ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Foraminiferal paleoecology of an upper Cenozoic synorogenicconglomeratic succession in the Zagros basin, Iran

Amir Hossein Rahiminejad • Mehdi Yazdi •

Ali Reza Ashouri

Accepted: 27 January 2015 / Published online: 22 February 2015

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract The recently discovered carbonate–siliciclastic

intervals within an upper Cenozoic synorogenic conglom-

eratic succession in the Shalamzar area of the Zagros

sedimentary basin in central western Iran contain abundant

and diverse assemblages of foraminifera. A total of 32

genera and 34 species of benthic and five genera and eight

species of planktic foraminifera representative of Burdi-

galian age were identified. The foraminifera are classified

into four morph groups of: (A) planktic, (B) deep benthic,

(C) large benthic (robust hyaline, imperforate agglutinated

and porcelaneous foraminifera) and (D) other benthic for-

aminifera. An outer shelf zone is represented by dominance

of planktic and small benthic foraminifera of the morph

groups A and B. An inner–middle shelf is indicated by an

association of dominant morpho group C and minor mor-

pho group D. Also, a mixed biotic assemblage of abundant

morpho group D and sparse morpho group C reflects an

inner shelf zone. Based on the biodiversities and morpho

groups, the foraminifera were inhabitants of a dysoxic–oxic

marine paleoecosystem between ca\40 and[120 m depth

with low-to-moderate to high water energy in a euphotic to

oligophotic zone. Moreover, normal seawater salinity to

slightly hypersaline conditions (34 to slightly more than 50

psu) is reflected by the morpho groups.

Keywords Upper Cenozoic � Synorogenic

conglomerates � Zagros basin � Iran � Foraminifera �Early Miocene � Paleoecology

Introduction

The upper Cenozoic synorogenic conglomerates in the

Zagros fold–thrust belt in Iran are representative of the

Zagros shortening and uplift associated with the Arabia–

Eurasia collision (James and Wynd 1965; Berberian and

King 1981; Fakhari et al. 2008). In the Zagros sedimentary

basin, the conglomerates are intercalated with marls, silt-

stones, sandstones, mudstones, limestones and hybrid in-

tervals. The age of the synorogenic conglomerates in the

Zagros basin has been determined mainly on the basis of

stratigraphic position, magnetostratigraphy and low-tem-

perature thermochronometry analysis (British Petroleum

Company 1963; James and Wynd 1965; Molinaro et al.

2004; Homke et al. 2004; Gavillot et al. 2010). However, a

concise and brief paleontology reported from the carbon-

ate–siliciclastic sedimentary intervals within a synorogenic

conglomeratic succession in the Shalamzar area in the

Zagros basin revealed an early Miocene age (Fakhari et al.

2008). The mixed carbonate–siliciclastic intervals contain

divers fossil groups of gastropods, corals, foraminifera,

dinoflagellate cysts, pollen and spores species (Fakhari

et al. 2008). In this paper, the micropaleontological

A. H. Rahiminejad (&)

Department of Ecology, Institute of Science and High

Technology and Environmental Sciences, Graduate University

of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Islamic Republic of Iran

e-mail: mrrahiminejad7@gmail.com

A. H. Rahiminejad

Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Ferdowsi University

of Mashhad, Mashhad, Islamic Republic of Iran

M. Yazdi

Department of Geology, Faculty of Science,

University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran

e-mail: meh.yazdi@gmail.com

A. R. Ashouri

Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Ferdowsi University

of Mashhad, Mashhad, Islamic Republic of Iran

e-mail: ashouri@um.ac.ir

123

Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38

DOI 10.1007/s13146-015-0237-6

analyses provide detailed data in relation to paleoeco-

logical studies of the intervals on the basis of more diverse

and abundant foraminiferal associations. Generally, for-

aminifera are useful tools in biostratigraphy and paleoe-

cological interpretations (Hallock and Glenn 1986; Geel

2000; Flugel 2004; Boudagher-Fadel 2013). Their strati-

graphic distribution, speciation and evolution are important

in stratigraphic correlations. Several ecological factors in-

cluding light intensity, salinity, water depth, water hydro-

dynamic energy, nutrient availability, substrate and

temperature control the distribution and morphologies of

foraminifers’ taxa in the environment.

