Eustatic Curve for the Middle Jurassic–Cretaceous Based on Russian Platform and Siberian Stratigraphy: Zonal Resolution1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Eustatic Curve for the Middle Jurassic–Cretaceous Based on Russian Platform and Siberian Stratigraphy: Zonal Resolution1 D. Sahagian,2 O. Pinous,2 A. Olferiev,3 and V. Zakharov4 ABSTRACT sediment gaps left by unconformities in the cen- tral part of the Russian platform with data from We have used the stratigraphy of the central part stratigraphic information from the more continu- of the Russian platform and surrounding regions to ous stratigraphy of the neighboring subsiding construct a calibrated eustatic curve for the regions, such as northern Siberia. Although these Bajocian through the Santonian. The study area is sections reflect subsidence, the time scale of vari- centrally located in the large Eurasian continental ations in subsidence rate is probably long relative craton, and was covered by shallow seas during to the duration of the stratigraphic gaps to be much of the Jurassic and Cretaceous. The geo- filled, so the subsidence rate can be calculated graphic setting was a very low-gradient ramp that and filtered from the stratigraphic data. We thus was repeatedly flooded and exposed. Analysis of have compiled a more complete eustatic curve stratal geometry of the region suggests tectonic sta- than would be possible on the basis of Russian bility throughout most of Mesozoic marine deposi- platform stratigraphy alone. tion. The paleogeography of the region led to Relative sea level curves were generated by back- extremely low rates of sediment influx. As a result, stripping stratigraphic data from well and outcrop accommodation potential was limited and is inter- sections distributed throughout the central part of preted to have been determined primarily by the Russian platform. For determining paleowater eustatic variations. The central part of the Russian depth, we developed a model specifically designed platform thus provides a useful frame of reference for this region based on paleoecology, sedimentolo- for the quantification of eustatic variations through- gy, geochemistry, and paleogeography. out the Jurassic and Cretaceous. The curve describes a series of high-frequency The biostratigraphy of the Russian platform pro- eustatic events superimposed on longer term vides the basis for reliably determining age and trends. Many of the events identified from our eustatic events. The Mesozoic section of the cen- study can be correlated to those found by Haq et al. tral part of the Russian platform is characterized (1988) and other sea level studies from other parts by numerous hiatuses. In this study, we filled the of the world, but there are significant differences in the relative magnitudes of events. Because the eustatic curve resulting from this study is based on ©Copyright 1996. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All a stable reference frame, the curve can be used in rights reserved. 1Manuscript received May 18, 1995; revised manuscript received January sedimentary basin modeling and as a tool for quan- 8, 1996; final acceptance April 12, 1996. tifying subsidence history from the stratigraphy of 2Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space and Department of passive margins, basins, and other active regions. Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3525. 3Centrgeologia, Washavskoje Shosse 39 A, 105103, Moscow, Russia. 4Russian Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch, Novosibirsk, Russia. Russian platform stratigraphic data are offered under the AAPG INTRODUCTION Bulletin Datashare program (Data 8). Users can obtain the data set in one of two ways: (1) write to AAPG Bulletin Datashare, P.O. Box 979, Tulsa Eustasy is controlled by the relative volumes of Oklahoma 74101-0979, USA, and include US $5.00 for shipping and handling, or fax your credit card number (please specify DOS or Macintosh); the global ocean basins and global ocean water or (2) download the file for free from the Internet (http://www.geobyte.com/ (Sahagian and Watts, 1991; Sahagian and Jones, download.html). 1993). Long-term relative sea level changes (>1 This project was supported by NSF (EAR9218945) and a GSA student research grant. The paper substantially benefited from discussions with m.y.) have been observed qualitatively through S. Jacobson, A. Beisel, D. Naidin, J. Collinson, and H. Tischler. Thanks go to their effects on the depositional patterns and shore- Y. Bogomolov and B. Shurygin for field assistance. The authors are grateful to AAPG reviewers W. Devlin, G. Ulmishek, and G. Baum for very helpful line processes of marine facies. However, quantifi- comments. cation of eustatic changes has been hampered by AAPG Bulletin, V. 80, No. 9 (September 1996), P. 1433–1458. 