Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • For Summary 1

    Uploaded by

    nhora1985
    11 views13 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views13 pages

    For Summary 1

    Uploaded by

    nhora1985

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    OBJECTIVES OF FACIES MODELLING. Features of recent sediments and ancient sedimentary rocks can be ‘combined and condensed into ideal- izations or models that characterize particular sedimentary environments. This combination of features from ‘modern and ancient situations has been emphasized from the earliest days; in 1893 Johannes Walther (quoted by Middleton, 1973, p. 981) “explained that the most satistying ‘genetic explanations of ancient phe- nomena were by analogy with modern ‘geological processes”. A good model embodies a large amount of informa- tion from different examples of the same depositional system, for in= stance, meandering river channels. It is therefore an excellent point of refer- ence for the interpretation of new examples of the same system, and allows predictions to be made from limited amounts of data. The predictive capabilities of models have largely been used in the exploration for oll and 92s (e.g., Chapters 3, 12, 13, 16, 17), ‘and to a lesser extent in exploration for minerals hosted by sedimentary rocks. However, the broad understanding of depositional systems is becoming in- creasingly important in modeling the movement of ground water and pollu- tants through surficial unconsolidated sediments, where the movement is partly a function of the geometry of permeable and impermeable layers (Chapter 5). This geometry largely depends on the depositional pro- cesses operating in the original sedi ‘mentary environment. Facies models ‘also embody ideas about how natural sedimentary systems work, and to What extent they can be “manage For example, a general understanding of beaches and barriers (Chapter 10) Contributes to the solution of coastal erosion problems. In the Mississippi Delia, there isa large annual land loss Ss, Facies Models and Modern Stratigraphic Concepts Roger G. Walker, Department of Geology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M1 {due to regional subsidence and delta inundation; these aspects of delta be- haviour are part of the general deltaic facies model (Chapter 9). In the first two editions of Facies Models, we tried to synthesize and idealize the features of some modem depositional environments and sys- tems (terminology defined in Table 1), and show how their deposits could be identitied in the geological record. The models we built tended to be snap- shots of specific systems at one time (Slatic block diagrams). They empha- sized the sedimentary processes oper- ating within the systems rather than processes external to the environ- ments, such as fluctuations of relative sea level, and tectonics. ‘The major conceptual change since the second edition (1984) has been the recognition of the importance of relative sea level fluctuation (Chap- ter 2). This concept now permeates stratigraphy and sedimentology, and brings a dynamic quality to models ‘of depositional environments. Specific environments must be modelled as videos rather than snapshots. The syntheses presented in this book will ‘attempt to convey how the environ- ‘ments respond to sea level fluctuation. ‘ASEDIMENTOLOGICAL ‘MODUS OPERANDI Over the years, many different meth- ‘ods and concepts have been used in the study of sedimentary rocks. The ‘modus operandi, or way of working on sedimentary rocks, depends on the objectives. Studies of ancient dep tional environments commonly begin with stratigraphic measurements and Correlations, in order to define the rock ‘types present, their three-dimensional ‘geometry, and their internal sedimen- tary structures, Overview of terminology A glossary of terminology used in this chapter, and throughout the book, is given in Table 1. The measurement of a vertical stratigraphic section implies that it will be subdivided into a series of different units, each with different thicknesses and characteristics, The =, Parasequence — ‘a rlavoly confrmabl sucesson of geneticaly related beds or beets bounded by maine foodng eutaces dhe coelave suave" (Posaont et, 1988, 10) famvinemeet Surface ~ an eosin auto produced daring mare transgression of a omer east envrnent. eta Stratigephy —"a geological approach fo tho agape nrpeaion ot slic da (Va and Mithun, 1877, p. 5) Sequences atv cotrmatesuension of gneteay rtd stata bounded a oop and base by urcofomio ana tar comaiavecororntce- ile conposed os sueresion Oates ace ends erpreted tbe deposed betwen estate {a econ po (Posarnte el, 185, p. 110) sequence Sratigrpny te say o rock eaionhips within a cronotabphic ramawark wher the succession of ok ye an composed ot goraly ate stall nts conuorecs an ayer aca: (Posarrent a, 388, p70, Systeme Tract ~"e nage of crnpurnenusdpostonlsysure’(Posametio al 868.110) nconformly “a sae separating younor trom air