Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sedimentary Geology

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /sedgeo

Review

Offshore remobilization processes and deposits in low-energytemperate-water carbonate-ramp systems: Examples from the Neogenebasins of the Betic Cordillera (SE Spain)

Ángel Puga-Bernabéu ⁎, José M. Martín, Juan C. Braga, Julio AguirreDepartamento de Estratigrafía y Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias, Campus de Fuentenueva s.n., Universidad de Granada, 18002 Granada, Spain

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 958 242721; fax: +E-mail address: angelpb@ugr.es (Á. Puga-Bernabéu).

0037-0738/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2014.02.001

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 8 August 2013Received in revised form 31 January 2014Accepted 2 February 2014Available online 8 February 2014

Editor: B. Jones

Keywords:Sediment transportRedeposition processesStormsCarbonate depositionCarbonate factoryWestern Mediterranean

General facies models developed for modern and ancient Mediterranean temperate-water carbonates in the lasttwo decades have shown that the style of deposition on outer-ramp, slope, and basin environments in low-energy areas such as the Mediterranean Sea differs overall from that of high-energy open-ocean areas, giventhe wider variety of smaller-scale topographic and hydrodynamic conditions in the former setting. However,these depositional models generally lack relevant information about sedimentary processes, transport mecha-nisms and controlling factors on offshore sediment redeposition, which are potential sources of informationfor sequence stratigraphic, palaeoclimate and exploration studies. Several examples from the Neogene Betic ba-sins of thewesternMediterranean region have been selected to integrate the processes and controlling factors onthe offshore sediment transport and the resulting deposits. Additional published data from other Mediterraneanlocalities have also been considered.An idealized model of temperate-water carbonate deposition in the study examples comprises a shallow-watercoastal belt and a shoal area developed landwards of a carbonate-factory zone, and deeper-water outer-ramp,slope, and basin settings below the storm wave base. The environments off the factory bear a variety ofremobilized deposits characterized by distinctive features. These deposits include storm shell beds, sedimentgravity flows (debrites and turbidites), bed packages with hummocky and swaley cross-stratification (HCS andSCS), slope sandwaves, and channel as well as lobe deposits.The different types of redeposited facies resulted from various offshore sediment-transport processes interactingwith the local conditions. Storm shell beds developed in low-energy protected basins, regardless of the ramppro-file. Debrites and turbidites formed in the distal parts of moderately-steep ramps within moderately energetichydrodynamic contexts. Similar gradients but with higher hydrodynamic energy and appropriate sedimentgrain size favoured the formation of deposits with HCS and SCS in relatively deep-water settings. The circulationpattern of currents within the basin was the main factor controlling the formation of downslope migratingsandwaves. In the case of channel and lobe deposits, hydrodynamic-flow behaviour through the channels andat the transition point conditioned the features of the resulting deposits.Offshore resedimentation is consistent with a highstand shedding model in the case of storm-driven event de-posits (storm beds, sediment gravity flows and deposits with HCS–SCS) while offshore directed and persistentunidirectional currents generated prograding margin clinoforms during falling and low sea levels.This review provides a concise depositional framework to understand the different redeposition processes oper-ating in low-energy, temperate-water carbonate ramps and to interpret remobilized deposits in low-energy re-gions such as the Mediterranean Sea.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the last three decades, research on the temperate/cool-watercarbonate-depositional realm has significantly expanded knowledgeon these previously poorly-understood types of deposits, achieving adegree of comprehension comparable to that of tropical carbonates(Nelson, 1988; James and Clarke, 1997; Pedley and Carannante,

34 958 248528.

ghts reserved.

2006a). All these studies have provided new data on aspects such assequence stratigraphy applied to temperate/cool-water carbonates(Pedley and Grasso, 2002; Betzler et al., 2005; Massari and Chiocci,2006), diagenetic changes (Knoerich and Mutti, 2003; Smith andNelson, 2003; Rivers et al., 2008), diversity of the carbonate factoryareas across the different ramp settings (Martín et al., 2004; Nalin andMassari, 2009; Moissette et al., 2010; James et al., 2013) and geometryof the carbonate units (Hansen, 1999; Benisek et al., 2010; Tomaset al., 2010). One relevant aspect has been the better characterizationof the outer-ramp, slope, and basin-transition settings (Braga et al.,

12 Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

2006a; Fornós and Ahr, 2006; Betzler et al., 2011; James and Bone,2011), as well as the better understanding of the processes and control-ling factors of offshore sediment transport and the resulting deposits(Butler et al., 1997; James et al., 2009; Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2009;Anderskouv et al., 2010). This issue is especially important in low-energy areas such as the Mediterranean Sea. The Present-day Mediter-ranean is a microtidal, wave-dominated sea (ca. 0.3 m tidal range;Albérola et al., 1995), with the fair-weather wave base at ~3–5-mdepth (Shipp, 1984) and the storm-weather wave base at ~20–25-mdepth, down to 40 m under severe storm conditions (Backstrom et al.,2008; Vacchi et al., 2012). As a consequence, in the Mediterranean Seathe style of carbonate deposition in offshore settings differs from thatof high-energy, open-ocean temperate/cool-water carbonate platforms(Pedley and Carannante, 2006b). The best-represented examples of thelatter are the modern and ancient shelves from southern Australia(James and Bone, 1991, 2011; Boreen and James, 1995). The SouthAustralian Continental Margin constitutes a wide shelf (up to hundredsof kilometres) with well-developed Pleistocene–Holocene progradingslope clinoforms. In this setting, carbonate deposition is powerfully influ-enced by a high-energy, swell dominated hydrodynamic regime (Jamesand von der Borch, 1991; James et al., 2001), which results in three dis-crete zones of sedimentation: a shallow neritic zone with carbonateproduction and landward sediment transport; a middle neritic zonecharacterized by sediment reworking; and a deep neritic and upperslope zone of high sediment accumulation (James and Bone, 2011). Incontrast to the open-ocean carbonate platforms, the sediment transportand deposition mechanisms, as well as the resulting deposits, can behighly diverse in theMediterranean ramps, as a result of a wider varietyof topographic and hydrodynamic conditions (Martín et al., 1996, 2004,2009; Fornós and Ahr, 1997, 2006; Betzler et al., 2000, 2011; Tropeanoand Sabato, 2000; Pedley and Grasso, 2002; Braga et al., 2003;Titschack et al., 2005; Vigorito et al., 2005; Longhitano et al., 2010).

General facies models for modern and ancient Mediterraneantemperate-water carbonates illustrate the facies distribution anddepth-controlled biogenic components on the carbonate ramps(Carannante et al., 1988; Fornós and Ahr, 1997; Pedley and Grasso,2002; Braga et al., 2006a; Betzler et al., 2011), but they overall overlookdepositional features related to offshore sediment redeposition. Withinthe Mediterranean region, most examples of offshore redeposited sedi-ments come from outcrops in southern Spain, Italy and Greece. Howev-er, these outcrops are disconnected, the information is scatteredthroughout the scientific literature and it often includes only general in-terpretations of the remobilized deposits, disregarding the factors con-trolling the offshore transport (Gläser and Betzler, 2002; Pedley andGrasso, 2002; Dermitzakis et al., 2009; Reynaud and James, 2012).

The aim of this review is to synthesize the information on the off-shore redeposition mechanisms and controlling factors on Mediterra-nean low-energy temperate-water carbonate ramp systems, as well asthe main sedimentary characteristics of the resulting deposits. Themain plausible scenarios are referred to using specific examples fromthe Neogene Betic basins, which are also compared with other similarMediterranean cases. An integrated model for offshore redeposition ispresented, highlighting the wide variability of redeposited faciesfound within these basins, and finally, a synthesis of the sea level, tec-tonics and climate controls. The excellent quality of the outcrop expo-sures and broad facies variability within precise sedimentary contextsin the Neogene Betic basins provide a solid foundation and a useful de-positional framework for interpreting similar deposits not only in Med-iterranean regions and in the Neogene, but in other areas and epochs,especially where outcrops are dispersed and/or poorly-preserved.

2.Overviewof the temperate-water carbonate ramps in theNeogeneBetic basins

The Neogene Betic basins formed and evolved as a result of the upliftof the Betic Cordillera, the westernmost segment of the Alpine orogenic

belt, during theMiocene (Weijermars, 1991). Twomajor types of basinscan be recognized, the Atlantic-linked and the Mediterranean-linkedbasins, with some narrow marine passages (straits) connecting themin the early uplifting stages (Martín et al., 2001, 2009; Betzler et al.,2006). These basins were partially infilled with temperate-water car-bonate deposits ranging in age from the Middle Miocene (Serravallian)to the Early Pliocene (Zanclean) (Fig. 1).

Temperate-water carbonates formed in a wide spectrum of ramps,fromgentle homoclinal to distally steepened,with diverse physiograph-ic and hydrodynamic situations. These carbonates accumulated on a va-riety of sub-environments extending from the coast to the basin. Someof these deposits have been described in detail and extensively studiedin recent years (see Braga et al., 2006a for a comprehensive review).Compositionally, theymainly consist of bioclasts of bryozoans, corallinealgae, bivalves (mostly pectinids and oysters), and, to a lesser extent(but locally abundant), barnacles, brachiopods, benthic foraminifera,echinoids, and solitary corals. Therefore, these accumulations are com-posed of the typical foramol (sensu Lees and Buller, 1972) or heterozoan(sensu James, 1997) associations, characteristic of the temperate- andcool-water carbonate-platform realm. In the Mediterranean-linkedBetic basins, temperate-water carbonate deposits alternate in timewith tropical (warmer-water) coral-reef deposits. In the Late Mioceneexamples, these alternations have been interpreted as climatically con-trolled, related to cyclic global cooling andwarming events (Martín andBraga, 1994; Brachert et al., 1996; Sánchez-Almazo et al., 2001; Martínet al., 2010). Since the Early Pliocene only temperate-water carbonatesformed in the Mediterranean. Coral reefs disappeared from the regionat the end of the Messinian (Martín et al., 2010; Perrin and Bosellini,2012). These Pliocene temperate-water carbonates are thought to bethe result of temperature variations related to the opening of a morenorthern gateway (the Strait of Gibraltar) that admitted cooler surfacewater into the Mediterranean (Martín et al., 2010). Oxygen isotopevalues of foraminifers collected from laterally-equivalent basinal marldeposits confirm that sea-surface water-temperature variations con-trolled the type of carbonate that formed at any specific time in thesebasins (Sánchez-Almazo et al., 2001, 2007; Martín et al., 2010).

In the sedimentary model proposed for Neogene temperate-watercarbonates from the Betic basins (Fig. 2), the most significant feature isthe existence of a carbonate-factory zone (sensu Martín et al., 1996),where maximum carbonate (skeletal) production took place. On openramps, this factory zone was a relatively calm area affected only bystorms, situated seawards of shoals, below the fair-weather wave base,and was affected only by storms (Martín et al., 1996, 2004; Braga et al.,2006a). Other factories are related to sheltered settings in shallowwaterssuch as embayments (Martín et al., 2004), or small coastal depressionsbounded by submarine cliffs (Betzler et al., 2000; Aguirre et al., 2008).These latter carbonate factories are relevant for palaeonvironmentalreconstructions although they were not volumetrically important.Sediment in the factories consists of poorly bedded, coarse-grainedfloatstones to rudstones, with well-preserved bioclasts that exhibitlow fragmentation and abrasion. Most of the bioclasts are from organ-isms that grew in situ with relatively slow growth-rates compared totropical counterparts. Although mixed in different proportions, fossilgroups within factory zones tend to be spatially partitioned, commonlywith bivalves (and bryozoans) in shallow-water settings, and corallinealgae in deeper-water locations (Martín et al., 2004; Puga-Bernabéuet al., 2007a, 2007b). Seagrass meadows were presumably common infactory areas in some carbonate ramps (Betzler et al., 2000; Bragaet al., 2003).

