ELSEVIER Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178

Temporal significance of sequence boundaries

Octavian Catuneanu a, , Andrew J. Willis b , Andrew D. Miall c
a Department of Geology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
b RigelEnergy Corporation, 1900, 255 5th Ave. S.W., Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G6, Canada
c Department of Geology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1 Canada

Received 15 May 1997; accepted 22 June 1998

Abstract

This paper analyses the temporal significance of stratigraphic surfaces bounding the marine portions of the depositional
sequence, genetic stratigraphic sequence and transgressiveregressive sequence. These bounding surfaces, known as
the correlative conformity (c.c.), maximum flooding surface (MFS) and conformable transgressive surface (CTS),
respectively, may either be defined on the basis of stratal stacking patterns (which we call type A surfaces), or on the
basis of water-depth changes and relative sea-level changes (which we call type B surfaces). The type A MFS and
CTS are time lines in a depositional-dip section, corresponding to the turnaround points from shoreline transgression to
regression and vice versa. They separate prograding (coarsening-upward) from retrograding (fining-upward) geometries,
with a timing determined by the interplay between the rates of sedimentation and relative sea-level rise in the shoreline
area. The timing of type A MFS and CTS is not affected by the offshore variations in sedimentation and subsidence
rates, but it is only controlled by the shoreline movements and the associated facies shifts. The type A c.c. separates
rapidly prograding and offlapping forced regressive strata from the overlying lower rate prograding and aggrading normal
regressive strata. This surface is diachronous, younger basinward, with the rate of offshore sediment transport. The timing
of the type A c.c. in the shoreline area corresponds to the end of relative sea-level fall, but it develops under relative
sea-level rise conditions offshore. The timing of the type B MFS and CTS depends on the offshore variations in the
sedimentation and subsidence rates. These surfaces, defined on the basis of bathymetric changes, become younger and
older seaward, respectively, tending to merge together offshore. The type B c.c. marks the end of relative sea-level fall
in any point along a depositional-dip section. It is diachronous, older basinward, as its timing depends on the offshore
variations in subsidence rates. The diachroneity of type B surfaces reaches a quarter of the period of the highest frequency
variable, whichever that is among the eustasy, tectonics or sedimentation controls. Types A and B surfaces merge together
in the shoreline area, but they become temporally divergent offshore. Deepening-upward and shallowing-upward facies
should not be confused with transgressive and regressive systems tracts. The latter are strictly controlled by the shoreline
movements, which determine the direction of facies shifts and the stratal stacking patterns. 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.
All rights reserved.

Keywords: sequences; systems tracts; bounding surfaces; diachroneity

Corresponding author. E-mail: oc@rock.ru.ac.za

0037-0738/98/$ see front matter c 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 3 7 - 0 7 3 8 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 8 4 - 0
158 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178

1. Introduction
A controversial topic in modern stratigraphy
is the assessment of the relationship between se-
quence stratigraphy and chronostratigraphy. Are the
sequence-bounding surfaces time lines, i.e. gener-
ated at the same time everywhere within the area
of occurrence? The answer to this question is of
paramount importance for stratigraphic correlation,
and although this problem has been around for some
time (Miall, 1991, 1994), an agreement is yet to be
reached. Part of the problem derives from the way
concepts are defined and used, often with contradic-
tory meanings, as we present in this introduction.
The various types of sequences and bounding
surfaces are illustrated in Fig. 1. The depositional
sequence (Jervey, 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988;
Van Wagoner et al., 1990; Haq, 1991; Vail et al.,
1991; Hunt and Tucker, 1992) is defined in relation-
ship to the relative sea-level (base-level) curve, and it
is bounded by the subaerial unconformity (SU) and
its marine correlative conformity (c.c.). The timing
of the SU is generally related to the stage of base-
level fall (Fig. 1; Posamentier et al., 1988; Hunt and
Tucker, 1992; Embry, 1995), whereas the c.c. was
initially considered to form during early sea-level
fall (Posamentier et al., 1988) or at the beginning of
the sea-level fall (Posamentier et al., 1992), which
was later revised to the end of relative fall (Fig. 1;
Hunt and Tucker, 1992; Helland-Hansen and Mar-
tinsen, 1996). The depositional sequence comprises
four systems tracts with distinct stratal stacking pat-
terns (Figs. 1 and 2): the highstand systems tract
(HST) forms during late relative rise, when the sed-
imentation rate exceeds the rate of relative rise in
the shoreline area (normal regression); the falling
stage systems tract (FSST) forms during relative
fall (forced regression); the lowstand systems tract
(LST) forms during early relative rise, when the sed-
imentation rate exceeds the rate of relative rise in the
shoreline area (normal regression); and the transgres-
sive systems tract (TST) which forms when the rate
of relative sea-level rise in the shoreline area exceeds
the sedimentation rate. The former three systems
tracts (HST, FSST and LST) form together a progra-
dational package known as a regressive systems tract
(RST; Embry and Johannessen, 1992). A RST fol-
lowed by a TST form together a genetic stratigraphic
sequence (Fig. 1; Galloway, 1989), bounded by max-
imum flooding surfaces (MFS). The combination of
a TST followed by a RST gives the transgressive
regressive (TR) sequence (Fig. 1; Embry and Jo-
hannessen, 1992; Embry, 1993, 1995), bounded by
conformable transgressive surfaces (CTS) in the ma-
rine portion of the basin. The nonmarine correlative
of the CTS is either unidentifiable within the fluvial
succession overlying the SU, or eroded by the ravine-
ment surface. In either case, the SU was conveniently
chosen to represent the TR sequence boundary in
the nonmarine succession (Embry, 1993, 1995).
We focus our analysis on bounding surfaces de-
veloped within marine successions, i.e. the c.c., CTS
and MFS.
The c.c. may be defined in three ways, which
allow for different temporal interpretations.
(1) It is a surface taken by definition as a time

