Sedimentary Geology

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Downslope-migrating large dunes in the Chattian carbonate ramp of the MajellaMountains (Central Apennines, Italy)

M. Brandano a,b,⁎, L. Lipparini c, V. Campagnoni c, L. Tomassetti a

a Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, La Sapienza Università di Roma, P. A. Moro 5, I-00185 Roma, Italyb IGAG - CNR, Area della Ricerca di Roma 1, Via Salaria Km 29,300-00016 Monterotondo Roma, Italyc Medoilgas Italia SpA (MOG Group), via Cornelia, 00166-Rome, Italy

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 October 2011Received in revised form 7 February 2012Accepted 8 February 2012Available online 16 February 2012

Editor: B. Jones

Keywords:OligoceneCarbonate rampLithofaciesSubmarine duneStorm

This work is the result of detailed geological mapping and stratigraphic analysis of the Lepidocyclina Lime-stone in the northern sector of the Majella Mountains (Central Apennines). The Lepidocyclina Limestone rep-resents an informal member of the Bolognano Formation (Chattian to Messinian in age).Four main lithofacies have been recognized: planar cross-bedded grainstone (FA); moderate-angle, cross-bedded grainstone to packstone (FB); sigmoidal cross-bedded grainstone (FC); and bioturbated marly pack-stone to wackestone (FD).A detailed description of the recognized lithofacies and facies association of the Lepidocyclina Limestone isgiven in this work, together with an interpretation of the corresponding depositional setting and a discussionof the related larger-scale processes.In summary, the depositional profile of the Lepidocyclina Limestone is consistent with a carbonate ramp, wheremost of the sediments appear to be parautochthonous in the middle ramp environment and autochthonous-dominated in the outer ramp environment.Palaeocurrent patterns indicate a strong, generally north–west basin-ward direction that affected the middleramp environment and developed a wide, down-slope migrating dune field.Considering that thewarm Oligocene climate of theMediterranean areawas favorable to tropical cyclone devel-opment, both in terms of frequency and intensity, it is suggested that return currents generated by strong windsor stormswere common on the “Lepidocyclina” carbonate ramp, thus favoring the development of the observeddune field.

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

During the Oligocene, significant biological, climatic, and oceano-graphic changes were recorded, which strongly influenced the compo-sition and production of the carbonate factory during that time. ManyOligocene platforms show a carbonate factory dominated by larger ben-thic foraminifera and coralline algae (e.g., Pedley, 1998; Nebelsick et al.,2005; Vaziri-Moghaddam et al., 2006; Brandano et al., 2009a, 2010a;Bassi and Nebelsick, 2010; Sadeghi et al., 2011). These biota becameprogressively more important contributors throughout the Oligoceneuntil they became dominant in the Lower and Middle Miocene car-bonate platforms (Carannante et al., 1988; Halfar and Mutti, 2005). Inmost known examples, the skeletal components produced in theshallow euphotic environment (sensu Pomar, 2001) were generallymoved down-shelf and offshore in response to storms and currents,

while skeletons produced in the deeper oligophotic zone (sensu Pomar,2001) were mainly accumulated in situ and episodically moved bycurrents or waves during exceptional storms. The resulting depositionalprofile is a carbonate ramp that can be “distally steepened” or “homo-clinal” (sensu Read, 1982, 1985), depending on: the amount of sedimentdispersed andmoved downslope, the loci of themain carbonate produc-tion (aphotic vs oligophotic) (Pomar, 2001), and the tectonic setting(Pedley, 1998; Bosence, 2005).

This work discusses the Upper Oligocene ramp that outcrops in theMajella area of the Central Apennines (Lepidocyclina Limestone). Thisstratigraphic unit is characterized by a wide middle ramp environmentwhere the oligophotic biota (larger benthic foraminifera and corallinealgae) were produced and reworked by strong, basinward-flowing cur-rents. In the studied example, coarse carbonate grainstones, whichwould typically be attributed to a shallow inner ramp environmentaccording to most interpretation models, are instead considered tohave originated on the middle and outer ramp.

The goal of this work is to describe the lithofacies and facies asso-ciations recognized in the Lepidocyclina Limestone, to reconstructtheir depositional settings, and to discuss the related processes.

Sedimentary Geology 255-256 (2012) 29–41

⁎ Corresponding author at: Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università degliStudi di Roma “La Sapienza”, P.le Aldo Moro 5, I-00185 Roma, Italy. Tel.: +39 0649694240; fax: +39 06 4454729.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Brandano).

0037-0738/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2012.02.002

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Sedimentary Geology

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /sedgeo


2. Geological setting

The Apennine fold-and-thrust belt represents the Neogene defor-mation of the southern margin of the Mediterranean Tethys. This mar-gin was characterized by wide carbonate platform domains. In theCentral Apennines, these domains are represented by the Latium–

Abruzzi platform and the northern extension of the Apulian Platform.The latter platform outcrops in the Majella and Scontrone–Porrarastructures (Fig. 1A,B), which are interpreted as themajor structural cul-mination of the Apulia–Adriatic units (Vezzani et al., 2010). TheMajellastructure, a N–S/NW–SE oriented, thrust-related anticline that plungesboth to the north and to the south, formed during the Pliocene due tothe easternmigration of the chain–foredeep system toward the Adriaticforeland (Scisciani et al., 2000; Rusciadelli and Di Simone, 2007).

The Majella succession consists of Upper Jurassic to Miocene lime-stones and dolostones (Crescenti et al., 1969). During the Jurassic–Cretaceous evolution of the carbonate platform, the area was charac-terized by a steep, non-depositional escarpment that separatedshallow-water platform carbonates from onlapping slope sediments(Vecsei et al., 1998). The shallow-water deposits are represented byalternating oolitic–oncolitic packstones to grainstones and thin stro-matolitic bindstones. A major unconformity, as defined by karstifica-tion and bauxitic soils, corresponds to an important, long-termemersion phase of the platform top from the middle Albian to thelate Cenomanian (Accarie, 1988). The steep escarpment was main-tained during Late Cretaceous platform aggradation, with lithic brec-cias, bioclastic turbidites, and pelagic limestone being deposited inthe adjacent basin to the north. By the late Campanian this basinwas completely filled with sediments onlapping onto the escarpment,and the platform prograded and evolved into a distally steepenedramp with the adjacent slope (Mutti et al., 1996; Vecsei et al., 1998).

The “Majella platform” recorded Lower Cenozoic sediments along itsslope and basin, whereas a long hiatus is recorded on the platform topwhere Paleocene to Middle Eocene deposits occur only as thin, discon-tinuous beds. Small coral–algal buildups are recorded during the Pria-bonian to Rupelian, followed by the progradation of shallow platformsediments over the slope (Vecsei and Moussavian, 1997). Finally, aramp developed above the former shelf and slope during the Chattianto early Messinian interval (Vecsei and Sanders, 1999). This interval isrepresented by the Bolognano Formation, which has been subdividedinto various informal members (Crescenti et al., 1969; Mutti et al.,1997; Vecsei and Sanders, 1999; Carnevale et al., 2011). According toMutti et al. (1997) three depositional sequences, including shallow-water to deeper-water sediments, can be recognized in the north-western sector of the Majella (Fig. 2). The first shallow water-sequence,represented by the Lower Bryozoan Limestone, unconformably overliesEocene deposits and consists of up to 40 m of bioclastic grainstones/rudstones formed by larger benthic foraminifera, bryozoans, red algae,and molluscs. This unit, informally called the Lepidocyclina Limestoneby different authors (Merola, 2007; Carnevale et al., 2011) because ofthe dominance of Lepidocyclina in the benthic foraminifer assemblages,is overlain by up to 20 m of strongly bioturbated siliceous hemipelagicmarls and marly limestones. The second shallow water-sequence,represented by the Upper Bryozoan Limestone, ranges in thicknessfrom 3 to 40 m and consists of a monotonous succession of cross-bedded grainstones. The skeletal assemblage of this limestone is charac-terized by planktonic and small benthic foraminifera, bryozoan,mollusc,and echinoid fragments, and rarely by larger benthic foraminifera. Theupper part of this second sequence consists of planktonic OrbulinaMarls. This interval is wedge shaped, being thickest (90 m) in the north-west sector of the Majella and thinnest toward the platform in the SE,where it disappears (Fig. 2). The third and uppermost shallow water-

Fig. 1. A) Simplified geological map of Italy, B) Palaeogeographic map of the western Mediterranean area during the Early Oligocene.Modified from Patacca et al. (2008).

