Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49 – 63

www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl

Solid sediment load history of the Zambezi Delta

H.L. Walford a, N.J. White a,*, J.C. Sydow b
a
Bullard Laboratories, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Madingley Rise, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0EZ, UK
b
BP Trinidad and Tobago, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago
Received 11 July 2005; accepted 13 July 2005
Available online 22 August 2005
Editor: G.D. Price

Abstract

We calculate the solid sediment load history of the Zambezi River for the last 120 Ma (i.e. Middle Cretaceous–Recent
times). Our starting point is a detailed grid of two-dimensional seismic reflection profiles, calibrated by well-log information.
After conversion from two-way travel time to depth, we made simple assumptions about the compaction history in order to
construct isochore maps of solid sediment load and yield as a function of geological time. Our results show that solid sediment
load has varied by ~1 order of magnitude over the last 120 Ma. There have been three periods of elevated flux. The first period
occurred in Late Cretaceous times (90–65 Ma) and was synchronous with the rapid denudation of southern Africa recognised
by, for example, apatite fission track modelling. The second period occurred in Oligocene times (34–24 Ma) during proposed
rapid regional uplift of Southern Africa. The youngest phase of elevated flux started in Late Miocene times (10 Ma) and has
continued to increase rapidly through to the present day. A large proportion of this increase can be attributed to a doubling of the
size of the Zambezi catchment during the Pliocene. At other times, we suggest that load variations can be used to bound the
uplift history of the region, which encompasses the catchment. Finally, changes in the shape of the Zambezi Delta through time
suggest that the Mozambique current, which sweeps through the Mozambique Channel from northeast to southwest, initiated at
the start of the Miocene.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Zambezi; delta; sediment load; uplift

1. Introduction the history of epeirogenic uplift and subsidence would

It is generally accepted that mantle convection
generates long-wavelength vertical displacements at
the Earth’s surface. A quantitative understanding of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1223 337063; fax: +44 1223
360779.
E-mail address: nwhite@esc.cam.ac.uk (N.J. White).
0012-821X/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2005.07.014
therefore be of considerable use in unravelling spatial
and temporal variations of the convective pattern.
Recently, progress has been made in relating subsi-
dence anomalies to changes in mantle plume activity
(e.g. [1]). Establishing the age, magnitude and distri-
bution of epeirogenic uplift, however, is much more
difficult since stratigraphic evidence is necessarily
removed by denudation following uplift. Instead, we
50 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63
must rely upon indirect methods for measuring large
amounts of denudation, from which uplift can be
inferred. The best-known methods use fission track
data, vitrinite reflectance measurements, sonic velo-
city data, remnant subsidence or some combination of
all four methods. Each method does not constrain
denudation to better than F 0.5 km at best, and
when they are compared with each other there are
often large discrepancies.
An alternative approach to reconstructing uplift
exploits the record of deposition at the mouths of
large rivers. Recently, considerable research has been
carried out to identify the primary controls on fluvial
sediment supply (e.g. [2-5]). Analysis of a database of
280 rivers [2] revealed that basin area and maximum
basin elevation are the primary controlling factors of
both sediment load and sediment yield (i.e. sediment
load per unit area of catchment). Climatological vari-
ables such as run-off (defined as river discharge/basin
area) were found to be of secondary importance. Mul-
ticorrelation analysis on data from 45 large drainage
basins [3] led to a similar conclusion, that mechanical
denudation rate is correlated to basin elevation, but not
to environmental factors such as precipitation, tem-
perature or run-off. Another analysis of large drainage
basins [4] identified basin relief ratio (defined as basin
relief/basin length, where basin relief is maximum
elevation minus minimum elevation and basin length
is the straight line distance from the basin mouth to the
most distant point on the basin perimeter) and run-off
as the primary controls on denudation rate. Of these
parameters, relief ratio showed the closest correlation
to denudation rate. A later study [5] showed that ~50%
of the variance in sediment yield could be accounted
for by a combination of drainage area, maximum
height of catchment, specific run-off, mean annual
temperature and temperature range. However, if the
global dataset is subdivided in terms of tectonic setting
(five categories corresponding to areas of craton, old
orogen, passive extension, thermal extension and con-
traction), then rate of uplift and size of drainage area
are the most important controls on sediment yield [5].
This apparent independence of sediment yield and
specific climatological or hydrological parameters at
first order is potentially useful for analysing ancient
sediment flux: if tectonic setting and catchment geo-
metry can be constrained, we can attribute changes in
sediment load and yield to regional epeirogenic uplift.
In this study, we exploit the relationship between
river catchment morphology and fluvial sediment load
in order to constrain temporal variation of vertical
motions within a catchment. The rate of accumulation
of sediment in major deltas and fans on a continental
shelf yields an indirect record of topographic change
within the onshore drainage basin since the macro-
evolution of drainage networks has a profound effect
on the development of deltaic stratigraphy [e.g. 6,7].
By calculating the flux of sediment into a delta as a
function of time, it is possible to start re-constructing
the catchment history, at least in terms of major drai-
nage captures, regional uplift and global climate
change (e.g. [8-11]).
We have applied our approach to southern Africa,
where Cenozoic epeirogenic uplift has generated unu-
sually high topography (Fig. 1) (e.g. [12-14]). This
region is of particular importance for understanding
epeirogeny since it is surrounded by passive margins
and has not been affected by complications such as
crustal shortening for many millions of years. Southern
Africa is encompassed by a large area of oceanic litho-
sphere, which has anomalously shallow bathymetry
[13]. It has been argued [15] that this dsuperswellT is
caused by hot upwelling asthenosphere, the existence
of which is supported by seismic tomographic analyses
[16–20]. Thus, the history of long-wavelength uplift in
southern Africa could help to place constraints upon the
spatial and temporal evolution of this dsuperswellT. Our
primary aim is to examine how information about
sedimentary flux from rivers can help to illuminate
this general problem.
Although generation of southern African topogra-
phy has been extensively studied, little consensus has
been reached on the timing or magnitude of uplift
events. It has been suggested [14] that uplift occurred
in Oligocene times (~30 Ma), at the same period as
widespread intensification of volcanic activity in north-
ern and central Africa. An alternative view, based on
correlation of ancient land surfaces [21], is that there
were two periods of Neogene uplift. The first, smaller,
event is thought to have occurred in Early Miocene
times (~19 Ma) according to dating of terrestrial faunas
preserved in fluvial deposits. A second event of much
greater magnitude is postulated in the Pliocene and is
manifested in the convex-upward long profiles of many
southern African rivers [21]. However, because robust
correlation and dating of remnant surfaces is extremely
 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63 51

