4. Kent, BAP; Dashtgard, SE; Huang, CQ; MacEachern, JA; Gibson, HD; Cathyl-Huhn, G.Initiation and early evolution of a forearc basin: Georgia Basin, Canada.Basin Res., 2020, 32: 163-185 Initiation and early evolution of a forearc basin: Georgia Basin, Canada
coal; forearc basins; Late Cretaceous; sequence stratigraphy; stratigraphy; T-R sequences; transgression
The lower Nanaimo Group was deposited in the (forearc) Georgia Basin, Canada and records the basin's initiation and early depositional evolution. Nanaimo Group strata are subdivided into 11 lithostratigraphic units, which are identified based on lithology, paleontology, texture and position relative to both the basal nonconformity and to each other. Significant topography on the basal nonconformity, however, has resulted in assignment of lithostratigraphic units that are not time correlative, and hence, cannot reliably be used to accurately reconstruct basin evolution. Herein, we present a sequence stratigraphic framework for lower Nanaimo Group strata in the Comox Sub-Basin (northern Georgia Basin) that integrates both facies analysis and maximum depositional ages (MDAs) derived from detrital zircon. This stratigraphic framework is used to define significant sub-basin-wide surfaces that bound depositional units and record the evolution of the basin during its early stages of development. Seven distinct depositional phases are identified in the lower 700 m of the lower Nanaimo Group. Depositional phases are separated by marine flooding surfaces, regressive surfaces, or disconformities. The overall stratigraphy reflects net transgression manifested as an upwards transition from braided fluvial conglomerates to marine mudstones. Transgression was interrupted by periods of shoreline progradation, and both facies analysis and MDAs reveal a disconformity in the lowermost part of the Nanaimo Group in the Comox Sub-Basin. Stratigraphic reconstruction of the Comox Sub-Basin reveals two dominant depocenters (along depositional strike) for coarse clastics (sandstones and conglomerates) during early development of the Georgia Basin. The development and position of these depocenters is attributed to subduction/tectonism driving both subsidence in the north-northwest and uplift in the central Comox Sub-Basin. Our work confirms that in its earliest stages of development, the Georgia Basin evolved from an underfilled, ridged forearc basin that experienced slow and stepwise drowning to a shoal-water ridged forearc basin that experienced rapid subsidence. We also propose that the Georgia Basin is a reasonable analogue for ridged forearc basins globally, as many ridged forearcs record similar depositional histories during their early evolution. DOI
3. Dashtgard, SE; MacEachern, JA.Unburrowed mudstones may record only slightly lowered oxygen conditions in warm, shallow basins.Geology, 2016, 44: 371-374 Unburrowed mudstones may record only slightly lowered oxygen conditions in warm, shallow basins
Unbioturbated mudstones and highly bioturbated silty and sandy mudstones from the late Albian of Alberta, Canada, are characterized by their ichnological, foraminiferal, and geochemical signatures. A comparison of these data sets is undertaken to isolate the dissolved oxygen (DO) conditions that led to the preservation of unbioturbated mudstones versus highly bioturbated silty and sandy mudstones. Highly diverse and abundant benthic foraminiferal assemblages, coupled with conclusive geochemical signatures, indicate that unbioturbated mudstones were deposited under oxic bottom waters. The paucity of bioturbation in these rocks is attributed to the persistence of low-oxic conditions (5 > DO > 2 mg L-1) at the seafloor, comparable to the present-day Gulf of Mexico. We assert that unbioturbated mudstone should not automatically be attributed to oxygen deficiency (< 2 mg L-1). Instead, it may reflect oxygenation sufficient to support benthic microfauna (foraminifera) but insufficient to sustain a diverse ecosystem of macrofauna (burrowing fauna). Moreover, we propose that the distribution of unburrowed mudstones deposited below low-oxic waters is predictable. A paucity of bioturbation is normal in shallow marine (below fair-weather wave base to similar to 200 m water depth) deposits of subtropical to tropical ocean basins and/or semienclosed seaways. DOI
2. Dashtgard, SE; MacEachern, JA; Frey, SE; Gingras, MK.Tidal effects on the shoreface: Towards a conceptual framework.Sediment. Geol., 2012, 279: 42-61 Tidal effects on the shoreface: Towards a conceptual framework
Tides; Beach; Facies models; Sedimentology; Ichnology; Storm-dominated