Fig. 1. Types of sequences, bounding surfaces and systems tracts, defined in relationship to the relative sea-level and transgressive
regressive curves. The relative sea-level depends on the combined effect of eustasy and tectonics, whereas the generation of transgressive
and regressive facies depends on the combined effect of relative sea-level changes and sedimentation. The depositional sequence
boundary (i.e., subaerial unconformity and its marine correlative conformity) is generated at the end of relative sea-level (base-level) fall
(Hunt and Tucker, 1992; Helland-Hansen and Martinsen, 1996). The genetic stratigraphic sequence boundary (i.e., maximum flooding
surface) is taken at the top of marine and nonmarine transgressive facies (Galloway, 1989). The TR sequence boundary is taken at the
top of marine regressive facies (i.e., the conformable transgressive surface, Embry, 1995). Within nonmarine facies, the TR sequence
is arbitrarily chosen to coincide with the depositional sequence in spite of the fact that the RST extends above the SU, due to the
difficulty in field recognition of the CTS-correlative. In special circumstances (i.e., short LST stages and strong erosion associated
with the ravinement surface), the most basinward portion of the nonmarine LST may not be preserved and thus the CST could be
mapped in the continuation of the SU. Note that normal regressive facies accumulate in the earliest (LST) and latest (HST) stages
of relative sea-level rise, due to sedimentation outpacing the low rates of relative rise. We take here the LST to be equivalent to the
lowstand prograding-wedge systems tract of Hunt and Tucker (1992). Abbreviations: DS D depositional sequence; GS D genetic
stratigraphic sequence; TR D transgressiveregressive sequence; LST D lowstand systems tract; TST D transgressive systems tract; HST
D highstand systems tract; FSST D falling stage systems tract; RST D regressive systems tract; SU D subaerial unconformity; c.c. D
 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178 159

