Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective
-
Upload
koloshrabeaa -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective
-
7/28/2019 Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective
1/6
Turbidites and foreland basins: an Apenninic perspective
Franco Ricci-Lucchi*
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bologna 40127, Italy
Received 1 August 2002; accepted 17 February 2003
Abstract
Do the Apennines represent a vantage point for studying turbidites? How did research develop in this area? These questions are discussed
briefly in the following pages from a historical and autobiographical perspective. Some items are emphasized: the shifting of depocentres, the
presence of megabeds (basinwide events), the definition of classical turbidites, the facies approach, the recognition and distinction of
hyperpycnal flows
q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Turbidities; Hyperpycnal flow; Foreland basins
1. Introduction
When Emiliano Mutti and I conceived and wrote our
1972 paper on turbidites, we adopted a decidedly Apenninic
perspective, as the title indicated (Mutti & Ricci Lucchi,
1972). Thirty years later, this contribution echoes the old
title but the approach is different, that is, essentially
historical. In the 1972 paper, the aim was to broaden the
concept of turbidite or, if you prefer, to stress both
the consanguineity of typical turbidites, as described by
the Bouma sequence, with the products of other sediment
gravity flows (as they became to be called after the
influential work of Gerry Middleton and others in the
same years) and their physical, more or less intimate,
contiguity with associated deposits, e.g. hemipelagics. Theunderlying assumptions were, first, that the whole family
inhabited or, better, was hosted in deep-water settings, and,
second, that all, or almost all the clastics, especially the
coarser ones, were resedimented, i.e. remobilized and
transported en masse after a previous accumulation in
some kind of repository or parking area somewhere
along the margin of a deep-water basin. We then attempted
to review and classify the various facies of turbiditic (latu
sensu) deposits, with a main subdivision in mind, between
classical or normal turbidites on one hand (our facies
C and D), and anomalous turbidites (A, B, and E) on
the other. Differences were mostly explained in terms of
depositional processes, including overbanking, which wasat difference with purely two-dimensional, downflow
models.
In recent years, both the above cited assumptions have
been questioned: shallow-water turbidites are not regarded,
at least by many, as a self-contradictory concept, and a
direct input of sediment from a land source to a basin, via
more or less catastrophic river floods, is advocated not as a
mere possibility but as a quasi normal way of feeding a basin
in some cases. This can hardly be seen as a surprise:
scientific ideas and interpretations evolve by their essence,
and historians of science know very well that there are both
linear and cyclical developments of thought (with some
malice, one might argue that the latter ones are related to theincreasingly common habit of not reading papers older than
five-ten years).
My purpose here is not, anyway, to delve into historical
or philosophical matters per se, but to have look at history
for trying to get possible, useful suggestions for today
investigators, and stimulate a critical appraisal of what we,
as sedimentologists, do, or want to do. In this respect, we
need to keep a memory of what has been said and done.
2. The birth of the turbidite concept
The hot, passionate debate about the existence of deep
water sands and their mode of emplacement, dating back
0264-8172/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2003.02.003
Marine and Petroleum Geology 20 (2003) 727732www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo
* Tel.: 39-051-209-4535; fax: 39-05-1354-522.
E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Ricci-Lucchi).
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeohttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo -
7/28/2019 Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective
2/6
to the early Fifties of last century, marks the birth of the
turbidity current and turbidite concepts, and practi-
cally coincides with the birth of sedimentology itself, if
considered not from the viewpoint of pioneers but as a
practiced profession and an established academic field.
The seminal paper by Kuenen and Migliorini (1950)
gave vent not only to a lot of verbal and written
discussion but also, and more importantly, to a burst of
field work started by Dutch students (soon followed by
Polish, Swiss, British, etc.). The hunt (or fish) for
turbidite outcrops began in mountain belts, where flysch
was known (Migliorini and Signorini were among the
pioneers in Italy), with the objective of checking
the hydrodynamic model, to find evidence of paleodepth,
to compare ancient and modern examples, and to
challenge conventional paleogeographic interpretations.An impressive amount of data on sedimentary structures,
bedding patterns, and paleocurrent directions was accu-
mulated in the following years e.g. ten Haaf, 1959. The
term turbidite became increasingly familiar in the Sixties,
when the Bouma sequence (Bouma, 1962) and the
proximality distality criterion (Walker, 1967) were
introduced: increasing attention was paid to the internal
anatomy of beds, in terms of both vertical and lateral
partitions and facies changes.