30 M. Brandano et al. / Sedimentary Geology 255-256 (2012) 29–41


sequence, the Lithothamnion Limestone, unconformably overlies theUpper Bryozoan Limestone. This unit consists of up to 30 m of lime-stones to marly limestones (dominated by red algal-nodules and bi-valves) and is overlain by 30 m of hemipelagic marls.

Major differences exist regarding the age attributed to the Bolog-nano Formation (Mutti et al., 1997, 1999: Vecsei and Sanders, 1999;Marsili et al., 2007; Merola, 2007; Benedetti et al., 2010; Carnevaleet al., 2011).

According to Benedetti et al. (2010), the larger benthic foraminifer as-semblages suggest a Rupelian age (SBZ 22a) for the Lepidocyclina Lime-stone (Lower Bryozoan Unit), while Mutti et al. (1997) and Carnevaleet al. (2011) attribute this unit to the Chattian. All authors do agree, how-ever, with a Chattian p.p. to Aquintanian age interval for the overlyinghemipelagic marls. Mutti et al. (1997) and Vecsei and Sanders (1999)suggest that deposition of the second sequence (Upper Bryozoan Lime-stone and Orbulina Marls) occurred during the Burdigalian to Langhianinterval. In contrast, Merola (2007) and Carnevale et al. (2011) useplanktonic foraminiferal assemblages to attribute a Burdigalian to Lan-ghian pp interval for this Upper Bryozoan Limestone and a Langhian toearly Tortonian age for the overlying Orbulina Marls. Finally, the last se-quence is dated Serravallian by Mutti et al. (1997) and Vecsei andSanders (1999), while Merola (2007) and Carnevale et al. (2011) attri-bute it to the Tortonian–Early Messinian.

Several authors believe that the Miocene platform carbonates ofthe Central Apennines were deposited in a carbonate ramp environ-ment (Vecsei and Sanders, 1999; Civitelli and Brandano, 2005). Theinner ramp was characterized by high-energy deposits associatedwith seagrass-meadow sediments, inter-bedded basin-ward withrudstones to floatstones that are composed of free-living, branchingred algae and, locally, scattered corals (Brandano, 2003; Civitelli andBrandano, 2005; Brandano et al., 2010b). The middle ramp environ-ment is below the storm wave-base (swb), in the oligophotic zone,with red algae, molluscs, and larger benthic foraminifera being themain sediment producers. The outer ramp, characterized by the ab-sence of light-dependent biota, is instead dominated by a skeletal as-semblage consisting of bryozoans, echinoids, bivalves and sponges.Strongly bioturbated marls rich in planktonic foraminifera and withminor amounts of radiolarians and siliceous sponge spicules are thetypical deposits of this distal outer ramp.

3. Methods

Cliff exposures on the north-western flank of the Majella anticlineoffer a good opportunity to analyze lithofacies, bedding geometries,and facies architecture of the Lepidocyclina Limestone unit (BolognanoFormation). In particular, two “depositional transects” were analyzedin this area: the Rapina Mountain–Orfento Valley transect and theBlokhaus–Lettomanoppello transect. The Rapina Mountain–Orfento

Valley transect, trending in a roughly SE–NE direction similar to theMajella anticline itself, provides a clean section along the deposition-al dip direction that permits a physical correlation between the sed-imentary units (Fig. 3). Along the second transect, to the NE of theMajella, detailed analyses were performed along road cuts in theBlockhaus and Lettomanoppello areas and in the Fonte del Papaand Roman Valley quarries (which clearly display sedimentarystructures in various three-dimensional cuts).

Correlation between the Blokhaus and Lettomanoppelo outcropswas possible using lithostratigraphic criteria.

Bedding and faults were mapped onto high-resolution aerialphoto-mosaics, topographic maps, and panoramic photo-mosaics ofthe major outcrops.

Detailed stratigraphic and sedimentologic analyses were performedon all lithofacies, biofacies, and bounding surfaces. The description ofthe physical sedimentary structures follows Anastas et al. (1997, 2006)who describe and interpret cross-stratification using internal organiza-tion, cross-set thickness, foresets shape, and lower bounding-surfaceshape. The internal organization refers to the complexity of the cross-stratification: sets that contain only conformable laminae are describedas simplewhereas sets that contain discontinuity surfaces are describedas compound. Cross-set thickness is defined as thin (b40 cm), medium(40–75 cm), thick (75–500 cm), and very thick (>500 cm). The foresetconnects the upper and lower set boundaries. These bounding surfacesmay be planar if they are formed by bedforms with flat troughs, whilebedformswith spurs and scour pits in the trough produce lower bound-ing surfaces that are trough-shaped in sections perpendicular to the cur-rent. This conforms with the distinction between 2-D and 3-D dunes asdefined by Ashley (1990). Cross-stratification is organized into four hi-erarchical levels: cross-lamination, first-order sets, second-order sets,and cross-stratified successions. The levels are based on increasing de-grees of internal complexity. A cross-stratified succession is a verticalsuccession of first- and second-order sets that contains a particular in-ternal geometric organization and is characterized by lateral and verticalchanges (or lack thereof) in set thicknesses and the attitude of thebounding surfaces (e.g., horizontal, inclined).

The field observations were complemented with the petrographicexamination of 75 thin sections for textural characterization andidentification of skeletal components.

Red-algae associations and test shape variation (T/D) of the largebenthic foraminifera (LBF) Amphistegina were used to constrain ba-thymetry of the depositional setting according to the model proposedbyMateu-Vicens et al. (2009). The preservation levels of large benthicforaminiferal tests have been used to determine taphonomic process-es related to sediment transport within the ramp. This is based onBeavington-Penney's (2004) studies on abrasion of macrosphericNummulites as indicators of transport processes. Assessments aregiven using the Beavington-Penney Taphonomic Scale (i.e., BPTS).

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic architecture of Bolognano Formation (modified from Mutti et al., 1997). SB: sequence boundary.

31M. Brandano et al. / Sedimentary Geology 255-256 (2012) 29–41


4. Results

The sediments of the Lepidocyclina Limestone are composed pri-marily of coarse-grained bioclastic material. Grainstones and pack-stones predominate. Four lithofacies are distinguished based onbedding characteristics, physical sedimentary structures, and majorconstituents.

4.1. Planar cross-bedded grainstone (FA)

The sediment of this lithofacies has a coarse-sand granulometry, andis moderately sorted with round to subangular grains. Common compo-nents are well-rounded red-algal debris, nodules, and small rhodoliths.Nodules and rhodoliths are constituted by Melobesioids (Lithothamnion)and Sporolithaceans (Sporolithon). Other common skeletal components

include fragmented LBF (Nephrolepidina, Eulepidina, Amphistegina, Het-erostegina, Operculina) and small benthic foraminifera (rotaliids, Rotalia,Neorotalia viennoti, Lobatula, Lenticulina, Planorbulina, discorbaceans,buliminaceans, textularids, rare miliolids as Austrotrillina). Scatteredcomponents are planktonic foraminifera, articulate red algae, echinoidplates and spines,mollusc fragments, andbryozoans. Rare alveolinid frag-ments are also present (Fig. 4A,B). Amatrix is absent. The cement consistsof calcite pseudospar filling primary interparticle pores, and blocky sparfilling intraskeletal pores, and secondarymouldic pores. Syntaxial cementdeveloped on echinoid debris.

Amphistegina T/D values range between 0.35 and 0.7. LBF testsyield BPTS abrasion values between 0 and 3.

