Loading…

Comparing submarine and fluvial channel kinematics; implications for stratigraphic architecture

Submarine and fluvial channels exhibit qualitatively similar geomorphic patterns, yet produce very different stratigraphic records. We reconcile these seemingly contradictory observations by focusing on the channel belt scale and quantifying the time-integrated stratigraphic record of the belt as a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Geology (Boulder) 2016-11, Vol.44 (11), p.931-934, Article 931
Main Authors: Jobe, Zane R, Howes, Nick C, Auchter, Neal C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a359t-5d11202a84306da7c75535384066d35f3e14df16fb0ae6d0f30cd02dab83f56e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a359t-5d11202a84306da7c75535384066d35f3e14df16fb0ae6d0f30cd02dab83f56e3
container_end_page 934
container_issue 11
container_start_page 931
container_title Geology (Boulder)
container_volume 44
creator Jobe, Zane R
Howes, Nick C
Auchter, Neal C
description Submarine and fluvial channels exhibit qualitatively similar geomorphic patterns, yet produce very different stratigraphic records. We reconcile these seemingly contradictory observations by focusing on the channel belt scale and quantifying the time-integrated stratigraphic record of the belt as a function of the scale and trajectory of the geomorphic channel, applying the concept of stratigraphic mobility. By comparing 297 submarine and fluvial channel belts from a range of tectonic settings and time intervals, we identify channel kinematics (trajectory) rather than channel morphology (scale) as the primary control on stratigraphic architecture and show that seemingly similar channel forms (in terms of scaling) have the potential to produce markedly different stratigraphy. Submarine channel belt architecture is dominated by vertical accretion (aggradational channel fill deposits), in contrast to fluvial systems that are dominated by lateral accretion (point bar deposits). This difference is best described with the channel belt aspect ratio, which is 9 for submarine systems and 72 for fluvial systems. Differences in channel kinematics and thus stratigraphic architecture between the two environments appear to result from markedly different coupling between channel aggradation and overbank deposition. The methodology and results presented here are also applicable to interpreting channelized stratigraphy on other planets and moons.
doi_str_mv 10.1130/G38158.1
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>geoscienceworld_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1130_G38158_1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2016_094412</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a359t-5d11202a84306da7c75535384066d35f3e14df16fb0ae6d0f30cd02dab83f56e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkFtLxDAQhYMouK6CPyGPgnSdaZq0xSdZdBUWfNHnkM2lm7U3klbx39t1RcGnmcOcM_AdQi4RFogMblasQF4s8IjMsMxYkooiPSYzgBKTXCA7JWcx7gAw43kxI3LZNb0Kvq1oHDfNfrNUtYa6enz3qqZ6q9rW1vRtOjRq8DreUt_0tdeT6NpIXRdoHMKkqqD6rddUBb31g9XDGOw5OXGqjvbiZ87J68P9y_IxWT-vnpZ360QxXg4JN4gppKrIGAijcp1zzjgrMhDCMO6Yxcw4FG4DygoDjoE2kBq1KZjjwrI5uTr81aGLMVgn--AnnE-JIPfFyEMxEifr4p9V--EbZqLw9W-g-gtcHwKV7aL2ttX2owu1kbtuDO1EJVNAIaHMMkzZF9MvdXM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing submarine and fluvial channel kinematics; implications for stratigraphic architecture</title><source>GeoScienceWorld</source><creator>Jobe, Zane R ; Howes, Nick C ; Auchter, Neal C</creator><creatorcontrib>Jobe, Zane R ; Howes, Nick C ; Auchter, Neal C</creatorcontrib><description>Submarine and fluvial channels exhibit qualitatively similar geomorphic patterns, yet produce very different stratigraphic records. We reconcile these seemingly contradictory observations by focusing on the channel belt scale and quantifying the time-integrated stratigraphic record of the belt as a function of the scale and trajectory of the geomorphic channel, applying the concept of stratigraphic mobility. By comparing 297 submarine and fluvial channel belts from a range of tectonic settings and time intervals, we identify channel kinematics (trajectory) rather than channel morphology (scale) as the primary control on stratigraphic architecture and show that seemingly similar channel forms (in terms of scaling) have the potential to produce markedly different stratigraphy. Submarine channel belt architecture is dominated by vertical accretion (aggradational channel fill deposits), in contrast to fluvial systems that are dominated by lateral accretion (point bar deposits). This difference is best described with the channel belt aspect ratio, which is 9 for submarine systems and 72 for fluvial systems. Differences in channel kinematics and thus stratigraphic architecture between the two environments appear to result from markedly different coupling between channel aggradation and overbank deposition. The methodology and results presented here are also applicable to interpreting channelized stratigraphy on other planets and moons.