The first wave of studies was an exciting season,
indeed (also because we were young), with a lot of lively
discussions during field trips and meetings. A whole
generation of sedimentologists was born in this way.
They were nicknamed flyschermen, because flysch
was the current name of main turbidite bodies at that
time. The term had been introduced by Studer in 1827 in
Switzerland, and was then used in Europe as a facies to
indicate thick clastic sequences deformed by compres-
sional tectonics during mountain building. Alpine-type
chains (Alps, Apennines, Carpathians, etc.) provided the
best known, historical examples.
The repetitive character of bedding, with the alternation
of two or, at most, three lithotypes was considered a typical
feature of flysch, but this facies was never unambiguously
defined because of its mixed connotation, partly observa-tional and partly interpretative (Hsu, 1970). As a genetic
term, it was considered a syn-orogenic deposit but not the
product of a specific sedimentary environment in uniformi-
tarian terms. That is why it was called a tectofacies, and
was strictly associated with another not well defined
concept, that of geosyncline (see Aubouin, 1965). The
geosyncline, introduced by Hall and Dana in the US, and
Haug in Europe, was, according to the proponents, the berth,
or the embryo, of a mountain range, the basin destined to
give birth to it through a sequence of tectonic, sedimentary
and magmatic-metamorphic events; it was located on a
weak crustal zone. Sediments deposited in the geosyncline
were thus, necessarily, by definition, syn-tectonic or, in thiscase, syn-orogenic.
3. From flysch to turbidite basins, from geosyncline
to plate tectonics
The geosyncline theory was developed by M. Kay in
the US and H. Stille, then J. Auboin in Europe, and
culminated in a complicated and rather artificial classifi-
cation of basins. It had many pitfalls and did not stand the
impact of the new ideas of plate tectonics in the 1960s
1970s. The geosyncline was thus superseded by Plate
Tectonics, and abandoned, not without resistance. The
flysch was maintained for a while in the new schemes (as
in the initial concept of the Wilson cycle) but it gradually
faded away, too.
It was recognized, in fact, that turbidites can be laid down
in both tectonically active (plate margins) and passive or
quiescent (plate interiors) settings; for example, at the footof passive continental margins or on the ocean floor. Even if
the ultimate fate of passive environments and associated
turbidites was to be involved in orogeny, because oceans are
consumed at subduction zones and continental margins are
deformed by collisions, turbidites could not be considered
as syn-orogenic from the start, as in the geosyncline theory.
Moreover, whether or not, and when, they will be involved,
cannot be predicted from initial conditions.
Turbidite sedimentologists, however, were too much
concentrated on outcrop and mesoscale studies, and on their
process-oriented approach (Middleton and Hampton, 1973),
to pay due attention to what was happening in the world of
geodynamics and general geology; their neglect for basinscale analysis (with the exception of a few people working in
the oil industry) made them rather insensitive to the
revolution in thought that was taking place, and they did
not contribute to it. Exemplary of this attitude is an otherwise
excellent article written by Philip Kuenen (1967), in which
the author summarizes all kind of pros and cons of turbidity
currents. Turbidites are still called there flysch-type sand
beds, with barely a mention of their geologic settings. The
transition from flysch to turbidites in geological usage can
appreciated, for the Apennine case, in the special volume of
Sedimentary Geology edited by Sestini (1970).
Still in 1974, when plate tectonics was already accepted
by most of the geological community, sedimentologistsworked within the frame of the old paradigm, as shown by
the title of SEPM Special Publication No.19: Modern and
ancient geosynclinal sedimentation (Dott & Shaver, 1974).
History is funny, sometimes, because this volume, con-
servative as it is in terms of geological ideas, is a landmark
paper from the viewpoint of sedimentology, inasmuch as it
represents an effort of intellectual innovation concerning
turbidites. The innovation consisted of a shift in focus
passing from a process to an environment oriented
approach. Interpretation of turbidites in terms of environ-
ment and depositional system was of more concern, in the
articles published therein, than their descriptive or mechan-
istic aspects. And there was a new entry, the deep-sea fanmodel, actually introduced by Normark (1970) and gaining
F. Ricci-Lucchi / Marine and Petroleum Geology 20 (2003) 727732728
-
7/28/2019 Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective
3/6
attention and popularity in the following years. Facies
analysis, which had been and was being successfully
developed in fluvial, nearshore and shallow marine
sediments, was then applied to turbidites. Problems arose,
however, when it was realized that the uniformitarian
approach, which is at the core of facies analysis, suffered
from severe limitations in the case of deep-sea environ-
ments, where the record was not so straightforward. Fan
models had been actually erected when scarce data on
modern fans were available, and as more data became
available, it became more and more clear that they showed a
great variety of systems, hardly comparable and categoriz-
able into well defined types (see Bouma, Normark &
Barnes, 1985; Piper, Hiscott, & Normark, 1999). Every fan,
or deep-water clastic system, seemed to be a story apart.
