (SEPM),
Spec Publ, vol. 60. 1998. p. 643 – 50.
Gianolla P, De Zanche V, Mietto P. Triassic sequence stratigraphy in
the Southern Alps, (Northern Italy): definition of sequences and
basin evolution. In: de Graciansky PC, Hardenbol J, Jacquin T,
Vail PR, editors. Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy
of European basins. Soc Sediment Geol, SEPM, Spec Publ,
vol. 60. 1998. p. 719 – 47.
Ginsburg RN, Marszalek DS, Schneidermann N. Ultrastructure
of carbonate cements in a Holocene algal reef of Bermuda. J
Sediment Petrol 1971;41:472 – 82.
Goldhammer RK, Harris MT. Eustatic controls on the stratigraphy
and geometry of the Latemar buildup (Middle Triassic), the
Dolomites of Northern Italy. In: Crevello PD, Wilson JJ, Sarg
JF, Read JF, editors. Controls on carbonate platform and basin
development. Soc Sediment Geol, (SEPM), Spec Publ, vol. 44.
1989. p. 323 – 38.
Harris MT. Reef fabrics, biotic crusts and syndepositional cements
of the Latemar reef margin (Middle Triassic Northern Italy).
Sedimentology 1993;40:383 – 401.
Harris MT. The foreslope and toe-of-slope facies of the Middle
Triassic Latemar buildup (Dolomites Northern Italy). J Sediment
Res, Sect B Stratigr Glob Stud 1994;64(2):132 – 45.
Henrich R, Zankl H. Diagenesis of Upper Triassic Wetterstein reefs
of the Bavarian Alps. In: Schroeder JH, Purser BH, editors. Reef
diagenesis. Heidelberg7 Springer Verlag; 1986. p. 245 – 68.
Jadoul F, Gervasutti M, Fantini Sestini N. The Middle Triassic of
the Brembana Valley: preliminary study of the Esino platform
(Bergamasc Alps). Riv Ital Paleontol Stratigr 1992;98(3):
299 – 324.
James NP, Ginsburg RN, Marszalek DS, Choquette PW. Facies and
fabric specificity of early subsea cements in shallow Belize
(British Honduras) reefs. J Sediment Petrol 1976;46:523 – 44.
Jervey MT. Quantitative geological modeling of siliciclastic rock
sequences and their seismic expression. In: Wilgus CK,
Hastings BS, Kendall CGStC, Posamentier HW, Ross CA,
Van Wagoner JC, editors. Sea-level changes; an integrated
approach. Soc Sediment Geol, (SEPM), Spec Publ, vol. 42.
1988. p. 47 – 80.
Keim L, Schlager W. Quantitative compositional analysis of a
Triassic carbonate platform (Southern Alps Italy). Sediment
Geol 2001;139:261 – 83.
Kendall AC. Radiaxial-fibrous calcite: a reappraisal. In: Schneider-
mann N, Harris PM, editors. Carbonate cements. Soc Sediment
Geol, (SEPM), Spec Publ, vol. 36. 1985. p. 59 – 77.
Kerans C, Hurley NF, Playford PE. Marine diagenesis in Devonian
reef complexes of the Canning Basin, Western Australia. In:
Schroeder JH, Purser BH, editors. Reef diagenesis. Heidelberg7
Springer Verlag; 1986. p. 357 – 80.
Kutzbach JE, Gallimore RG. Pangean climates: megamonsoons of
the megacontinent. J Geophys Res 1989;94(D3):3341 – 57.
Lehrmann D, Enos P, Montgomery P, Payne J, Orchard M, Bowring
S, et al. Integrated biostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy and
geochronology of the Olenikian–Anisian boundary in marine
strata of Guandao section, Nanpanjiang Basin, South China:
implications for timing of biotic recovery from the end-Permian
extinction. In: Piros O, editor. IUGS Subcommission on Triassic
Stratigraphy, STS/IGCP 467 Field Meeting, Veszprém, Hun-
gary, 5–8 September. 2002. p. 7 – 8.
Lighty RG. Preservation of internal reef porosity and diagenetic
sealing of submerged early Holocene barrier reef, southeast
Florida Shelf. In: Schneidermann N, Harris PM, editors.
Carbonate cements. Soc Sediment Geol, (SEPM), Spec Publ,
vol. 36. 1985. p. 123 – 51.
Marshall JF. Regional distribution of submarine cements within an
epicontinental reef system: Central Great Barrier Reef, Aus-
tralia. In: Schroeder JH, Purser BH, editors. Reef diagenesis.
Heidelberg7 Springer Verlag; 1986. p. 8 – 26.
Moore CH, Haydari E. Burial diagenesis and hydrocarbon migra-
tion in platform limestones: a conceptual model based on the
Upper Jurassic of the Gulf Coast in the USA. In: Horbury AD,
Robinson AG, editors. Diagenesis and basin development.
Studies in Geology, vol. 36. Tulsa7 AAPG; 1993. p. 213 – 30.
Mundil R, Brack P, Meier M, Rieber H, Oberli F. High resolution
U/Pb dating of Middle Triassic volcaniclastics: time-scale
calibration and verification of tuning parameters for carbonate
sedimentation. Earth Planet Sci Lett 1996;141:137 – 51.
