Sequence stratigraphy

Assignment submitted to: Narayan Gopal Ghimire

Assignment submitted by: Nirajan Pandey
Roll. No. 27
M.sc. Geology First Semester, 2077
Subject: Sequence Stratigraphy ``Hierarchy of Sequences and Sequence boundaries``

Q. Evaluate genetically the advantages and problems in hierarchy of sequences in sequence

stratigraphic study and research.
A sequence hierarchy assigns the different orders to the stratigraphic sequence and bounding
surfaces based on their relative importance. The need for a hierarchy becomes apparent when one
considers that there are numerous sequence boundaries in the rock record, often of different origins
and relevant to a wide range of temporal and spatial scales, which need to be rationalized in terms
of their relative nesting patterns. Within a hierarchical system, the most important sequence is
recognized as of ‘first-order’ and may be subdivided into two or more ‘second-order’ sequences.
In turn, a second-order sequence may be subdivided into two or more ‘third-order’ sequences, and
so on and shown in figure below;

Figure 1Diagrammatic representation of the concept of hierarchy.

 Sequence stratigraphy

This pyramid approach assumes that the events leading to the formation of the most important
sequences and bounding surfaces. The more important sequences are designated as ‘high-order’
(at the top of the hierarchy pyramid, i.e., of high rank), and generally have a low-frequency
occurrence in the stratigraphic record. The less important sequences are of ‘lower order’ (i.e., lower
rank, towards the base of the hierarchy pyramid) and are more frequent in the rock record. High
order is regarded as most important sequences but has low frequencies occurrences in stratigraphic
record.
The higher orders of cyclicity reflect overall depositional trends, at increasingly larger scales
(higher-frequency) stratigraphic surfaces superimposed on higher-rank surfaces do not change the
stratigraphic significance of the latter within the big-picture framework. The lowest order/rank of
cyclicity (‘third order’ in this example) reflects the true shift of the shoreline.
Two very different methodologies for developing such a hierarchy of sequences and sequence
boundaries have been proposed i.e. a theoretical, model-driven model and empirical, data- driven
method. They are:
 On the basis of Cyclic Duration (boundary frequency), and
 On the basis of magnitude of base-level changes(Independent of cyclic duration)
A. Hierarchy based on cyclic duration(Boundary Frequency)
This approach is is based on the hypothesis that sequence stratigraphic surfaces are generated by
eustasy-driven, sinusoidal base-level changes and that such eustatic cycles increase in amplitude
with decreasing frequency. Each order of cyclicity is assigned a dominant mechanism that controls
eustatic changes over well-defined time scales. Because eustasy is a global phenomenon, even
though triggered potentially by localized to regional tectonism for cycles above or even within
those in the Milankovitch band, sequences of different hierarchical orders are envisaged to have
world-wide synchroneity. Such orders are usually referred to as high-order boundaries although a
few authors refer to such boundaries as low-order boundaries. 1st, 2nd and 3rd order boundaries are
referred as high-order boundaries and 4th, 5th and 6th order boundaries as low-order boundaries.
In this hierarchy, eustasy is considered as the main driver behind sequence generation at any order
of stratigraphic cyclicity. In turn, each order of cyclicity is assigned a dominant mechanism that
controls eustatic changes over well-defined time scales.
Advantages and problems:
This model driven hierarchy concludes that one single ‘global-cycle chart’ (Haq et al., 1987, 1988)
would be representative to describe the stratigraphic cyclicity observed in the rock record of any
basin around the world. Sedimentary basins are, however, dominated by, and formed as a result of
tectonic processes that generally operate on regional to continental scales, so stratigraphic cycles
around the world are unlikely to be synchronous. Each of these orders of stratigraphic cyclicity is
genetically related to particular tectonic (and to a much lesser extent climatic) controls whose
periodicity is assumed to be more or less constant during geological time.
 Sequence stratigraphy

Figure 2Order of cyclicity

The application of the hierarchy system based on cycle duration poses two challenges to the
practicing geologist: (1) from a practical perspective, time control is always required to designate
and justify hierarchical orders; and (2) from a theoretical perspective, one must accept that the law
of uniformitarianism applies undisputedly to the controls of stratigraphic cyclicity throughout the
Earth’s history. The necessary time control to ensure, for example, that a ‘third-order’ sequence
indeed falls within the 1–10 Ma duration bracket proposed by Vail et al. (1977), is often difficult
to acquire even for Phanerozoic successions, and it becomes more and more unrealistic with
increasing stratigraphic age. The reality is that in many cases we do not have the age data to know
how much time is incorporated within a sequence, even within relatively young and well explored
sedimentary basins. Therefore, sequence rank is assessed from interpretations of the origin of the
strata contained between the key surfaces, and of the period of the processes that formed these
strata’ (Krapez, 1997).
The hierarchy system based on cycle duration is also problematic in the sense that the periodicity
proposed for cycles above the Milankovitch band is highly speculative, and generally unsupported
by empirical data. Statistical surveys suggest that there is no evidence for a time-based hierarchy
in the rock record. The direct relationship between orders of cyclicity, periodicities and triggering
mechanisms is therefore problematic at best, being largely based on concepts of causation that
have been shown to be unrealistic. The direct relationship between orders of cyclicity, periodicities
and triggering mechanisms is therefore problematic at best, being largely based on concepts of
causation that have been shown to be unrealistic. It may be concluded that sequences of different
hierarchical orders should not be expected to nest internally in a predictable and ordered pattern,
but rather display a random character in terms of duration and spatial scales.
 Sequence stratigraphy