This lithofacies is characterized by compound cross-bedding con-sisting of planar cross-beds (first order sets) that are 10–20 cm thickand dip up to 10° (Fig. 4C). In these beds, lamination forms angles of

Fig. 3. Simplified geological map of Montagna della Majella, (modified from Vecsei and Sanders, 1999), location of investigated sectors (AB — Rapina Mount/Orfento Valley andCD — Blokhaus/Lettomanoppello) and palaeocurrent.



5–10° with bedding planes (bedding-plane discordant) producingstraight-planar first-order sets. The laminae dip toward the W–NW.These first-order sets stack in 2- to 3-m-thick co-sets (second-ordersets) bounded by a subhorizontal surface (Fig. 4D). Bioturbation is rare.

4.2. Moderate-angle cross-bedded grainstone to packstone (FB)

This lithofacies is characterized by a moderately sorted, grain-supported sediment showing moderately tight packing of bioclasts.The grains are coarse-sand sized. They are mainly represented by LBF,which are dominated by well-preserved Nephrolepidina and Eulepidinaspecimens and Amphistegina and nummulitids (Heterostegina, Opercu-lina) (Fig. 5A). Other components are red-algal debris, small benthic fo-raminifera (rotaliids, Lobatula lobatula, Cibicides,N. viennoti, Planorbulinasp, discorbaceans, buliminaceans, textularids), and very common bryo-zoa (Fig. 5B). Accessory components are serpulid fragments (Ditrupa),echinoid plates and spines, mollusc fragments (pectinids, oysters), andplanktonic foraminifera. A branch and small crusts of red algae havealso been observed.

Matrix is scarce and consists of calcisiltite where present. A weaklamination may be formed by LBF tests. The cement consists of calcitemicro- and pseudospar that fills primary interparticle pores, and blockyspar in intraskeletal pores, and secondary mouldic pores. Syntaxial ce-ment develops on echinoid plates.

Amphistegina T/D values range between 0.31 and 0.60. Large ben-thic foraminifera tests, mostly of the genus Amphistegina, yield BPTSabrasion and reworking values between 1 and 3.

The cross-beds of this lithofacies have a cuneiform to sigmoidalshape and are inclined between 10° and 20°, the dip is generally to-ward WNW.

They occur in 0.2–0.5 m thick, first-order sets. The sets form cosets(second order) up to 4 m thick (Fig. 5C,D). Lamination in the firstorder set is characterized by discordant bedding-plane geometries.In plan view sets have straight (planar) crests.

4.3. Sigmoidal cross-bedded grainstone (FC)

The sigmoidal cross-bedded grainstones are coarse and moderate-ly sorted. The most common components are bryozoan colonies (cel-leporids and adeoniforms). Large benthic foraminifera are presentand represented by Nephrolepidina, Amphistegina specimens, andnummulitids (Heterostegina, Operculina) (Fig. 6A). Other componentsare red-algal debris, small benthic foraminifera (rotaliids, Cibicides,Rotalia, Lenticulina), serpulid fragments (Ditrupa), echinoid platesand spines, pectinid fragments, and planktonic foraminifera (Fig. 6B).

The low amount of matrix is represented by calcisiltite. The ce-ment consists of micro- and pseudospar that fills primary interparti-cle pores, while the intraskeletal, and secondary mouldic pores arefilled by blocky spar. Syntaxial cement develops on echinoid plates.

Amphistegina T/D values range between 0.28 and 0.40. Large ben-thic foraminifera tests yield BPTS abrasion values between 1 and 2.

These cross-beds have sigmoidal shapes and are inclined between10 and 22°. The dip is generally toward WNW. The sets (first order)are 20–60 cm thick and can be traced laterally for up to 70 m (Fig. 6C,D). The sets are characterized by bedding-parallel lamination (bed-ding-plane concordant). Foresets are generally tangential, with anglesthat dip about 20° but decrease to 10° toward the bottomset. The cosets(second order) are up to 5 m thick and are bounded by large-scale sig-moidal discontinuities that can be traced laterally for up to 200 m(Fig. 6D).

4.4. Bioturbated marly packstone to wackestone (FD)

This lithofacies is formed by a horizontally bedded fine packstones towackestones characterized by abundant planktonic foraminifera in abrownmicriticmatrix. Themain constituents are planktonic foraminifera,especially globigerinids and globorotalids (Fig. 7A). Small benthic forami-nifera (rotalids, textularids, Lenticulina), bryozoans, bivalves, and echinoidand serpulid fragments are subordinate (Fig. 7B). The size of planktonicforaminifera ranges, approximately, between 200 and 500 μm.

Glauconitic grains occur in this lithofacies in the bioclastic cavities,infilling planktonic foraminifera chambers.

The beds are 10 to 30 cm thick and are separated by 1.5 cm thickinterval rich in clayey marls (Fig. 7C). Physical sedimentary structuresare rare. Biogenic structures include Thalassinoides traces.

5. Facies associations

There is a larger-scale stratigraphic organization within the Lepi-docyclina Limestones which allows for the definition of three lithofa-cies associations based on the predominant bedding characteristics:(i) horizontally-bedded, (ii) mixed cross-bedded and horizontally-bedded, and (iii) cross-bedded.

5.1. Rapina Mount–Orfento Valley

Two lithofacies were recognized in the Rapina Mountain–OrfentoValley transect: FA characterizes the Rapina Mountain and laterallyinterfingers with FB in the western sector of the Orfento Valley (Car-amanico area).

Fig. 4. Planar cross-bedded grainstone facies (FA); A) main components are well-rounded red algal debris and fragmented LBF, other components include alveolinid;B) epiphytic small benthic foraminifera are abundant in the facies FA; C) first-orderset characterized by bed discordant lamination; D) compound cross-bedding of FA fa-cies consisting of planar cross-beds (Orfento Valley).



These lithofacies most commonly form 30 m-thick horizontallybedded successions. In this type of succession, coset bases are general-ly horizontal and parallel to one another. Sets and cosets show littlelateral or vertical changes in thickness (Fig. 8A,B). The tops and bot-toms of successions are gradational and/or sharp.

More than 90% of the beds show dip azimuths in the range of290–320°. The other beds, which are mainly thin and isolated, repre-sent dips in an azimuth range of 340 to 30° (Fig. 3).

5.2. Blokhaus–Lettomanoppello

All of the recognized lithofacies are present in the Blokhaus–Letto-manoppello transect.

The Blokhaus area is characterized by lithofacies FA (which forms30 m-thick, horizontally bedded successions) as well as lithofacies FB(that is present also in the southernmost sectors of the Lettomanop-pello area). In the southeastern area of Lettomanoppello, lithofaciesFC forms a spectacular 40 m-thick, cross-bedded succession. Lithofa-cies FC is arranged in NNW-dipping beds up to 200 m long, formingclinostratified lithosomes (Fig. 9) The internal architecture of an indi-vidual lithosome consists of: 1) sharp, sigmoidal-shaped top and basesurfaces; 2) a lee portion where set bases are inclined downcurrentwith tangential contact on the basal base surfaces; and 3) a stoss por-tion where set bases are subhorizontal or gently inclined upcurrent.

Approximately 90% of the beds show dip azimuths ranging be-tween 270° and 330°, whereas the other beds range between 260°and 30°.

Finally, in the eastern area of Lettomanoppello, the LepidocyclinaLimestone consists of interstratification of FD lithofacies and cross-

bedded FC lithofacies. The FC lithofacies form clinoforms that showoblique shape (sensu Quiquerez et al., 2004) with low relief(b10 m) and low-angle slopes (b10°). They do not show importantlateral and vertical facies changes. The clinoforms prograde onto theFD lithofacies that form horizontally bedded intervals up to 3 m thick.

