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


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


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


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



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


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.


Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective

Documents

Transcript of Turbidites and Foreland Basins an Apenninic Perspective