0˚
Ogooue Nile

Congo

-10˚

l
nne
Zambezi

Cha
DR
ique
-20˚ Okavango

amb
Limpopo

Moz
NNV
Orange

-30˚

Transkei
Basin

-40˚
0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚

-7000 -4000 -2000 -500 0 250 500 1000 2000 4000

Topography (m)

Fig. 1. Topography and bathymetry of region which encompasses Southern Africa (from ETOPO5 database). Catchments of major rivers are
outlined and labelled. Much of southern Africa is at elevations of N1 km and is drained by a small number of rivers. Illumination from the north.
Box indicates Fig. 3. NNV = Northern Natal Valley, DR = Davie Ridge.

Fig. 2. Summary of published uplift and denudation estimates plotted as a function of time. Denudation flux taken from [24]. Solid line uses
maximum likelihood temperature history estimate. Dashed line = upper 95% confidence limit on temperature history. Dotted line = lower 95%
confidence limit on temperature history. Increasing denudation flux from ~20 Ma is an artefact resulting from underprediction of fission track
annealing at low temperatures [24].
52 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63

difficult, much scepticism surrounds the use of ancient outputs to the Mozambique deep sea fan, which is one
land surfaces as reliable indicators of uplift [e.g. of the largest in southern Africa (1800
400 km) [26].
19,22,23]. On a longer timescale, apatite fission track It is generally thought that the modern Zambezi has
analysis on the Atlantic margin of southern Africa
indicates that there has been up to ~3 km of denudation
since separation from South America in the Early
Cretaceous (Fig. 2) [23–25]. The highly variable dis-
tribution of denudation, both geographically and tem-
porally, suggests that much of Cretaceous (120–80 Ma)
and Early Cenozoic (~60 Ma) denudation can be
ascribed to reactivation of major structures. Denuda-
tion cannot be accounted for by margin formation alone
[25]. The amount of denudation calculated from apatite
fission track data is balanced by the amount of sediment
deposited in the Orange Basin over the same period,
estimated at 2.8
106 km3, which is equivalent to 1.8
km of denudation over the entire catchment area
(1.56
106 km2) [6,23].
Detailed information about the history of vertical
movements through space and time forms an important
starting point for dynamical models of topography.
Novel approaches to the study of epeirogeny have
recently been developed. For example, geomorpholo-
gical observations have been combined with tomogra-
phic studies to create a more tightly constrained model
of dynamic topography in southern Africa [19]. By
incorporating geological estimates of uplift rate, better
constraints are placed on the density and viscosity of
the deep mantle, properties that determine the magni-
tude of the surface response to mantle convection.