Outer-ramp and slope settings are located seawards of thefactory zone in homoclinal and in distally steepened carbonate rampsrespectively. Minor production, linked to the growth of small, delicate-branching forms of bryozoans and coralline algae, took place in outer-ramp and slope settings, resulting in the formation of fine-grainedbackground packstone deposits (Martín et al., 2004). These packstonespass laterally into silty marls, and marls deposited in basinal settings

Mediterranean SeaCeutaGibraltar Straits

Cádiz

Atlantic Ocean

Málaga Almería

Granada

Alicante

Guadalquivir Basin

37ºN

38ºN

0 50 100

km4ºW 2ºW6ºW

N

Iberia

Iberian Massif

Betic Cordillera

Rifian Cordillera Neogene volcanics

Mediterranean-linked Neogene basins

Atlantic-linked Neogene basins

Carboneras

1

2

6

4

3

5

Dehesas de Guadix Strait

Atlantic inflowcurrents

Bazapaleocoastline

La Peza

Guadix

Almanzora Corridor10 km

Guadix Basin: Late Tortonian2

50 km

Atlantic Ocean Mediterranean Sea

present-daycoast

Almería

Granada

Alicante

North Betic Strait

1 North Betic Strait: Serravallian

Sierra de los FilabresUleila

Sorbas

carbonate rampsdeltas

SierraAlhamilla

Hueli

5 km

4 5Sorbas Basin Vera Basin: latemost Tortonian-earliest Messinian

Turre

Los Gallardos

Sorbas Basin

Vera Basinchannel lobe

Carboneraspresent-day

coast

Mesa de Roldán

carbonate ramp

1 km

6 Carboneras Basin: Early Pliocene

spit-platform

2 km

Agua Amarga

paleocoastline

Rodalquilar

Las Negras

Carboneras

Agua Amarga Basin: latemost Tortonian-earliest Messinian

3

present-daycoast

Fig. 1.Geographical and geological setting of theNeogeneBetic basins showing thedistribution ofMediterranean-linked andAtlantic-linkedbasins (centre). Numbers indicate the locationof the study basins and corresponding palaeogeography at the time of the development of the temperate-water carbonate ramps (modified from Martín et al., 1999, 2003, 2004, 2009;Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2010). Insets mark the position of the areas studied in detail.

13Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

(Braga et al., 2006a). Small buildups of various shapes anddiffering com-position developed locally on the deepest part of the ramp(N50mdeep)and/or on the basin floor (Martín et al., 2004; Aguirre et al., 2012).

Sediment particles from the carbonate factories were loose on thesea floor and, as such, they were prone to be easily remobilized.

Sediment mobilization was partly landwards, to coastal areas (shoalsand beaches), and partly seawards, to more openmarine environments(Martín et al., 1996). A variety of processes and transport mechanismsacted on the carbonate factory zones and remobilized sediment towardsthe outermost-ramp, slope and basin settings. Sediment particles were

shoals carbonatefactory zone

coastal beltsea level

outer-ramp/slope/basin

Remobilized deposits linked to unconfined flows

Remobilized deposits linked to confined flows

storm shell-beds

50 cm

channels

lobesbasin

channel

50 cm50 cm

10 m

lobes

channels

deformed sandwaves collapsed

sandwaves

downslope migratingsandwaves

2 m

debrites

turbidites

50 cm

bivalves coralline algae

undifferentiated rhodoliths

branchingin situ

remobilized

bryozoansdeep-water buildupsVariedbioclasts

hummocky and swaleycross-stratification

structureless

parallel laminationtabular and sigmoidal cross-stratificationnormal grading

50 cm

Deposits withhummocky and

swaley cross-stratification

14 Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

15Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

either removed by mass flows (sediment gravity flows) or displaced byunidirectional currents. In some particular instances sediment particleswere also affected and mobilized by oscillatory flows.

3. Dataset and geological context

The information compiled in this review comes essentially from anumber of examples of temperate-water carbonate deposits describedover the last two decades from the Neogene Betic basins in southernSpain (Fig. 1; Table 1). The illustrated examples include severalMediterranean-linked basins (Fig. 1), such as the Agua Amarga Basin(Martín et al., 1996), the Carboneras Basin (Martín et al., 2004), theSorbas Basin (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a), and the Vera Basin (Bragaet al., 2001) and Atlantic- and Mediterranean-linked basins such asthe Guadix Basin (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2010) and theNorth Betic Strait(Braga et al., 2010). In latter case, we consider a predominant Atlanticinfluence on sedimentation due to proximity of the outcrops to the At-lantic side.

A brief introduction to the regional framework of these sedimentarybasins, including the reviewed temperate-water carbonate ramps isgiven in the following sections.

3.1. Agua Amarga Basin

The Agua Amarga Basin is a small E–Welongated depression withinthe Neogene volcanic province of Cabo de Gata in southern Spain(Fig. 1). Two temperate-water carbonate units were deposited in thisbasin (Fig. 3; Martín et al., 1996; Betzler et al., 1997). The lower unitlies on top of lower Tortonian (9.6 Ma; Bellon et al., 1983) volcanicrocks. The upper unit, late Tortonian-early Messinian in age, uncon-formably occurs on top the lower unit and volcanic rocks around8.6 Ma old (Di Battistini et al., 1987; Fernández-Soler, 1992). Messinianreefs and locally brecciated, oolitic and stromatolicwarm-water carbon-ates unconformably overlie the younger temperate-water carbonateunit. The last Neogene unit is represented by Pliocene beach deposits(Fig. 3).

The temperate-water carbonates of the upper unit in the AguaAmarga basin have been tentatively assigned to the lowstand systemtract of a fourth-order sequence and in turn comprise higher frequencycycles (Martín et al., 1996). The depositional model for high-frequency(fifth-order) highstands (Martín et al., 1996) consists, in a proximal todistal transect, of prograding beaches, shoals, bryozoan- and bivalve-rich factory facies and a mid- to outer-ramp with remobilized deposits,which are reviewed here (Section 5.1.1).

3.2. Carboneras Basin

Temperate-water carbonate deposits are widely represented in theCarboneras Basin, a small marginal Mediterranean basin in the Cabode Gata Neogene volcanic province, southern Spain (Fig. 1). These car-bonates, Pliocene in age, lie uncorformably over Messinian, warm-water coral-reef carbonates, brecciated limestones and marls depositedon top of a volcanic basement (Aguirre, 1998; Fig. 3).

In the Carboneras Basin, the temperate-water carbonate units con-stitute a third-order depositional sequence. The lowstand systemstract is formed by shoals and rocky shore deposits. The transgressivesystems tract is the best developed and include limestones depositedon carbonate ramps with distinct sedimentary styles according to theramp profile and local hydrodynamics (Braga et al., 2003; Martínet al., 2004). Depositional environments include oyster banks, rhodolithpavements and coralline algal–bryozoan–bivalve bioconstructions inthemore protected areas of the basin to thewest. A spit platform system

Fig. 2. Idealized sedimentary facies model of temperate-water carbonate deposition in the Neogposited close to and below the stormwave base within the outer-ramp, slope, and basin enviro2007a, 2010; Braga et al., 2010). Representative stratigraphic columns are given for each exam

developed at the southern margin by the action of longshore currents. Atthe northern margin, beaches, shoals, and bryozoans/bivalve/corallinealgal-rich factories extended on a distally steepened ramp affectedby southeasterly wind-driven storms that generated the offshoreremobilised deposits reviewed here (Section 5.1.2). The highstandsystems tract is represented by well-developed coastal and factoryfacies formed on a gentle ramp (Braga et al., 2003).

3.3. Sorbas Basin

The Sorbas Basin is a small E-W elongated intermontane basin insoutheastern Spain (Fig. 1). Basin infilling extends from the mid-Miocene (?) to the Quaternary (Fig. 3), and comprises several strati-graphic units separated by unconformities (Martín and Braga, 1994).Lower Tortonian to Messinian units are marine and include alternatingwarm- and temperate-water carbonate units (Fig. 3), and thick selenitegypsum deposits formed over a major, basin-scale, subaerial erosivesurface (Martín and Braga, 1994; Riding et al., 1998; Braga et al.,2006b). Continental sediments deposited on fluvial, lacustrine and allu-vial systems and a thin marine unit comprise the top of the succession(Fig. 3).

The temperate-water carbonate unit with offshore remobilized sed-iments is the so-called AzagadorMember of Ruegg (1964). This unitwasdeposited on shallow-water carbonate ramps at the northern andsouthern margins of the basin during the latest Tortonian to earliestMessinian. The depositional models for both margins are characterizedby middle-ramp bivalve–bryozoan–brachiopod factories that changeto deeper-water coralline algal-dominated factories. The AzagadorMember represents the lowstand systems tract of a third-order cycle(Martín and Braga, 1994) and the remobilised sediments correspondto the highstand systems tract of fifth-order cycle, which is in turn com-posed of higher order cycles (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a).

3.4. Vera Basin

This basin is connected to the south with the Sorbas Basin (Fig. 1)and comprises a similar Neogene sedimentary infilling (Fig. 3).Messinian reefs, well-represented in the Sorbas Basin, only cropout at the northwestern margin. In the Vera Basin, the AzagadorMember includes offshore remobilized sediments deposited on ashallow-water carbonate ramp to deep-water channel-lobe systemduring a fifth-order sequence.

3.5. Guadix Basin

The Guadix Basin is a small intermontane basin in the central sectorof the Betic Cordillera in Southern Spain (Fig. 1). The upper Miocene toQuaternary stratigraphic record of the Guadix Basin comprises severalmarine and continental units deposited over a substrate formed byLower toMiddle Miocene rocks and the Betic basement (Fig. 3). Marinedeposits consist of a Tortonian temperate-water carbonate unit and anuppermost Tortonian warm-water carbonate unit (Betzler et al.,2006). The overlying continental sediments range from the Turolian(Messinian) to the Pleistocene (García-Aguilar and Martín, 2000).

The temperate-water carbonate unit formed during a completethird-order sea-level cycle and comprises three sub-units assigned tolowstand, transgressive and highstand systems tracts (Puga-Bernabéuet al., 2010), respectively. Here, we review the sediments of thehighstand, which in turn comprises 26 high-frequency (probablyprecession-forced) cycles. In this case, sediments were intenselyremobilised offshore fromanarrow shallow-water carbonate rampdur-ing short-term falling and low sea levels.

ene Betic basins. Zoomed inset illustrates the different types of remobilized sediments de-nments (adapted fromMartín et al., 1996, 2004; Braga et al., 2006a; Puga-Bernabéu et al.,ple.

Table1

Summaryof

themainch

aracteristicsof

theNeo

gene

Beticba

sins

withremob

ilizedtempe

rate-w

ater

carbon

atede

posits

illus

trated

inthisreview

.

Basin

Type

Basinph

ysiograp

hyAge

ofthestud

yde

posits

Rampprofi

leSe

dimen

tary

Environm

ents

Mainskeletal

compo

nentsof

the

carbon

atefactories

Type

ofremob

ilizedde

posit

North

Betic

Strait

ALarge,W

SW–EN

Eelon

gated(90x

30km

)ba

sin,

open

tothewest(A

tlan

ticside

)an

dto

theeast

(Med

iterrane

anside

)

Serrav

allia

nMod

eratelystee

pho

moc

linal

Shoa

ls,carbo

nate-factory,

outerramp,

slop

eBiva

lves,corallin

ealga

e,bryo

zoan

s,larger

benthicforaminife

raDep

ositswithHCS

–SC

S(B

raga

etal.,20

10)

Gua

dixBa

sin

M-A

Interm

ontane

,circu

lar(68x

50km

)ba

sinat

the

contactbe

twee

ntheInternal

andEx

ternal

Zone

sof

theBe

ticCo

rdillera,op

ento

theno

rth(A

tlan

tic-

side

)an

dto

theeast

(Med

iterrane

anside

)

Upp

erTo

rton

ian

Distally

stee

pene

dSh

oals,carbo

nate

factory,

outerramp,

slop

e,ba

sin

Biva

lve,bryo

zoan

s,echino

derm

s,minor

coralline

alga

eSlop

esand

wav

es(Pug

a-Be

rnab

éuet

al.,20

10)

Agu

aAmarga

Basin

MSm

all,E–

Welon

gated(13×

6km

),pu

ll-ap

art

basinop

ento

theeast.

Sub-ba

sinof

theinterm

ontane

Alm

ería-N

ijar

Basin

Upp

ermostMessinian

–

LowermostT

ortonian

Mod

eratelystee

pho

moc

linal

Coastal,sh

oals,carbo

nate

factory,

outerramp

Biva

lves,b

ryoz

oans

,barna

cles,

echino

ids

Deb

ritesan

dturbidites

(Martínet

al.,19

96)

Sorbas

Basin

MInterm

ontane

,E–W

elon

gated(31×

17km

)ba

sin,

open

totheeast

Upp

ermostMessinian

–

LowermostT

ortonian

Gen

tleho

moclin

alCa

rbon

atefactory,

outer-

ramp,

slop

eInne

rfactory:

biva

lve/brachiop

od/

bryo

zoan

-dom

inated

Outer

factory:

coralline

alga

ldo

minated

Storm

shellb

ed(Pug

a-Be

rnab

éuet

al.,20

07a)

VeraBa

sin

MCircular

(20×

18km

),margina

lbasin,o

pento

theeast.C

onne

cted

withtheSo

rbas

Basinto

the

south

Upp

ermostMessinian

-Lo

wermostT

ortonian

Distally

stee

pene

dCo

astal,sh

oals,o

uter

ramp,

basin,

Biva

lves,b

ryoz

oans

Chan

nela

ndlobe

depo

sits

(Braga

etal.,20

01)

Carbon

eras

Basin

MSm

all,circular

(5×

5km

),margina

lemba

ymen

t,op

ento

theea

st.