Locality and geological setting

In this research, the micropaleontological studies are focused

on one stratigraphic succession in the north of the Shalamzar

area (southern Shahr Kord) in the Zagros foreland basin,

central western Iran (Fig. 1). The area is located in the high

Zagros zone. The upper Cenozoic synorogenic conglomerates

in north of the Shalamzar area extend as a 20-km-long belt

along the Main Zagros fault (main thrust fault) with a NW–SE

trend (Fig. 1) (Fakhari et al. 2008). The well-exposed rocks in

south of Shahr Kord comprise Cretaceous carbonates (Fig. 1).

Alternations of rare Eocene volcanic rocks and Eocene de-

posits crop out in north of the Shalamzar area. Eocene–Oli-

gocene and Oligocene–Miocene limestones are well exposed

in south of the Shalamzar area (Fig. 1). Other parts of the

region are mainly covered by quaternary terraces and alluvial

(Zahedi et al. 1999; Esmaili 2008) (Fig. 1).

Stratigraphy

In south of Shahr Kord (Fig. 1), the study succession of the

upper Cenozoic synorogenic conglomerates is divided into

units 1, 2 and 3 (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4). Unit 3, the conglomeratic

uppermost unit of the succession, is exposed near June-

ghan, west of the Shalamzar area (Figs. 1, 4g). In this re-

search, the studies are focused on the fossiliferous

carbonate–siliciclastic intervals or intercalations within the

Fig. 1 a Structural map of Iran (based on and redrawn from

Berberian and King 1981; Sepehr and Cosgrove 2004; Fakhari

et al. 2008; Casini et al. 2011; Taherpour Khalil Abad et al. 2011;

Rami et al. 2012), b geological map of the study area and the location

of the study stratigraphic succession in the Shalamzar area, (southern

Shahr Kord) in the Zagros basin (Zahedi et al. 1999). The study

succession consists of the lithostratigraphic units 1, 2 and 3

26 Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38

123

basal and upper parts of the unit 1 and the basal parts of

the unit 2. The intervals trend parallel to the conglomer-

ates. The carbonate–siliciclastic intervals in the unit 1

(Figs. 2, 3, 4b) consist of fine-grained foraminiferal mud-

stone (with spars pebbles) partially intercalated with non-

fossiliferous silty mudstone. The mudstone facies laterally

Fig. 2 Study upper Cenozoic

syn orogenic conglomeratic

succession in the Shalamzar

area. The succession is divided

into units 1, 2 and 3

Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38 27

123

change into conglomerates (Fig. 4b). The conglomerates of

the upper unit 1 and the basal unit 2 overlie the mudstone

facies (Figs. 2, 3). The carbonate–siliciclastic intervals

within the unit 2 of the conglomeratic succession are al-

ternated with conglomerates and change laterally into

conglomerates. These intervals mainly consist of several

soft muddy facies containing sandy grains and fine-grained

siliciclastics (e.g., silty mudstone, sandy mudstone, fossil-

iferous sandy mudstone, fossiliferous argillaceous mud-

stone and calcareous claystone) and subordinate hard

lithified facies groups (such as coral pillar stone, coral

dome stone, coral mix stone, par conglomerate, fossilifer-

ous calclithite and hybrid sandstone) (Figs. 3, 4e–f). The

carbonate–siliciclastic intervals are rich in diverse fossil

assemblages including benthic foraminifera, mollusks,

selachian and bony fish remains, land-derived plant mate-

rials and small lenses of coals. The intervals are overlain by

a 600-m-thick succession of the unit 2 conglomerates and

the unit 3 conglomerates. The exposed unit 2 conglomer-

ates are mainly covered by the quaternary terraces.

