See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337065793

The Importance of Unconformities in Sequence

Stratigraphy

Chapter · January 2019

DOI: 10.5724/gcs.17.018

CITATIONS READS
0 223

1 author:

Gregor P. Eberli
University of Miami
578 PUBLICATIONS   6,682 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vaca Muerta Neuquén Basin View project

Madison Group Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregor P. Eberli on 11 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 M

4 The Importance of Unconformities in Sequence Stratigraphy

EP

7
TOC Eberli, Gregor Paul
SS

CSL–Center for Carbonate Research

Start
University of Miami
Author 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149
C

Search
e-mail: geberli@rsmas.miami.edu
G

Help

Print 8.5 Introduction

x 11
17

Subdividing sedimentary successions by uncon- facies with changing sea level (Vail et al., 1977b; Posa-
formities and their correlative conformities has mentier et al. 1988; Sarg, 1988). As such, it captured
revolutionized stratigraphy as it divided the strata into the dynamics of the sedimentary system within the con-
20

chronostratigraphic units containing genetically related text of changing sea level. The concomitant facies that
facies successions rather than time-transgressive litho- form during sea level fall and rise partition into low-
stratigraphic units. This makes sequence stratigraphy stand, transgressive, and highstand systems tracts. This
T

the only stratigraphic method having predictable capa- recognition of facies partitioning expands Walther’s
bility for ages and facies. The age prediction is a law from the prediction of lateral and vertical facies
H

consequence of the chronostratigraphic nature of relationships to how facies belts move during changing
sequence boundaries and seismic reflection horizons relative sea levels. In addition, placing the facies within
IG

that allows one to populate a seismic grid with age the geometries seen on seismic data helps in estimating
information from one point of observation, such as a the size of facies belts in the subsurface.
well or a section in outcrop well (Vail et al., 1977a). As Because so much of the predictive capability for
R

a result, ages can faithfully be carried throughout the facies in sequence stratigraphy is related to the dynam-
basin for the prediction of ages. ics of the sedimentary system in regards to sea level
PY

The prediction of facies is rooted in the recogni- change, only unconformities that are formed by a fall-
tion of genetically related strata and the shifts of the ing sea level were originally considered and defined as
O

Sequence Stratigraphy: The Future Defined 18


sequence boundaries. Yet, in carbonates, major uncon-
4
formities form during rapid sea level rise when
3 platforms drown (Schlager, 1999). Likewise, major
unconformities form in drift sequences when ocean cur-
7 rents shift (Eberli et al., 2010; Lüdmann et al., 2013).
7
The drift unconformities mark the turning points in cur-
rent controlled sedimentary systems (Fig. 1). It remains
to be shown how closely related these drift unconformi-
ties are to major sea level changes; however, because
atmospheric circulation changes that are largely driven
by climate changes are also responsible for sea-level
changes, a causal and timely connection is likely to
exist.
17
Admittedly, falling sea level is the main producer
of unconformities on continental shelves but unconfor-
mities that separate genetically related successions are
20
Proof of Concept
One of the first challenges for the sequence strati-
T
graphic concept was to prove the chronostratigraphic
H
significance of sequence boundaries. The notion that
seismic reflections were, with a few exceptions, time
IG
lines was for many geophysicists an unjustified and
unproven assumption. Although first evidence was pro-
vided with the introduction of sequence stratigraphy
R
(Vail et al., 1977b), the scientific community demanded
additional data. Drilling and coring along transects of
PY
prograding sequences in both siliciclastic and carbonate
environments by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP)
provided robust data sets documenting the chronostrati-
O
Eberli
M
formed by various processes other than sea-level lower-
EP
ing. Drowning unconformities across submerged
carbonate platforms fulfill the criteria of sequence
boundaries; they are chronostratigraphic horizons that
separate older from younger strata (Schlager, 1999).
SS
Also, in carbonates a change of the ecologic system can
produce an unconformity when carbonate production is
shifted to another level (Pomar, 2001). These latter
C
unconformities are rather rare. In contrast, unconformi-
ties in deep-water drift deposits are wide spread and
G
occur throughout Earth’s history. Drift unconformities
do not contain any evidence of subaerial exposure but
otherwise also qualify as sequence boundaries. A
sequence stratigraphic analysis of drift successions will
separate the strata in genetically related sequences
within a chronostratigraphic context.
graphic significance of seismic reflections (Miller et al.,
1996, 1998; Eberli, 2000; Betzler et al., 2000; Eberli et
al. 2002; Miller et al., 2013). Treating seismic reflection
horizons as time lines is today implemented in all seis-
mic interpretation programs and used in the seismic
analysis work flow.
Testing sequence stratigraphy in outcrops has
proven to be very valuable in calibrating the facies con-
tent of sequences and systems tracts. Synthetic seismic
models of outcrop succession also illustrated how seis-
mic resolution produces pseudo-onlap, toplap, and
downlap geometries that need to be taken into account
19
 M