1.1. The Zambezi catchment

The Zambezi River drains a substantial part of

southern Africa (1.4
106 km2; Fig. 3). Its catchment

Fig. 3. (a) River catchment. Dark shading = catchment area of

Zambezi River; light shading = neighbouring major river catch-
ments; two dashed lines = approximate extent of pre-Pleistocene
(west) and Cretaceous (east) catchments of the Proto-Zambezi.
Tributaries upstream of Victoria Falls (V.F.) were captured in the
Mid Pliocene–Early Pleistocene. Region between Victoria Falls and
Luangwa was captured in Latest Cretaceous. Location of (b) and (c)
shown by box. (b) Free-air gravity map of Zambezi Delta, which
clearly shows its extent. Dashed line = approximate position of
coastline during Paleocene–Eocene highstand. (c) Data coverage.
Open circles = well locations; thin dashed and solid lines = seismic
reflection profiles (dashed: 1982 survey; solid: 1998 survey); out-
lined polygon = extent of region considered in this paper; thick line
= location of seismic reflection profile displayed in Fig. 5.
 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63
evolved as two separate fluviatile systems on either
side of Victoria Falls (see review in Ref. [27]). The
distinctive double-concave long profile of the Zambezi
suggests that these two catchments have only recently
joined together. Separate development of the Upper
and Middle Zambezi systems is also manifested by in-
dependent evolution of fish faunas in different sections
of the river [27]. Reconstructions of palaeo-catchments
suggest that the upper reaches of the river, upstream of
Victoria Falls, were captured in Late Pliocene–Mid
Pleistocene times (2.5–1.5 Ma) [27,28]. This capture
resulted in a doubling of the catchment area during
Pleistocene times (Fig. 3). Such an increase in the
drainage area would cause a proportional increase in
the sediment load, although sediment yield sensu
stricto could remain largely unchanged.
The mean elevation of the modern Zambezi catch-
ment is ~1 km [4]. This unusually high elevation is the
northernmost manifestation of the dAfrican Super-
swellT, which is thought to be supported by active
upwelling in the mantle [13,15,19]. Dynamic topogra-
phy was most likely to have been generated in Cen-
ozoic times, although analysis of fission track data
suggests that 1–2 km of denudation occurred during
the Cretaceous in southern Africa, which may have
been elevated since the break-up of Gondwana [23].
Periods of rapid uplift and increased elevation are
predicted to have induced corresponding increases in
sediment load and yield [2,5]. If the Cretaceous denu-
dation identified in southwest Africa [23] extended
into the Zambezi catchment, we would expect a similar
history of enhanced Cretaceous deposition in the Zam-
bezi Delta. Similarly, Cenozoic epeirogenic uplift
would also be predicted to have increased sediment
yield in the Zambezi River catchment.
2. Database
We have used two seismic reflection surveys cali-
brated by borehole data to estimate the solid sedimen-
tary flux of the Zambezi Delta through time (Fig. 3c).
These surveys were acquired in 1982 and in 1998.
The earlier survey forms the primary basis of our flux
estimates. It was acquired with a 2.4 km streamer (25
m group interval) and an airgun source of ~3000 cu in
(25 m shotpoint interval, 48 fold of cover). Two-
dimensional seismic coverage is excellent but lines
53
do not extend into deeper water where, particularly in
the Paleogene, there may be distal deposits which
have bypassed the shelf. Just five wells have been
drilled offshore, limiting the reliability of stratigraphic
ties across the two surveys (Fig. 3). The dating of
deltaic sedimentary horizons is hampered by the pau-
city of well-preserved bioclastic material and by the
reworked nature of the deposits. None of the wells
encountered rocks older than Albian (110–100 Ma)
and so pre-Albian stratigraphy is a matter of con-
jecture. Here we are primarily concerned with the
Cenozoic record.
The stratigraphic record offshore Mozambique is
dominated by reworked clastic deposits of the Deltaic
Complex (Fig. 4). This record is predominantly mar-
ine with evidence for a gradual shallowing of palaeo-
water depth through time [29]. Late Cretaceous and
Early Paleogene deposits are represented by the
Grudja Formation, which is divided into a lower
unit of clay with sandy bands and an upper unit of
glauconitic sand, clay and marl [29]. The overlying
Cheringoma Formation constitutes the bulk of the
Eocene and consists of limestones onshore, grading
laterally into marls and shales in the Zambezi Delta
depression. A series of carbonate reef massifs occurs
at the outer edge of the shelf during the Paleocene–
Eocene [29]. Onshore, in the central part of the
Mozambique Basin between the Zambezi and Lim-
popo Deltas, there follows a series of unconformities
through the Neogene, the largest of which excises
Oligocene strata. Upper Oligocene through to Upper
Miocene strata are divided into the Inharrime, Terane
and Jofane Formations which consist of shallow mar-
ine dolomites, evaporites and carbonates (Fig. 4) [29].
The Pliocene is represented by undivided dune sand-
stones. Throughout Oligocene to Recent times deltaic
sands and shales were accumulating offshore in the
Zambezi Delta.
A typical seismic reflection profile is shown in Fig. 5.
This cross-section of the delta shows the principal
depositional features typical of the Cenozoic era, the
base of which is clearly identifiable. The thickness of
deltaic sediment precludes good quality seismic ima-
ging of basement structures. In contrast, the clinoform
packages of the Cenozoic section are well imaged (Fig.
5). Late Cretaceous–Paleocene sediments show evi-
dence for progradation but there is a major change
during the Late Paleocene and Eocene when a lowstand
54 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63

Fig. 4. Generalised stratigraphy for Cretaceous and Cenozoic of Zambezi Delta (after [29]). PWD = palaeobathymetry.

occurred. There is excellent evidence for widespread 2.1. Depth conversion

small-scale slumping at the shelf edge. Since marine
transgression at end Eocene times (~34 Ma), the delta
has rapidly prograded seawards as a result of high
sediment flux. Visual inspection suggests that maxi-
mum sediment input has occurred since the Pliocene.
The Oligocene–Neogene delta reaches a maximum
thickness of ~4 km and covers an area N 200,000 km2
[29]. In summary, deposition in the delta has been
almost continuous throughout Cenozoic times,
although significant transgression occurred at the end
of Eocene times, inducing a major landward retreat of
the delta foresets (Fig. 5).
Conversion from two-way travel time to depth is
an important first step in calculating sedimentary
flux. Depth conversion is also the most significant
source of error and it is important to calculate how
this uncertainty affects flux estimates. Here, we have
carried out depth conversion of interpreted seismic
reflection profiles using a simple two-layer approach.
The water layer is assigned a constant velocity while
depth conversion of the rock column is based on a
generalised time–depth function, which was con-
structed from seismic stacking velocities taken
 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63 55

Fig. 5. (a) Typical seismic reflection profile from Zambezi Delta (see Fig. 2 for location). (b) Interpretation. Note: (i) position of shelf edges
during Late Cretaceous–Paleogene and Oligocene–Miocene; (ii) Rapid progradation of delta during Early Miocene; (iii) widespread slumping at
shelf edge during Eocene low-stand; and (iv) disrupted horizons above continuous, strong reflections of Late Cretaceous Domo Sandstone.