6. Discussion

6.1. Facies interpretation

The biotic assemblages of facies FA (Nephrolepidina, Amphistegina,Lithothamnion and Sporolithon) are typical of the oligophotic zone,however, some are also present in the euphotic zone, such as porcela-neous larger foraminifers (alveolinids) and articulated coralline redalgae. The latter are typical of the intertidal to subtidal zone, althoughthey reach their maximum abundance in water b10 m deep (Wray,1977). Generally, the upper photic zone is dominated by porcelane-ous larger foraminifera, predominantly living in symbiosis with dino-phyceans, chlorophyceans, or rhodophyceans (Romero et al., 2002;Brandano et al., 2009b; Sadeghi et al., 2011). The sediment of faciesFA is also characterized by the presence of epiphytic foraminifera, in-dicating the occurrence of local vegetated areas. The presence ofshallow-water alveolinds, together with severe bioclast fragmenta-tion, suggests that sedimentation and accumulation resulted fromboth in situ production andmaterial swept from the shallower eupho-tic zone by currents (Fig. 10). This interpretation is supported by theco-presence of Amphistegina specimens with different test shapes (T/D ranging from 0.35 to 0.7) and different abrasion features (BPTS0–3), implying a mixed provenance (Fig. 11). The Amphistegina test

Fig. 5. Moderate-angle cross-bedded grainstone to packstone (FB); A) Nephrolepidina, Amphistegina and Heterostegina dominate the skeletal assemblage; B) other common com-ponents of this facies including red algal debris, epiphytic foraminifera (Planorbulina) are still present; C) the cross beds of this lithofacies are characterized by cuneiform to sig-moidal shape, first-order sets have thickness ranging between 0.2 and 0.5 m; D) first order and second-order sets of cross strata, first-order set show bed discordant lamination.



morphologies (T/D values) indicate that the Amphistegina specimensof this facies formed in water depths ranging from −6 to −28 m.The sedimentary structures of facies FA indicate that the depositionalenvironment was characterized by medium-sized, two-dimensionalsubaqueous dunes with compound cross-bedding produced by themigration of superimposed small bedforms (sensu Ashley, 1990).Bed-discordant lamination was produced from small dunes migrationalong the lee face of larger dunes. According to Anastas et al. (1997,2006) the presence of flat-based sets suggests that the superimposeddunes lacked spurs and scour pits. These characteristics suggest acontinuous and relatively rapid migration of these bedforms.

For the FB, the abundance of deep-living larger foraminifera(Nephrolepidina, Eulepidina, Heterostegina) and bryozoan colonieswith severe bioclast fragmentation, as well as the relative enrichmentof echinoids resistant to mechanical abrasion, suggest sedimentationin the oligophotic zone. In addition, material was swept in from theshallower inner ramp by currents, as indicated by the presence ofshallow epiphytic foraminifers, Amphistegina tests with abrasion fea-tures up to 3 (suggesting strong reworking), and T/D ratios indicatinga water depths between −9 to−40 m. The FB lithofacies formed in ahigh energy setting is characterized by subaqueous dunes up to5–7 m thick. Planar cross-bedding was formed by dunes with two-

Fig. 6. Sigmoidal cross-bedded grainstone (FC). A) the skeletal assemblages are dominated by bryozoans, large benthic foraminifera are represented by Nephrolepidina; B) echinoidplates and spines, pectinid fragments are common; C) first-order sets are 20–60 cm thick and characterized by bedding-parallel lamination (bedding-plane concordant); D) first-order sets can be traced laterally followed by tens of meters.

Fig. 7. Bioturbated marly packstone to wackestone (FD). A) The planktonic foraminifera and, small benthic foraminifers are dominant in the facies FD; B) bryozoans, bivalves, andechinoid and serpulid fragments are present in the packstone beds; C) in this facies bioturbation is diffuse, the beds are separated by a few centimeters of clayey marls.



dimensional lee faces. The internal discontinuities presentwithin cosetsmay be due to faster-moving superimposed dunes. The observed planarcross-bedding formed on the lee sides of straight-crested dunes.

The biotic association and sedimentologic characteristics of facies FCindicate deposition in the deepest part of the photic zone. The dominantcomponents are aphotic biota such as bryozoans, while light-related or-ganisms are present in low percentages and represented by the deep-living larger benthic foraminifer (Nephrolepidina, Heterostegina and

Amphistegina). The Amphistegina test shapes indicate growth in awater depths between 20 and 50 m. The BPTS values (1–2) indicatethat Amphistegina were also reworked and transported, however for ashorter distance than in the FB lithofacies. The FC lithofacies formedby migration of large (7–9 m thick), 3-D, simple and compound duneswith slight variations in flow strength and direction.

The sediment of the FD lithofacies consists of planktonic foramini-fers and skeletal debris of aphotic biota (e.g. small benthic foraminifera,

Fig. 8. In the Rapina Mountain (A) and in Orfento Valley (B) FA and FB form 30 m-thick horizontally bedded successions.

Fig. 9. Lithofacies FC is arranged in NNW-migrating clinobeds forming clinostratified lithosomes.



bivalves, bryozoans). This assemblage is typical of a deep-water deposi-tional environment which is in the aphotic zone (Fig. 9). The horizontalbedding style and the absence of cross-bedding indicate that unidirec-tional currents were not an important agent of sedimentation. Thelack of physical sedimentary structures related to the increasing inten-sity of bioturbation coupled with a decrease in grain size and an in-crease of planktonic components is taken to represent decreasingenergy and, possibly related to a change from shallow to deeper water.

This facies is characterized by the alternation of clayey marls andlimestone beds. The marl–limestone alternation in deep environmentshas been extensively documented in the Apennine and in Sicily plat-forms (Pedley, 1981; Carboni et al., 1982; Grasso and Pedley, 1990;Madonna, 1996; Brandano et al., 2010b). This alternation developed inthe outer-ramp environments and it is interpreted as being the resultof cyclic climate change (Brandano et al., 2010b). The increased terrige-nous supply is linked to orbitally controlled humid phases, with intensi-fied precipitation, that cyclically induced increased rates of weatheringon emergent areas of the Apennine chain (Brandano et al., 2010b).

6.2. Facies associations and depositional model

Stratigraphic and sedimentological analyses, as well as the lateraland vertical lithofacies distributions observed in the cliff photomo-saics, suggest that the depositional profile is consistent with a carbon-ate ramp system (Fig. 10).

The components of the Lepidocyclina Limestone are distinctive of agenerally oligophotic zone in a Chattian middle ramp environment(e.g. Buxton and Pedley, 1989; Pedley, 1998; Pomar, 2001; Brandano etal., 2009a; Bassi and Nebelsick, 2010; Sadeghi et al., 2011). The tapho-nomic analysis highlights the coexistence of both abraded and well-preserved components. Larger benthic foraminifera, red algae, echinoidplates, and bivalve fragments show breakage and/or abrasion, however,well-preserved specimens are also present. Bryozoan colonies are gen-erally preserved and increase in abundance with depth. This character-istic suggests a parautochthonous origin for a conspicuous part of thesediments in a middle ramp environment, and an increase of autoch-thonous sediments with depth in the outer ramp environment (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10. Carbonate production and sediment accumulation in the Lepidocyclina Limestone carbonate ramp (for discussion see text).

Fig. 11. Thickness to-diameter (T/D) values from Amphistegina specimens in the different facies of Lepidocyclina Limestone. A total of 80 specimens were measured, mwd — meterwater depth.



Inner ramp components (porcelaneous foraminifers, epiphyticforms, articulated red algae) are restricted to the FA lithofacies.

The Lepidocyclina Limestone may be interpreted as having beendeposited in a wide middle ramp and in outer ramp environment.The FA lithofacies, characterized by reworked inner ramp compo-nents, is interpreted as having been deposited in the transition be-tween the inner and the middle ramp. The FB lithofacies representsthe proximal middle ramp, the FC was deposited in the middleramp, while the FD formed in the aphotic zone of the outer ramp.

The higher energy hydrodynamic conditions were in the proximalsectors of the middle ramp. The bedforms of this sector (FA, FB)formed under slight fluctuations in current strength with moderatechanges in direction. The cross-stratified FA and FB are characterizedby horizontal set bases, with sets showing moderate lateral changesin thickness and interpreted as originated from simple and compounddunes on flat and generally horizontal surfaces (Anastas et al., 1997,2006). The absence of any lateral variations in set geometry at out-crop scale indicates that, apart from the random birth and death ofdunes, the bedforms were neither decelerating nor accelerating(Allen, 1970). This means that no major temporal or spatial changesoccurred in the parameters responsible for bedform size and mor-phology (i.e. flow strength, water depth, grain size).

