1236
Testing sequence stratigraphic models by drilling Miocene foresets on the New Jersey shallow shelf
Kenneth G. Miller1, Gregory S. Mountain1, James V. Browning1, Miriam E. Katz2, Donald Monteverde1, Peter J. Sugarman1, Hisao Ando3, Maria A. Bassetti4, Christian J. Bjerrum5, David Hodgson6, Stephen Hesselbo7, Sarp Karakaya1, Jean-Noel Proust,8 and Marina Rabineau9
1Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA2Earth & Environmental Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1W08 JRSC, Troy, New York 12180, USA3Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, Ibaraki University, Bunkyo 2-1-1, Mito 310-8512, Japan4Laboratoire CEFREM Bat U, University of Perpignan, 52 Avenue Paul Alduy, Perpignan, 66860, France5Department of Geography and Geology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 København K, Denmark6School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK7Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3AN, UK8Géosciences, CNRS, Université Rennes, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes, France9UMR6538, Institut Universitaire Européen de La Mer Place Nicolas Copernic 29280 Plouzané, France
ABSTRACT
We present seismic, core, log, and chrono-logic data on three early to middle Mio-cene sequences (m5.8, m5.4, and m5.2; ca. 20–14.6 Ma) sampled across a transect of seismic clinothems (prograding sigmoidal sequences) in topset, foreset, and bottomset locations beneath the New Jersey shallow con-tinental shelf (Integrated Ocean Drilling Pro-gram Expedition 313, Sites M27–M29). We recognize stratal surfaces and systems tracts by integrating seismic stratigraphy, litho-facies successions, gamma logs, and forami-niferal paleodepth trends. Our interpretations of systems tracts, particularly in the foresets where the sequences are thickest, allow us to test sequence stratigraphic models. Landward of the clinoform rollover, topsets consist of nearshore deposits above merged transgres-sive surfaces (TS) and sequence boundaries overlain by deepening- and fi ning-upward transgressive systems tracts (TST) and coars-ening- and shallowing-upward highstand sys-tems tracts (HST). Drilling through the fore-sets yields thin (<18 m thick) lowstand systems tracts (LST), thin (<26 m) TST, and thick HST (15–90 m). This contrasts with previously published seismic stratigraphic predictions of thick LST and thin to absent TST. Both HST and LST show regressive patterns in the cores. Falling stage systems tracts (FSST) are tenta-tively recognized by seismic downstepping, although it is possible that these are truncated
HST; in either case, these seismic geometries consist of uniform sands in the cores with a blocky gamma log pattern. Parasequence boundaries (fl ooding surfaces) are recognized in LST, TST, and HST. TS are recognized as an upsection change from coarsening- to fi ning-upward successions. We fi nd little evi-dence for correlative conformities; even in the foresets, where sequences are thickest, there is evidence of erosion and hiatuses asso-ciated with sequence boundaries. Sequence m5.8 appears to be a single million-year-scale sequence, but sequence m5.4 is a composite of 3 ~100-k.y.-scale sequences. Sequence m5.2 may also be a composite sequence, although our resolution is insuffi cient to demonstrate this. We do not resolve the issue of fractal ver-sus hierarchical order, but our data are con-sistent with arrangement into orders based on Milankovitch forcing on eccentricity (2.4 m.y., 405 and 100 k.y. cycles) and obliquity scales (1.2 m.y. and 41 k.y.).
INTRODUCTION
Sequence stratigraphy is based on recognition of unconformity-bounded sedimentary units on seismic profi les, in outcrop, in cored sections, and on geophysical logs (Vail et al., 1977; Van Wagoner et al., 1990). Sequences are objective units (e.g., Neal and Abreu, 2009), but the inter-pretation of sequences is often tied to genetic criteria (Mitchum et al., 1977), especially rela-tive sea-level change. The genetic connotation
remains controversial (e.g., Christie-Blick et al., 1988, 1990; Miall, 1991; Christie-Blick, 1991; Catuneanu, 2006; Embry, 2009). In addition, sequence nomenclature and approaches have proliferated, leading some to plead for a return to basics (Neal and Abreu, 2009). Basic principles of sequence stratigraphy focus on three stratal surfaces, i.e., sequence boundaries (SB), trans-gressive surfaces (TS), and maximum fl ooding surfaces (MFS), and stacking patterns of para-sequences (those bounded by fl ooding surfaces) and the attendant trends observed in cores as deepening- and shallowing-upward successions (Fig. 1). They are not explicitly tied to a rela-tive sea-level curve. We adopt a back to basics approach using new drilling data to address the architecture of seismic and core sequences.
A series of publications by Exxon Produc-tion Research Company illustrated sequences as sigmoidal, slug-shaped units with thin top-sets, thick foresets, and thin bottomset deposits bounded by sigmoidal clinoformal unconformi-ties and correlative conformities (Fig. 1; Vail, 1987; Van Wagoner et al., 1987; Posamentier and Vail, 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988). We apply the term clinothem to Miocene seismic sequences imaged beneath the New Jersey con-tinental shelf (Figs. 2 and 3). Clinothems are packages of sediment that prograde seaward and are bounded by surfaces (in this case sequence boundaries) with distinct sigmoidal (clinoform) geometry. The clinothem topsets were originally termed as the shelf and the rollover point as the shelf break (Vail et al., 1977). This has created
For permission to copy, contact [email protected]© 2013 Geological Society of America
Geosphere; October 2013; v. 9; no. 5; p. 1236–1256; doi:10.1130/GES00884.1; 13 fi gures; 7 supplemental fi gures.Received 14 November 2012 ♦ Revision received 1 July 2013 ♦ Accepted 8 August 2013 ♦ Published online 13 September 2013
Results of IODP Exp313: The History and Impact of Sea-level Change Offshore New Jersey themed issue
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1237
confusion because the modern continental shelf-slope break is typically in 120–200 m of water, averaging 135 m off New Jersey (Heezen et al., 1959). Two-dimensional backstripping of the New Jersey margin showed that the structur-ally controlled continental shelf-slope break occurred in 100–300 m of water from the Late Cretaceous to Miocene ~60 km seaward of Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 313 Site M29 (Steckler et al., 1999; Mountain et al., 2010) and that the rollover features (also called depositional shelf breaks, a term we avoid because it evokes the modern shelf break) asso-ciated with Miocene clinoforms are shallower, different features than the continental shelf-slope break.
HST
HST
TSTArrows point in fining direction
Rollover
TopsetCoastal Plain
Toe of SlopeDistal Toe
TS
Clinothem Model
Foreset
Bottomset
MFSSB
SB
LST
Figure 1. Clinothem model; arrows point in fi ning (deepening) direction. SB—sequence boundary (red lines); TS—transgressive surface (blue lines); MFS—maximum fl ooding surface (green lines); LST—lowstand systems tract (brown); TST—transgressive systems tracts (green); and HST—highstand systems tract (light pink). Rollover is equivalent to depositional shelf break of several authors.
+ ++
++++
+
+
++
Cape May
1072
902
903904
1071
905
906
1073
OceanView
72°W73°75° 74°76°77°
38°
39°
41°N
40°
Ew9009CH0698
Oc270
Seismic Profiles
Existing DrillsitesDSDPExplorationAMCORODP Leg 150, 150X903
ODP Leg 174A, 174AX1072
+
+
+ +
+
+
++
+
M27
M29M28
DelmarvaPeninsula
pre-Cretace
ous outcr
op
2000
m
1000
m
3000
m
200
m
New Jersey Sea-Level Transect
++
IslandBeach
Atlantic Ocean
SeaGirt
Fort Mott
MillvilleAtlantic City
Ancora
Bass River
Cenozoic
outcrop
Cretaceous o
utcrop
Medford
IODP Leg 313M27DoubleTrouble
WilsonLake
New Jersey
6010
Shelf
Rise
6020
6011
Cape May Zoo
6009
SlopeBethany Beach
Figure 2. Generalized bathymetric location map of the New Jersey–Mid Atlantic Margin sea-level transect showing three generations of multichannel seismic data (cruises R/V Ewing Ew9009, R/V Oceanus Oc270, R/V Cape Hatteras CH0698), onshore coreholes, and offshore coreholes drilled by AMCOR (Atlantic Margin Coring Project; Hathaway et al., 1979), the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), and the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP).
Miller et al.
1238 Geosphere, October 2013
M27
M28
M29
Cum
ulat
ive
perc
ent
010
0
Cum
ulat
ive
perc
ent
010
0
Cum
ulat
ive
perc
ent
010
0
030
0cps
0 30
0cps
0 50
0cps
o1
o.5
m6
m5
.8
m5
.7
m5
.6
m5
.6
m5
.45
m5
.47
m5
.4
m5
.4
m5
.34
m5
.33
m5
.32
m5
.3m
5.2
m5
.2m5
m4
m4
.1
m4
.1
m4
.2
m4
.3
m4
.4
m4
.5
m4
.5
m3
m1
m5
.3
m5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200
400
600
800
1000
Depth, meters
1000
090
0080
0070
0060
0050
0040
0030
0020
0010
00 c
dp
NW
SE
Exp
edit
ion
313
Oc2
70 5
290
10 k
m
Fig
ure
3. M
ulti
chan
nel s
eism
ic p
rofi l
e O
c270
529
(R/V
Oce
anus
) in
regi
on o
f Int
egra
ted
Oce
an D
rilli
ng P
rogr
am E
xped
itio
n 31
3 pr
ovid
ing
a lo
ng d
ip p
rofi l
e fr
om n
orth
wes
t (N
W)
to s
outh
east
(SE
). S
ites
M27
–M29
are
loc
ated
on
this
lin
e. A
xes
are
dept
h in
met
ers
obta
ined
us
ing
the
revi
sed
velo
city
-dep
th fu
ncti
on (M
ount
ain
and
Mon
teve
rde,
201
2) a
nd c
omm
on d
epth
poi
nts
(1 c
dp =
6.2
5 m
); a
ppro
xim
ate
scal
e (i
n km
) is
giv
en o
n lo
wer
rig
ht. M
ajor
sei
smic
seq
uenc
e bo
unda
ries
and
sel
ect
intr
aseq
uenc
e re
fl ect
ors
(o1,
o.5
) ar
e sh
own;
all
othe
rs a
re
seis
mic
seq
uenc
e bo
unda
ries
. Sup
erim
pose
d ar
e th
e co
arse
fra
ctio
n cu
mul
ativ
e pe
rcen
t lit
holo
gy a
nd d
ownh
ole
gam
ma
logs
(in
cou
nts
per
seco
nd, c
ps)
as d
escr
ibed
in M
iller
et
al. (
2013
).
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1239
Subdivision of sequences into systems tracts has been explicitly tied to relative sea-level changes (Vail, 1987; Van Wagoner et al., 1987; Posamentier and Vail, 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988; Coe, 2003; Catuneanu, 2006) and inter-pretation of systems tracts is often needlessly highly model dependent. Systems tracts were defi ned as linked depositional systems (Brown and Fisher, 1977) that are used to subdivide sequences into lowstand systems tracts (LST), transgressive systems tracts (TST), and high-stand systems tracts (HST; Vail, 1987; Van Wagoner et al., 1987; Posamentier and Vail, 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988). The falling stage systems tract (FSST) is a fourth systems tract (Plint and Nummedal, 2000), although its recognition can be controversial with respect to the location of the associated overlying sequence boundary (see summary in Coe, 2003). The LST, TST, and HST are separated by two distinct stratal surfaces: the transgres-sive surface (TS) and the maximum fl ooding surface (MFS). We summarize systems tracts as they apply to siliciclastic environments, focus-ing on these surfaces.
The fundamental surface in sequence stra-tigraphy is the sequence boundary and its rec-ognition is of primary importance. Seismic stratigraphic criteria for the sequence boundary include onlap, downlap, toplap, and erosional truncation (Mitchum et al., 1977). Criteria from core observations include irregular con-tacts, rip-up clasts, other evidence of rework-ing, intense bioturbation, major facies changes, stacking pattern changes (e.g., changes in coarsening versus fi ning upward; Fig. 1) and evidence for hiatuses (Van Wagoner et al., 1987; Miller et al., 2013). Geophysical log cri-teria include recognition of stacking patterns, particularly of parasequences (those bounded by fl ooding surfaces, FS; Van Wagoner et al., 1987, 1990), and the association of large uphole gamma-log increases with sequence boundaries, although these also occur at MFS. Sequence-bounding unconformities often lose seismic stratigraphic expression when traced basinward and the term correlative conformity has been included in the defi nition of sequence as a surface traced from the unconformity to one that has “…no physical evidence of erosion or non-deposition and no signifi cant hiatus…” (Mitchum et al., 1977, p. 206).
The TS generally separates the LST below from the TST above. Where no LST deposits are present (as is often the case on topsets; Fig. 1), or in seismic data where thin LST sediments are below seismic resolution, the TS merges with the sequence boundary. The TS marks a change from progradational to retro-gradational seismic stratigraphic successions
and a change in cores from coarsening-upward to fi ning-upward successions (Fig. 1) in shelf depositional environments (though these pat-terns may be complicated in the nearshore set-ting), and may appear as a shift from regressive sands below to fi ner grained muds above (Vail, 1987; Van Wagoner et al., 1987, 1988, 1990; Posamentier and Vail, 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988). The TS is diachronous and often linked to local erosion associated with marine ravinement as shoreface erosion cannibalizes former barrier island deposits (Demarest and Kraft, 1987).
The MFS separates the TST from the HST. The MFS is recognized in seismic sections as a downlap surface, an upsection change from retrogrational to progradational successions in seismic profi les and outcrops, and in cores as a change from fi ning-upward to coarsening-upward successions (Fig. 1) (Vail, 1987; Van Wagoner et al., 1987, 1988; Posamentier and Vail, 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988). In cores, sediments deposited along the MFS usually record the deepest water of a sequence; fur-thermore, these sediments are often associ-ated with a condensed section recognized by intense bioturbation, in situ glauconite, phos-phorite, abundant organic carbon, greater mud versus sand, planktonic microfossils, and in situ shells (Loutit et al., 1988; Kidwell, 1989, 1991). The TST is transgressive (generally fi n-ing upsection; Fig. 1) and thus is associated with retrogradational parasequence sets, gener-ally stepping up onto the topsets of the previ-ous sequence (Fig. 1). The HST is regressive, associated with aggradational to progradational and degradational parasequence sets (Neal and Abreu, 2009), downlaps on the MFS, and is generally overlain by the upper sequence boundary (Vail, 1987; Van Wagoner et al., 1987, 1988; Posamentier and Vail, 1988; Posa-mentier et al., 1988).
