RECENT ADVANCES · The plate tectonic revolution of the 1960’s provided the framework for detailed models on the structure of orogens and basins, summarized in a 1995 textbook edited

Investigating the complex interplay between tectonics and sedimentation is a key endeavor in modern earth science. Many of the world’s leading researchers in this fi eld have been brought together in this volume to provide concise overviews of the current state of the subject.

The plate tectonic revolution of the 1960’s provided the framework for detailed models on the structure of orogens and basins, summarized in a 1995 textbook edited by Busby and Ingersoll. Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins: Recent Advances focuses on key topics or areas where the greatest strides forward have been made, while also providingon-line access to the comprehensive 1995 book.

Breakthroughs in new techniques are described in Section 1, including detrital zircon geochronology, cosmogenic nuclide dating, magnetostratigraphy, 3-D seismic, and basin modelling. Section 2 presents the new models for rift, post-rift, transtensional and strike slip basin settings. Section 3 addresses the latest ideas in convergent margin tectonics, including the sedimentary record of subduction initiation, fl at-slab subduction, and arc-continent collision; it then moves inboard to fore-arc basins and intra-arc basins, and ends with a series of papers on basins formed under compressional strain regimes, as well as post-orogenic intramontane basins. Section 4 examines the originof plate interior basins, and the sedimentary record of supercontinent formation. This book is required reading for any advanced student or professional interested in sedimentology, plate tectonics,or petroleum geoscience.

Cathy Busby got her BS from Berkeley and her PhD from Princeton University, both in Geological Sciences.She mainly works on upper crustal rocks, combining stratigraphy, structural geology, geochronology, geochemistry and paleomagnetics to solve tectonic problems. Her papers also include process-oriented studies in submarine and subaerial volcanism, clastic depositional systems, and economic geology. Her research support has come from geothermal and gold exploration industries, as well as the petroleum industry, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation.

Antonio Azor: Full Professor in Structural Geology and Tectonic Geomorphology at the Department of Geodynamics of the University of Granada (Spain). Research fi elds of interest: Structural Geology and Tectonics, Active Tectonics, Tectonic Geomorphology, Regional Geology of the Late Palaeozoic Variscan Orogen and the Alpine Betic Cordillera.

Scanned fi les of the previous edition are available on www.wiley.com/go/busby/sedimentarybasins

Cover image: Exposure of the mid-Cenozoic Camargo Formation in the Eastern Cordillera fold-thrust belt of southern Bolivia. The Camargo Formation consists of a > 2,000 m thick, upward-coarsening succession of fl uvial sandstone and conglomerate deposited in the proximal foredeep and wedge-top depozones of the Andean foreland basin system as it migrated through this region en route to its present location along the eastern fl ank of the Andes. Photo by Peter DeCelles.

Cover design by Design Deluxe

TECTONICS OFSEDIMENTARY

BASINSRECENT ADVANCES

EDITED BYCathy Busby and Antonio Azor

TECTO

NIC

S O

F SED

IMEN

TARY B

ASIN

SED

ITED B

Y B

usbyand A

zor

TECTONICS OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS

COMPANION WEBSITE

Scanned files of the previous edition are available on thecompanion website:

www.wiley.com/go/busby/sedimentarybasins

Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins

Recent Advances

EDITED BY

Cathy Busby and Antonio Azor

This edition first published 2012 � 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged

with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse

the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright,

Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or

by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright,

Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product

names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.

The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide

accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is

not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a

competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

TECTONICS OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS : Recent Advances / edited by Cathy Busby and Antonio Azor.

p. cm.

Includes index.

ISBN 978-1-4051-9465-5 (cloth)

1. Sedimentary basins. 2. Plate tectonics. I. Busby, Catherine. II. Antonio Azor.

QE615.R43 2011

551.8–dc22

2011012200

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDF 9781444347135; Wiley Online Library 9781444347166;

ePub 9781444347142; Mobi 9781444347159

Set in 10/12pt Melior by Thomson Digital, Noida, India

1 2012

http://www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell

Contents

Contributors viiPreface xi

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1. Tectonics of sedimentary basins,with revised nomenclature 3Raymond V. Ingersoll

PART 2: NEW TECHNIQUES AND MODELING

2. Detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology:current methods and newopportunities 47George Gehrels

3. Terrestrial cosmogenic nuclidetechniques for assessing exposurehistory of surfaces and sediments inactive tectonic regions 63John C. Gosse

4. Magnetostratigraphic methods andapplications 80Guillaume Dupont-Nivet andWout Krijgsman

5. 3D seismic interpretation techniques:applications to basin analysis 95Christopher A-L. Jackson andKarla E. Kane

6. Dispersal and preservation oftectonically generated alluvial gravelsin sedimentary basins 111Philip A. Allen and Paul L. Heller

7. Source-to-sink sediment volumeswithin a tectono-stratigraphic modelfor a Laramide shelf-to-deep-waterbasin: methods and results 131Cristian Carvajal and Ron Steel

8. Modeling the interaction betweenlithospheric and surface processesin foreland basins 152Daniel Garcia-Castellanosand Sierd Cloetingh

PART 3: RIFT, POST-RIFT,TRANSTENSIONAL, AND STRIKE-SLIPBASIN SETTINGS

9. Continental rift basins: the East Africanperspective 185

Cynthia Ebinger andChristopher A. Scholz

10. Influence of sediment input andplate-motion obliquity on basindevelopment along an activeoblique-divergent plate boundary:Gulf of California and Salton Trough 209Rebecca J. Dorsey andPaul J. Umhoefer

11. Active transtensional intracontinentalbasins: Walker Lane in the westernGreat Basin 226Angela S. Jayko and Marcus Bursik

12. Post-rift deformation of the North Eastand South Atlantic margins: are“passive margins” really passive? 249Douglas Paton

13. The impact of early Cretaceousdeformation on deposition in thepassive-margin Scotian Basin, offshoreeastern Canada 270Georgia Pe-Piper andDavid J.W. Piper

PART 4: CONVERGENT MARGINS:SUBDUCTION AND COLLISION, FROMOUTBOARD TO INBOARD SETTINGS

14. Sedimentation at plate boundariesin transition 291Kathleen M. Marsaglia

15. Evolution of sedimentaryenvironments in the subduction zone

v

of southwest Japan: recent results fromthe NanTroSEIZE Kumano transect 310Michael B. Underwood andGregory F. Moore

16. Modification of continental forearcbasins by flat-slab subduction processes:a case study from southern Alaska 327Kenneth D. Ridgway, Jeffrey M. Tropand Emily S. Finzel

17. Basins in arc-continent collisions 347Amy E. Draut and Peter D. Clift

18. The Pampadel Tamarugal forearc basinin Northern Chile: the interaction oftectonics and climate 369

Peter Nester and Teresa Jordan

19. Extensional and transtensionalcontinental arc basins: case studiesfrom the southwestern United States 382Cathy J. Busby

20. Foreland basin systems revisited: variationsin response to tectonic settings 405Peter G. DeCelles

21. Cenozoic evolution of hinterlandbasins in the Andes and Tibet 427Brian K. Horton

22. Basin response to active extension andstrike-slip deformation in thehinterland of the Tibetan Plateau 445

Michael H. Taylor, Paul A. Kapp,and Brian K. Horton

23. The Betic intramontane basins(SE Spain): stratigraphy, subsidence,and tectonic history 461Jose Rodrıguez-Fernandez, AntonioAzor, and Jose Miguel Azanon

24. Dynamic relationship betweensubsidence, sedimentation, andunconformities in mid-Cretaceous,shallow-marine strata of the Western

Canada Foreland Basin: links toCordilleran tectonics 480A. Guy Plint, Aditya Tyagi,Phil J.A. McCausland, Jessica R.Krawetz (n�ee Rylaarsdam), HengZhang, Xavier Roca, Bogdan L.Varban, Y. Greg Hu, Michael A.Kreitner and Michael J. Hay

25. Structural, geomorphic, anddepositional characteristics ofcontiguous and broken forelandbasins: examples from the easternflanks of the central Andes in Boliviaand NW Argentina 508Manfred R. Strecker,George E. Hilley, Bodo Bookhagen,and Edward R. Sobel

26. Thrust wedge/foreland basin systems 522Hugh Sinclair

27. 2D kinematic models of growthfault-related folds in contractionalsettings 538Josep Poblet

PART 5: PLATE INTERIOR BASINSAND WIDESPREAD BASIN TYPES

28. Plate interior poly-phase basins 567Cari L. Johnson and Bradley D. Ritts

29. The great Grenvillian sedimentationepisode: record of supercontinentRodinia’s assembly 583Robert Rainbird, Peter Cawood andGeorge Gehrels