from a reprocessed line. This function can be written
as
z ¼ 137t 2 þ 916t  35
where z is the depth below the seabed and t is two-way
travel time below the seabed. Fig. 6 shows the stacking
velocity dataset together with check-shot data and
uncalibrated integrated sonic times from two wells,
marked on Fig. 5. An average velocity function,
v av(t), can be determined from Eq. (1) given that
v av = 2z / t. An error of F 300 m s 1 accounts for
the spread of data. We have applied this simple
function to the entire seismic dataset and allowed
for lateral variation of velocity (i.e. facies changes)
by estimating an upper and lower bound from the
error envelope.
ð1Þ
2.2. Compaction correction
In order to compare sedimentary fluxes from dif-
ferent times and from delta to delta, solid sediment
thicknesses were calculated from depth-converted
cross-sections by removing all porosity. Porosity, /,
is assumed to vary exponentially with depth, z, accord-
ing to
/ð zÞ ¼ /ez=k ð2Þ
56 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63
Fig. 6. Velocity function used to convert isochore maps from two-
way travel time (t) to depth (z). Solid circles = interval velocities;
bold line = best-fit function (z = 137t 2 + 916t  3); thin lines =
minimum and maximum functions used (F300 m s 1 ); dashed
line = Well A check shots; dotted line = Well B uncalibrated,
integrated sonic times.
where / B is the initial porosity and k is the porosity
decay length. Constant values of / B = 0.6 and k = 2 km
were used. These are values typical for shales and are
taken from Ref. [30]. Using parameters typical of sand
(/ B = 0.5 and k = 2.5 km [30]) increases the estimate of
Pleistocene sediment flux by 15% and the Pliocene
estimate by 7%, but makes no significant difference to
estimates of flux prior to 10 Ma. A different approach
exploits well-log information about the variation of
porosity with depth, but such data are not available
for the Zambezi Delta. However, in our experience a
simple exponential model is sufficient, especially since
depth conversion is a much more significant source of
error.
Using Eq. (2), the solid thickness, Tsol, of a unit is
given by
 
Tsol ¼ z2  z1 þ /B k ez2 =k  ez1 =k
where z 1 is the depth below seabed to the top of the
unit and z 2 is the depth below seabed to the bottom of
the unit.
3. Results
3.1. Solid sediment thickness
Isochore maps were generated from the grids of
seismic data for nine time slices from Mid-Cretaceous
times until the present day. These isochore maps were
converted to depth and thence into solid grain sedi-
ment thickness using the approach described above.
This conversion gives the thickness of actual sedi-
mentary material deposited in the survey area. The
cumulative error is about F500 m and is dominated
by uncertainties in depth conversion. All nine solid
sediment thickness maps are displayed in Fig. 7.
The shape of these isochore maps contains useful
information about the overall development of the East
African passive margin. Before Miocene times (N 24
Ma), sediment was deposited on the shelf and slope in
an approximately lobate pattern (Fig. 7). The Creta-
ceous depocentre is located northeast of the present-
day Zambezi River entry point. During Paleocene/
Eocene times (65–34 Ma), the depocentre shifted
150–200 km to the southeast and is bisected by an
incised channel. The Oligocene (34–24 Ma) lobe is
similar in shape to the Cretaceous ones. Since the
Early Miocene, sediment distribution has become
skewed, with deposition occurring in a linear belt
trending southeast from the river mouth. This change
in distribution was undoubtedly caused by the initia-
tion of the Mozambique Current, a major ocean cur-
rent that runs from north to south through the
Mozambique Channel and feeds into the Agulhas
Current. The modern Mozambique Current flows at
a rate of 14 F 6
106 m3 s 1 [31,32]. Prior to Mio-
cene times, there is no evidence in these data of
significant north to south sediment transport, implying
that the Mozambique Current was not yet established
in the Mozambique Channel. An Early Miocene reor-
ganisation of ocean currents in the Mozambique
Channel is consistent with observations in the Trans-
kei Basin and Natal Valley [33]. Using high-resolution
seismic reflection images, a Late Oligocene–Middle
Miocene (probably lower Middle Miocene, ~15 Ma)
unconformity was identified. This unconformity
marks an intensification of proto-Antarctic Bottom
Water flow and it is suggested that a two-layered
structure of bottom water may have become estab-
lished in the Miocene [33].
 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63 57

a b c

d e f

g h i

Fig. 7. Solid sediment isochore maps for Zambezi Delta. (a) Pleistocene; (b) Pliocene; (c) Upper Miocene; (d) Lower Miocene; (e) Oligocene;
(f) Paleocene–Eocene; (g) Upper Campanian–Maastrichtian; (h) Coniacian–Lower Campanian; (i) Aptian–Turonian. Note: (i) change in
sediment distribution from lobate (Cretaceous–Oligocene) to elongate (Miocene–Recent), reflecting initiation of Mozambique Current; (ii)
evidence for channelling during Paleocene–Eocene.

Progradation of the delta across the shelf can be maximal solid sediment thickness on each isochore
clearly seen in the pattern of Lower Miocene (24–16 corresponds to the thickest part of the clinoform pack-
Ma) to Pleistocene (1.8–0 Ma) isochores. The area of age at the delta front and coincides with the shelf
58 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63

break. Pleistocene deposition is centred approximately

70 km further offshore the present coastline than the
Early Miocene depocentre (Figs. 5 and 7). Lack of
aggradation in the Miocene and Pliocene indicates that
little accommodation space was generated on the shelf.
In contrast, the Pleistocene–Recent section shows a
significant aggradational component, which is likely to
be due to relative sea-level rise during this period.