1433 1434 Mesozoic Eustasy 30 40 50 Figure 1—Sketch map of major structures of the Russian platform. 70 70 Baltic Shield Timan Pechora Ob Uplift Sev. Onega Lake Dvina Ladoga Lake Kama ion 60 ess 60 r St. Petersburg ep D w Sukhonskii Swell o Volga sc o M Volga-Ural S Moscow Arch Belorussian Minsk Arch Ryazan-Saratov Trough Voronezh Arch Trough Dnepr-Donetsk Ulyanovsk-SaratovSaratov Kiev Depression Voronezh Caspian Ukrainian Dnepr Depression 50 50 Donetsk Ural Folded Zone Don Volga Shield Rostov Odessa CaspianSea 0 200 km Danube Black Sea 40 50 30 positive structures cross section stable area with preserved boundary of the platform Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments the lack of an adequate system of measure for this along continental margins (Vail et al., 1977; Jervey, relationship. Although some workers have consid- 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988). Sea level changes ered it impossible to accurately determine eustatic can be estimated by applying backstripping tech- variations (Kendall and Lerche, 1988), other work- niques (Angevine et al., 1990). Because water- ers have suggested that a eustatic curve should ide- depth variations are an important term in back- ally be based on the stratigraphy of a tectonically stripping analyses, eustatic variations can be quiescent region for each time interval considered quantified only to the resolution of the available (Hallam, 1992). We have identified the central part paleodepth indicators, which are most reliable in of the Russian platform (Figure 1), based on its gen- shallow environments. In most tectonic environ- erally flat-lying and otherwise relatively undisturbed ments, water depth is not solely dependent on stratigraphy, as a useful reference for eustatic sea eustasy (Baum et al., 1994), and in subsiding basins level quantification for the Middle Jurassic through where subsidence depends on distance from a the Cretaceous. hinge, position also controls the relation between One way to observe sea level changes is eustasy and water depth (Loutit et al., 1988). In through the effect on sedimentation patterns this study, we examine the relationship between Sahagian et al. 1435 eustasy and sedimentation by quantifying water Moscow depression, a subsiding graben complex depth variations on a shallow platform sea. with thick Paleozoic sedimentary fill in the central Eustatic curves have been compiled in the past part of the Russian platform (Figure 1). The (Hallam, 1988; Haq et al., 1988; Harrison, 1988). Mesozoic stratigraphy analyzed here is based on Commonly, these curves have relied on methods of wells and outcrops on and near the extinct calculating tectonic activity (usually subsidence) to Moscow depression, referred to as the “Moscow separate tectonic and eustatic signals reflected in syneclise” in the Russian literature. stratigraphic sequences or paleohypsometric pro- By the Jurassic, the subsiding Moscow depres- files (Greenlee and Moore, 1988). The errors inher- sion stabilized. This interpretation is supported by ent in these calculations of passive-margin subsi- the uniformity and relatively thin nature of dence histories (e.g., Watts and Steckler, 1979) may Mesozoic beds over great distances. For example, have been larger than the total sea level signal the Oxfordian shale facies between the Ryazan inferred on time scales of tens of millions of years. region and Unzha River sections (located about 600 Thus, these curves have necessarily been qualita- km apart) displays similar isopachs down to the tive, at best can be used for only short time intervals ammonite zone level. The thickness of the entire (<10 m.y.), and are limited by cumulative errors in Mesozoic package increases in the marginal subsid- subsidence calculations. By using an epeirogenically ing regions (e.g., Caspian depression, Dnepr- stable part of the lithosphere (central part of the Donetsk depression). Russian platform) as a reference frame, this limita- The presence of a great number of uncon- tion is eliminated because no discernible tectonic formable surfaces and depositional hiatuses in the subsidence or uplift can be documented through- Jurassic–Cretaceous section of the Moscow depres- out the time of deposition, and only local and dis- sion represents additional evidence of stability. Due crete activity has occurred since deposition. The to very flat hypsometry and the lack of subsidence, stability and shallow-marine conditions of the cen- even minor sea level falls could have caused subma- tral Russian platform throughout most of the rine erosion or subaerial exposure, resulting in Jurassic and Cretaceous make this region useful for unconformities. In contrast, the more continuous detecting and quantifying eustatic variations. In deposition observed toward the southeast (lower addition, the Russian platform (Moscow depres- Volga River region and Caspian depression) indi- sion) is unique