The FC lithofacies formed in the distal part of themiddle ramp and isvertically associated with lithofacies FD at the transition with the outerramp developing shallowing upward cycles. The FC forms a cross-bedded succession that, in contrast to the horizontally bedded succes-sion, displays the bedform profile, shape, and internal structure. Thecross-bedded succession was produced by the migration of large, com-pound dunes during intervals of decreasing sediment transport anddecay of dune fields. The FD lithofacies, alternating with the FC lithofa-cies in the distal middle ramp/outer ramp, formed during intervals ofdecrease and interruption of sediment transport. The mobilized sedi-ment of the inner and middle ramps subsequently accumulated at thetransition between the middle and outer ramps. This environment wascharacterized by clinoforms, like many other Oligo-Miocene carbonateramps (Pedley, 1998; Pomar, 2001; Cathro et al., 2003; Quiquerezet al., 2004; Ruchonnet, 2006; Benisek et al., 2009; Puga-Bernabeuet al., 2010). Clinoform sediments transferred down the slopewere sup-plied by oligophotic biota (red algae, large benthic foraminifers) as wellas by in situproduction of photo-independentbiota (bryozoan,mollusc).As pointed out byQuiquerez et al. (2004), the clinoform shape and slopeangle likely depended on the amount and grain size of the carbonatesediment recruited from the inner and middle ramp, rather thanreflecting a hydrodynamic equilibrium profile.

6.3. Palaeogeography and current regime

Palaeogeographic reconstructions of the central Mediterraneanarea during the Oligo-Miocene show two main platforms (the La-tium–Abruzzi and Apulia) separated by narrow basins (Bernoulli,2001) (Fig. 1). The Majella area, representing the northern extensionof the Apulia platform, shows excellent preservation of the geometryand stratigraphy of the platform-to-basin transition (Vecsei et al.,1998). It is generally accepted that the pelagic domain of this plat-form is represented by the Umbria–Marche Basin to the N and thatit has a NW facies belt orientation for the Cenozoic interval (Vecseiet al., 1998; Vecsei and Sanders, 1999).

Palaeocurrent patterns for the Lepidocyclina Limestone suggeststrong, generally north–west and basin-ward oriented currents affect-ing the middle ramp environment and determining the developmentof a wide (10×15 km), downslope-migrating dune field. The migrationpath of the subaqueous bed forms, such as dunes, is controlled by cur-rents generated by wind, tides and storms in modern coastal and plat-form settings (Anthony, 2008; Puga-Bernabeu et al., 2010). Along-shore bedformmigrationmay be generated bywave-induced longshoredrift, while offshore sediment transport may be generated by rip

currents (Bowen, 1968; Swift and Thorne, 1991; Aagaard et al., 1997;Hernández-Molina et al., 2000). Othermechanisms thatmay induce off-shore sediment transport are currents developing at river mouths andturbidity currents. However these mechanisms developed mainlyalong submarine canyons carved into the platform, are unlikely to pro-duce the downslope migration of dunes (Quiquerez et al., 2004; Puga-Bernabeu et al., 2010). In clastic wave-dominated coasts a prograda-tional sedimentary body, known as infralittoral prograding wedge,may develop between the fair-weather wave base and the offshore. Inthe Spanish coasts the infralittoral prograding wedge is generated bydownwelling storm currents and associated seaward transport of sedi-ments (Hernández-Molina et al., 2000).

There are many examples in the literature of dunes that formed inCenozoic bioclastic-rich systems such as in tidal passes and seaways.For example, Anastas et al. (1997, 2006) interpreted the Eocene toMio-cene cross-bedded bioclastic deposits of NewZealand as being the accu-mulation of large-scale dunes within seaways, with the largest dunesformed at water depths of 40–60 m in response to strong tidal and oce-anic currents. Betzler et al. (2006) interpreted giant cross-bedded Mio-cene grainstones from southeastern Spain as having been produced bythe Mediterranean Outflow Water, which reworked sediments accu-mulated in a narrow seaway at a water depth of about 90 m.

There are also examples of bedforms produced by deep currentsflowing parallel to the platformmargin. Pomar et al. (2002) describedbedforms in different environments of the Tortonian-aged Menorcaramp. In the middle ramp, 2D dunes were deposited by currents flow-ing roughly parallel to the shoreline at an estimated water depth of40–70 m. In the lower slope, small three-dimensional dunes migratedparallel to the slope. At the toe of the slope bedform, migration oc-curred parallel to the platform margin. As all of these deposits showpalaeocurrent directions parallel to the depositional strike, theywere interpreted as being caused by drift currents.

However, there are also examples in the literature of bedformsproduced by currents flowing across depositional strike and towardthe open sea (Di Stefano et al., 2007; Di Stefano and Longhitano,2009; Payros et al., 2010; Puga-Bernabeu et al., 2010; Longhitano,2011), as in the Lepidocyclina Limestone example described in thiswork.

Puga-Bernabeu et al. (2010) described a distally steepened, UpperTortonian ramp in the Guadix Basin (Spain). There a downslope-migrating dune field developed, with dunes moving progressivelydown the ramp to the ramp-slope. Downslope dune migration wasmainly induced by counter-clockwise, surface marine currents thatentered the Guadix Basin along a narrow seaway. In this case, the cur-rents did not flow along depositional strike, but rather across it, thereason being that the longshore currents turned and flowed basin-ward as a consequence of basin geometry. The basinward sediment-transport mechanisms promoted the development of progradingclinoforms on the platform margin.

Di Stefano et al. (2007) reported a Plio-Pleistocene cross-stratifiedramp deposits produced by uni-directional basinward-directedflows. These flows were generated by wind-driven surficial waterimpacting against the steep sea-cliff. The reflected currents generateda basinward-directed flow.

Payros et al. (2010) presented the carbonate ramp recorded in thePyrenean Urbasa–Andia Formation (Middle Eocene). The main sedi-ment producing were larger foraminifera and red algae. The most dis-tinctive feature of the Urbasa–Andia carbonate system is the dunefield, which was formed on the outer ramp below storm wave baseby offshore-directed storm return currents. As the influence ofstorm-induced currents and waves was widespread throughout thecarbonate ramp, it was interpreted as being storm-dominated.

These two last examples show that wind and storm-driven returncurrents are capable of producing large-scale dune fields in ramp envi-ronments located below the storm wave base, providing a plausiblemechanism for understanding the origin of the Lepidocyclina Limestone.



As shown by Payros et al. (2010) storms can produce a coastal set-upthat piles water in the nearshore zone, caused by lateral variations inbarometric pressure and landward-directed, wind-drifted surface cur-rents. The combined effect of coastal set-up and strong currents pro-duces a subsequent coastal downwelling formed by a dense bottomcurrent. This current returns toward the open sea and may evolve intoa geostrophic current in deeper waters. The geostrophic currents andstorm surges are thought to attain near-bottom velocities of up to50–150 cm/s, velocities capable of reworking coarse-grained sedimentsand creating large-scale bedforms (Ashley, 1990; Allen, 1997).

Large-scale cross-bedding generally displays strong similarities be-tween dunes, even if they are produced by different types of dominatingcurrents (tidal, oceanic, wind- and/or swell-driven) (Flemming, 1988).According to Flemming (1988), “the only non-ambiguous argumentagainst a tidal setting is the absence of lunar cycles in the cross-bedded sets”. Tidal origin can be ruled out for the Lepidocyclina Lime-stone because the investigated bedforms do not show any presence ofbundling within the laminasets and there is no evidence of a tidal originsuch as true bimodal palaeocurrent directions, mud drapes, or reactiva-tion surfaces. Furthermore, the palaeogeography and hypothesizedcoastal geomorphology of the Apula margin of the Majella massif wasnot favorable for generation of important tides, as it did not produce em-bayments or straits that produced tidal amplification (e.g., Longhitanoand Nemec, 2005; Longhitano, 2011).