correlative conformity; CTS D conformable transgressive surface; CTS-c D CTS-correlative (i.e., the nonmarine correlative of the marine
CTS); MFS D maximum flooding surface; R D ravinement surface; BSFR D basal surface of forced regression; IV D incised valley;
(A) D creation of accommodation space (base-level rise); NR D normal (sediment supply-driven) regression; FR D forced (base-level
fall-driven) regression.
160 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
line, which begins at the basinward termination of
the SU and extends throughout the conformable ma-
rine succession (Jervey, 1988; Embry, 1995). The
timing of this conformable surface was related to
various portions of the sea-level or relative sea-level
curves, finally settling at the end of relative fall
in the shoreline area, i.e. the depositional surface
which existed at the end of the forced regression of
the shoreline (Embry, 1995: The subaerial uncon-
formity is developed and migrates seaward during
base-level fall and reaches its maximum extent at the
end of the fall : : : , the depositional surface in the
marine realm at this time of change from base-level
fall to base-level rise is the correlative conformity,
portrayed as a time line in his fig. 1). The time line
significance of such surface is of course valid along a
depositional dip section, as varying subsidence rates
along the depositional strike may offset the transition
between base-level fall and base-level rise along the
shoreline;
(2) It is a surface defined on the basis of stratal
stacking patterns, separating the offlapping forced re-
gressive lobes from the overlying aggradational LST
(Fig. 2; Haq, 1991: a change from rapidly prograd-
ing parasequences to aggradational parasequences).
This definition implies a diachronous c.c., younger
basinward, with a diachroneity rate that matches the
rate of offshore sediment transport (Fig. 3). The
transport rate of terrigenous sediments along the
depositional dip within a marine basin varies from
10 1 100 m=s in the case of low gradient marine sys-
tems, to 101 102 m=s in the case of turbiditic flows
associated with higher gradients (Reading, 1996).
For this reason, the c.c. is represented with a higher
diachroneity within the terrigenous progradational
wedge relative to the deeper marine basin where it
tops the submarine fan deposits (Fig. 3).
(3) It is the surface that marks the end of rel-
ative sea-level fall within the marine basin (Posa-
mentier and Allen, 1993: eustasy and sea-floor
subsidence=uplift determine the timing of sequence
bounding surfaces). This definition also implies a
diachronous c.c., as the relative sea-level partly de-
Fig. 2. Systems tracts of the depositional sequence, defined on the basis of stratal stacking patterns. The sinusoidal curves illustrate
relative sea-level changes in the shoreline area, which may be different in terms of rates and sign from the coeval relative sea-level
changes occurring farther offshore.
161
pends on varying subsidence rates across the basin.
We investigate in this paper the diachroneity rate of
this type of c.c.
The CTS represents the marine TR sequence
boundary, and only a systems tract boundary in the
view of the depositional sequence model (Fig. 1).
It may be defined either: (1) on the basis of stratal
stacking patterns, as a conformable surface which
separates regressive strata (progradational pattern)
below from transgressive strata (retrogradational pat-
tern) above (Embry, 1993, 1995); or (2) on the
basis of bathymetric (water-depth) changes, as a con-
formable surface recording the start of a deepening
episode, i.e. formed when the water-depth reaches
the shallowest peak (Embry, 1993).
Although these two definitions are considered
equivalent, they allow different temporal signifi-
cances for the CTS. The former relates to the
shoreline movements and the associated changes in
stacking patterns, which brings the CTS to a time
line in a depositional dip section, independent of
the offshore variations in sedimentation and sub-
sidence rates, as there is only one point in time
where the shoreline is at its most basinward position.
The sediment supplied from the onshore during the
shoreline regression generates a coarsening upward
marine succession related to the basinward facies
shift, sharply overlain by much finer transgressive
strata as the coarse terrigenous sediments are trapped
within the shoreline systems during transgression
(Fig. 3). This provides a lithological criterion to pin-
point the CTS position in outcrops or subsurface logs
(Embry, 1993; fig. 5 in Catuneanu et al., 1997).
The second definition implies a diachronous CTS,
as the water-depth changes depend on varying sedi-
mentation and subsidence rates across the basin. In
this light, it is recognized that the CTS is younger
in areas with higher sedimentation rates, where the
transition from shallowing to deepening may occur
later, although this diachroneity is considered mi-
nor (Embry, 1995). We investigate in this paper the
diachroneity rate of this type of CTS.
The MFS may also be defined in two ways: (1)
 162
O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
Fig. 3. Wheeler diagram illustrating bounding surfaces defined on stratal stacking patterns. Zone A D low-rate diachroneity at the top of the condensed section, which equals
the rate of offshore sediment transport. Zone B D higher-rate diachroneity at the top of the condensed section, which equals the rate of shoreline regression.
 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
on the basis of stratal stacking patterns, marking the
change from transgressive strata below to regressive
strata above (Galloway, 1989); or (2) on the basis
of bathymetric (water-depth) changes, being formed
when the water reaches the deepest peak (Naish and
Kamp, 1997).
Again, these two approaches define bounding sur-
faces which are not necessarily superimposed. In
the former approach, the MFS is associated with
the condensed section separating retrograding fa-
cies, below, from prograding facies above. Ideally, it
corresponds to the time line coeval to the moment
in time where the shoreline is at its most land-
ward position within a given depositional dip section
(Fig. 3). In this case, the MFS separates retrograding
from prograding stratal patterns (downlap surface)
irrespective of the variations in sedimentation and
subsidence rates along the depositional dip. Even so,
a certain diachroneity exists along the depositional
strike, as variations in sedimentation and subsidence
rates determine temporally offset transitions from
transgression to regression along the shoreline (Gill
and Cobban, 1973; Martinsen and Helland-Hansen,
1995). In practice, it is very difficult to pinpoint the
time line surface within the condensed section, and
the more readily recognizable base of the overlying
terrigenous progradational wedge (limit between the
condensed section and the overlying terrigenous pro-
grading facies in Fig. 3) may be approximated as
the downlap surface. This MFS is of course di-
achronous, with the rates of offshore sediment trans-
port (zone A in Fig. 3) or shoreline=sedimentary
lobes progradation (zone B in Fig. 3), which can
be emphasized using volcanic ash layers as time
markers (Ito and OHara, 1994).
The latter definition implies a diachronous MFS
along both depositional dip and strike sections, as
the basin bathymetry depends on varying sedimen-
tation and subsidence rates. As noted by Naish and
Kamp (1997), the maximum water depth (i.e., their
MFS) often occurs within the lower part of the
HST (normal regressive) progradational wedge. Thus
the boundary between prograding and retrograding
geometries (downlap surface) will correspond to a
physical surface, recognizable on the basis of stratal
stacking patterns, whereas the MFS is unknowable
lithologically and can only be identified using foram
paleobathymetry.
163
We apply end-member boundary conditions to
surfaces formed as a result of the complex interplay
between eustasy, subsidence and sedimentation (i.e.,
CTS and MFS defined on the basis of water-depth
changes), as well as to surfaces formed as a result
of the interaction between eustasy and tectonics (i.e.,
the c.c. formed at the end of relative fall, and its
counterpart, the surface marking the start of relative
fall). The temporal significance of these surfaces will
be compared with the timing of surfaces defined on
the basis of stratal stacking patterns.
2. Controlling factors on relative sea-level
changes and water-depth changes
The water-depth changes depend on the interplay
between eustasy, tectonics (which combined give
the relative sea-level changes) and sedimentation
(Fig. 4). Sediment compaction may also interfere in
this process by creating additional accommodation
space (base-level rise effect), but it has exactly the
same consequences as the tectonic subsidence and
therefore we incorporate compaction within tec-
tonics in our quantitative modelling. The causes,
magnitudes and rates of change of these variables
have been described at length by Galloway (1989)
and need not be reiterated here. It is sufficient to
note that all three variables can attain comparable
rates of change and thus have equal potential to in-
fluence the generation of CTS and MFS. A positive
rate of change of the water-depth (i.e., deepening)
will result in upward-deepening facies (UDF), and
a negative rate (i.e., shallowing) in upward-shallow-
ing facies (USF). The boundary between UDF and
overlying USF (and vice versa: MFS and CTS re-
spectively) therefore occurs at the point where the
rate of water-depth change is equal to zero. Similarly,
the correlative conformity portion of the depositional
sequence boundary (c.c.), as well as the surface
marking the start of relative fall, form when the rate
of relative sea-level changes equals zero.
As sequence-bounding surfaces form only where
the rate of water-depth or relative sea-level changes
is equal to zero, it is implicit that the interacting
variables must be of the same order of magnitude
to periodically balance one another and meet this
condition. If the magnitude of one of the variables
164 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
Fig. 4. Diagrammatic illustration of two ways in which the
rate of water-depth change (W) can be obtained from the three
primary variables eustasy (E), tectonics (T) and sedimentation
(S) via subsidiary derived variables. Reducing the three primary
variables to combinations of two proxies facilitates the construc-
tion of simple geometrical models which still retain the effects
of all three, rather than the usual approach of eliminating one
variable. Case 1 combines the rate of tectonic subsidence=uplift
(T) and the rate of sedimentation (S) to define the rate of move-
ment of the depositional surface (D), which when added to the
rate of eustatic change (E) gives the rate of water-depth change
(W). Case 2 combines the rates of eustatic change (E) and tec-
tonic subsidence=uplift (T) to define the rate of relative sea-level
change (R), which when added to the sedimentation rate (S) also
gives the rate of water-depth change (W).
is always much larger than the others, then the
effect of the smaller variables will be effectively
suppressed. For example, if the rate of subsidence
is always greater than the combination between eu-
stasy and sedimentation, continuous relative sea-
level rise and transgression occur and no sequence-
bounding surfaces will form. An example of such
disparity between subsidence and eustatic rates is
described from the Banda Arc by Fortuin and de
Smet (1991).
Where the rates of change of the variables are
in the same range, one will normally vary with
a higher frequency than the others. The higher-fre-
quency variable will be the driving force behind the
high-frequency changes in the stratigraphic record.
It is commonly assumed that eustasy is the higher-
frequency variable (Posamentier and James, 1993),
but this need not be so. It is quite conceivable that
eustasy could maintain a uniform rate of change over
the duration of several episodes of subsidence and
uplift. In this case tectonic subsidence=uplift would
be the driving force behind sequence formation, as
it the case for instance with the Late Cretaceous
sequences of the western Canada foreland basin
(Catuneanu et al., 1997).
To facilitate simpler graphical presentation of the
results, the rate of water-depth change (W) can be
obtained from the three variables rate of eustatic
change (E), rate of tectonic subsidence (T) and rate
of sedimentation (S), via derived proxy variables in
three ways, two of which make geological sense
(Fig. 4).
2.1. Case 1
If we combine the rate of tectonic subsidence (T)
with the rate of sedimentation (S), we arrive at a
derivative variable (D) reflecting the rate of move-
ment of the depositional surface. The sum of the rate
of movement of the depositional surface (D) and the
rate of eustatic change (E) gives the rate of change of
the water-depth (W), which controls the stratigraphic
pattern of UDF and USF as described above.
2.2. Case 2
We can also arrive at the rate of change of the
water-depth (W) in a second way. The rates of
eustatic change (E) and tectonic subsidence (T) can
be combined into a variable reflecting the rate of
relative sea-level change (R) (Posamentier et al.,
1988). By combining this derived variable (R) with
the primary variable rate of sedimentation (S), we
arrive at the rate of water-depth change (W). If
the rate of relative sea-level rise exceeds the rate
of sedimentation (S), then (W) will be positive, a
continuous UDF succession will be deposited, and
no bounding surfaces will form. If the reverse is
 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178 165