Sedimentologists remained a little bewildered and out ofbalance: what to do next? The enthusiasm for deep-sea fans
declined, and with it, apparently, much of the interest for
turbidites. Not so many papers on turbidites were published
in the last 15 years of the century; some of them were
concerned with modern environments, but most were about
(again!) hydrodynamics, mechanisms and internal struc-
tures (see, for example, Kneller & Branney, 1995; Mulder &
Syvitski, 1995). Turbidites were almost deserted by fieldgeologists, attracted by other targets or converting to
computer modelling.
4. Turbidites and foreland basins
The theme of syn-tectonic and syn-orogenic sedimen-
tation made a new appearance under the framework of plate
tectonics, which lead to a reclassification of sedimentary
basins (Bally & Snelson, 1980; Dickinson, 1974, 1988). The
term geosyncline was not resurrected but its concept was
partly resumed under the category of foreland basin, which
had already been known as foredeep in previous times, with
the meaning of a basin characterizing the late orogenic stage
of the geosyncline and accommodating the erosional
products of a newly emerged chain. The Oligo-Miocene
molasse basin to the north of the Alps was regarded as a
sort of prototype. And it was in the middle of this basin thatthe new interest on orogenic sedimentation was celebrated
in 1985, when a meeting on Foreland Basins was organized
in Fribourg by Peter Homewood and Philip Allen.
Subsidence in a foreland basin is induced by tectonic
loading of advancing and stacking thrusts and nappes, so
sedimentation in this kind of basin is truly syn-tectonic. The
origin and history of foreland basins have been modelled
through computer simulation (Beaumont, Cloething, Kar-
ner, etc.); models were quite successful and accurate in
reproducing the salient features of Cordilleran basins, but
not so much for the Alpine-Tethys types. Mediterranean
orogens are smaller, more fragmented and rotated in
comparison with bigger and more linear systems, i.e.Himalaya, Appalachians, Rocky Mountains and Andes.
Differences were already apparent when the geosyncline
was the dominant paradigm: the American type, mainly
filled by shallow-water to continental clastics, was con-
trasted with the Alpine type, dominated by marine
sediments, in particular flysch and pelagics.
Concerning the Apennines, this small, young collisional
chain is definitely one of the best places for looking at
turbidites, mostly of Tertiary age. Flysch formations form
its backbone, and their exposures are so overwhelming that
Studer himself indicated them as typical examples (he
referred to Macigno sandstone for the siliciclastic variety,
and to alberese for the calcareous one, more or less
corresponding to the Helminthoid group, familiar to
Alpine gelogists). They are now reinterpreted as foredeep
wedges, clastic wedges or, more simply, turbiditic bodies or
turbiditic formations.However, the history and structure of the Apennines are
far from simple (see, for recent syntheses, Argnani & Ricci
Lucchi, 2001; Boccaletti et al., 1990). The foreland is a slice
of Africa, which was previously involved in the collisional
event that built up the Alps, and it is highly deformed by the
two subsequent orogenies. The foreland basin (the final,
present stage of it) is represented by the Po Plain, whose
subsurface shows part of the complex deformation alluded
to above. Modellers (Royden & Karner, 1984) found that the
foreland was excessively bent after taking into account
thrust and sediment loading, but the cause of this extra load
has been only a matter of speculation.
Previous stages of the Apennine Foredeep (Oligoceneand Miocene) were inferred from stratigraphic evidence and
analogies with the Plio-Quaternary infill of the Po Plain,
whose geometry is preserved, at least partially. The
resulting story is one of a migrating thrust belt/foreland
basin system (Ricci Lucchi, 1986), but little is known about
its original width, possible subdivision into subbasins, rate
of migration, regular pace or stepwise nature of this
migration and of subsidence, elastic rigidity or weakness
of underlying lithosphere, and other kinematic and dynamic
aspects.