6.4. Why storms in the Late Oligocene?

The Oligocene is a key time interval because it marks the Earth'stransition from the warm, ice-free climate of the Early Cenozoic to theicehouse-controlled atmospheric and oceanographic dynamics. Thistransitionwas characterized by a general reorganization of ocean/atmo-sphere circulation. The first major Antarctic ice sheets developed in theEarly Oligocene. These ice sheets persisted until the Late Oligocene,when a warming trend reduced the extent of Antarctic ice (Zachoset al., 2001). Successively a new increase of continental ice volumetook place during the earliest Miocene. The Early Oligocene and EarlyMiocene glaciations are also known from the isotope records (Oi-1and Mi-1, respectively); these events are characterized by smallbut sharp positive carbon isotope excursions that are suggestive of per-turbations to the global carbon cycle (Zachos et al., 2001; Lear et al.,2004). According to Lear et al. (2004) the rapid glacial blanketing ofthe vast Antarctic continent shut down an enormous chemicalweathering sink for atmospheric CO2, causing an increase of atmo-spheric pCO2 that, in turn, caused global warming via the greenhouseeffect. According to Zachos et al. (2001) the greenhouse gas forcingwas probably not the primary causal mechanism for Oi-1 and Mi-1,but instead may have served as a positive or amplifying feedbackfor the growth of ice-sheets along with the reorganization ofocean/atmosphere circulation. Carbonate sedimentation in the Med-iterranean carbonate platforms took place under tropical to sub-tropical conditions, as inferred by observed biota assemblages(Brandano et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b; Bassi and Nebelsick,2010). Palaeogeographic reconstructions show that the Apulian Plat-form and Umbria Basin may have been located up to 10° southwardof present day latitude during the Chattian (Meulenkamp andSissingh, 2003; Brandano et al., 2009b). At present, tropical cyclonedevelopment is restricted to 10–35° latitude in each hemisphere(Fedorov et al., 2010); taking into account a 10° southward shiftduring the Chattian, the study area would have been positioned inthis zone. Furthermore we have to consider that the Chattian waswarmer than today (Zachos et al., 2001). According to Fedorov etal. (2010), warm climatic conditions systematically led to a wide-spread increase in tropical cyclone frequency, intensity, and lifespan.These authors used numerical simulations to demonstrate that theseasonal dependence of tropical cyclone activity became less pro-nounced, with cyclones occurring throughout the seasons. Under

warm climates, the two warm pools in which tropical cyclonesdevelop expand polewards.

All items considered suggest that a strong storm influence was com-mon on the Lepidocyclina carbonate ramp, where the most distinctivefeature is a distal dune field that was formed by high-energy basinwarddirected currents. Constant migration of dunes under storm influence isdocumented in modern as well as in the fossil examples (Collins, 1988;Guillén and Palanques, 1993; Boreen and James, 1995; Todd, 2005;Payros et al., 2010). According to Hernández-Molina et al. (2000) inthe Mediterranean shelf the seaward transport of sediment produceddownwelling storm currents. In pure carbonate systems, storm domi-nated carbonate ramp is documented in the Eocene (Bassi, 2005;Payros et al., 2010) as well as in the Oligo-Miocene (Boreen and James,1995). In these examples the storm current winnowed the fine-grained sediment fraction and produced large-scale dunes, which mi-grated toward the open sea. The episodic high-energy condition pre-vailed long enough to allow mobile dunes to overlap and cross-cuteach other (c.f. Payros et al., 2010).

The most typical sedimentary features produced by storm wavesare the hummocky cross stratification. This sedimentary structure isnot preserved in the outer ramp deposits because of the effect of in-tense bioturbation. Storm-induced currents would also be expectedto produce some erosional features on the shallow environments. Inthese environments storm-generated beds commence with an ero-sional surface which is commonly overlain by a coarse lag of shell de-bris, the lag grades into fine to medium sand (Elliott, 1986). Theabsence of shell lag in the proximal middle ramp is due to the typeof carbonate production of the middle ramp dominated by LBF, bryo-zoan and red algae debris, while molluscs are subordinate. Conse-quently the erosional features in the inner environments are lessevidenced by compositional changes and they may be obliterated bymigration of dunes.

7. Conclusion

The Lepidocyclina Limestones of the Majella area were depositedin the oligophotic and aphotic zones of a carbonate ramp. The tapho-nomic analysis implies a parautochthonous origin for an importantpart of the sediments in a middle ramp environment, and an increasewith depth of autochthonous sediments in the outer ramp.

In the Lepidocyclina Limestone, sediment sorting is not directly re-lated to a decrease in water energy linked to increasing water depth.Instead, sediment-sorting is attributed to the effect of uni-directionalcurrents. Grainstones dominate the middle ramp environment.

Palaeocurrent patterns suggest the occurrence of a strong, generallynorth–west directedflow that affected themiddle rampenvironment. Itis believed that this basinward-flowing current led to the developmentof a wide (10×15 km), downslope-migrating dune field. It is proposedthat the combined effects of coastal set-up and strong return currentscaused by storms andwinds were able to produce basinwardmigratingbedforms.

The Lepidocyclina Limestone is believed to have been depositedunder warm, tropical to subtropical conditions, favorable to the de-velopment of high-frequency and intense tropical cyclones.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by La Sapienza University (Ateneo Project)and supported by Medoilgas Italia Spa and Schlumberger. In particu-lar Alessandro Romi is thanked for his contribution. Comments onpreliminary version of the manuscript by Sergio Longhitano are grate-fully acknowledged. Discussions with Marcello Tropeano have beenvery useful. Werner Piller, Mathias Harzhauser, Markus Reuter andFerdinando Bosi are thanked for useful discussions in the field. Re-viewer comment by Andrè Strasser and Editor Brian Jones are much



appreciated. We are thankful to Stan Beaubien for his comments andfor improving the English.

References

Aagaard, T., Greenwood, B., Nielsen, J., 1997. Mean currents and sediment transport in arip channel. Marine Geology 140, 25–45.

Accarie, H., 1988. Dynamique sédimentaire et structurale au passage plateforme/basin.Les faciès carbonatés crétacés et tertiaires: massif de la Maiella (Abruzzes, Italie).Ècole des Mines de Paris, Mémoires des Sciences de la Terre, No. 5. (158 pp.).

Allen, J.R.L., 1970. The avalanching of granular solids on and similar slopes. Journal ofGeology 78, 326–351.

Allen, J.R.L., 1997. On the minimum amplitude of regional sea-level fluctuations duringthe Flandrian. Journal of Quaternary Science 12, 501–505.

Anastas, A.S., Dalrymple, R.W., James, N.P., Nelson, C.S., 1997. Cross-stratified calcare-nites from New Zealand: subaqueous dunes in cool-water, Oligo-Miocene seaway.Sedimentology 44, 869–891.

Anastas, A.S., Dalrymple, R.W., James, N.P., Nelson, C.S., 2006. Lithofacies and dynamics ofa cool-water carbonate seaway: mid-Tertiary, Te Kuiti Group, New Zealand. In:Pedley, H.M., Carannante, G. (Eds.), Cool-water Carbonates: Depositional Systemsand Paleoenvironmental Controls, SP 255. Geological Society, London, pp. 245–268.

Anthony, E.J., 2008. Shore Processes and Their Paleoenvironmental Applications. Elsevier,Amsterdam. (519 pp.).

Ashley, G.M., 1990. Classification of large-scale subaqueous bedforms: a new look at anold problem. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 60, 160–172.

Bassi, D., 2005. Larger foraminiferal and coralline algal facies in an Upper Eocenestorm-influenced, shallow-water carbonate platform (Colli Berici, north-easternItaly). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 226, 17–35.

Bassi, D., Nebelsick, J.H., 2010. Components, facies and ramps: redefining Upper Oligo-cene shallow water carbonates using coralline red algae and larger foraminifera(Venetian area, northeast Italy). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol-ogy 295, 258–280.

Beavington-Penney, S.J., 2004. Analysis of the effects of abrasion on the test of Paleo-nummulites venosus: implications for the origin of nummulithoclastic sediments.Palaios 19, 143–155.