Interpretation of the LST is controversial because of the uncertainties in placement of its base versus the FSST (Coe, 2003), the var-ied facies it contains, and the fact that it is the one salient feature separating sequences from transgressive-regressive cycles (Christie-Blick and Driscoll, 1995; Catuneanu et al., 2009; Embry, 2009). Vail et al. (1977) fi rst termed all strata that onlap seaward of the clinothem rollover (Fig. 1; his shelf break) as lowstand deposits. Subsequent studies have defi ned the LST in terms of sea-level curves (Vail, 1987; Van Wagoner et al., 1987, 1988; Posamentier and Vail, 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988; Coe, 2003), engendering debate. There is general agreement that sediments of the LST directly overlie the sequence boundary, are the lower regressive systems tract containing progra-
dational to aggradational parasequence sets, and generally coarsen up to the TS (Vail, 1987; Van Wagoner et al., 1987; Posamentier et al., 1988; Coe, 2003; Neal and Abreu, 2009). How-ever, there has been a tendency to attribute all coarse-grained sediments overlying a sequence boundary to those of the LST, even when unjus-tifi ed (e.g., transgressive estuarine gravels inter-preted as lowstand deposits; Christie-Blick and Driscoll, 1995).
In the FSST, strata not only prograde as they do in the underlying HST, they also step down into the basin (often with sharp-based sands) and offl ap progressively seaward (Plint and Nummedal, 2000), with progradation and progressively steepening foresets (e.g., Proust et al., 2001). The FSST is partially equivalent to the forced regression of Posamentier et al. (1992) and contrasts with the HST, where strata progressively onlap landward (Plint and Nummedal, 2000). A distinct surface separat-ing the FSST from the underlying HST may be lacking (Plint and Nummedal, 2000). How-ever, in many cases there is a marine erosion surface–associated regression (Proust et al., 2001), especially associated with Pleistocene 100 k.y. sequences (e.g., Trincardi and Correg-giari, 2000; Rabineau et al., 2005). In general, the sequence boundary is placed at the top of the FSST (Plint and Nummedal, 2000), although “...there is still some controversy as to where the sequence boundary should be placed” (Coe, 2003, p. 86).
Most sequence stratigraphic interpretations rely heavily on links to hypothetical relative sea-level curves (see summary in Catuneanu et al., 2009). Early models interpreted deposition of (1) the LST from the time of maximum rate of relative and/or eustatic fall (falling infl ection point) associated with the sequence boundary to the beginning of the rise (Posamentier et al., 1988); (2) the TST from the beginning of the rise to about the time of the maximum rate of rise at the MFS (Galloway, 1989); and (3) the HST from the maximum rate of rise to the time of maximum rate of fall (Posamentier and Vail, 1988). Subsequent publications have devel-oped strikingly different timings (i.e., with the LST lagging a quarter cycle and starting at the beginning of the rise, MFS late in the relative rise) of systems tracts relative to hypothetical sea-level curves (e.g., Coe, 2003; Catuneanu et al., 2009; http://www.sepmstrata.org/page.aspx?&pageid=32&3). However, application of any model is an oversimplifi cation because position of a stratal surface relative to a sea-level curve is a function of preexisting geom-etry, rates of subsidence (including differen-tial subsidence that precludes computation of a single relative sea-level curve), and sedi-
Miller et al.
1240 Geosphere, October 2013
ment supply (including shifting depocenters) ( Christie-Blick et al., 1990).
The controversial nature of the LST ( Christie-Blick, 1991; Christie-Blick and Driscoll, 1995) and the FSST (see summary in Coe, 2003) have led some to return to interpreting sequences as largely transgressive-regressive (T-R) cycles (Embry, 2009). T-R cycles describe sequences where lowstand deposits are absent, including many outcrop sections. For example, T-R cycles typify onshore New Jersey coastal plain depo-sition (e.g., Owens and Gohn, 1985), where the TS and sequence boundary are generally merged (Olsson et al., 1987; Sugarman et al., 1993; Miller et al., 1998). Similar T-R cycles have been interpreted in Europe (e.g., Hancock, 1993) and the western interior of the U.S. (e.g., Hancock and Kauffman, 1979). However, thin (<1 m) regressive LST can be preserved even on clinothem topsets of the New Jersey coastal plain (Miller et al., 1998; Browning et al., 2008), and geometries of forced regression, FSST, and lowstand deposits must be considered on the clinothem foresets. On the foresets, it is not an option to rely solely on T-R cycles, because low-stand deposits occur above sequence boundaries (Fig. 1).
Neal and Abreu (2009) focused on the basic stratal surfaces (SB, TS, and MFS) and stack-ing patterns of parasequence sets, following Mitchum and Van Wagoner (1991) in noting that sequences are scale independent. They identifi ed systems tracts by distinguishing the following stacking patterns in cores and outcrop. (1) LST are progradational to aggradational (coarsening upward, ending in largely structureless sand; Fig. 1). (2) TST are retrogradational (fi ning upward; Fig. 1). (3) HST are aggradational to progradational and degradational (coarsening upward). Neal and Abreu (2009) noted that LST may be found landward of the rollover (deposi-tional shelf edge). We adopt their approach of focusing on SB, TS, MFS and stacking and/or water depth trends using seismic-core-well log integration offshore of New Jersey.
The New Jersey margin has several genera-tions of multichannel seismic data (MCS) that have imaged clinothem sequences (fi rst called prograding deltas; Schlee, 1981). Greenlee et al. (1988) and Greenlee and Moore (1988) used industry seismic profi les to showcase the New Jersey shelf as a classic example of Miocene prograding sequences. Greenlee et al. (1992) interpreted the presence of thick lowstand wedges and HST, seismically lack-ing TST, for Miocene sequences beneath the middle to outer continental shelf of New Jer-sey. Poulsen et al. (1998) investigated middle Miocene sequences imaged in higher resolu-tion seismic across the New Jersey outer con-
tinental shelf and reached a similar interpreta-tion of only LST and HST. Monte verde et al. (2008) and Monte verde (2008) focused on Mio-cene sequences discussed here (ca. 23–13 Ma) that are landward of the middle to outer shelf seismic profi les of Greenlee et al. (1988) and Poulsen et al. (1998), and similarly concluded that sequences were almost approximately equal thicknesses of LST and HST, and that TST was either below seismic resolution or completely absent. The early to early-middle Miocene seis-mic sequences (discussed in Monte verde et al., 2008; Monteverde, 2008) were sampled by Inte-grated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Expedi-tion 313 (Figs. 2 and 3; Supplemental Fig. 11), with continuous cores and geophysical logs.
IODP Expedition 313 was designed to test sequence stratigraphic relationships across a series of early to middle Miocene clinothems (Figs. 2 and 3; Mountain et al., 2010); 15 early to middle Miocene (ca. 23–13 Ma) seismic sequence boundaries were recognized using criteria of onlap, downlap, erosional truncation, and toplap (Monteverde et al., 2008; Monte-verde, 2008; Mountain et al., 2010). Core recovery was very good (~80%) considering the challenges in coring shallow-water sands and geophysical logs were obtained at all three sites. Sequence boundaries in cores and logs were recognized based on integrated study of key core surfaces, lithostratigraphy and process sedimentology (grain size, mineralogy, facies, and paleoenvironments), facies successions, benthic foraminiferal water depths, downhole logs, core gamma logs, and chronostratigraphic ages (Mountain et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2013). Velocity and density logs allow construction of synthetic seismograms at Sites M27 and M29 (Mountain and Monteverde, 2012), providing fi rm placement of sequence boundaries (Miller et al., 2013) and a starting point for deciphering systems tracts. Ages of sequences and hiatuses are derived by integrating Sr isotope stratigra-phy and biostratigraphy (diatoms, nanno fossils, and dinocysts) on age-depth diagrams with a resolution of ±0.25 to ±0.5 m.y. (Browning et al., 2013). In this contribution we focus on three sequences sampled across of full range of topset, foreset, and bottomsets: sequences m5.8, m5.4, and m5.2.
The objective of this paper is to integrate seismic interpretations done before drilling
(Greenlee et al., 1988, 1992; Monteverde et al., 2008; Monteverde, 2008) with those done subsequently (Mountain et al., 2010; this study) and with core and geophysical log data to provide new insights into the interpretations of systems tracts focusing on critical thick foreset deposits (Figs. 4–11). We recognize stratal surfaces and systems tracts by integrat-ing seismic stratigraphic interpretation, litho-facies successions, gamma logs, and benthic foraminiferal paleodepth trends. Our inter-pretation of systems tracts across the three clinothems allows us to test sequence strati-graphic models.
METHODS
Seismic Interpretation
Seismic sequence boundaries m5.8, m5.4, and m5.2 were identified in multichannel seismic grids obtained on R/V Ewing cruise Ew9009, R/V Oceanus cruise Oc270, and R/V Cape Hatteras cruise CH0698 (in 1990, 1995, and 1998, respectively; Monteverde et al., 2008; Monteverde, 2008; Mountain et al., 2010). We focus here on interpretations of Oc270 line 529, which crosses Sites M27, M28, and M29 (Figs. 2 and 3; Supplemental Fig. 1 [see footnote 1]). Seismic sequence boundaries m5.8, m5.4, and m5.2 were identifi ed based on refl ector termina-tions (onlap, downlap, erosional truncation, and toplap) on multiple lines and loop correlated throughout the seismic grids (Fig. 2). These criteria allow differentiation of these sequence boundaries from surfaces associated with FSST or truncated HST (e.g., refl ectors 2 and 3 in Fig. 7). Sequences are named according to their basal refl ector boundary, such that refl ec-tor m5.8 is the base of sequence m5.8. Several additional refl ectors that are potential sequence boundaries (m5.34, m5.33, and m5.32; Fig. 3) were identifi ed within sequence m5.4 (Fig. 3) by two of us (D. Monteverde and G. Mountain, in Mountain et al., 2010), but not loop correlated; their stratal signifi cance is discussed herein. We trace internal refl ectors within sequences m5.8, m5.4, and m5.2. MFS (green lines, Figs. 4–11) are seismically recognized by signifi cant down-lap across the sequence and onlap near to or landward of the rollover (Fig. 1); in sequences where there is more than one downlap surface, the strati graphically lowest is taken as the seis-mic MFS. Seismic criteria alone are insuffi cient to unequivocally recognize TS, and placement of TS was done by iteration with core studies (see following). In all three cases, TS (blue lines, Figs. 4–11) onlap the basal sequence bound-ary seaward of the rollover and farther seaward downlap onto the sequence boundary or merge
1Supplemental Figure 1. (A) Uninterpreted MCS profi le Oc270 Line 529 sized to print at 18 × 36 inches. (B) Interpreted MCS profi le Oc270 Line 529 sized to print at 18 × 36 inches. If you are viewing the PDF of this paper or reading it offl ine, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00884.S1 or the full-text article on www.gsapubs.org to view Supple-mental Figure 1.
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1241
NG
R (
cps)
M28
147R
148R
149R
150R
151R
152R
153R
154R
155R
156R
157R
158R
159R
160R
161R
162R
163R
164R
165R
166R
167R
168R
169R
170R
171R
670
660
650
640
630
620
610
600
gg
gg
wd
wd
gw
d
wd
p
p
p wd
xx
xwd
p
xx
wd
wd
xxxx
xxxx
x
xxxx
xxx
Lith
olog
yC
ore
reco
very
Depth (mcd)
River-influencedoffshore
Toe slope
Rive
r-in
fluen
ced
offs
hore
50 5025
Pal
eode
pth
IntegratedWaterdepth
75
5010
00
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y (%
)N
GR
(cp
s)
05
1015
2025
TG
R (
cps)
010
020
030
0
m5.
761
1.6
m5.
866
2.98
18.8
19.5
20.0
?20.
5
M27
TG
R (
cps)
Lith
olog
yC
ore
reco
very
gg
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XX
X
X
X
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxx
XXXX
XXXX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
g
g
Depth (mcd)
73
0
74
0
75
0
76
0
207R
208R
209R
210R
211R
212R
213R
214R
215R
216R
217R
Dysoxic prodelta
OFF
75-1
00 m
50-8
0 m
50-8
0 m
75-1
00 m
50-1
00 m
Environment
Pal
eode
pth
BenthicBiofacies
IntegratedWaterdepth
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y (%
)
50
004
812
Reflector
Depth (mcd)
Age (Ma)
m5.
7
m5.
8
728.
56
746/
753.
80
7575 75
18.8
20.0
20.2
20.5
100
0
M29
Pal
eode
pth
SF River-influenced SOT River-influenced OFF
50-8
0 m
50-8
0 m
50-6
0 m
50-8
0 m
50-8
0 m
50-8
0 m
50-8
0 m
50-8
0 m
50-6
0 m
50-6
0 m
50-6
0 m
50-8
0 m
75-8
0 m
75-8
0 m
75-8
0 m
50-8
0 m
Toe-of-slopeapronEnvironment
BenthicBiofacies
IntegratedWaterdepth
5 10 30 75 75 6075 35 50
HS
T
LST
TS
T
Systems
TG
R (
cps)
NG
R (
cps)
020
040
0
05
1015
2025
Reflector
Depth (mcd)
Age (Ma)
171R
172R
173R
174R
175R
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
gg g
gg
g
500
127R
128R
129R
130R
131R
132R
133R
134R
135R
136R
137R
138R
139R
140R
141R
142R
143R
144R
145R
146R
147R
148R
149R
150R
151R
152R
153R
154R
155R
156R
157R
158R
159R
160R
161R
162R
163R
164R
165R
166R
167R
168R
169R
170R
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
wd g
gg
wd
wd
wd w
d
gg
ggg
gg
gg
gLith
olog
yC
ore
reco
very
Depth (mcd)360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
5010
00
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y (%
)
19.2
20.1
20.7
m5.
7/“9
”36
1.28
m5.
8/“1
”49
4.87
?MF
S
?MF
S
?MF
S
TS
Seq
uenc
e m
5.8
For
eset
Pro
delta
Bot
tom
set
Pro
delta
Bot
tom
set
477.
52
457.
78
451.