3.2. Sedimentary flux and yield

Solid sediment isochores were integrated over the

survey area to calculate the volume of sediment in
each unit. The sedimentary flux to the delta for each
timeslice can thus be calculated, either in terms of
volume or mass per unit time (assuming a constant
sediment grain density).
Sediment flux is defined as the amount of sediment
deposited within the delta as a function of time, and as
such is proportional to the sediment load of the river at
its mouth. The flux represents a lower bound on the
sediment load since some fraction of sediment will
have bypassed the delta system and be deposited in
the deep ocean basin. It is estimated [34] that on
average 25 F 10% of a river load is transported to
the deep sea. Modern, high-stand systems can transfer
as much as 50% of the sediment load to the slope and
deep sea [34]. The isochore maps of Fig. 7 show that
the survey area encompasses almost all of the delta
depocentre during most time intervals. The thickness
of sediment at the southeastern edge of the survey area
is generally b200 m, with the exception of the Oli-
gocene and Upper Campanian–Maastrichtian iso-
chores, indicating that the amount of sediment
deposited in deeper water is a small proportion of
that in the shallow-water delta. Thus, we can be
reasonably confident that estimates of sediment flux
calculated from isochore volumes are a true reflection
of the actual sediment flux.
Fig. 8a shows the flux as a function of time for the
Mid-Cretaceous to Recent section. The dominant fea-
ture of the sediment flux history is the dramatic
increase in flux since ~10 Ma. In particular, flux
almost doubles from Pliocene (5.3–1.8 Ma) to Pleis-
tocene (1.8–0 Ma) times. Also striking is the period of
low flux in the Paleocene–Eocene (65–34 Ma). This
amount might be an artificially low estimate of the
flux since material was removed at the Late Eocene–
Fig. 8. (a) Integrated solid sediment flux of Zambezi Delta as a
function of time. Flux is expressed in terms of volume (km3 Myr 1;
left-hand axis) and in terms of mass (
103 t Myr 1, assuming
sediment grain density of 2600 kg m 3; right-hand axis). Shaded
zone bounded by dashed lines = range of uncertainty arising from
depth conversion and from chronostratigraphic uncertainties. (b)
Integrated solid sediment yield of Zambezi Delta as a function of
time. Values were calculated using the following catchment areas:
Pleistocene area = 1.40
106 km2; Paleocene–Pliocene area =
0.70
106 km2; Cretaceous area = 0.31
106 km2. Small value of
26.yield during Late Campanian–Maastrichtian (78–65 Ma)
assumes that Cretaceous capture took place at 78 Ma, rather than
at the KT boundary in order to produce a smoother yield profile.
Estimates of palaeo-catchments are taken from [27]. Shaded zone
bounded by dashed lines = range of uncertainty arising from depth
conversion and from chronostratigraphic uncertainties.
Oligocene unconformity, but nevertheless, flux does
seem to be reduced at this time. In the eastern part of
the basin, deeper water facies, typical of the continen-
tal slope and rise, are reported [29]. These calcarenites
and calcilutites, together with the massive limestones
of the Eocene Cheringoma Formation, corroborate the
suggestion that terrigenous input was diminished at
this time.
Three important periods of high sediment flux can
be identified. The first, in the latter part of the Late
Cretaceous (75–65 Ma) is coeval with a pulse of
 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63
denudation in southwestern Africa recognised in apa-
tite fission track data [23–25]. A second increase in
flux occurs in the Oligocene (34–24 Ma), following
sediment starvation in the Paleocene and Eocene. Flux
then appears to dip, before rapidly increasing through
Late Miocene–Recent times.
Sediment yield is defined as the specific sediment
load at the river mouth per unit area of the catchment.
An estimate of sediment yield can be made from the
sediment flux, if the size of the catchment area is
known. Again, this value will be an underestimate
and provides a lower bound on the true sediment
yield. Despite these limitations in numerical accuracy,
the variations through time are useful in a qualitative
sense.
Here, we assumed that capture of the Upper Zam-
bezi took place at the Pliocene–Pleistocene boundary
(1.8 Ma), and that the Pliocene catchment had been
stable throughout Cenozoic times. The area of the
palaeo-catchment of the proto-Zambezi was estimated
by digitizing an estimate of the catchment based on
Thomas and Shaw (1988) [27]. A tentative estimate
was also made of the area of the Cretaceous catch-
ment, which was limited to the Shire River and the
stretch of the modern Zambezi downstream of
Luangwa (Fig. 3) [27].
Fig. 8b shows the estimates of yield as a function of
time. The Cretaceous and Early Cenozoic values have
large associated errors due to the uncertainty asso-
ciated with estimating the catchment area. However
it is difficult to quantify this uncertainty, and it has not
been incorporated in the grey error envelope of Fig. 8b.
Consideration of sediment yield removes the Plio-
cene increase seen in the sediment flux (Fig. 8). The
increase in yield at the start of the Oligocene is coeval
with epeirogenic uplift of southern Africa, which may
have occurred during the Early Oligocene at ~30 Ma
[14]. This data does not support a Miocene age for the
onset of major uplift of the drainage basin [21],
although rejuvenation of yield in the Late Miocene
may be linked to ongoing uplift events. It is therefore
possible that high uplift rate, resulting in greatly ele-
vated topography gave rise to increased sediment yield.
3.3. Sources of error
The two main sources of error in the isochore
maps, and in sediment flux, are the depth conversion
59
scheme and dating of interpreted horizons. Depth
conversion results in errors of ~10% in the Cretaceous
section. Dating of horizons is not well constrained due
to the scarcity of wells in the delta and the paucity of
preserved bioclastic material. Further uncertainty is
introduced due to the diachronous nature of some
lithological contacts.
The seismic survey area does not cover the major
depositional zone of the delta throughout its history.
During highstands, for example following Oligocene
transgression, large quantities of deltaic sediment may
have been deposited on what is now the onshore
coastal plain of Mozambique. This sediment is not
included in the estimates of sediment flux, meaning
that all estimates of flux are minimum estimates.
However, the amount of accommodation space in
the onshore basins is likely to have been small, and
therefore the amount of sediment trapped on the
coastal plain is minor. Sediment bypass and deposi-
tion in the deep ocean basin also contributes to under-
estimation of the total sediment flux.
The largest errors in the plot of sediment yield
result from estimating palaeo-drainage areas. Geomor-
phological evidence consistently points to drainage
capture of the Upper Zambezi in Pliocene–Pleistocene
times [27,28], but earlier reconstructions are almost
impossible to quantify with confidence. In particular
the timing of earlier drainage capture events is subject
to large uncertainty.
4. Discussion
The sediment load of the Zambezi has been
through two cycles of steady increase, separated
by a dramatic drop at the end of Cretaceous times
(Fig. 8a). Load increased through the Late Cretac-
eous, dropped at the beginning of the Cenozoic and
has again increased to its current, maximum recor-
ded value. The same pattern is evident in the yield
(Fig. 8b). These trends are also clearly displayed in
Fig. 2. High load and yield in the Late Cretaceous is
consistent with results from apatite fission track
work in southwestern Africa, which point to a per-
iod of enhanced denudation in the Late Cretaceous
(Fig. 2) [23,25]. The Late Cretaceous (100–65 Ma)
was also the time of maximum sediment supply to
the Orange River delta [35,36].
60 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63