Sub-ba

sinof

theinterm

ontane

Alm

ería-N

ijar

Basin

Lower

Pliocene

Distally

stee

pene

dCo

astal,sh

oals,carbo

nate

factory,

outerramp,

slop

eInne

rfactory:

biva

lvedo

minated

Outer

factory:

coralline

alga

ldo

minated

Storm

shellb

ed(M

artínet

al.,20

04)

M:M

editerrane

an-linke

dba

sin;

M-A

:Med

iterrane

an-an

dAtlan

tic-lin

kedba

sin;

A:A

tlan

tic-lin

kedba

sin;

HSC

:hum

mocky

cross-stratification

;SCS

:swaley

cross-stratification

.

16 Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

3.6. North Betic Strait

The sedimentary deposits of theNorth-Betic Strait belong to thema-rineMiocene record of thewestern Prebetic, the proximal domain of theExternal Zones of the Betic Cordillera. TheMiocene record can be divid-ed into three stratigraphic units separated by unconformities extendingfrom the Langhian to the lower Tortonian (Fig. 3; Martín et al., 2009;Braga et al., 2010) and it includes carbonate and mixed siliciclastic-carbonate rocks. We focus on the offshore remobilised deposits presentin the intermediate unit, middle to late Serravalian in age.

The sedimentary model of the intermediate unit consists of ahomoclinal ramp developed at the southern margin of a relatively wideseaway (Braga et al., 2010). This model shows a coastal facies belt withbeach and lagoon deposits that changed seawards to carbonate andmixed siliciclastic-carbonate sediments accumulated in submarinedunes moved by longshore currents. The carbonate factory, locally dilut-ed by the influx of terrigenous sediments, passed seawards into a faciesbelt with abundant reworked bioclasts (Section 5.1.3) and fine-grainedcalcarenites in the deepest part of the ramp. The deposition of the inter-mediate unit shows a transgressive–regressive pattern including tenhigher-order cycles (Braga et al., 2010). The offshore remobilized sedi-ments formed during the transgressive part of the higher-frequencycycles.

4. Classification of the offshore remobilised deposits

Facies types of redeposited carbonates on outer-ramp, slope, andbasin settings can be distinguished by different stratal geometries,grain size, and sedimentary structures without significant variation inthe nature of biogenic carbonate components (Fig. 2; Table 1). The dif-ferent redeposited facies resulted from the interaction of various off-shore sediment-transport processes and the local conditions (mainlyhydrodynamics and palaeotopography) found in the carbonate ramps.Firstly, we classify the redeposited facies according to whether thesediment-transport processes acted in a confined area of the carbonateramp, slope or basin (e.g. a channel) or whether these processesremobilized the sediment over unconfined areas of the ramp. The sec-ond classification level refers to the type of flow and the redepositionprocess, which in the illustrated examples can be sediment gravityflows, short-lived storm-driven unidirectional flows, persistent unidi-rectional currents, or oscillatory-dominant combined flows.

Sediment gravity flows (SGF; i.e. flow of sediments or sediment–fluid mixture in which the interstitial fluid is driven by the grains mov-ing under the action of gravity; Middleton and Hampton, 1973) can beclassified according to their rheology and particle-support mechanismsduring the discrete flow conditions (e.g. Lowe, 1982; Mulder andAlexander, 2001) although changes in flow behaviour can occur duringa single transport event (see Haughton et al., 2009 for a review). In thisstudy, SGF deposits are classified on the basis of the characteristics ob-served in the deposits (Talling et al., 2012), as there is a significantlack of information on the flow rheology and support mechanismtransporting carbonate particles (Hodson andAlexander, 2010). SGF de-posits identified in the study examples include debrites and turbidites.Debrites form by abrupt en masse deposition, with a continuum be-tween poorly cohesive (sandy) and cohesive (muddy) debrites. Turbi-dites result from the progressive particle aggradation during the flow,but these deposits show different sedimentary features depending onthe sediment concentration in the flow (i.e. high-density vs. low-density turbidites; Talling et al., 2012).

Tempestite is the common term to describe beds deposited bystorms. However, the sediment deposition and reworking processes as-sociatedwith storms are highly variable as they are controlled bywavesand currents acting during the storm and post-storm events. Stormwaves (oscillatory flows) affect the seafloor at greater depths than dofair-weather waves, thus eroding, winnowing and/or putting into sus-pension sediment particles that are subsequently transported by

Fig. 3. Simplified stratigraphy of the Neogene Betic basins reviewed in this study (based on Martín and Braga, 1994; Martín et al., 1996, 2004; Braga et al., 2001; Betzler et al., 2006).Temperate-water carbonate units range in age from the Middle Miocene (Serravallian) to the Early Pliocene (Zanclean) and alternate with warm-water carbonates. Ol-eMi: Oligocene–early Miocene; La-eSe: Langhian–early Serravalian, Se: Serravalian, eTo: early Tortonian, To: Tortonian, Me: Messinian, Pl: Pliocene.

17Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

unidirectional flows. Theseflows include rip-up currents (Shepard et al.,1941) that rarely export sediment much farther from the breaking-wave line (Reimnitz et al., 1976), and current-driven flows generatedby seaward flowing storm surges either during the storm (i.e. near-bottom currents; Héquette and Hill, 1993) or when the storm abates(i.e. storm-surge ebb; Goff et al., 2010). Furthermore, storms can also in-duce sediment gravity flows (Wright et al., 2002; Puig et al., 2003,2004), a process which is thought to be very common in generating an-cient tempestites (Tucker and Wright, 1990; Myrow and Southward,1996). In our classification, we have separated tempestites linked to os-cillatory and/or combined flows (Section 5.1.3) from offshore storm-driven unidirectional traction current deposits (Section 5.1.2).

Subaqueous bedforms (ripples, megaripples, and submarine dunes)generated on coastal and platform (ramp) settings by the action ofwind-driven, wave, or tidal currents (traction currents) generally mi-grate coastwards at high a angle and/or parallel to the shoreline(Davidson-Arnott and van Heyningen, 2003; Medellín et al., 2008).However, sediment remobilization linked to the offshore migration oflarge bedforms may also occur as in the example illustrated in this re-view (see Section 5.1.4).

5. Types of deposits

5.1. Deposits related to unconfined flows

5.1.1. Sediment gravity flow deposits: fan-bedded depositsSediment gravity flows generated by storm currents removed sedi-

ment from the factory zone and redeposited it downslope across thecarbonate ramp, as in the case of the uppermost Tortonian-lowermostMessinian of the Agua Amarga Basin (Martín et al., 1996). In thisbasin, SGF deposits occur on homoclinal ramps seawards of the

carbonate-factory zone, and include debrites and turbidites (Figs. 3, 4;Martín et al., 1996). At the outcrop scale, these deposits show a fan-bedded disposition, with individual layers increasing in thicknessbasinwards (Fig. 4A). Debrites form centimetre- to decimetre-thicklayers consisting of poorly sorted, coarse-grained floatstones, withsome large, centimetre-sized bioclasts (Fig. 4B). Debrites grade laterallyinto turbidites,which dominate in deeper ramp areas. Turbidites consistoffine- tomedium-grained rudstones, grainstones, and packstoneswithwell-developed parallel lamination (Fig. 4C). The lateral relationshipsbetween these different SGF deposits suggest that these flows wereinitiated as debris flows and transformed downslope into turbidite cur-rents by increasing dilution of the flow. The sedimentary features of thedebrites and turbidites are indicative of sediment removal, reworking,and redeposition, suggesting that bioclasts were mobilized from theinner ramp and redeposited offshore by SGF generated during stormconditions. Few examples of fan-bedded SGF deposits have been de-scribed in the Mediterranean region. Knoerich and Mutti (2003) referto redeposited, massive packstone, grainstone, and rudstone beds inthe Oligocene, deep (below 50 m) outer-ramp heterozoan carbonatesfrom the Maltese Islands, which could be comparable to the SGF de-posits shown here from the Agua Amarga Basin.

5.1.2. Storm-driven unidirectional current deposits: storm shell bedsStorm-driven currents can generate two types of storm shell de-

posits: a) deposits of bioclasts that have been reworked and transportedseawards from the carbonate factory (hereafter “shell beds”), andb) shell lags, which represent residual bioclast accumulations. Shell-lag deposits are described as they are genetically linked, in the study ex-amples, to the storm beds, although they did not involve offshoreredeposition.

Fig. 4. A) Outcrop view of the distal part of the homoclinal temperate-water carbonate ramp in the Agua Amarga Basin. Carbonate deposits comprising sediment gravity flow deposits(SGF) exhibit a fan-array disposition. Debrites and turbidites refer to intervals showing these types of SGF. B) Close-up view of a poorly sorted bioclastic debrite. Ring is 2 cm in diameter.C) Bioclastic turbidite exhibiting well-developed parallel lamination.

18 Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

Storm shell beds occur as discrete, individual, coarse bioclastic(floatstones and rudstones) layers, intercalated within the fine-grained backgroundpackstone, in outer-ramp and upper-slope contextson homoclinal and on distally steepened carbonate ramps respectively.The selected examples in this case are from the uppermost Tortonian-lowermost Messinian of the Sorbas Basin (Puga-Bernabéu et al.,2007a) and the Pliocene of the Carboneras Basin (Martín et al., 2004)(Figs. 2, 5A, B). In both cases, the shell beds are decimetre thick and lat-erally discontinuous (from a few to tens of meters wide), exhibit irreg-ular and erosive bases, and are locally amalgamated (Fig. 5C). Bioclastsin these shell beds are usually dominated by calcitic bivalves, nodularand branching bryozoans, and coralline algae (Martín et al., 2004;Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a). They are generally fragmented anddisarticulated (in the case of bivalve shells). Rough fining-upward grad-ing of bioclasts, and concave-up shell stacking can also be observed(Fig. 5D).

Shell-lag deposits occur in the Sorbas Basin as laterally discontin-uous, up to 40-cm-thick patches of large (10 to 20 cm) articulatedand disarticulated bivalves, mainly oysters. The large bivalves aregenerally low fragmented, show a high variance in orientation, andare encrusted by coralline algae and bored by sponge borings in thecase of the largest shells (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a). The rudstonematrix of the shell lags includes pectinid, coralline algal, and echinoidfragments. These deposits are interpreted as lags of original bivalvebiostromes. Storm currents removed the smaller and lighter compo-nents of the biostromes and transported them seawards forming shellbeds and leaving the largest and heaviest shells in the lags (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a).

Examples of storm shell beds similar to those in southern Spain havebeen described in theMediterranean region byNalin et al. (2010) in the

Val d'Orcia Basin (northern Apennines), a small basin comparable insize to the Carboneras Basin. These authors describe a carbonate rampwith a low-energy coralline-algal factory facies sporadically interruptedbymoderate- to high-energy events that deposited reworked shell con-centrations within the algal factory facies. A wide variety of shell con-centrations have been found in a Plio-Pleistocene foreland, temperate-water carbonate ramp from the Salento peninsula (southern Italy;D'Alessandro et al., 2004). Only in a few cases, do these accumulationsrepresent thin shell beds emplaced within a bioclastic packstonematrixby the action of storm-driven flows. In most cases, these shell accumula-tions are interpreted as the result of multiple phases of storm-wavereworking, including the formation of shell lags by the winnowing ofthe fine-grained matrix under the storm action (D'Alessandro et al.,2004). Rudstone beds grading upward to fine-grained facies depositedin low-energy open marine settings in the Sommières Basin during theLate Burdigalian are also interpreted as storm-lag deposits (Reynaudand James, 2012). However, these deposits differ from the examples ofthe Sorbas Basin in the shape, internal structure of the deposits, andtype of the bioclastic remains. These bryozoan-rich rudstones occur asamalgamated lenses of massive beds or low-angle cross-beds, with locallags of rhodoliths and pectinid shells as well as mudstone pebbles at thebase of the deposits. Shell concentrations representing storm-lags andtempestites have also been described in the early Pliocene temperate-water carbonate ramp deposits of the small Almayate Basin (Málaga,South Spain; Aguirre, 2000; Aguirre and Méndez-Chazarra, 2010).Tempestites are represented by the accumulation of pectinids reworkedto the outer ramp, and form decimetre-thick discrete or amalgamatedshell beds intercalated in fine-grained packstones. In the storm beds,shells of pectinids display a characteristic concave-up staking pattern(Aguirre and Méndez-Chazarra, 2010).