36
442
Sei
smic
Lith
olog
y
Ben
thic
MaximumFlooding Zone
Evironment
654
742
?MF
S?M
FS
Reflector
Depth (mcd)
Age (Ma)
“5”
“3”
TS
T/
LST
HS
T
TS
T
HS
T
75-1
00 m
cs
gvf
vcS
and
cs
gvf
vcS
and
cg
vfvc
San
d
Gla
ucon
ite
Cla
y/si
lt
Ver
y fin
e an
d fin
e qu
artz
For
amin
ifers
/she
lls
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y
Mic
a
Oth
er
Med
ium
& c
oars
er q
uart
z
XX
Indu
rate
d/no
dule
Cro
ss la
min
ae
Wed
ge-p
lana
r la
min
ae
Bio
turb
atio
n
Con
volu
ted
bedd
ing
Sco
ur
Hor
izon
tal b
eddi
ng
gG
lauc
onite
pP
yrite
Sw
aley
cro
ss s
trat
ifica
tion
Hum
moc
ky c
ross
str
atifi
catio
n
Org
anic
mat
ter
wd
She
ll fr
agm
ents
Art
icul
ated
she
ll
For
amin
ifers
Gas
trop
ods
She
ll de
bris
Bur
row
Ech
inoi
ds
Sym
bols
Cla
y
Silt
Very
fine
/fine
san
d
Coa
rse/
med
ium
san
d
Gla
ucon
ite (
>25
%)
Bio
clas
tic h
oriz
on
Lith
olog
yK
EY X
XIn
dura
ted/
nodu
le
400
200
Fig
ure
4. C
ompa
riso
n of
seq
uenc
e m
5.8
at I
nteg
rate
d O
cean
Dri
lling
Pro
gram
Exp
edit
ion
313
Site
s M
27, M
28, a
nd M
29, s
how
ing
core
de
pths
in
met
ers
com
posi
te d
epth
(m
cd),
cor
e nu
mbe
r (1
H–2
1H,
whe
re H
ind
icat
es r
ecov
ery
by h
ydra
ulic
pis
ton
cori
ng;
R—
rota
ry;
and
X—
exte
nded
cor
e ba
rrel
); c
ore
reco
very
(gr
ay—
reco
vere
d, w
hite
—ga
p);
litho
logy
(c—
clay
; s—
silt
; vf
—ve
ry fi
ne
sand
; vc
—ve
ry
coar
se s
and;
g—
grav
el a
nd/o
r pe
bble
s);
coar
se f
ract
ion
cum
ulat
ive
perc
ent
litho
logy
(br
own—
mud
; lig
ht y
ello
w—
fi ne
quar
tz s
and;
dar
k ye
llow
—m
ediu
m-c
oars
e qu
artz
san
d; g
reen
—gl
auco
nite
san
d; b
lue—
carb
onat
e [s
hells
and
for
amin
ifer
a];
arro
ws
poin
t in
fi n
ing
dire
c-ti
on);
sym
bols
on
key
at u
pper
rig
ht (
afte
r M
ount
ain
et a
l., 2
010)
. Env
iron
men
tal
inte
rpre
tati
on b
ased
on
litho
faci
es i
s af
ter
Mou
ntai
n et
al.
(201
0) (
SF—
shor
efac
e; S
OT
—sh
oref
ace-
offs
hore
tra
nsit
ion
[low
er s
hore
face
]; O
FF
—of
fsho
re).
Pal
eow
ater
dep
ths
(in
met
ers)
are
ba
sed
on b
enth
ic f
oram
inif
eral
bio
faci
es a
fter
Kat
z et
al.
(201
3). I
nteg
rate
d pa
leow
ater
dep
ths
(in
met
ers)
are
bas
ed o
n be
nthi
c fo
ram
i-ni
fera
l bio
faci
es a
nd li
thof
acie
s af
ter
Mill
er e
t al
. (20
13).
Gam
ma
logs
: re
d—do
wnh
ole
wir
elin
e m
easu
rem
ents
as
tota
l gam
ma
ray
(TG
R)
in c
ount
s pe
r se
cond
(cp
s);
blue
dot
s—na
tura
l ga
mm
a-ra
y (N
GR
) m
easu
rem
ents
mad
e on
uns
plit
who
le c
ores
, sc
ale
in c
ps;
data
aft
er
Mou
ntai
n et
al.
(201
0). R
efl e
ctor
s: r
ed—
sequ
ence
bou
ndar
y; b
lue—
tran
sgre
ssiv
e su
rfac
e (T
S);
gree
n—m
axim
um fl
oodi
ng s
urfa
ce (
MF
S).
Das
hed
red
lines
—un
cert
ain
plac
emen
t of
seq
uenc
e bo
unda
ry. L
ST—
low
stan
d sy
stem
s tr
act;
TST
—tr
ansg
ress
ive
syst
ems
trac
t; H
ST—
high
stan
d sy
stem
s tr
act;
FSS
T—
falli
ng s
tage
sys
tem
s tr
act.
Age
s fo
r su
rfac
e im
med
iate
ly b
elow
and
abo
ve s
eque
nce
boun
dari
es a
re a
fter
B
row
ning
et
al. (
2013
).
Miller et al.
1242 Geosphere, October 2013
with the MFS. Other internal refl ections were traced (yellow lines, Figs. 5, 7, and 10) and used to interpret stacking patterns and to construct age-distance plots (top panels of Figs. 5, 7, and 10; also called Wheeler diagrams or chronostrati-graphic charts of Vail et al., 1977).
Sequences, Lithology, and Paleoenvironments in Cores and Core-Seismic Integration
Sequence boundaries in the Expedition 313 cores were recognized on the basis of physical stratigraphy and age breaks (Mountain et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2013). Criteria for recog-nizing sequence-bounding unconformities in
coreholes (e.g., Browning et al., 2006) that were applied to Expedition 313 cores include: (1) irregular contacts, with as much as 5 cm of relief on a 6.2-cm-diameter core; (2) rework-ing, including rip-up clasts found above the contact; (3) intense bioturbation, including bur-rows fi lled with overlying material; (4) major litho facies shifts and changes in stacking pat-tern (discussed in the following); (5) upsection gamma-ray increases associated with changes from low-radioactivity sands below to hotter clays or glauconite sands immediately above sequence boundaries, and/or marine omission surfaces (e.g., with high U/Th scavenging); (6) shell lags above the contact; and (7) age breaks indicated by Sr isotope stratigraphy or
biostratigraphy. Numerous sequence boundaries are illustrated in core photographs (Miller et al., 2013). A velocity versus depth function was used to make initial seismic-core correlations of seis-mic sequence boundaries to core surfaces iden-tifi ed from visual evidence (core descriptions and photographs) and log data (Mountain et al., 2010; Mountain and Monteverde, 2012; Miller et al., 2013). Synthetic seismo grams from Sites M27A and M29A (Mountain and Monteverde, 2012) provide a check on seismic-core correla-tions and predicted depths of seismic sequence boundaries. The resultant seismic-core-log cor-relations (summarized in Miller et al., 2013) were used to construct site to site correlations for the three sequences m5.8, m5.4, and m5.2 that
(m6) 1(m5.8) 34
56
78
9(m5.7)
0
(m5.8) 1
345678
(m5.7) 9
TS
MFS
HST
TST
LST
20.720.1
19.2?
Age(Ma)
SystemsTract
Onlap
Onlap
DownlapDownlap
Downlap
19.7
0.500
0.600
TWTT
(sec
)
M27
2
–1
–2–3
CDP 8000 7000
2
0–1–2–3
1(m5.8)
3456789(m5.7)
2
0–1–2–3
SB
Reflector
Sand and Sandy mud
Mud and muddy sand
Mud
0 5 km
SB
Figure 5. Interpreted seismic profi le and Wheeler diagram (stratigraphic position versus distance; Wheeler, 1958) of sequence m5.8 across the foreset at Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 313 Site M27. Bottom panel is interpreted seismic profi le in two-way travel-time (TWTT, in seconds versus cdp, common depth point). LST—lowstand systems tract; TST—transgressive systems tract; HST—high-stand systems tract; FSST—falling stage systems tract; MFS—maximum fl ooding surface; SB—sequence boundary. Red arrows indicate refl ector terminations; refl ectors in red indicate sequence boundaries; refl ectors in blue indicate TS; and refl ectors in green indicate MFS. Other internal refl ections are indicated in shades of yellow. Cumulative lithology is superimposed on the site. Arbitrary numbers assigned to refl ectors are used to construct a time-distance plot at the top; scale of the Wheeler diagram on left assumes constant ages between refl ec-tors; age estimates (shown in Ma) are derived from Browning et al. (2013).
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1243
sampled topsets, foresets, and bottomsets in the three coreholes (Figs. 4, 6, and 9).
Lithologic trends are essential in interpreting systems tracts. The Expedition 313 sedimen-tologists produced visual core descriptions and differentiated clay, silt, and various sand frac-tions visually and using smear slides (Moun-tain et al., 2010). These lithologic descriptions have been synthesized into general lithology columns (essentially unchanged from Moun-tain et al., 2010) and presented as lithology in Figures 4, 6, and 8. Quantitative and qualitative lithology data were added (Miller et al., 2013) and weight percent mud (<63 μm), very fi ne and fi ne sand (63–250 μm), and medium sand and coarser sediment (>250 μm) were mea-sured in washed samples at ~1.5 m intervals; the abundance of glauconite, shells, and mica in the sand fraction (>63 μm) was semiquan-titatively determined by splitting 1727 samples into aliquots and visually estimating percent-ages on a picking tray. The data (presented as cumulative lithology in Figs. 4, 6, and 9) clearly show distinct trends in grain size and mineral-ogy that complement and extend the lithology columns presented as visual core descriptions (in Mountain et al., 2010).
Paleoenvironments are interpreted from litho-facies and biofacies. Lithofacies successions are interpreted using a wave-dominated shoreline model (summarized in Mountain et al., 2010), recognizing upper shoreface (0–5 m water depth), lower shoreface (5–10 m), shoreface-offshore transition (10–20 m), and offshore (>30 m) environments. Other environmental information (e.g., river-dominated) are from Mountain et al. (2010). Benthic forami niferal biofacies were reported in Mountain et al. (2010) and in greater detail in Katz et al. (2013). Ben-thic foraminifera provide paleodepth constraints following the general paleo bathy metric model of Miller et al. (1997) for coeval onshore New Jersey sections. In general, innermost neritic (<10 m) sediments were barren or yielded only Lenticulina spp., Hanzawaia hughesi–dominated biofacies are 10–25 m, Nonionella pizarrensis–dominated biofacies are 25–50 m, Bulimina gracilis–domi nated bio facies are 50–80 m, Uvigerina spp.-dominated biofacies are 75–100 m, and high-diversity, low-domi-nance assemblages with key indicator taxa (e.g., Cibici doides pachyderma, Hanzawaia man-taensis, and Oridor salis) are >100 m (Mountain et al., 2010; Katz et al., 2013). In addition, plank-tonic foraminiferal abundance changes provide an additional proxy for water-depth variations at the Expedition 313 sites, with increasing percentages of planktonic forami nifera of total foraminifera with increasing water depth (Katz et al., 2013). We present both benthic forami-
100
0
175R
176R
177R
178R
179R
180R
181R
182R
183R
184R
66
0
65
0
64
0xx
xxxx
xxx
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
wd g
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X
wd
gg
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
gg
g
xxxx
xxxx
x
Lith
olog
y
Bas
ed o
n ag
es
Bas
ed o
n ag
es
Cor
ere
cove
ry
Toe
ToeEnvironment
Pal
eode
pth
BenthicBiofacies
IntegratedWaterdepth
70-8
0 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y (%
)
50
0
TG
R (
cps)
NG
R (
cps)
04
812
Reflector
Depth (mcd)
Age (Ma)
643.
19
662.
37
70 75 75 75
16.1
17.6
17.7
17.7
200
400
490
480
470
460
450
440
430
420
410
400
390
380
370
360
56R
57R
58R
59R
60R
61R
62R
63R
64R
65R
66R
67R
68R
69R
70R
71R
72R
73R
74R
76R
77R
78R
79R
80R
81R
82R
83R
84R
85R
86R
87R
88R
89R
90R
91R
92R
93R
94R
95R
96R
97R
98R
99R
100R
101R
102R
103R
104R
105R
g
g
gg
g g
g
gg
g
g
g xxxx
xxx
gwd
? ? ? C.D.
C.D.
wd wd
wd
wd
wd
wd
x
wd
wd
wd wd
wd wd
wd
Depth (mcd)
500
106R
wd
wd
107R
108R
109R
110R
111R
112R
520
510
wd
wd
wd gLith
olog
yC
ore
reco
very
25-5
0 m
50-6
0 m
50-7
5 m
50-7
5 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
50-7
5 m
SF River-influencedSF
River-influencedSOT
River-influencedSOT
River-influencedOFF
OFF
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
15 10 1025 25 30 50 50 50 75 50 5075
Toe slopeapron
50-1
00 m
10-2
5 m
Pal
eode
pth
BenthicBiofacies
IntegratedWaterdepth
Systemstracts
Environment
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y (%
)50
100
0
TG
R (
cps)
010
020
030
0
NG
R (
cps)
04
812
m5.
4/m
5.4-
1“4
”
m5.
34/
“7”
m5.
33/
“12”
361
405
449
479
512.
33
16.6
17.7
17.6
17.4
16.7
17.6
17.9
16.3
Reflector
Depth (mcd)
Age (Ma)
391
“8”
m5.
32/
“14”
m5.
3/“2
1”
Seq
uenc
e m
5.4
For
eset
Top
set
75-1
00 m
Bot
tom
set
M27
M28
M29
HS
T
HS
T
HS
T
LST
TS
T
TS
T
LST
LST T
S
475
m5.
35“6
”49
4
501
“5”
MF
S
MF
S
TS
MF
S
“10”
TS
393
m5.
4/m
5.4-
1
Depth (mcd)
87R
88R
89R
90R
91R
92R
93R
94R
95R
96R
97R
98R
99R
100R
Depth (mcd)
270
250
260
280
290
101R
102R
103R
104R
gg
**
*
300
Cor
ere
cove
ryLi
thol
ogy
75 m
25 m
75 m
25-5
0 m
25-5
0 m
25-5
0 m
SF
SO
T
OT
OF
F
OF
FEnvironment
Pal
eode
pth
BenthicBiofacies
IntegratedWaterdepthSystemsTract
35 75 30 403045 15 40 50
HS
T
HS
T
TS
T40
-50
m25
m
S
5010
00
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y (%
)
m5.
3
m5.
3
249.
76
256.
19
295.
01
15.8
16.5
17.0
17.7
15.8
16.5
16.6
16.9
Reflector
Depth (mcd)
Age (Ma)
m5.
3327
1.23
m5.
34/
m5.
4m
erge
d
Pre
ferr
ed
TG
R (
cps)
020
040
060
0
NG
R (
cps)
05
1015
2025
150
MF
S
MF
S
?TS
TS
T?
35-5
0 m
m5.
3/m
5.34
mer
ged
288
265
cs
gvf
vcS
and
cs
gvf
vcS
and
cs
gvf
vcS
and
Fig
ure
6. C
ompa
riso
n of
seq
uenc
e m
5.4
at I
nteg
rate
d O
cean
Dri
lling
Pro
gram
Exp
edit
ion
313
Site
s M
27, M
28, a
nd M
29. C
apti
on a
nd k
ey a
s in
Fig
ure
4.
Miller et al.
1244 Geosphere, October 2013
21
3
1516
10
0
21(m
5.3)
89
12(m
5.33
)13
14(m
5.32
)20
1
(m5.
4) 4 3
5 (m
5.37
)689101113
(m5.
32) 1
415161718 01920 214
(m5.
4)367
(m5.
34)
89101112 (m
5.33
)1314
(m5.
32)
15161718 01920 221 (m
5.3)
Topl
ap
FSS
T?
Onl
ap
??E
rosi
on
Onl
ap
SB
?O
nlap
Topl
ap/e
rosi
on
Ero
sion
Ero
sion
Dow
nlap
Ero
sion
Ero
sion
Ero
sion
Dow
nlap
Dow
nlap
SB SB
(m5.
34) 7
(m5.
33) 1
2
(m5.