30. Cratonic basins 602Philip A. Allen and John J. Armitage

31. Endorheic basins 621Gary Nichols

Index 633

COMPANION WEBSITE

Scanned files of the previous edition are available on thecompanion website:

www.wiley.com/go/busby/sedimentarybasins

vi Contents

Contributors

Philip A. AllenDepartment of Earth Science & Engineering,Imperial College, South Kensington Campus,London SW7 2AZ, UK

John J. ArmitageDepartment of Earth Science & Engineering,Imperial College, South Kensington Campus,London SW7 2AZ, UK

Jos�e Miguel Azan�onInstituto Andaluz de Ciencias de la Tierra(CSIC-UGR), Campus de Fuentenueva, s/n,18071 Granada, SpainandDepartamento de Geodin�amica, Universidad deGranada, Campus de Fuentenueva, s/n, 18071Granada, Spain

Antonio AzorDepartamento de Geodin�amica, Universidad deGranada, Campus de Fuentenueva, s/n, 18071Granada, Spain

Bodo BookhagenGeography Department, University of California,Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA

Marcus BursikDepartment of Geology, University at Buffalo, 411Cooke Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-1350, USA

Cathy J. BusbyDepartment of Earth Science, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara CA 93106, USA

Cristian CarvajalJackson School of Geosciences, University ofTexas, Austin, TX 78712, USA

Peter CawoodSchool of Earth and Environment, University ofWestern Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley,WA 6009, AustraliaandDepartment of Geography and Geosciences,University of St. Andrews, North Street, St.Andrews, KY16 9AL, UK

Peter D. CliftSchool of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen,Aberdeen AB24 3UE, UK

Sierd CloetinghNetherlands Research Centre for Integrated SolidEarth Science (ISES), the Netherlands.

Peter G. DeCellesDepartment of Geosciences, University of Arizona,Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

Rebecca J. DorseyDepartment of Geological Sciences, 1272 Univer-sity of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 USA

Amy E. DrautU.S.Geological Survey, SantaCruz,CA95060,USA

Guillaume Dupont-NivetPaleomagnetic Laboratory ‘Fort Hoofddijk’,Faculty of Geosciences - Utrecht University, Buda-pestlaan 17, 3584 CD Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Cynthia EbingerDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences,University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627,USA

Emily S. FinzelDepartment of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences,Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive,Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051,USA

Daniel Garcia-CastellanosInstituto de Ciencias de la Tierra Jaume Almera(ICTJA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain

George GehrelsDepartment of Geosciences, University of Arizona,Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

John C. GosseDepartment of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie Univer-sity, Halifax, NS B3H4J1, Canada

Michael J. HayTalisman Energy Inc., Suite 3400, 888, 3rd St.S.W., Calgary, AB T2P 5C5, Canada

vii

Paul L. HellerDepartment of Geology & Geophysics, Universityof Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA

George E. HilleyDepartment of Geological and EnvironmentalSciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA94305-2115, USA

Brian K. HortonDepartment of Geological Sciences and Institutefor Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences,University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas78712, USA

Y. Greg HuLoring Tarcore Laboratories Ltd., #2-666 GoddardAve. NE, Calgary, AB T2K 5X3, Canada

Raymond V. IngersollDepartment of Earth and Space Sciences, Univer-sity of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567,USA

Christopher A-L. JacksonDepartment of Earth Science & Engineering, Impe-rial College, London SW7 2BP, UK

Angela S. JaykoRegional Tectonics, U.S. Geological Survey, U.C.White Mountain Research Station, 3000 E. LineSt., Bishop, CA 93514, USA

Cari L. JohnsonGeology and Geophysics, University of Utah,115S. 1460 East – FASB 383, Salt Lake City, UT84112, USA

Teresa JordanDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,Cornell University, Snee Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853,USA

Karla E. KaneStatoil (U.K.) Ltd, 1 Kingdom Street, London W26BD, UK

Paul A. KappDepartment of Geosciences, University of Arizona,Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

Jessica R. KrawetzCanadian Natural Resources Limited, Suite2500, 855-2nd Street SW, Calgary, AB, T2P 4J8,Canada

Michael A. KreitnerSuncor Energy Inc., 150 6th Ave SW, P.O. Box2844, Calgary, AB T2P 3E3, Canada

Wout KrijgsmanPaleomagnetic Laboratory ‘Fort Hoofddijk’, Fac-ulty of Geosciences - Utrecht University, Budapes-tlaan 17, 3584 CD Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Kathleen M. MarsagliaDepartment of Geological Sciences, CaliforniaState University Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff St.,Northridge, CA 91330-8266, USA

Phil J.A. McCauslandDepartment of Earth Sciences, The University ofWestern Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada

Gregory F. MooreDepartment of Geology & Geophysics, Universityof Hawaii-Manoa, 2500 Campus Road, Honolulu,HI 96822 USA

Peter NesterDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,Cornell University, Snee Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853,USA

Gary NicholsDepartment of Earth Sciences, Royal HollowayUniversity of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX,UK

Douglas PatonSchool of Earth and Environment, University ofLeeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

Georgia Pe-PiperDepartment of Geology, Saint Mary’s University,Halifax, NS B3H 3C3, Canada

David J.W. PiperGeological Survey of Canada (Atlantic), BedfordInstitute of Oceanography, P.O. Box 1006,Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4A2, Canada

A. Guy PlintDepartment of Earth Sciences, The University ofWestern Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada

Josep PobletDepartamento deGeologıa, UniversidaddeOviedo,C/Jesus Arias de Velasco s/n, 33005 Oviedo, Spain

Robert RainbirdGeological Survey of Canada, 615 Booth St,Ottawa, ON K1A 0E9, Canada

Kenneth D. RidgwayDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive,Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051, USA

viii Contributors

Bradley D. RittsChevron Energy Technology Company, 6001 Bol-linger Canyon Rd., San Ramon, CA 94583, USA

Xavier RocaImperial Oil Resources, 5thAvenue Place, 237, 4thAvenue SW, Calgary, AB, T2P 3M9, Canada

Jos�e Rodrıguez-Fern�andezInstituto Andaluz de Ciencias de la Tierra(CSIC-UGR), Campus de Fuentenueva, s/n, 18071Granada, Spain

Christopher A. ScholzDepartment of Earth Sciences, Syracuse Univer-sity, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA

Hugh SinclairSchool of GeoSciences, Drummond Street, Univer-sity of Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK

Edward R. SobelInstitut f€ur Geowissenschaften, Universit€at Pots-dam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany

Ron SteelJackson School of Geosciences, University ofTexas, Austin, TX 78712, USA

Manfred R. StreckerInstitut f€ur Geowissenschaften, Universit€at Pots-dam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany

Michael H. TaylorDepartment of Geology, University of Kansas,1735 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045,USA

Jeffrey M. TropDepartment of Geology, Bucknell University,Moore Avenue, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA

Aditya TyagiDepartment of Earth Sciences, University ofWestern Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada

Paul J. UmhoeferDepartment of Geology, Northern Arizona Univer-sity, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA

Michael B. UnderwoodDepartment of Geological Sciences, Universityof Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, 65211USA

Bogdan L. VarbanImperial Oil Resources, 5thAvenue Place, 237, 4thAvenue SW, Calgary, AB T2P 3M9, Canada

Heng ZhangApt. 1204, 108, 3rd Avenue SW, Calgary, AB T2P0E7, Canada

Contributors ix

Preface

The plate tectonic revolution of the 1960’s pro-vided the first unified framework formodels on theorigin of mountain belts and basins; this resultedin an outpouring of landmark papers in the 1970’sand 1980’s. When Ray Ingersoll and Cathy Busbytaught Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins in the late1980s (at UCLA andUCSB respectively), theywerefrustrated by a lack of textbooks or summarypapers on this topic. Instead, professors wereforced to compile impossibly long reading listsfor their students, and try to synthesize the mate-rial for them. For this reason, Professors Busby andIngersoll decided to edit a textbook on the topic forBlackwell, to be aimed at the senior undergraduateto professional geologist level. This was anexhaustive treatment that took five years to pro-duce, and it was published in 1995 (Busby andIngersoll, 1995). Online access to the 1995 book isprovided by the publisher, because it still providesa valid and complete introduction to the topic. Werecommend that the undergraduate geology stu-dent begin with the 1995 book, and that the grad-uate student and professional refer to it as neededwhile reading the new book.

