Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sedimentary Geology

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

Detached forced-regressive shoreface wedges at the Southern Iberian continentalpalaeomargin (Early Cretaceous, Betic Cordillera, S Spain)

Fernando García-García ⁎, Ginés A. De Gea, Pedro A. Ruiz-OrtizDpto. de Geología, Universidad de Jaén, Campus Universitario, 23071-JAÉN, Spain

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: fegarcia@ujaen.es (F. García-García)

0037-0738/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. Aldoi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2011.01.006

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 7 September 2010Received in revised form 7 January 2011Accepted 10 January 2011Available online 16 January 2011

Editor: B. Jones

Keywords:Forced regressionsShoreface depositsSequence stratigraphySandstone concretionsGlauconite bedEarly CretaceousWestern Tethys

The Lower Cretaceous (Barremian to Early Aptian) Cerrajón Formation on the Southern Iberian ContinentalPalaeomargin is represented in the study area by five sharp-based shoreface sandstone wedges (5–15 mthick). The sandstone packages abruptly pinch out landwards onto outer-ramp limestones and marls(Los Villares Formation). Sandstone tongues are interpreted as prograding wave-dominated shorefacesdistally evolving to thin micro-hummocky cross-stratified sandstone beds alternating with marls deposited ina storm-wave siliciclastic-dominated outer ramp. In the context of sequence stratigraphy, most of thecharacteristics in outcrops for detached forced-regressive deposits have been tested at the sandstone wedges.Sandstone bases are characterized by a regressive surface of marine erosion (RSME) underlying a calcarenitecontaining reworked inner-ramp fossils and glauconite from the preceding highstand carbonate-dominatedouter ramp (Los Villares Formation). The shoreface sandstones are in turn cut by incised channels (e.g. 2ndsandstone wedge) and filled with Lithophaga-bored sandstone concretions. Lithophaga-bored sandstoneconcretions are interpreted as deriving from (1) concretion formation in the forced-regressive to lowstandshoreface sandstone during early diagenesis, (2) exhumation of sandstones hosting concretions along incisedchannels, and (3) coastal winnowing of poorly cemented sandstone host leaving the sandstone concretionswhich were bored and colonized by coastal fauna in situ. Incised channels truncating shoreface sandstonesand sandstone concretions colonized by coastal fauna are interpreted as recognition criteria for a second sea-level fall that occurred after a lowstand sea-level stage. The term paired-forced-regressive is used for asystems tract resulting from a double sea-level dip (two sea-level falls occurring during a single sea-levelchange cycle). Repeated fourth-order fall-to-rise cycles of relative sea level controlled the architecture andfacies distribution of system tracts on the South Iberian Continental Palaeomargin during the Barremian toEarly Aptian (Early Cretaceous).

.

l rights reserved.

© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Forced regression refers to the process of seaward migration ofa shoreline in response to relative sea-level fall (Posamentier andMorris, 2000). Detached forced-regressive systems are physicallyseparated from underlying sandy deposits and encased in marinemudstone (Ainsworth et al., 2000). The origin of forced-regressivewedges (FRWST of Hunt and Tucker, 1992) has been extensivelydebated in sequence stratigraphy (see historical perspective in Plintand Nummedal, 2000). Their facies and architecture have been well-reported and analysed due to their significance as outcrop analogs ofhydrocarbon reservoirs. Most documented Cretaceous forced-regres-sive wedges come from theWestern Interior Seaway of North America(Plint, 1988; Van Wagoner et al., 1990; Cole and Young, 1991; Plint

and Norris, 1991; Mellere and Steel, 1995; Pattison, 1995; Taylor andLovell, 1995; Plint, 1996; Ainsworth et al., 2000; Fitzsimmons andJohnson, 2000; Posamentier and Morris, 2000; Bhattacharya andWillis, 2001; Ketzer and Morad, 2001; Bhattacharya and Davies,2001, 2004). However, there is relatively little documentation offorced-regressive wedges in the Cretaceous Tethyan ContinentalPalaeomargins.

This study presents the architecture and facies analysis of LowerCretaceous forced-regressive gravel and sandstone wedges thatdeveloped at the Southern Iberian Tethyan Continental Palaeomargin.The forced-regressive wedges exhibit the typical characteristics offorced regression from outcrops and rarely documented features ofpaired forced regressions (a second minor-scale forced sea-level fallafter the LST prograding shoreface) such as channels incised intoshoreface sandstones and sandstone concretions exposed in coastalenvironments. In sequence stratigraphy, the choice of which surfaceof forced-regressive deposits constitutes the master sequenceboundary has been the subject of extensive debate: the contact

198 F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

between the highstand deposits and the first forced-regressive wedge(Posamentier and Morris, 2000) or the top of the forced-regressivewedge (Plint and Nummedal, 2000, and others). New recognitioncriteria such as the documentation of abundant detrital coarse-grained glauconite or coastal reworked sandstone concretions inpaired forced regressions are proposed to identify forced regressionsinto marl successions where the recognition of the forced-regressionsurface is difficult.

The complete and well-exposed sedimentary record makes theFRWST recognized at the studied outcrops of the Southern IberianContinental Palaeomargin a Tethyan palaeomargin-scale referenceoutcrop for the study of FRWST and paired forced regressions. Wepropose herein the first comprehensive study that is stronglystratigraphically and sedimentologically supported by outcrop struc-tures and microfacies.

2. Geological setting

The study succession was deposited during the Early Cretaceous atthe Southern Iberian Continental Palaeomargin (SICP), on the westernTethys. During Miocene Alpine tectonic deformation, SICP para-autochthonous units (Prebetic) were overthrust by southerly-derivedallochthonous units (Subbetic) structuring the External Zones of theBetic Cordillera (Vera, 2001) (Fig. 1A).

During the Early Cretaceous, in the proximal parts of the SICP(Sierra de Segura outcrops), episodes of shallow-marine carbonateplatform(inner-rampsetting)developmentalternatedwith continentaldeposits (coal and lacustrine limestones), producing several sequencesets bounded by significant discontinuities (García-Hernández et al.,1980). Basin analysis of the platform has revealed that the EarlyCretaceous tectono-sedimentary evolutionwas controlled bypersistent,multi-episodic, pulses of extensional tectonism until the late Albian,when tectonic subsidence gave way to complex thermal subsidence(Martín-Chivelet et al., 2002; Vilas et al., 2003). Stratigraphic analysesindicate five main tectono-sedimentary episodes (K1 to K5, Martín-Chivelet et al., 2002) separated by significant changes in basinpalaeogeography were mainly controlled by extensional tectonicevents. These tectonosedimentary episodes correspond to majorsedimentary sequences in which third-order cycles have also beenrecognized (Ruiz-Ortiz and Castro, 1998; Vilas et al., 2003). This paperfocuses on SICP sedimentation during the Early Barremian to EarlyAptian, which is lithostratigraphically represented in the study areaby the Cerrajón Formation (Latest Hauterivian to middle-late Albian).This unit overlies the Los Villares Formation, of which the mostrepresentative lithofacies is a rhythmite of hemipelagic marls andmarly limestones with abundant ammonites, nannofossils, and glauco-nite peloids in condensed intervals deposited on a carbonate outer ramp(Castro et al., 2008; Jiménez-Millán and Castro, 2008). The CerrajónFormation is composed of sandstones and gravels alternating withmarls and local marly limestones. The formation reaches a maximumthickness of 1350 m in the most palaeogeographically distal sectorsfrom the study area, at the southern- and westernmost outcrops(about 40 km from the study area), where it is interpreted as an EarlyCretaceous pelagic turbidite complex in a subsiding trough (Ruiz-Ortizet al., 2006). The base of the formation is marked by a sharp-basedsandstone bed with abundant coarse-grained glauconite in the lowerpart. Our analysis concerns the Cerrajón Formation in an outcrop inthe province of Jaén (southern Spain, Cuadros area, south of Bedmarvillage). Only the lower part of the Cerrajón Formation (160 m in thick)is preserved at the succession (Latest Barremian to Earliest Aptian). Thestudy area, part of a tectonic unit immediately south of the Prebeticunits, is regionally considered part of the northernmost subdivision ofthe Subbetic—the Intermediate Domain. The tectonic structure of theregion is a great anticlinal fold trending predominantly ENE–WSWand verging slightly NW, cut by subvertical strike-slip faults (Fig. 1B).