3) 2
1
17.7
Ma
17.6
Ma
17.6
Ma
17.4
Ma
16.7
Ma
16.6
Ma
16.3
Ma
17.9
Ma
Ero
sion
4(m
5.4)5
6
7(m
5.34
)
10
1718
19
11
7000
6000
5000
CD
P
TSSBTSMFS
MFS
TST
MFS
HS
T
LST
LST
TST
HS
T
TST
HS
T
FSS
T?
Age
(Ma)
Sys
tem
sTr
act
0.40
0
0.50
0
0.60
0
TWTT (sec)
M27
M28
m5.
45
Mer
ged
sequ
ence
bou
ndar
y an
d M
FS
5
Ref
lect
or
San
d an
d sa
ndy
mud
Mud
and
mud
dy s
and
Mud
San
d (in
ferr
ed)
05
km
Fig
ure
7. I
nter
pret
ed s
eism
ic p
rofi l
e an
d W
heel
er d
iagr
am o
f seq
uenc
e m
5.4
acro
ss th
e fo
rese
t at I
nteg
rate
d O
cean
Dri
lling
Pro
gram
Exp
e-di
tion
313
Sit
e M
28, e
xten
ding
to
the
tops
et a
t Si
te M
27. C
apti
on a
s in
Fig
ure
5.
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1245
niferal paleodepths and integrated paleodepths obtained by combining lithofacies and bio facies constraints (Figs. 4, 6, and 9) and percent plank-tonic foraminiferal data.
We present gamma-log values obtained downhole through the drill pipe (total gamma ray, TGR) and those obtained directly on the
core in the laboratory (natural gamma ray, NGR) (Figs. 4, 6, and 9). Gamma-log data record litho-logic variations primarily of quartz sands versus clays or glauconite-rich sedi ments, with low gamma readings in sands and high gamma-log values in muds, and generally highest values in glauconite-rich sediments.
Here we interpret TS, MFS, and systems tracts in sequences identified by Mountain et al. (2010) and updated in Miller et al. (2013, including detailed justifi cation of placement of sequence boundaries). In cores, MFS are rec-ognized by an uphole change in pattern from deepening-upward (generally fi ning upward)
0 20 40 60 80 100
420
430
440
450
460
470
Dep
th (
mcd
)
81R
82R
83R
84R
85R
86R
87R
89R
90R
91R
92R
93R
95R
96R
94R
88R
wd
wd
wd
wd
x
wd
Paleodepth50-60 m @ 430.99 mcd
Paleodepth25-50 m@ 417 mcd
MFS/“10”
FS
FS
FS
FS
CumulativeLithology Gamma (cps)
130 140 150 160
%
FS
FS
FS
HS
TTS
T
SystemsTracts
LithologyCore/Recovery
M28, Sequence m5.34
c s vf cSand
Figure 8. Enlargement of the upper part of the transgressive systems tract (TST) and lower highstand systems tract (HST) of the m5.34 sequence at Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 313 Site M28. Cumulative lithology and lithology columns as in Figure 6; caption and key as in Figure 4. The gamma log (thin purple line) has been smoothed with a 0.5 m fi lter (red line). Arrows point in inferred fi ning direc-tion. Seven fl ooding sequences (FS; parasequence boundaries) and a maximum fl ooding surface (MFS) are inferred by the converging arrows.
Miller et al.
1246 Geosphere, October 2013
to shallowing-upward (generally coarsening upward) facies (Fig. 1) that is recognized using both lithologic and benthic foraminiferal crite-ria. MFS are associated with benthic forami-niferal evidence for deepening upsection to maximum water depths (typically associated with peaks in percent planktonic of total forami-nifera; Loutit et al., 1988) and fi nest grain sizes. Both HST and LST show shallowing-upward successions inferred from coarsening-upward sections and benthic foraminiferal evidence. Transgressive surfaces are generally recognized by a change in stacking pattern from coarsening to fi ning upward (Fig. 1); they are often merged with sequence boundaries on the topsets. TST are transgressive (generally fi ning upward). Parasequence boundaries (fl ooding surfaces) are recognized in LST, TST, and HST by local peaks of percent mud and gamma-ray log stack-ing patterns. We do not identify systems tracts on the bottomsets due to the diffi culty of resolv-ing their complex stratal relationships with the data presented here (Mountain et al., 2010).
RESULTS
Sequence m5.8
Refl ector m5.8 is clearly a seismic sequence boundary, based on onlap, toplap, erosional truncation, and downlap on line 529 (Figs. 3– 5; Supplemental Figs. 22 and 33) and elsewhere in the seismic grids (Monteverde et al., 2008; Monte verde, 2008). A possible FSST underlies the m5.8 seismic sequence boundary at com-mon depth point (cdp) 7900–8100, where there are hints that refl ectors (–2 and 0 in Fig. 5) step down into the basin (offl ap). The overlying m5.7 sequence boundary extensively truncates the topset of the m5.8 sequence landward of Site M27, and the m5.8 sequence is completely eroded ~10 km landward of the site on Line 529. Sequence m5.8 was sampled in the foreset
5010
00
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y (%
)
330
320
310
300
290
280
21R
22R
23R
24R
25R
26R
27R
28R
29R
30R
31R
32R
33R
34R
35R
36R
37R
38R
39R
40R
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
gg
p
xxx
xx
xx x
xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
gxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxx
gg
wd wd
wd w
d
g g
gg
gg
ggLi
thol
ogy
Depth (mcd)
Cor
ere
cove
ryN
GR
(cp
s)
05
1015
TG
R (
cps)
010
020
030
010
Reflector
Depth (mcd)
Age (Ma)
13.7
14.8
15.1
15.7
SO
T
SO
T32
3.23
276.
81
m5.
2/“1
”
m5/
“14”
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
10-2
5 m
0-10
m
50 m
0-10
m
0-10
m
0-10
m
10-2
5 m
OF
F
Cha
nnel
fill
OF
F
Cha
nnel
fill
Rol
love
rEnvironmentPal
eode
pth
BenthicBiofacies
IntegratedWaterdepth
SystemsTract
25 10 25 50 30 25 1530
HS
T
TS
T?
River-influencedSOT
Seq
uenc
e m
5.2
M27
M28
M29
Tops
etB
ehin
d R
ollo
ver
Fore
set
MF
S
FS
FS
FS
75 m25
m
25-5
0 m
10-5
0 m
OF
F
SF
TS
T
SF
OF
FEnvironmentPal
eode
pth
BenthicBiofacies
IntegratedWaterdepthSystems
35 30 20 3575 10
HS
T
TS
T
Tract
MF
S
76X
77X
78X
79R
80R
81R
82R
83R
84R
Depth (mcd)
220
230
240
Cor
ere
cove
ryLi
thol
ogy
5010
00
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y (%
)
m5Reflector
Depth (mcd)
Age (Ma)
m5.
2
225.
45
236.
15
13.7
14.8
15.0
15.6
NG
R (
cps)
05
1015
2025
TG
R (
cps)
020
040
060
0
150
Cum
ulat
ive
Lith
olog
y (%
)
5010
00
Lith
olog
yC
ore
reco
very
151R
152R
153R
154R
155R
156R
157R
158R
159R
160R
161R
162R
600
590
580
126R
127R
128R
129R
130R
131R
132R
133R
134R
135R
136R
137R
138R
139R
140R
141R
142R
143R
144R
145R
146R
147R
148R
149R
150R
570
560
550
540
530
520
510
500
g gg g
gg
gX
gg
g
g gwd g
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
g
wd
wd
g
gg wd wd
wd wdg wd wd
gwd
wd
Depth (mcd)
OFF
50-6
0 m
(50-
80 m
)50
-60
m (5
0-80
m)
50-8
0 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
75-1
00 m
??25
-50
m
75 m
90-1
00 m
OFF
75-1
00 m
(10-
25?
m)
Environment
Pal
eode
pth
BenthicBiofacies
IntegratedWaterdepth
SystemsTract
75 50 80 90 75 75 75 75
HS
T
TS
T
LST
04
812
NG
R (
cps)
020
040
0
TG
R (
cps)
602.
25m
5.2/
“1”
m5/
“14”
502.
0114
.613
.7
15.8
15.6
Reflector
Depth (mcd)
Age (Ma)
“3”
TS
MF
S
FS
FS
FS
FS
“2”
“3”
“4”
“7”
“8”
“6”
“7”
“8-9
”
“6”
593
581
cs
vfvc
San
d
cs
vfc
San
d
svf
cS
and
Fig
ure
9. C
ompa
riso
n of
seq
uenc
e m
5.2
at I
nteg
rate
d O
cean
Dri
lling
Pro
gram
Exp
edit
ion
313
Site
s M
27, M
28, a
nd M
29. C
apti
on a
s in
F
igur
e 4.
Pla
cem
ent
of in
tern
al r
efl e
ctor
s 4–
8 in
the
cor
e is
unc
erta
in.
2Supplemental Figure 2. Enlargement of Figure 4. If you are viewing the PDF of this paper or read-ing it offl ine, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00884.S2 or the full-text article on www.gsapubs.org to view Supplemental Figure 2.
3Supplemental Figure 3. Uninterpreted (top) and interpreted (bottom) seismic profi le Oc270 Line 529 highlighting the m5.8 sequence. Scales are two-way travel-time (TWTT) in seconds and Com-mon Depth Point. Approximate scale in km is given. Dotted line indicates location of Site M27. Arrows indicate refl ector termination. Red are sequence boundaries, blue are transgressive surfaces, green are maximum fl ooding surfaces, and shades of yellow are other refl ectors. Numbers (–3 to 8) are arbitrary designations. If you are viewing the PDF of this paper or reading it offl ine, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00884.S3 or the full-text article on www.gsapubs.org to view Supplemental Figure 3.
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1247
at its thickest point (~140 ms, Fig. 5; 133.59 m, Fig. 4) at Site M27; Sites M28 and M29 sam-pled sequence m5.8 in offshore prodelta envi-ronments on the bottomset.
A prominent, high-amplitude refl ector (3 in Fig. 5) onlaps and downlaps the seismic sequence boundary and ties to Site M27 at
~477.52 m composite depth (mcd; Fig. 4). We identify this as the TS at a faint contact zone noted in the core (313-M27–166R-2, 40–56 cm; 477.36–477.52 mcd) based on an uphole change from coarsening upward to fi ning upward at M27 at the level of this refl ector. The LST below this (494.87–477.52 mcd) consists of two
upward-coarsening parasequences (arrows indi-cate fi ning direction, Fig. 4).
Placement of the MFS is unclear in sequence m5.8 at Site M27 (Fig. 4). The TST fi nes upward to at least 460 mcd, with clear coarsening begin-ning above 435 mcd. Lithologic criteria suggest that the MFS occurs in core 158 or 157 where
1(m5.2)
3 4
5 6
7
8
9
(m5.2) 1234567
9
(m5) 14
Onlap
Erosion
Onlap
Toplap Downlap
2
10
1211
13
14(m5)
10111213
1(m5.2)23456789
14(m5)
10111213
M29M28
8
SB
13.7 Ma
TS
SB
TSTMFS
HST
LST
FSST?
Age(Ma)
SystemsTract
14.8 Ma
15.1 Ma15.7 Ma
13.7 Ma14.6 Ma
15.6 Ma15.8 Ma
Onlap Downlap
Sequence m5.2
CDP 5000 4000
0–1
0–1
0-1
Sand and Sandy mud Mud and muddy sand Sand (inferred)
m5.3
Reflector
0 5 km
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
TWTT
(sec
)
Figure 10. Interpreted seismic profi le and Wheeler diagram of sequence m5.2 across the foreset at Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 313 Site M29, extending to the topset at Site M28. Caption as in Figure 5.
Miller et al.
1248 Geosphere, October 2013
mica, laminations, and percent sand reach a minimum; there is no clear observable surface other than a burrowed interval overlying a con-cretion (158–1, 30 cm; 451.36 mcd) that may mark the MFS. Benthic foraminifera indicate deepening upward to the deepest paleodepths at 457.78 mcd where planktonic foraminiferal per-centages peak at 41%. A major downlap surface (5 in Fig. 5, placed at ~442 mcd in Fig. 4) is traced from Sites M28 and M29 (where exten-sive downlap is noted), and carried over the roll-over. It appears to tie to 442 mcd at Site M27. This major downlap surface is the best seismic candidate for an MFS. However, tracing this
surface into the site is unclear and it is possible that the downlap surface correlates deeper (e.g., refl ector 4 in Fig. 5). The slight differences in placement based on seismic, lithologic, and benthic foraminiferal criteria illustrate that pick-ing a defi nitive MFS is not always unequivocal. Our interpretation at Site M27 concludes that the MFS occurs within a zone of maximum fl ooding from 460 to 435 mcd (see Loutit et al., 1988). Above this zone, the HST progressively coarsens upward to fi ne sand at ~415 mcd and above that to a blocky, aggradational medium-coarse sand from 400 mcd to the overlying sequence boundary at 361.28 mcd. Seismic
profi les show a clear progradation from the seis-mic MFS (5 in Fig. 5) to refl ector 7 and general aggradation above this (Fig. 5).
Both Sites M28 and M29 sampled sequence m5.8 in a bottomset location where the dominant facies is tan clayey silt to silty clay deposited in dysoxic prodelta environments (Mountain et al., 2010; Fig. 4). Above the m5.8 sequence boundary at Site M28 (662.98 mcd), there is a thin basal lag of glauconite sand and overly-ing glauco nitic quartz sand, with rapid fi ning upwards to ~660 mcd. The major downlap surface refl ector 5 correlates at 654 mcd to the contact between a silty clay below and uniform
100 150 200 250 300
10 20 30 40 50
m5.2/“1”
m5/“14”
“6”
“8”
“4”
“3”
“2”
Percent plankton0 20 40 60 80 100
%
Dep
th (m
cd)
500
520
540
560
580
600
126R
127R
128R
129R
130R
131R
132R
133R
134R135R136R
137R
138R
139R
140R
141R
142R
143R
144R145R146R
147R
148R
149R
150R
151R
152R
153R
154R
155R
156R
157R
158R
159R
160R
161R
162R
g
gg
g g g
gX
g g
g
g
gwd
g
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
g
wd
wd
g
gg
wd
wd
wd
wdg
wd
wd
gwd
wd
CumulativeLithology
Gamma (cps) SystemsTracts
LithologyCore/Recovery
MFS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TS
HS
TTS
TLS
T
M29, Sequence m5.2
“7”
s vf cSand
Figure 11. Enlargement of m5.2 sequence in the foreset at Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 313 Site M29. Lithology and cumulative lithology columns as in Figure 9 (see Fig. 4 caption). Percent plankton of total foraminifera indicated in magenta. The gamma log (thin black line) has been smoothed with a 0.6 m fi lter (red line). Arrows point in inferred fi ning direction.