Fig. 5.A)Panoramic viewof the homoclinal temperate-water, carbonate ramp in the Sorbas Basin (uppermost Tortonian–lowermostMessinian). The present gradient of the ramp is steep-er than the original due to tectonic tilting. B)Outcrop view of the distally steepened temperate-water, carbonate ramp in theCarboneras Basin (Lower Pliocene). Note that slope clinoformsare progressively steeper upwards. C) Close-up view of a thin storm shell bed (Carboneras Basin) exhibiting an irregular base excavated into the background sediment. Lens cap is 6 cm indiameter. D) Detail of concave-up stacked pectinid shells (mainly Chlamys) in a storm layer (Sorbas Basin). Coin is 2.3 cm in diameter.

19Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

5.1.3. Oscillatory-dominant combined flow deposits: deposits withhummocky and swaley cross-stratification

The distal parts of some temperate-water carbonate homoclinalramps were characterized by the presence of deposits displaying hum-mocky and swaley cross-stratification (HCS and SCS respectively;Figs. 2, 6). In the selected example from the Serravallian of theAtlantic-linked North Betic Strait (Braga et al., 2010), this facies de-veloped seawards from an extensive, packstone (fine-grainedfloatstone) and grainstone shoal zone and a poorly preserved, coarse-grained carbonate-factory area. Deposits with HCS–SCS comprise fine-grained grainstones and rudstones arranged in decimetre-scale beds,and bed packages more than 20 m thick. Individual hummocks andswaleys are 1 to 2 m wide and up to 50 cm in height (Fig. 6B). A crudeinternal lamination appears locally in fine-grained beds (Fig. 6C).Swaley structures predominate over the hummocks (Braga et al., 2010).

HCS and SCS are commonly interpreted to be formed by the action ofstorm currents combined with oscillatory flows on shoreface to inner-shelf settings above the storm-weather wave base (Amos et al., 1996;Midtgaard, 1996; Dalrymple and Hoogendoorn, 1997). Oscillatory-dominant combined flows remove sediment from these proximal set-tings and shore-oblique flows transport it offshore into deeper waters.The unidirectional component of these flows is very slow (a few cm/s)but enough to cause sediment bedforms to migrate offshore (Dumasand Arnott, 2006). According to Dumas and Arnott (2006), SCS andHCS could be genetically related, forming the former in more proximalsettings with respect to the hummocks. Metre-scale bed packageswith HSC and SCS are scarce in other temperate-water carbonateramps from the Mediterranean region. Comparable deposits in termsof the size of the individual structures and relative depth of deposition(about 30 m) locally occur in Plio-Pleistocene sediments from NE Sicily(Central Mediterranean; Di Stefano et al., 2007). Beds displaying HCSare also described in scoured, prograding carbonate wedges (LowerPleistocene in north-eastern Rhodes; Hansen, 1999) and interpretedto be formed by the waning currents linked to major storm events.However, in either of these two examples, deposits with HCS are notas abundant and well-developed as those from the North Betic Strait,where the extensive development of the hummocks and swaleys iscomparable to some ancient storm-dominated siliciclastic shelves(e.g. Miocene of Cape Blanco, Oregon; Dott and Bourgeois, 1982). Thehigher abundance of the deposits with HSC and SCS in the North-Betic

Strait compared with other Mediterranean-linked basins probably re-flects the influence of higher-energy hydrodynamic conditions inAtlantic-linked basins.

5.1.4. Persistent unidirectional traction current deposits: slope sandwavesSlope sandwaves are conspicuous features within well-developed

platform-margin, prograding clinoforms in a distally steepened carbonateramp from the Upper Tortonian of the Guadix Basin (Fig. 2; Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2010). Individual clinoforms exhibit a sigmoidal geome-try, with a planar top and a low-dipping base. They range in thicknessfrom 2 to 21 m (commonly 7 to 12 m). These clinoforms consist ofmixed carbonate-siliciclastic bedset packages, interfingering basinwardswith marls (Fig. 7A). Carbonates (grainstones to rudstones) are bioclasticin composition (dominated by bivalves and bryozoans) and range insize from fine-grained sands to pebbles. Siliciclastics may represent upto 40% of the sediment bulk.

Well-developed cross-bedding inside the clinoforms is up to 4 mhigh and 25 m in length and cross-cut each other (Fig. 7B). Cross-stratified beds are also locally deformed, folded downslope (overturnedcross-stratification) or totally collapsed (Fig. 7C). Other sedimentarystructures in the bedset packages include planar lamination, sigmoidalcross-bedding, trough cross-bedding, and small ripples.

Slope sandwaves were part of a sandwave field that migrated off-shore by the action of persistent unidirectional currents in a Mediterra-nean semi-enclosed basin (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2010), the UpperTortonian Guadix basin, connected to the Atlantic through a northernseaway (Betzler et al., 2006). The particular palaeogeographic condi-tions and shape of the basin allowed the entrance of Atlantic surfacecurrents that flowed first parallel to the coast and then shifted down-slope, remobilizing the bottom-ramp sediment and forming sandwaves.These sedimentary bedformsmoved across the ramp to the ramp slope,where they locally destabilized and collapsed due to the increasedforeset angle and/or liquefaction processes (Fig. 2). The basinward mi-gration of the sandwavefieldwas thus controlled by surfacemarine cur-rents with an offshore unidirectional flow component.

Smaller dunes (up to 1 m high) and ripples migrating basinwardshave been reported by Di Stefano et al. (2007) in a small Plio-Pleistocene ramp from NE Sicily, Italy. According to these authors, thestructures were generated by returning unidirectional flows resultingfrom the impact of wind-driven currents against a steep submarine

Fig. 6. A) Field view of a bedset package exhibiting hummocky and swaley cross-stratification (HCS–SCS) in the Serravalian unit of the North Betic Strait (El Lanchar section, Braga et al.,2010). This facies is intercalated and passes basinwards into fine-grained calcarenites and calcisiltites. B) Close-up view of deposits dominated by swaley cross-stratification. C) Crude in-ternal lamination in a hummockite bed. Coin is 2.1 cm in diameter.

Fig. 7.A) Panoramic view of prograding carbonate clinoforms in a distally steepened temperate-water carbonate ramp from theGuadix Basin (upper Tortonian).Marl beds are pinched outbetween the carbonate dominated bedsets. Inset marks the location of B). B) View of basinward-oriented cross-bedded structures inside the prograding clinoforms. C) Slightly overturnedcross-bedded structures inside the clinoforms resulting from the progressive deformation of the downslope-migrating sandwaves.

20 Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

21Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

cliff. Other downslope-migrating bedforms have recently been de-scribed in a carbonate ramp from the Majella Mountains, in the centralApennines of Italy (Brandano et al., 2012). In this case, the downslopemigration of a small sandwave field below the storm-wave base is at-tributed to downwelling bottom currents generated during strongwinds or storms. Cross-stratified bedset packages of scales similar tothose of the clinoforms in the Guadix Basin have been identified inother Mediterranean regions, such as Sicily (southern Italy), andGreece (Hansen, 1999; Pomar and Tropeano, 2001; Massari andChiocci, 2006). These large-scale sedimentary bodies resulted from thebasinward progradation of carbonatewedges built by sediment dispers-al from the shoreface by stormwaves andwind-driven currents, locallyevolving downslope into gravity flows (Massari and Chiocci, 2006). Al-though the internal structure of these clinoforms and sediment-dispersal mechanism differ from the downslope-migrating sandwavesin the Guadix Basin, all these examples are comparable in terms ofresulting platform-margin clinoform progradation.

5.2. Deposits related to confined flows

5.2.1. Sediment gravity flow deposits: channel deposits and related lobedeposits

Deep-water submarine channel-fan systems comprise a variety ofdepositional elements such as levee channels, crevasse splays, sedimentwaves, and lobes or frontal splays (Posamentier and Walker, 2006).Within the Mediterranean, temperate-water carbonate realm, channeland lobe deposits are the best characterized (e.g. Braga et al., 2001;Vigorito et al., 2005; Bassi et al., 2010). These depositional elements rep-resent mostly the basinward continuation of submarine canyons exca-vated into the carbonate ramps (Braga et al., 2001; Puga-Bernabéuet al., 2008a), or could locally develop in shallow-water ramp settings(Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2008b).

Most of the sedimentwithin the channels and lobes originated in thecarbonate ramp, although there may have been some local siliciclasticcontribution directly from the emerged land as well. Littoral sediments,mobilized by longshore and storm currents, poured into submarine can-yons, generating sediment gravity flows (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2008a).These flows were then funnelled along the canyon and displacedbasinwards, redistributing the sediment downslope through the chan-nel system until it reached its final resting place on the lobes.

Here, only deposits in channels and lobes developed in outermost-ramp, slope, and basin settings are considered. Lobe deposits are notdirectly formed under confined flow conditions but due to flowunconfinement. However, as their sedimentary features are geneticallylinked to the confined flows travelling along the channels, they havebeen included this section.

The selected example is from the uppermost Tortonian-lowermostMessinian of the Vera Basin (Braga et al., 2001). Channels are largestructures excavated into the background sediment of the carbonateslope and basin (Figs. 2, 8). Channelized bodies, generally tens ofmetresto a few hundreds of metres wide, are up to 20 m thick (Fig. 8A), and insome cases show several phases of infilling (Braga et al., 2001).Channel-fill sediments are debrites and turbidites, comprising fromgranule- and pebble-size floatstones and rudstones to medium-grained packstones and grainstones. Cobble-size clasts are chaoticallydistributed locally at the base of individual flows (Fig. 8C). Siliciclasticcontent in these beds can be locally significant (up to 30%). Thechannel-fill normally consists of decimetre-thick beds eitherconforming or downlapping to the underlying surface (Fig. 8A). Low-angle cross-stratification, and small cut-and-fill structures also occur.Individual beds are generally structureless, with some normal gradingand parallel lamination. Small rip-up clasts are sometimes foundat the base of some beds. Channels locally include levee depositsconsisting of closely spaced and/or amalgamated packstones andrudstone turbiditic beds extending basinwards from the channel mar-gins (Fig. 8B). These beds are decimetre thick and laterally continuous

over some tens of metres. Individual beds are normally graded, withparallel-laminated tops.

Lobe deposits form carbonate bodies up to a few tens ofmetres thick,extending laterally for several hundred metres, intercalated betweenchannelized deposits and/or fine-grained (silt tomud) background sed-iment (Braga et al., 2001). These deposits show a tabular sheet-like tolensoidal geometry (Fig. 8B). Individual beds within the lobe bodiesare decimetre thick (up to 70 cm), plano-convex lens-shaped, and canbe traced laterally for several tens of metres before thinning out anddisappearing. Lobe beds are normally composed of medium sand- togranule-sized packstones/grainstones/floatstones/rudstones, althoughsome larger pebble-size bioclasts and siliciclastic clasts also occur.These beds internally exhibit the typical features of turbidites that in-clude parallel lamination and normal grading (Fig. 8D).

Channels acted as conduits for sediment removed from the innerramp to travel through the outermost ramp, slope, and basin. Channelsin the outermost ramp acted mainly as by-pass areas that were subse-quently filled with sediment from the carbonate ramp after channelabandonment. The presence of several erosion and infilling phases indi-cate that the channels were periodically reactivated (Braga et al., 2001).Sedimentary features of the channel-fill beds suggest that theywere de-posited by poorly cohesive debris flow and high-density turbidity cur-rents. Lateral accretion structures in the channels that developed inthe slope and basin suggest a meandering morphology (Abreu et al.,2003; Lien et al., 2003). These structures, formed under sustained andrelatively stationary flow conditions, are also indicative of active sedi-ment transport and deposition in lateral bars along the channels. Flowspreading at the transition point at channel mouths resulted in the de-position of sediment lobes over the fine-grained basin sediments.

In the southern Apennines, Bassi et al. (2010) have described sub-marine channelized bodies cut into the margin of a Lower-Middle Mio-cene temperate-water carbonate shelf of similar scale to the examplesillustrated here. These carbonate bodies differ from the channel-lobesystem from the Vera Basin in the origin of the channels, the type ofchannel deposits, and the channel activity. In the southern Apennines,the channel system developed over a remnant Cretaceous incised valleythat favoured the confined offshore sediment transport from the ramp.Parautochthonous bioclastic deposits in the channel, subsequently cov-ered with allochthonous bioclastic sediments from a nearby carbonatefactory (Pietraroia Channel, Bassi et al., 2010), indicate that this channelwas mainly a depositional area rather than a by-pass feature. By con-trast, the outer-ramp channels in the Vera Basin acted mainly as con-duits for sediment transport to the slope and basin, until theirabandonment and later infilling by bioclastic packstone from the sur-rounding ramp. A channel-lobe system more similar to the example insouthern Spain occurs in Upper Aquitanian–Lower Burdigalian succes-sions described in Sardinia by Vigorito et al. (2005). These authorsrefer to The Isili Channel, a large system consisting of multi-storeychannel units that include lateral- and middle-channel bars depositedby a variety of SGF that transported sediment from a shallow-waterforamol-rhodalgal carbonate ramp. This channel system passesbasinwards into a fan system characterized by sheet-like and planar-convex deposits.