Benedetti, A., Di Carlo, M., Pignatti, J.S., 2010. Embryo size variation in larger foraminif-eral lineages: stratigraphy versus paleoecology in Nephrolepidina praemarginata(R. Douvillé, 1908) from the Majella Mt. (Central Apennines). Journal of Mediterra-nean Earth Sciences 2, 19–29.

Benisek, M.F., Betzler, C., Marcano, G., Mutti, M., 2009. Coralline–algal assemblages of aBurdigalian platform slope: implications for carbonate platform reconstruction(northern Sardinia, western Mediterranean Sea). Facies 50, 375–386.

Bernoulli, D., 2001. Mesozoic–Tertiary carbonate platforms, slopes and basino of theexternal Apennines and Sicily. In: Vai, G.B., Martini, I.P. (Eds.), Anatomy of an Oro-gen: the Apennines and Adjacent Mediterranean Basins. Kluwer Academic Pub-lishers, Dordrecht, pp. 307–326.

Betzler, C., Braga, J.C., Martin, J.M., Sanchez-Almazo, I.M., Lindhorst, S., 2006. Closure ofseaway; stratigraphic record and facies (Guadix Basin, southern Spain). Geolo-gische Rundschau 95, 903–910.

Boreen, T.D., James, N.P., 1995. Stratigraphic sedimentology of Tertiary cool-waterlimestones, SE Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Research 65, 142–159.

Bosence, D., 2005. A genetic classification of carbonate platforms based on their basinaland tectonic settings in the Cenozoic. Sedimentary Geology 175, 49–72.

Bowen, A.J., 1968. Rip currents — 1. theoretical investigations. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 74, 5467–5478.

Brandano, M., 2003. Tropical/subtropical inner ramp facies in lower Miocene ‘Calcari aBriozoi e Litotamni’ of the Monte Lungo Area (Cassino Plain, Central Apennines,Italy). Bollettino della Societa Geologica Italiana 122, 85–98.

Brandano, M., Frezza, V., Tomassetti, L., Pedley, M., Matteucci, R., 2009a. Facies analysisand palaeoenvironmental interpretation of the Late Oligocene Attard Member(Lower Coralline Limestone Formation), Malta. Sedimentology 56, 1138–1158.

Brandano,M., Frezza, V., Tomassetti, L., Cuffaro, M., 2009b. Heterozoan carbonates in oligo-trophic tropical waters: the Attard member of the lower coralline limestone forma-tion (Upper Oligocene, Malta). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology274, 54–63.

Brandano, M., Morsilli, M., Vannucci, G., Parente, M., Bosellini, F., Mateu-Vicens, G.,2010a. Rhodolith-rich lithofacies of the Porto Badisco Calcarenites (upper Chattian,Salento, southern Italy). Italian Journal Geoscience (Bulletin Society Geology Italy)129, 119–131.

Brandano, M., Westphal, H., Mateu-Vicens, G., 2010b. The sensitivity of a tropical fora-mol–rhodalgal carbonate ramp to relative sea-level change: Miocene of the CentralApennines, Italy. In: Mutti, M., Piller, W.E., Betzler, C. (Eds.), Carbonate system dur-ing the Oligocene–Miocene climatic transition: Int. Assoc. Sedimentol. Spec. Publ.,42, pp. 89–105.

Buxton, M.W.N., Pedley, H.M., 1989. A standardized model for Tethyan Tertiary carbon-ate ramps. Journal of the Geological Society of London 146, 746–748.

Carannante, G., Esteban,M., Milliman, J.D., Simone, L., 1988. Carbonate lithofacies as paleo-latitude indicators: problems and limitations. Sedimentary Geology 60, 333–346.

Carboni, M.G., Civitelli, G., Corda, L., Esu, D., Matteucci, R., Pallini, G., Schiavinotto, F.,Ventura, G., 1982. Sedimenti spongolitici del Miocene inferiore dell'Appenninocentrale: un inquadramento preliminare. Geologica Romana 21, 529–543.

Carnevale, G., Patacca, E., Scandone, P., 2011. Field guide to the post-conference excur-sions (Scontrone, Palena and Montagna della Majella). R.C.M.N.S. Interim colloquium,4–5 March 2011, Scontrone (L'Aquila), Italy.

Cathro, D.L., Austin Jr., J.A., Moss, G.D., 2003. Progradation along a deeply submergedOligocene–Miocene heterozoan carbonate shelf; how sensitive are clinoforms tosea level variations? AAPG Bulletin 87, 1547–1574.

Civitelli, G., Brandano, M., 2005. Atlante delle litofacies e modello deposizionale dei cal-cari a briozoi e Litotamni nella Piattaforma carbonatica laziale-abruzzese. BulletinSociety Geology Italy 124, 611–643.

Collins, L.B., 1988. Sediments and history of the Rottnest Shelf southwest Australia: aswell-dominated, non-tropical carbonate margin. Sedimentary Geology 60, 15–49.

Crescenti, U., Crostella, A., Donzelli, G., Raffi, G., 1969. Stratigrafia della serie calcarea dalLias alMiocene nella regionemarchigiano abruzzese: Parte II. Litostratigrafia, biostra-tigrafia, paleogeografia. Memorie della Societa Geologica Italiana 9, 343–420.

Di Stefano, A., Longhitano, S.G., 2009. Tectonics and sedimentation of the lower andmiddle Pleistocene mixed siliciclastic/bioclastic sedimentary successions of the Io-nian Peloritani Mountains (NE Sicily, southern Italy); the onset of opening of theMessina Strait. Central European Journal of Geosciences 1, 33–62.

Di Stefano, A., Longhitano, S., Smedile, A., 2007. Sedimentation and tectonics in a steepshallow marine depositional system; stratigraphic arrangement of the Pliocene–Pleistocene Rometta Succession (NE Sicily, Italy). Geologica Carpathica (Bratislava)58, 71–87.

Elliott, T., 1986. Siliciclastic shorelines, In: Reading, H.G. (Ed.), Sedimentary Environ-ments and Facies, 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 158–188.

Fedorov, A.V., Brierley, C.M., Emanuel, K., 2010. Tropical cyclones and permanent ElNiño in the early Pliocene epoch. Nature 463, 1066–1070.

Flemming, B.W., 1988. Pseudo-tidal sedimentation in a non-tidal shelf environment(Southeast African continental margin). In: De Boer, P.L., Van Gelder, A., Nio, S.D.(Eds.), Tide-Influenced Sedimentary Environments and Facies. D. Reidel Publish-ing, Utrecht, pp. 167–180.

Grasso, M., Pedley, M., 1990. Neogene and Quaternary sedimentation patterns in thenorthwestern Hyblean Plateau (SE Sicily): the effects of a collisional process on aforeland margin. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 96, 219–240.

Guillén, J., Palanques, A., 1993. Longshore bar and trough systems in a microtidal storm-wave dominated coast: The Ebro Delta (Northwestern Mediterranean). Marine Geol-ogy 115, 239–252.

Halfar, J., Mutti, M., 2005. Global dominance of coralline red-algal facies: a response toMiocene oceanographic events. Geology 33, 481–484.

Hernández-Molina, F.J., Fernández-Salas, L.M., Lobo, F., Somoza, L., Diáz-del-Rio, V.,Alveirinho Dias, J.M., 2000. The infralittoral prograding wedge: a new large-scaleprogradational sedimentary body in shallow marine environments. Geo-MarineLetters 20, 109–117.

Lear, C.H., Rosenthal, Y., Coxall, H.K., Wilson, P.A., 2004. Late Eocene to early Mioceneice sheet dynamics and the global carbon cycle. Paleoceanography 19 (11 pp.).

Longhitano, S.G., 2011. The record of tidal cycles in mixed silici-bioclastic deposits: ex-amples from small Plio-Pleistocene peripheral basins of the microtidal CentralMediterranean Sea. Sedimentology 58, 691–719.