in a sequence stratigraphic analysis (Rudolph et al., subsurface data for improving subsurface interpretation
4
EP

1989; Anselmetti et al., 1997). In many cases, however, (Schwab et al., 2004; Zeller et al., 2015).
3 outcrops continue to provide a robust analog for the
7
SS

7 Applying the Concept

Sequence stratigraphy was first developed and high-frequency sequences that are also called parase-
applied on seismic data where seismic reflection termi- quences, cycles, and genetic units (e.g., Goldhammer et
C

nations defined the sequence boundaries. Populating al., 1993). It adds increased understanding on the
the geometrical pattern of seismic sequences with litho- dynamics within sedimentary systems and results in
G

logic facies improved prediction of lithology in the revision of many sedimentary models. In addition, the
subsurface and increased the exploration success of recognition of facies partitioning on the high-frequency
many deep-water plays. level has dramatically improved success in reservoir
17

Applying the sequence stratigraphic concept to modeling.

log and outcrop data has resulted in the recognition of
20

Challenges
The precise dating of Cenozoic sequence bound- higher frequency than the globally recognized 3rd order
aries in various ocean basins by the Ocean Drilling sequences; and interference patterns of orbital forces do
T

Program provides strong evidence of the global syn- not coincide with the frequency of 3rd order sequences.
chrony of the so-called 3rd order sequences in the A second challenge is to explain high-frequency
H

Neogene (Table 1). These sequence boundaries are sequences that are below the Milankowitch frequency.
IG

caused by falling sea levels but proving that these Log and outcrop data reveal high-resolution sequence
unconformities are related to glacio-eustasy is an ongo- stratigraphic units that have been called high-frequency
ing challenge. Although stable isotope records across sequences, parasequences, cycles, or genetic units. The
R

these sequence boundaries indicate a long-term build- boundaries in high-resolution sequence stratigraphy are
up of ice sheets (Miller et al., 2005), the reason for such marked by exposure surfaces on top of depositional
PY

prolonged glaciations is still elusive. The problem is cycles. The driving forces behind these high-frequency
that insulation differences from orbital constellation sea-level changes are generally assumed to be the
changes that cause the glaciations in the Neogene are of orbital forcing mechanisms known as the Milankowitch
O