true, i.e. the rate of sedimentation (S) is greater
than the rate of relative sea-level rise, then (R) will
be negative and continuous shallowing (normal
regression in the shoreline area) will occur.
3. Timing of bounding surfaces controlled by
water-depth changes
3.1. Two-dimensional model
To illustrate the effect that subsidence and sedi-
mentation rates have on the temporal formation of
CTS and MFS defined on the basis of bathymetric
changes, we have constructed a simple two-dimen-
sional geometrical basin model applied to an open
marine shelf setting, which we will refer to as Profile
A. We have chosen to model the case where eustasy
is the highest-frequency variable and subsidence and
sedimentation are grouped together as the variable
(D) (Case 1 in Fig. 4), since it facilitates comparison
with the depositional sequence model of Posamen-
tier et al. (1988). The input values used for the
variable rates of change are obtained from the litera-
ture (Pitman, 1978; Pitman and Golovchenko, 1983;
Angevine, 1989; Galloway, 1989; Jordan and Flem-
ings, 1991; Macdonald, 1991; Frostick and Steel,
1993).
The assumptions of the model are as follows:
(1) Eustasy varies sinusoidally with an amplitude
of 10 m and period of 2 Ma (Fig. 5). For the sake of
brevity, we have illustrated only half of the eustatic
cycle, from highstand to lowstand. The rate of eu-
static fall increases from zero at highstand (0 Ma) to
a maximum of 15.7 m=Ma at the inflexion point (0.5
Ma), and then decreases to zero at lowstand (1 Ma).
(2) The modelled portion of the basin is 200 km
across, and the tectonic subsidence rate (T) is con-
stant at any particular point, but increases basinward
from 20 m=Ma at the proximal end of the profile
to 40 m=Ma at the distal end. This is similar to the
simple divergent margin models of Pitman (1978),
Angevine (1989) and Jordan and Flemings (1991).
(3) Rather than assuming an unrealistic constant
sedimentation rate (S) across the basin, we assume
that (S) decreases from 15 m=Ma at the proximal end
of the basin profile to 5 m=Ma at the distal end. This
reflects the tendency of coarser-grained sediments
to be trapped close to the shoreline. A consequence
of this is that since the sedimentation rate at any
point along the basin profile is a function of its
distance from the shoreline, it must therefore vary
in time as the shoreline progrades and retreats. It is
this feedback loop between water-depth changes and
sedimentation that causes progradation and retrogra-
dation (Demarest and Kraft, 1987). Incorporation of

Fig. 5. The eustatic variation considered in the model. Eustasy is assumed to vary sinusoidally with an amplitude of 10 m and period of
2 Ma. Only half the eustatic cycle (180 phase or 1 Ma) from highstand to lowstand is shown. The rate of eustatic change at each 0.125
Ma time increment, given by the differential of the sine curve, is shown on the left.
166 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
Fig. 6. Computation of the rate of facies shift as a function of the rate of water-depth change and gradient of the depositional surface.
This phenomenon links facies progradationretrogradation and water-depth changes.
this induced facies shift into the model would ne-
cessitate recalculating the sedimentation rate at each
point along the profile at each model time step.
The magnitude of the sedimentation rate shift is a
function of the rate of water-depth change and the
gradient of the depositional surface (Fig. 6). By as-
suming an extreme shelf gradient of 1 and using
our highest rate of water shallowing (20.7 m=Ma),
we calculate that the maximum lateral sedimentation
rate shift is 148 m per 0.125 Ma (one time step). At
the scale of the modelled basin profile (200 km) this
is insignificant, so we have ignored it and assumed
the sedimentation rate (S) to be constant at any given
point through time.
Combining the rates of tectonic subsidence (T)
and sedimentation (S) at each point along the basin
profile gives the rate of movement of the depositional
surface (D). As we have demonstrated above that the
lateral migration of the sedimentation rate (S) is
essentially negligible at the scale of the model, the
rate (D) remains constant at any particular point
on the profile through the course of the eustatic
half-cycle. The value of (D) does vary spatially,
reflecting the reality of differential subsidence and
sediment supply.
The model was advanced in increments of 0.125
Ma. For each incremental time step, by adding the
rate of eustatic change (E) to the rate of deposi-
tional surface movement (D) at each point along
the profile, we calculate the rate of the water-depth
change (W) across the basin. The result is a graphic
output (Fig. 7) showing which portions of Profile A
are undergoing water-depth shallowing (W negative),
and which water-depth deepening (W positive). The
boundary between these two zones marks the point
at which water-depth is stationary, which as noted
above is the condition for a sequence-bounding sur-
face to form. This will be a CTS where it tops USF,
and a MFS where it tops UDF.
3.2. Model results
The model is started at eustatic highstand, where
the rate of eustatic change (E) is zero. The rate of
water-depth change (W) at this time is thus equal to
the rate of movement of the depositional surface (D)
and is positive along the entire length of the profile
(Fig. 7). This water-depth deepening results in UDF
throughout Profile A.
The successive incremental time steps of the
model through a 1 Ma eustatic half-cycle from high-
stand to lowstand are shown in Fig. 7. At each time
step, the distance along the profile at which the rate
of water-depth change (W) equals zero is indicated;
this is the point at which a sequence-bounding sur-
face is formed, separating areas of coeval deposition
of upward-deepening and upward-shallowing facies.
The bounding surface generated between time steps
1 and 5 is referred to as a MFS because it separates
UDF, below, from the overlying USF. The bounding
surface generated starting with time step 5 is a CTS
as it separates USF from the overlying UDF.
O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178 167

As the rate of eustatic fall (E) increases from

time step 1 to 5 (the eustatic inflexion point), a
progressively larger value of net subsidence (D) is
required to balance it and maintain the stationary
water-depth condition under which the MFS forms.
This results in the formation of the MFS moving
basinward through time in the direction of increasing
(D). The MFS is thus younger offshore than it is
towards the basin margin.
Time step 5 (0.5 Ma) is the inflexion point on
the falling limb of the sinusoidal eustatic curve and
represents the maximum rate of eustatic fall. This
is balanced by (D) at a distance of 71.3 km along
the profile (Fig. 7). Basinward of this point, the rate
of subsidence of the depositional surface (D) always
exceeds the maximum rate of eustatic fall (E), and a
MFS is not formed.
During time steps 5 to 9 the rate of eustatic
fall decreases to zero. Continued subsidence (D)
results in a water-depth deepening and UDF. As the
rate of eustatic fall decreases, it is balanced by a
progressively lower value of (D) and the boundary
(in this case the CTS) thus moves toward the basin
margin. The CTS is therefore older offshore than it
is toward the basin margin (Fig. 7).