An intensive network of small N–S faults breaks the lateral continuityof the outcrops.

3. Outcrop stratigraphy

3.1. Stratigraphic architecture

The most complete succession is 160 m thick and consists of fivesharp-based, wedge-shaped bodies (15–35 m thick; 1 to 5) (see log Vin Figs. 1C, 2). Each body can be subdivided into a lower coarsening-and thickening-upward sandstone-dominated package (locally grav-el-dominated in the 2nd and 4th packages) and into upper sandstoneand limestone beds (locally slumped) alternating with plankton-richmarls. Sandstone-dominated wedges (flat topped, 5–20 m thick inthis outcrop) pinch out to the northeast over a distance of about2000 m (1st package), 500 m (3rd package), and 150 m (5th package)from the study section. Gravel- and sandstone-dominatedwedges (upto 20 m thick) pinch out landwards over a distance of around 2500 m(2nd package) and 350 m (4th package).

3.2. Biostratigraphy

The biostratigraphic analysis (based on the nannofossils and,locally, planktonic foraminifera and ammonites) dates the deposits asearly Barremian–earliest Aptian (de Gea, 2004) (Fig. 2). The base ofthe succession belongs to the lower part of the Nannoconus circularisSubzone of nannofossils and to the Taveraidiscus huggi ammoniteZone, and is dated as early Barremian. The interval of sandy marls andmarly limestones in the first sandstone wedge can be assigned to theKotetishvilia compressissima ammonite Zone, corresponding to theupper part of the early Barremian. The upper part of the succession(from the second sandstonewedge to the top) has been dated as latestBarremian–earliest Aptian (uppermost part of the Micrantholithushoschulzii Zone and earliest part of the Hayesites irregularis nanno-fossil Zones). This biostratigraphic study has identified a hiatus in theupper Barremian within the stratigraphic succession of the CerrajónFormation (de Gea, 2004).

4. Facies association, sedimentary processes, and model

Three lithofacies associations are distinguished based on outcropobservations (see facies code in Table 1): Sandy marls with thinsandstone and limestone intercalations (Lithofacies association A),thick sandstone beds (Lithofacies association B), and gravel deposits(Lithofacies association C).

4.1. Lithofacies association A: Sandy marls with thin sandstone andlimestone interbeds

The lithofacies comprises brown sandy marls (M) rich innannofossils, and occasionally in planktonic foraminifers and ammo-nites, locally with layers of medium-grained sandstones (5–30 cmthick). The carbonate/siliciclastic (mainly quartz andmica) grain ratioin the marls marks two marly intervals. The lower interval consists ofsiliciclastic-dominated marls with remains of coastal skeletal grains(bivalves, gastropods, and echinoid spines) and poor in plankton. Theupper interval consists of carbonate-dominated marls that containabundant planktonic foraminifera. Marly limestone (L) beds (10–20 cm thick) in the middle part of the succession separate thesilicilastic marls of the lower interval from the carbonate marls of theupper interval. Sandstone beds alternating with the upper carbonatemarls are both thicker and more abundant than sandstones inter-bedded with the lower siliciclastic marls. Up to 50% of the sandstoneframework grains are subangular quartz, feldspar (orthoclase andplagioclase), and K-rich mica. Minor framework grains include coaland other plant remains, clay minerals (kaolinite), glauconite, biotite,

Fig. 1. (A) Location of the study area on a geological map of the Betic Cordillera (southern Spain). (B) Structural and lithostratigraphic map of the study area. (C) Correlation panel of synthetic logs from proximal areas to the study area. It showsthe sandstone wedges studied pinching out landwards. Logs I to V are located in the map of Fig. 1B (see Betic Cordillera map of Fig. 1A for situation of Sierra de Segura, where proximal areas crop out).

199F.G

arcía-García

etal./

Sedimentary

Geology

236(2011)

197–210

Fig. 2. Studied stratigraphic log and outcrop photograph from the Cuadros section, where (gravel) sandstone package bases are line drawn.

200 F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

Table 1Characteristics and interpretation of the lithofacies associations.

Lithofaciesassociation

Faciescode

Grain size Sedimentary structuresand fossils

Bed characteristics Processinterpretation

Sedimentaryenvironment

Shape Thickness (cm)

Gravels-dominatedassociation (C)

GmstoGcs

Pebble to boulder Normal grading,matrix- to clast supported,lithophaga borings, coral,and oysters

Strongly erosionalbase, channel-like

70–200 Cohesionless debrisflow

Fluvio–deltaic

Gmsto Gcs

Pebble Diffuse normal grading Channel-like 90 High-densityturbidity flow

Lower shorefaceto siliciclasticmiddle-ramp

G Boulder Lithophaga borings,coral, and oysters

Sheet 40–70(one clast-thick bed)

Coastal removing Lower shorefaceto siliciclasticmiddle-ramp

Sandstones-dominatedassociation (B)

Sn Calcarenite (Mega) flutes, basalFe-oxidized surfaceand mud clasts, normalgrading, bivalve andorbitolinid accumulation

Erosional base, wedge Variable(less than 50)

Storm bed(tempestite)

Wave-dominatedmiddle shoreface

Sm, Sh,Sw

Fine to mediumwell-sorted,clean sand

Massive, quasi-planarlamination, swaleycross-stratification

Sheet 20–70 High-energyoscillatory flow

Wave-dominatedmiddle shoreface

Sr Silt to fine sand Symmetric ripples Lenticular sandy beds 2–5 Wave ripples fromlow-energyoscillatory flow

Upper shoreface

Marl-dominatedassociation (A)

Sh,SHcs

Fine to mediumsand

Sole marks, planarlamination tohummocky c.s.