Fig. 3 The fossiliferous

carbonate–siliciclastic intervals

of the study conglomeratic

succession in the two units 1

and 2. The intervals laterally

change into conglomerates

28 Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38

123

Materials and methods

Several benthic and planktic foraminifera were sampled

from the mixed siliciclastic–carbonate intervals from the

conglomeratic succession in the Shalamzar area. The de-

posits containing the paleontological materials are

dominated by mudstone facies. Due to dominance of soft

and muddy facies within the study intervals, numerous

free tests of foraminifera were collected from the deposits.

Almost 90 % of the benthic foraminifera and all the

planktic species were sampled and studied in free forms.

Also, 10 % of the benthic forms were studied in thin

sections. The rock samples from the deposits were freez-

ing alternatively, in order to disaggregate the sediments.

The microfossil-bearing disaggregated sediments were

analyzed by an Olympus stereo microscope model SZX12.

Subsequently, the paleontological samples were separated

from the sediments and prepared for the microscopic and

SEM analysis. The SEM microphotographs were taken

from the free samples of the microfossils by using scan-

ning electron microscope model Seron Technology AIS-

2100. Also, the transversal and axial sections of some

specimens of the identified benthic foraminifera were

photographed by Olympus digital camera model DP12

from the thin sections of hard lithified limestones and

calcareous facies. The identification of the foraminifera is

commonly based on the (Loeblich and Tappan 1988)

classification.

Foraminifera biodiversity

Paleontological analysis resulted in the identification of a

total of five genera and eight species of planktic for-

aminifera and 32 genera and 34 species of benthic for-

aminifera within the carbonate–siliciclastic intervals of the

study conglomeratic succession (Fig. 5). Based on the di-

versity and the relative abundance of the microfossil

assemblages in the study sedimentary intervals, the for-

aminifera (Plates 1, 2, 3) are classified into the following

morpho groups (Figs. 5, 6, 7).

Morpho group A: planktic foraminifera

The morpho group A comprises an assemblage of planktic

foraminifera identified in the foraminiferal mudstone facies

in the unit 1 of the conglomeratic succession (Figs. 3, 5, 6).

The assemblage is dominated by the following species:

Globigerinoides sp., Globigerinoides triloba, Globigerina

spp., Globigerina praebulloides, Globigerina ciperoensis,

Globigerina foliata, Globigerina ouachitaensis, Globiger-

inella obesa, Globigerinoides immaturus, Globoquadrina

sp., Globoturborotalita woodi.

Morpho group B: deep benthic foraminifera

The morpho group B includes an assemblage of deep

benthic foraminifera determined in the foraminiferal

mudstone facies in the unit 1 of the conglomeratic suc-

cession (Figs. 3, 5, 6). The dominant foram species in-

clude: Almaena escornebovensis, Almaena osnabrugensis,

Amphicoryna spp., Amphicoryna hispida, Amphicoryna cf.

Spinicostata, Bolivina sp., Cibicidoides ungerianus,

Favulina cf. scalariformis, Heterolepa spp., Heterolepa

conoidea, Heterolepa dutemplei, Heterolepa praecincta,

Lagena geminensis, Laevidentalina spp., Dentalina sp.,

Lenticulina spp., Lenticulina calcar, Lenticulina inornata,

Lenticulina ornata, Lenticulina vortex, Marginulina spp.,

Martinotiella communis, Martinotiella karreri, Oolina sp.,

Plectofrondicularia cf. digitalis, Praeglobobulimina spp.,

Praeglobobulimina pyrula, Praeglobobulimina pupoides,

Pyramidulina spp., Pyramidulina raphanistrum, Riminop-

sis boueanus, Semivulvulina sp., Spiroplectinella carinata,

Uvigerina spp., Uvigerina cf. urnula.

Morpho group C: large benthic foraminifera

This morpho group consists of large benthic foraminifera

(LBFs). The large benthic foraminifera are the dominant

faunal constituents of the carbonate–siliciclastic intervals

of the unit 2 conglomeratic succession (Figs. 3, 5, 6). The

LBF species are divided into three following groups:

– Imperforate agglutinated biserial forms: Textularia

spp., Textularia abbreviate and Sahulia spp.