3.3. Strike variability

To further illustrate the diachroneity of the bound-

ing surfaces we have added two other basin profiles
(B and C) to the model (Fig. 8). These represent
dip-sections across the same basin at 50 and 100
km along strike from Profile A. Profiles B and C
are assigned slightly different values of subsidence
rate (T) and sedimentation rate (S) to reflect the type
of strike-variability found in reality. All three mod-
els were run through the same eustatic half-cycle,

Fig. 7. Timing of sequence-bounding surface formation along

basin Profile A as a function of the interaction between eustasy
(E), subsidence (T) and sedimentation (S). The input values of
(T) and (S) are given at the top together with the resulting range
of values of (D). The value of (E) comes from Fig. 5. The rate
of water-depth change (W) is shown across the basin profile
at nine incremental time steps through a eustatic half-cycle
from highstand to lowstand. A sequence-bounding surface forms
where the rate of water-depth change (W) equals zero, and
migrates laterally with time as different combinations of the
three variables meet this criterion.
168 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
Fig. 9. Isochron maps of the basin containing Profiles A, B
and C showing the timing of bounding surface formation: (1)
the time of formation of the maximum flooding surface (formed
during time steps 0 to 5), and (2) the time of formation of
the conformable transgressive surface (formed during time steps
5 to 9). The duration of bounding surface formation (i.e., its
diachroneity) during the considered half of the eustatic cycle
wavelength is 0.5 Ma, or one quarter of the eustatic cycle period.
which allows the formation of bounding surfaces to
be depicted in a map view.
The graphical incremental time steps for Pro-
files B and C are shown in Fig. 8. By using the
output timedistance data for bounding surface for-
mation point along each of the three profiles, we
have constructed isochron maps of sequence-bound-
ing surface formation through the eustatic half-cycle
(Fig. 9). The isochrons join points where bounding
surface formation was synchronous on the three pro-
files and show its diachronous movement. The rate
of movement varies with the rate of eustatic change.
Fig. 8. Incremental output of Profiles B and C model runs. These profiles are assigned different rates of subsidence (T) and sedimentation
(S) to Profile A, but the same eustatic curve (E) shown in Fig. 5 was used. The different rates of movement of the depositional surface
(D) in Profiles A, B and C result in along-strike variation in the timing of boundary formation.
169
The diachroneity (duration) of bounding surface for-
mation along the 200 km of Profile B is 0.5 Ma,
which is approaching the resolution of ammonite
zonation in the Jurassic and Cretaceous.
It is noted that the USF generated during the
model run, outlined by a MFS at the base and a
CTS at the top, does not extend across the entire
basin but it wedges out offshore where the rates
of relative subsidence of the depositional surface
(Fig. 4) completely outpace the rates of eustatic fall
and therefore a continuous deepening of the sea takes
place (Figs. 79). This situation reinforces the fact
that bounding surfaces may only be generated when
the three controlling factors vary in the same range.
4. Timing of bounding surfaces controlled by
relative sea-level changes
4.1. Two-dimensional model
The data input for the numerical model presented
in the preceding section depicts a situation in which
the subsidence rates are always greater than the rates
of eustatic fall. This is a case of continuous relative
sea-level rise in which sedimentation, together with
varying rates of eustatic fall, represent key elements
in the deposition of UDF and USF, and implic-
itly in the formation of CTS and MFS. However,
no surfaces controlled by relative sea-level changes
(i.e., the c.c. and its counterpart surface generated at
the start of relative sea-level fall) may form during
continuous relative sea-level rise (Fig. 1). For these
surfaces to form, a transition from relative rise to
relative fall and vice versa is required, which may
only happen when eustasy and tectonics vary within
at least partially overlapping ranges. To model this
situation, we take two additional depositional-dip
sections, referred to as Profiles D and E (Figs. 10
and 11), which are parallel to each other and sepa-
rated by a distance of 100 km measured along the
depositional strike. We use the same curve of eustatic
variation as for Profiles AC (Fig. 5), this time in
170 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178

Fig. 10. Diachronous formation of surfaces separating deposits accumulated under relative sea-level fall and rise conditions (left column),
as well as deposits accumulated under water deepening and shallowing conditions (right column). The rates of tectonic subsidence for
Profile D have been selected to partially overlap with the rates of eustatic fall (Fig. 5), to allow both relative sea-level fall and rise to
manifest within the modelled area. E D rate of eustatic change.
 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178 171