Fig. 9. (a) Present-day sediment load as a function of drainage area for 280 rivers located worldwide. (b) Present-day sediment yield. Crosses
indicate present-day values for Zambezi River (see Ref. [2] for original analysis and further information). (c), (d) Least-squares regression lines
for sediment load and sediment yield subdivided according to maximum basin elevation: (i) mountain (North and South America, Africa, Alpine
Europe: 1–3 km); (ii) upland (0.5–1 km); (iii) lowland (100–500 m); (iv) coastal plain (b100 m). In (c), estimates of ancient sediment load of
ancestral Zambezi River are superimposed. Solid black circles = 9 estimates (Aptian–Turonian through Pleistocene) grouped into 3 palaeo-
catchments. Open circles = 9 estimates adjusted for systematic underestimation by matching Pleistocene value to present-day value. Cross =
present-day sediment load of Zambezi River. In (d), estimates of ancient sediment yield of ancestral Zambezi River are superimposed. Solid
black circles = 9 estimates as before; open circles = 9 adjusted estimates as before. Cross = present-day sediment yield of Zambezi River.

Increase in load and yield in the latter half of the does not include any African deltas, does not reveal
Cenozoic era could be linked to Oligocene/Neogene a global change in sedimentation rate at the start of
epeirogenic uplift. Comparison of the palaeo-flux with Oligocene times, perhaps suggesting that the change
analysis of the sediment load of modern rivers [2] observed here in the Zambezi Delta is a response to
suggests that the Zambezi may have been elevated local or regional uplift.
from low elevation (b500 m) to N1000 m during
Cenozoic times (Figs. 9 and 10). The increase in
sediment flux observed at the start of the Oligocene
(34 Ma) is approximately coeval with the onset of
Antarctic glaciation [37]. It is therefore possible that
changing global climate was the driving force for
enhanced erosion in the Zambezi catchment. How-
ever, it is difficult to disentangle the potential effects
of climate change and uplift when only one drainage
system is considered. Comparison of many rivers on a
continental, if not global, scale may reveal trends due
to global climate change as the effects would be seen Fig. 10. Estimates of elevation of Zambezi catchment since 120 Ma
worldwide. Interestingly, the compilation of delta obtained by comparing flux and yield estimates (Fig. 8) with
sedimentation rates of Zhang et al. (2001), which analysis of modern rivers [2] (Fig. 9).
 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63
In contrast, the increase in sediment flux in the
Zambezi Delta since the end of the Pliocene does
fit with a global pattern of increased sedimentation
rate, attributed to the change from a stable to a
stormy, more arid global climate [38,39]. However,
the absence of a change in yield at this time
implies that it is simply a change in the size of
the Zambezi catchment area that is responsible for
the increase in load. Capture of the Upper Zambezi
could have been triggered by uplift and tilting of
the continent.
In the past, geomorphological evidence has been
presented that suggests the Zambezi may have been
temporarily diverted during the Cenozoic [40–42].
Both the modern and palaeo-Zambezi flow down
the Zambezi Graben, which is crosscut by the
Urema Graben. The Urema Graben is bounded to
the southeast by the Inhamingha Fault, a normal
fault with downthrow to the west. This fault was
active during the Early Cenozoic and cuts strata as
young as Early Miocene [40]. Miocene graben for-
mation is also reported along the Davie Ridge in the
Mozambique Channel, associated with activity of the
East African Rift System [26]. The uplifted footwall
of the Inhamingha Fault is thought to have blocked
the course of the Zambezi, diverting it south along
the Urema Graben to discharge at the site of the
modern Pungue Estuary, near Beira (Fig. 3). The
alluvial valley of the Urema Graben is disproportio-
nately large in comparison to its modern river, which
has low sinuosity despite the low gradient, implying
that a much larger river once flowed there [40,42].
Such a change in the locus of deposition would be
manifested as a sediment flux minimum in the main
Zambezi Delta.
Thus, depressed flux in Early Miocene times might
be related to the diversion of the Zambezi River along
the Urema Graben. If diversion did occur, it must have
been short-lived as a significant amount of sediment
was deposited in the main delta during Early Miocene
times and no major unconformity is observed in the
deltaic stratigraphy. Normal flow to the Zambezi
Delta was restored by Late Miocene times (~10
Ma). Tectonic diversion of the Zambezi may account
for low terrigenous input to the modern delta area in
Paleocene–Eocene times. However, in the absence of
evidence for deltaic deposition further south, this idea
must remain speculative.
61
5. Conclusions
The deltaic sedimentary record can successfully be
used to gain insights into the development of the
onshore drainage area. Consideration of sediment
flux as a function of time in the Zambezi Basin,
derived from isochores of solid sediment thickness,
gives results which are consistent with geomorpholo-