Fifteen years later, there have been manyadvances in our understanding of the plate tec-tonic controls on basin formation and evolution.One large area of growth has been in the field ofactive tectonics, where advances in global posi-tioning and stratigraphic or surface dating tech-niques allow workers to compare present-dayplate motions with the growth of structures onthe time scale of thousands of years. Our under-standing of the sedimentary response to tectonicevents has been improved through numerical/analog modeling and detailed field observa-tions. Major advances have been made in stud-ies of the subsurface, through seismic surveysof crustal to upper mantle structure, as well as3D seismic surveys of basin fills, in some areasaugmented by cores. Isotopic studies of detritalminerals (e.g., U-Pb zircon) are now widely usedto reconstruct tectonic events, including large-scale basin translation, patterns of unroofing inregions around basins, and reconstruction of

sediment pathways across continents throughtime. Paleomagnetic methods are now verywidely employed for precise dating and correla-tion of strata, for determining sources and flowpaths of widespread volcanic units, and for eval-uating the importance of tectonic rotation.Another new approach to understanding tectonicproblems is the use of ArcGIS to manipulategeochronological, geochemical, biostratigraphic,and paleomagnetic databases, in concert withsatellite, air photograph, and geologic map data.At the same time, proliferation of detailed modelsfor complex volcanic-volcaniclastic dispersal-depositional systems has permitted detailed tec-tonic reconstruction of a wider range of basintypes, with dateable fill. Last but not least, numer-ical and analog modeling of geodynamic pro-cesses is more sophisticated than ever.

The new book presented here was producedin response to the demand for an update on thetopic, hence the title Tectonics of SedimentaryBasins: Recent Advances. Our mission was toassemble an all-star cast in the field of basintectonics, and give them a venue to present“cutting-edge” material. Unlike the 1995 book,this is not a comprehensive treatment of the entiresubject; that was useful 15 years ago, but onlineaccess to publications has reduced the need forsuch comprehensive treatment. Instead, we thinkour new book represents the state of the art inresearch on basin tectonics. This book was pro-duced very rapidly (in about two years), becauseit consist of numerous short chapters, most ofthem authored by only one or two people. Theauthors accomplished brevity by focusing onresults of global importance and key issues raisedover the last 15 years. Primary data are not gen-erally presented here, but primary data sourcesare well cited, so the reader has a guide to allof the important recent literature on each topic.We believe the resulting chapters showcasemeth-ods and results that use innovative approachesand have led to a new understanding of tectonicprocesses, being, furthermore, “transportable” toother regions. We offer a very brief summary of

xi

the main topics addressed in the book, giving therationale for their order of appearance.

PART 1: “INTRODUCTION”

The first part of the book is an overview of the topicof this book, by Ingersoll (Chapter 1). This chapteris a thorough update on his grand overviews pub-lished in the Geological Society of AmericaBulletin in 1988, and in Tectonics of SedimentaryBasins (with Busby) in 1995. This chapter pro-vides the reader with an understanding of theprocesses and nomenclature common to all suc-ceeding chapters in the book.

PART 2: “NEW TECHNIQUESAND MODELING”

Everyone involved agreed that Tectonics ofSedimentary Basins: Recent Advances needed apart on techniques, because they have proliferatedand been refined so much in the past 15 years(the 1995 book did not have a part like this). Wemade a conscious choice to limit discussions ofapplications in these chapters, thereby keepingeach chapter as short as possible while providingreferences to applied studies. This part gives thereader an overview of themost important advancesin techniques applied to tectonic analysis of sed-imentary basins. Detrital zircon geochronologictechniques (Chapter 2) and terrestrial cosmogenicnuclide techniques (Chapter 3) have come intowidespread use. Meanwhile, magnetostratigraphictechniques, seismic interpretation techniques, andbasin/stratigraphic modeling techniques, whilenot entirely new, have become far more sophis-ticated (Chapters 4–8). This part of the book ismissing a chapter on the huge and diverse field ofchemostratigraphic techniques, which have beenevolving for decades, but a treatment of that topicwould require a second book.

The third and fourth parts of this book areorganized by tectonic setting, divided into broadlydivergent and broadly convergent margins.

PART 3: “RIFT, POST-RIFT,TRANSTENSIONAL, AND STRIKE-SLIPBASIN SETTINGS”

Part 3 opens with a chapter on the classic activeorthogonal rift in East Africa (Chapter 9). Itthen moves to transtensional rift basins in a

“successful” continental rift (Gulf of California,Chapter 10), and a transtensional rift that is stillin progress (Walker Lane, Chapter 11). Transformmargins are not dealt with here; for a global cata-logue and description of strike-slip fault systems,see the 142-page opus by Paul Mann, published in2007 (Geological Society of London Special Pub-lications, vol. 290). In keeping with our theme oftectonics and sedimentation, Part 3 of our bookalso includes the so-called passive margins thatshow evidence of deformation long after sea-floorspreading began (Chapters 12 and 13).

PART 4: “CONVERGENT MARGINS”

Part 4 is broadly organized tomove from the trenchto more inboard settings, and from sea-floor sub-duction settings to collisional settings. This beginswith an examination of processes involved insubduction initiation (Chapter 14), and continueswith new results from what is probably the best-studied modern subduction complex on Earth(Chapter 15). Part 4 then proceeds through astudy of forearc deformation by flat-slab subduc-tion (Chapter 16), and the basinal record of bring-ing arcs into continental subduction zones(Chapter 17). It continues on the theme of sea-floor subduction by examining an Andean forearcbasin (Chapter 18), as well as extensional andtranstensional intra-arc basins of the Southwest-ern USA (Chapter 19). An overview of both sub-duction-related and collisional foreland basinsfollows (Chapter 20). Then we look at basinsthat lie on top of orogens, referred to as “hinterlandbasins” (a term included in the revised nomencla-ture of Chapter 1). These are described from bothsubduction and collisional settings (Andes andTibet), on the time scale from millions of years(Chapter 21) to hundreds of thousands and thou-sands of years (Chapter 22). We then move to“intramontane” basins of the Betic Cordilleraof Spain, interpreted to be extensional basinsformed in a late orogenic setting due to mantledelamination and/or slab rollback or detachment(Chapter 23). Part 4 then moves inboard in tec-tonic setting, to the foreland. Chapter 24 exam-ines patterns of flexural subsidence in thewesternCanada foreland basin, inferred to be broadlycontrolled by oceanic plate subduction, and atthe Cordilleran scale controlled by terrane accre-tion events. Chapter 25 contrasts the elementsof a typical contiguous foreland basin (Bolivia)

xii Preface

with those of a broken foreland (Argentina).These case studies are followed by studies thatdeal with general kinematic models for thrustwedge-foreland systems (Chapter 26), and modelsfor growth fault-related folds in contractionalsettings (Chapter 27). Part 4 has an unfortunateabsence of oceanic/island arc convergent marginbasin tectonic studies; that, too, is deserving of aseparate book.

PART 5: “PLATE INTERIOR BASINSAND WIDESPREAD BASIN TYPES”

The last part of the book treats sedimentary basintectonic topics that do not fit neatly into divergentor convergent plate tectonic settings. Plate inte-rior poly-phase (PIP) basins are important fortheir size and long-term structural and strati-graphic record (Chapter 28). The vast sedimen-tary record of the Grenvillian tectonomagmaticevent is described in the context of superconti-nent assembly (Chapter 29). In Chapter 30, cra-tonic basins are described as long-lived circularor elliptical crustal sags on thick, relatively stablecontinental lithosphere, and are interpreted tobe primarily formed by protracted plate-widestretching at low strain rate. Last, Chapter 31describes the distinctive stratigraphic and sedi-mentary facies characteristics that are common toendorheic (internally drained) basins in a widevariety of tectonic settings.

There were at least a few additional topics thatwere garnering increasing attention at the time thisbook was being produced. The halokinetic basin,important for commonly containing petroleum, isnow included in Ingersoll’s revised nomenclature(Chapter 1), and it deserved its own chapterhere. New techniques are rapidly evolving todeduce paleo-elevations from sedimentary basinfills, using stable isotopes in paleosols, fossils,silicates, and volcanic glasses, but these are treatedelsewhere (e.g., see Reviews in Mineralogy &Geochemistry, 2007, vol. 66). A very rapidlyexpanding, huge field of research uses global seis-mic tomography studies to infer linkages betweenmantle and surface processes. For example, howimportant is the role of “mantle/lithospheric drips”in causing surface subsidence (e.g., the Tulare LakeBasin of the San Joaquin Valley, California)? Arethey too small and too transient to be important?How does the subduction of huge oceanic plateauscontrol uplift and subsidence events on continents?

And how do surface tectonic basin processes pro-vide a record of tomographically imaged subduc-tion processes? Slab rollback is discussed in thisbook, but what are the effects of other processes,such as stalled slabs and broken slabs?

Like all geologic research, this book is a“progress report” on our understanding of thetectonics of sedimentary basins, which we thinkhas advanced greatly in recent years. We hope youfind the book useful. We give our sincere thanks tothe many reviewers who worked hard to give usvaluable feedback (listed below).