Eberli 20

cycles. Many studies have proposed these frequencies
4
based on a variety of spectral analysis techniques (e.g.,
3 Hinnov and Goldhammer, 1994; Hinnov, 2000; Cozzi
et al., 2005). Recent studies, however, have docu-
7 mented that shallow-water carbonates record meter-
7
scale oscillations that occur on a higher frequency than
the precession cycles (Thompson and Goldstein, 2005,
Thompson et al., 2011; Eberli, 2013, Dutton et al.,
2015). In addition, shallow-water carbonate cycles con-
Disputed Advances and Setbacks
Not all revisions to the original sequence stratig-
17
raphy concept were advantageous; in fact some were
either narrowing the concept or are setbacks to the
stratigraphic concept. For example, the expansion of
20
the definition of the sequence boundary as “a sur-
face…along which there is evidence of subaerial
exposure truncation (and in some cases correlative sub-
marine erosion)” (Van Wagoner et al., 1988) added an
T
unwarranted genetic element to the formation of a
H
sequence boundary. Although it helped in separating
unconformable reflection terminations within
IG
sequences, such as downlap surfaces from sequence
boundaries, it also implied that sequence stratigraphy
was only applicable for strata with sea-level related
R
unconformities. This intimate relationship between sea
level and sequence stratigraphy prompted the early
PY
attempts to produce a global onlap chart that could be
applied on different margins for age determination.
O
Eberli
M
tain abundant missed beats and thus are not a good
EP
recorder of time series of high frequency sea level
changes. Modeling attempts that use precession as the
highest frequency for carbonate deposition might be
inaccurate and produce erroneous results. In addition,
SS
the shallow-water cycles are recording only a small
amount of the amplitude of each recorded sea level
change (Eberli, 2013).
C
G
Extracting the sea level signal from depositional
sequences is still a focus of several studies in sequence
stratigraphy having the ultimate goal for a “standardiza-
tion of sequence stratigraphy” based on the
sedimentologic processes and surfaces that form with
fluctuating sea level. As a consequence, facies models
have started to dominate the stratigraphic analyses with
worrisome implications for sequence stratigraphy. For
example in the standardized work flow proposed by
Catuneanu et al. (2009), a model-independent work
flow “assumes the subdivision of the stratigraphic sec-
tion into a succession of genetic units (forced
regressive, lowstand, and highstand normal regressive,
transgressive; i.e., systems tracts) separated by
sequence stratigraphic surfaces.” Subsequently, the
interpreter can make model-based “choices with respect
to the selection of which are the surfaces that should be
elevated to the status of ‘sequence boundary’. Such
21

choices may be influenced by personal preferences…”
4
(Catuneanu et al., 2009).
3 The implications of this standardized work flow
are far-reaching and cut to the principle of the sequence
7 stratigraphic concept. The proposed choice for deter-
7
mining the sequence boundary allows one to take the
basic principle out of sequence stratigraphy, which is
dividing the strata by an unconformity and its correla-
tive conformity. It would also mean that sequence
boundaries are of different ages in each sequence strati-
graphic analysis. Consequently, sequence stratigraphy
17
Conclusions and Implications
The first principle of sequence stratigraphy is to
subdivide the strata along unconformities and their cor-
20
relative conformities. Deviating from this principle by
elevating other surfaces to the rank of a sequence
boundary potentially eliminates the chronostrati-
graphic significance of the sequence boundary. Also, if
T
the criteria for choosing a sequence boundary are left to
H
the individual investigator as proposed by Catuneanu et
al. (2009), the ages of the sequences in the same basin
IG
will vary depending on the investigator, making cor-
relations of sequence stratigraphic units in a basin
nearly impossible.
R
Erosional unconformities due to relative sea level
lowering are by far the most common forms of uncon-
PY
formities at passive continental margins. In many of
these sequence boundaries, the eustatic signal is domi-
nant during times of large-scale glaciations. As a result
O
Eberli
M
would lose its global significance. The proposed stan-
EP
dardized work flow can be compared with
biostratigraphy allowing each investigator to assemble
their own criteria for first and last occurrences and the
resulting age model. In short, it is imperative that the
SS
unconformity is the dividing surface in sequence stra-
tigraphy. A case can be made that other than sea level
fall, related unconformities should be considered as
C
sequence boundaries but not other stratigraphic hori-
zons.
G
many 3rd order sequence boundaries in the Atlantic and
the Pacific have similar ages.
Understanding the close relationship between sea
level and sedimentation has given sequence stratigra-
phy the unique capability to predict ages and facies
within the depositional geometries seen on seismic
data. To preserve this unique capability, rules have been
proposed to restrict sequence boundaries to unconfor-
mities produced by sea-level lowering (Posamentier et
al. 1988). In carbonate systems, however, rapid sea-
level rise can produce clearly defined drowning uncon-
formities that fulfill all the criteria for a sequence
boundary (Schlager, 1989). Likewise, unconformities in
current controlled deposits like (contourite) drifts in the
ocean basins separate strata along a chronostratigraphic
horizon, allowing a sequence stratigraphic analysis in
systems without subaerial exposure (Eberli et al. 2010).
22