aaa, long which thre ean suber exostona uncaton..o ‘baer expose, wt «sgncant hats mate (Psat ef 189,10) Thl an rome rented Glin Poser personal onanicaton oB0) ow asap ane eid ay be nee ea fa comparison of modem and ancient de- positional environments, and the search for the processes that control their facies successions and geome- tres, is now termed facies modeling. These terms and concepts are dis- cussed inthe following txt, begining athe small scale (facies) and working Lp tothe large scale (systems tracts). FACIES The modern geological usage of the term facies was introduced by Gressly in 1838, who used it to imply the sum total of the lithological and paleonto- logical aspects of a stratigraphic unit. Translations of Gressly’s extended definition are given by Middleton (1973). The term has been used 1. FACIES MODELS many different ways since 1838, with arguments centering on 1) whether the term implies an abstract set of charac- teristics, as opposed to the rock body itsel, 2) whether the term should refer only to “areally restricted parts of a designated stratigraphic unit" (Moore, 1949) or also to stratigraphically un- confined rock bodies (as originally implied by Gressly), and 3) whether the term should be purely descriptive (Cmudstone facies") or also interpretive (fluvial facies"). Suecinet discussions of these problems have been given by Middleton (1978), Anderton (1985) and Reading (1986). ‘The most useful modem working defi FACIES can be combined into + FACIES ASSOCIATIONS FACIES SUCCESSIONS ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Ds comparison of modern (GEOGRAPHIC) combined with processes DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS and ancient examples (‘distillation’) FACIES MODELS these models characterize t + linkages of contemporaneous depositional systems SYSTEMS TRACTS - HIGHSTAND LOWSTAND AND TRANSGRESSIVE Figure 1 systems tracts, as used throughout this book. Relationship between facies, depostional environments and systems, and nition of facies was given by Middleton (1978), who noted that “the more common (modem) usage is exemplified by de Raat et al. (1965) who subdivided a group of three formations into a cyclical repetition of a number of facies dis- tinguished by “lithological, struc- tural and organic aspects detect- able in the field". The facies may be given informal designations (Facies A” etc) or brief descriptive designations (‘laminated siltstone facies") and it is understood that they are units that will utimately be given an environmental interpre- tation; but the facies definition is itself quite objective and based on the total field aspect of the rocks themselves... The key to the intor- pretation of facies is to combine ‘observations made on their spatial relations and internal characteris- tics (lithology and sedimentary structures) with comparative infor- mation from other well-studied stratigraphic units, and particularly from studies of modern sedimen- tary environments" DEFINING FACIES Facies can be defined on many dif- ferent scales. In a study specifically devoted to the interpretation of depo- sitional environments, there is usually a deliberate attempt to subdivide a rock body into constituent facies (units of similar aspect). This is a classifioa- tion procedure, and the degree of sub- division is governed by the objectives of the study. If the objective is routine description and interpretation on a large scale, a fairly broad facies sub- division may suttice. If the objective is more detailed, perhaps involving the refinement of an existing model or the definition of a new one, the faci ‘subdivision must be more detailed. ‘The scale of subdivision is depen- dant not only on the objectives, but on the time available in the field, the degree of preservation, and the abun- dance of physical and biological struc- tures in the rocks. A thick sequence of massive mudstones or thin-bedded turbidites (Fig. 3) will be difficult to subdivide, but @ similar thickness of interbedded sandstones and shales (with abundant and varied examples of ripples, cross bedding [Fig. 4] and ‘race fossils) might be subcivisible into Figure 2 Upper diagram chow lahoetrat graphic units X (conglomerate), ¥ (shales) and Z (sandstones). Allosvatigraphie urits A through &, and systems tracte HET and ‘TST ave also Indicated. MarFS = Marine Flooding Surtace and MaxF'S = Maximum Flooding Surface. Sold arrowheads ind ‘ote orlap, and open artowreads indicate downlap. Bounding discontinuities are ‘shown by the small zig-zag serrated symbot (uneontormites): the MarFS and MaxFS surfaces are alse bounding ciecentinuties The large serrated symbol soparating the shoreface from the offshore is not a bounding alecontiruty — it represents @ ‘gradual tacies change. Lower diagram Shows an interpretation in terms of 26a jovel (SL) fluctuations. During SLi, the shoretace buit out i protie 1. With a crop, in saa lovel to SL2, 2 now choretace was, cut off the righthand edge of the dagram. During a