We thank the Spanish Ministry of Education forgranting Cathy Busby funds to work with AntonioAzor in the Department of Geodynamics at theUniversity of Granada in 2007–2008 and in2010. Without that support, this book would nothave been possible.

Cathy Busby and Antonio Azor, EditorsFebruary 12, 2011

CHAPTER REVIEWERS

Anonymous (3)Ramon Arrowsmith, Arizona State UniversityPeter Burgess, Royal Holloway UniversityKevin Burke, University of HoustonReynaldo Charrier, University of ChilePeter Clift, University of AberdeenChristopher Connors, Washington and Lee Uni-

versityRob Crossley, Fugro Robertson LtdPeter DeCelles, University of ArizonaAlex Densmore, Durham UniversityMark Deptuk, Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petro-

leum BoardWilliam R. Dickinson, University of ArizonaChristopher Fedo, University of TennesseeStanley C. Finney, California State University,

Long BeachWilliam Galloway, University of Texas Institute

for GeophysicsMiguel Garc�es, University of BarcelonaMartin Gibling, Dalhousie UniversityAdrian Hartley, University of AberdeenRichard Heermance, California State University,

NorthridgeWilliam Helland-Hansen, University of BergenPaul Heller, University of WyomingMatthew Horstwood, British Geological SurveyBrian Horton, University of Texas at Austin

Preface xiii

Raymond V. Ingersoll, University of California,Los Angeles

Cari Jonson, University of UtahTeresa Jordan, Cornell UniversityPaul Kapp, University of ArizonaTim Lawton, New Mexico State UniversityAndrew Leier, University of CalgaryNathaniel Lifton, Purdue UniversityJuan M. Lorenzo, Louisiana State UniversityPaul Mann, University of Texas Institute for

GeophysicsMariano Marzo, University of BarcelonaMargot McMechan, Geological Survey of CanadaAndrew Miall, University of TorontoIvan Marroquin, Paradigm GeophysicalNick Mortimer, GNS ScienceLorean Moscardelli, University of Texas at Austin

Michael Murphy, University of HoustonAndrew Meigs, Oregon State UniversityNadine MacQuarrie, Princeton UniversityNeil Opdyke, University of FloridaMichael Oskin, University of California, DavisChris Palola, University of MinnesotaKevin Pickering, University College LondonMarith Reheis, US Geological SurveyKen Ridgway, Purdue UniversityScott Samson, Syracuse UniversityDavid Scholl, US Geological SurveyJohn Shimeld, Geological Survey of CanadaGlen Stockmal, Geological Survey of CanadaManfred Strecker, Universit€at PotsdamMichael Taylor, University of KansasReinoud Vissers, Utrecht UniversityMartha Withjack, Rutgers University

xiv Preface

Part 1

Introduction

Chapter 1

Tectonics of sedimentary basins, with revised nomenclature

RAYMOND V. INGERSOLL

Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California

ABSTRACT

Actualistic plate-tectonic models are the best framework within which to understandthe tectonics of sedimentary basins. Sedimentary basins develop in divergent, intra-plate, convergent, transform,hybrid, andmiscellaneous settings.Within eachsetting areseveral variants, dependent on type(s) of underlying crust, structural position, sedimentsupply, and inheritance. Subsidence of sedimentary basins results from (1) thinning ofcrust (2) thickening of mantle lithosphere (3) sedimentary and volcanic loading (4) tec-tonic loading (5) subcrustal loading (6) asthenospheric flow, and (7) crustal densifica-tion. Basins vary greatly in size, life span, and preservation potential, with short-livedbasins formed in active tectonic settings, especially on oceanic crust, having lowpreservation potential, and long-lived basins formed in intraplate settings having thehighest preservation potential.Continental rifts may evolve into nascent ocean basins, which commonly evolve into

active ocean basins bordered by intraplate continental margins with three types ofconfigurations: shelf-slope-rise, transform, and embankment. Continental rifts that donot evolve into oceans become fossil rifts, which later become sites for development ofintracratonic basins and aulacogens. If all plate boundaries within and around an oceanbasin become inactive, a dormant ocean basin develops, underlain by oceanic crust andsurrounded by continental crust.Sites for sedimentary basins in convergent settings include trenches, trench

slopes, forearcs, intra-arcs, backarcs, and retroarcs. Complex dynamic behavior ofarc-trench systems results in diverse configurations for arc-related basins. Mostnotable is the overall stress regime of the arc-trench system, with resultingresponse along and behind the magmatic arc. Intra-arc rifting in highly extensionalarcs commonly evolves into backarc spreading to form new oceanic crust.Backarcs of neutral arcs can contain any type of preexisting crust that was trappedthere at the time of initiation of the related subduction zone. Highly compressional arcsdevelop retroarc foldthrust belts and related retroforeland basins, and may develophinterland basins; in extreme cases, broken retroforelands may develop in formercratonal areas.As nonsubductable continental or arc crust is carried toward a subduction zone,

collision generally initiates at one point and the resulting suture propagates awayfrom this point of initial impact. Remnant ocean basins form on both sides of theinitial impact point, and rapidly fill with sediment derived from the suture zone. Ascollision continues, the flux of sediment into the remnant ocean basin(s) increasesconcurrently with shrinkage of the basin until final suturing and obduction of theaccreted sediment occur. Concurrently with collision, proforeland basins form oncontinental crust of the subducting plate and collisional retroforeland basins formon the overriding plate. Impactogens, broken forelands, and hinterland basins alsomay result.In transform settings and along complex strike-slip fault systems related to convergent

settings, changing stress regimes related to irregularities in fault trends, rock types, andplate motions result in transtension, transpression, and transrotation, with associatedcomplex, diverse, and short-lived sedimentary basins.

Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins: Recent Advances, First Edition. Edited by Cathy Busby and Antonio Azor.

� 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

3

Two previously unnamed basin types that have received increasing attentionrecently are halokinetic basins (related to salt tectonics, especially along intraplatemargins with embankment configurations) and bolide basins (resulting from extrater-restrial impacts). Sediment accumulates in successor basins following cessationof basin-controlling processes, whether in divergent, convergent, transform, orhybrid settings.The ultimate goal of classifying and reviewing all types of sedimentary basins is the

improvement of paleotectonic and paleogeographic reconstructions through the appli-cation of actualistic models for basin evolution. Interdisciplinary studies that test andrefine these models will improve our knowledge of Earth history.

Keywords: basin nomenclature; plate-tectonic settings; subsidence mechanisms;preservation potential; paleotectonic reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

It has beenmore than adecade since I reviewedandrevised my original basin classification (i.e., Inger-soll, 1988; Ingersoll and Busby, 1995), which wasbased primarily on Dickinson’s (1974b, 1976a)statement of fundamental principles that shouldguide discussion of the tectonics of sedimentarybasins. Many new insights and models have beendeveloped recently; in addition, nomenclature hasevolved in complex ways. Therefore, now is anappropriate time to consolidate, revise, and dis-cuss how to communicate about the tectonics ofsedimentary basins.

As inmypreviouspapers on this subject, I followDickinson’s (1974b, 1976a) suggestions thatnomen-clature and classification be based on the followingactualistic plate-tectonic processes and character-istics, which ultimately control the location, initi-ation, and evolution of sedimentary basins indiverse tectonic settings. Horizontal motions ofplates, thermal changes through time, stretchingand shortening of crust, isostatic adjustments,mantle dynamics, surficial processes, and evenextraterrestrial events influence sedimentarybasins. Additional study of sedimentary basins,inevitably, leads to greater complexity of modelsto explain them. Although we should search forunifying principles that lead to deeper under-standing of processes and results, the complexityof the real world dictates that enhanced knowledgeabout sedimentary basins results in more complexmodels. Thus, new types of sedimentary basins areadded to the list provided in Ingersoll andBusby (1995) because these are actual featuresthat need to be understood. Gould (1989, 98)stated, “Classifications are theories about thebasis of natural order, not dull catalogues compiled

only to avoid chaos.” I hope that my discussionserves the dual purposes of reducing nomencla-tural chaos and suggesting a framework withinwhich to understand the complex controls on theorigin and evolution of sedimentary basins.

NOMENCLATURE

First-order criteria for classifying sedimentarybasins (Dickinson, 1974b, 1976a) are (1) type ofnearest plate boundary(ies) (2) proximity of plateboundary(ies), and (3) type of substratum. Thus,the first-order classification, based on criteria (1)and (2) is divergent, intraplate, convergent,transform, hybrid, and miscellaneous settings(Table 1.1). Within each of these categories areseveral variants, dependent on type of substratum(oceanic, transitional, continental, and anomalouscrust), as well as structural position, sedimentsupply, and inheritance.