Fig. 11. Similar computations as in Fig. 10, only with a different set of rates for tectonic subsidence, to illustrate the possible strike
variability within the sedimentary basin.
172 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
interplay with lower rates of subsidence and sedi-
mentation. The difference between the sets of input
data selected for Profiles D and E consists in the
subsidence rates, being slightly greater for Profile E.
The model run, advancing at incremental time
steps of 0.125 Ma, is similar to the one described in
Section 3.3. The interplay between partially overlap-
ping eustatic and subsidence rates allows the mani-
festation of both relative sea-level fall and rise during
the considered eustatic half-cycle. At each time step,
the distance along the profile at which the rate of
relative sea-level change (R) equals zero is indicated;
this is the point at which a sequence-bounding sur-
face (c.c. or start of relative fall surface) is formed,
separating areas of coeval relative fall and rise. As
the point of stationary relative sea-level migrates in
time within the basin, the c.c. (end of relative fall)
and its counterpart (onset of relative fall) are found to
be diachronous, with a net diachroneity approaching
0.5 Ma (a quarter of the eustatic cycle; Figs. 10 and
11, left columns). By adding the effect of sedimenta-
tion to the relative sea-level changes, the water-depth
changes as well as the timing of the CTS and MFS
could be modelled as well (Figs. 10 and 11, right
columns). The slightly steeper slopes for the CTS
and MFS relative to the c.c. and the start of relative
fall surface (Figs. 10 and 11) indicate higher rates of
diachroneity for the former, which is explained by
the additional control of sedimentation.
Fig. 12 illustrates the case of Profile D during
one and a half eustatic cycles, with the CTS, MFS,
c.c. and SRFS (start of relative fall surface) curves
plotted from Fig. 10. The shoreline trends, as well
as the various types of systems tracts separated by
these bounding surfaces are also represented. The
basinward increase in subsidence rates, parallelled
by a decrease in sedimentation rates, imposes a limit
in the seaward extent of the USF, assuming that
the subsidence rate in the basin centre exceeds the
maximum rate of eustatic fall. The basinward extent
of bounding surfaces controlled by relative sea-level
changes (c.c. and SRFS) reaches the point where the
subsidence rates start to exceed the maximum rate of
eustatic fall. Similarly, bounding surfaces controlled
by water-depth changes (CTS and MFS) extend up
to the point where the rate of relative subsidence of
the depositional surface (D D T S, Fig. 4) starts to
exceed the maximum rate of eustatic fall.
It can be noted that we did not use the terms
TST and RST in Fig. 12, but rather UDF and USF,
although the second sets of definitions for CTS and
MFS (see Section 1) would make the terms TST
and UDF, as well as RST and USF, to be equiva-
lent. According to Embry (1995), the CTS may be
diachronous because transgression may begin later
in areas of high sediment supply, which is exactly
the point made in Fig. 12. In this light, the TST
would be equivalent to the UDF, and the RST with
the USF. On the other hand, transgressive (retrogra-
dational) and regressive (progradational) stacking
patterns are controlled by the shoreline movements
(Fig. 3), which does not allow for such equivalence
(see also the discussion in Section 1).
4.2. Three-dimensional model
The model results from Profiles D and E have
been plotted together in bloc diagrams (Figs. 13 and
14) to illustrate different aspects of sequence strati-
graphic diachroneity, such as the diachroneity of
bounding surfaces along the depositional strike and
depositional dip (Fig. 13, lower diagram), and the
simultaneous formation of different systems tracts
during discrete time steps (Fig. 14). The distance
along the depositional strike between Profiles D and
E has been selected arbitrarily (100 km in this case),
to support a realistic subsidence variability within
the basin.
Our results suggest that the bounding surfaces
controlled by water-depth changes (CTS and MFS)
always extend farther basinward than the surfaces
controlled by relative sea-level changes (c.c. and
SRFS), due to the effect of sedimentation. As a re-
sult, the LST and HST merge together beyond the
wedging out point of the FSST. The FSST includes
strata accumulated under relative sea-level fall con-
ditions, and bounded by diachronous surfaces (c.c.
and SRFS) which merge together offshore (Figs. 10
14). This raises a recurrent sore issue of sequence
stratigraphy: where is the place within the sequence
stratigraphic framework of the deep marine gravity
flow deposits? While the position of the basin floor
submarine fans relative to the depositional sequence
boundary is a controversial issue (above the c.c.:
Posamentier et al., 1988; Emery and Myers, 1996;
or below the c.c.: Hunt and Tucker, 1992; Helland-
 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178 173

Fig. 12. Timedistance depositional-dip section based on the model results from Profile D, constructed for one and a half eustatic cycles.
The different rates of shoreline regression illustrate forced (high rate) regressions and normal (low rate) regressions. Abbreviations: DS D
depositional sequence; GS D genetic stratigraphic sequence; TR D transgressiveregressive sequence; LST D lowstand systems tract; FSST
D falling stage systems tract; HST D highstand systems tract; USF D upward shallowing facies; UDF D upward deepening facies; CTS D
conformable transgressive surface; MFS D maximum flooding surface; SRFS D start of relative fall surface; c.c. D correlative conformity.

Hansen and Martinsen, 1996), they are generally 5. Conclusions

regarded as formed during the forced regression of
the shoreline and therefore part of the FSST. How-
ever, if we define the FSST boundaries on the basis
of the interplay between eustasy and varying subsi-
dence rates throughout the basin (Fig. 12), then the
gravity flows could be initiated in the shallow marine
area subject to relative sea-level fall, but the sediment
would be transported and deposited beyond the edge
of the FSST, within an area characterized by relative
sea-level rise and accumulation of UDF (Fig. 13).
The timing of bounding surfaces may be assessed
in relationship to the criteria employed to define
them. There are two main ways to define strati-
graphic surfaces: (1) in relationship to the stratal
stacking patterns, which we call type A surfaces,
and (2) in relationship to the water-depth changes
and relative sea-level changes, which we call type
B surfaces. The types A and B surfaces are repre-
sented in Fig. 15.
Fig. 13. Block-diagrams illustrating strike and dip diachroneity of surfaces modelled in Figs. 10 and 11 (profiles D and E). The lower
diagram shows a possible relationship between the source area for gravity flow deposits (S), which may be placed within a region
affected by relative sea-level fall, and the associated submarine fan (SF) which may be placed in a region characterized by relative
sea-level rise. Abbreviations: DS D depositional sequence; GS D genetic stratigraphic sequence; TR D transgressiveregressive sequence;
LST D lowstand systems tract; FSST D falling stage systems tract; HST D highstand systems tract; USF D upward shallowing facies;
UDF D upward deepening facies; CTS D conformable transgressive surface; MFS D maximum flooding surface; SRFS D start of relative
fall surface; c.c. D correlative conformity.
 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178 175