6. Controlling factors and integrated model

The study examples found in the Neogene Betic basins provideessential information to understand the depositional and erosive pro-cesses that sculpt carbonate platformmargins, and can help in the inter-pretation of similar deposits in other temperate-water carbonate rampswithin low-energy domains. Background facies in outer-ramp and ba-sinal environments commonly remain relatively unaltered as they arenot profoundly affected by sea-level oscillations. Storms and current-related flows can, however, disturb the normal sedimentation in rela-tively deep-water settings. In the case of the temperate-water carbonatedeposits illustrated here, their facies, geometry, and distribution

Fig. 8. A) Field view of a large channel cut into carbonate ramp sediments in the Vera Basin (uppermost Tortonian-lowermost Messinian). B) Outcrop view of tabular, sheet-like lobe de-posits cut by a channel. This channel shows levee deposits at onemargin. C) Close-up viewof coarse-grained clasts in a bioclasticmatrix at the base of a channel-fill bed. Lens cap is 6 cm indiameter. D) Close-up view of an individual lobe bed with well-developed parallel lamination.

22 Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

resulted essentially from the interaction between local hydrodynamicsaffecting the carbonate factories and seafloor topography (Fig. 9). Addi-tionally, we document the influence of sea level, tectonics and climateon the offshore redeposited examples reviewed.

6.1. Hydrodynamics

From the factory areas, skeletal grains were mobilized downslopeacross the carbonate ramps by different offshore sediment-transportmechanisms. SGF are especially effective in transporting sedimentbasinwards through submarine canyons and channels (Shepard andMarshall, 1973; Puig et al., 2003;Migeon et al., 2010),finally accumulat-ing in submarine lobes (e.g.Vera Basin; Fig. 2). These channelized, short-lived, and erratic flows might have progressively filled up the channelsand/or built and shaped different bedforms that migrated along the

channels (Wynn et al., 2007). Flow deceleration and unconfinement atthe channel-lobe transition produced sheet-like lobe deposits over thebasin sediments.

Where submarine canyons and channels did not develop, differenttypes of storm-drivenflowsmoved downslope as unconfinedflows. Un-confined flows acted as sheet flows that swept sediment offshore fromthe carbonate factories over extensive ramp areas. Skeletal particlesremobilized by the hydraulic action of the stormbackflowswere depos-ited as single storm shell beds. These relatively coarse-grained sedi-ments were deposited at short distances from the factory areas, whichin some cases remained as shell lags (e.g. Sorbas Basin). This type of re-mobilization probably took place only sporadically, as storm shell bedsoccur intercalated within offshore background sediments. Storm alsofavoured the formation of SGF in more persistent conditions acrossmoderately steep ramps, transporting sediment seawards, which was

hydrodynamic energy

outer-rampsteepness

SGF (AB)

UNCONFINED FLOWS

storm shell beds (CB)

storm shell beds (SB)

Mediterranean regime Atlantic regime

increasing

grain size

hydrodynamic energy

Profile CONFINED FLOWS

increasing grain size

slope

basin

channels (VB)

lobes (VB)

downslope migrating sandwaves (GB)

deposits with HCS-SCS (NB)

Fig. 9. Integratedmodel of temperate-water, carbonate redeposition in outer-ramp, slope,and basin environments close to and below the storm wave base. Unconfined and con-fined flows generate different types of deposits depending on the hydrodynamic energyand rampgradient. Note the inverse relationship betweengrain size and thehydrodynam-ic energy regime of the ramp setting in the case of deposits linked to unconfined flows(shell beds, sediment gravity flows, and deposits with HCS–SCS). In contrast, there is a rel-ative correspondence between grain size and hydrodynamic energy in deposits linked toconfined flows (channel and lobe deposits). AB: Agua Amarga Basin; CB: CarbonerasBasin; GB: Guadix Basin; NB: North-Betic Strait Basin; SB: Sorbas Basin; VB: Vera Basin;HCS: hummocky cross-stratification; SCS: swaley cross-stratification.

23Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

finally deposited as debrites and turbidites (e.g. Agua Amarga Basin;Fig. 2). In other cases, storm currents combined with oscillatory flowsresulted in the formation of deposits with HCS–SCS (Fig. 2). The typeof storm-related deposit generated in the Neogene temperate-watercarbonate ramps from the Betic Cordillera is highly dependent on theregional hydrodynamic regime. Bed packages with HCS–SCS developedonly in Atlantic-dominated basins (e.g.North Betic Strait)where higher-energy, storm-wave conditions compared with Mediterranean-linkedbasins (e.g. Sorbas, Carboneras, and Agua Amarga basins) favouredtheir formation in relatively deep-water settings (Fig. 9).

The pattern of current circulation within a basin may also play animportant role in the offshore redeposition processes. In contrast tostorm-driven flows, steady and more persistent currents can inducelarge scale, bedform formation and migration. In the Guadix Basin,offshore-directed currents moved downslope-migrating sandwavesthat built prograding-margin clinoforms (Fig. 7).

6.2. Seafloor topography and basin configuration

Seafloor topography conditioned the development of different rampprofiles within the illustrated examples. The ramp geometry and basinconfiguration can play an important role in the offshore redepositionby affecting the hydrodynamic processes. For example, the formationof relatively deep-water deposits with HCS and SCS is related to high-energy storm currents. However, a moderately steep ramp profilecould have helped to accelerate storm-surge ebb currents that affectedthe deeper parts of the ramp (Braga et al., 2010). In some cases, theramp geometry did not influence the accumulation the offshore

remobilized deposits. Storm shell beds formed in relatively protectedbasins such as the Mediterranean-linked Sorbas and Carboneras basins,independently of the ramp geometry (Fig. 9). Within the low-energyMediterranean-linked realm, an open sea-facing configuration (Fig. 1)exposed to predominant winds favoured the abundant deposition ofstorm deposits in the Agua Amarga Basin. In this basin, a moderatelysteep ramp profile could also have favoured the downslope movementof sediment gravity flows, which were finally deposited on thedistalmost parts of the ramp.

As indicated above, the basin configuration also controlled thecurrent-circulation pattern within the basin, which together with theramp profile, can govern the type of offshore transport mechanisms,as in the Guadix Basin. In this basin, the presence of a narrow carbonateramp favoured the offshore sediment transport by persistent unidirec-tional currents (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2010). In the deeper-watersettings, the seafloor topography controls the morphology of the sub-marine channels. Meandering channels such as those interpreted forthe Vera Basin are commonly related to very low basin-floor gradients(Wynn et al., 2007).

6.3. Sediment characteristics

Due to their general lack of early cementation, shallow marinetemperate-water skeletal sediments are readily prone to reworkingand redeposition (Nelson et al., 1982, 1988). Remobilized temperate-carbonate particles on the seafloor behave similarly to siliciclastic parti-cles. As a result, deposits with similar sedimentary features are generat-ed either by persistent unidirectional traction currents, storm-drivencurrents, or by subaqueous SGF in awide variety of depositional settings(e.g. Braga et al., 2006a). Although the intrinsic hydrodynamics of theseprocesses and seafloor topography are the main controls on the sedi-ment redeposition, sediment characteristics can also influence theresulting deposits. Widespread availability of coarse-grained particlesmixed with fine-grained sediment in the Agua Amarga Basin carbonatefactories probably conditioned the formation of relatively concentratedflows (debris flows) that evolved downslope to less concentrated tur-bidity flows (Martín et al., 1996). The presence on the seafloor of abun-dant sediment with an appropriate “sandy” grain size, derived in thiscase mostly from the shoal zone, has been interpreted as a key factorin the development of deposits with HCS–SCS in carbonate ramps atthe southern margin of the North Betic Strait (Braga et al., 2010). Inthe case of the storm shell beds, only skeletal remainswith an appropri-ate size (relatively small shells) were swept from the factories, depend-ing on the hydraulic energy of the storm currents, leaving coarse-grained shell lags.

In the case of the redeposited sediments linked to unconfined flows(shell beds, sediment gravity flows, and deposits with HCS–SCS), an in-verse relationship between grain size and the hydrodynamic energy re-gime of the ramp setting is observed (Fig. 9). The overall hydrodynamiccontext controls the degree of reworking of the particles forming theremobilized deposits and thus does control the final grain size of thedeposits. Bioclasts in the distal tempestites, deposited in relativelyprotected basins (Carboneras and Sorbas basins, Fig. 9), did not experi-ence much reworking as once deposited in relatively deep-water set-tings, they were progressively buried by background sediments.Therefore, although fragmented, skeletal particles are close to theiroriginal size (i.e. coarse grained). In the example with the highest ener-gy regime, the deposits with HCS–SCS in the North Betic Strait, thecorrelation of grain size and energy regime is consistent with the originof these sedimentary structures. In siliciclastic sediments, the grain sizein the HCS–SCS deposits commonly falls within fine-grained sand tocoarse silt (Dott and Bourgeois, 1982). The grain size can be larger inthe case of carbonate particles (Braga et al., 2010), presumably due tothe lower density and shape of the skeletal components, but significant-ly smaller than the original size of the bioclasts. Therefore, a high-energy hydrodynamic regime can easily explain the high degree of

24 Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

fragmentation and reworking of the skeletal remains required to gener-ate particles which can be removed during storms to form the hum-mocks and swaleys. SGF, responsible for the cutting and infilling of thesubmarine channels and lobe building, transported awide range of skel-etal particles with different shapes, grain sizes, densities, and usuallymixed with siliciclastics grains in variable proportions. The flow behav-iour and sedimentary features recorded in the resulting SGF depositsthus depend on the sediment characteristics. In other cases, the sedi-ment type seemsnot to have influenced the sediment-redeposition pro-cesses, e.g. in the formation and downslope migration of sandwaves ofthe Guadix Basin.

6.4. Relative sea-level

Relative sea-level is a fundamental factor controlling the productionand export of shallow-water carbonate sediments. The genericmodel ofmargin sedimentation known as highstand shedding (Droxler andSchlager, 1985) postulates that the highestfluxes of carbonate sedimentto offshore settings occur during relative sea-level highstands, whencarbonate production is maximum, whereas sediment export is lowestduring sea level lowstands due to the turn off of the carbonate produc-tion. This model widely explains sediment export in warm-water car-bonate settings (Glaser and Droxler, 1991; Schlager et al., 1994;Betzler et al., 2013). However, it has been suggested that temperate/cool-water carbonate systems behave similarly to siliciclastic systemsin terms of sequence stratigraphy (James and Bone, 1991; James et al.,1994; Betzler et al., 1997) due to the importance of physical processes(e.g. wave and current reworking) in them. Consequently, signifi-cant remobilization would only take place during low sea levelsand highstand shedding would be minor in temperate/cool-watersystems. The depth-independence of the carbonate production,and especially the wider depth-window of the carbonate productioncompared to their tropical-water counterparts (Schlager, 2005), havealso been argued to explain the small or absent effect of highstand shed-ding in the temperate carbonate realm. The latter may be the case oflarge open ocean carbonate platforms but definitely is not the situationin small Mediterranean carbonate ramps where maximum carbonateproduction takes place in relatively shallow-waters within a narrowdepth-range of several tens of metres.

Regarding the relative sea-level position, most of the remobilizedsediments reviewed here were deposited during highstands and trans-gressions of high-order sea-level fluctuations. Similar deposits in thesesea-level conditions have also been documented in other Mediterra-nean temperate-water carbonate ramps (Di Stefano et al., 2007;Dermitzakis et al., 2009; Nalin et al., 2010; Reynaud and James, 2012).Remobilized deposits such as storm beds, turbidites, debrites and de-posits with HCS–SCS are event deposits (Einsele et al., 1996) and an im-portant premise in order to generate and potentially preserve eventdeposits in the sedimentary record is the sediment supply (Einsele,1993).

The highest carbonate production in the Neogene Betic basins tookplace during high sea level when the extent of the carbonate factoryon the ramp was higher, and the accumulation of skeletal particles onthe seafloor was enough to potentially generate the event deposits. Rel-atively sea-level fallsmight overall not cause a full shut down of the fac-tory in temperate-water carbonate systems because the carbonatefactory can easily migrate seawards. However, given the small size ofcarbonate ramps in the Negeone Betic basins, sea-level falls reducedthe size of the carbonate factory and caused the incorporation of mostof the skeletal particles from the factory into the coastal facies belt.This view is consistent with the overall presence of well-developedshoal facies and the absence of offshore remobilized deposits during rel-ative sea-level lowstands in the Agua Amarga, Carboneras and North-Betic Strait basins (Martín et al., 1996, 2004; Braga et al., 2010).