– Imperforate porcelaneous assemblage: Borelis cf.

melo, Borelis spp., miliolids and Peneroplis sp. Sixty

percent of this faunal assemblage is dominated by

miliolids. Also, 39 % of the species include Borelis

– Robust hyaline assemblage: Miogypsina spp.,

Miogypsina globulina, Amphistegina spp., Amphistegi-

na cf. bohdanowiczi, Amphistegina cf. mammilla and

Amphistegina lessoni. Sparse LBFs such as Miogypsi-

na, Amphistegina and miliolids were first appeared in

the mudstone intervals of the unit 1 of the study

conglomeratic succession (Figs. 5, 6).

Morpho group D: other benthic foraminifera

This group of foraminifera comprises agglutinated species

such as Clavulina cf. angularis, Pseudogaudryina sp.,

Pseudogaudryina mayeriana and some hyaline foraminifera

(Elphidium spp., Elphidium praeforme, Elphidium fichte-

lianum, Aubignyna kiliani, Cribrononion) within the car-

bonate–siliciclastic intervals of the unit 2 (Figs. 3, 5, 6).

However, the Elphidium spp. first appeared in the

foraminiferal mudstone of the unit 1 of the study succession.

Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38 29

123

30 Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38

123

Biostratigraphy

Planktic and large benthic foraminifera are extensively

useful stratigraphically markers in dating tertiary carbonate

platforms, shelves and other paleoenvironments with

marine conditions (Boudagher-Fadel 2008, 2013). In the

study succession, the mudstone facies of the intervals S2–

S5 and Sh 0.25 within the unit 1 of the conglomeratic

succession (Figs. 3, 5, 6) contain a marker planktic

foraminiferal assemblage of Globoturborotalia woodi,

Globigerina cf. ciperoensis, Globigerinoides immaturus

and Globigerinella obesa.

This planktic association can be indicative of early

Burdigalian age in Iran (Reuter et al. 2009). The coexis-

tence of large benthic foraminifera such as Borelis melo

and Miogypsina in the carbonate–siliciclastic intervals of

the unit 2 (Fig. 5) represents Burdigalian (Adams and

Bourgeois 1967; Cahuzac and Poignant 1997). However,

the lowermost part of the unit 1 with no marker fossils

(Fig. 5) could be pre-Burdigalian in age (Figs. 5, 6). In

addition, the uppermost hybrid sandstone (Figs. 5, 6) de-

posited on the marine fossiliferous intervals of the unit 2 is

probably post-Burdigalian in age due to the lack of marine

fossils and its stratigraphic position.

Fig. 5 Biostratigraphic column of the upper Cenozoic synorogenic conglomeratic succession in the study area based on the fossiliferous

intervals

bFig. 4 a Outcrops of the unit 1 conglomerates. b The unit 1

conglomerates are intercalated with foraminifera mudstones. Partial-

ly, the mudstone intervals laterally pass into the conglomerates. c–

d The unit 2 conglomerates are exposed in the north of the Shalamzar

area. e–f The exposed carbonate–siliciclastic intervals in the unit 2 of

the conglomeratic succession. g The carbonate–siliciclastic intervals

of the unit 2 and the conglomerates of the unit 3 near the Juneghan

syncline

Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38 31

123

Plate 1 SEM photomicrographs of the foraminifera species identi-

fied in the mudstone intervals of the unit 1 of the study conglomeratic

succession in the Shalamzar area (southern Shahr Kord), in the Zagros

basin, central western Iran. 1 Favulina cf. scalariformis, 2 Amphico-

ryna sp., 3 Amphicoryna sp., 4 Amphicoryna hispida, 5–6 Amphico-

ryna cf. spinicostata, 7 Neugeborina boueana, 8 Oolina sp. 9

Pyramidulina raphanistrum. 10 Pyramidulina spp., 11 Lagena

geminensis., 12–13 Martinottiella karreri., 14, 15. Laevidentalina

spp., 16 Marginulina sp., 17 Marginulina sp., 18–21 Uvigerina cf.

