Open Access
Table 3
Supporting concepts and related Urgonian data and methods used to define the proposed facies model.
| Carbonate factory | Concepts | Schlager, 2000, 2003, 2005; Urgonian concept application: Rat and Pascal, 1979; Michel et al., 2019 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data | Seismic-scale outcrop studies: Stafleu et al., 1994; Everts et al., 1995; Richet, 2011 | |||
| Grain association | Concepts | James, 1997; Michel et al., 2019; Urgonian concept application: Föllmi et al., 1994, 2006; Bodin, 2006; Masse et al., 2009; Skelton and Gili, 2012 | ||
| Data | – Overall controlling factors of Urgonian biotic associations: Masse and Philip, 1981 | |||
| – “Photozoan rudist”, “marly orbitolinid” and “heterozoan bryozoan-crinoid” associations related to palaeoenvironmental changes: Arnaud-Vanneau and Arnaud, 1976; Föllmi et al., 1994, 2006 | ||||
| – Lateral facies changes related to water depth changes: Masse et al., 2009 | ||||
| Morphology | Concepts | Pomar, 2001; Urgonian concept application: Masse and Fenerci-Masse, 2011 | ||
| Data (dimensions non- | (1) Provence: | |||
| reconstructed for tectonic modifications) | (a) Rudist platform-top extent: 80 km from Martigues-Ensuès-la-Redonne to the Gorges-de-La-Nesque (Upper Barremian, G. sartousiana ammonite zone) and 60 km from Saint-Chamas to the Gorges-de-La-Nesque (Upper Barremian, M. sarasini ammonite zone; Tendil et al., 2018, Figs. 3 and 10–13: Frau et al., 2018). These lateral distances combined with paleobathymetric estimates (Fig. 6) show platform-top slope angles of ca. 0°. | |||
| (b) Coral platform margin: Up to 1.5 and 5 km extent (Léonide et al., 2012, Fig. 12, Unit C1, and Fig. 15, Upper Barremian, I. giraudi from Rustrel to Lagarde d’Apt). | ||||
| (c) Outer-shelf and slope: between 2° and 5° slope angles using 1-km lateral distance between coral and cherty facies at La Nesque outcrop (Léonide et al., 2012, Fig. 12) and between 0.4° and 1.3° slope angles using 7-km (Simiane-La-Rotonde to Banon) and 11-km (La Nesque to Mont Ventoux) lateral distance between rudist or coral and basinal facies in northern Provence (Tendil et al., 2018), and using palaeobathymetric estimates between 0 and 10 m for rudist facies, between 10 and 20 m for coral facies and between 50 and 100 m for cherty and basinal facies (Bastide, 2014, Fig. 6). | ||||
| (2) Vercors: | ||||
| (a) Rudist platform-top extent: 40 km from Montaud to Vassieux (Upper Barremian; Arnaud-Vanneau and Arnaud, 1976). In Gresse-en Vercors, reconstructed lateral distances over 3 km show rudist platform-top slope angles of 0.25° and locally up to 1.5° (Richet, 2011, Fig. IV.31). | ||||
| (b) Coral platform margin: < 1 km extent and 0.3° and 3° slope angles in Gresse-en-Vercors (Richet, 2011, Fig. IV.31; Richet et al., 2011, Fig. 10, Unit 3) | ||||
| (c) Outer-shelf and slope: ca. 2.5° slope angle along a 2-km reconstructed lateral extent in Gresse-en-Vercors (Richet, 2011, Fig. IV.31) | ||||
| Sedimentary profile | Concepts | – General sedimentary profile: Wilson, 1975; Tucker and Wright, 1990; Flügel, 2004; Schlager, 2005; | ||
| zonation | – Light penetration and hydrodynamics: Pérès and Picard, 1964 (modern Mediterranean Sea zonation); also cf. Pomar et al., 2016 (Cenozoic period) | |||
| – Hydrodynamics and water depth: Masse et al., 2003; Immenhauser, 2009; Purkis et al., 2019 (modern world) | ||||
| – Palaeoecology of rudists and corals (Masse, 1976; Masse and Philip, 1981; Fenerci-Masse et al., 2005; Masse and Fenerci-Masse, 2008; Gili and Götz, 2018), and orbitolinids (Arnaud-Vanneau, 1980; Stein et al., 2012) | ||||
| – Urgonian concept application: Arnaud-Vanneau, 1987; Masse et al., 2003; Masse and Fenerci-Masse, 2011 | ||||
| Data (also cf. Fig. 6) | – Palaeoecology of Urgonian biota: Masse, 1976; Arnaud-Vanneau, 1979; Arnaud-Vanneau, 1980; Masse et al., 2003 | |||
| – Regional palaeogeographic facies distribution of proximal to basinal setting (10s-of-km spatial scale and ca. 1 Ma resolution): Arnaud-Vanneau and Arnaud, 1976; Masse and Philip, 1981; Arnaud-Vanneau et al., 1982; Tendil et al., 2018. | ||||
| Uncertainties about these maps mostly deal with dating, correlation and spatial extrapolation of maps including only limited, non-continuous records (Frau et al., 2017, 2018, in press). | ||||
| – At a local scale (usually < 1 km scale), direct field observations of facies transitions represent invaluable data; but the possibility of such an observation is scarce and still depends on detailed outcrop correlations (Fenerci-Masse et al., 2005; Richet et al., 2011; Léonide et al., 2012; Frau et al., 2021). | ||||
| – Overall stratigraphic architecture and stacking trends were used to constrain the facies model given consistent facies successions (every reference). Uncertainty first deals with correlation and preservation pattern, which is not considered simply because such a pattern is not recorded in most cases and there is no constraint about it. Thus, stacking pattern interpretation must include the biased hypothesis of a continuous sedimentation on a shallow-water carbonate platform (e.g. Borgomano et al., 2020). |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.