Simmons LV1 17June
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GeoArabia, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2007 Arabian Plate sequence stratigraphy and global chronostratigraphy Gulf PetroLink, Bahrain Arabian Plate sequence stratigraphy: Potential implications for global chronostratigraphy Michael D. Simmons, Peter R. Sharland, David M. Casey, Roger B. Davies and Owen E. Sutcliffe ABSTRACT The ability to recognise and correlate third-order depositional sequences across Arabia and between Arabia and other plates indicates that these sequences are driven by synchronous eustatic sea-level change. This is of value in providing guidance for the definitions of stages, which are the fundamental units of chronostratigraphy. Each Phanerozoic stage requires a Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), which is a location and specific bedding plane where the base of each stage is defined. This definition is tied to an event in the rock record useful for correlation. Progress in defining GSSPs has been delayed because of difficulties in choosing the most appropriate event and section to relate to a definition. It is recommended here that stage boundaries be related to correlative conformities of sequence boundaries. This closely links chronostratigraphy with sequence stratigraphy and honours the original concepts upon which many stages were first described in the 19th Century. INTRODUCTION Perhaps one of the most basic and often-asked questions in geoscience is “what age is it?” when referring to part of an outcrop or subsurface succession. To this end many geoscientists will have a geological timescale wallchart or reference card close to hand showing the relative positions of the familiar subdivisions of the geological timescale (Figure 1). Whilst most geologists will be aware that timescales evolve because of new radiometric dates or improvements in radiometric dating calibration and precision (for example, compare the latest timescale of Gradstein et al., 2004, with one of its predecessors such as Harland et al., 1990), many will be unaware that many of the units on the chart (Aptian, Visean, etc) still lack a formal definition. This is of concern because, for example, using the same set of fossils to derive an age, one geologist can call a given rock succession early Aptian, but another geologist may call the same succession late Barremian, all because each are using a different (usually palaeontological) event to define the base of the Aptian. Obviously this is very confusing for the non-specialist just wishing to understand the age and correlation of the rock succession. Unless chronostratigraphic terms are defined, one is reminded of the egocentric words of Humpty-Dumpty in the famous story by Lewis Carrol Alice Through the Looking-Glass: “when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less”. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the evolving concepts of sequence stratigraphy, such as those published by Sharland et al. (2001, 2004) and Davies et al. (2002), may assist in defining the units of the geological timescale and, in turn, help harmonise the disciplines of sequence stratigraphy and chronostratigraphy. To do so, we: • briefly review the historical background to key chronostratigraphic terminology; •discuss the interplay between sequence stratigraphy and stage boundaries; •argue that stratigraphic sequences are global and synchronous in nature; and •present examples to demonstrate how sequence stratigraphy may assist in chronostratigraphic stage definition. 101 Simmons et al. ERA PERIOD EPOCH STAGE AGE (Ma) GSSP ARABIAN PLATE SEQUENCE STRATI- GRAPHY ERA PERIOD EPOCH STAGE AGE (Ma) GSSP ARABIAN PLATE SEQUENCE STRATI- GRAPHY HOLOCENE J110 147.0 PLEISTOCENE 1.8 L Gelasian 2.6 Tithonian J110 SB 149.0 PLIOCENE M Piacenzian E Zanclean 3.6 J100 151.0 5.3 150.8 J90 151.4 Messinian J80 151.8 7.2 Kimmeridgian J70 152.2 L 154.5 J60 155.25 Tortonian LATE 11.6 J60 SB 156.0 Serravallian Oxfordian 13.6 Ng40 14.5 J50 159.0 M Langhian 16.0 Ng30 15.9 161.2 Ng20 17.5 Callovian J40 162.5 MIOCENE Burdigalian Ng20 SB 19.0 164.7 J40 SB 165.0 E 20.4 Ng10 20.0 Bathonian Aquitanian J30 167.5 Ng10 SB 23.0 167.7 23.0 Bajocian J20 171.0 Pg50 24.5 MIDDLE Chattian 171.6 28.4 Pg40 29.0 Aalenian 175.6 Rupelian JURASSIC J20 SB 177.0 OLIGO- CENE Pg30 33.0 33.9 Toarcian J10 181.0 Priabonian Pg30 SB 33.5 37.2 CENOZOIC 183.0 Bartonian 40.4 Pliensbachian J10 SB 188.0 Lutetian EARLY 189.6 Sinemurian EOCENE 48.6 LAEOGENE NEOGENE Pg20 50.0 Pg20 SB 51.0 196.5 PA Ypresian Hettangian 199.6 55.8 MESOZOIC Thanetian Rhaetian 203.6 58.7 Pg10 59.0 Selandian LAEO- 61.7 Tr80 208.0 Danian Pg10 SB 63.0 PA CENE Norian 65.5 Maastrichtian