HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Holbrook, J. Articles by Oboh-Ikuenobe, F. E. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Base-Level Buffers and Buttresses: A Model for Upstream Versus Downstream Control on Fluvial Geometry and Architecture Within Sequences

¹ Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019-0049, U.S.A.
² Precision Stratigraphy Associates, RR3 Box 103-3, Cleveland, Oklahoma 74020, U.S.A.
³ Department of Geological Sciences and Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri 65409-0410, U.S.A.

The effects of downstream base-level control on fluvial architecture and geometry are well explored in several broadly similar sequence-stratigraphic models. Cretaceous Dakota Group strata, U.S. Western Interior, have characteristics reflecting combined downstream and upstream base-level controls that these models cannot address. Particularly, three layers of amalgamated channel-belt sandstone within this group thicken and are continuous for distances ( 300 km) along dip that stretch the reasonable lengths for which these models are intended to apply. As well, architecture in up-dip reaches records repeated valley-scale cut-and-fill cycles. This contrasts with equivalent strata down dip which record channel-scale lateral migration with no such valley-scale cycles apparent.

We here introduce the concept of "buffers and buttresses" to address these observations. We assume that river longitudinal profiles are each anchored down dip to some physical barrier (e.g., the sea strand, etc.) that we refer to as a "buttress." Buttress shift is considered the primary downstream control on base level. Profiles extrapolated up dip from the buttress over any modeled duration of buttress shift can range widely because of high-frequency variability in upstream base-level controls (e.g., discharge, etc). All these potential profiles however are bounded above by the profile of highest possible aggradation, and below by the profile of maximum possible incision. These upper and lower profiles are "buffers," and they envelop the available fluvial preservation space. Thickness of the buffer zone is determined by variability in upstream controls and should increase up dip to the limit of downstream profile dominance. Dakota valley-scale surfaces record repeated cut-and-fill cycles driven by up-dip controls and are confined between thick stable buffers. Equivalent strata down dip record lateral reworking within a thinner channel-scale buffer zone that was positioned by downstream controls. Regression exposed slopes similar to the buffer zone, thus buffers were stable for long distances and durations. This prompted dip-extensive lateral reworking of strata into upstream valley-scale and downstream channel-scale sheets.

Buffers and buttresses provide a broadly applicable model for fluvial preservation that captures upstream vs. downstream base-level controls on geometry and architecture. The model lends general insights into dip-oriented variations in fluvial architecture, production of sheet vs. lens geometry, total preservation volumes for fluvial systems, and variations in these factors related to contrasting climatic conditions and basin physiography. The model can be amended to existing sequence stratigraphic approaches in order to capture dip-oriented variations in sequence architecture.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. Holbrook Valleys That Never Were: Time Surfaces Versus Stratigraphic Surfaces--Discussion Journal of Sedimentary Research, January 1, 2010; 80(1): 2 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Strong and C. Paola Valleys That Never Were: Time Surfaces Versus Stratigraphic Surfaces--Reply Journal of Sedimentary Research, January 1, 2010; 80(1): 4 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Leleu, A. J. Hartley, and B. P.J. Williams Large-Scale Alluvial Architecture and Correlation in a Triassic Pebbly Braided River System, Lower Wolfville Formation (Fundy Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada) Journal of Sedimentary Research, May 1, 2009; 79(5): 265 - 286. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Darmadi, B.J. Willis, and S.L. Dorobek Three-Dimensional Seismic Architecture of Fluvial Sequences on the Low-Gradient Sunda Shelf, Offshore Indonesia Journal of Sedimentary Research, March 1, 2007; 77(3): 225 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J.P. Gouw and H. J.A. Berendsen Variability of Channel-Belt Dimensions and the Consequences for Alluvial Architecture: Observations from the Holocene Rhine-Meuse Delta (The Netherlands) and Lower Mississippi Valley (U.S.A.) Journal of Sedimentary Research, February 1, 2007; 77(2): 124 - 138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]