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1249
prodelta clayey silt above, suggesting that this is the deepwater equivalent to the MFS. Benthic foraminifera are absent from the m5.8 sequence at Site M28. At Site M29, glauconitic siltstones deposited in offshore environments overlie the sequence boundary (753.80 mcd). The seismic downlap surface (refl ector 5) at Site M29 cor-relates with an upward change to uniform pro-delta clayey silts. Benthic foraminifera indicate paleodepths of 50–80 m immediately above the sequence boundary; paleodepths increase upsec-tion to 75–100 m, and possibly decrease to 50–100 m at the top of the sequence. It is not pos-sible to defi nitely assign these bottomset deposits below the deepwater equivalent to the MFS at Sites M28 and M29 to the LST or TST based on seismic, lithologic, or benthic foraminiferal crite-ria, although at least some equivalence to the TST at Site M27 is implied (see correlations in Fig. 4).
Sequence m5.8 appears to be a million-year–scale sequence based on seismic, lithologic, benthic foraminiferal, and age criteria. The Wheeler diagram (Fig. 5, top) also suggests that it is one sequence. The m5.8 sequence is dated as 20.1–19.2 Ma at Site M27 in the foreset and as 20.0–19.5 Ma at Site M28 and 20.2–20.0 Ma at Site M29 in the bottomsets, suggesting that the bottomsets do not record the younger part of the sequence (Fig. 4; Browning et al., 2013). The basal m5.8 sequence boundary correlates with the Miocene oxygen isotope event Mi1aa δ18O increase based on biostratigraphy and sta-ble isotope stratigraphy (Browning et al., 2013), a relatively minor glacioeustatic lowering (i.e., 0.8‰ increase corresponding to ~40 m lower-ing). It also correlates with the Burdigalian-1 sequence boundary of ExxonMobil (Snedden and Liu, 2010).
Sequence m5.4 Composite Sequence
Site M28 was designed to sample the thickest part of sequence m5.4 on the foreset, close to the rollover of the overlying m5.3 sequence bound-ary (Figs. 3, 6, and 7; Supplemental Figs. 44 and 55; Mountain et al., 2010). On line 529 (Fig. 7), the sequence is bracketed by two high-ampli-tude, prominent refl ectors (m5.4 and m5.3; Figs. 3 and 7) associated with onlaps, downlaps (e.g., refl ector 5 in Fig. 7), toplaps, and erosional
truncations. These are clear seismic sequence boundaries and they have been traced through the seismic grid (Monteverde et al., 2008; Monte verde, 2008).
Refl ections 0 to 3 (Fig. 7) underlying the m5.4 seismic sequence boundary are part of the underlying m5.45 sequence (Fig. 7) and may represent an FSST because they appear to step down, although this may merely be a result of truncation of the HST by the m5.4 sequence boundary. Tracing sequence boundary m5.4 and distinguishing it from the possible FSST is clear if criteria of onlap, downlap, erosional trunca-tion, and toplap are followed.
At the million-year scale, sequence m5.4 is interpreted seismically to consist of (1) a thick LST (123 m) evidenced by weak aggradation to refl ector m5.34 (7) and strong prograda-tion above m5.34 to the major downlap surface marked by refl ector m5.32 (14) (Figs. 3 and 7), and (2) a 30-m-thick progradational to aggrada-tional HST above the m5.32 downlap surface to the overlying m5.3 sequence boundary. There apparently is no seismic evidence for an inter-vening TST (Fig. 7). However, the million-year-scale sequence m5.4 (spanning ca. 17.7–16.7 Ma at Site M28; Fig. 6) is a composite sequence (sensu Mitchum and Van Wagoner, 1991; Neal and Abreu, 2009; Flint et al., 2011) that can be parsed into three sequences, m5.4–1, m5.34, and 5.33 (we use the term 5.4–1 to differentiate the higher frequency sequence, but both the million year and higher frequency sequences share the same basal sequence boundary, refl ector m5.4). Coring and logging reveal that this sequence has a very complex internal structure, and integration of seismic, lithologic, foraminiferal, and log cri-teria justify recognizing three distinct sequences within the m5.4 composite sequence.
Lithologic and benthic foraminiferal pat-terns are key criteria to resolving this composite sequence (Fig. 6). Two coarsening-upward para-sequences separated by a thin fi ning-upward succession occur at Site M28 between the m5.4 sequence boundary (512.33 mcd) and refl ec-tor 5 (Figs. 6 and 7). This 11-m-thick interval is interpreted as the LST. Refl ector 5 (Fig. 7) correlates to a level where there is a change from coarsening to fi ning upward in the cores at 501 mcd, and is thus interpreted as a TS
(Fig. 6). The LST is overlain by an abruptly fi ning-upward succession from 501 to 494 mcd that is interpreted as the TST (Fig. 6). Benthic foraminiferal bio facies, percent plankton, and grain size changes all indicate deepening in the TST above 501 mcd to an MFS associated with refl ector 6 at 494 mcd (Fig. 6). The section then coarsens upsection in the HST to a major refl ec-tor (7, m5.34) at 479 mcd (Figs. 6 and 7).
We interpret m5.34 as a seismic and core sequence boundary. It shows onlap by refl ec-tors 8 and 10, downlap by refl ectors 8 and 9, and erosionally truncates the m5.4 sequence boundary (Fig. 4). We traced m5.34 to adjacent profi les in the seismic grid and found evidence that it is a seismic sequence boundary using cri-teria of onlap, downlap, erosional truncation, and toplap.
Lithologic, foraminiferal, and log data can be used to recognize systems tracts within the m5.34 sequence (Fig. 6). At Site M28, there is a coarsening-upward succession immedi-ately above m5.34 (479 mcd) to ~475 mcd that we interpret as an LST (Fig. 6). The latter is approxi mately the level of refl ector 8 (467 mcd) that downlaps and onlaps m5.34 (Fig. 7). Thus, we interpret refl ector 8 as a TS, and suggest its correlation at 475 mcd, 8 m below its predicted depth. Subsequent fi ning upward occurs from ~475 to ~468 mcd (Fig. 6) in the lower part of the TST. It is diffi cult to pick the MFS for the m5.34 sequence because the section lacks foraminifera below 430 mcd (presumably due to dissolution), the cumulative lithology is com-plicated by the interlaminations of sand and silt that obscure trends, and the dynamic range of the gamma-log values (Fig. 6) is dampened by larger variations above and below.
Examining parasequences within the m5.34 sequence at Site M28 allows us to identify the MFS. Expanding the gamma log (Fig. 8) shows values increasing from 470 to 449 mcd (punctuated by decreases at ~466, ~460, and ~454 mcd), and then generally decreasing to 417 mcd, where there is an abrupt shift to low gamma-log values (Fig. 6). We interpret this as four progressively deeper parasequences, with the MFS identifi ed by gamma logs at 449 mcd in a coring gap (Fig. 8); lithologic descriptions similarly note the change from fi ning to coars-ening upward at ~445 mcd (Mountain et al., 2010). A downlap surface (refl ector 10, Fig. 7) correlates to Site M28 at ~449 mcd, suggest-ing that this is the MFS. The sequence coarsens upsection in the HST (445–405 mcd) and ben-thic foraminifera show evidence for shallowing. Decreasing gamma-log values upsection are consistent with coarsening upward, with 5 pro-gressively shallower parasequences indicated by FS at 442, 435, 432, and 427 mcd (Fig. 8).
4Supplemental Figure 4. Enlargement of Figure 6. If you are viewing the PDF of this paper or reading it offl ine, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00884.S4 or the full-text article on www.gsapubs.org to view Supplemental Figure 4.
5Supplemental Figure 5. Uninterpreted (top) and interpreted (bottom) seismic profi le Oc270 Line 529 high-lighting the m5.4 composite sequence. Scales are two-way travel-time (TWTT) in seconds and Common Depth Point. Approximate scale in km is given. Vertical red line indicates location of Site M28. Arrows indicate refl ector termination. Red are sequence boundaries, blue are transgressive surfaces, green are maximum fl ood-ing surfaces, and shades of yellow are other refl ectors. Numbers (0 to 21) are arbitrary designations. If you are viewing the PDF of this paper or reading it offl ine, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00884.S5 or the full-text article on www.gsapubs.org to view Supplemental Figure 5.
Miller et al.
1250 Geosphere, October 2013
The parasequences in the TST have thicker fi ning-upward successions overlain by thinner coarsening-upward successions; in the HST, the pattern is reversed, with thinner fi ning-upward and thicker coarsening-upward successions.
We tentatively interpret refl ector m5.33 as a sequence boundary based on onlap and down-lap, and due to the major downlap onto refl ector m5.32 (refl ector 14), we interpret it as an MFS. The absence of intersecting profi les with clear seismic defi nition means that loop correlations cannot confi rm that m5.33 is a seismic sequence boundary. At Site M28, candidate sequence boundary m5.33 correlates to ~405 mcd in an interval of poor recovery. A change at 393 mcd from a coarsening- to a fi ning-upward succes-sion marks the change from the LST to a TST and placement of the TS at this level. Refl ector m5.32 (refl ector 14) correlates to 391 mcd at a large gamma kick associated with a change from fi ning upward to coarsening upward. Benthic foraminiferal evidence and percent planktonic foraminiferal evidence indicate a maximum paleowater depth within this sequence at the level of this MFS. Coarsening associated with progradation continues from 391 mcd upward to 380 mcd, ending with blocky, aggradational sands at the top. The HST above m5.32 at Site M27 is seismically composed of a series of inclined and downstepping refl ectors possibly refl ecting an FSST or erosional truncation of the HST clinoforms (Fig. 7).
The age-distance Wheeler diagram clearly illustrates the nature of the composite sequence (Fig. 7). The m5.4–1 sequence steps seaward of the previous m5.45 sequence and then steps landward, but is truncated by the overlying m5.34 sequence, with its HST poorly devel-oped. The m5.34 sequence steps farther sea-ward than the underlying sequence, and then fully landward in the TST, with a better devel-oped HST. The m5.33 sequence steps farther seaward than m5.4–1 and m5.34, with the best developed HST. Overall m5.4–1 and m5.34 are progradational and m5.33 is aggradational to progradational. We note that lower resolution seismic data and/or poor core recovery would most likely have failed to resolve each of these embedded sequences, and the composite m5.4 sequence would have been interpreted as a thick LST (which in reality is the m5.4–1 and m5.34 sequences and LST of m5.33) with a thinner, highly downlapping HST (which is the HST of the m5.33 sequence).
Site M27 sampled the million-year-scale m5.4 sequence at a topset where it is composed of the m5.34 and m5.33 sequences; the m5.4–1 sequence appears to have been eroded at this location (Fig. 7). The m5.34 sequence consists of a thin transgressive lag above the sequence
boundary (295.01 mcd) and a thin TST that fi nes up to an MFS at 288 mcd. The HST coars-ens upsection to the m5.33 sequence boundary (271.23 mcd) and is thus 17 m thick. In the m5.33 sequence, a possible thin TST (271.23–265 mcd) is overlain by an especially mud-rich interval with the deepest paleodepth within this sequence, based on benthic forami nifera, strongly suggesting an MFS at ~265 mcd. A thin (~9 m) HST caps the sequence, ending at the overlying m5.3 sequence boundary (preferred placement at 256.19 mcd, although it could be placed at 249.75 mcd; see Miller et al., 2013). Thus, both sequences 5.34 and m5.33 at Site M27 consist of thin TST and moderately thick HST on the topsets. Based on lithology the m5.33 sequence is fi ner grained at Site M27 than at the more basinward Site M28. Fur-thermore, water depth estimates for m5.33 are deeper at Site M27 than at M28. We interpret this as indicating that the m5.33 sequence at Site M27 represents only the upper TST and lower HST and that this same interval is expressed as a hiatus (0.7 m.y.) at Site M28.
Composite sequence m5.4 was sampled at Site M29 in a bottomset setting and dated as 17.7–17.6 Ma (Figs. 6 and 12). This suggests that the bottomset portion correlates with the m5.4–1 sequence, although the age resolu-tion allows correlation to the m5.34 sequence. Seismic correlations suggest that the m5.34 sequence is present at Site M29. The bottomset consists of fairly uniform silts with transported glauconite sandstone beds.
Age estimates for the m5.4-m5.34-m5.33 composite sequence are consistent with more than one sequence. Sr isotope age estimates show a mean linear fi t of 17.7–16.7 Ma for the m5.4 composite sequence at Site M28. In Browning et al. (2013), the ages of m5.4–1 (17.75–17.67 Ma), m5.34 (17.60–17.40 Ma), and m5.33 (16.70–16.60 Ma) were estimated. Maximum theoretical resolution for this portion of the Sr isotope curve is ±0.3 m.y. (see discus-sion in Browning et al., 2013). Given this, the mean age of m5.33 (16.65 Ma) is statistically different from the older two ages, although the mean ages of m5.34 (17.5 Ma) and m5.4–1 (17.65 Ma) are not statistically different. Thus, it is clear that the age control requires at least two sequences with a signifi cant hiatus sepa-rating them.
The basal sequence boundary of the composite sequence m5.4 (ca. 17.7 Ma) correlates with the Mi1b δ18O increase (17.7 Ma; Browning et al., 2013), a relatively minor glacioeustatic lowering (i.e., ~0.8‰ increase corresponding to ~40 m lowering). It also correlates with the Burdi-galian-4 sequence boundary of ExxonMobil (Snedden and Liu, 2010). The correlation of the
m5.34 and m5.33 sequence boundaries to δ18O variations is uncertain due to the lack of high-resolution data in this interval, although the hia-tus between m5.4 and m5.34 (17.4–16.7 Ma) may correlate with a 400-k.y.-scale increase ca. 16.8 Ma. Deposition of the m5.33 sequence cor-relates with an interval of peak sea level in the early Miocene climatic optimum (Fig. 12).
Sequence m5.2
The basal m5.2 sequence boundary is defi ned by onlap, downlap, erosional trunca-tion, and toplap on line 529 (Figs. 3, 9, and 10; Supplemental Figs. 66 and 77) and elsewhere in the available seismic grid. A possible FSST occurs below the sequence boundary in the m5.3 sequence (refl ectors –1, 0; cdp 4900–4950, Fig. 10), although this could be due to trunca-tion of the HST of the underlying sequence by m5.2. The m5.2 basal sequence boundary cor-relates to 602.25 mcd at Site M29, where it was sampled in the lower foreset (Fig. 9). Refl ector 2 in Figure 10 onlaps and downlaps the m5.2 sequence boundary and correlates to 593 mcd at Site M29; this is immediately above the top of a coarsening-upward succession at ~593 mcd, suggesting that the TS is at 593 mcd and that the LST is ~9 m thick. The overlying TST (~593–581 mcd) fi nes upsection and is capped by a prominent downlap surface (3) at ~581 mcd interpreted as the MFS. High planktonic foraminiferal abundances at 576.76 (Fig. 11) support placement of the MFS near refl ector 3. A thick (79 m) HST above this contains several FS within it (Figs. 9, 10, and 11), consistent with the presence of at least 4 downlap surfaces noted on the seismic profi le (Fig. 10), refl ec-tors 3 (the MFS), 4, 5, and 8. Downlap is not obvious on seismic refl ectors 6 and 7. However, we note that refl ectors 4, 6, 7, and 8 correlate with fl ooding surfaces noted in the gamma logs and lithology as mud peaks (Figs. 9 and 11);
6Supplemental Figure 6. Enlargement of Figure 9. If you are viewing the PDF of this paper or read-ing it offl ine, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00884.S6 or the full-text article on www.gsapubs.org to view Supplemental Figure 6.