As a result of high-amplitude sea-level fluctuations, such as the onesin the Pleistocene (Hansen, 1999; Massari and Chiocci, 2006; Betzler

et al., 2011), intense sediment reworking occurred during sea-levelfalls and lowstands formingwell-developed progradingmarginwedges.In the Guadix Basin, the downslope-migrating sandwaves formed partof prograding margin clinoforms in a distally steepened carbonateramp (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2010). The high sediment input enhancedby local terrigenous supply, the offshore directed and persistent cur-rents and the high-frequency sea-level fluctuations were the drivingfactors to form such clinoforms. However, this sort of offshoreredeposition was different from that involved in the event-type deposi-tion as it does imply the action of persistent offshore unidirectional cur-rents and not short-lived storm-driven flows as in the case of the eventdeposits.

In summary, offshore resedimentation of event deposits (stormbeds, SGF deposits and deposits with HCS–SCS) in the reviewed exam-ples of the Neogene Betic basins conformswith the highstand sheddingmodel. It remains unanswered whether this sort of deposits did notsignificantly formed during sea-level falls and lows as a consequenceof reduced size of the carbonate factory or whether they did form butthey were subsequently reworked and incorporated into shoals orplatform-margin clinoforms. In any case, event resedimented depositsare a characteristic feature of high-frequency sea-level highstands andtransgressions of Neogene temperate-water carbonates within theMediterranean. They could also be indicative of similar sea-level condi-tions in low-energy carbonate systems in other regions and epochs.

6.5. Tectonics

The Neogene Betic basins constitute small intermontane basins,marginal to the western Mediterranean, structured during theMiocenein an active tectonic setting. Although it is often difficult to separate eu-static from tectonically influenced sea-level change and basin-fill sedi-mentation, tectonics was not a key factor in the generation of theoffshore remobilized deposits reviewed here. In the Neogene Betic ba-sins, tectonics played an important role in generating unconformities(tectono-eustatic), which overall bound third-order stratigraphic units(e.g. Agua Amarga Basin, North-Betic Strait, Sorbas Basin; Martín andBraga, 1994;Martín et al., 1996, 2009) but its influence is not substantialat higher-order sequences. In active margins, SGF deposition in subma-rine channel systems can be linked to tectonic activity, especially insiliciclastic settings (Nelson et al., 1999; Blumberg et al., 2008;Gutiérrez-Pastor et al., 2013). In carbonate systems, however, these de-posits may be relatively independent of tectonic activity (Andresenet al., 2003). This was presumably the case of the submarine channel-lobe system in the Vera Basin where no link to tectonic activity can beinferred from the record of SGF deposits. In this, however, tectonicsexerted a control on the spatial distribution of the submarine lobes.These lobes were progressively migrating to the north of the basindue to the uplift of a submarine swell in the southern area (Bragaet al., 2001).

6.6. Climate

All temperate-water carbonate ramps in the Neogene Betic basinsdeveloped in globally cooling conditions after the Miocene ClimaticOptimum ca. 17 to 14.5 Ma ago (Flower and Kennett, 1993; Lewiset al., 2007), and in the western Mediterranean, they alternate withwarm-water carbonate deposits as a result of global climatic cyclesand local palaeogeography of seaway connections (see synthesis inMartín et al., 2010). The reviewed examples of offshore remobilizedsediments show a cyclic deposition during high-frequency sea-level cy-cles. The duration of these cycles are within the Milankovitch band((Martín et al., 1996; Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a, 2010), suggestingan orbitally-controlled climatic influence on the high-frequency sea-level fluctuations. Orbitally-controlled sea-level fluctuations have alsobeen interpreted in other Neogene temperate-water sediments from

25Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

theMediterranean region (Roveri and Taviani, 2003; Sierro et al., 2003;Kováč et al., 2008).

Terrigenous supply to the carbonate ramps from the continents canbe influenced by climate changes. In the revisited examples, however,siliciclastic content is relatively low and where siliciclastic depositioninterfered with carbonate sediments, it did not significantly alter thetype of offshore redeposit as in the case of the deposits with HCS–SCSin the North Betic Strait, and the channel and lobe deposits in the VeraBasin (Braga et al., 2001, 2010).

Sedimentation rates in temperate-water carbonates are an order ofmagnitude lower than those corresponding to warm-water carbonates(James, 1997). Relatively high accumulation rates in temperate-watersystems are commonly due to hydrodynamic sediment concentration(Nelson et al., 2003). In the Guadix Basin, climate may have controlledthe formation of the resedimented deposits and margin clinoforms bypromoting the supply relatively high amounts of siliciclastics (up to40%) that togetherwith the hydrodynamic sediment concentration con-tributed to offshore sediment export.

7. Conclusions

Here, we review several types of offshore-remobilized, temperate-water carbonate deposits in the Neogene basins of the Betic Cordillera(western Mediterranean) and compare them with some other well-known and thoroughly describedMediterranean examples. In these ba-sins, different mechanisms of sediment dispersal acted on carbonateramps, removing sediment from carbonate factories (i.e. areas of maxi-mum carbonate skeletal production and in situ growth of organisms),and accumulating it offshore, close to and below the storm wave base,on outer-ramp, slope, and basin environments.

A broad variety of topographic and hydrodynamic conditions influ-enced the sediment transport and deposition. Resulting deposits in-clude storm shell beds, deposits with HCS and SCS, debrites, turbidites,slope sandwaves, as well as submarine channel and lobe deposits. Off-shore remobilization sedimentary-facies models in these relativelylow-energy basins are overall more diverse than those in open-ocean,high-energy basins (e.g. southern Australia).

Storm activity was the main process inducing offshoreresedimentation in the examples reviewed. Within moderate-energy hydrodynamic contexts in the Mediterranean realm, uncon-fined storm-related sediment gravity flows deposited debrites and tur-bidites in moderately-steep homoclinal ramps. Similar ramp gradientbut higher hydrodynamic energy in Atlantic-linked basins and appro-priate sediment grain size favoured the formation of bed packageswithHCS and SCS in relatively deep-water settings. Storm-shell-bed de-position by the short-term hydraulic action of storm return currentstook place sporadically in relatively low-energy settings withinprotected basins, regardless of ramp topography. In some cases, thegeneral circulation pattern within the basin exerted a major controland prevailed over other redeposition mechanisms and processes,such as in the case of offshore-directed persistent unidirectional cur-rents that formed downslope-migrating sandwaves on distally steep-ened ramps. Lastly, different types of channel and lobe depositsresulted from a variety of channelized, short-lived, and erratic flowsthat cut and bypassed the slope sediments and spread at the transitionpoint, forming lobes on the basin floor.

The highest carbonate production, an important condition for gener-ating and potentially preserve event deposits, occurred during high sealevel. Therefore, the highstand shedding model of sediment export ex-plains the event-type resedimented deposits (i.e. SGF, storm beds, de-posits with HCS–SCS). The downslope-migrating sandwaves, whichbuilt prograding margin clinoforms during falling and low sea level,formed by a different process, the action of a persistent offshore unidi-rectional currents.

The integratingmodel presented here highlights thewide variabilityof remobilized facies that can be found within small-scale outer ramps,

slopes, and basins in theMediterranean realm. This model also providesa detailed sedimentary framework, essential to understand the deposi-tional and erosive processes that sculpt temperate-water carbonate-ramp margins and can facilitate the interpretation of comparable de-posits in other low-energy basins worldwide.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the ‘Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación’(Spain), Project CGL 2010–20857. We thank Jeff Lukasik (Statoil), forhis comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We are grateful toDavid Nesbitt for correcting the English text. We thank Ronald Nalinfor his constructive revision and the comments by an anonymousreviewer.

References

Abreu, V., Sullivan, M., Pirmez, C., Mohrig, D., 2003. Lateral accretion packages (LAPs): animportant reservoir element in deep water sinuous channels. Marine and PetroleumGeology 20, 631–648.

Aguirre, J., 1998. El Plioceno del SE de la Península Ibérica (provincia de Almería). Síntesisestratigráfica, sedimentaria, bioestratigráfica y paleogeográfica. Revista de laSociedad Geológica de España 11, 295–315.

Aguirre, J., 2000. Evolución paleoambiental y análisis secuencial de los depósitos Pliocenosde Almayate (Málaga, S de España). Revista de la Sociedad Geológica de España 13,431–433.

Aguirre, J., Méndez-Chazarra, N., 2010. Tafonomía de los carbonatos templados pliocenosde la Cuenca de Almayate (Málaga, S de España). Revista Española de Paleontología25, 155–169.

Aguirre, J., Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Betzler, C., Berning, B., Buckeridge, J.S., 2008. Densely-packed concentrations of sessile barnacles (Cirripedia: Sessilia) from the early Plio-cene of SE Spain. Facies 54, 193–206.

Aguirre, J., Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., Betzler, C., 2012. Palaeoenvironmental and stratigraphicsignificance of Pliocene rhodolith beds and coralline algal bioconstructions from theCarboneras Basin (SE Spain). Geodiversitas 34, 115–136.

Albérola, C., Rousseau, S., Millot, C., Astraldi, M., Font, J., García-Lafuente, J., Gasparini, G.-P.,Send, U., Vangriesheim, A., 1995. Tidal currents in the western Mediterranean Sea.Oceanologica Acta 18, 273–284.

Amos, C.L., Li, M.Z., Choung, K.S., 1996. Storm-generated, hummocky stratification on theouter-Scotian Shelf. Geo-Marine Letters 16, 85–94.

Anderskouv, K., Surlyk, F., Huuse, M., Lykke-Andersen, H., Bjerager, M., Tang, C.D., 2010.Sediment waves with a biogenic twist in Pleistocene cool water carbonates, GreatAustralian Bight. Marine Geology 278, 122–139.

Andresen, N., Reijmer, J.J.G., Droxler, A.W., 2003. Timing and distribution of calciturbiditesaround a deeply submerged carbonate platform in a seismically active setting (PedroBank, Northern Nicaragua Rise, Caribbean Sea). International Journal of Earth Sci-ences 92, 573–592.

Backstrom, J.T., Jackson, D.W.T., Cooper, J.A.G., Malvárez, G.C., 2008. Storm-drivenshorefacemorphodynamics on a low-wave energy delta: the role of nearshore topog-raphy and shoreline orientation. Journal of Coastal Research 24, 1379–1387.

Bassi, D., Carannante, G., Checconi, A., Simone, L., Vigorito, M., 2010. Sedimentological andpalaeocological integrated analysis of a Miocene channelized margin, Matese Moun-tains, Southern Apennines, Ital. Sedimentary Geology 230, 105–122.

Bellon, H., Bordet, P., Montenat, C., 1983. Le magmatisme néogène des CordillèresBétiques (Espagne): Chronologie et principaux caracteres géochimiques. Bulletin dela Société Géologique de France 25 (7), 205–218.

Benisek, M.F., Marcano, G., Beztler, C., Mutti, M., 2010. Facies and stratigraphic architec-ture of a Miocene warm-temperate to tropical fault-block carbonate platform inSardinia (central Mediterranean Sea). In: Mutti, M., Piller, W., Beztler, C. (Eds.), Car-bonate Systems during the Oligocene-Miocene Climatic Transition. IAS Special Publi-cation, 42, pp. 129–148.

Betzler, C., Brachert, T.C., Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., 1997. Nearshore, temperate, carbonatedepositional systems (lower Tortonian, Agua Amarga Basin, southern Spain): impli-cations for carbonate sequence stratigraphy. Sedimentary Geology 113, 27–53.

Betzler, C., Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., 2000. Non-tropical carbonates related to rocky subma-rine cliffs (Miocene, Almería, southern Spain). Sedimentary Geology 131, 51–65.

Betzler, C., Saxena, S., Swart, P.K., Isern, A., James, N.P., 2005. Cool-water carbonate sedi-mentology and eustasy; Pleistocene upper slope environements, Great AustralianBight (Site 1127, ODP LEG 182). Sedimentary Geology 175, 169–188.

Betzler, C., Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., Sánchez-Almazo, I.M., Lindhorst, S., 2006. Closure of aseaway: stratigraphic record and facies (Guadix Basin, southern Spain). InternationalJournal of Earth Sciences (Geologische Rundschau) 95, 903–910.

Betzler, C., Braga, J.C., Jaramillo-Vogel, D., Römer, M., Hübscher, C., Schmiedl, G., Lindhorst,S., 2011. Late Pleistocene and Holocene cool-water carbonates of the Western Medi-terranean Sea. Sedimentology 58, 643–669.

Betzler, C., Ludmann, T., Hubscher, C., Furstenau, J., 2013. Current and sea-level signals inperiplatform ooze (Neogene, Maldives, Indian Ocean). Sedimentary Geology 290,126–137.

Blumberg, S., Lamy, F., Arz, H.W., Echtler, H.P., Wiedicke, M., Haug, G.H., Oncken, O., 2008.Turbiditic trench deposits at the South-Chilean activemargin: a Pleistocene–Holocenerecord of climate and tectonics. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 268, 526–539.