Erosional base undulatedtop, occasionally slumped

10–30 High regimeoscillatory andcombined flow(tempestite)

Lower shorefaceto storm-wavesiliciclasticdominated outer-ramp (abovestormweatherwavebase)

M Siliciclastic-dominated marls

Massive Sheet 5 cm to afew metres

Suspension settlingfrom river input orwave-removedsiliciclastic shoreface

Carbonate tosiliciclastic mixedouter ramp

Carbonate-dominated marls(planktonic-rich marls)

Suspension settlingof pelagic fauna andwave-removedcarbonate inner-ramp grains

L Marly limestone Mudstone, burrows,ammonites

Sheet 10–20 Carbonateprecipitation

Carbonate-dominatedouter ramp

201F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

carbonate skeletal grains, and heavy minerals (pyrite) embedded inmicrospary calcite cement. An accumulation of coarse aggregateglauconite occurs at the base of the lowermost thin sandstone bed.W–E striking slumps are common. Thin undulated fine-grained sand-stone beds (10–30 cm thick) have an erosional basewith solemarks, aplanar-laminated lower division (Sh) to a micro-hummocky cross-laminated upper division (SHcs). Shale clasts and cut-and-fillstructures are south-orientated.

4.1.1. InterpretationThe facies is interpreted in terms of a lower shoreface transition

to a siliciclastic-dominated outer-ramp setting above the storm-wave base level. Locally, the ramp can be classed as a carbonate-dominated outer ramp (during limestone deposition). The alternationof planar-laminated (low fallout rates and traction) and hummockycross-laminated structures suggests pure strong-oscillatory to com-bined flow conduit by storms (Dott and Bourgois, 1982; Duke, 1985;Duke et al., 1991). HCS in analog laboratory experiments (Dumaset al., 2005) is produced by storm-generated, long-period oscillatory-dominant combinedflows, therefore suggesting anunrestricted, open-water environment. The aligned shale clasts and internal erosionalsurface in the sandstone beds mark repeated erosion and depositionlinked to unstable flow. The abundance of plant fragments (coal) inthe sediment suggests deposition fairly close to a terrigenous source,indicative of direct river input (Mulder and Alexander, 2001).

4.2. Lithofacies association B: Sandstone lithofacies

The sandstone lithofacies form units 5 to 15 m thick, with thethicker units occurring higher in the succession (Fig. 3A). The averagesandstone-to-silt ratio in this facies ranges from 1:1 in the lower partto 10:1 in the upper part of the package.

4.2.1. Lithofacies association B1: Normal-graded shell-lag bedThe contact between this facies and the underlying lithofacies

association A described above is sharp and uneven. The basal surfaceis a distinctive, Fe-oxidized reddish colour and shows sole marks(flute to megaflute casts) and mud clasts (Fig. 3B). Flutes indicateN190–210°E palaeoflows. Beds are normal-graded calcarenite tobioclastic sandstone (Sn) wedges (less than 1 m thick) with abundantcarbonate skeletal grains, typically echinoderms (echinoid spines andcrinoids), bivalves, and orbitolinids (Fig. 4B). Shells show abrasionfeatures. This facies underlies facies association B2.

4.2.1.1. Interpretation. This association is interpreted as a shell-accumulation basal lag deposited by a high-energy turbulent flowprobably linked to ebb-storm flows. The flows eroded an echinoid-,bivalve-, and orbitolinid-dominated internal platform and a softbottom incorporated as mud clasts. The stratigraphic position at thebase of the middle to upper shoreface facies (facies association B2-B3)and the facies description suggest deposition of a proximal storm

Fig. 3. (A) Coarsening- and thickening-upward sand-dominated package interpreted as prograding distributary mouth bars (scale bar is 1 m high). (B) Flute casts at the Fe-enriched(red) basal surface of the second sandstone wedge-shaped package (hammer for scale). (C) Typical 3D undulated surface representing swales and hummocks in fine to mediumsandstones. (D) Sandstone concretions (cannonball-type) in the thickest and uppermost sandstone bed (host) of an upward-thickening (Tu) unit (lithofacies association B2)(hammer for scale). (E) Detail of Zoophycus and (F) Thalassinoides fossil traces at the top surface of first sandstone package (coin for scale). (G) Wave ripple-laminated fine sandsoverlying the second sandstone package (coin for scale).

202 F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

Fig. 4. (A–D) Prograding shoreface wedge sketch and microfacies characterizing different lithofacies (RSME—regressive surface of marine erosion): clean siliciclastic-dominatedsandstones in the middle to upper shoreface (A); bioclastic sandstones at basal shoreface wedges, coarse-grained in proximal areas (B) to fine-grained in distal areas (C); bivalves,orbitolinids, echinoids, green algae, and mud clasts with pelagic fauna (radiolarians or calcispheres) and coarse glauconitic aggregates (D) at the base of the lowermost sandstonebed (E–F). Carbonate and siliciclastic-mixed outer-ramp sketch and corresponding microfacies characterizing different lithofacies: normal-graded sandstones containing benthicand planktonic foraminifers and detrital ferrugenized ooids (E) and mudstone to wackestone of planktonic foraminifers (F).

203F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

bed in a middle shoreface. Ebb-storm palaeoflows imply a south- tosouthwestward-dipping shoreface.

4.2.2. Lithofacies association B2: Massive, low-angle to swaleycross-stratified sandstones

This association consists of sheet-like sandstones (decimetre- tometre-thick beds) mainly comprising non-shell bearing, well-sorted,low-angle cross-stratified medium sands (Sh) (Fig. 3C) intercalatedwith massive sandstone beds (Sm). Mud clast accumulation levelsare occasionally found. Many of the thick beds abruptly pinch outproximally. The thickest and uppermost sandstone bed of thethickening-upward units commonly contains massive (30 cm to 1 min diameter) spheroidal calcite-cemented concretions (cannonball-type) that are slightly shortened along the axis perpendicular tostratification (Fig. 3D). Trace fossils of lobed and unlobed Zoophycos,Thalassinoides, and Ophiomarphia ichnofacies (Fig. 3E–F) have beenidentified at the top of the sandstone package. Sandstone beds are

poorly fossiliferous, containing organic material such as coal and plantremains.

4.2.2.1. Interpretation. This facies is interpreted as representingdeposition in a wave-dominated shoreface environment. The thick-ening-upward stratal pattern suggests shoreface progradation. Quasi-planar-laminated sandstone beds, gently undulated, have been inter-preted as high-energy, combined flow-depositional events (Arnott,1993). Maejima (1988) attributed flat stratified sandstone depositionto a plane-bed regime linked to strong oscillatory wave surges. Lobedand unlobed traces at the same surface could be interpreted asadaptative behaviour revealing varying specific conditions. Highlylobed Zoophycos could indicate unstable environments and an op-portunistic strategy, whereas simple unlobed Zoophycos may indicatestable environments and a more specialized strategy (Olivero andGaillard, 2007). Juxtaposed suites recording lower-energy, more distalichnofacies (Zoophycos ichnofacies) overlying higher-energy, more

204 F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

proximal ichnofacies (Skolithos ichnofacies) are a strong indicator ofrelative sea-level oscillations.