standstill in vansgression, and incieod shotolace formed at profie 2, and conglomerate was deposited in the shoreface. Whan the transgression reoumed (S12 to 813), the top of the con glomerate was eroded, and profle 2 was cut landward fo profile 3, making a revine ‘ment surface (rote 2). Note that evigence Of subaerial erosion (vegetation on profile 2) ie romoved during eutsequent ansgres: sion. Sea tel stabiza¢ at SL3-4, and tha shoteface sand built out ta profile 4 ‘Subsequent fall and rise of sea level re sued inne ravinerant surface 5. Figure 3 Devonian turbidtes near Mel- bourne, Australia, Stratigraphic top to right WALKER LiTMosTRATIONAPHY x-Z ALLOSTRATICRAPHY AE SYSTENS TRACTS ~ HIGHSTANO, HST TRANSGRESS INE, TST Enos Sete a large number of distinct facias, | would advocate erring on the side of dotailed subdivision In the field — facies can always be recombined in the laboratory, but a crude fioid subd- Vision cannot be refined in the lab. Subdivision of a body of rock into facies ideally should not be attempied nti one is thoroughly familiar with the rock body. Cnly then wil ibe apparent hhow much varabilty there is, and how many citferent facies must be defined to describe tho unit adequatoly. In tho field, most facies studies have relied on qualitatively assessed combina- tions of distinctive sedimentary and organic structures (e.g.. de Raf et al, 1965; Williams and Rust, 1968; Wilson, 1975; Cant and Walker, 1976; Scholle of 21, 1983; Walker, 1983), Siatiticel mothods can also be used to celine faces, especially where there 'e considorablo agreement among workers as to the important quantifi- ablo, daccriptive parameters (0.9. the proportions of diferent types of clasts in carbonate rocks; Imbrie and Purdy, 1962: Kiovan, 1964: Harbaugh and Demirmen, 1964; see also Chapter 7 of the book by Harbaugh and Mertiam, 1968). Unfortunately, statistical moth: ds are unsuited 10 terigenous clastic rocks, where the most important infor- mation (sedimentary and biological structures) cannot easily be quantiid, In the subsurface, rack bodies can be defined seismically, and different parts of the seismic record may have diferent aspects; this gives rise to the FACIES MODELS cconcapt of seismic facies (see Chap- ters 3 and 13). If borehole data are available, the electrieal and geophys- ical well logs also have different ‘aspects, and may alow the definition f facies and facies successions based upon the log characteristics (Chap- ter), FACIES ASSOCIATIONS AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS In many studies, facies have been dofinod on a email scalo — tho unite are only a few meties in thickness, and diffarences between facies are subtle, involving (for example) minor ‘changes in proportion of sit and rrud, the relative abundance and diversity of fossils, and minor differences in tho style of lamination (Walker, 1983). This detailed subdivision commonly results in @ facies scheme where the descriptive differences outetrip our abiity to interpret the differences. It therefore useful to combine closely related facies into facies associations (Fig. 1), or "groups of facies genet- cally related to one another and which have some environmental signifi- cance" (Collinson, 1959). These larger scale facies associations have also been termed architectural elements (Allen, 1989), implying that they are the building backs of the various de- positional systems, The concept of ar- ehitectural elements also emphasizes the three dimensional geometry of the facies associations. Good examples ‘are given in Chapler 7. Figure 4 Upper Cretaceous cross-bedded sandstones at Berry Gulch, Colored. Bed rowed is 1 7m thick, At the scale of architectural elements (but not on the local, small scale facies leva), itis becoming clear that in some depositional systems, certain elements feceurt universal, in Yecent and ancient sediments, and in many different geo- logical settings around the world. The first universal facies scheme was pro- posed for turbidites (Mutti and Ricci Lucchi, 1972; see Chapter 13), and Miall (1977, 1985) has suggested 2 scheme for fluvial deposits (see Chapter 7). For example, Miall'e (195) channe? architectural element (CH) consists of any combination of 2 series of defined lithofacies which communally have & distinctive elon- gate channel geometry; itis part of the architecture of almoet all modern fivers, and can be recognized in most noient fluvial deposits, Individual facies are tkely to be in- fluenced by many small-scale local factors. In a river, for example, the ‘exact aspect of a local deposit may be controlled by the sinuosity of a mean- er loop and the erodibilty of the bank. Architectural elemenis are larger scale components of @ depositonel system (e.9., a river channel), They will be more general in nature, ess influenced by local factors, and hence more uni versal in their application, FACIES SUCCESSIONS In stratigraphic studies, the term se- ‘quence has recently been given a very specific dafintion (Table 