From the standpoint of sedimentology and physical
stratigraphy, some major trends can be recognized in the
outcropping Tertiary turbidite bodies of northern Apennine(subsurface turbidites are not considered here):
vertical trends: a fining upward trend is observed in the
oldest unit (Tuscan Macigno) form stacked sandstone
sheets to mudstone-dominated facies; the next unit
(Marnoso-arenacea Fm) is composed by two distinc-
tive facies associations, an older one (Mid-Miocene),
vertically trendless and rich in mudstone with inter-
bedded sheetlike sandstone bodies gradually thinning
downcurrent and megabeds (including the Contessa),
and a younger one (upper Miocene), sand-rich and
more lenticular than previous units, lacking basinwide
beds and probably deposited in narrower and separatedfurrows. The lower Marnoso-arenacea is interpreted as
F. Ricci-Lucchi / Marine and Petroleum Geology 20 (2003) 727732 729
-
7/28/2019 Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective
4/6
a relatively wide basin plain (maybe the largest of the
whole migrating succession, judging from the present
outcrop and subsurface extent);
continuity of sedimentation: shifting of depocentres
and subsidence axes seems to have occurred in a
rather continuous way (even if punctuated by large
submarine slides of both intra- and extra-basinal
material), with two notable exceptions. The first one
is represented by the closure of the Tuscan basin,
whose turbidites were sealed by a mud drape with
chert and tephra horizons, indicating a reduced
sedimentation rate and interruption of coarse clastic
input (see siliceous lithozone of Lower Miocene:
Amorosi, Ricci Lucchi & Tateo, 1995), to be
resumed in the next depocenter to the NE (start of
Marnoso-arenacea deposition). The second disconti-nuity is less pronounced (varying from a clear
submarine erosional surface to a rapid increase ofsand content) and separates lower (inner) and upper
(outer) Marnoso-arenacea. This transition, at differ-
ence with the previous one, does not reflect an
interruption of turbiditic sedimentation, but rather a
structural reorganization of the basin with attendant
change in source areas. Remarkable is the change in
turbidite facies, as shown by lenticular and amalga-
mated beds, high frequence of clay chips, dewatering
structures, convolutions, intra-bed debris flows,
absence of hemipelagic interbedding, etc. These
features induced Mutti and myself, in1972, toemphasize the presence of anomalous or non-
Bouma turbidites to be included in the spectrum of
sediment gravity flows and assumed resedimented
deposits. Presently, Mutti (pers. comm.) sees them in
a different light, i.e. as representative of a distinct
family of mass flows, those introduced directly by
catastrophic stream floods (hyperpycnal density
currents);
lateral trends: the rarity of suitable markers makes
stratigraphic correlation difficult in sand-rich bodies
like the Macigno and the upper Marnosoarenacea;
on the contrary, the lower Marnoso arenacea has
plenty of markers, represented by (presumably)basinwide layers with at least three distinctive
lithologies. A certain degree of wedging towards
the foreland can thus be demonstrated at the scale of
100300 m thick bundles. This supports the view of
a wedge-shaped, asymmetrical basin section, but,
unfortunately, this kind of evidence is not widespread
and generalizable at the moment.
5. Circular reasoning or cyclical reasoning?
The change in facies from lower to upper Marnoso-
arenacea, which is reflected also by lithology (color,degree of cementation and weathering) was noticed by old
authors, who interpreted it as the passage from flysch to
molasse, which meant from shallow marine (I am
speaking of pre-1950 times) to littoral-deltaic facies;
actually, a shallowing-up trend. In the late Sixties of last
century, the new tribe of young flyschermen said: but
no! flysch is made of turbidites, i.e. deep-sea sands, and
the molasse, if you look carefully and ignore the
diagenetic overprint, are also turbidites, even if not so
typical. Now, if we reinterpret these atypical turbidites
as hyperpycnites, their environment of deposition is not
necessarily deep. Are thus we going back to the
shallowing-up trend of pre-turbidite times? This sounds
quite ironic, and suggests that cycles in evolution of
thought do exist, even if they do not reproduce identical
situations.