Basin classification and nomenclature arebased on characteristics of a basin at the time ofsedimentation. Thus, many stratigraphic succes-sions are multidimensional andmultigenerationalin terms of plate-tectonic controls on theirevolution. A single stratigraphic succession mayrepresent several different tectonic settings. “Theevolution of a sedimentary basin thus canbe viewed as the result of a succession of discreteplate-tectonic settings and plate interactionswhose effects blend into a continuum of devel-opment” (Dickinson, 1974b, 1).

It is important to realize that “basin,” as usedherein, refers to any stratigraphic accumulationof sedimentary or volcanic rock; the three-dimensional architecture of basins may approxi-mate saucers, wedges, sheets, and odd shapes.

4 Part 1: Introduction

Table

1.1.Basinclassificationwithmodern

andancientexamples

Setting

Basintype

Definition

Modern

example

Ancientexample

Analogmodel

(Figure)

Divergent

Continentalrifts

Rifts

within

continentalcrust,

commonly

associatedwith

bim

odalmagmatism

Rio

Granderift

Proterozoic

Keweenawanrift

3B

Nascentoceanbasins

andcontinental

margins

Incipientoceanbasinsfloored

bynew

oceanic

crust

and

flankedbyyoungrifted

continentalmargins

RedSea

Jurassic

ofEast

Greenland

3C

Intraplate

Intraplate

continental

margins

Shelf-slope-rise

configuration

Mature

riftedintraplate

continentalmarginswith

shelfedgenearboundary

betw

eencontinentaland

oceanic

crust

East

Coast

ofUSA

EarlyPaleozoic

ofUSA

andCanadian

Cordillera

3D

Transform

configuration

Intraplate

continentalmargins

thatoriginate

along

transform

plate

boundaries

South

Coast

ofW

est

Africa

Precambrian-early

Paleozoic

Alabama-

Oklahomatransform

3E

Embankment

configuration

Progradationalintraplate

continentalmarginswith

shelfedgeaboveoceanic

crust

MississippiRiverGulf

Coast

EarlyPaleozoic

Meguma

terraneofCanadian

Appalachians(?)

3F

Intracratonic

basins

Broadcratonic

basins

underlain

byfossilrifts

Chadbasin

Paleozoic

Michigan

basin

3A

Continentalplatform

sStable

cratonswiththin

and

laterallyextensive

sedim

entary

strata

Barents

Sea

Middle

Paleozoic,North

American

midcontinent

3A

Activeoceanbasins

Basinsflooredbyoceanic

crust

form

edatactivedivergent

plate

boundariesunrelated

toarc-trenchsystems

PacificOcean

Variousophiolitic

complexes(?)

3G

Oceanic

islands,

seamounts,

aseismic

ridges,

and

plateaus

Sedim

entary

apronsand

platform

sform

edin

intraoceanic

settingsother

thanarc-trenchsystems

Emperor-Hawaii

seamounts

Mesozoic

Snow

Mountain

Volcanic

Complex(Franciscan

ofnorthern

California)

3G

Dorm

antoceanbasins

Basinsflooredbyoceanic

crust,

whichis

neithersp

reading

norsu

bducting

GulfofMexico

Paleozoic

Tarim

basin

(China)(?)

3H (c

ontinued)

Tectonics, with revised nomenclature 5

Table

1.1.(Continued)

Setting

Basintype

Definition

Modern

example

Ancientexample

Analogmodel

(Figure)

Convergent

Trenches

Deeptroughsform

edatoceanic

subductionzones

ChileTrench

Cretaceous,

Shumagin

Island(southern

Alaska)

4A

Trench-slopebasins

Localstructuraldepressionson

subductioncomplexes

CentralAmerican

Trench

CretaceousCambriaslab

(centralCalifornia)

4B

Forearc

basins

Basinswithin

arc-trenchgaps

Offsh

ore

Sumatra

CretaceousGreatValley

(California)

4B

Intraarc

basins

Oceanic

intraarc

basins

Basinsalongintraoceanic

arc

platform

s,whichinclude

superposedandoverlapping

volcanoes

IzuBonin

arc

CopperHill,Gopher

RidgeComplex

(Jurassic,California)

4A

Continentalintraarc

basins

Basinsalongcontinental-

margin

arc

platform

s,which

includesu

perposedand

overlappingvolcanoes

LagodeNicaragua

EarlyJurassic

Sierra

Nevada(eastern

California)

4C

Backarc

basins

Oceanic

backarc

basins

Oceanic

basinsbehind

intraoceanic

magmaticarcs

(includinginterarc

basins

betw

eenactiveandremnant

arcs)

Marianasbackarc

Jurassic

Josephine

ophiolite

(northern

California)

4A,B

Continentalbackarc

basins

Continentalbasinsbehind

continental-margin

arcs

withoutforelandfoldthrust

belts

SundaShelf

Late

Triassic

-Early

Jurassic

ofUSA

Cordillera

4C

Retroforelandbasins

Retroarc

forelandbasins

Forelandbasinsoncontinental

sidesofcontinental-margin

arc-trenchsystems

Andesfoothills

CretaceousSevier

forelandofUSA

Cordillera

4E

Collisionalretroforeland

basins

Forelandbasinsform

edon

overridingplatesduring

continentalcollisions(m

ay

haveretroarc

precursors)

Western

Tarim

basin

(China)

Triassic-Jurassic

Ordos

basin(China)

4F

Broken-retroforeland

basins

Basinsform

edamong

basement-coredupliftsin

retroforelandsetting

SierrasPampeanas

basins(A

rgentina)

Late

Cretaceous-

PaleogeneLaramide

basinsofUSA

Cordillera

4D

Remnantoceanbasins

Shrinkingoceanbasins

betw

eencolliding

continentalmarginsand/or

arc-trenchsystems,

and

ultim

ately

subductedor

deform

edwithin

suture

belts

BayofBengal

Pennsylvanian-Perm

ian

Ouachitabasin

4E


Proforelandbasins

Forelandbasinsform

edon

continentalcrust

thatis

part

ofthesu

bductingplate

duringcontinentaland/or

arc

collision

PersianGulf

Mid-Cenozoic

Swiss

Molassebasin

4F

Wedgetopbasins

Basinsform

edandcarriedon

movingthrust

sheets

Pesh

awarbasin

(Pakistan)

Neogene,Apennines

(Italy)

4F

Hinterlandbasins

Basinsform

edonthickened

continentalcrust

behind

forelandfoldthrust

belts

AltiplanoPlateau

(Bolivia)

NeogeneZhadabasin

(Tibet)

4D

Transform

Transtensionalbasins

Basinsform

edbyextension

alongstrike-slipreleasing

bendsandsteps

DeadSea

CarboniferousMagdalen

basin(G

ulfofSaint

Lawrence)

5A

Transp

ressionalbasins

Basinsform

edbysh

ortening

alongstrike-slip

constrainingbendsandsteps

Santa

Barbara

Basin

(forelandtype)

(California)

MioceneRidgebasin

(fault-bendtype)

(California)

5B

Transrotationalbasins

Basinsform

edbyrotationof

crustalblocksaboutvertical

axeswithin

strike-slipfault

systems

Western

Aleutian

forearc

(?)

MioceneLosAngeles

basin(Topangabasin)

(California)

5C

Miscellaneous

andhybrid

Aulacogens

Reactivatedfossilriftsathigh

anglesto

orogenic

belts

Mississippiembayment

Paleozoic

Anadarko

aulacogen(O

klahoma)

6A

Impactogens

Newly

form

edcontinentalrifts

athighanglesto

orogenic

belts,

withoutpreorogenic

history

(incontrast

toaulacogens)

Baikalrift(distal)

(Siberia)

RhineGraben(proxim

al)

(Europe)

6B

Collisionalbroken

foreland

Diversebasinsform

edon

deform

edcontinentalcrust

dueto

distantcollisions

Qaidam

basin(China)

Pennsylvanian-Perm

ian

AncestralRocky

Mountain

basinsofthe

USA

Cordillera

6B

Halokineticbasins

Basinsform

eddueto

deform

ationofsalt,most

commonly

incontinental

embankments

and

proforelands

Mini-basinsofdeepGulf

ofMexico

Cretaceous-PaleogeneLa

Popabasin(M

exico)

3F

Bolidebasins

Depressionsin

Earth’s

surface

resu

ltingfrom

extraterrestrialim

pacts

MeteorCrater(A

rizona)

Cretaceous-Paleogene

Chicxulubbasin

(Mexico)

3E

Successorbasins

Basinsform

edin

interm

ontane

settingsfollowingcessation

oflocaltaphrogenic

or

orogenic

activity

Southern

Basinand

Range(A

rizona)

PaleogeneSustut

basin(?)(British

Columbia)

5C

ModifiedafterIngersollandBusby(1995).


Also, basinsmay formby subsidence of a substrate,development of a barrier to transport of sediment,filling of a preexisting hole, or relative movementof source and sink.