Calcite-cemented concretions in sandstones have been describedin similar deposits such as hummocky cross-stratified sandstonesfrom wave-dominated deltaic or shelf sandstone in progradationalsequences with interbedded mudstones (McBride et al., 2003;Wanas,2008). Large-scale concretions in close association with sharp-basedstorm successions suggest the rapid loading of large volumes of sandonto uncompacted shale-dominated and thin-bedded sandstonefacies (Fitzsimmons and Johnson, 2000). Sandstone concretionscannibalized in coastal settings are incorporated to overlying gravelchannels (see description in lithofacies association C) truncatingsandstones. This scenario favours an origin for this type of structuresin the early stages of the burial histories of these rocks, during earlydiagenesis (McBride et al., 2003). Similar concretions have beeninterpreted as being a result of calcite cement growth duringdissolution of calcium carbonate shells within the host sandstonespromoted by long-term residence in shallow-burial anaerobicdiagenetic zones (Canfield and Raiswell, 1991; Wanas, 2008). Slowdeposition also provides time to dissolve marine shells and for thebicarbonate to be precipitated as calcite cement.

4.2.3. Facies association B3: Cross-laminated siltstones and sandstonesSmall, symmetric (occasionally asymmetric) 2D-ripples (2–5 cm

high) (Sr) occur infine- tomedium-grained sandstone lenses embeddedin grey siltstone (Fig. 3G). Deposits overlie the burrowed surface at thetop of the sandstone beds described in facies association B1.

4.2.3.1. Interpretation. These fine-grained, heterolithic deposits exhi-biting small-scale wave ripples suggest deposition by low-regimeoscillatory flow and occasionally combined-flow in an upper shorefaceduring fair-weather periods.

4.3. Sedimentary model of fine-grained lithofacies: Shorefaces tosiliciclastic/carbonate-mixed outer ramp

Fine-grained lithofacies association analysis suggests depositionin a wave-dominated shoreface distally evolving to a siliciclastic/carbonate-mixed outer-ramp setting. Facies association B3 representsthe upper shoreface and facies B1 and B2 represent the middleshoreface distally evolving to an unrestricted, open-water, storm-wave-dominated lower shoreface to mixed siliciclastic-carbonateouter ramp (facies association A) (Fig. 4). The stratigraphic positionoverlying a carbonate-dominated outer ramp (Los Villares Fm.) andsedimentological features indicate the paralic deposits are outer-rampshorefaces.

4.4. Lithofacies association C: Gravel deposits

4.4.1. Facies association C1: Normal-graded gravel depositThe normal-graded gravel deposits fill a strongly erosional surface

cutting sandstone shoreface deposits (facies B2 and B3 in the 2nd and4th package wedges) and are overlain by marls from lithofaciesassociation A. The gravel is well-segregated, boulder- and cobble-sized in the lower part, pebble-sized in the middle part, and granule-sized gravel in the upper part of the conglomerate bed. It ischaracterized by normal-graded and matrix-supported (locallyclast-supported) beds (Gms, Gcs). Clasts mainly consist of limestonepebbles (1–50 cm in diameter) and well-rounded sandstone bouldersto cobbles (35–100 cm in diameter), minor quartzite, and chert.Sandstone concretions are extensively bored by Lithophaga and haveattached oysters, barnacles, and corals (Fig. 5A–C). Outsized angularsandstone clasts (2–4 m in diameter) are found in the bottom bed.

4.4.1.1. Interpretation. Bored clasts represent a coastal lag. Roundedsandstone boulders suggest they formed as concretions (described in

facies B2) from underlying shoreface sandstones. Therefore, thesandstone concretions must have originated during early diagenesisat shallow burial and then been exposed in coastal environments andremoved. Coastal fauna is only preserved in the sandstone concre-tions, suggesting limestone and quartzite clast input as cohesionlessdebris flows from river mouths (not of coastal origin), which removedbored sandstone boulders. Similar deposits have been documented byPostma and Cruickshank (1988) and interpreted as material storedtemporarily on gravely beaches, which collapsed on a coast-attachedslope periodically eroded during storms. The distinct segregation ofgravel-sized fractions is indicative of wave-worked gravels (Ethridgeand Wescott, 1984).

4.4.2. Facies association C2: Isolated rounded sandstone boulders intomarls

This facies is represented by one-clast thick beds into marls(lithofacies association A). Beds consist of hundreds of metres oflaterally continuous accumulations of isolated well-rounded sand-stone boulders (G) (Fig. 6D). The sandstone boulders have the samefeatures as the sandstone concretions described above, but commonlyhave a gently flattened downward face. They are also intensivelybored by Lithophaga only around the upward face.

4.4.2.1. Interpretation. Sandstone balls originated as concretions fromshoreface sandstones as described above (see facies association B2).They were stored temporarily in coastal settings. Some were isolatedfrom the sandstone host. The poorly cemented sandstone hostwas probably wave-winnowed, leaving the concretions in situ. Theconcretions were bored only on the exposed face with the half hiddenin the host protected from boring.

4.4.3. Facies association C3: Channelized normal-graded gravelsThis facies is represented by channel-like beds (up to 20 m wide

and 90 cm deep) truncating and embedded in marls (lithofaciesassociation A) (Fig. 5E). Channelized surfaces are filled by matrix-supported (locally clast-supported) and diffuse normal-gradedlimestone pebbles (Gms, Gcs).

4.4.3.1. Interpretation. This facies was likely deposited by high-energy,turbulent gravel flows in lower-shoreface to outer-ramp settings.Better sorting and finer gravels than facies association C1 could beinterpreted as deposits from flows distally changing from debris flowsthat deposited normal-graded gravels (C1).

4.5. Sedimentary model of coarse-grained lithofacies

Incised channels (up to 100 m wide and 5 m deep) in the outcroptruncate the upper and middle shoreface deposits, and also cut themarls overlying the sandstone shoreface (Fig. 6). The channels arefilled by fluvio-deltaic gravels deposited from fining-upward energyflux and outsized sandstone concretions falling from channel walls.The biggest sandstone boulders accumulated at the bottom and markthe lag of the shoreface-incised channel. Sandstone shoreface bedsalternating with marls were coastal-wave winnowed, leaving behindconcretions collonized by coastal fauna.

5. Sequence stratigraphy: System tracts and sea-level oscillationsduring the early Cretaceous

5.1. Forced-regressive wedges and lowstand systems tracts

5.1.1. Evidence and new recognition criteria for forced sea-level fallsConglomerate–sandstone wedges represent in the broad sense

forced-regressive wedges (FRWST of Hunt and Tucker, 1992), forced-regressive system tracts (Hunt and Tucker, 1995), or falling stagesystem tracts (FSST of Plint and Nummedal, 2000). Most of the

Fig. 5. (A) Two normal-graded sequences fill a gravel channel that truncates sandstone-dominated deposits (lithofacies association B). Sandstone concretions intensely bored bylithophags accumulate in the lowermost and more incised part of the channel (person for scale). (B) Detail of small oysters attached to a sandstone concretion (coin for scale). (C)Detail of Lithophaga boring on the surface of a sandstone concretion. (D) Sandstone concretion embedded in marls. Note the intensively bored and gently flattened downward face(hammer for scale). (E) Gravelly channel-like bed cutting down into discordant marls (person for scale).