Longhitano, S.G., Nemec, W., 2005. Statistical analysis of bed-thickness variation in aTortonian succession of biocalcarenitic tidal dunes, Amantea Basin, Calabria, south-ern Italy. Sedimentary Geology 179, 195–224.

Madonna, S., 1996. Analisi stratigrafico-sequenziale della successione miocenicamarnoso-calcarea di Guadagnolo (M.ti Prenestini, Appennino centrale). Unpub-lished PhD thesis. Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, pp. 178.

Marsili, S., Carnevale, G., Danese, E., 2007. Early Miocene vertebrates from Montagnadella Maiella, Italy. Annales de Paléontologie 93, 27–66.

Mateu-Vicens, G., Hallock, P., Brandano, M., 2009. Test shape variability of Amphisteginad'Orbigny 1826 as a paleobathymetric proxy: application to two Miocene exam-ples. In: Demchuk, T., Gary, A. (Eds.), Geologic Problems Solving with Microfossils:SEPM, SP. 93, pp. 67–82.

Merola, D., 2007. Biostratigrafia a foraminiferi planctonici dei depositi emipelagicidell'Oligocene Superiore/Miocene Inferiore (Calcari con Selce) e del MioceneMedio (Calcilutiti ad Orbulina) della Montagna della Maiella (Appennino centrale,Abruzzo)-. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Università di Pisa, 94 pp.

Meulenkamp, J.E., Sissingh, W., 2003. Tertiary palaeogeography and tectonostrati-graphic evolution of the northern and southern Peri-Tethys platforms and the in-termediate domains of the African–Eurasian convergent plate boundary zone.Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 196, 209–228.

Mutti, M., Bernoulli, D., Eberli, G.P., Vecsei, A., 1996. Depositional geometries and faciesassociations in an upper Cretaceous prograding carbonate platform margin (Orfentosupersequence, Maiella, Italy). Journal of Sedimentary Research 66, 749–765.

Mutti, M., Bernoulli, D., Stille, P., 1997. Temperate carbonate platform drowning linked toMiocene oceanographic events: Maiella platformsmargin, Italy. Terra Nova 9, 122–125.

Mutti, M., Bernoulli, D., Spezzaferri, S., Stille, P., 1999. Lower and Middle Miocene car-bonate facies in the central Mediterranean: the impact of paleoceanography on se-quence stratigraphy. In: Harris, P., Saller, A., Simo, J., Handford, C.R. (Eds.),Advances in carbonate sequence stratigraphy: application to reservoirs, outcropsand models: SEPM, SP. 63, pp. 371–384.

Nebelsick, J.H., Rasser, M.W., Bassi, D., 2005. Facies dynamics in Eocene to Oligocenecircumalpine carbonates. Facies 51, 197–216.

Patacca, E., Scandone, P., Mazza, P., 2008. Oligocene migration path for Apulia macro-mammals; the central Adriatic bridge. Bulletin Society Geology It127, 337–355.

Payros, A., Pujalte, V., Tosquella, J., Orue-Etxebarria, X., 2010. The Eocene storm-dominatedforalgal ramp of the western Pyrenees (Urbasa–Andia Formation): an analogue of fu-ture shallow-marine carbonate systems? Sedimentary Geology 228, 184–204.

Pedley, M., 1981. Sedimentology and palaeoenvironmental of the southeast SicilianTertiary platform carbonates. Sedimentary Geology 28, 273–291.

Pedley, M., 1998. A review of sediment distributions and processes in Oligo-Miocene rampsof southern Italy and Malta (Mediterranean divide). In: Wright, V.P., Burchette, T.P.(Eds.), Carbonate Ramps, SP149. Geological Society, London, pp. 163–179.



Pomar, L., 2001. Types of carbonate platforms: a genetic approach. Basin Research 13,313–334.

Pomar, L., Obrador, A., Westphal, H., 2002. Sub-wavebase cross-bedded grainstones ona distally steepened carbonate ramp, upper Miocene, Menorca, Spain. Sedimentol-ogy 49, 139–169.

Puga-Bernabeu, A., Martin, J.M., Braga, J.C., Sanchez-Almazo, I.M., 2010. Downslope-mi-grating sandwaves and platform-margin clinoforms in a current-dominated, distallysteepened temperate-carbonate ramp (Guadix Basin, Southern Spain). Sedimentology57, 293–311.

Quiquerez, A., Allemand, P., Dromart, G., Garcıa, J.P., 2004. Impact of storms on mixedcarbonate and siliciclastics shelves: insights from combined diffusive and fluidflow transport stratigraphic forward model. Basin Research 16, 431–449.

Read, J.F., 1982. Carbonate platforms of passive (extensional) continental margins:types, characteristics and evolution. Tectonophysics 81, 195–212.

Read, J.F., 1985. Carbonate platform facies models. AAPG Bulletin 69, 1–21.Romero, J., Caus, E., Rosell, J., 2002. A model for the palaeoenvironmental distribution of

larger Foraminifera based on late middle Eocene deposits on the margin of the SouthPyrenean Basin (NE Spain). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 179,43–56.

Ruchonnet, C., 2006. Climatic and oceanographic evolution of the Mediterranean Basinduring the late Serravallian/early Tortonian (middle/late Miocene); the recordfrom the Ragusa Platform (SE Sicily, Italy). Terre & Environnement 63 (10 pp.).

Rusciadelli, G., Di Simone, S., 2007. Differential compaction as a control on depositionalarchitectures across the Maiella carbonate platform margin (Central Apennines,Italy). Sedimentary Geology 196, 133–155.

Sadeghi, R., Vaziri-Moghaddam, H., Taheri, A., 2011. Microfacies and sedimentary envi-ronment of the Oligocene sequence (Asmari Formation) in Fars sub-basin, ZagrosMountains, southwest Iran. Facies 57, 431–446.

Scisciani, V., Calamita, F., Bigi, S., De Girolamo, C., Paltrinieri, W., 2000. The influence ofsyn-orogenic normal faults on Pliocene thrust system development: the Maiellastructure (Central Apennines, Italy). Memoir Society Geology Italy 55, 193–204.

Swift, D.J.P., Thorne, J.A., 1991. Sedimentation on continental margins, I: a generalmodel for shelf sedimentation. In: Swift, D.J.P., Oertel, G.F., Tillman, R.W., Thorne,J.A. (Eds.), Shelf sand and sandstone bodies: Int. Assoc. Sedimentol. Spec. Publ., 14,pp. 3–31.

Todd, B.J., 2005. Morphology and composition of submarine barchan dunes on the Sco-tian Shelf, Canadian Atlantic margin. Geomorphology 67, 487–500.

Vaziri-Moghaddam, H., Kimiagari, M., Taheri, A., 2006. Depositional environment andsequence stratigraphy of the Oligocene–Miocene Asmari Formation in SW Iran,Lali Area. Facies 52, 41–51.

Vecsei, A., Moussavian, E., 1997. Paleocene reefs on the Maiella platform margin, Italy:an example of the effects of the Cretaceous/Tertiary Boundary events on reefs andcarbonate platforms. Facies 36, 123–140.

Vecsei, A., Sanders, D.G.K., 1999. Facies analysis and sequence stratigraphy of a Mio-cene warm–temperate carbonate ramp, Montagna della Maiella, Italy. SedimentaryGeology 123, 103–127.

Vecsei, A., Sanders, D.G.K., Bernoulli, D., Eberli, G.P., Pignatti, J.S., 1998. Cretaceous toMiocene sequence stratigraphy and evolution of the Maiella carbonate platformmargin, Italy. Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy of European basins:SEPM Special Publication, vol. 60, pp. 53–74.

Vezzani, L., Festa, A., Ghizzani, F.C., 2010. Geology and tectonic evolution of the Central-Southern Apennines, Italy. Geological Society of America Special Paper 469.doi:10.1130/2010.2469 (58 pp.).

Wray, J.L., 1977. Calcareous Algae. Elsevier, Amsterdam. (185 pp.).Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L., Thomas, E., Billups, K., 2001. Trends, rhythms, and aber-

rations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686–693.


Sedimentary Geology

Documents

Transcript of Sedimentary Geology