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0091-7613</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-2682</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1130/G38158.1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Geological Society of America (GSA)</publisher><subject>accretion ; aggradation ; channels ; deposition ; fluvial environment ; geomorphology ; kinematics ; landform evolution ; marine environment ; mathematical models ; modern analogs ; sed rocks, sediments ; Sedimentary petrology ; sedimentary structures ; submarine environment</subject><ispartof>Geology (Boulder), 2016-11, Vol.44 (11), p.931-934, Article 931</ispartof><rights>GeoRef, Copyright 2022, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld @Alexandria, VA @USA @United States. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America @Boulder, CO @USA @United States</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a359t-5d11202a84306da7c75535384066d35f3e14df16fb0ae6d0f30cd02dab83f56e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a359t-5d11202a84306da7c75535384066d35f3e14df16fb0ae6d0f30cd02dab83f56e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/lithosphere/article-lookup?doi=10.1130/G38158.1$$EHTML$$P50$$Ggeoscienceworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,38881,77696</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jobe, Zane R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howes, Nick C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auchter, Neal C</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing submarine and fluvial channel kinematics; implications for stratigraphic architecture</title><title>Geology (Boulder)</title><description>Submarine and fluvial channels exhibit qualitatively similar geomorphic patterns, yet produce very different stratigraphic records. We reconcile these seemingly contradictory observations by focusing on the channel belt scale and quantifying the time-integrated stratigraphic record of the belt as a function of the scale and trajectory of the geomorphic channel, applying the concept of stratigraphic mobility. By comparing 297 submarine and fluvial channel belts from a range of tectonic settings and time intervals, we identify channel kinematics (trajectory) rather than channel morphology (scale) as the primary control on stratigraphic architecture and show that seemingly similar channel forms (in terms of scaling) have the potential to produce markedly different stratigraphy. Submarine channel belt architecture is dominated by vertical accretion (aggradational channel fill deposits), in contrast to fluvial systems that are dominated by lateral accretion (point bar deposits). This difference is best described with the channel belt aspect ratio, which is 9 for submarine systems and 72 for fluvial systems. Differences in channel kinematics and thus stratigraphic architecture between the two environments appear to result from markedly different coupling between channel aggradation and overbank deposition. The methodology and results presented here are also applicable to interpreting channelized stratigraphy on other planets and moons.</description><subject>accretion</subject><subject>aggradation</subject><subject>channels</subject><subject>deposition</subject><subject>fluvial environment</subject><subject>geomorphology</subject><subject>kinematics</subject><subject>landform evolution</subject><subject>marine environment</subject><subject>mathematical models</subject><subject>modern analogs</subject><subject>sed rocks, sediments</subject><subject>Sedimentary petrology</subject><subject>sedimentary structures</subject><subject>submarine environment</subject><issn>0091-7613</issn><issn>1943-2682</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdkFtLxDAQhYMouK6CPyGPgnSdaZq0xSdZdBUWfNHnkM2lm7U3klbx39t1RcGnmcOcM_AdQi4RFogMblasQF4s8IjMsMxYkooiPSYzgBKTXCA7JWcx7gAw43kxI3LZNb0Kvq1oHDfNfrNUtYa6enz3qqZ6q9rW1vRtOjRq8DreUt_0tdeT6NpIXRdoHMKkqqD6rddUBb31g9XDGOw5OXGqjvbiZ87J68P9y_IxWT-vnpZ360QxXg4JN4gppKrIGAijcp1zzjgrMhDCMO6Yxcw4FG4DygoDjoE2kBq1KZjjwrI5uTr81aGLMVgn--AnnE-JIPfFyEMxEifr4p9V--EbZqLw9W-g-gtcHwKV7aL2ttX2owu1kbtuDO1EJVNAIaHMMkzZF9MvdXM</recordid><startdate>20161101</startdate><enddate>20161101</enddate><creator>Jobe, Zane