205F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

characteristics for detached forced-regressive deposits (Ainsworthet al., 2000; Posamentier and Morris, 2000) and lower-bounding ormarine-regressive surfaces (RSME) (Fitzsimmons and Johnson, 2000)can be observed in the study outcrop:

a) Presence of a zone of sedimentary bypass between awedge of basinally-isolated nearshore marine sediments and immediately precedinghighstand nearshore marine sediments. Shoreface deposits abruptlypinch out landwards onto outer-ramp marls (detached forced-regressive deposits) (see Fig. 1B). The shoreface lies above andbasinward of a carbonate-dominated outer ramp of the highstandsystems tract (Los Villares Fm.) (Fig. 7A–B). There is no contactbetween the inner ramp of the highstand and forced-regressionshorefaces. Continental deposits (braided fluvial sandstones and

lacustrine limestoneswith coal beds) coeval to the forced-regressionshoreface have been reported in proximal areas (Prebetic Zone)(García-Hernández et al., 2001; Vilas et al., 2003). The detachedforced regression is favoured by a high relative sea-level fallsediment–supply ratio and relatively gentle shelf gradients (seethe principal factors that control the forced-regression typeaccording to Posamentier and Morris, 2000). An original rampgradient of 2° is estimated from the angle between the top(represented by coastal facies showing wave ripples and Lithophaga-bored boulders with attached oysters and corals marking sea level)and the basal surface of the sandstone/conglomerate wedges mea-sured along the presumed slope direction (parallel to sole marksand perpendicular to slump axis). In fact, the wedge-like shape isdetermined by the coastward decrease in the accommodation.

Fig. 6. Sketches showing the sedimentary evolution of the sandstone concretions and their significance in the sequence evolution of the succession.

206 F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

Sandstone mineralogy (except for calcite cement, skeletal grains,and authigenic minerals such as glauconite) is similar to Triassic NewRed Sandstones and lutites from the Tabular Cover (see Triassicsandstonemineralogy in Santos-Francés et al., 1976) derived from theerosion of Palaeozoic plutonic granitoid rocks and quartzites. They are

exposed in the Iberian Massif tens of kilometres north of the studyoutcrops (see Fig. 1A).

b) The presence of sharp-based shoreface deposits. A sharp contact isindicative of a missing/eroded transitional facies below. Therecognition of erosional-based shoreface sandbodies is the most

Fig. 7. Stratigraphic architecture and main depositional features for system tracts in different sea-level stages during a fourth-order relative sea-level oscillation cycle.

207F.G

arcía-García

etal./

Sedimentary

Geology

236(2011)

197–210

208 F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

practical diagnostic criteria of the FSST (Plint, 1988; Plint andNummedal, 2000). Following the latter authors, the stratigraphi-cally lowest shoreface succession that has a regressive surfaceof marine erosion (RSME, Posamentier et al., 1992) at its base isinterpreted to correspond in time with commencement of relativesea-level fall. In our shoreface wedges, the forced-regressionsurface is represented by the sharp and erosional base of theshoreface sandstone wedge. This surface marks an abrupt shiftin facies and an abrupt increase in the sand:shale ratio. It ischaracterized by irregular geometry, a distinctive Fe-oxide reddishcolour, abundant flute casts (exceptionally megaflute casts), and alag of mudstone clasts. Flute casts in close association with mudclasts suggest an irregular surface at the base of a storm succession.The shoreface basal surface exhibits features of a regressivesurface of marine erosion. Plint (1996) associated the formationof scouring at the base of forced-regressive shorefaces to thelowering of storm wavebase during severe storms.In sequence stratigraphy, the choice of which surface of forced-regressive deposits constitutes the master sequence boundaryhas been the subject of debate: the contact between the normal(highstand deposits) and the first forced-regressive wedge(Posamentier andMorris, 2000) or the top of the forced-regressivewedge (Plint andNummedal, 2000 and others). The former surfaceis characterized as an unconformity over part of the area—forinstance, the sharp-based forced-regressive shoreface wedgedescribed above (Fig. 7B). The drawback of that surface is that itis characterized as a distal correlative conformity over a large area(Posamentier and Morris, 2000) (e.g., middle- and outer-rampsettings). In facies association A, interpreted as deposited on thesiliciclastic middle to outer ramp, coarse glauconite grains havebeen identified in the lowermost sandstone bed. This sandstonebed, with high amounts of detrital medium-to-coarse glauconitegrains, could mark the initiation of sea-level fall in distal settingslacking other criteria. Detrital glauconite (coarser grains at thebase of the sandstone bed) represents reworking of transgressiveor highstand deposits (condensed levels) of an underlyingsequence (extrasequence glauconite) caused by subaerial shelfexposure (e.g., forced regressions). Abundant autochthonousglauconite peloids have been reported in condensed levels fromunderlying highstand distal ramp deposits (Los Villares Fm.)(Jiménez-Millán and Castro, 2008). The presence of detrital coarseglauconite grains in sandstone beds underlying shoreface wedgescan serve as a diagnostic tool in distal areas for sequence boundarycontrolled by forced regression. Erosional forced regressionscommonly incorporate glauconite grains from underlying con-densed sections (Amorosi, 1995; Mellere and Steel, 2000).

c) Incised channels truncating shoreface deposits. Incised channelstruncating shoreface deposits are erosional features linked to sea-level falls below the upper shoreface and probably below themiddle shoreface, which both hosted the sandstone concretions.Sea level fell below the brink point or offlap break of theprograding shoreface sigmoids (Fig. 7G). When incised channelscut down the beach face, they become small-scale valleyschannelling sandstone concretions down into the distal shoreface.

d) Sandstone concretions exhumed in coastal environments. Sandstoneconcretions have been reported in three settings: within theshoreface sandstone host where they were cemented during earlydiagenesis (lithofacies association B2), filling incised channelscutting shoreface deposits (facies association C1), and as boulder-thick beds (lithofacies association C2) where isolated, coastal–fauna colonized concretions appear embedded in lower-shorefaceto outer-ramp marls.

5.1.2. Architecture of the falling stage systems tract (FSST)Forced-regressive wedges at the succession are single (e.g., 1st

forced-regressive wedge) (Fig. 7A to F) or paired (e.g., 2nd forced-

regressive wedge) (Fig. 7A to G). The former only records a singleforced regression below LST prograding shorefaces and the paired onerecords two regressive surfaces of marine erosion (RSME), the firstone at the base of the sandstone wedges and the second one at the topof the lowstand prograding shoreface (represented proximally byincised channels and distally by sandstone concretion accumulationsin marls). The first FSST is represented in proximal areas (in ashoreface setting) by a laterally discontinuous, normal-gradedaccumulation of inner-ramp fossils (facies association B1). Itscorresponding RSME is represented by an erosional, scoured andfluted surface that has reddish Fe-oxidization and mud clasts. It formsthe base of the shell accumulation bed. Distally, in the outer-rampsetting, the main recognition criterion of the first FSST is a coarse-grained glauconite-rich grainstone bed (Fig. 6B). In both settings, thefalling stage is recorded by storm-dominated deposits filling anirregular storm-eroded seafloor in the shoreface setting. Shorefacedeposits prograded on top of the storm-dominated falling stage(FSST) during lowstand sea level (LST). The second falling stage isrepresented by a surface of eroding coastal deposits and cutting of theupper part of the lowstand prograding shoreface (Fig. 6D). The incisedchannels truncating shoreface sandstones were filled by sandstoneconcretions exposed in coastal settings (boulders are Lithophaga-bored, oyster-attached, and coral-colonized). The sandstone concre-tions were isolated from the overlying sandstone shoreface host,where concretions developed during early diagenesis.