And what about the typical or classical turbidites?Well, if they are represented by sheetlike, extensive,
possibly basin-wide individual layers, showing the
Bouma sequence, and by tabular, very gradually
thinning and shaling out sandstone bodies (in other
words, if they have a basinal look), we must conclude
that these are features of old, respectable flysch, as
originally defined in the XIX century. In fact, where do
we find these features? In the Apenninic Macigno
and lower Marnoso arenacea, which are among the
typical examples indicated by Studer. Another historical
loop?Letting the ironical implications of history aside, we
are now faced with the problem of redefining turbiditycurrents, turbidites and turbidite-like deposits. The crucial
point is to find reliable diagnostic criteria for distinguish-
ing resedimented deposits from those related to
hyperpycnal flows or, according to Piper (pers. comm.),
to separate different types of flow initiation. To what
amount can they be checked in individual layers, in
bedsets and facies sequences, or in stacking patterns and
basin architecture? The discussion of this question is
outside the scope of the persent paper, and I would like
to express here just an impression. The feeling is that the
classical turbidites of the Apennines, representing the
main fil li ng of a f or el and bas in (M acigno and
lower Marnoso arenacea) are true products of resedi-mentation processes on the basis of the features
described by Ricci Lucchi and Valmori (1980). Even
the sandier beds have low thickness gradients both down
flow and across flow, and become gradually mud-rich at
their distal ends.
These features should indicate a flat basin floor (basin
plain) invaded by flows of huge volume from different
provenances and rich in mud, largely bypassing base-of-
slope and fans (or not building fans at all). The estimated
volume of individual layers (one to some tens of cubic
kilometers, without correction for compaction) seems to
exceed the maximum peak discharges of catchment areas,
and exclude the possibility of direct immission ofhyperpycnal flows, unless one invokes a igniting or
F. Ricci-Lucchi / Marine and Petroleum Geology 20 (2003) 727732730
-
7/28/2019 Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective
5/6
avalanche effect, i.e. a flow growing bigger by incorpor-
ation of sediment along the way (which can be excluded at
least in the case of the distinctive allochthonous detritus in
Contessa-like beds).
6. Summary and conclusions
After several decades of stratigraphic, structural, and
sedimentological studies of the Tertiary turbidites of the
Apennine, the essential features of the main bodies
(qualified as flysch in the old literature) can be safely
outlined: namely, gross stacking pattern, sedimentation
rates, provenance and dispersal of detritus, facies and facies
associations, biostratigraphy. Uncertainties and problemsstill persist concerning paleogeographic location, strati-
graphic subdivisions and correlation of the most deformed,
older units, particularly in pelitic horizons and so-called
chaotic bodies.
The overall pattern is one of migrating depocentres, with
progressive involvement of portions of the foreland area in
subsidence, turbidite accumulation, submarine sliding and
tectonic deformation. A distinctive break in this shifting
pattern, i.e. a quiescent phase, is recognized in the early
Miocene, when turbidite and coarse clastic sedimentation
stopped everywhere, and silica-rich muds draped previously
active structures.
The foreland basin system (main foredeep plus satellite
basins) formed when the Apennine orogeny started
(Oligocene) and was fed mainly by sources placed outside
the developing chain, which remained mostly submerged
until the end of the Miocene. The thrust belt contribution
to the basin fill consisted in exceptional episodes of mass
flow (individual high volume beds or megaturbidites)
and sliding (both intra- and extra-basinal masses). The
backbone of the Apennines emerged and supplied detritus
to the foredeep starting from Tortonian and Messinian
times: late Miocene and Plio-Pleistocene turbidites thus
form a molasse with respect to the previous flysch
phase. This is a peculiar, relatively deep-water molasse:nearshore and continental deposits completed the basin fill
only in the Quaternary, when turbidites were still present
but restricted to minor depocentres in the Po Plain-
Adriatic domain.
Historically, the turbidite bodies of northern Apennines
represent a unique data base, which was utilized, at first
for the definition of the flysch concept (see Macigno or
Alberese sandstones in Studer, 1827), then for the
definition of the turbidity current concept (Kuenen &
Migliorini, 1950) and, more recently, for the recognition
and characterization of facies schemes (Mutti & Ricci
Lucchi, 1972) and the modeling of deep-water deposi-
tional systems (Mutti, 1985, 1992; Ricci Lucchi &Valmori, 1980).
References
Amorosi, A., Ricci Lucchi, F., & Tateo, F. (1995). The Lower Miocene
siliceous zone: A marker in the palaeogeographic evolution of the
Northern Apennines. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoe-
cology, 118, 131149.
Argnani, A., & Ricci Lucchi, F. (2001). Tertiary siliciclastic
turbidite systems of the northern Apennines. In P. Martini, &
G. B. Vai (Eds.), Anatomy of an orogen (pp. 327 350). Dordecht:
Kluwer.
Aubouin, J. (1965). Geosynclines. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 335 pp.
Bally, A. W., & Snelson, S. (1980). Realms of subsidence. In A. D. Miall
(Ed.), Facts and principles of world petroleum occurrence (pp. 994).
Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir.
Boccaletti, M., Ciaranfi, N., Deiana, G., Gelati, R., Massari, F., &
Moratti, G. (1990). Migrating foredeep-thrust belt system in the
northern Apennines and southern Alps. In M. Boccaletti, & G.
Moratti (Eds.), Neogene paleogeography of the Perityrrhenian area
(77(1)) (pp. 314). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoe-
cology.
Bouma, A. H. (1962). Sedimentology of some flysch deposits. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 168 pp.
Bouma, A. H., Normark, W. R., & Barnes, N. E. (1985). Submarine fans
and related turbidite systems. Berlin: Springer, 351 pp.
Dickinson, W. R. (1974). Tectonics and sedimentation. SEPM Special
Publication, No. 22, 204.
Dickinson, W. R. (1988). Provenance and sediment dispersal in relation to
paleotectonics and paleogeography of sedimentary basins. In K. L.
Kleinspehn, & C. Paola (Eds.), New perspectives on basin analysis (pp.
325). Berlin: Springer.
Dott, R. H., & Shaver, R. H. (1974). Modern and ancient geosynclinal
sedimentation. SEPM Special Publication, No.19, 380.
ten Haaf E (1959), Graded beds of the northern Apennines. Ph. Thesis,
University of Groningen, 102 pp.
Hsu, K. J. (1970). The meaning of the word Flysch. Geological Association
of Canada Special Paper 7, 111.
Kneller, B. C., & Branney, M. J. (1995). Sustained high-density turbidity
currents and the deposition of thick massive sands. Sedimentology, 42,
607616.
Kuenen, P. H. (1967). Empacement of flysch-type sand beds. Sedimentol-
ogy, 9, 203243.
Kuenen, P. H., & Migliorini, C. I. (1950). Turbidity currents as causes of
graded bedding. Journal of Geology, 58, 91 127.
Middleton, G. V., & Hampton, M. A. (1973). Sediment gravity flows:
Mechanics of flow and deposition. SEPM Pacific Section Short Course
Notes, 138.
Mulder, T., & Syvitski,J. P. M. (1995). Turbidity currents generated at river
mouths during exceptional discharge to the world oceans. Journal ofGeology, 103, 285299.
Mutti, E. (1985). Turbidite systems and their relation to depositional
sequences. In G. G. Zuffa (Ed.), Provenance of arenites (pp. 6594).
NATO-ASI Series, Riedel Publ. Co.
Mutti, E. (1992). Turbidite sandstones. AGIP-Istituto di Geologia
Universita di Parma, 275.
Mutti, E., & Ricci Lucchi, F. (1972). Le torbiditi dellAppennino
Settentrionale: Introduzione allanalisi di facies. Memoir Societa
Geologica Italia, 11(2), 161199.
Normark, W. R. (1970). Growth patterns of deep-sea fans. AAPG Bulletin,
54, 2170 2195.
Piper, D. J. W., Hiscott, R. N., & Normark, W. R. (1999). Outcrop-scale
acoustic facies analysis and latest Quaternary development of Hueneme
and Dume submarine fans, offshore California. Sedimentology, 46,
4778.Ricci Lucchi, F. (1986). The Oligocene to Recent foreland basins of the
Northern Appennines. In P. A. Allen, & P. Homewood (Eds.), Foreland
F. Ricci-Lucchi / Marine and Petroleum Geology 20 (2003) 727732 731
-
7/28/2019 Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective
6/6
basins (pp. 105139). International Association of Sedimentologists
Special Publication 8, Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.
Ricci Lucchi, F., & Valmori, E. (1980). Basin-wide turbidites in a Miocene,
over-supplied deep-sea plain: A geometrical analysis. Sedimentology,27, 241270.
Royden, L. H., & Karner, G. D. (1984). Flexure of the lithosphere beneath
the Apennine and Carpathian Foredeep basins: Evidence for an
insufficient topographic load. AAPG Bulletin, 68, 74712.
Sestini, G. (1970). Flysch facies and turbidite sedimentology. Sedimentary
Geology, 4, 559597.
Studer, B. (1827). Remarques geognostiques sur quelques parties de la
chaine septentrionale des Alpes. Annales Sciences Naturelles Paris, 11,147.
Walker, R. G. (1967). Turbidite sedimentary structures and their
relationship to proximal and distal environments. Journal of Sedimen-
tary Petrology, 37, 2573.
F. Ricci-Lucchi / Marine and Petroleum Geology 20 (2003) 727732732