High-frequency sea-level changes due to orbital
4
precession cycles have been assumed to be the highest
3 frequency sequences. Consequently, the orbital cyclic-
ity has been implemented in many forward modeling
7 programs to model sedimentary cyclicity. The recogni-
7
References
Anselmetti, F. S., G. P. Eberli, and Z.-D. Ding, 2000, From
the Great Bahama Bank into the Straits of Florida: A
margin architecture controlled by sea level fluctua-
tions and ocean currents: GSA Bulletin, v. 112, p.
829–844.
17
Anselmetti, F. S., G. P. Eberli, and D. Bernoulli, 1997, Seis-
mic modeling of a carbonate platform margin (Mon-
tagna della Maiella, Italy): variations in seismic facies
20
and implications for sequence stratigraphy, in F. J.
Marfurt, and A. Palaz, eds., Carbonate Seismology:
SEG Geophysical Developments Series 6, p. 373–406.
Betzler, C., D. Kroon, and J. J. Reijmer, 2000, Synchroneity
T
of major late Neogene sea level fluctuations and pale-
oceanographically controlled changes as recorded by
H
two carbonate platforms: Paleoceanography, v. 15, p.
722–730.
IG
Catuneanu, O., and 27 others, 2009, Towards the standardiza-
tion of sequence stratigraphy: Earth-Science Reviews,
v. 92, p. 1–33.
R
Cozzi, A., L. A. Hinnov, and L. A. Hardie, 2005, Orbitally
forced Lofer cycles in the Dachstein Limestone of the
PY
Julian Alps (northeastern Italy): Geology, v. 33, p.
789–792.
O
Eberli
M
tion of short-lived oscillations within such orbital
EP
highstands have made these assumptions obsolete and
trigger new research in causes for these short sea-level
changes (Dutton et al., 2015).
SS
C
Dutton, A., A. E. Carlson, A. J. Long, G. A. Milne, P. U.
Clark, R. DeConto, B. P. Horton, S. Rahmstorf, and
G
M. E. Raymo, 2015, Sea-level rise due to polar ice-
sheet mass loss during past warm periods: Science, v.
349, no. 6244, p. 4019–4019.
Eberli, G.P., 2000, The record of Neogene sea-level changes
in the prograding carbonates along the Bahamas Tran-
sect—Leg 166 synthesis, in P. K. Swart, G. P. Eberli,
M. J. Malone, and J. F. Sarg, eds., Proceedings ODP:
Scientific Results, 166, p. 167–177.
Eberli, G. P., 2013, The uncertainties involved in extracting
amplitude and frequency of orbitally driven sea-level
fluctuations from shallow-water carbonate cycles:
Sedimentology, v. 60, p. 64–84.
Eberli, G.P., F. S. Anselmetti, D. Kroon, T. Sato, and J. D.
Wright, 2002, The chronostratigraphic significance of
seismic reflections along the Bahamas Transect:
Marine Geology, v. 185, p. 1–17.
Eberli, G.P., F. S. Anselmetti, A. R. Isern, and H. Delius,
2010, Timing of changes in sea level and currents
along Miocene platforms on the Marion Plateau:
SEPM Special Publication 95, p. 219–242.
Goldhammer, R. K., P. J. Lehmann, and P. A. Dunn, 1993,
The origin of high-frequency platform carbonate
23