5.2. Transgressive systems tract, maximum flooding surface, and relativehighstand systems tract

Each forced-regressive wedge is overlain by a marl-dominatedpackage (lithofacies association A) deposited in an outer-ramp settingduring sea-level rise and highstand (Fig. 7D–F). The relative rise in sealevel caused the shore zone to retreat landwards and the platform todrown, so outer-ramp deposits overlie shoreface facies. The trans-gression surface is represented by the top of (gravel) sandstonepackages. That surface represents the boundary between underlyingvery shallow-marine and coastal facies (Lithofacies associations B andC) and overlying hemipelagic facies (Lithofacies association A). Short-term transgression is revealed by coeval deep and shallow ichnofaciesat the top surface of the shoreface sandstones. Three intervals can bedistinguished in themarl-dominated package. The lower interval (10–20 m thick) is characterized by an upward increase in the carbonate-to-siliciclastic grain ratio and in the plankton contents in marls, whichis interpreted as deposition in a siliciclastic-dominated outer ramp.The middle interval (5–8 m thick) has limestones and marls withabundant ammonites, interpreted as deposition in a carbonate-dominated outer ramp. The upper interval (10–20 m thick) typicallyhas carbonate-dominated grains and plankton-rich marls intercalat-ing slumped sandstone tempestites interpreted as a mixed carbonate/siliciclastic outer ramp. In terms of systems tracts, the lowersuccession interval represents a transgressive systems tract(Fig. 7D), the middle interval represents condensed depositionmarking the maximum flooding stage (Fig. 7E), and the uppermostinterval corresponds to deposition during a relative highstand(Fig. 7F). It is classed as relative since the facies reveal a moreproximal setting than those of the hemipelagic to pelagic carbonate-dominated outer ramp represented by alternating limestones andmarls in the Los Villares Formation (HST). Relative highstand depositsare truncated by the regressive surface of marine erosion (RSME) atthe base of overlying forced-regressive sandstone wedges.

6. Cyclicity and factors controlling sedimentation

The prograding shoreface wedges and intercalated marls thatcompose the succession at the study outcrop are arranged into fivecycles. Available biostratigraphic data of nannofossils and, locally,

209F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

planktonic foraminifers and ammonites indicate a timespan of about7 Ma between deposition of the first and the last FRWST, including aLate Barremian hiatus (about 4 Ma). The cyclicity of the last fourshoreface wedges (2nd to 5th FRWST) is very interesting as theyrecord relatively continuous sedimentation. The age of the last fourshoreface wedges (2nd to 5th FRWST) is latest Barremian–earliestAptian (uppermost part of theMicrantholithus hoschulzii Zone and theearliest part of the Hayesites irregularis nannofossil Zones) and thetime constraint for deposition is 1.5 Ma. This timespan suggests thatthe formation of the last four cycles in the succession was presumablycontrolled by b0.5 Ma cycles (ca. 300 to 400 ky), and they areinterpreted as fourth-order fall-to-rise cycles of relative sea level.These cycles are included within the third-order tectonic-eustaticcycle (I.6) described by Castro et al. (2008) and at the lower part of theK4 tectono-sedimentary episode by Vilas et al. (2003) for the Prebetic.The interplay between extensional tectonics and sea-level fluctua-tions has been considered as the main factor determining thesedimentary evolution of the basin in the Early Cretaceous geody-namic context of the SICP (Vera, 2001; Martín-Chivelet et al., 2002;Vilas et al., 2003; Alonso-Chaves et al., 2004; among others). In anextensional tectonic context, the decrease in accommodation spaceand sandstone progradation processes probably occurred duringrelaxation or decreasing faulting interplaying with global sea-levelfalls. For this time, four sequence boundaries have been identified inthe global sea-level curve: Barr6, Apt1-3 (Hardenbol et al., 1998).

7. Conclusions

Repeated fourth-order fall-to-rise cycles of relative sea levelcontrolled the architecture and facies distribution of the South IberianContinental Palaeomargin during the Barremian to Early Aptian (EarlyCretaceous). Sea-level falls exposed the inner ramp and positioned theshoreline at the outer ramp. Single and paired forced regressions havebeen reported. Single forced regressions were recorded by outcropcriteria in proximal areas: (1) landward wave-dominated shorefacesandstones abruptly pinching out onto outer-ramp marls; (2) a basalregressive surface of marine erosion (RSME) represented by a sharp-,fluted-, Fe-oxidized, and erosional surface; and (3) an overlyinginner-ramp fossil lag bed. In distal areas, the recognition criterion ofsingle forced regressions is a detrital glauconite bed at the base of astorm-wave siliciclastic-dominated outer ramp. Exceptionally, afterthe prograding shoreface (LST), sea level fell below the progradingshoreface wedge top and a second falling stage occurred (pairedforced regression). It is proximally recorded by incised channelstruncating upper shoreface deposits and coastal reworked sandstoneconcretions embedded in lower-shoreface marls.

The study area is an important sector to be taken into account infuture palaeogeographic reconstructions of this part of the SouthernIberian Palaeomargin. Regionally, these outcrops are the first record ofcoastal and outer ramp facies described in this sector of the BeticCordillera during the Early Cretaceous. The sedimentary and strati-graphic analysis of the Southern Iberian Continental Palaeomarginreported in this paper provides new perspectives on the stratigraphy(recording of 4th-order cyclicity) and palaeogeographic reconstruc-tions (coastline positions during the Early Cretaceous). The Creta-ceous SICP is a referential Tethyan palaeomargin for the study offorced regressions.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by projects CGL2005-06636-C02-00,CGL2009-10329, CGL2009-07830/BTE, CGL2009-05768-E/BTE,CGL2007-65832/BTE, and CGL2005-06224/BTE and financed by theSpanish Ministry of Education and Science (MEC), the EuropeanFoundation of Regional Development (FEDER), and Research GroupRNM-200 of the Junta de Andalucía. The ideas presented here were

sharpened by the thoughtful reviews of Dr. Anthony Tankard and Dr.César Viseras. The authors express their sincere thanks to R. Charte,Dr. J.A. Calero, and Dr. J. Jiménez-Millán for the interpretation of X-raydiffraction diagrams of sandstones and SEM images of glauconite. Theauthors also wish to thank A. Piedra for the thin-sheet preparation.Christine Laurin is thanked for the English version of the text.