1) The term facies succession is now preferable to the older facies sequence. The con- ‘cept of a succession implies that cer- tain facies properties change pro- gressively in a speci direction (vent- cally or latorally); these properties might include the proportion of sand (candier-upward euccession, Fig. §), the amount of bioturtation, or te grain ‘829 of the sand (honco a coarsening upward succession). Many, if not moat individual facies etined In the field have ambiguous environmental interprotations. For example, although the processes forming medium-scale erose bedding (Fig. 4) are essentaly the same in all soltings, a cross-bedded sandstone facies could be formed in a mean- daring or braided river, a tidal niet, a shoretace dominated by alongshore currents, or a shelf dominated by tidal currents. Diamlct facies (Chapter 5) are pariicutly difficult to give unam- biguous environmental interpretations. Indeed, many facies defined descrip- tivaly in the field may at fret suggest 0 particular interpretation at all, The key to interpretation is to analyze all of the facies communally, in context. ‘Thus the succession in which thoy ‘occur contributes important intorma- tion that the facies, considered indivi. vally, cannot contribute. The relationship betwen deposi tional systems in space, and the ra- suiting stratigraphic eueceasions do- veloped through time was first empha- sizod by Johannes Walther (1804, in Middleton, 1973) in his Law of the Correlation of Facies. Walthor etatod that “it Is a basic statement of far- roaching significance that only thoce facies and facies areas can be supe Imposed primarily which can be ob- served beside each other at the prosont timo". Careful application of the law suggests that in a vartical suc- coscion, a gradational transition from one facies fo another implies that the two facies represent environments that were once adjacent laterally. If the contacts botwoon facies or facies as: Sociations are sharp and/or erosional there is no way of knowing whether two vertically adjacent facies represent environments that were once laterally adjacent. Indeed, sharp breaks be- tween facies (marked for example by channel scours, or by thin bicturbated horizons implying nondeposition) may signify fundamental changes in depo- sitional environment and the begin- rings of new cycles of sedimentaton (Ge Raat of a/., 1905). These sharp Dieaks, or bounding discontinuities, are now used to separate stratigraphic Sequences and allostratigraphic units (esdiscussed below). ‘The relationships between facies within facies successions can be ex- pressed quantitatively in facies rola tionship diagrams (de Raat et a1. 1965), oF tabulated in facias trancition probabilities. These methods of facies analysis are not as popular as thoy were a few years ago, Dut the tech- niques remain useful. Intorasted road: ces are referred to the second edition f Facies Models (Walker, 1984; sper, 1984). Over the years, it has become ap. Parent that certain facies successions ‘occur repeatedly in the geological WALKER record, In rocks of all ages, in many difforont geological settings. When these successions are combined with ‘successions observed in certain mod- ‘9m depesttional systems, a summary oF eynthesis of that system emorges. AAS verbal successions are correlated laterally, developing a three-dimen sional picture of a depositional system, we are in effect formulating general statements about that system — a facies model FACIES MODELS | facies model can be defined as a general summary of a given deposi- tional system, written in terms that make the summary useable in at least four citterent ways. The pkilosaphical assumption made here is that there is system and order in Natura, and that geologists can identi and agree on limited number of depositional sys. tems. In a well-argued alternative view, Anderton (1985, p. 33) suggests that “if, ike me, you have a more riilstic view of file, the universe and everything, then you have to admk an infiite number of ervironmente, ‘acioe and models’ For those who seek order in Nature, the principles, methods and motives of facies modelling are shown in Figure 6, using turbidies and submarine fans 88 an examplo. We begin by assuming that if enough modern turbiaites can be studiod in cores, enough madam fans studied on a larger scale with seismic profiles, and enough ancient turbidites studied in the field, we should be able to make some general statements about fans and turbidies rather than statements about one par- ticular example (Chapter 13). ‘The process of extracting the general information is shown in Fig tre 6, where the local examples refor to studies of modem fans and ancient reeks. This entire wealth of information is then dfsiied, boing away the local details but concentrating the important features that they all have in common into @ general summary of fans. But what consttutes local detall, and whet is gonoral? Which aspects do we dismiss, and which do we extract and consider