B. Heirarchy based on magnitude of base level change

Without depending upon cycle of duration, a hierarchy system based on the magnitude of base
level changes that resulted in boundary formation provides a classification in which the order of a
sequence depends on the physical attributes of its bounding surfaces. The order of a sequence
depends on the physical attributes of its bounding surfaces, and is independent of cycle duration.
In the data-driven approach, a hierarchy of boundaries is established on the basis of the interpreted
relative magnitude of the boundaries. The interpreted relative magnitude of a boundary would
reflect the magnitude of base-level shift that generated the boundary in the first place.

Figure 3Hierarchy system based on the magnitude of base-level changes that resulted in the formation of bounding surfaces.
(a) Schematic depiction of the five orders of sequence boundaries determined from boundary characteristics which
reflect base-level changes. (b) Principles of determining the order of a sequence: a sequence cannot contain within it a
sequence boundary of equal or greater magnitude than its lowest magnitude boundary; the order of a sequence is equal
to the order of its lowest magnitude boundary

Such an approach is based on reasonably objective scientific criteria rather than on a priori
assumptions and untested hypotheses. A total of six attributes have been chosen to establish the
boundary classification. These include,
 The areal extent over which the sequence boundary can be recognized.
 The areal extent of the unconformable portion of the boundary.
 The degree of deformation that strata underlying the unconformable portion of the
boundary underwent during the boundary generation.
 The magnitude of the deepening of the sea and the flooding of the basin margin as
represented by the nature and extent of the transgressive strata overlying the boundary.
 The degree of change of the sedimentary regime across the boundary and
 The degree of change of the tectonic setting of the basin and surrounding areas across the
boundary.
 Sequence stratigraphy

Each of these attributes has to be assessed for each boundary, and then those boundaries with
similar attributes (i.e., inferred to have been generated by similar base-level changes) are assigned
to the same class of boundary. The various established classes are ordered in the hierarchy on the
basis of the relative amounts of base-level shift that are inferred to be associated with each class.
The class with the attributes that suggest the highest amount of base-level shift is placed at the top
of the hierarchy pyramid (high rank), while the class with the inferred least amount of base-level
shift is placed at the base (low rank).
Five different orders of sequence boundaries have been defined on the basis of these criteria
(Embry, 1995; Fig. 8.5). With the establishment of a hierarchy system as described above, the
recognition of an orderly succession of sequences is based on the principle that a sequence cannot
contain within it a sequence boundary that has an equal or greater magnitude than the magnitude
of its lowest magnitude boundary (Embry, 1995). This means, for example, that a second-order
sequence cannot contain a first-order boundary within it, but can include third- and lower order
boundaries.
Advantages and Problems:
This hierarchy system based on magnitude of base-level shift has the advantage of employing
physical criteria for boundary delineation, irrespective of the time span between sequence
boundaries that show similar attributes. This approach bypasses the problem of the erratic nature
and periodicity of the controls on stratigraphic cyclicity that operated throughout Earth’s history.
The interpretation of sequence boundaries in terms of hierarchical classes, are not only designed
for tectonically active basins whose margins are preserved, but also require regional control on the
nature of facies that are in contact across bounding surfaces and on the extent of the conformable
vs. unconformable portions of sequence boundaries.
Two potential pitfalls with this classification scheme have been discussed by Miall (1997).
 One is that it implies tectonic control in sequence generation. Sequences generated by
glacio-eustasy, such as the Late Paleozoic cyclothems of North America and those of Late
Cenozoic age on modern continental margins, would be first-order sequences in this classification
on the basis of their areal distribution, but lower-order on the basis of the nature of their bounding
surfaces.
 The second problem is that this classification requires good preservation of the basin
margin in order to properly assess the areal extent of the unconformable portion of the boundary
or the degree of deformation across the boundary. For this reason, the hierarchy system in is seen
as impractical, or difficult to apply, as many basin margins tend not to be preserved in the rock
record, a trend which is particularly evident with increasing stratigraphic age (Miall, 1997).