References

Ainsworth, R.B., Bosscher, H., Newall, M.J., 2000. Forward stratigraphic modelling offorced regressions: evidence for the genesis of attached and detached lowstandsystems. In: Hunt, D., Gawthorpe, R.L. (Eds.), Sedimentary Response to ForcedRegressions: Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ., vol. 172, pp. 163–176.

Alonso-Chaves, F.M., Andreo, B., Arias, C., Azañón, J.M., Balanyá, J.C., Barón, A., Booth-Rea,G., Castro, J.M., Chacón, B., Company, M., Crespo-Blanc, A., Delgado, F., Díaz deFederico, A., Esteras, M., Estévez, A., Fernández, J., Fornós, J.J., Galindo-Zaldívar, A.,García-Casco, A., García-Dueñas, V., García-Hernández, M., Garrido, C.J., de Gea, G.A.,Gelabert, F., Gervilla, F., González-Lodeiro, F., Jabaloy, A., López-Garrido, A.C., Luján,M., Martín-Algarra, A., Martín-Chivelet, J., Martín-Martín, J.M., Molina, J.M., Morata,D., Nieto, J.M., Nieto, L.M., Obrador, A., O'Dogherty, L., Orozco, M., Pérez-López, A.,Pomar, L., Puga, E., Ramos, E., Rey, J., Rivas, P., Rodríguez-Cañero, R., Ruiz-Cruz, M.D.,Ruiz-Ortiz, P.A., Sàbat, F., Sánchez-Gómez, M., Sánchez-Navas, A., Sandoval, J., Sanzde Galdeano, C., Soto, J.I., Torres-Roldán, R.L., Vera, J.A., Vilas, L., 2004. CordilleraBética y Baleares. In: Vera, J.A. (Ed.), Geología de España. Sociedad Geológica deEspaña e Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid, pp. 345–464.

Amorosi, A., 1995. Glaucony and sequence stratigraphy: a conceptual framework ofdistribution in siliciclastic sequences. Journal of Sedimentary Research 65 (4),419–425.

Arnott, R.W.C., 1993. Quasi-planar-laminated sandstone beds of the lower CretaceousBootlegger Member, North-Central Montana: evidence of combined-flow sedi-mentation. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 63 (3), 488–494.

Bhattacharya, J.P., Davies, R.K., 2001. Growth faults at the prodelta to delta-fronttransition, Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone, Utah. Marine and Petroleum Geology 18,525–534.

Bhattacharya, J.P., Davies, R.K., 2004. Sedimentology and structure of growth faultsat the base of the Ferron Member along Muddy Creek, Utah. In: Chidsey, T.C.,Adams, R.D., Morris, T.H. (Eds.), The Fluvial–Deltaic Ferron Sandstone:Regional-to-Wellbore-Scale Outcrop Analog Studies and Applications toReservoir Modeling: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin,85, pp. 261–294.

Bhattacharya, J.P., Willis, B.J., 2001. Lostand deltas in Frontier Formation, Powder Riverbasin, Wyoming: implications for sequence stratigraphic modeles. AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 85, 261–294.

Canfield, D.E., Raiswell, R., 1991. Carbonate precipitation and dissolution. In: Allison, P.A.,Briggs, D.E. (Eds.), Releasing the Data Locked in the Fossil Record. : Topics inGeobiology, v. 9. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 411–453.

Castro, J.M., de Gea, G.A., Ruiz-Ortiz, P.A., Nieto, L.M., 2008. Development of carbonateplatforms on an extensional (rifted) margin: the Valanginian-Albian record of thePrebetic of Alicante (SE Spain). Cretaceous Research 29, 848–860.

Cole, R.D., Young, R.G., 1991. Facies characterization and architecture of a muddy shelfsandstone complex: “Mancos B” interval of Upper Cretaceous Mancos Shale,northwest Colorado–northeast Utah. In: Miall, A.D., Tyler, N. (Eds.), The Three-Dimensional Facies Architecture of Terrigenous Clastic Sediments and Its Implica-tions for Hydrocarbon Discovery and Recovery: SEPM, Concepts in Sedimentologyand Paleontology, v. 3, pp. 277–287.

de Gea, G.A., 2004. Bioestratigrafía y eventos del Cretácico Inferior en las ZonasExternas de la Cordillera Bética. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad deJaén, Jaén. 658 pp.

Dott, R.H., Bourgois, J., 1982. Hummocky stratification: significance of its variablebedding sequences. Geological Society of American Bulletin 93, 663–668.

Duke, W.L., 1985. Hummocky cross-stratification, tropical hurricanes, and intensewinter storms. Sedimentology 32, 167–194.

Duke, W.L., Arnott, R.W.C., Cheel, R.J., 1991. Shelf sandstones and hummocky cross-stratification: new insights on a stormy debate. Geology 19, 625–628.

Dumas, S., Arnott, R.W.C., Southard, J.B., 2005. Experiments on oscillatory-flow andcombined-flow bed forms: implications for interpreting parts of the shallow-marine sedimentary record. Journal of Sedimentary Research 75 (3), 501–513.

Ethridge, F.G., Wescott, W.A., 1984. Tectonic setting, recognition and hydrocarbonreservoir potential of fan-delta deposits. In: Koster, E.H., Steel, R.J. (Eds.),Sedimentology of Gravels and Conglomerates: Mem. Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol., 10,pp. 217–235.

Fitzsimmons, R., Johnson, S., 2000. Forced regressions: recognition, architecture andgenesis in the Campanian of the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. In: Hunt, D., Gawthorpe,R.L. (Eds.), Sedimentary Response to Forced Regressions: Geol. Soc. London, Spec.Publ., vol. 172, pp. 113–140.

García-Hernández, M., López-Garrido, A.C., Rivas, P., Sanz de Galdeano, C., Vera, J.A.,1980. Mesozoic paleogeographic evolution of the external zones of the BeticCordillera. Geologie en Mijnbouw 59, 155–168.

García-Hernández, M., Castro, J.M., Nieto, L.M., 2001. Los carbonatos del CretácicoInferior del Prebético de la Sierra de Segura. In: Ruiz-Ortiz, P.A., Molina, J.M., Nieto,J.M., Castro, J.M., de Gea, G.A. (Eds.), Itinerarios geológicos por el Mesozoico de laprovincia de Jaén, 61–91.

Hardenbol, J., Thierry, J., Farley, M.B., Jacquin, Th., de Graciansky, P.C., Vail, P.R., deGraciansky, P.C., Hardenbol, J., Jacquin, Th., Vail, P.R., 1998. Mesozoic and Cenozoic

210 F. García-García et al. / Sedimentary Geology 236 (2011) 197–210

sequence chronostratigraphic chart. Mesozoic and Cenozoic Sequence Stratigraphyof European Basins, Special Publication: Society for Sedimentary Geology, vol. 60.Chart n° 1.

Hunt, D., Tucker, M.E., 1992. Stranded parasequences and the forced regressive wedgesystems tract: deposition during base-level fall. Sedimentary Geology 81, 1–9.

Hunt, D., Tucker, M.E., 1995. Reply to Discussion. Sedimentary Geology 95, 147–160.Jiménez-Millán, J., Castro, J.M., 2008. K-feldspar alteration to gel material and

crystallization of glauconitic peloids with berthierine in Cretaceous marinesediments—sedimentary implications (Prebetic Zone, Betic Cordillera, SE Spain).Geological Journal 43, 19–31.