26 Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

Boreen, T.D., James, N.P., 1995. Stratigraphic sedimentology of Tertiary cool-water lime-stones, SE Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Research 65B, 142–159.

Brachert, T.C., Betzler, C., Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., 1996. Record of climatic change in neriticcarbonates: turnover in biogenic associations and depositional modes (Late Miocene,southern Spain). International Journal of Earth Sciences (Geologische Rundschau) 85,327–337.

Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., Wood, J.L., 2001. Submarine lobes and feeder channels ofredeposited, temperate carbonate andmixed siliciclastic-carbonate platform deposits(Vera Basin, Almería, southern Spain). Sedimentology 48, 99–116.

Braga, J.C., Betzler, C., Martín, J.M., Aguirre, J., 2003. Spit-platform temperate carbonates:the origin of landward-downlapping beds along a basin margin (Lower Pliocene,Carboneras Basin, SE Spain). Sedimentology 50, 553–563.

Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., Betzler, C., Aguirre, J., 2006a. Models of temperate carbonate depo-sition in Neogene basins in SE Spain: a synthesis. In: Pedley, H.M., Carannante, G.(Eds.), Cool-Water Carbonates: Depositional Systems and Palaeonvironmental Con-trols. Geological Society, London, Special Publication, 255, pp. 121–135.

Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., Riding, R., Aguirre, J., Sánchez-Almazo, I.M., Dinarés-Turrel, J.,2006b. Testing models for the Messinian Salinity Crisis: the Messinian record inAlmería, SE Spain. Sedimentary Geology 188–189, 131–154.

Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., Aguirre, J., Baird, C.D., Grunnaleite, I., Bo Jensen, N., Puga-Bernabéu,Á., Sælen, G., Talbot, M.R., 2010. Middle–Miocene (Serravallian) temperate carbon-ates in a seaway connecting the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea (NorthBetic Strait, S Spain). Sedimentary Geology 225, 19–33.

Brandano, M., Lipparini, L., Campagnoni, V., Tomassetti, L., 2012. Downslope-migratinglarge dunes in the Chattian carbonate ramp of the Majella Mountains (CentralApennines, Italy). Sedimentary Geology 255–256, 29–41.

Butler, R.W.H., Grasso, M., Gardiner, W., Sedgeley, D., 1997. Depositional patterns andtheir tectonic controls within the Plio-Quaternary carbonate sands and muds of on-shore and offshore SE Sicily (Italy). Marine and Petroleum Geology 14, 879–892.

Carannante, G., Esteban, M., Milliman, J.D., Simone, L., 1988. Carbonate lithofacies aspaleolatitude indicators: problems and limitations. Sedimentary Geology 60, 333–346.

D'Alessandro, A., Massari, F., Davaud, E., Ghibaudo, G., 2004. Pliocene–Pleistocene se-quences bounded by subaerial unconformities within foramol ramp calcarenitesand mixed deposits (Salento, SE Italy). Sedimentary Geology 166, 89–144.

Dalrymple, R.W., Hoogendoorn, E.L., 1997. Erosion and deposition on migratingshoreface-attached ridges, Sable Island, Eastern Canada. Geoscience Canada 24,25–36.

Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D., van Heyningen, A.G., 2003. Migration and sedimentology oflongshore sandwaves, Long Point, Lake Erie, Canada. Sedimentology 50, 1123–1137.

Dermitzakis, M.D., Radwanska, U., Tadwanski, A., Drinia, H., 2009. Lower Pliocene(Zanclean) regressive sequence of Rafina near Pikermi in Attica, Greece: a spectacularlocality of mass-aggregated giant balanid cirripedes. Hellenic Journal of Geosciences44, 9–19.

Di Battistini, G., Toscani, L., Iaccarino, S., Villa, I.M., 1987. K/Ar ages and the geological set-ting of calc-alkaline volcanic rocks from Sierra de Gata, SE Spain. Neues Jahrbuch FürMineralogie Monatshefte 8, 369–383.

Di Stefano, A., Longhitano, S., Smedile, A., 2007. Sedimentation and tectonics in a steepshallow marine depositional system; stratigraphic arrangement of the Pliocene–Pleistocene Rometta Succession (NE Sicily, Italy). Geologica Carpathica (Bratislava)58, 71–87.

Dott Jr., H.R., Bourgeois, J., 1982. Hummocky stratification: significance of its variable bed-ding sequences. Geological Society of America Bulletin 93, 663–680.

Droxler, A.W., Schlager, W., 1985. Glacial versus interglacial sedimentation rates and tur-bidite frequency in the Bahamas. Geology 13, 799–802.

Dumas, S., Arnott, R.W.C., 2006. Origin of hummocky and swaley cross-stratification—thecontrolling influence of unidirectional current strength and aggradation rate. Geology34, 1073–1076.

Einsele, G., 1993. Marine depositional events controlled by sediment supply and sea-levelchanges. Geologische Rundschau 82, 173–184.

Einsele, G., Chough, S.K., Shiki, T., 1996. Depositional events and their records—an intro-duction. Sedimentary Geology 104, 1–9.

Fernández-Soler, J.M., 1992. El volcanismo calco-alcalino de Cabo de Gata (Almería).Estudio volcanológico y petrológico. (Ph.D. Thesis) Universidad de Granada (197pp. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10481/28834).

Flower, B.P., Kennett, J.P., 1993.MiddleMiocene ocean-climate transition: high-resolutionoxygen and carbon isotopic records from Deep Sea Drilling Project Site 588A, south-west Pacific. Paleoceanography 8, 811–843.

Fornós, J.J., Ahr, W.M., 1997. Temperate carbonates on a modern, low energy, isolatedramp: the Balearic Platform, Spain. Journal of Sedimentary Research 67B,367–373.

Fornós, J.J., Ahr, W.M., 2006. Present-day temperate carbonate sedimentation on theBalearic Platform, western Mediterranean: compositional and textural variationalong a low-energy isolated ramp. In: Pedley, H.M., Carannante, G. (Eds.), Cool-Water Carbonates: Depositional Systems and Palaeonvironmental Controls. Geologi-cal Society, London, Special Publication, 255, pp. 71–84.

García-Aguilar, J.M., Martín, J.M., 2000. Late Neogene to recent continental history andevolution of the Guadix-Baza Basin, SE Spain. Revista de la Sociedad Geológica deEspaña 13, 65–77.

Gläser, I., Betzler, C., 2002. Facies partitioning and sequence stratigraphy of cool-watermixed carbonate-siliciclastic sediments (Upper Miocene Guadalquivir Domain,southern Spain). International Journal of Earth Sciences 91, 1041–1053.

Glaser, K.S., Droxler, A.W., 1991. High production and highstand shedding from deeplysubmerged carbonate banks, northern Nicaragua Rise. Journal of Sedimentary Petrol-ogy 61, 128–142.

Goff, J.A., Allison, M.A., Gulick, S.P.S., 2010. Offshore transport of sediment during cyclonicstorms: Hurricane Ike (2008), Texas Gulf Coast, USA. Geology 38, 351–354.

Gutiérrez-Pastor, J., Nelson, C.H., Goldfinger, C., Escutia, C., 2013. Sedimentology ofseísmo-turbidites off the Cascadia and northern California active tectonic continentalmargins, northwest Pacific Ocean. Marine Geology 336, 99–119.

Hansen, K.S., 1999. Development of a prograding carbonate wedge during sea level fall:Lower Pleistocene of Rhodes, Greece. Sedimentology 46, 559–576.

Haughton, P.D.W., Davis, C., McCaffrey, W., Barker, S.P., 2009. Hybrid sediment gravityflow deposits— classification, origin and significance. Marine and Petroleum Geology26, 1900–1918.

Héquette, A., Hill, P.R., 1993. Storm-generated currents and offshore sediment transporton a sandy shoreface, Tibjak Beach, Canadian Beaufort Sea. Marine Geology 113,283–3040.

Hodson, J.M., Alexander, J., 2010. The effects of grain-density variation on turbidity cur-rents and some implications for the deposition of carbonate turbidites. Journal of Sed-imentary Research 80, 515–528.

James, N.P., 1997. The cool-water carbonate depositional realm. In: James, N.P., Clarke,A.D. (Eds.), Cool-Water Carbonates. SEPM Special Publication, 56, pp. 1–20.

James, N.P., Bone, Y., 1991. Origin of a cool-water Oligo-Miocene deep-shelf limestone,Eucla Platform, southern Australia. Sedimentology 60, 323–341.

James, N.P., Bone, Y., 2011. Neritic Carbonate Sediments in a Temperate Realm: SouthernAustralia. Springer, Netherlands (254 pp.).

James, N.P., Clarke, J.A.D. (Eds.), 1997. Cool-water Carbonates. SEPM Special Publication, 56.James, N.P., Von der Borch, C.C., 1991. Carbonate shelf edge off southern Australia: a

prograding open-platform margin. Geology 19, 1005–1008.James, N.P., Boreen, T.D., Bone, Y., Feary, D.A., 1994. Holocene carbonate sedimentation on

theWest Eucla Shelf, Great Australian Bight; a shaved shelf. Sedimentary Geology 90,161–177.

James, N.P., Bone, Y., Collins, L.B., Kyser, T.K., 2001. Surficial sediments of the GreatAustralian Bight: facies dynamics and oceanography on a vast cool-water carbonateshelf. Journal of Sedimentary Research 71, 549–567.

James, N.P., Eyles, C.H., Eyles, N., Hiatt, E.E., Kyser, T.K., 2009. Carbonates within a Pleisto-cene glaciomarine succession, Yakataga Formation, Middleton Island, Alaska. Sedi-mentology 56, 367–397.

James, N.P., Reid, C.M., Bone, Y., Levings, A., Malcom, I., 2013. The macroalgal carbonatefactory at a cool-to-warm temperate marine transition, Southern Australia. Sedimen-tary Geology 291, 1–26.

Knoerich, A.D., Mutti, M., 2003. Controls of facies and sediment composition on the diage-netic pathway of shallow-water Heterozoan carbonates: the Oligocene of theMalteseIslands. International Journal of Earth Sciences (Geologische Rundschau) 92,494–510.

Kováč, M., Sliva, U., Sopková, B., Hlavatá, J., Škulová, A., 2008. Serravalian sequence stratig-raphy of the northern Vienna Basin: high frequency cycles in the Sarmatian sedimen-tary record. Geologica Carpathica 59, 545–561.

Lees, A., Buller, A.T., 1972. Modern temperate-water and warm-water shelf carbonatesediments contrasted. Marine Geology 13, 1767–1773.

Lewis, A.R., Marchant, D.R., Ashworth, A.C., Hemming, S.R., Machlus, M.L., 2007. Majormiddle Miocene global climate change: evidence from East Antarctica and theTransantarctic Mountains. Geological Society of America Bulletin 119, 1449–1461.

Lien, T., Walker, R.G., Martinsen, O.J., 2003. Turbidites in the Upper Carboniferours RossFormation, western Ireland: reconstruction of a channel and spillover system. Sedi-mentology 50, 113–148.

Longhitano, S.G., Sabato, L., Tropeano, M., Gallicchio, S., 2010. A mixed bioclastic-siliciclastic flood-tidal delta in a micro tidal setting: depositional architectures and hi-erarchical internal organization (Pliocene, Southern Apennine, Italy). Journal of Sed-imentary Research 80, 36–53.

Lowe, D.R., 1982. Sediment gravity flows; II. Depositional models with special reference tothe deposits of high-density turbidity currents. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 52,279–297.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., 1994. Messinian events in the Sorbas Basin in southeastern Spainand their implications in the recent history of the Mediterranean. Sedimentary Geol-ogy 90, 254–268.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Betzler, C., Brachert, T., 1996. Sedimentary model and high-frequency cyclicity in a Mediterranean, shallow-shelf, temperate-carbonate environ-ment (uppermost Miocene, Agua Amarga Basin, southern Spain). Sedimentology 43,263–277.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Sánchez-almazo, I.M., 1999. The Messinian record of the outcrop-ping marginal Alboran Basin deposits: significance and implications. Proceedings ofthe Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results 161, 543–551.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Betzler, C., 2001. The Messinian Guadalhorce corridor: the lastnorthern Atlantic–Mediterranean gateway. Terra Nova 13, 418–424.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Betzler, C., 2003. Late Neogene–Recent uplift of the Cabo de Gatavolcanic province, Almería, SE Spain. Geomorphology 50, 27–42.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Aguirre, J., Betzler, C., 2004. Contrasting models of temperate car-bonate sedimentation in a small Mediterranean embayment the Pliocene CarbonerasBasin, SE Spain. Journal of the Geological Society, London 161, 387–399.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Aguirre, J., Puga-Bernabéu, Á., 2009. History and evolution of theNorth-Betic Strait (Prebetic Zone, Betic Cordillera): a narrow, early Tortonian, tidal-dominated, Atlantic–Mediterranean marine passage. Sedimentary Geology 216,80–90.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Sánchez-Almazo, I.M., Aguirre, J., 2010. Temperate and tropicalcarbonate-sedimentation episodes in the Neogene Betic basins (southern Spain)linked to climatic oscillations and changes in Atlantic–Mediterranean connections:constraints from isotopic data. In: Mutti, M., Piller, W., Beztler, C. (Eds.), CarbonateSystems during the Oligocene–Miocene Climatic Transition. IAS Special Publication,42, pp. 49–70.