R</creator><creator>Howes, Nick C</creator><creator>Auchter, Neal C</creator><general>Geological Society of America (GSA)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161101</creationdate><title>Comparing submarine and fluvial channel kinematics; implications for stratigraphic architecture</title><author>Jobe, Zane R ; Howes, Nick C ; Auchter, Neal C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a359t-5d11202a84306da7c75535384066d35f3e14df16fb0ae6d0f30cd02dab83f56e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>accretion</topic><topic>aggradation</topic><topic>channels</topic><topic>deposition</topic><topic>fluvial environment</topic><topic>geomorphology</topic><topic>kinematics</topic><topic>landform evolution</topic><topic>marine environment</topic><topic>mathematical models</topic><topic>modern analogs</topic><topic>sed rocks, sediments</topic><topic>Sedimentary petrology</topic><topic>sedimentary structures</topic><topic>submarine environment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jobe, Zane R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howes, Nick C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auchter, Neal C</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Geology (Boulder)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jobe, Zane R</au><au>Howes, Nick C</au><au>Auchter, Neal C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing submarine and fluvial channel kinematics; implications for stratigraphic architecture</atitle><jtitle>Geology (Boulder)</jtitle><date>2016-11-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>931</spage><epage>934</epage><pages>931-934</pages><artnum>931</artnum><issn>0091-7613</issn><eissn>1943-2682</eissn><abstract>Submarine and fluvial channels exhibit qualitatively similar geomorphic patterns, yet produce very different stratigraphic records. We reconcile these seemingly contradictory observations by focusing on the channel belt scale and quantifying the time-integrated stratigraphic record of the belt as a function of the scale and trajectory of the geomorphic channel, applying the concept of stratigraphic mobility. By comparing 297 submarine and fluvial channel belts from a range of tectonic settings and time intervals, we identify channel kinematics (trajectory) rather than channel morphology (scale) as the primary control on stratigraphic architecture and show that seemingly similar channel forms (in terms of scaling) have the potential to produce markedly different stratigraphy. Submarine channel belt architecture is dominated by vertical accretion (aggradational channel fill deposits), in contrast to fluvial systems that are dominated by lateral accretion (point bar deposits). This difference is best described with the channel belt aspect ratio, which is 9 for submarine systems and 72 for fluvial systems. Differences in channel kinematics and thus stratigraphic architecture between the two environments appear to result from markedly different coupling between channel aggradation and overbank deposition. The methodology and results presented here are also applicable to interpreting channelized stratigraphy on other planets and moons.</abstract><pub>Geological Society of America (GSA)</pub><doi>10.1130/G38158.1</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0091-7613
ispartof Geology (Boulder), 2016-11, Vol.44 (11), p.931-934, Article 931
issn 0091-7613
1943-2682
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1130_G38158_1
source GeoScienceWorld
subjects accretion
aggradation
channels
deposition
fluvial environment
geomorphology
kinematics
landform evolution
marine environment
mathematical models
modern analogs
sed rocks, sediments
Sedimentary petrology
sedimentary structures
submarine environment
title Comparing submarine and fluvial channel kinematics; implications for stratigraphic architecture
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T15%3A55%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-geoscienceworld_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20submarine%20and%20fluvial%20channel%20kinematics;%20implications%20for%20stratigraphic%20architecture&rft.jtitle=Geology%20(Boulder)&rft.au=Jobe,%20Zane%20R&rft.date=2016-11-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=931&rft.epage=934&rft.pages=931-934&rft.artnum=931&rft.issn=0091-7613&rft.eissn=1943-2682&rft_id=info:doi/10.1130/G38158.1&rft_dat=%3Cgeoscienceworld_cross%3E2016_094412%3C/geoscienceworld_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a359t-5d11202a84306da7c75535384066d35f3e14df16fb0ae6d0f30cd02dab83f56e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true