important? ‘Answering these questions involves experience, judgoment, knowledge and argument among sedimentoio- gists. Modois aro constantly being ‘efined as more information becomes available, and a8 the significance of the various constituent parts of the model becomes better understood. For example, extensive debris flow and slump horizone on modem eubmerine fans were scarcely mentioned in the second edition of Facies Models, but these deposits feature prominently in this edition (Chapters 13, 18). Some of the diificulbes of modelling, imposed Figure §_Sandier-upward facios succession (arrowed) from the Upper Cretacsous Cardium Formation Diectsione River, Aveta. Nove the overal increase h proportion of ‘Sandstone upward, and the tendency for individual sardstona beds to hacome thicker Upward. The suscacsinn is rminated abruptly by a matine leading sustace (MerS), ove lan by black mudstones. Person (ght for sea. by the variability of nature, are dis- ‘cussed by Anderton (1988). Four main uses of facies models ‘The generality embodied in a facies model, as opposed to a summary of cone particular example, enables the facies model to assume four main functions (Fig. 6): 1) it must act as a norm, for purposes cof comparison 2) it must act as a framework and {uide for future observations 8) it must act as a predictor in new {geological situations 4) it must act as an integrated basis {or interpretation for the system that it represents Figure 6 also emphasizes the con- ‘stant comparison and feedback bo- tween local examples. If @ feature or idea is perceived in one example, does it ocour in the others? By these comparisons, the sedimentologist ‘exercises his or her judgement in de- fining features in common, and ident- fying “local irregularities”. This is the 1. FACIES MODELS. distillation process that allows the initial construction of a facies model. ‘The model may now act as @ norm, with which new examples can be com: pared (Fig. 6). Without a norm we are tunable to say whether a hypothetical new example contains any unusual features. If the new example conforms exactly to the facies model, its inter- pretation is simplified, and the madel is strengthened. If the new example differs, we can specity exactly how it diflers, and then ask questions about the new example that could not have been asked without the norm. For example, compared with the norm, why is the hypothetical new example thicker, or dominated by debris flow deposits rather than classical turbi- dites? These questions can open up ew avenues of productive thought; without the norm, such questions cannot be asked. This gives rise to yet, more feedback between the model and the new examples; some new examples may result in significant ‘modification of the facies mode itso. x eee camps é anal 4) A wan S) aS al ‘The second function of the model is to act as a guide for future observa- tions. Inasmuch as the model summa- tizes all of the important descriptive features of the system, geologists know thet similar information must be recorded when working with @ new example. This does not exclude the caretul search for new information that is not specifically indicated by the ‘made n is present stato of evolution ‘The third function ofthe model, as a predictors probably the most impor- tani. | wil use an imaginary facies model for automobiles to make my Point. A generalized automobile model expresses the relationships between wheels, hood, trunk, doors, etc. What, then, can we say i @ radiator is one day discovered in an outcrop? Without ‘a model, one might say litle more than ‘nice radiator’. But if the radiator can be identified as part of an automobile system (ie., an automobile radiator rather than a truck radiator), we can Use the automobile model to predict the rest of the car from the discovery of a radiator. Cleary, we will go wrong it we (incorrecty) identity the radiator 28 part of a truck, and attempt to use a truck facies model to make predictions about an automobile system. In the ‘geological world, we might be able to ‘make predictions within a submarine fan system from one seismic line ‘ross a fan channel, or from one out- crop ofa fan channel, granted that we could confidently assign the seismic line or outcrop to a submarine fan system rather than to a detiic ditibu- tary channel (for example). Prediction is a vitally important application of facies modeling; good surface or sub- surface predictions based on 1) limited ddata and 2) guidance trom a facies model can save unnecessary explo- ration guesswork, and potentially large amounts ofime and money. “The fourth function of the model to act as an integrated basis fr intopro- tation. Before the Bouma (1962) sequence for turbidites was defined, each turbidite bed acted as a basis for its own hydrodynamic interpretation Bouma generalized the internal se quence of structures for hundreds of individual turbidites, recognizing a massive base, overlain by parallel lam- ination and ripple eross lamination. “This