SUBSIDENCE MECHANISMSAND PRESERVATION POTENTIAL

Surfaces of deposition may subside due to thefollowing processes (Dickinson, 1974b, 1976a,1993; Ingersoll and Busby, 1995) (Table 1.2):(1) thinning of crust due to stretching, erosion,andmagmatic withdrawal (2) thickening ofmantlelithosphere during cooling (3) sedimentary andvolcanic loading (local crustal isostasy or regionallithospheric flexure) (4) tectonic loading of bothcrust and lithosphere (5) subcrustal loading of bothcrust and lithosphere (6) dynamic effects ofasthenospheric flow, and (7) crustal densification.Figure 1.1 illustrates that crustal thinning domi-natesduring early stages of extension (e.g., rifts andtranstensional basins), and mantle-lithosphericthickening dominates following the initiation ofseafloor spreading (during the rift-to-drift transi-tion along divergent margins which evolve intointraplate margins). Sedimentary loading domi-nates along continental-oceanic crustal bound-aries which are supplied by major rivers anddeltas (e.g., continental embankments and rem-nant ocean basins). Tectonic loading dominatesin settings where crustal shortening dominates(e.g., trenches and foreland basins). The otherthree types of subsidence mechanismsare generally subordinate.

The diversity of tectonic and structural settingsof sedimentary basins dictates that they varygreatly in size, life span, and preservationpotential (Fig. 1.2) (Ingersoll, 1988; Ingersoll andBusby, 1995; Woodcock, 2004). Many sediment

accumulations are destined to be destroyed rela-tively soon after deposition (e.g., most basinsresiding on oceanic crust or in rapidly upliftingorogenic settings). In contrast, basins formed dur-ing and following stretching of continental crust(e.g., continental rifts that either evolve into sea-floor spreading or fail to do so) have high preser-vation potential because they subside and areburied beneath intraplate deposits following rift-ing. On the other hand, stratigraphic sequencesalong intraplate continental margins are destinedto be partially subducted as they are pulled intotrenches, thus preserving thematmoderate to deepcrustal levels as highly deformed and metamor-phosed terranes. Such metasedimentary andmetavolcanic terranes, along with voluminoussediments deposited in remnant ocean basins,are major rock bodies involved in the constructionof continental crust, although their substrates(oceanic crust) are mostly subducted (e.g., Grahamet al., 1975; Ingersoll et al., 1995, 2003).

DIVERGENT SETTINGS

Sequential rift development and continentalseparation

The relative importance of “active” (mantle-convective-driven) versus “passive” (litho-spheric-driven) processes during initiation of con-tinental rifting is debated (e.g., Sengor andBurke, 1978; Ingersoll and Busby, 1995; Sengor,1995). Regardless of the mechanisms of initiationof rifting, continental rifts may experience two lifepaths: “successful” rifting that evolves into sea-floor spreading to form nascent ocean basins(Ingersoll and Busby, 1995; Leeder, 1995), whichthen evolve into active ocean basins with pairedintraplate margins (Fig. 1.3), or “failed” rifting,which does not evolve into nascent ocean basins,

Table 1.2. Subsidence mechanisms

Crustal thinning Extensional stretching, erosion during uplift, and magmatic withdrawalMantle-lithospheric thickening Conversion of asthenosphere to mantle lithosphere during cooling following

cessation of stretching and/or heatingSedimentary and volcanic loading Local isostatic compensation of crust and/or regional lithospheric flexure

during sedimentation and volcanismTectonic loading Local isostatic compensation of crust and/or regional lithospheric flexure

during overthrusting and/or underpullingSubcrustal loading Lithospheric flexure during underplating of dense lithosphereAsthenospheric flow Dynamic effects of asthenospheric flow, commonly due to descent or

delamination of subducted lithosphereCrustal densification Increased density of crust due to changing pressure/temperature conditions

and/or emplacement of higher-density melts into lower-density crust


instead producing fossil rifts, commonly overlainby intracratonic basins (Sengor, 1995). IngersollandBusby (1995),Leeder (1995), andSengor (1995)reviewed most aspects of continental stretching,basin formation, structural development, and

different life paths during and after continentalrifting. Here, I highlight changes in nomenclatureand models involved in the evolution from conti-nental rifts to intraplate margins (the rift-drifttransition).

Cru

stal

Thi

nnin

g

Man

tle

-Lit

hosp

heri

c T

hick

enin

g

Sed

imen

tary

and

Vol

cani

c L

oadi

ng

Tec

toni

c L

oadi

ng

Sub

crus

tal

Loa

ding

Ast

heno

sphe

ric

Flo

w

Cru

stal

Den

sifi

cati

on

SUBSIDENCE MECHANISMS

B A S I N T Y P E S

Continental Rifts

Nascent Ocean Basins and Continental Margins

Intraplate Continental Margins Shelf-slope-rise configurationTransform configurationEmbankment configuration

Intracratonic Basins

Continental Platforms

Active Ocean Basins

Oceanic Islands, Seamounts, Aseismic Ridges and Plateaus

Dormant Ocean Basins

Trenches

Trench- Slope Basins

Forearc Basins

Intraarc Basins

Backarc Basins Oceanic backarc basins

Hinterland Basins

Continental backarc basinsRetroforeland Basins Retroarc foreland basins

Collisional retroforeland basinsBroken-retroforeland basins

Remnant Ocean Basins

Proforeland Basins

Wedgetop Basins

Transtensional BasinsTranstensional BasinsTranspressional Basins

Transrotational Basins

Aulacogens

Impactogens

Collisional Broken -Foreland Basins

Halokinetic Basins

Bolide Basins

Successor Basins

Dominant MinorImportant

Fig. 1.1. Suggested subsidence mechanismsfor all types of sedimentary basins.

Lif

esp

an o

f S

edim

enta

ry A

ccu

mu

lati

on

(mill

ion

yea

rs)

0

10

100

1000

Low Medium High

Post-Sedimentation Preservation Potential

Continental Rifts Nascent-Ocean Margins

Intraplate Continental Margins

Intracratonic

Continental Platforms

Active Ocean

Oceanic Islands, AseismicRidges, Plateaus

Dormant Ocean

Trenches

Trench-Slope

Forearc

Continental IntraarcOceanic Backarc

Continental BackarcRetroforeland

Remnant OceanProforeland

WedgetopTranstensional

Transpressional Transrotational

Aulacogens

Impactogens

Collisional Broken Foreland

Halokinetic

Bolide

Successor

Oceanic Intraarc

Hinterland

Fig. 1.2. Typical life spans for sedimentary basinsversus their post-sedimentation preservation poten-tial, which refers to average time interval duringwhich basins will not be uplifted and eroded duringand following sedimentation. Sedimentary or volca-nic fill may be preserved as accretionary complexesduring and after basin destruction (especially true forall strata deposited on oceanic crust). Intraplate con-tinental margins have high preservation potential inthe sense of retaining their basement, but are likely tobe highly deformed and metamorphosed beneath andwithin suture belts, and may be difficult to recognizein ancient settings.


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Continental Rift0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

MANTLE

LITHOSPHERE

Continental Platform

ASTHENOSPHERE

CONTINENTAL CRUST

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Nascent Ocean

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

(E) (F)

(G) (H)

km

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Shelf Slope Rise

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Intracratonic

TransformTransform Embankment

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Active Ocean Oceanic Island Dormant Ocean

Bolide Halokinetic

Fig. 1.3. True-scale actualistic analog models for sedimentary basins in divergent, intraplate and miscellaneous settings.Mantle lithosphere thins during decompression melting as plates diverge; mantle lithosphere thickens during cooling,following cessation of divergence. Also shown are two miscellaneous basins (bolide and halokinetic). Placement of bolidebasin is arbitrary; theymay formanywhere onEarth’s surface, althoughpreservation ismore likely in cratonal areas (as shownin E). Halokinetic basins may form anywhere that salt is deeply buried; however, continental embankments (as shown in F)are themost common locations. Continental crust¼ jackstraw pattern; oceanic crust¼ vertical lines; mantle lithosphere andderived igneous rocks ¼ black; asthenosphere and derived melts ¼ orange; salt (halokinetic only) ¼ black.


Continental rifts

The most common basins associated with conti-nental rifts (Fig. 1.3b) (“terrestrial rift valleys” ofDickinson, 1974b; Ingersoll, 1988) are half grabensdeveloped on the hanging walls of normal faults(Leeder and Gawthorpe, 1987; Leeder, 1995;Gawthorpe and Leeder, 2000). Gawthorpe andLeeder (2000) summarized conceptual modelsfor the tectono-sedimentary evolution of continen-tal rift basins, including their three-dimensionaldevelopment. They discussed structural, geomor-phic, climatic, and lake/sea-level influences onbasin development.