urnula, 22 Cibicidoides ungerianus, 23–24 Spiroplectinella carinata,

25–27 Almaena osnabrugensis, 28–29 Heterolepa spp., 30–31

Heterolepa conoidea, 32 Lenticulina cf. calcar, 33 Dentalina sp.,

34 Martinottiella communis, 35–36 Lenticulina spp., 37 Prae-

globobulimina pyrula, 38–42 Globigerinids (Globigerina spp.), 43–

45 Miliolids

32 Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38

123

Plate 2 SEM photomicrographs of the foraminifera species identi-

fied in the carbonate–siliciclastic intervals of the unit 2 of the study

conglomeratic succession in the Shalamzar area (southern Shahr

Kord), in the Zagros basin, central western Iran. 1, 2 Miliolids, 3

Pseudogaudryina mayeriana, 4 Borelis cf. melo, 5 Miogypsina

globulina, 6 Miogypsina sp. (5–6 cubic, octahedral or dodecahedral

pyrite grains on the outer shell of Miogypsina), 7–9 Peneroplis spp.,

10–12 Amphistegina cf. mammilla, 13 Amphistegina sp., 14, 15

Amphistegina bohdanowiczi, 16–21 Sahulia (?) spp., 22–24 Textu-

laria (?) sp., 25–27 Aubignyna kiliani, 28–31 Elphidium spp., 32–35

Clavulina cf. angularis

Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38 33

123

Paleoecology

Based on the foraminifera biodiversity and abundance and

their morpho groups determined in the study stratigraphic

intervals and the type of the sedimentary intervals con-

taining these faunal assemblages, some paleoecological

factors such as water depth, light intensity, oxygen level,

salinity, water energy and substrate are interpreted. Gen-

erally, in this study, the morpho groups are representative

of paleoenvironmental zones of outer, inner–middle and

inner shelves which are described as below:

Outer shelf foraminiferal associations

The dominant planktic and deep benthic foraminifera of the

morpho groups A and B in the fine-grained mudstone facies

are the main inhabitants of the outer shelf zone (Figs. 6, 7)

below the storm wave base with offshore slope or basinal

conditions such as lower light intensity (oligophotic zone)

and water energy in a deeper depth zone (Wilson 1975;

Burchette and Wright 1992; Geel 2000). The abundance of

planktic foraminifera is representative of water zones

deeper than 120 m, respectively. The presence of planktic

and small benthic foraminifera with hyaline tests is

indicative of normal seawater salinity of ca 34–40 psu

(Reiss and Hottinger 1984; Geel 2000; Mossadegh et al.

2009). Additionally, predominance of dysoxic condition is

particularly reflected by the occurrence of species such as

Bolivina, Praeglobobulimina, Dentalina and Laevidentali-

na (Drinia et al. 2003; Petrova 2004). Suboxic conditions

are also indicated by the occurrence of Lenticulina,

Uvigerina, Almaena and Heterolepa dutemplei. However,

lagenids and Cibicidoides may represent oxic episodes

(Drinia et al. 2003; Petrova 2004).

Plate 3 Thin-section

photographs of the identified

large benthic foraminifera in the

carbonate–siliciclastic intervals

of the unit 2 of the study

conglomeratic succession in the

Shalamzar area (southern Shahr

Kord), in the Zagros basin,

central western Iran. 1

Amphistegina sp. (subaxial

section), 2 Amphistegina cf.

lessonii (axial section), 3

Amphistegina sp. (axial

section), 4 Borelis cf. melo

(transversal section), 5

Miogypsina sp. (axial section),

6, 7 and 8 Miogypsina globulina

(6, 7 equatorial section, 8

transverse section)

34 Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38

123

Inner–middle shelf foraminiferal associations

The inner–middle shelf zone (Figs. 6, 7) is characterized

by abundant and diverse large benthic foraminifera of the

morpho group C and subordinate morpho group D com-

prising mainly of Elphidium, Aubignyna kiliani with

hyaline walls and Clavulina cf. angularis (with aggluti-

nated wall). The large benthic foraminifera in this shelf

zone consist of an assemblage of imperforate agglutinated

(textulariids and Sahulia) and porcelaneous forms (Borelis,

miliolids and sparse Peneroplis) and perforate robust

hyaline forams (e.g., Miogypsina and Amphistegina)