Tr80 SB 214.0 K180 70.0 LATE 70.6 216.5 Tr70 220.0 Campanian K170 78.0 Carnian Tr70 SB 223.5 K170 SB 80.0 Tr60 227.0 228.0 Tr60 SB 229.0 LATE 83.5 K160 85.0 Santonian TRIASSIC 85.8 Tr50 Coniacian K150 88.0 Ladinian 233.0 89.3 Turonian K150 SB 92.0 237.0 K140 93.0 93.5 MIDDLE K130 95.5 Anisian Tr40 242.0 Cenomanian K120 99.0 Tr40 SB 244.2 99.6 245.0 K110 100.5 Olenekian Tr30 249.7 249.7 Tr20 250.0 EARLY Induan Tr10 250.5 Albian 251.0 Tr10 SB 251.0 K100 108.0 Changhsingian 253.8 P40 253.0 MESOZOIC K90 110.0 Lopingian P30 256.0 Wuchiapingian CRETACEOUS 112.0 K90 SB 112.5 260.4 Capitanian Aptian K80 119.0 Guada- 265.8 P20 266.0 Wordian lupian 268.0 K70 124.5 Roadian EARLY 125.0 270.6 K60 125.5 P20 SB 271.0 Barremian Kungurian 130.0 K50 129.0 275.6 PERMIAN ALAEOZOIC Hauterivian P K40 134.5 Artinskian 136.4 Cisuralian Valanginian K40 SB 139.5 284.4 P10 286.0 140.2 K30 140.0 Sakmarian Berriasian K20 142.0 145.5 K10 145.0 102 Arabian Plate sequence stratigraphy and global chronostratigraphy ERA PERIOD EPOCH STAGE AGE (Ma) GSSP ARABIAN PLATE SEQUENCE STRATI- GRAPHY ERA PERIOD EPOCH STAGE AGE (Ma) GSSP ARABIAN PLATE SEQUENCE STRATI- GRAPHY Aeronian S10 437.0 Sakmarian Llandovery 439.0 294.6 Rhuddanian 443.7 S10 SB 443.8 Asselian Hirnantian Hirnantian 445.6 299.0 Ashgill Unnamed 450.0 Gzhelian O40 453.0 303.9 Caradoc Kasimovian 306.5 Unnamed 460.9 Moscovian Llanvirn O30 464.0 311.7 P10 SB 312.0 Darriwilian 466.0 O30 SB 467.0 Pennsylvanian Bashkirian Arenig 318.1 Unnamed ORDOVICIAN 478.6 O20 480.0 Serpukhovian Trema- Tremadocian docian O10 488.0 326.4 488.3 C10 330.0 Furongian ALAEOZOIC P Paibian Cm30 498.0 Visean 501.0 Cm20 505.0 CARBONIFEROUS MIDDLE Mississippian 513.0 345.3 Botoman Cm20 SB 515.0 518.5 Atdabanian CAMBRIAN 522.5 Tournaisian Tommotian EARLY 531.5 359.2 D30 363.0 Cm10 542.0 542.0 Famennian D30 SB 369.0 ALAEOZOIC P LATE 374.5 Frasnian 385.3 Figure 1: Geological Time Scale 2004 Givetian (Gradstein et al., 2004) highlighting MIDDLE 391.8 stages with a GSSP definition. The Eifelian Arabian Plate Sequence Stratigraphic 397.5 Model (Sharland et al., 2001, 2004) is D20 400.0 plotted against this timescale. In the Emsian Arabian Plate Sequence Stratigraphy EARLY 407.0 D10 408.0 column the blue lines represent the Pragian Maximum Flooding Surfaces (MFS), 411.2 Lochkovian and the red lines the Sequence 416.0 Boundaries (SB). Ordovician Pridoli S20 417.5 418.7 nomenclature shows a comparison of Ludfordian Ludlow 421.3 Gorstian classic British stages against 422.9 S20 SB 422.0 Homerian developing global nomenclature as of Wenlock 426.2 Sheinwoodian 428.2 2004. See Gradstein et al. (2004) for error bars on absolute age estimates SILURIANLlandovery Telychian DEVONIAN and other discussion on stage 436.0 nomenclature. 103 Simmons et al. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The stage is the standard unit of chronostratigraphic subdivision. Although rooted in the fundamental concepts of William Smith, stages were first introduced by the great 19th Century French palaeontologist and stratigrapher Alcide d’Orbigny who recognised rock units in France (and elsewhere), which had distinctive fossil assemblages, such that those units could be correlated from location to location (d’Orbigny, 1842, 1849, 1852). Many of these units are still in use today, particularly many of the standard stages of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods (Cavelier and Roger, 1980; Torrens, 2002). In keeping with the prevailing view in the mid-19th Century that “cataclysmic events” controlled Earth history, d’Orbigny believed that each of his stages resulted from faunal turnovers in response to sudden events in Earth history (see reviews of Monty, 1968; Rioult, 1969; Torrens, 2002). Stages were described as “the expression of the boundaries which Nature has drawn with bold strokes across the whole globe” (d’Orbigny, 1842 as quoted in English translation by Rioult, 1969). Despite much debate in the geological literature over the last 150 years as to the definition of stages, it seems that we may be coming full circle and that sequence stratigraphy provides the vehicle to express d’Orbigny’s original views within a modern geoscience framework. Because d’Orbigny was working mainly on outcrops in platform locations (“up-systems tract” in a sequence stratigraphic sense), many of his stages are bounded by unconformities (i.e. sequence boundaries). This is exactly why he observed faunal turnover at their boundaries, and is what sequence stratigraphy would predict (Holland, 1995). The ideas of d’Orbigny were soon enthusiastically embraced by many other European palaeontologists and stratigraphers, and soon a plethora of stage nomenclature spread across the globe.