Stratigraphic analysis of XES02: Implications for the sequence stratigraphic paradigm

IF 2 4区 地球科学 Q1 GEOLOGY
B. Prather, O. Falivene, P. Burgess
{"title":"Stratigraphic analysis of XES02: Implications for the sequence stratigraphic paradigm","authors":"B. Prather, O. Falivene, P. Burgess","doi":"10.2110/jsr.2022.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Sequence stratigraphy has the potential to provide a consistent method for integrating data, correlating strata, defining stratigraphic evolution, and generating quantifiable predictions. However, the consistent application requires a precise definition of concepts, stratigraphic units, bounding surfaces, and workflow. Currently no single generally accepted approach to sequence stratigraphic analysis exists, nor are there any robust tests of models and methods. Applying conventional sequence stratigraphic analysis to strata from an analog laboratory experiment (eXperimental EarthScape02, XES02) with known boundary conditions and chronology provides some initial robust testing of the models and methods. Despite stratigraphic architectures apparently consistent with those expected within the sequence stratigraphic paradigm, blind-test applications yield: 1) deducted erroneous base-level curves, 2) systems-tract classification mismatches, 3) disconnected systems-tracts type and actual base level, 4) time-transgressive basin-floor fans, and 5) missing systems tracts. Stratigraphic forward models using base-level curves derived from Wheeler diagrams cannot match the timing, redeposited-sediment volume, and depositional environments observed in the XES02 experiment. These mismatches result from common Wheeler diagram construction practice, producing poorly resolved base-level minima timing and base-level fall durations, hence inaccurate fall rates. Consequently, reconstructions of controlling factors based on stratal architectures remain uncertain, making predictions similarly uncertain. A reasonable path forward is to properly acknowledge these uncertainties while performing stratigraphic analysis and to address them through multiple scenario analysis and modeling.","PeriodicalId":17044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sedimentary Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sedimentary Research","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2022.008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Sequence stratigraphy has the potential to provide a consistent method for integrating data, correlating strata, defining stratigraphic evolution, and generating quantifiable predictions. However, the consistent application requires a precise definition of concepts, stratigraphic units, bounding surfaces, and workflow. Currently no single generally accepted approach to sequence stratigraphic analysis exists, nor are there any robust tests of models and methods. Applying conventional sequence stratigraphic analysis to strata from an analog laboratory experiment (eXperimental EarthScape02, XES02) with known boundary conditions and chronology provides some initial robust testing of the models and methods. Despite stratigraphic architectures apparently consistent with those expected within the sequence stratigraphic paradigm, blind-test applications yield: 1) deducted erroneous base-level curves, 2) systems-tract classification mismatches, 3) disconnected systems-tracts type and actual base level, 4) time-transgressive basin-floor fans, and 5) missing systems tracts. Stratigraphic forward models using base-level curves derived from Wheeler diagrams cannot match the timing, redeposited-sediment volume, and depositional environments observed in the XES02 experiment. These mismatches result from common Wheeler diagram construction practice, producing poorly resolved base-level minima timing and base-level fall durations, hence inaccurate fall rates. Consequently, reconstructions of controlling factors based on stratal architectures remain uncertain, making predictions similarly uncertain. A reasonable path forward is to properly acknowledge these uncertainties while performing stratigraphic analysis and to address them through multiple scenario analysis and modeling.
XES02地层分析:对层序地层模式的启示
层序地层学有可能为整合数据、对比地层、定义地层演化和生成可量化预测提供一致的方法。然而,一致的应用程序需要对概念、地层单位、边界曲面和工作流程进行精确定义。目前,还没有一种普遍接受的层序地层分析方法,也没有任何模型和方法的稳健测试。将传统的层序地层分析应用于具有已知边界条件和年代的模拟实验室实验(eExperimental EarthScape02,XES02)中的地层,为模型和方法提供了一些初步的稳健测试。尽管地层结构显然与层序地层范式中预期的一致,但盲测试应用程序会产生:1)推导错误的基准面曲线,2)系统域分类不匹配,3)断开的系统域类型和实际基准面,4)时间海侵盆地底扇,5)缺失的系统域。使用惠勒图得出的基准面曲线的地层正演模型无法与XES02实验中观察到的时间、再沉积沉积物体积和沉积环境相匹配。这些不匹配源于常见的惠勒图构造实践,导致基准面最小时间和基准面下降持续时间解析不好,因此下降率不准确。因此,基于地层结构的控制因素重建仍然不确定,使得预测同样不确定。合理的前进道路是在进行地层分析时正确认识这些不确定性,并通过多场景分析和建模来解决这些不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
50
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal is broad and international in scope and welcomes contributions that further the fundamental understanding of sedimentary processes, the origin of sedimentary deposits, the workings of sedimentary systems, and the records of earth history contained within sedimentary rocks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信