All of the models presented by Gawthorpe andLeeder (2000) involve high-angle normal faults. Inthese half grabens, most sediment is derived fromthe hanging wall, whereas the coarsest material,which is derived primarily from the footwall, isrestricted to small steep alluvial fans or fan deltasalong the faulted basin boundary. In contrast,supradetachment basins (formed above low-angle normal faults) receivemost of their sedimentfrom the breakaway footwall and tend to be dom-inated by coarse-grained detritus (Friedmann andBurbank, 1995). Additional variants on theGawthorpe and Leeder (2000) half-graben modelinclude development of accommodation zones,relay ramps, anticlinal-full-grabenbasins, and syn-clinal-horst basins (Rosendahl, 1987; Faulds andVarga, 1998; Ingersoll, 2001; Mack et al., 2003).

Nascent ocean basins and continental margins

As continental lithosphere is stretched andthinned, mantle asthenosphere eventually risesclose to the surface (Fig. 1.3c). During the transi-tion from continental rifting to seafloor spreading,transitional crust forms, either as stretched conti-nental crust (quasicontinental) or sediment-richbasaltic crust (quasioceanic) (Dickinson, 1974b;Ingersoll, 2008b). Continental rifting evolves intoseafloor spreading only in the absence of signifi-cant sediment so that oceanic crust is the only solidmaterial with which rising asthenospheric meltscan interact (Einsele, 1985; Nicolas, 1985). Thus, asignificant width of transitional crust typicallyforms on the margins of nascent ocean basinsprior to initiation of true seafloor spreading.

As these transitional types of crust form andthe two continental margins move apart, anascent ocean basin develops (“proto-oceanicgulf” and “narrow ocean” of Dickinson (1974b);

“proto-oceanic rift trough” of Ingersoll (1988)).The Red Sea is the type nascent ocean basin,with active seafloor spreading, clastic andcarbonate sedimentation along the margins, anduplifted rift shoulders along the continentalmargins (Cochran, 1983; Bohannon, 1986a,1986b; Coleman, 1993; Leeder, 1995; Purser andBosence, 1998; Bosworth et al., 2005). Thick evap-orite deposits may form during the transitionfrom rift basin to nascent ocean basin, as well asduringmuchof the history of nascent oceanbasins,given the right combination of arid climate, limitedcommunication with other marine bodies, andlack of detrital input (Dickinson, 1974b). TheGulf of California is an example of a transtensionalnascent ocean basin (e.g., Atwater, 1989;Lonsdale, 1991; Atwater and Stock, 1998; Axenand Fletcher, 1998).

INTRAPLATE SETTINGS

Intraplate continental margins

Nascent ocean basins evolve into wide (Atlantic-type) oceans as two continents diverge alongspreading ridges. During this evolutionary pro-cess, the newly rifted continental margins withuplifted rift flanks cool and subside as theymove away from the spreading ridge. This processis referred to as the “rift-to-drift” transition, as adivergent setting evolves into an intraplate setting(Dickinson, 1974b, 1976a; Ingersoll, 1988; Bondet al., 1995; Ingersoll and Busby, 1995). Withjacket al. (1998) discussed complications in timing andprocess during this transition.

Subsidence mechanisms evolve from (1) thin-ning of continental crust by stretching and erosionduring doming and rifting, to (2) thermal subsi-dence following rifting as the intraplate marginmoves away from the spreading ridge, to (3) bothlocal crustal and regional lithospheric sedimentloading during the later history of the intraplatecontinentalmargin (Bondet al., 1995; Ingersoll andBusby, 1995). Lower-crustal and subcrustal flowand densification can locally modify subsidence.

Shelf-slope-rise configuration

Most mature intraplate continental margins con-sist of a seaward thickeningwedgeof shelf depositson top of continental crust, which is thinner sea-ward (Fig. 1.3d). Transitional crust (both quasicon-tinental and quasioceanic; Dickinson, 1974b,


1976a) underlies the seaward transition from thickshelf deposits to thin slope deposits, which, inturn, merge into thick turbiditic rise and abyssal-plain deposits on oceanic crust (Bond et al., 1995;Ingersoll and Busby, 1995). Most modern Atlanticcontinental margins have this configuration, withcarbonate environments dominating at lower lati-tudes devoid of extensive clastic input.

Transform configuration

Intraplate continental margins that originate alongtransform boundaries rather than rift boundarieshave narrower sediment prisms and transitionalcrust (Fig. 1.3e). Tens ofmillions of years may passbetween the time of initiation of transform motion(coincident with the rift-to-drift transition onadjoining margins) and the time of intraplate sed-imentation (following passage of the spreadingridge along the transform boundary) (e.g., Bondet al., 1995; Turner et al., 2003;Wilson et al., 2003).The southern coast of West Africa exemplifiesthese characteristics; the latest Proterozoic -early Paleozoic Alabama-Oklahoma transformmargin is an ancient example (e.g., Thomas, 1991).

Embankment configuration

Major rivers along intraplate continental marginscommonly are localized by fossil rifts trending athigh angle to themargins (Burke and Dewey, 1973;Dickinson, 1974b; Audley-Charles et al., 1977;Ingersoll and Busby, 1995). The best examplesare the Niger Delta (Burke, 1972) and the Missis-sippi Delta (Worrall and Snelson, 1989; Salvador,1991; Galloway et al., 2000), where the shelf edgehas prograded over oceanic crust because themax-imum sediment thickness allowed by isostaticloading (16–18 km; Kinsman, 1975) has beenreached inland of the shelf edge (Fig. 1.3f).In the case of the USA Gulf Coast, several riversin addition to the Mississippi have contributed toconsiderable progradation of the continental mar-gin over a wide area; this is the type example of acontinental embankment, a distinctly differentconfiguration than either the shelf-slope-rise ortransform configuration.

Intracratonic basins

Most intracratonic basins (e.g., Michigan basin)overlie fossil rifts (e.g., DeRito et al., 1983;Quinlan, 1987; Klein, 1995; Sengor, 1995; Howell

and van der Pluijm, 1999) (Fig. 1.3a). Renewedperiods of subsidence in cratonic basins can gen-erally be correlated with changes in lithosphericstress related to orogenic activity in neighboringorogenic belts (DeRito et al., 1983; Howell and vander Pluijm, 1999). Subsidence occurs when litho-spheric rigidity lessens, allowing uncompensatedmass in the upper crust (remnants of fossil rifts) tosubside over a broad area. Between times of oro-genic activity, the lithosphere strengthens so thatattainment of local isostatic equilibrium is inter-rupted. Thus, an intracratonic basinmay take hun-dreds of millions of years to reach full isostaticcompensation (DeRito et al., 1983; Ingersoll andBusby, 1995; Howell and van der Pluijm, 1999).

Continental platforms

Cratonal stratigraphic sequences primarilyreflect global tectonic events and eustasy (e.g.,Sloss, 1988; Bally, 1989), although mantle dynam-ics, and local and regional events also influencecontinental platforms (e.g., Cloetingh, 1988;Burgess and Gurnis, 1995; van der Pluijmet al., 1997; Burgess, 2008). In contrast to intracra-tonic basins, platforms (Fig. 1.3a) accumulate sed-iment ofuniform thicknessover continental scales.Platformal stratigraphic sequences are transitionalinto continental margins, intracratonic basins,foreland basins, and other tectonic settings alongcontinental margins (Ingersoll and Busby, 1995;Burgess, 2008). The distinction of distal forelandand platform sequences may be arbitrary, espe-ciallyduring times of high sea level, high carbonateproductivity, and broad foreland flexure. Eustati-cally induced cyclothems are best expressed onplatforms (e.g., Heckel, 1984; Klein, 1992; Kleinand Kupperman, 1992), and paleolatitude andpaleoclimate signals are best isolated in platformalsequences (Berry and Wilkinson, 1994). Platformshave generally experienced exposure and erosionduring times of supercontinents, and have experi-enced maximum flooding approximately 100My after supercontinent breakup (Heller andAngevine, 1985; Cogne et al., 2006).

Active ocean basins

The systematic exponential thermal decay of oce-anic lithosphere as it moves away from spreadingridges is expressed by increasing water depthwith age of oceanic crust (Sclater et al., 1971;Parsons and Sclater, 1977; Stein and Stein, 1992)


(Fig. 1.3g). As oceanic crust subsides with age anddistance from spreading ridges, systematic pelagicand hemipelagic deposits accumulate (Berger,1973; Heezen et al., 1973; Winterer, 1973; Bergerand Winterer, 1974). Carbonate ooze accumulatesabove the carbonate compensation depth(CCD), which is depressed under areas of highbiologic productivity; silica ooze accumulatesabove the poorly defined silica compensationdepth (SCD); and only abyssal clay accumulatesbelow the SCD. The result is a dynamic and pre-dictive stratigraphy relating the age, depth, andpaleoaltitude of oceanic crust to oceanic deposi-tional facies. Volcaniclastic and turbidite depositsnear magmatic arcs and continental marginscomplicate predicted stratigraphic sequences onoceanic plates (e.g., Cook, 1975; Ingersoll andBusby, 1995).