Mundil R, Zühlke R, Bechstädt T, Brack P, Egenhoff P, Meier M, et
al. Cyclicities in Triassic platform carbonates: synchronizing
radio-isotopic and orbital clocks. Terra Nova 2003;15(2):81 – 7.
Mutti M. Association of tepees and paleokarst in the Ladinian
Calcare Rosso (Southern Alps, Italy). Sedimentology 1994;
41:621 – 41.
Posamentier HW, Jervey MT, Vail PR. Eustatic controls on clastic
deposition I—conceptual framework. In: Wilgus CK, Hastings
BS, Kendall CGStC, Posamentier HW, Ross CA, Van Wagoner
JC, editors. Sea-level changes; an integrated approach. Soc
Sediment Geol, (SEPM), Spec Publ, vol. 42. 1988. p. 109 – 24.
Riding R. Classification of microbial carbonates. In: Riding R,
editor. Calcareous algae and stromatolites. Springer-Verlag.
p. 21 – 51.
Rossetti R. Considerazioni sui rapporti tra le diverse facies ladiniche
nella zona del Pizzo Camino e della Concarena (Bresciano nord-
occidentale). Atti Ist Geol Univ Pavia 1966;17:124 – 42.
Russo F, Mastandrea A, Stefani M, Neri C. Carbonate facies
dominated by syndepositional cements: a key component of
Middle Triassic platforms. The Marmolada case history
(Dolomites, Italy). Facies 2000;42:211 – 26.
Schlager W. Accommodation and supply—a dual control on
stratigraphic sequences. In: Cloetingh S, Sassi W, Horvath F,
Puigdefàbregas C, editors. Basin analysis and dynamics of
sedimentary basin evolution. Sediment Geol, vol. 86. 1993.
p. 111 – 36.
Schlager W, Ginsburg RN. Bahamas carbonate platforms—the deep
and the past. Mar Geol 1981;44:1 – 24.
Schlager W, Reijmer JJ, Droxler A. Highstand shedding of
carbonate platforms. J Sediment Petrol, B 1994;64:270 – 81.
Stoppani A. Les pétrifications d’Esino ou déscription des fossils
appartenants au depôt supérior des environs d’Esino en
Lombardie. Paléontol Lomb 1858;1: [Milano, 360 pp.].
Unland W. Sedimentary and diagenetic environments of the Dosso
dei Morti-Limestone/Giudicarie (Lower and Middle Anisian,
Italy). Neues Jahrb Geol Paläontol, Monatsh 1975;1975:54 – 64.
 M. Seeling et al. / Sedimentary Geology 175 (2005) 439–457
Van Wagoner JC, Posamentier HW, Mitchum RM, Vail PR, Sarg
JF, Loutit TS, et al. An overview of the fundamentals of
sequence stratigraphy and key definitions. In: Wilgus CK,
Hastings BS, Kendall CGStC, Posamentier HW, Ross CA, Van
Wagoner JC, editors. Sea-level changes; an integrated
approach. Soc Sediment Geol, (SEPM), Spec Publ, vol. 42.
1988. p. 39 – 45.
Viel G. Litostratigrafia Ladinica: una revisione Ricostruzione
paleogeografica e paleostrutturale dell’area Dolomitico-Cador-
ina (Alpi Meridionali) I Parte. Riv Ital Paleontol Stratigr
1979;85(1):88 – 125.
Vörös A, Budai T, Haas J, Kovács S, Kozur H, Pálfy J. GSSP
(Global Boundary Stratotype Section And Point) proposal for
the base of the Ladinian (Triassic)—proposal for the GSSP at
the base of the Reitzi Zone (sensu stricto) at Bed 105 in the
Felsöörs section, Balaton Highland, Hungary. Albertiana
2003;28:35 – 47.
457
Wheeler HE. Base level, lithosphere surface and time-stratigraphy.
Geol Soc Amer Bull 1964;75:599 – 610.
Wright VP. A revised classification of limestones. Sediment Geol
1992;76:177 – 85.
Zeeh S, Bechstädt T. Carbonate-hosted Pb–Zn mineralization at
Bleiberg-Kreuth (Austria): compilation of data and new aspects.
In: Fontboté L, Boni M, editors. Sediment-hosted Zn–Pb ores.
Heidelberg7 Springer; 1994. p. 271 – 96.
Zeeh S, Bechstädt T, McKenzie J, Richter DK. Diagenetic evolution
of the Carnian Wetterstein platforms of the Eastern Alps.
Sedimentology 1995;42:199 – 222.
Zühlke R. Fazies, hochauflösende Sequenzstratigraphie und Beck-
enentwicklung im Anis (mittlere Trias) der Dolomiten (Südalpin
Italien). Gaea Heidelb CD-ROM 2000;6.
Zühlke R, Bechstädt T, Mundil R. Sub-Milankovitch and Milanko-
vitch forcing on a model Mesozoic carbonate platform—the
Latemar (Middle Triassic Italy). Terra Nova 2003;15(2):69 – 80.