gical observations of vertical motions and major drai-
nage capture events. AFTA indicates major
denudation in southwestern Africa during late Cretac-
eous times [23–25]. Increased output of clastic mate-
rial from the Zambezi is consistent with a period of
intense erosion onshore southern Africa at this time.
Increased supply of sediment to the Zambezi Delta
in the latter half of the Cenozoic era is probably due to
mantle-driven epeirogenic uplift of southern Africa,
although a contribution due to global climate change
cannot be ruled out. Enhanced flux since the Pliocene
(b 5 Ma) can be attributed to capture by the Lower
Zambezi system of drainage upstream of Victoria
Falls. Sediment yield has remained relatively constant
since the Miocene.
If regional uplift has had a significant impact on
sedimentation one would expect to see similar pat-
terns of flux and yield in deltas all around southern
Africa. It will be useful to analyse the Cenozoic flux
history of nearby rivers such as the Orange, Limpopo
and Ruvuma to see if regional effects can be recog-
nised. No data from the Limpopo Delta region have
been published and it seems little is known of the
deltaic history. Published seismic data suggest that
sedimentation rates have increased since the Miocene
[43]. The Ruvuma River, which marks the border
between Mozambique and Tanzania, also experienced
an increase in sediment supply in the Oligo–Miocene
[29]. Intense canyon cutting in the Middle Miocene
(15–10 Ma) [44] which, along with enhancement of
sediment supply to the delta, was almost certainly
related to uplift of the East African Rift System,
which forms the western limit of the Ruvuma catch-
ment area.
Isochore maps reveal a change in sedimentation
pattern of the Zambezi Delta from lobate to elongate
in the Miocene, which indicates that the Mozambique
Current was established in the Early Miocene (~24
Ma). Previously there was no strong north–south
influence on sediment distribution.
62 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to BP Exploration for permitting
access to seismic reflection and well-log data. D.G.
Roberts, M. Thompson, A. Borthwick and S. Jones
provided helpful input. J. Cartwright and P. Clift
wrote very thoughtful reviews. Department of Earth
Sciences Contribution Number 8191.
References
[1] S.M. Jones, N.J. White, B.J. Clarke, E. Rowley, K. Gallagher,
Present and past influence of the Iceland Plume on sedimenta-
tion, in: A.G. Doré, J.A. Cartwright, M.S. Stoker, J.P. Turner,
N. White (Eds.), Exhumation of the North Atlantic Margin;
Timing, Mechanisms and Implications for Petroleum Explora-
tion, Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ., vol. 196, 2002, pp. 13 – 25.
[2] J.D. Milliman, J.P.M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of
sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small
mountainous rivers, J. Geol. 100 (1992) 525 – 544.
[3] P. Pinet, M. Souriau, Continental erosion and large-scale relief,
Tectonophysics 7 (1988) 563 – 582.
[4] M.A. Summerfield, N.J. Hulton, Natural controls on fluvial
denudation rates in major world drainage basins, J. Geophys.
Res. 99 (1994) 13871 – 13883.
[5] N. Hovius, Controls on sediment supply by large rivers,
Relative Role of Eustasy, Climate and Tectonism in Continen-
tal Rocks, SEPM Special Publication, vol. 59, 1998, pp. 3 – 16.
[6] D.J. Rust, M.A. Summerfield, Isopach and borehole data as
indicators of rifted margin evolution in southwestern Africa,
Mar. Pet. Geol. 7 (1990) 277 – 287.
[7] G. Evans, A. Arche, The flux of siliciclastic sediment from the
Iberian Peninsula, with particular reference to the Ebro, in: S.J.
Jones, L.E. Frostick (Eds.), Sediment Flux to Basins: Causes,
Controls and Consequences, Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ.,
vol. 191, 2002, pp. 199 – 208.
[8] D.K. Rea, Delivery of Himalayan sediment to the northern
Indian Ocean and its relation to global climate, sea level, uplift
and seawater strontium, in: R.A. Duncan, D.K. Rea, R.B.
Kidd, v. U., J.K. Weissel (Eds.), Synthesis of Results from
Scientific Drilling in the Indian Ocean, Geophys. Monograph,
vol. 70, 1992, pp. 387 – 402.
[9] F. Métivier, Y. Gaudemer, P. Tapponier, M. Klein, Mass
accumulation rates in Asia during the Cenozoic, Geophys.
J. Int. 137 (1999) 280 – 318.
[10] P. Clift, C. Gaedicke, Accelerated mass flux to the Arabian
Sea during the middle to late Miocene, Geology 30 (2002)
207 – 210.
[11] S.E. Harris, A.C. Mix, Climate and tectonic influences on
continental erosion of tropical South America, 0–13 Ma,
Geology 30 (2002) 447 – 450.
[12] T.C. Partridge, R.R. Maud, Geomorphic evolution of south-
ern Africa since the Mesozoic, S. Afr. J. Geol. 90 (1987)
179 – 208.
[13] A.A. Nyblade, S.W. Robinson, The African superswell, Geo-
phys. Res. Lett. 21 (1994) 765 – 768.
[14] K. Burke, The African plate, S. Afr. J. Geol. 99 (1996)
341 – 409.
[15] C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, P.G. Silver, Dynamic topography, plate
driving forces and the African superswell, Nature 395 (1998)
269 – 272.
[16] S.P. Grand, R.D. van der Hilst, S. Widiyantoro, Global seismic
tomography: a snapshot of convection in the Earth, GSA
Today 7 (1997) 1 – 7.
[17] J. Ritsema, H.J. van Heijst, J.H. Woodhouse, Complex shear