Ketzer, J.M., Morad, S., 2001. The role of sequence stratigraphy on the distribution ofdiagenetic alterations in sandstones: examples from the carboniferous of Irelandand the Upper Cretaceous of the U.S.A. (abstract). Davos Meeting, Program andAbstracts, pp. 131–132.

Maejima, W., 1988. Marine transgression over an active alluvial fan: the earlyCretaceous Arida Formation, Yuasa-Aridagawa Basin, southwestern Japan. In:Nemec, W., Steel, R.J. (Eds.), Fan Deltas: Sedimentology and Tectonic Settings.Blackie and Son, Glasgow, pp. 303–317.

Martín-Chivelet, J., Berástegui, X., Rosales, I., Vilas, L., et al., 2002. Cretaceous. In:Gibbons, W., Moreno, T. (Eds.), Geology of Spain. Geological Society of London,London, pp. 255–292.

McBride, E.F., Picard, M.D., Milliken, K.L., 2003. Calcite-cemented concretions incretaceous sandstone, Wyoming and Utah, U.S.A. Journal of Sedimentary Research73 (3), 462–483.

Mellere, D., Steel, R.J., 1995. Variability of lowstand wedges and their distinction fromforced-regressive wedges in the Mesaverde Group, southeast Wyoming. Geology23, 803–806.

Mellere, D., Steel, R.J., 2000. Style contrast between forced regressive and lowstand/transgressive wedges in the Campanian of south-central Wyoming (HatfieldMember of the Haystack Mountains Formation). In: Hunt, D., Gawthorpe, R.L.(Eds.), Sedimentary Responses to Forced Regressions: Geological Society, London,Spec. Publ., 172, pp. 141–162.

Olivero, D., Gaillard, Ch., 2007. A constructional model for Zoophycus. In: Miller, W. (Ed.),Trace Fossils: Concepts, problems, prospects: Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 466–476.

Mulder, T., Alexander, J., 2001. The physical character of subaqueous sedimentarydensity flows and their deposits. Sedimentology 48, 269–299.

Pattison, S.A.J., 1995. Sequence stratigraphic significance of sharp based lowstandshoreface deposits, Kenilworth Member, Book Cliffs, Utah. American Association ofPetroleum Geologists Bulletin 79, 444–462.

Plint, A.G., 1988. Sharp-based shoreface sequences and offshore bars in the CardiumFormation of Alberta; their relationship to relative changes in sea level. In: Wilgus,C.K., Hastings, B.S., Kendall, C.G.St.C., Posamentier, H.W., Ross, C.A., Van Wagoner, J.C. (Eds.), Sea Level Changes—An Integrated Approach: Society of EconomicPaleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publications, 42, pp. 357–370.

Plint, A.G., 1996. Marine and non-marine systems tracts in fourth-order sequences inthe Early-Middle Cenomanian, Dunvegan Alloformation, north-eastern BritishColumbia, Canada. In: Howell, J.A., Aitken, J.F. (Eds.), High Resolution SequenceStratigraphy: Innovations and Applications: Geological Society Special Publica-tions, 104, pp. 159–191.

Plint, A.G., Norris, B., 1991. Anatomy of a ramp margin sequence: facies successions,paleogeography, and sediments dispersal patterns in the Muskiki and Marshybankformations, Alberta Foreland Basin. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 39,18–42.

Plint, A.G., Nummedal, D., 2000. The falling stage systems tract: recognition andimportance in sequence stratigraphic analysis. In: Hunt, D., Gawthorpe, R.L. (Eds.),Sedimentary Responses to Forced Regressions: Geological Society, London, Spec.Publ., 172, pp. 1–17.

Posamentier, H.W., Morris, W.R., 2000. Aspects of the stratal architecture of forcedregressive deposits. In: Hunt, D., Gawthorpe, R.L. (Eds.), Sedimentary Responses toForced Regressions: Geological Society, London, Spec. Publ., 172, pp. 19–46.

Posamentier, H.W., Allen, G.P., James, D.P., Tesson, M., 1992. Forced regressions in asequence stratigraphic framework: concepts, examples, and exploration signifi-cance. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 76, 1687–1709.

Postma, G., Cruickshank, C., 1988. Sedimentology of a terraced Gilbert-type delta. In:Nemec, W., Steel, R.J. (Eds.), Fan Deltas: Sedimentology and Tectonic Settings.Blackie and Son, London, pp. 144–157.

Ruiz-Ortiz, P.A., Castro, J.M., 1998. Carbonate depositional sequences in shallow topelagic platform deposits. Aptian. Prebetic of Alicante (SE Spain). Bulletin de laSociete Geologique de France 169, 21–33.

Ruiz-Ortiz, P.A., de Gea, G.A., Castro, J.M., 2006. Timing of canyon-fed turbiditedeposition in a rifted basin: the Early Cretaceous turbidite complex of the CerrajónFormation (Subbetic, Southern Spain). Sedimentary Geology 192, 141–166.

Santos-Francés, F., Fernández, J., Linares, J., 1976. Estudio mineralógico de una serietriásica en Alcaraz (Albacete). Estudios Geológicos 32, 241–247.

Taylor, D.R., Lovell, R.W.W., 1995. High-frequency sequence stratigraphy andpaleogeography of the Kenilworth Member, Blackhawk Formation, Book Cliffs,Utah, USA. In: Van Wagoner, J.C., Bertram, G.T. (Eds.), Sequence Stratigraphyof Foreland Basin Deposits: Outcrop and Subsurface Examples from the Cretaceousof North: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoirs, vol. 64,pp. 257–275.

Van Wagoner, J.C., Mitchum, R.M., Campion, K.M., Rahmani, V.D., 1990. SiliciclasticSequence Stratigraphy in Well Logs, Cores, and Outcrops: American Association ofPetroleum Geologists, Methods in Exploration Series, 7. 155 pp.

Vera, J.A., 2001. Evolution of the Southern Iberian Continental Margin. In: Ziegler, P.A.,Cavazza, W., Robertson, A.H.F., Crasquin-Soleau, S. (Eds.), Peri-Tethyan Rift/Wrench Basins and Passive Margins: Mémoires du Muséum National d'HistoireNaturale Paris, 186, pp. 109–143.

Vilas, L., Martín-Chivelet, J., Arias, C., 2003. Integration of subsidence and sequencestratigraphic analyses in the Cretaceous carbonate platforms of the Prebetic(Jumilla-Yecla Region), Span. In: Skelton, P.W., Masse, J.P., Simone, L. (Eds.),Cretaceous Carbonate Platforms: Modelling and Quantification: Spec. Publ.Palaeogeography, Palaeclimatology, Palaeoecology, 200(1–4), pp. 107–129.

Wanas, H.A., 2008. Calcite-cemented concretions in shallow marine and fluvialsandstones of the Birket Qarun Formation (Late Eocene), El-Faiyum depression,Egypt: field petrographic and geochemical studies: implications for formationconditions. Sedimentary Geology 212, 40–48.