7Supplemental Figure 7. Uninterpreted (top) and interpreted (bottom) seismic profi le Oc270 Line 529 highlighting the m5.2 sequence. Scales are two-way travel-time (TWTT) in seconds and Common Depth Point. Approximate scale in km is given. Vertical red line indicates location of Site M29. Arrows indicate refl ector terminations. Red are sequence bound aries, blue are transgressive surfaces, green are maxi-mum fl ooding surfaces, and shades of yellow are other refl ectors. Numbers (–1 to 14) are arbitrary designations. If you are viewing the PDF of this paper or reading it offl ine, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00884.S7 or the full-text article on www.gsapubs.org to view Supplemental Figure 7.
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1251
the slight offset in depths (2–4 m) appears to be consistent and due to a minor problem with the velocity-depth function. Onlap onto refl ec-tors 3 and 8 suggests that they may be sequence boundaries and that m5.2 is also a composite sequence. We lack the data to make this inter-pretation, although erosional surfaces noted in the cores at 577.89 and 573.66 mcd may be a higher frequency sequence boundary and TS. It is possible that the downstepping associated with refl ectors 9–13 represents an FSST (Fig. 10), although erosional truncation of this sec-tion could also explain apparent downstepping.
At Site M28, sequence m5.2 was sampled immediately landward of the rollover where it consists of a thin TST and a thick HST with three FS indicated by mud and gamma-log peaks (Fig. 9) and seismic downlap surfaces 6, 7, and 8-9 (Fig. 10). At Site M27, sequence m5.2 consists of a thin (~6 m) TST and thin HST sampled on a topset (Fig. 9).
The age-distance Wheeler diagram (Fig. 10) shows that the m5.2 sequence is predominantly aggradational, although immediately above refl ector 8 it becomes strongly progradational to refl ector 10, where it apparently steps seaward and downward as a possible FSST (refl ectors 10–13). Foreset beds of m5.2 at Site M29 (where the sequence is thickest) are ca. 15.6–14.6 Ma (Fig. 12). Rollover (Site M28) and topset (Site M27) strata are 15.1–14.8 Ma, suggesting non-deposition of the LST and lower TST and the upper HST (Fig. 9). The basal m5.2 sequence boundary (15.6 Ma) appears to be younger than the major Mi2 δ18O increase (16.3 Ma) and older than the major Mi2a (14.6 Ma) (both >1‰, >50 m eustatic fall). It may be associ-ated with a smaller (0.8‰, ~40 m eustatic fall) 400-k.y.-scale δ18O increase (Fig. 12), although age control in this interval is less certain and it is possible that it correlates with Mi2a within the age constraints. We suggest it correlates with the Bur5-Lan1 sequence boundary of Exxon-Mobil (16 Ma; Snedden and Liu, 2010).
DISCUSSION
Systems Tracts and Sequence Stratigraphic Models
Our systems tracts interpretations allow us to test sequence stratigraphic models, particu-larly in the foresets where we recovered low-stand deposits. Drilling through the foresets yields generally thin LST (<18, 11, 4, 12, and 9 m thick for sequences m5.8, m5.4–1, m5.34, m5.33, and m5.2, respectively; Figs. 4, 6, and 9). On the foresets, we also identifi ed thin TST (26, 7, 26, 2, 12 m thicknesses for sequences m5.8, m5.4–1, m5.34, m5.33, and m5.2, respec-
tively). However, thick HST occur on the fore-sets (90, 15, 44, 30, and 79 m thicknesses for sequences m5.8, m5.4–1, m5.34, m5.33, and m5.2, respectively; Figs. 4, 6, and 9). LST on the foresets consist of one (Fig. 9) to two (Figs. 4 and 6) coarsening-upward parasequences. TS are recognized in foresets by shifts from coars-ening-upward successions to fi ning-upward successions. TST on the foresets record para-sequences as overall thick fi ning-upward (deep-ening) successions punctuated by thin coarsen-ing-upward (shallowing) parasequences (e.g., Figs. 8 and 11). HST on the foresets refl ect the inverse, because thin fi ne-grained units overlie thicker coarsening-upward parasequences (Figs. 8 and 11).
Topsets consist of shallow-water deposits (shoreface to middle neritic) above merged surfaces that represent both TS and sequence boundaries. TST on topsets consist of fi ning- and deepening-upward successions overlain by coarsening- and shallowing-upward HST.
Bottomsets consist of downslope-transported sands and hemipelagic muds deposited in 75–100 m water depths (Mountain et al., 2010). Facies successions within bottomsets are not discussed here.
FSST are possibly recognized below seismic sequence boundaries below the rollover. Exam-ples are shown on line 529 in sequence m5.45 below sequence m5.4 (Fig. 7), in m5.3 below m5.2 (Fig. 10), and possibly in m6 below m5.8 (Fig. 5). These FSST have not been confi rmed on adjacent profi les. Where sampled, these pos-sible FSST appear to consist of blocky sands (Figs. 7 and 10).
Our interpretation of thin LST contrasts with published seismic stratigraphic predictions of thick LST and thin to absent TST. Greenlee et al. (1992) examined widely spaced profi les tied to logs of exploration wells and proposed that Miocene sequences on the New Jersey shelf stratigraphically above our sequence m5 (their “Green” sequence) were dominated by LST. In Monteverde et al. (2008) and Monteverde (2008), thick LST and thick HST for sequences m5.8, m5.4, and m5.2 were also interpreted (Fig. 13). Here we compare these former inter-pretations with our conclusions that have the benefi t of higher resolution and more densely spaced seismic data, along with core and log integration. Interpretations based on seismic profi les alone (Fig. 13, bottom) tend to over-estimate the extent and thickness of LST while underestimating TST (Fig. 13). Possible reasons why LST are overestimated include the follow-ing. (1) TS are diffi cult to distinguish seismi-cally; this explains the different interpretations of sequence m5.8 (Fig. 13). (2) Composite sequences can contain stacked higher frequency
sequences that are diffi cult to distinguish from LST; this explains the different interpretations of sequence m5.4 (see following for further dis-cussion). (3) Sequences contain multiple down-lap surfaces, the stratigraphically lowest being the MFS; this explains the different interpreta-tions of sequence m5.2.
We fi nd no evidence for sequence boundaries expressed as correlative conformities in the shal-low (<120 m paleodepth) sequences sampled by Expedition 313. We show on the age-distance Wheeler diagrams that in the foresets, where sequences are supposed to be most complete, there is evidence of erosion (Figs. 5, 7, and 10) and hiatuses. For example, we note hiatuses of 0.6, 0.2, 0.7, and 0.2 m.y. associated with the m5.8, m5.4-1, m5.33, and m5.2 sequence boundaries in the foresets, respectively. Longer hiatuses occur on the bottomset, presumably due to erosion and sediment bypass associated with downslope processes (Mountain et al., 2010). Only the higher frequency sequence bound-ary m5.34 has no discernible hiatus and may refl ect continuous deposition (Fig. 7). There are several other sequence boundaries with no dis-cernible time gaps with the resolution available (0.25–0.5 m.y.) (Browning et al., 2013); how-ever, there is still core evidence of erosion in the cores associated with sequence boundaries, even in bottomsets.
If the correlative conformity exists, it is on the continental slope, but even there, hiatuses are associated with sequence boundaries and downslope transport (Miller et al., 1996). ODP Site 904 (Mountain et al., 1996) drilled Mio-cene sequences on the slope (1123 m water depth) where a long hiatus (15.6–13.6 Ma) encompassing the m5.2 sequence described here was reported (Miller et al., 1996), plus short hiatuses (16.9–16.3 Ma, ca. 22–21 Ma) and inferred continuous sedimentation from 21 to 16.9 Ma encompassing sequences m5.8 to m5.6 described here. However, sedimentation rates in the interval of inferred continuity on the slope are low (~10 m/m.y.) and continuous sedi-mentation is unproven. Reevaluation of correla-tions to Site 904 and the chronology there will be the subject of future work. In Mountain et al. (2007), Pleistocene refl ectors were traced to the New Jersey continental slope ODP Site 1073 (650.9 m water depth), where continuity is dem-onstrated by correlation to δ18O records on the Milankovitch scale; two sequence boundaries in particular, p2 and p3, correlate with marine isotope chrons 8–9 (300 ka) and 11–12 (424 ka), respectively, and exhibit no obvious hiatuses. In contrast, Aubry (1993) found no evidence of continuity for Miocene slope sequences in the Desoto Canyon area (west Florida). Studies of a corehole on the continental slope (300 m) in
Miller et al.
1252 Geosphere, October 2013
2728
29E
xped
ition
313
Miocene
DN7 6 DN5b DN4 DN3 2c 2b DN2a DN1
Serravallian Langhian Burdigalian Aquitanian
middle early
5A AA AB AC AD 5B 5C 5D 5E 6 6A 6AA 6B 6C 7
M9b 9a 8 M7 M6 M5b 5a 4b M4a M3 M2 M1b M1a O7
NN6 NN5 NN4 NN3 NN2 NN1
m5.
2
m5.
3
m5
m5.
8
m5.
45
m5.
3
m5.
2
m5.
7m
5.47
/m5.
6m
5.47
m5.
45m
5.4
m5.
6
m5.
3
m5.
2
m4.
5
m5.
47/m
5.7
4.2-
4.5
mer
ged
m5
m5.
45
m5.
4
Glo
balδ
18O
Spl
ice
‰ V
PD
B (
adju
sted
to e
quili
briu
m)
11.
52
2.5
33.
5
15 20 2512 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24
m6
m5.
7
m4.
4/3/
2
m5
m4.
5
m5.
8
7 6b 6a 5 4 3 2 ECDZ1aDiatoms
DinocystsCalcareousnannoplanktonForaminifers
Polarity
Epoch
Age
Age (Ma)
Chron
0.5
11.
52
2.5
3
Mi1
Mi2
a
Mi3
Mi4
Mi1
a
Mi1
b
Mi2
Mi1
aa
Mi1
ab
Mi5
m4.
1
m3*
m4*
m2*
m1*
100
41 100
41?
41?
100
100
15 20 2512 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24
m6
unna
med
Dominantperiodicity
*dat
ed a
t slo
pe S
ite 9
04
14.6
16.3
17.7
18.7
12.0
13.0
13.7
15.1
15.8
18.4
19.2
19.6
20.3
5
20.8
21.2
22.6
23.2
20.0
Site 1090Site 926 and 929Site 574Site 574 588
1.5
2.5
33.
54
2
?
Oligocene
1b
5a
m5.
4m
5.34
m5.
33
22.0
22.3
18.0
17.4
16.8
m5.
8
41
O6
m6
m5.
33
Sed
imen
tatio
nra
tes
atS
ite M
29(m
/Myr
)
96100
236
160
0
Fig
ure
12. A
ges
of s
eque
nces
m6
to m
5 an
d co
rrel
atio
n to
dee
p-se
a δ18
O r
ecor
ds (
mod
ifi ed
aft
er B
row
ning
et
al.,
2013
). P
ink
hori
zont
al
indi
cate
s in
fl ect
ions
in
δ18O
inc
reas
es.
Col
ored
blo
cks
show
tim
e pe
riod
s re
pres
ente
d by
Int
egra
ted
Oce
an D
rilli
ng P
rogr
am E
xped
itio
n 31
3 co
reho
les
com
pare
d to
the
glob
al o
xyge
n is
otop
e re
cord
(VP
DB
—V
ienn
a P
eede
e be
lem
nite
). M
i pre
fi x is
Mio
cene
oxy
gen
isot
ope
even
t.
Tim
e sc
ale
of G
rads
tein
et
al.
(200
4).
Cor
ehol
es a
rran
ged
from
upd
ip o
n le
ft t
o do
wnd
ip o
n ri
ght.
Dif
fere
nt c
olor
ed b
lock
s ar
e us
ed t
o sh
ow w
here
the
sit
e is
loca
ted
wit
h re
spec
t to
the
clin
othe
m a
nd t
he t
ime
repr
esen
ted
by a
giv
en s
eque
nce:
ligh
t bl
ue (
tops
et),
med
ium
blu
e (f
ores
et),
and
dar
k (b
otto
mse
t). C
ross
-hac
hure
s in
dica
te le
ss c
erta
in a
ge t
uned
to
bett
er d
ated
rec
ords
at
othe
r si
tes.
Ben
thic
for
amin
ifer
al
oxyg
en is
otop
e re
cord
s fr
om S
ite
574
(blu
e), S
ite
588
(blu
e), S
ite
1090
(gre
en),
and
Sit
e 92
6 (b
lack
). T
he d
omin
ant p
erio
ds fo
und
in d
eep-
sea
δ18O
rec
ords
are
sum
mar
ized
aft
er P
älik
e et
al.
(200
6) a
nd H
olbo
urn
et a
l. (2
007)
, and
are
indi
cate
d by
ora
nge
(ecc
entr
icit
y do
min
ated
, 100
an
d 40
5 k.
y.)
vers
us v
iole
t (t
ilt d
omin
ated
, 41
k.y.
) Se
e B
row
ning
et
al. (
2013
) fo
r ci
tati
ons.
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1253
7000
6000
5000
Shot
poi
nt
0.40
0
0.50
0
0.60
0
TWTT (sec)
Sequ
ence
m5.
4S
eism
ic-c
ore-
log
inte
rpre
tatio
n
M27
M28
Sho
t poi
nt50
0040
00
0.40
0
0.50
0
0.60
0
0.70
0
TWTT (sec)
M28
M29
Seq
uenc
e m
5.2
Sei
smic
-cor
e-lo
g in
terp
reta
tion
NW
SE
0.50
0
1.00
0
3500
3000
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
Seq
uenc
e m
5.2
Seq
uenc
e m
5.4
Seq
uenc
e m
5.8
2500
0.40
0
0.50
0
0.60
0
0.70
0
TWTT (sec)
8000
7000
Seq
uenc
e m
5.8
Sei
smic
-cor
e-lo
g in
terp
reta
tion
M27
Shot
poi
nt
Sei
smic
inte
rpre
tatio
nLi
neO
C27
0 di
p lin
e 52
9
M27
M28
M29
Shot
poi
nt
TWTT (sec)
Low
stan
d sy
stem
s tra
ct
Tran
sgre
ssiv
e sy
stem
s tra
ct
Hig
hsta
nd s
yste
ms
tract
Falli
ng s
tage
sys
tem
s tra
ct?
m5.
47m
5.7
m5
m6
m5.
2m
5.3
m5.
4m
5.45
m5.
8
10 k
m0
Sca
le
?
?
?
Fig
ure
13.