Tidal processes can have a significant impact on the sedimentological and ichnological character of wave-dominated shoreface deposits. As the influence of tides increases, the resulting shoreface successions begin to depart markedly from those postulated by the conventional, wave-dominated shoreface model, which was built upon essentially non-tidal shoreline settings. In shoreface settings subject to stronger tidal flux, tides can be manifest either directly or indirectly. Direct tidal effects refer to those characteristics imparted by tidal energy (e.g., tidal currents) per se, and are best expressed in offshore and lower shoreface positions. Key evidence of direct tidal control includes uniform sediment calibres from the upper shoreface to the offshore, and little or no mud preserved in the lower shoreface. Additionally, sands in the lower shoreface and offshore tend to be intensely bioturbated. Where primary stratification is preserved, it largely comprises current-generated structures. Such shoreface deposits are referred to herein as "tide-influenced shorefaces", and are expected in settings with low storm-wave input coupled with strong tidal currents (e.g., straits). Indirect tidal influences are manifest by the lateral translation of wave zones across the shoreface profile owing to changes in water depth during the tidal cycle. This is best developed in macrotidal to megatidal settings. Indirect tidal influences are more pronounced in the upper and lower shoreface, and are recorded through the interbedding of sedimentary structures produced by shoaling waves, breakers and surf, swash-backwash, and surface runoff. The boundaries between shoreface subenvironments are correspondingly poorly defined. The foreshore in settings of elevated tidal range is also generally much thicker (typically 4 to 5 m). Bioturbation tends to be patchy in distribution across the shoreface, and dominated by vertical structures. Such systems are defined as "tidally modulated shorefaces". Using well-established sedimentological and ichnological criteria for recognizing wave-dominated (nontidal) shorefaces - wherein sediment deposition is nearly wholly controlled by fair-weather wave and storm-wave processes - a conceptual model is developed for discriminating fair-weather (non-tidal) shorefaces, storm-influenced (non-tidal) shorefaces, and tidally influenced shorefaces. Five shoreface archetypes are defined: storm-affected, storm-influenced, storm-dominated, tide-influenced, and tidally modulated. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. DOI
1. Dashtgard, SE; Gingras, MK; MacEachern, JA.Tidally modulated shorefaces.J. Sediment. Res., 2009, 79: 793-807 Tidally modulated shorefaces
Tidally modulated shorefaces (TMS) are wave-dominated, but differ from conventional shorefaces in that sediments deposited in water depths equivalent to the upper, middle, and lower shoreface (depending upon the tidal range) are regularly subjected to variable wave processes, including swash-backwash, breaking-wave and surf processes, and shoaling waves; during the tidal cycle. In upper macrotidal and megatidal settings, it is also possible that these shoreface deposits are subaerially exposed during low tide. TMS exhibit the morphology, seaward decrease in sediment caliber, and dominance of wave-generated sedimentary structures consistent with beach-shoreface settings. However, the sedimentological and ichnological structures of deposits exposed in the laterally extensive intertidal zone are more akin to those of the upper and lower shoreface, and not the beach. Four major differences permit the ready differentiation of tidally modulated shoreface successions from conventional shorefaces. (1) Sedimentary structures generated by swash-backwash (plane beds), surf and breaking waves (current ripples and trough cross-beds), shoaling waves (oscillation ripples), and storm waves (hummocky and swaly cross-stratification) are interbedded with one another across the shoreface. (2) Ebb-oriented tidal currents and surface runoff during the failing tide and at low tide deposit offshore-directed current ripples and combined-flow ripples in sandy sediments, or trough cross beds in gravel-dominated sediments. (3) Ichnologically, TMS exhibit a reduction in both the diversity of ichnogenera and density of burrowing across the entire shoreface profile. However, the incipient-trace associations are most similar to the Skolithos Ichnofacies in the upper shoreface-equiva lent zone, and to the Cruziana Ichnofacies in the lower shoreface-equiva lent zone. (4) The sedimentological and ichnological criteria commonly employed to identify the middle shoreface are spread out across the upper and lower shoreface, making this subenvironment difficult to differentiate. DOI