wave velocity structure imaged beneath Africa and Iceland,
Science 286 (1999) 1925 – 1928.
[18] S. Ni, X. Ding, D.V. Helmberger, M. Gurnis, Low-velocity
structure beneath Africa from forward modeling, Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett. 170 (1999) 497 – 507.
[19] M. Gurnis, J.X. Mitrovica, J. Ritsema, H.-J. van Heijst, Con-
straining mantle density structure using geological evidence of
surface uplift rates: the case of the African Superplume, Geo-
chem. Geophys. Geosyst. 1 (2000)1991 (1999GC000035).
[20] A.M. Forte, J.X. Mitrovica, Deep-mantle high-viscosity flow
and thermo-chemical structure inferred from seismic and geo-
dynamic data, Nature 410 (2001) 1049 – 1056.
[21] T.C. Partridge, Of diamonds, dinosaurs and diastrophism: 150
million years of landscape evolution in southern Africa, S. Afr.
J. Geol. 101 (1998) 167 – 184.
[22] M.A. Summerfield, Global Geomorphology: An Introduction
to the Study of Landforms, Longman Scientific & Technical,
Harlow, Essex, UK, 1991.
[23] R.W. Brown, K. Gallagher, A.J.W. Gleadow, M.A. Summer-
field, Morphotectonic evolution of the South Atlantic mar-
gins of Africa and South America, in: M.A. Summerfield
(Ed.), Geomorphology and Global Tectonics, Wiley, 2000,
pp. 255 – 281.
[24] K. Gallagher, R. Brown, The Mesozoic denudation history of
the Atlantic margins of southern Africa and southeast Brazil
and the relationship to offshore sedimentation, in: N.R.
Cameron, R.H. Bate, V.S. Clure (Eds.), The Oil and Gas
Habitats of the South Atlantic, Geol. Soc. London, Spec.
Publ., vol. 153, 1999, pp. 41 – 53.
[25] K. Gallagher, R. Brown, Denudation and uplift at passive
margins: the record on the Atlantic Margin of southern Africa,
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., A 357 (1999) 835 – 859.
[26] L. Droz, D. Mougenot, Mozambique upper fan: origin of
depositional units, AAPG Bull. 71 (1987) 1355 – 1365.
[27] D.S.G. Thomas, P.A. Shaw, Late Cainozoic drainage evolution
in the Zambezi Basin: geomorphological evidence from the
Kalahari rim, J. Afr. Earth Sci. 7 (1988) 611 – 618.
[28] C. Nugent, The Zambezi River: tectonism, climatic change
and drainage evolution, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoe-
col. 78 (1990) 55 – 69.
[29] G. Salman, I. Abdula, Development of the Mozambique and
Rovuma sedimentary basins, offshore Mozambique, Sediment.
Geol. 96 (1995) 7 – 41.
[30] J.G. Sclater, P.A.F. Christie, Continental stretching: an expla-
nation of the post-mid-Cretaceous subsidence of the central
North Sea basin, J. Geophys. Res. 85 (1980) 3711 – 3739.
 H.L. Walford et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 49–63
[31] A. Ganachaud, C. Wunsch, Improved estimates of global
ocean circulation, heat transport and mixing from hydro-
graphic data, Nature 408 (2000) 453 – 457.
[32] A. Ganachaud, C. Wunsch, J. Marotzke, J. Toole, Meridio-
nal overturning and large-scale circulation of the Indian
Ocean, J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 26117 – 26134.
[33] T.M. Niemi, Z. Ben-Avraham, C.J.H. Hartnady, M. Reznikov,
Post-Eocene seismic stratigraphy of the deep ocean basin
adjacent to the southeast African continental margin: a record
of geostrophic bottom current systems, Mar. Geol. 162 (2000)
237 – 258.
[34] A. Wetzel, The transfer of river load to deep-sea fans: a
quantitative approach, AAPG Bull. 77 (1993) 1679 – 1692.
[35] M.C.J. De Wit, Post-Gondwana drainage and development of
diamond placers in western South Africa, Econ. Geol. 94
(1999) 721 – 740.
[36] L.F. Brown, Jr, J.M. Benson, G.J. Brinks, S. Doherty, A.
Jollands, E.H.A. Jungslager, J.H.G. Keenan, A. Muntingh,
N.J.S. van Wyk, Sequence stratigraphy in offshore South
African divergent basins, AAPG Studies in Geology 41.
[37] K.G. Miller, J.D. Wright, R.G. Fairbanks, Unlocking the ice
house: Oligocene–Miocene oxygen isotopes, eustasy and mar-
gin erosion, J. Geophys. Res. 96 (1991) 6829 – 6848.
[38] P. Zhang, P. Molnar, W.R. Downs, Increased sedimenta-
tion rates and grain sizes 2–4 Myr ago due to the influence
63
of climate change on erosion rates, Nature 410 (2001)
891 – 897.
[39] P. Molnar, Climate change, flooding in arid environments, and
erosion rates, Geology 29 (2001) 1071 – 1074.
[40] G. Flores, The Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary basins of
Mozambique and Zululand, in: G. Blant (Ed.), Sedimentary
Basins of the African Coasts, Pt. 2, Association of African
Geological Survey, Paris, 1973, pp. 81 – 111.
[41] M. De Buyl, G. Flores, The Southern Mozambique basin: the
most promising hydrocarbon province offshore East Africa, in:
M.T. Halbouty (Ed.), Future Petroleum Provinces of the
World, AAPG Memoir, vol. 40, 1986, pp. 339 – 425.
[42] G.B. Salman, N.I. Vissotski, A.B. Vedrintsev, The Geology
and Petroleum Potential of Mozambique, ENH Archives,
Maputo, Mozambique, 1985.
[43] J.E. Iliffe, I. Lerche, M. De Buyl, Basin analysis and hydro-
carbon generation of the South Mozambique graben using
extensional models of heat flow, Mar. Pet. Geol. 8 (1991)
152 – 162.
[44] S.R. Du Toit, A.G. Kidston, O.L. Slind, Hydrocarbon Potential
of the East Africa Continental Margin, Canadian International
Development Agency, Alconsult International Ltd. (June 1997).