Fig. 14. Block diagrams illustrating coeval deposition of different systems tracts, as derived from the model results for Profiles D and E
(Figs. 10 and 11). For abbreviations see Fig. 13.
 176
O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
Fig. 15. Temporal significance of types A and B surfaces. Type A surfaces depend on the shoreline movements (interplay between the rates of sedimentation and relative
sea-level rise in the shoreline area), relative sea-level changes in the shoreline area, and rates of offshore sediment transport (not represented in this figure, but suggested
in Fig. 3). They do not depend on the offshore variations in sedimentation and subsidence rates. Type B surfaces depend on the offshore variation in sedimentation and=or
subsidence rates. Abbreviations: D D diachroneity rate; E D eustasy, T D tectonics; S D sedimentation; SU D subaerial unconformity; MRS D maximum regressive surface;
MTS D maximum transgressive surface; f.u. D fining-upward; c.u. D coarsening-upward; d.u. D deepening-upward; s.u. D shallowing-upward; HST D highstand systems
tract; FSST D falling stage systems tract; LST D lowstand systems tract; RST D regressive systems tract; TST D transgressive systems tract.
 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
The timing of type A surfaces depends either on
the shoreline movements, which determine the direc-
tion of facies shift and the prograding or retrograding
geometries, or on the rate of offshore sediment trans-
port. Type A CTS and MFS are time lines along
depositional dip sections, marking the turnaround
points from shoreline regression to transgression and
vice versa (Figs. 3 and 15). Their timing depends on
the interplay between the rates of sedimentation and
relative sea-level rise in the shoreline area, and it is
not affected by the offshore variations in the sedi-
mentation and subsidence rates. Both type A CTS
and MFS are potentially diachronous along the de-
positional strike, as variations in sedimentation and
subsidence rates determine temporally offset transi-
tions from regression to transgression and vice versa
along the shoreline. Type A c.c. (end of forced re-
gression of the shoreline) and its counterpart (basal
surface of forced regression: onset of forced regres-
sion of the shoreline) are diachronous along the
depositional dip, with a rate that matches the rate
of offshore sediment transport (Fig. 3). They are
also not affected by the offshore variations in the
subsidence rates. Type A c.c. and basal surface of
forced regression are potentially diachronous along
the depositional strike as well, due to variations in
subsidence rates along the shoreline. All type A sur-
faces could be theoretically recognized on the basis
of stratal stacking patterns (Figs. 2 and 3); also this
may often be very difficult at the outcrop scale.
Type B surfaces relate to bathymetric changes
(CTS and MFS) or relative sea-level changes (c.c.
and SRFS) throughout the basin, and are character-
ized by much higher diachroneity rates than the type
A surfaces (Fig. 15). The timing of type B surfaces
depends on the offshore variations in the sedimenta-
tion and subsidence rates, as modelled in Figs. 7, 8,
10 and 11. The model results indicate that the degree
of diachroneity of bounding surface formation spans
up to a quarter of the eustatic cycle period, which
is in agreement with the quarter-cycle phase shift
noted by Angevine (1989) Christie-Blick (1991) and
Jordan and Flemings (1991). The cases described
above involve a sinusoidal eustatic curve of higher
frequency than the other variables. The higher-fre-
quency variable could equally be sedimentation (S)
or subsidence (T), so it can be concluded that the
degree of diachroneity of a bounding surface reaches
177
up to a quarter of the period of the highest frequency
variable.
Types A and B surfaces merge together in the
shoreline area (Fig. 15). The differentiation between
the two becomes more important offshore, especially
in regards to the gravity flow deposits (Fig. 15).
For practical reasons, the use of type A surfaces for
stratigraphic correlation seems to be a better choice,
both from a chronostratigraphic point of view, and
from the point of view of the field signatures of
systems tracts and bounding surfaces.
The terms CTS and MFS are currently used
with both architectural and bathymetric implications
which, as this paper demonstrates, are not equiv-
alent. Alternative terminology is suggested for the
boundaries between prograding and retrograding ge-
ometries, i.e. maximum regressive surfaces for the
top of prograding facies, and maximum transgres-
sive surfaces for the top of retrograding facies (Fig.
15; Catuneanu, 1996; Helland-Hansen and Martinsen,
1996).
Acknowledgements
Financial support during completion of this work
was provided by Rhodes University, NSERC Canada,
University of Toronto, AAPG, Petrel Robertson,
Wascana Energy, Petro-Canada, Union Pacific Re-
sources and GSA. We thank Ashton Embry, Christo-
pher Kendall and Nicholas Christie-Blick for com-
ments and suggestions on previous versions of the
manuscript. We also wish to thank reviewers William
Helland-Hansen, Tim Naish and John Howell for
valuable advice and constructive criticism; this paper
was very much improved as a result of their reviews.
References
Angevine, C.L., 1989. Relationship of eustatic oscillations to
regressions and transgressions on passive continental margins.
In: Price, R.A. (Ed.), Origin and Evolution of Sedimentary
Basins and their Energy and Mineral Resources. Am. Geo-
phys. Union, Geophys. Monogr. 48, 2935.
Catuneanu, O., 1996. Reciprocal Architecture of Bearpaw and
post-Bearpaw Sequences, Late CretaceousEarly Tertiary,
Western Canada Basin. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto,
Toronto, 301 pp.
Catuneanu, O., Sweet, A.R., Miall, A.D., 1997. Reciprocal ar-
178 O. Catuneanu et al. / Sedimentary Geology 121 (1998) 157178
chitecture of Bearpaw TR sequences, uppermost Cretaceous,
Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Bull. Can. Pet. Geol. 45
(1), 7594.
Christie-Blick, N., 1991. Onlap, offlap, and the origin of unconfor-
mity-bounded depositional sequences. Mar. Geol. 97, 3556.
Demarest, J.M., Kraft, J.C., 1987. Stratigraphic record of Qua-
ternary sea levels: implications for more ancient strata. In:
Nummedal, D., Pilkey, O.H., Howard, J.D. (Eds.), Sea-Level
Fluctuations and Coastal Evolution. Soc. Econ. Paleontol.
Mineral. Spec. Publ. 41, 223239.
Embry, A.F., 1993. Transgressiveregressive (TR) sequence
analysis of the Jurassic succession of the Sverdrup Basin,
Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Can. J. Earth Sci. 30, 301320.
Embry, A.F., 1995. Sequence boundaries and sequence hier-
archies: problems and proposals. In: Steel, R.J., Felt, V.L.,
Johannessen, E.P., Mathieu, C. (Eds.), Sequence Stratigraphy
on the Northwest European Margin. Norwegian Petroleum
Society Spec. Publ. 5, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 111.
Embry, A.F., Johannessen, E.P., 1992. TR sequence stratigra-
phy, facies analysis and reservoir distribution in the uppermost
TriassicLower Jurassic succession, western Sverdrup Basin,
Arctic Canada. In: Vrren, T.O., Bergsager, E., Dahl-Stamnes,
O.A., Holter, E., Johansen, B., Lie, E., Lund, T.B. (Eds.), Arc-
tic Geology and Petroleum Potential. Norwegian Petroleum
Society Spec. Publ. 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 121146.
Emery, D., Myers, K.J. (Eds.), 1996. Sequence Stratigraphy.
Blackwell, Oxford, 297 pp.
Fortuin, A.R., de Smet, M.E.M., 1991. Rates and magnitudes
of late Cenozoic vertical movements in the Indonesian Banda
Arc and the distinction of eustatic effects. In: Macdonald,
D.I.M. (Ed.), Sedimentation, Tectonics and Eustasy: Sea-Level
Changes at Active Margins. Int. Assoc. Sedimentol. Spec.
Publ. 12, 7990.
Frostick, L.E., Steel, R.J., 1993. Tectonic control and signatures
in sedimentary successions. Int. Assoc. Sedimentol. Spec.
Publ. 20, 520 pp.
Galloway, W.E., 1989. Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin
analysis, I. Architecture and genesis of flooding-surface
bounded depositional units. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 73,
125142.
Gill, J.R., Cobban, W.A., 1973. Stratigraphy and geologic his-
tory of the Montana Group and equivalent rocks, Montana,
Wyoming, and North and South Dakota. U.S. Geol. Surv.
Prof. Pap. 776, 73 pp.
Haq, B.U., 1991. Sequence stratigraphy, sea-level change, and
significance for the deep sea. In: Macdonald, D.I.M. (Ed.),
Sedimentation, Tectonics and Eustasy: Sea-Level Changes at
Active Margins. Int. Assoc. Sedimentol., Spec. Publ. 12, 339.
Helland-Hansen, W., Martinsen, O.J., 1996. Shoreline trajecto-
ries and sequences: description of variable depositional-dip
scenarios. J. Sediment. Res. 66 (4), 670688.
Hunt, D., Tucker, M.E., 1992. Stranded parasequences and the
forced regressive wedge systems tract: deposition during base-
level fall. Sediment. Geol. 81, 19.
Ito, M., OHara, S., 1994. Diachronous evolution of systems
tracts in a depositional sequence from the middle Pleistocene
palaeo-Tokyo Bay. Japan. Sedimentology 41, 677697.
Jervey, M.T., 1988. Quantitative geological modeling of sili-
ciclastic rock sequences and their seismic expression. In:
Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Kendall, C.G.St.C., Posamen-
tier, H.W., Ross, C.A., Van Wagoner, J.C. (Eds.), Sea-Level
Changes: An Integrated Approach. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Min-
eral. Spec. Publ. 42, 4770.
Jordan, T.E., Flemings, P.B., 1991. Large-scale stratigraphic ar-
chitecture, eustatic variation, and unsteady tectonism: a theo-
retical approach. J. Geophys. Res. 96 (B4), 66816699.
Macdonald, D.I.M. (Ed.), 1991, Sedimentation, Tectonics and
Eustasy: Sea-Level Changes at Active Margins. Int. Assoc.
Sedimentol. Spec. Publ. 12, 518 pp.
Martinsen, O.J., Helland-Hansen, W., 1995. Strike variability
of clastic depositional systems: does it matter for sequence
stratigraphic analysis? Geology 23, 439442.
Miall, A.D., 1991. Stratigraphic sequences and their chronos-
tratigraphic correlation. J. Sediment. Petrol. 61, 497505.
Miall, A.D., 1994. Sequence stratigraphy and chronostratigraphy:
problems of definition and precision in correlation, and their
implications for global eustasy. Geosci. Can. 21, 126.
Naish, T., Kamp, P.J.J., 1997. Foraminiferal depth palaeoecology
of Late Pliocene shelf sequences and systems tracts, Wanganui
Basin, New Zealand. Sediment. Geol. 110, 237255.
Pitman, W.C., 1978. Relationship between sea level change and
stratigraphic sequences of passive margins. Geol. Soc. Am.
Bull. 89, 13891403.
Pitman, W.C., Golovchenko, X., 1983. The effect of sea level
change on the shelf edge and slope of passive margins. In:
Stanley, D.J., Morre, G.T. (Eds.), The Shelfbreak: Critical In-
terface on Continental Margins. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral.
Spec. Publ. 33, 4158.
Posamentier, H.W., Allen, G.P., 1993. Siliciclastic sequence
stratigraphic patterns in foreland ramp-type basins. Geology
21, 455458.
Posamentier, H.W., James, D.P., 1993. An overview of sequence
stratigraphic concepts: uses and abuses. In: Posamentier, H.W.,
Summerhayes, C.P., Haq, B.U., Allen, G.P. (Eds.), Sequence
Stratigraphy and Facies Associations. Int. Assoc. Sedimentol.
Spec. Publ. 18, 318.
Posamentier, H.W., Jervey, M.T., Vail, P.R., 1988. Eustatic con-
trols on clastic deposition I, conceptual framework. In: Wilgus,
C.K., Hastings, B.S., Kendall, C.G.St.C., Posamentier, H.W.,
Ross, C.A., Van Wagoner, J.C. (Eds.), Sea-Level Changes:
An Integrated Approach. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral. Spec.
Publ. 42, 109124.
Posamentier, H.W., Allen, G.P., James, D.P., Tesson, M., 1992.
Forced regressions in a sequence stratigraphic framework:
concepts, examples and exploration significance. Am. Assoc.
Pet. Geol. Bull. 76, 16871709.
Reading, H.G. (Ed.), 1996. Sedimentary Environments: Pro-
cesses, Facies and Stratigraphy. Blackwell, Oxford, 688 pp.
Vail, P.R., Audemard, F., Bowman, S.A., Eisner, P.N., Perez-
Cruz, C., 1991. The stratigraphic signatures of tectonism,
eustasy and sedimentology an overview. In: Einsele, G.,
Ricken, W., Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Cycles and Events in Stratig-
raphy. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y., pp. 611659.
Van Wagoner, J.C., Mitchum, R.M., Campion K.M., Rahmanian,
V.D., 1990. Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy in well logs,
cores, and outcrops: concepts for high-resolution correlation
of time and facies. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Methods Explor.
Ser. 7, 55 pp.