Massari, F., Chiocci, J., 2006. Biocalcarenite andmixed cool-water prograding bodies of theMediterranean Pliocene and Pleistocene: architecture, depositional setting and

27Á. Puga-Bernabéu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 304 (2014) 11–27

forcing factors. In: Pedley, H.M., Carannante, G. (Eds.), Cool-Water Carbonates: Depo-sitional Systems and Palaeonvironmental Controls. Geological Society of London, Spe-cial Publication, 255, pp. 95–120.

Medellín, G., Medina, R., Falqués, A., González, M., 2008. Coastline sand waves on a low-energy beach at “El Puntal” spit, Spain. Marine Geology 250, 146–156.

Middleton, G.V., Hampton, M.A., 1973. Sediment gravity flows: mechanics of flow and de-position. In: Middleton, G.V., Bouma, A.H. (Eds.), Turbidites and Deep Water Sedi-mentation. SEPM Short Course Notes, pp. 1–38.

Midtgaard, H.H., 1996. Inner-shelf to lower-shoreface hummocky sandstone bodieswith evidence for geostrophic influenced combined flow, Lower Cretaceous, WestGreenland. Journal of Sedimentary Research 66, 343–353.

Migeon, S., Ducassou, E., Gonidec, Y.L., Rouillard, P., Mascle, J., Revel-Rolland, M., 2010.Lobe reconstruction and sand/mud segregation by turbidity currents and debrisflows on the western Nile deep-sea fan (Eastern Mediterranean). Sedimentary Geol-ogy 229, 124–143.

Moissette, P., Cornée, J.-J., Koskeridou, E., 2010. Pleistocene rolling stones on large bryo-zoans nodules in a mixed siliciclastic-carbonate environment (Rhodes, Greece).Palaios 25, 24–39.

Mulder, T., Alexander, J., 2001. The physical character of subaqueous sedimentary densityflows and their deposits. Sedimentology 48, 269–299.

Myrow, P.M., Southward, J.B., 1996. Tempestite deposition. Journal of Sedimentary Re-search 66, 875–887.

Nalin, R., Massari, F., 2009. Facies and stratigraphic anatomy of a temperate carbonate se-quence (Capo Colonna Terrace, Late Pleistocene, Southern Italy). Journal of Sedimen-tary Research 79, 210–225.

Nalin, R., Ghinassi, M., Basso, D., 2010. Onset of temperate carbonate sedimentation dur-ing transgression in a low-energy siliciclastics embayment (Pliocene of the Vald'Orcia Basin, Tuscany, Italy). Facies 56, 353–368.

Non-tropical shelf carbonates—Modern and ancient sediments. In: Nelson, C.S. (Ed.), Sed-imentary Geology, 60, pp. 1–367.

Nelson, C.S., Hancock, G.E., Kamp, P.J.J., 1982. Shelf to basin temperate skeletal carbonatessediments, Three Kings Plateau, New Zealand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 52,717–732.

Nelson, C.S., Keane, S.L., Head, D., 1988. Nontropical carbonate deposits on the modernNew Zealand shelf. Sedimentary Geology 60, 71–94.

Nelson, C.H., Karabanov, E.B., Colman, S.M., Escutia, C., 1999. Tectonic and sediment sup-ply control of deep rift lake turbidite systems: Lake Baikal, Russia. Geology 27,163–166.

Nelson, C.S., Winefield, P.R., Hood, S.D., Caron, V., Pallentin, A., Kamp, P.J.J., 2003. PlioceneTe Aute limestones, New Zealand: expanding notions for models of cool-water shelfcarbonates. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 46, 407–424.

Pedley, H.M., Carannante, G. (Eds.), 2006a. Cool-Water Carbonates: Depositional Systemsand Palaeonvironmental Controls. Geological Society, London, Special Publications,255.

Pedley, H.M., Carannante, G., 2006b. Cool-water carbonate ramps: a review. In: Pedley,H.M., Carannante, G. (Eds.), Cool-Water Carbonates: Depositional Systems andPalaeonvironmental Controls. Geological Society, London, Special Publication, 255,pp. 1–9.

Pedley, H.M., Grasso, M., 2002. Lithofacies modeling and sequence stratigraphy inmicrotidal cool-water carbonates: a case study from the Pleistocene of Sicily, Italy.Sedimentology 49, 533–553.

Perrin, C., Bosellini, F.R., 2012. Paleobiogeography of scleractinian reef corals: changingpatterns during the Oligocene–Miocene climatic transition in the Mediterranean.Earth-Science Reviews 111, 1–24.

Pomar, L., Tropeano, M., 2001. The Calcarenite di Gravina Formation in Matera (southernItaly): new insights for coarse-grained, large-scale, cross-bedded bodies encased inoffshore deposits. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin 85, 661–689.

Posamentier, H.W., Walker, R., 2006. Deep-water turbidites and submarine fans. In:Posamentier, H.W., Walker, R. (Eds.), Facies Models Revisited. SEPM Special Publica-tion, 84, pp. 397–520.

Puga-Bernabéu, Á., Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., 2007a. High-frequency cycles in Upper-Miocene ramp-temperate carbonates (Sorbas Basin, SE Spain). Facies 53, 329–345.

Puga-Bernabéu, Á., Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., 2007b. Tsunami-related deposits in temperatecarbonate ramps, Sorbas Basin, southern Spain. Sedimentary Geology 199, 107–127.

Puga-Bernabéu, Á., Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., 2008a. Sedimentary processes in a submarinecanyon excavated into a temperate-carbonate ramp (Granada Basin, southern Spain).Sedimentology 55, 1449–1466.

Puga-Bernabéu, Á., Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., 2008b. Submarine-channels system in a tem-perate carbonate ramp, Sorbas Basin, southeastern Spain. Geogaceta 44, 203–206.

Puga-Bernabéu, Á., Vonk, A.J., Nelson, C.S., Kamp, P.J.J., 2009. Mangarara Formation: ex-humed remnants of a middle Miocene temperate carbonate, submarine channel-fan system on the eastern margin of Taranaki Basin New Zealand. New Zealand Jour-nal of Geology and Geophysics 52, 73–93.

Puga-Bernabéu, Á., Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Sánchez-Almazo, I.M., 2010. Downslope-migrating sandwaves and platform-margin clinoforms in a current-dominated,

distally steepened temperate-carbonate ramp (Guadix Basin, Southern Spain). Sedi-mentology 57, 293–311.

Puig, P., Ogston, A.S., Mullenbach, B.L., Nittrouer, C.A., Sternberg, R.W., 2003. Shelf-to-canyon sediment-transport processes on the Eel continental margin (northernCalifornia). Marine Geology 193, 129–149.

Puig, P., Ogston, A.S., Mullenbach, B.L., Nittrouer, C.A., Parsons, J.D., Sternberg, R.W., 2004.Storm-induced sediment gravity flows at the head of the Eel submarine canyon,northern California margin. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, C03019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JC001918.

Reimnitz, E., Toimil, L.J., Shepard, F.P., Gutiérrez-Estrada, M., 1976. Possible rip-current or-igin for bottom ripple zone to 30-m depth. Geology 4, 395–400.

Reynaud, J.-Y., James, N.P., 2012. The Miocene Sommières basin, SE France: bioclastic car-bonates in a tide-dominated depositional system. Sedimentary Geology 282,360–373.

Riding, R., Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., Sánchez-Almazo, I., 1998. Mediterranean Messinian sa-linity crisis: constraints from a coevalmarginal basin, Sorbas, southeastern Spain.Ma-rine Geology 146, 1–20.

Rivers, J.M., James, N.P., Kyser, T.K., 2008. Early diagénesis of carbonates on a cool-watercarbonate shelf, Southern Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Research 78, 784–802.

Roveri, M., Taviani, M., 2003. Calcarenite and sapropel deposition in the MediterraneanPliocene: shallow- and deep-water record of astronomically driven climatic events.Terra Nova 15, 279–286.

Ruegg, G.J.H., 1964. Geologische onderzoekingen in het bekken van Sorbas, S Spanje. Geo-logical Institute, University of Amsterdam 1–64.

Sánchez-Almazo, I.M., Spiro, B., Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., 2001. Constraints of stable isotopesignatures on the depositional palaeoenvironments of upper Miocene reef and tem-perate carbonates in the Sorbas Basin, SE Spain. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology 175, 153–172.

Sánchez-Almazo, I.M., Braga, J.C., Dinarés-Turrel, J., Martín, J.M., Spiro, B., 2007.Palaeoceanographic controls on reef deposition: the Messinian Cariatiz reef (SorbasBasin, Almería, SE Spain). Sedimentology 54, 637–660.

Schlager, W., 2005. Carbonate sedimentology and sequence stratigraphy. Concepts inSedimentology and Paleontology Series, No 8. SEPM (200 pp.).

Schlager,W., Reijmer, J.J.G., Droxler, A.W., 1994. Highstand shedding of rimmed carbonateplatforms — an overview. Journal of Sedimentary Research B64, 270–281.

Shepard, F.P., Marshall, N.F., 1973. Storm-generated current in La Jolla Submarine Canyon,California. Marine Geology 15, 19–24.

Shepard, F.P., Emery, K.O., La Fond, E.C., 1941. Rip currents: a process of geological impor-tance. Journal of Geology 49, 337–369.

Shipp, R.C., 1984. Bedforms and depositional sedimentary structures of a barred near-shore system, eastern Long Island, New York. Marine Geology 60, 235–259.

Sierro, F.J., Flores, J.A., Frances, G., Vazquez, A., Utrilla, R., Zamarreño, I., Erlenkeuser, H.,Barcena, M.A., 2003. Orbitally-controlled oscillations in planktic communities and cy-clic changes in western Mediterranean hydrography during the Messinian.Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 190, 289–316.

Smith, A.M., Nelson, C.S., 2003. Effects of early sea-floor processes on the taphonomy oftemperate shelf skeletal carbonate deposits. Earth-Science Reviews 63, 1–31.

Talling, P.J., Masson, D.G., Sumner, E., Malgesini, G., 2012. Subaqueous sediment densityflows: depositional processes and deposit types. Sedimentology 59, 1937–2003.

Titschack, J., Bromley, R.G., Freiwald, A., 2005. Plio-Pleistocene cliff-bound, wedge-shaped,warm-temperate carbonate deposits from Rhodes (Greece) Sedimentology and fa-cies. Sedimentary Geology 180, 29–56.

Tomas, S., Zitzmann, M., Homann, M., Rumpf, M., Amour, F., Benisek, M., Marcano, G.,Mutti, M., Betzler, C., 2010. From ramp to platform: building a 3D model of deposi-tional geometries and facies architecture in transitional carbonates in the Miocene,northern Sardinia. Facies 56, 195–210.

Tropeano, M., Sabato, L., 2000. Response of Plio-Pleistocene mixed bioclastic–lithoclastictemperate-water carbonate systems to forced regressions: the Calcarenite di GravinaFormation, Puglia, SE Italy. In: Hunt, D., Gawthorpe, R.L. (Eds.), Sedimentary Re-sponses to Forced Regressions. Geological Society of London, Special Publication,172, pp. 217–243.

Tucker, M.E., Wright, V.P., 1990. Carbonate Sedimentology. Blackwell, Oxford (482 pp.).Vacchi, M., Montefalcone, M., Bianchi, C.N., Morri, C., Ferrari, M., 2012. Estuarine. Coastal

and Shelf Science 97, 58–65.Vigorito, M., Murru, M., Simone, L., 2005. Anatomy of a submarine channel system and re-

lated fan in a foramol/rhodalgal carbonate sedimentary setting: a case history fromthe Miocene syn-rift Sardinia Basin, Italy. Sedimentary Geology 174, 1–30.

Weijermars, R., 1991. Geology and tectonics of the Betic Zone, SE Spain. Earth-Science Re-views 31, 153–184.

Wright, L.D., Friedrichs, C.T., Scully, M.E., 2002. Pulsational gravity-driven sediment trans-port on two energetic shelves. Continental Shelf Research 22, 2443–2460.

Wynn, R.B., Cronin, B.T., Peakall, J., 2007. Sinuous deep-water channels: genesis, geometryand architecture. Marine and Petroleum Geology 24, 341–387.