facies model forthe internal struc tures of turbidites then served as the basis for a powerlul interpretation of ‘waning flow and deposition from tur- bidity currents. The interpretation was Powerful because it was based on the ‘combined features of hundreds of beds, not one or two local examples. The same principle applies to fluvial ppoint-bar deposits in meander bends, to tidal current ridges on the conti- rental shelf, and in all other situations where there are enough local exam- ples (ancient and modern) to achieve a synthesis in terms of a facies model. ‘Anderton (1985) Is one of very few People who has commented on the {our uses of models that | proposed in the first edition of Facies Models. He agrees that a model ‘can and should bbe used as a framework for future ob- servations and as a predictive tool” (Anderton, 1985, p. 33), but he is not 50 certain about thelr use as a norm, and as a basis for interpretation. | would reply that one cannot logically make predictions from a set of uncon- nected different examples, and that accepting a model as a predictor im- plies a common body of knowledge, that is, a norm. Philosophically inclined readers are referred to Anderton's ‘thoughtful paper. WHICH ENVIRONMENTS SHOULD BE MODELLED — THE PROBLEMS OF SCALE In this chapter, | have referred to ‘models for entire submarine fans, and ‘to models for individual turbicito beds (the Bouma sequence). It is clear that depositional systems and environ- ments can be recognized today on ‘many different scales. Should we build facies models ior 1) entire barrier is- land and lagoonal systoms, 2) tidal inlets and channels, or 3) tidal mud flats? An environment is considered to be any distinct geographical entity — thus a washover fan on the back of a barrier island could be the basis for a facies model. The smaller and more distinct the environment, the easier it is to characterize it in a model. Barrier washovers, or Bouma sequences, are relatively simple systems character- ized by few descriptive parameters and affected by a small range of phys- ical and biological processes. In con- trast, deltas represent large deposi- tional systems characterized by the ‘complex interplay of sediment supply, basin subsidence, and fluvial, wave WALKER {nd tidal redistribution of sediment. it is much more dificult to build a homo- geneous model for deltas (Le, one based on many examples of essen- tilly the same type of delta) because the fow that have been well studied have many points of difference and ‘only a few (very general) points of sim- ilarity. A model based on homoge- neous data (sandy point-bar deposits, for example) is precise and powerful, ‘but a model that contains inhomoge- ‘neous data is less precise, and is only a weak predictor. An example of an inhomogeneous model might be one for all sandy rivers, based on exam- ples of both meandering and braided ‘streams. Some models are inhomoge- neous because they have been formu- lated for large depositional systems where only a few examples have been studied. Others are inhiomogeneous because they have been constructed poorly, using dissimilar individual ‘exampies in an attempt to formulate generality. WHICH ENVIRONMENTS SHOULD BE MODELLED — THE PROBLEM OF EXTERNAL CONTROLS Facies models are commonly formu- lated for depositional systems that today form obvious geographic entities — deltas, reef tracts and barrier is lands, for example. However, some ‘modem geographic environments are extremely difficult to preserve in the geological record, and when they are Preserved, the deposits look very dif- {erent from the environment seen in today’s snapshot. For example, barrior islands are tong, narrow sandbodies which separate the open sea from a lagoon on the landward side (Chap- ter 10). Fow such sandbadies exist in the geological record. Barriers that suffer transgression leave behind a thin smear of lagoonal deposits and ‘almost no record of the sandy barrier superstructure. Bartiers that prograde may form a wide sand sheet, with no associated lagoonal deposits (the lagoon was quickly filed in during pro- gradation). It is therefore imperative that in formulating facies models in the 1990's, external controls such as rela- tive sea level changes and tectonics be incorporated into the model. We have attempted throughout the book to emphasize the concept that ‘geographic environments and depost- tional systems change as relative sea level changes. This has led to some reorganization of the book, one exam- ple being the de-emphasis of the “t= angular delta model" (Fig. 7; Galloway, 1975), and the spliting of the shallow ‘marine system. The dolta triangle has served as a useful basis for showing the relative importance of river, wave- and tide-dominated deltas (Fig. 7). However, most ‘tide-dominated deltas" in the literature have litle morpholog- ical relationship to other deltas, and ‘many of them might better be consid- ered as tidal estuaries (Chapter 11). With a few metres of relative sea level ‘ise, tidal deltas have more in common with tidal shelf ridges than with other deltas. Recognizing the importance of Telative sea level fluctuation, we have therefore created a chapter on tidal sandstones (Chapter 11), and have tom of the offending comer ofthe delta triangle (Fig. 7). The new delta chapter (Chapter 9) therefore emphasizes tho spectrum of river- and wave-dominated systems, but only briefly touches on tide-influenced systems. Similarly, we Tecognize that although “the shelf is a distinct geographical environment, there is litte point in creating a “shel” chapter and immediately spliting the cchapier into two distinct parts — storm shelves and tidal shelves. The new sil- ciclastic shelf chapter (Chapter 12) therefore emphasizes waves and storms; tidal shelf deposits aze in the ‘new chapter (11) on tidal sandstones. Likewise, the new chapter on subtidal carbonates (Chapter 15) reflects the recent realization of the importance of the “carbonate factory” in carbonate platform dynamics. DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS AND ‘SYSTEMS TRACTS ‘Systems tracis are defined as linkages of contemporaneous depositional sys- tems (Table 1). Contemporansity might be established biostratigraphically, but ‘commonly the systems tracts are iden- tified and correlated on the basis of their bounding discontinuities. Most of the discontinuities are essentially geo- logical time planes, and form as a ‘result of fluctuations in relative sea level. Tis in tum allows the recognition of three main systems tracts — high- stand, owstand, and transgressive. Systems tracts are normally too large to model in the same way as de- | 1. FACIES MODELS. positional systems. Nevertheless, the _tuation (Haq ef al, 1988). Such fluctua- concept of systems tracts is extremely tions influence 1) the boundaries of the important, because it allows predic- depositional systems to be modelled, tions from one depositional system to and 2) the ways in which depositional another. For example, in terrigenous systems are preserved in the geological clasts, the recognition of a lowstand record. There are now two schemes shelf edge delta predicts the possibilty that emphasize bounding discontinu- of a contemporaneous deep sea sub- ities and unconformities. Allostratig- ‘marine fan. Similarly, a highstand pro- raphy is essentially descriptive, and is a grading storm-dominated shoreface formal part of the North American, suggests the possibility of aggrading Stratigraphic Code (NACSN, 1983). storm-dominated shelf sediments. Although parts of the code need clarii- Thus facies models are concerned cation, the scheme is “up and with prediction within specified deposi- running". Sequence stratigraphy is the tional systems, and systems tracts “study of genetically related facies ‘allow prediction from one contempora- within a framework of chronostrati- ‘neous depositional system to another. graphically significant surfaces” (Van ‘Systems tracts now form an integral Wagoner et al, 1990). It is theoretical part of sequence stratigraphy, and are and interpretive rather than descriptive, discussed in more detail below. land the interpretations are couched in ‘These comments on highstand, low- terms of global eustatc sea level fuctu- stand and transgressive systems ations (but see the critique by Miall, tracts necessarily lead into a discus- 1986). Note that the phrase cited above sion of stratigraphic schemes based contains words of debatable meaning, lmplicitly or expicity on sea level fluc- such as genetically and significant. ‘SEDIMENT INPUT mississippi Loses | 6 MODERN & 4ST. BERNARD 5 LAFOURCHE FLUVIAL DOMINATED Niger WAVE DOMINATED Rhone & £ é ‘Sao Francisco WAVE ENERGY FLUX Figure 7 Classiication of delias in terme of river, wave and tide influence, simplified from Galloway (1975). The morphological descriptors (euspate, obate, etc) of Galloway have not been included in subsequent versions ofthe wiangle, and the emphasis that Galloway gave to “estuarine” appears to have been subsequently overlooked or downplayed. Galloway (1975, p, 83) noted that Tie Dominated Deltas tended to be “ectuarne to iregularn geom ty, and their framework facies wore "estuary fil and tidal eand ridges’. We ao recognize ‘malor differences between tide dominated “deltas” and the othor types, and suggest that this ‘wiangularcassiiction be modified or abandoned. ALLOSTRATIGRAPHY Allostratigraphy is formally recognized by the North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (NACSN, 1983, p. 865). The stratigraphic code states that “an allostratigraphic unit is ‘a mappable stratiform body of sedimen- tary rock that is defined and identified fn the basis of its Bounding discontinu- ites [my emphasisT". | believe that this definition should be extended to read *...bounding discontinuities and their correlative ‘conformities”. Many difer- ent types of bounding discontinuities are discussed in the various chapters Of this book. Between these bounding

    You might also like