Com
pari
son
of s
yste
ms
trac
ts p
redi
cted
fro
m s
eism
ic p
rofi l
es (
belo
w;
Mon
teve
rde
et a
l., 2
008;
Mon
teve
rde,
200
8) w
ith
the
seis
mic
-cor
e-lo
g in
terp
reta
tion
s de
velo
ped
here
(to
p 3
pane
ls).
Sec
tion
s ar
e in
tw
o-w
ay t
rave
l-ti
me
(TW
TT
) in
sec
ond
(s)
vers
us c
dp (
com
-m
on d
epth
poi
nt);
app
roxi
mat
e sc
ale
(in
km) i
s sh
own.
Loc
atio
ns o
f sit
es a
re s
how
n by
ver
tica
l red
line
s an
d ap
prox
imat
e de
pth
is in
dica
ted
usin
g a
velo
city
-dep
th f
unct
ion.
Bas
al s
eque
nce
boun
dari
es d
iscu
ssed
her
e ar
e in
red
.
Miller et al.
1254 Geosphere, October 2013
the Gulf of Lion (Western Mediterranean Sea) show very expanded glacial sections and con-densed interglacial sections (Sierro et al., 2009), contradicting previous seismic interpretations of refl ectors as correlative conformities corre-sponding to the low sea levels caused by gla-cial buildup. We conclude that the existence of a correlative conformity is unproven and should not be considered a cornerstone of sequence stratigraphy.
Higher Frequency Sequences and Sequence Hierarchy
We agree with many studies that recognize that sequences on the million-year scale can be the composite of smaller scale sequences (e.g., Mitchum and Van Wagoner, 1991; Neal and Abreu, 2009; Flint et al., 2011). Here we show that sequence m5.4 is a composite sequence comprising three higher frequency sequences. The composite m5.4 sequence shows a change from a thick aggradation-progradation succes-sion to extensively progradational succession across a major downlap surface (m5.32); on the million-year scale, this would be interpreted as dominantly LST, no TST, and a thin HST. How-ever, we show that the LST are actually very thin within the three sequences that comprise composite sequence m5.4. This is illustrated by Figure 13, which shows the million-year-scale interpretation based on seismic interpretations (bottom panel) versus the integrated interpreta-tion that requires three sequences (top panel). We suspect that there is additional detail still to be detected within sequence m5.2 as well, and it may also be composite, but available data are insuffi cient to evaluate this. This underscores the long-recognized fact that the ability to resolve sequences depends on seismic resolu-tion. Sequences fi ner than the million year scale can be usually be resolved only in regions with high accommodation and sediment supply (e.g., Abdulah and Anderson, 1994), with very high resolution seismic data, or from detailed outcrop mapping over large areas (e.g., DiCelma et al., 2011; Flint et al., 2011).
There have been two approaches to classify-ing sequence hierarchy. The Exxon approach has been to recognize hierarchical orders of sequences, with fi rst order (108 yr scale) due to tectonism, second order (107 yr) and third order (106 yr scale) due to various possible processes, and higher order scales due to Milankovitch forcing on the 405 k.y., 100 k.y., 41 k.y., 23 k.y., and 19 k.y. scales (Vail et al., 1977; Mitchum and Van Wagoner, 1991). Schlager (2004) sug-gested that sequences and systems tracts are scale-invariant fractal features and that they do not follow hierarchical orders. Boulila et al.
(2011) noted that icehouse (Oligocene to Holo-cene) million-year-scale δ18O variations were paced by the 1.2 m.y. tilt cycle; they suggested that sequences appear to follow the 1.2 m.y. cycle due to glacioeustatic forcing. In contrast, greenhouse (Cretaceous–Eocene) sequences seem to be paced by the 2.4 m.y. eccentricity cycle, although this has not been demonstrated unequivocally.
Oxygen isotope studies show that although million-year-scale ice volume variability was dominated by the 1.2 m.y. tilt cycle, there were numerous changes in the dominant higher frequency pacemaker in the early to middle Miocene, from eccentricity (100 and 405 k.y.) dominated to tilt (41 k.y.) dominated benthic foraminiferal δ18O variations (Pälike et al., 2006; Holbourn et al., 2007). Sequences m5.8 and m5.2 were deposited in a 100 k.y. cycle–domi-nated world, indicated by wavelet analysis of δ18O data (Pälike et al., 2006) (Fig. 12). Unfor-tunately, δ18O resolution is insuffi cient at present to document the dominant pacing of the interval from 18.5 to 16.6 Ma, the time encom passing composite sequence m5.4 (Fig. 12). Higher fre-quency sequences within the m5.4 composite sequence suggest response to the 100 and/or 400 k.y. eccentricity cycles and perhaps even the 23 and 19 k.y. precessional cycles (Fig. 12).
Our chronology is consistent with oxygen isotope studies indicating that early Miocene sequences were paced by 1.2 m.y. tilt and 100 k.y. and 405 k.y. eccentricity cycles (Fig. 12). Sequence m5.8, composite sequence m5.4, and sequence m5.2 have been dated (20.1–19.2, 17.7–16.6, and 15.6–14.6 Ma; Browning et al., 2013) with durations of 0.9, 1.1, and 1 m.y., respectively, close to the 1.2 m.y. predicted by Milankovitch glacioeustatic forcing (Fig. 12). The 3 sequences and hiatuses within the m5.4 composite sequence constrain the duration of the sequences to 400 k.y. or shorter time scales. Our age model suggests durations of ~80, ~200, and ~100 k.y. for the 3 higher frequency sequences m5.4–1, m5.34, and m5.33. However, age con-trol is no better than ±250 k.y., and thus we cannot demonstrate that these sequences were forced by the 100 k.y. or the longer 405 k.y. eccentricity cycle. Nevertheless, log data pro-vide intriguing hints of much higher resolution forcing that may be a response to precessional (23 and 19 k.y.) forcing (Figs. 8 and 11). Flood-ing surfaces (parasequence boundaries) inferred from the gamma log within the m5.34 sequence (Fig. 8) are ~25 k.y. in duration (i.e., 8 cycles in the 50 m of section shown on the inset rep-resenting <200 k.y.), consistent with precession forcing. If precessional forcing occurs, then it should be modulated by eccentricity forcing on the ~100 and 405 k.y. scale.
We suggest that although sequences may appear to be fractal and scale invariant (Schlager, 2004), they are in fact controlled by astronomi-cal forcing with distinct periodicities. Although we lack age control to unequivocally document 1.2 m.y., 405 k.y., or ~100 k.y. periodicities in our sequences, it is clear that glacioeustatic forcing occurred in the early to middle Miocene interval examined here (Fig. 12). Our chronol-ogy supports the existence of a 1.2 m.y. beat in early Miocene sequences and is consistent with a response on the 400 or 100 k.y. scale.
Paleodepth of Seismic Stratigraphic Features
Several issues remain to be addressed by Expedition 313 studies, including the infl uence of paleotopography of the clinothem on depo-sition (particularly lowstand deposits), paleo-relief between the clinoform infl ection and the bottomset, and the paleodepth of the rollovers and lowest point of onlap. Benthic foraminifera indicate that the bottomsets were deposited in ~100 m of water or slightly deeper. Sequences on the foresets are typically 150–200 m thick, with topsets as much as 200 ms (~200 m) above the bottomsets. This would imply greater water depth than indicated by benthic foraminifera. However, the role of loading on paleotopogra-phy (including two-dimensional effects) must be accounted for (Steckler et al., 1999). For example, two-dimensional backstripping shows that vertical differences in original geometry are muted compared to observed sediment thickness, especially in foresets (Kominz and Pekar, 2001).
We see no evidence for subaerial exposure on the clinothems sampled here (m5.8, m5.4 composite, and m5.2). Several sequences were sampled at the clinoform rollover: (1) m5.7 (which overlies m5.8) at Site M27, where the environments are coarsening-upward shoreface as part of a HST; (2) m5.33 at M28, where the environments are interpreted as shoreface coars-ening upward in the LST; and (3) m5.3 (which overlies m5.32) at M28, where the environ-ments are shoreface-offshore transition. Our observations are consistent with the recovery of lagoonal environments at ODP Site 1071 (Austin et al., 1998), 3 km landward of the m0.5 rollover. Together, this suggests that shorelines consistently move as far seaward as clinoform rollovers and that the depositional environment of the point of onlap at the clinoform rollover is nearshore in this area.
We sampled the lowest point of seismic onlap seaward of the rollover (refl ector 8) in sequence m5.34 at Site M28 (Figs. 6 and 7). Here, the onlap associated with the LST and
Drilling foresets and testing sequence stratigraphic models
Geosphere, October 2013 1255
TS is a coarsening-upward offshore (50–75 m) environment. Sequence m5.33 was also sam-pled near the lowest point of onlap (between the sequence boundary and refl ector 13), where it consists of shoreface deposits (Figs. 6 and 7). These observations should prove to be useful in future work.
Back to Basics
Neal and Abreu (2009) eschewed the use of sea-level curves in recognizing systems tracts. Here we do not use relative sea-level curves in our interpretations of systems tracts; rather, we use basic seismic, core, and stratigraphic prin-ciples to recognize sequence boundaries, MFS, TS, and facies successions within sequences. We use facies successions and stratal surfaces to subdivide sequences into systems tracts. We focus on fi ning- and deepening-upward and coarsening- and shallowing-upward trends (Fig. 1) deciphered with lithologic and forami-niferal data that are applicable on topsets and foresets, but less applicable on bottomsets. Our simple predictive model of coarsening and fi n-ing trends (Fig. 1) is similar to the accommo-dation successions method of Neal and Abreu (2009) that focuses on progradational-aggra-dational-retrogradational patterns observed in seismic profi les (their Fig. 2). These com-plementary approaches allow objective rec-ognition of systems tracts that are not tied to preconceived notions.
CONCLUSIONS
We show that identification of seismic sequences using classic criteria is robust, allowing objective subdivision into sequences. Seismic sequence boundaries are recognized on topsets, foresets, and bottomsets and can be clearly differentiated from FSST and/or truncated HST and attendant surfaces. MFS can be generally inferred with seismic criteria as a downlap surface, although caution must be exercised in picking the stratigraphically lowest downlap surface as the MFS. We see little evidence for correlative conformities. Distinguishing LST and TST seismically is a challenging task. We show that interpreta-tion of systems tracts requires integration of seismic, core (lithology and foraminifera), and geophysical logs to develop unequivocal interpretations. Sequences embedded within million-year-scale composite sequences can be particularly challenging to interpret using seismic profi les alone. We note that our study area is consistent with preserving hierarchical orders of sequences on the tilt (1.2 m.y.) and eccentricity scales (100 and 405 k.y.).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the drillers and scientists of Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Expedition 313 for their enthusiastic collaboration, the Bremen Core Repository for hosting our studies, and C. Lombardi, J. Criscione, and R. Miller for lithologic analyses. Funding was provided by COL/USSP, and samples were provided by the IODP and the International Continental Scientifi c Drilling Program. We thank B. Bracken and an anonymous reviewer for reviews, M. Kominz for discussions, and V. Abreu for bringing us back to basics.
REFERENCES CITED
Abdulah, K.C., and Anderson, J.B., 1994, Contrasting styles of deltaic deposition and the role of eustasy—Example from the Quaternary deltas of the Texas continental shelf, in Application of sequence stratigraphy to oil fi eld development: Hedberg Research Conference Pro-ceedings: Tulsa, Oklahoma, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 1–11.
Aubry, M.-P., 1993, Neogene allostratigraphy and depo-sitional history of the DeSoto Canyon area, northern Gulf of Mexico: Micropaleontology, v. 39, p. 327–366, doi:10.2307/1485855.
Austin, J.A., Christie-Blick, N., Malone, M.J., and others, 1998, Initial Reports, Ocean Drilling Program, Leg 174A: College Station, Texas, Ocean Drilling Program, 324 p.
Boulila, S., Galbrun, B., Miller, K.G., Pekar, S.F., Brown-ing, J.V., Laskar, J., and Wright, J.D., 2011, On the ori-gin of Cenozoic and Mesozoic “third-order” eustatic sequences: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 109, p. 94–112, doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.09.003.
Brown, L.F., and Fisher, W.L., 1977, Seismic-stratigraphic interpretation of depositional systems: Examples from Brazilian rift and pull-apart basins, in Payton, C.E., ed., Seismic stratigraphy—Applications to hydrocar-bon exploration: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 26, p. 213–248.
Browning, J.V., Miller, K.G., McLaughlin, P.P., Kominz, M.A., Sugarman, P.J., Monteverde, D., Feigenson, M.D., and Hernàndez, J.C., 2006, Quantifi cation of the effects of eustasy, subsidence, and sediment supply on Miocene sequences, Mid-Atlantic margin of the United States: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 118, p. 567–588, doi:10.1130/B25551.1.
Browning, J.V., Miller, K.G., Sugarman, P.J., Kominz, M.A., McLaughlin, P.P., and Kulpecz, A.A., 2008, 100 Myr record of sequences, sedimentary facies and sea-level change from Ocean Drilling Program onshore coreholes, U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal plain: Basin Research, v. 20, p. 227–248, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2008.00360.x.
Browning, J.V., Miller, K.G., Sugarman, P.J., Barron, J., McCarthy, F.M.G., Kulhanek, D.K., Katz, M.E., and Feigenson, M.D., 2013, Chronology of Eocene–Mio-cene sequences on the New Jersey shallow shelf: Implications for regional, interregional, and global cor-relations: Geosphere, doi:10.1130/GES00857.1.
Catuneanu, O., 2006, Principles of sequence stratigraphy: Elsevier, Amsterdam, 375 p.
Catuneanu, O., and 27 others, 2009, Towards the standardiza-tion of sequence stratigraphy: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 92, p. 1–33, doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.10.003.
Christie-Blick, N., 1991, Onlap, offl ap, and the origin of unconformity-bounded depositional sequences: Marine Geology, v. 97, p. 35–56, doi:10.1016/0025-3227(91)90018-Y.
Christie-Blick, N., and Driscoll, N.W., 1995, Sequence stratigraphy: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 23, p. 451–478, doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.23.050195.002315.
Christie-Blick, N., Mountain, G.S., and Miller, K.G., 1988, Sea level history: Science, v. 241, p. 596, doi:10.1126/science.241.4865.596.
Christie-Blick, N., Mountain, G.S., and Miller, K.G., 1990, Seismic stratigraphic record of sea level change, in Geo-physics Study Committee, Sea-level change: National
Research Council Studies in Geophysics: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, p. 116–140.
Coe, A.L., ed., 2003, The sedimentary record of sea level change: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 288 p.
Demarest, J.M., and Kraft, J.C., 1987, Stratigraphic record of Quaternary sea levels: Implications for more ancient strata, in Nummedal, D., et al., eds., Sea level fl uc-tuation and coastal evolution: Society of Economic Paleon tologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 41, p. 223–239, doi:10.2110/pec.87.41.0223.
DiCelma, C.N., Brunt, R.L., Hodgson, D.M., Flint, S.S., and Kavanagh, J.P., 2011, Spatial and temporal evolution of a Permian submarine slope channel-levee system, Karoo Basin, South Africa: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 81, p. 579–599, doi:10.2110/jsr.2011.49.