cycles and third-order sequences (Lower Ordovician
4
El Paso GP, West Texas): constraints from outcrop
3 data and stratigraphic modeling: Journal of Sedimen-
tary Petrology v. 63, p. 318–359.
7 Hinnov, L. A., 2000, New perspectives on orbitally forced
7 stratigraphy: Annual Review Earth and Planetary Sci-
ence, v. 28, p. 419–475.
Hinnov, L. A. and R, K, Goldhammer, 1991, Spectral analy-
sis of the Middle Triassic Latemar limestone: Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 61, p. 1173–1183.
Lüdmann, T., C. Kalvelage, C. Betzler, J., Fürstenau, and C.
Hübscher, C., 2013, The Maldives, a giant isolated
carbonate platform dominated by bottom currents:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 43, p. 326–340.
17
Miller, K. G., G. S. Mountain, the Leg 150 Shipboard Party,
and Members of the New Jersey Coastal Plain Drilling
Project, 1996, Drilling and dating New Jersey Oligo-
20
cene-Miocene sequences: ice volume, global sea level,
and Exxon records: Science v. 271, p. 1092–1094.
Miller, K.G., G. S. Mountain, J. V. Browning, M. Kominz., P.
J. Sugarman, N. Christie-Blick, M. E. Katz, and J. D.
T
Wright, 1998, Cenozoic global sea-level, sequences,
H
and the New Jersey Transect: Results from Coastal
Plain and Slope Drilling: Reviews of Geophysics, v.
36, p. 569–601.
IG
Miller, K. G., M. Kominz, J. V. Browning, J. D. Wright, G. S.
Mountain, M. E. Katz, P. J. Sugarman, B. S. Cramer,
R
N. Christie-Blick, and S. F. Pekar, 2005, The Phanero-
zoic record of global sea-level change: Science, v.
310, p. 1293–1298.
PY
Miller K. G., G. S. Mountain, J. V. Browning, M. E. Katz, D.
Monteverde, P. J. Sugarman, H. Ando, M. A. Bassetti,
C. J. Bjerrum, D. Hodgson, St. Hesselbo, S. Karakaya,
O
Eberli
M
J.-N. Proust, and M. Rabineau, M., 2013, Testing
EP
sequence stratigraphic models by drilling Miocene
foresets on the New Jersey shallow shelf: Geosphere,
v. 9, no. 5, p. 1236–1256.
Pomar, L., 2001, Ecological control of sedimentary accom-
SS
modation: evolution from a carbonate ramp to rimmed
shelf, Upper Miocene, Balearic Islands: Palaeogeogra-
phy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 175, p.
249–272.
C
Posamentier, H. W., M. T. Jervey and P. R. Vail, 1988,
Eustatic control on clastic depositional – conceptual
G
model: SEPM Special Publication 42, p.109–124.
Rudolph, K. W., W. Schlager, and K. T. Biddle, 1989, Seis-
mic models of a carbonate foreslope-to-basin transi-
tion, Picco di Vallandro, Dolomite Alps, northern
Italy: Geology v. 17, p. 453–456.
Sarg, J. F., 1988, Carbonate sequence stratigraphy: SEPM
Special Publication 42, p. 155–181.
Schlager, W., 1989, Drowning unconformities on carbonate
platforms: SEPM Special Publication 44, p. 15–25.
Schlager, W., 1999, Type 3 sequence boundaries: SEPM Spe-
cial Publication 63, p. 35–45.
Schwab, A.M., F. S. P. Van Buchem, and G. P. Eberli, 2004,
Integration of high-resolution outcrop and subsurface
data to enhance interpretation of low-resolution seis-
mic data in the Upper Devonian (Frasnian) carbonate
system in western Canada: AAPG Memoir 80, p. 261–
278.
Thompson, W. G., and S. L. Goldstein, 2005, Open-system
coral ages reveal persistent suborbital sea-level: Sci-
ence, v. 308, no. 5720, p. 401–404.
Thompson, W. G., H. A. Curran, M. A. Wilson, and B. White,
2011, Sea-level oscillations during the last interglacial
24
 M