Oceanic islands, seamounts, aseismic ridges,and plateaus

Islands, seamounts, ridges, and plateaus thermallysubside as oceanic plates migrate away fromspreading ridges. Thermal anomalies independentof spreading ridges (e.g., hot spots) create newislands, ridges, and plateaus, which may havecomplex subsidence histories, dependent ontheir magmatic histories. Clague (1981) dividedthe post-volcanic history of seamounts into threesequential stages: subaerial, shallow water, anddeep water or bathyal (Ingersoll, 1988; Ingersolland Busby, 1995). As an island is eroded andsubsides, fringing reefs and atolls may form,depending on latitude, climate, and relativesea level (e.g., Jenkyns and Wilson, 1999;Dickinson, 2004). Oceanic features, which maybecome accreted terranes at convergent margins(e.g., Wrangellia of the North American Cordillera;Ricketts, 2008), range in size from small seamountsto large mafic igneous provinces, such as theOntong Java Plateau and related features (e.g.,Taylor, 2006).

Dormant ocean basins

Dormant ocean basins are floored by oceanic crust,which is neither spreading nor subducting; inother words, there are no active plate marginswithin or adjoining the basin (Ingersoll andBusby, 1995) (Fig. 1.3h). This setting contrastswith active ocean basins, which include at leastone active spreading ridge (e.g., Atlantic, Pacific,

and Indian oceans), and remnant ocean basins,which are small shrinking oceans bounded by atleast one subduction zone (e.g., Bay of Bengal andHuonGulf). The term “dormant” implies that thereis no orogenic or taphrogenic activity within oradjacent to the basin; “oceanic” requires thatthe basin is underlain by oceanic lithosphere,in contrast to intracratonic basins, which are typ-ically underlain by partially rifted continentallithosphere (Ingersoll and Busby, 1995).

Dormant ocean basins are created by two con-trasting processes: (1) spreading ridges of nascentocean basins cease activity (e.g., Gulf of Mexico;Pindell andDewey, 1982; Pindell, 1985; Dickinsonand Lawton, 2001), or (2) backarc basins (eitherextensional or neutral) are not subducted duringsuturing of continents and/or arcs (e.g., Black Sea;Okay et al., 1994) or South Caspian basin (Brunetet al., 2003; Vincent et al., 2005). The origin ofdormant oceanbasinsmaybedifficult todeterminebecause basement and original strata commonlyremain deeply buried for hundreds of millionsof years following cessation of seafloor spreading(e.g., Tarim and Junggar basins of western China)(e.g., Sengor et al., 1996). Following cessation ofplate activity within and around the basin, sedi-ment loading is the dominant subsidence mecha-nism, although lithospheric thickening due toresidual cooling may be important (Ingersoll andBusby, 1995). Dormant ocean basins may have lifespans of hundreds of millions of years and mayvary considerably in size. The modern Gulf ofMexico, the largest known dormant ocean basin,is filling rapidly along its northern margin (thecontinental embankment of the Gulf Coast), butstill contains oceanic crust with thin sedimentcover in the south (e.g., Buffler and Thomas, 1994;Galloway et al., 2000; Dickinson and Lawton,2001). The South Caspian Basin is small and par-tially filled with sediment (locally over 20 kmthick; Brunet et al., 2003), andyet still is an oceanicbasin. In contrast, the Tarim basin has a compara-ble sediment thickness, but is completely filled.These three basins are likely underlain by oceaniccrust, or in the case of Tarim, an oceanic Plateau(Sengor et al., 1996); their long histories of coolingmeans that they are also underlain by thick andstrong mantle lithosphere (Ingersoll andBusby, 1995). When a dormant ocean basin isfilled to sea level, it may superficially resemblean intracratonic basin. The former, however, con-tains 16–20 km of sedimentary strata on topof strong oceanic lithosphere, whereas the latter


contains a few km of sedimentary strata underlainprimarily by continental crust, with one or morefossil rifts beneath the basin center. Thus,when in-plate stresses affect dormant oceanbasins and theirsurroundings, deformation usually occurs alongtheir weak boundaries, whereas deformation ofintracratonic basins is concentrated along the fos-sil rifts underlying their interiors. Foreland basinsmay form above the edges of dormant ocean basinsduring contractional deformation (e.g., the mar-gins of the modern Tarim basin). Intracratonicbasins may experience renewed subsidence orinversion tectonics (e.g., the modern North Sea)(Cooper andWilliams, 1989; Cameron et al., 1992).

CONVERGENT SETTINGS

Arc-trench systems

Arc-trench systems may be categorized into threefundamental types: (1) extensional (2) neutral, and(3) compressional (Dickinson and Seely, 1979;Dewey, 1980) (Fig. 1.4). Arc-trench systems withsignificant strike slip may be considered a fourthtype (Dorobek, 2008); strike-slip faults may occurin all types of arc-trench system, but they areespecially common in strongly coupled systemsexperiencing oblique convergence (Beck, 1983).Many parameters determine the behavior of arc-trench systems, but the most important factorsappear to be (1) convergence rate (2) slab age,and (3) slab dip (Molnar and Atwater, 1978;Uyeda and Kanamori, 1979; Jarrard, 1986;Kanamori, 1986), based on analyses of modernarc-trench systems (although see Crucianiet al., 2005, for an alternative interpretation). Amajor question arises from these analyses of con-temporary Earth: is the present arrangement ofspreading ridges and arc-trench systems typicalof Earth history or an unusual configuration?Almost all modern east-facing arcs (e.g., Marianas)are extensional,with subductionof old lithosphereat steep angles. Almost all west-facing arcs (e.g.,Andes) are compressional, with subduction ofyoung lithosphere at shallow angles. Most south-facing arcs (e.g., Aleutians) are neutral, with sub-duction of middle-aged lithosphere at moderateangles. There are no north-facing arcs. Thus, it isvery difficult to separate the covarying parametersof slab age, slab dip, facing direction, and type ofarc-trench system. There is growing consensus(although see Schellart, 2007, 2008, for a contraryview) that facing direction of arc-trench systems

may be the fundamental determinant of thebehavior of arc-trench systems because of west-ward tidal lag of the eastward rotating planet (e.g.,Bostrom, 1971; Moore, 1973; Dickinson, 1978;Doglioni, 1994; Doglioni et al., 1999). If this isthe case today, then it should have been the casethroughout Earth history because of the constancyof eastward planetary rotation. Therefore, modelsfor ancient arc-trench systemsmust account for theazimuth of their facing directions when they wereactive. Lack of recognition of this fundamentalcharacteristic of arc-trench systems has resultedin many invalid analog models of ancient moun-tain belts (Dickinson, 2008).

Dickinson (1974a, 1974b), Ingersoll (1988),Ingersoll and Busby (1995) and Dorobek (2008)summarized tectonic settings and subsidencemechanisms of the diverse basin types related toarc-trench systems. Ingersoll and Busby (1995),and Smith and Landis (1995) also discussed con-struction and erosion of arc edifices that providemost sediment to neighboring basins.

The distinction of forearc, intra-arc, and backarcbasins is not always clear. Intra-arc basins aredefined as thick volcanic-volcaniclastic andother sedimentary accumulations along the arcplatform, which is formed of overlapping or super-posed volcanoes. The presence of vent-proximalvolcanic rocks and related intrusions is critical tothe recognition of intra-arc basins in the geologicrecord, since arc-derived volcaniclastic materialmay be spread into forearc, backarc, and otherbasins. A more general term, “arc massif,” refersto crust generated by arc magmatic processes(Dickinson, 1974a, 1974b), and arc crust mayunderlie a much broader region than the arc plat-form. The distinction of forearc and intra-arcbasins is also discussed by Dickinson (1995).Many backarc basins form by rifting within thearc platform (Marsaglia, 1995), and were intra-arc basins in their early stages. Also, forearc,intra-arc and backarc settings change temporallyand are superposed on each other due to bothgradual evolution and sudden reorganization ofarc-trench systems resulting from collisionalevents, plate reorganization, and changes inplate kinematics.

Trenches

Karig and Sharman (1975), Schweller andKulm (1978), Thornburg and Kulm (1987), andUnderwood and Moore (1995) summarized the


Documents

RECENT ADVANCES · The plate tectonic revolution of the 1960’s provided the framework for detailed models on the structure of orogens and basins, summarized in a 1995 textbook edited