Embry, A.F., 2009, Practical sequence stratigraphy: Cana-dian Society of Petroleum Geologists, 81 p., www.cspg.org.
Flint, S.S., Hodgson, D.M., Sprague, A.R., Brunt, R.L., Van der Merwe, W.C., Figueiredo, J., Prélat, A., Box, D., Di Celma, C., and Kavanagh, J.P., 2011, Deposi-tional architecture and sequence stratigraphy of the Karoo basin fl oor to shelf edge succession, Laings-burg depocentre, South Africa: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 28, p. 658–674, doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.06.008.
Galloway, W.E., 1989, Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin analysis I: Architecture and genesis of fl ooding-surface bounded depositional units: American Associa-tion of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 73, p. 125–142.
Gradstein, F., and 38 others, 2004, A geologic time scale 2004: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 589 p.
Greenlee, S.M., and Moore, T.C., 1988, Recognition and interpretation of depositional sequences and calculation of sea level changes from stratigraphic data—Offshore New Jersey and Alabama Tertiary, in Wilgus, C.K., et al., eds., Sea-level changes: An integrated approach: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralo-gists Special Publication 42, p. 329–353, doi:10.2110/pec.88.01.0329.
Greenlee, S.M., Schroeder, F.W., and Vail, P.R., 1988, Seismic stratigraphic and geohistory analysis of Tertiary strata from the continental shelf off New Jersey—Calcula-tion of eustatic fl uctuations from stratigraphic data, in Sheridan, R., and Grow, J., eds., The Atlantic continental margin: U.S.: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. I-2, p. 437–444.
Greenlee, S.M., Devlin, W.J., Miller, K.G., Mountain, G.S., and Flemings, P.B., 1992, Integrated sequence stratigra-phy of Neogene deposits, New Jersey continental shelf and slope: Comparison with the Exxon model: Geologi-cal Society of America Bulletin, v. 104, p. 1403–1411, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1992)104<1403:ISSOND>2.3.CO;2.
Hancock, J.M., 1993, Transatlantic correlations in the Cam-panian-Maastrichtian stages by eustatic changes of sea-level, in Hailwood, E.A., and Kidd, R.B., eds., High resolution stratigraphy: Geological Society of London Special Publication 70, p. 241–256, doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.1993.070.01.17.
Hancock, J.M., and Kauffman, E.G., 1979, The great trans-gressions of the Late Cretaceous: Geological Society of London Journal, v. 136, p. 175–186, doi:10.1144/gsjgs.136.2.0175.
Hathaway, J.C., Poag, C.W., Valentine, P.C., Miller, R.E., Schultz. D.M., Manheim, R.T., Kohout, F.A., Bothner, M.H., and Sangrey, D.A., 1979, U.S. Geological Sur-vey core drilling on the Atlantic shelf: Science, v. 206, p. 515–527.
Heezen, B.C., Tharp, M., and Ewing, M., 1959, The fl oors of the oceans: I. The North Atlantic: Geological Soci-ety of America Special Paper 65, 122 p., doi:10.1130/SPE65-p1.
Holbourn, A.E., Kuhnt, W., Schulz, M., Flores, J.-A., and Andersen, N., 2007, Orbitally-paced climate evolution during the middle Miocene “Monterey” carbon-isotope excursion: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 261, p. 534–550, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.07.026.
Katz, M.E., Browning, J.V., Miller, K.G., Monteverde, D., Mountain, G.S., and Williams, R.H., 2013, Paleo-bathymetry and sequence stratigraphic interpretations 1 from benthic foraminifera: Insights on New Jersey
Miller et al.
1256 Geosphere, October 2013
shelf architecture, IODP Expedition 313: Geosphere, doi:10.1130/GES00872.1.
Kidwell, S.M., 1989, Stratigraphic condensation of marine transgressive records: Origin of major shell deposits in the Miocene of Maryland: Journal of Geology, v. 97, p. 1–24, doi:10.1086/629278.
Kidwell, S.M., 1991, The stratigraphy of shell concentration, in Allison, P.A., and Briggs, D.E.G., eds., Taphon omy: Releasing the data locked in the fossil record: Topics in Geobiology Volume 9: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 211–290.
Kominz, M.A., and Pekar, S.F., 2001, Oligocene eustasy from two-dimensional sequence stratigraphic backstrip-ping: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 113, p. 291–304, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(2001)113<0291:OEFTDS>2.0.CO;2.
Loutit, T.S., Hardenbol, J., Vail, P.R., and Baum, G.R., 1988, Condensed section: The key to age determina-tion and correlation of continental margin sequences, in Wilgus, C.K., et al., eds., Sea-level changes: An inte-grated approach: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 42, p. 183–213, doi:10.2110/pec.88.01.0183.
Miall, A.D., 1991, Stratigraphic sequences and their chrono-stratigraphic correlation: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 61, p. 497–505.
Miller, K.G., Mountain, G.S., Leg 150 Shipboard Party, and Members of the New Jersey Coastal Plain Drilling Project, 1996, Drilling and dating New Jersey Oligo-cene–Miocene sequences: Ice volume, global sea level, and Exxon records: Science, v. 271, p. 1092–1095, doi:10.1126/science.271.5252.1092.
Miller, K.G., Rufolo, S., Sugarman, P.J., Pekar, S.F., Brown-ing, J.V., and Gwynn, D.W., 1997, Early to middle Miocene sequences, systems tracts, and benthic forami-niferal biofacies, New Jersey coastal plain, in Miller, K.G., and Snyder, S.W., eds., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientifi c Results, Leg 150X: College Station, Texas, Ocean Drilling Program, p. 169 186.
Miller, K.G., Mountain, G.S., Browning, J.V., Kominz, M., Sugarman, P.J., Christie-Blick, N., Katz, M.E., and Wright, J.D., 1998, Cenozoic global sea-level, sequences, and the New Jersey transect: Results from coastal plain and slope drilling: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 36, p. 569–601, doi:10.1029/98RG01624.
Miller, K.G., Browning, J.V., Mountain, G.S., Bassetti, M.A., Monteverde, D., Katz, M.E., Inwood, J., Lofi , J., and Proust, J.-N., 2013, Sequence boundaries are impedance contrasts: Core-seismic-log integration of Oligocene–Miocene sequences, New Jersey shallow shelf: Geosphere, v. 9, doi:10.1130/GES00858.1.
Mitchum, R.M., Jr., and Van Wagoner, J.C., 1991, High-frequency sequences and their stacking patterns; sequence-stratigraphic evidence of high-frequency eustatic cycles: Sedimentary Geology, v. 70, p. 131–160, doi:10.1016/0037-0738(91)90139-5.
Mitchum, R.M., Jr., Vail, P.R., and Thompson, S., III, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level; Part 2, The depositional sequence as a basic unit for stratigraphic analysis, in Payton, C.E., ed., Seismic stratigraphy; applications to hydrocarbon exploration: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Mem-oir 26, p. 53–62.
Monteverde, D.H., 2008, Sequence stratigraphic analysis of early and middle Miocene shelf progradation along the New Jersey margin [Ph.D. thesis]: New Brunswick, Rutgers University, 247 p.
Monteverde, D.H., Mountain, G.S., and Miller, K.G., 2008, Early Miocene sequence development across the New Jersey margin: Basin Research, v. 20, p. 249–267, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2008.00351.x.
Mountain, G., and Monteverde, D., 2012, If you’ve got the time, we’ve got the depth: The importance of accurate
core-seismic correlation: American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, abs. PP51B–2111.
Mountain, G.S., Miller, K.G., Blum, P., and Twitchell, D.C., et al., 1996, Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Pro-gram, Scientifi c results, Volume 150: College Station, Texas, Ocean Drilling Program, 885 p.
Mountain, G.S., Burger, R.L., Delius, H., Fulthorpe, C.S., Austin, J.A., Goldberg, D.S., Steckler, M.S., McHugh, C.M., Miller, K.G., Monteverde, D.H., Orange, D.L., and Pratson, L.F., 2007, The long-term stratigraphic record on continental margins, in Nittrouer, C.A., et al., eds., Conti-nental margin sedimentation: From sediment transport to sequence stratigraphy: International Association of Sedi-mentologists Special Publication 37, p. 381–458.
Mountain, G.S., Proust, J.-N., McInroy, D., and Cotterill, C., and the Expedition 313 Scientists, 2010, Proceedings of the International Ocean Drilling Program, Expedi-tion 313: Tokyo, Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International, Inc., doi:10.2204/iodp.proc.313.2010.
Neal, J., and Abreu, V., 2009, Sequence stratigraphy hier-archy and the accommodation succession method: Geology, v. 37, p. 779–782, doi:10.1130/G25722A.1.
Olsson, R.K., Melillo, A.J., and Schreiber, B.L., 1987, Mio-cene sea level events in the Maryland coastal plain and the offshore Baltimore Canyon trough, in Ross, C., and Haman, D., eds., Timing and depositional history of eustatic sequences: Constraints on seismic stratig raphy: Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research Spe-cial Publication 24, p. 85–97.
Owens, J.P., and Gohn, G.S., 1985, Depositional history of the Cretaceous series in the U.S. Atlantic coastal plain: Stratigraphy, paleoenvironments, and tectonic controls of sedimentation, in Poag, C.W., ed., Geologic evolu-tion of the United States Atlantic margin: New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 25–86.
Pälike, H., Frazier, J., and Zachos, J.C., 2006, Extended orbitally forced palaeoclimatic records from the equatorial Atlantic Ceara Rise: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 25, p. 3138–3149, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.02.011.
Plint, A.G., and Nummedal, D., 2000, The falling stage sys-tems tract: Recognition and importance in sequence stratigraphic analysis, in Hunt, D., and Gawthorpe, R.L., eds., Sedimentary responses to forced regression: Geological Society of London Special Publication 172, p. 1–17, doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.2000.172.01.01.
Posamentier, H.W., and Vail, P.R., 1988, Eustatic controls on clastic deposition II—Sequence and systems tract models, in Wilgus, C.K., et al., eds., Sea level changes: An integrated approach: Society of Economic Paleon-tologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 42, p. 125–154, doi:10.2110/pec.88.01.0125.
Posamentier, H.W., Jervey, M.T., and Vail, P.R., 1988, Eustatic controls on clastic deposition I—Conceptual framework, in Wilgus, C.K., et al., eds., Sea level changes: An integrated approach: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 42, p. 109–124, doi:10.2110/pec.88.01.0109.
Posamentier, H.W., Allen, G.P., James, D.P., and Tesson, M., 1992, Forced regressions in a sequence stratigraphic framework: Concepts, examples, and exploration sig-nifi cance: American Association of Petroleum Geolo-gists Bulletin, v. 76, p. 1687–1709.
Poulsen, C.J., Flemings, P.B., Robinson, R.A.J., and Metzger, J.M., 1998, Three-dimensional stratigraphic evolution of the Miocene Baltimore Canyon region: Implications for eustatic interpretations and the sys-tems tract model: Geological Society of America Bul-letin, v. 110, p. 1105–1122, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1998)110<1105:TDSEOT>2.3.CO;2.
Proust, J.N., Mahieux, G., and Tessier, B., 2001, Field and seismic images of sharp-based shoreface deposits:
Implications for sequence stratigraphic analysis: Jour-nal of Sedimentary Research, v. 71, p. 944–957, doi:10.1306/041601710944.
Rabineau, M., Berné, S., Aslanian, D., Olivet, J.-L., Joseph, P., Guillocheau, F., Bourillet, J.-F., Ledrezen, E., and Granjeon, D., 2005, Sedimentary sequences in the Gulf of Lions: A record of 100,000 years climatic cycles: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 22, p. 775–804, doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2005.03.010.
Schlager, W., 2004, Fractal nature of stratigraphic sequences: Geology, v. 32, p. 185–188, doi:10.1130/G20253.1.
Schlee, J.S., 1981, Seismic stratigraphy of Baltimore Can-yon Trough: American Association of Petroleum Geol-ogists Bulletin, v. 65, p. 26–53.
Sierro, F.J., and 14 others, 2009, Phase relationship between sea-level and abrupt climate change: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 28, p. 2867–2881, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.07.019.
Snedden, J.W., and Liu, C., 2010, A compilation of Phanero-zoic sea-level change, coastal onlaps and recom-mended sequence designations: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Search and Discovery Article 40594, www.searchanddiscovery.com.
Steckler, M. S., Mountain, G. S., Miller, K.G., and Christie-Blick, N., 1999, Reconstruction of Tertiary prograda-tion and clinoform development on the New Jersey passive margin by 2-D backstripping: Marine Geology, v. 154, p. 399–420.
Sugarman, P.J., Miller, K.G., Owens, J.P., and Feigenson, M.D., 1993, Strontium-isotope and sequence stratigra-phy of the Miocene Kirkwood Formation, southern New Jersey: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 105, p. 423–436, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1993)105<0423:SIASSO>2.3.CO;2.
Trincardi, F., and Correggiari, A., 2000, Quaternary forced-regression deposits in the Adriatic Basin and the record of composite sea-level cycles, in Hunt, D., and Gaw-thorpe, R., eds., Sedimentary responses to forced regres-sions: Geological Society of London Special Publication 172, p. 245–269, doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.2000.172.01.12.
Vail, P.R., 1987, Seismic stratigraphy interpretation using sequence stratigraphy: Part 1. Seismic stratigraphy interpretation procedure, in Bally A.W., ed., Atlas of seismic stratigraphy: American Association of Petro-leum Geologists Studies in Geology 27, p. 1–10.
Vail, P.R., Mitchum, R.M., Jr., and Thompson, S., III, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level; Part 4, Global cycles of relative changes of sea level, in Payton, C.E., ed., Seismic stratigraphy; applications to hydrocarbon exploration: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 26, p. 83–97.
Van Wagoner, J.C., Mitchum, R.M., Jr., Posamentier, H.W., and Vail, P.R., 1987, Seismic stratigraphy interpretation using sequence stratigraphy: Part 2, Key defi nitions of sequence stratigraphy, in Bally A.W., ed., Atlas of seis-mic stratigraphy: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology 27, p. 11–14.
Van Wagoner, J.C., Posamentier, H.W., Mitchum, R.M., Vail, P.R., Sarg, J.F., Loutit, T.S., and Hardenbol, J., 1988, An overview of the fundamentals of sequence stratig-raphy and key definitions, in Wilgus, C.K., et al., eds., Sea-level changes: An integrated approach: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 42, p. 39–45, doi:10.2110/pec.88.01.0039.
Van Wagoner, J.C., Mitchum, R.M., Campion, K.M., and Rahmanian, V.D., 1990, Siliciclastic sequence stratig-raphy in well logs, cores, and outcrops: Concepts for high-resolution correlation of time and facies: Ameri-can Association of Petroleum Geologists Methods in Exploration Series 7, 55 p.
Wheeler, H.E., 1958, Time stratigraphy: American Associa-tion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 42, p. 1047–1063.