highstand recorded by Bahamas corals: Nature, v. 4, An overview of the fundamentals of sequence stratig-
4
EP

no. 10, p. 684–687.
3 Vail, P. R., A. G. Todd, and J. B. Sangree, 1977a, Chronos-
tratigraphic significance of seismic reflections: AAPG
7 Memoir 26, p. 99–116.
raphy and key definitions: SEPM Special Publication
42, p. 39–45.
Zeller, M. K., S. B. Reid, G. P. Eberli, R. J. Weger, and J. L.
Massaferro, 2015, Sequence architecture and hetero-
SS

7 Vail, P.R., R. M. Mitchum, Jr., and S. Thomson, 1977b, Seis- geneities of a field-scale Vaca Muerta analog
mic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level: (Neuquén Basin, Argentina)—From outcrop to syn-
AAPG Memoir 26, p. 49–212. thetic seismic: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 66,
Van Wagoner, J. C., H. W. Posamentier, R. M. Mitchum, P. R. p. 829–847.
C

Vail, J. F. Sarg, T. S. Loutit, and J. Hardenbol, 1988,

G
17
20
T
H
IG
R
PY
O

Eberli 25
4 Table 1. Ages of Neogene Seismic Sequence Boundaries in four transects drilled by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP).
3 Two are in the Pacific and two are from the Atlantic. The similar ages of many sequence boundaries indicate a global
cause for their formation.
7
7 Queensland Plateau Bahamas Transect Marion Plateau New Jersey

ODP Leg 150, 150X,

ODP Leg 133 ODP Leg 166 ODP Leg 194 onshore
M

Betzler et al., 2000 Anselmetti et al., 2000 Eberli et al., 2010 Miller et al., 2005

Pacific Atlantic Pacific Atlantic

EP

Seismic Seismic Seismic

Ages (Ma) Ages (Ma) Ages (Ma) Ages (Ma)
sequences sequences sequences
SS

A 0.1
B 0.6
QU12 1.7 C 1.7 D–1 1.3
C

QU11 2.7 2.5

G

QU10 3.0 D 3.1 D–2 3.0

QU9 3.6 E 3.6 3.3
17

QU8 4.5 E2 4.5 D–3 4.1 4.0

4.9
20

QU7 5.5 F 5.4 D–4 5.3 5.7

C/D 7.1
QU6 5.5 G 8.7 8.2
T

H 9.4 9.4
H

QU5 10.3–11 I 10.7 B/C 11 11.2–10.8

QU4 12.4 K 12.2
IG

QU3 12.6 L 12.7

B–1 13.8 13.4–13.2
R

14.5–14.2
PY

M 15.1 B–2 15.3 15.6–15.2

QU2 16–16.7 N 15.9 B–3 16.5 16.5–16.3
QU1 18 O 18.3 B–4 17.8 18.4–18.1
O

3
C

Eberli 26
3
7
M
EP

Onlap unconformity Drowning unconformity Drift unconformity

SS

HST SB
C

SB
SB
G

Hardground
LST/TST slope
SB
17

a) LST
b) c) Drift deposits
Figure 1. Three types of unconformities in carbonate systems. The onlap unconformity is produced by a falling sea level, while the drowning unconfor-
20

mity is caused by the submergence of a carbonate platform during a rapid sea level rise. The drift unconformity is related to changes in the ocean current
regime. In all three cases the unconformity is a chronostratigraphic horizon that can serve as a sequence boundary (modified from Eberli et al., 2010).
3
T
H
IG
R
PY
O
C

Eberli 27

View publication stats