Fig. 6 Relative abundance of

the determined foraminifera

morph groups in the carbonate–

siliciclastic intervals of the

study conglomeratic succession

Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38 35

123

(Figs. 5, 6, 7). The existence of the perforate thick hyaline

(particularly Amphistegina and Elphidium) taxa reflects

moderate-to-high water energy in a euphotic–mesophotic

zone (Brandano et al. 2010) with ca 40–100 m depth, re-

spectively. The presence of a large number of porcelaneous

imperforate foraminifera tests may indicate a hypersaline

condition. However, the co-occurrence of perforate hyaline

and imperforate taxa represents a semi-restricted or open

lagoonal environment with oxygenated, brackish-to-marine

salinity (Romero et al. 2002; Corda and Brandano 2003;

Mossadegh et al. 2009). A water salinity range of circa

40–50 psu is inferred from the co-occurrence of perforated/

imperforated foraminifera such as Miogypsina, Amphiste-

gina, textulariids, Borelis and miliolids. In addition,

prevalence of suboxic–oxic condition is supported by the

presence of species such as Nonion, Elphidium, miliolids,

Miogypsina and Amphistegina (Drinia et al. 2003; Petrova

2004). In the foraminifera morpho group C, the imperforate

porcelaneous species including Borelis, Peneroplis and

miliolids preferred substrates with low stabilities (Barattolo

et al. 2007). Some robust hyaline taxa such as Amphiste-

gina were commonly adapted to hard coarse-grained sub-

strates. Moreover, the presence of agglutinated forms such

as Textularia, Sahulia and Clavulina are consistent with

sandy to gravelly sediments (Figs. 5, 6) and were best

adapted to high inputs of sandy and fine-grained terrige-

nous sediment during sea-level fall (Buois et al. 2012) and

episodically reduced the light intensity. Additionally,

miogypsinids were also inhabitants of sandy or skeletal

sands in water zones with less than 50 m depth (Geel 2000;

Brandano et al. 2007).

Inner shelf foraminiferal associations

The shallow inner shelf environmental zone is character-

ized by lower diversity benthic foraminifera (Figs. 5, 6, 7).

The foraminiferal assemblage is dominated by members of

the morpho group D and rare species from the morpho

group C including sparse Borelis and miliolids (Figs. 5, 6,

7). Such biotic association reflects a euphotic light zone

with circa less than 40 m depth (Fig. 7) and well-oxy-

genated water with moderate-to-high energy. The imper-

forate porcelaneous miliolids and Borelis species and the

general foraminifera biodiversity of the inner shelf envi-

ronment (Figs. 5, 6, 7) reflect a higher salinity or slightly

hypersaline condition with a salinity range of slightly more

than 50 psu, respectively.

Conclusions

The carbonate–siliciclastic intervals that have been re-

cently reported from a Cenozoic synorogenic conglomer-

atic succession in the Zagros sedimentary basin in central

western Iran contain abundant and diverse assemblages of

foraminifera. The paleontological studies resulted in the

Fig. 7 Paleoenvironmental distribution patterns of the identified foraminifera morph groups. The foraminifera species are distributed in three

environmental zones of outer, inner–middle and inner shelves

36 Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38

123

identification of the following foraminifera morpho groups

indicative of Burdigalian age: (A) planktic, (B) deep ben-

thic, (C) large benthic (robust hyaline, imperforate agglu-

tinated and porcelaneous forms) and (D) other benthic

foraminifera. Based on the morpho groups, outer, inner–

middle and inner shelf paleo-environmental zones were

described. The studies showed that the biotic microfaunas

are representative of a dysoxic–oxic marine environment

with a depth range circa between \40 and [120 m with

euphotic to oligophotic light zones and low-to-moderate to

high water energy. Also, normal seawater salinity, brack-

ish-to-marine salinity and slightly hypersaline waters are

inferred from the morpho groups.

Acknowledgments This research was financially supported by the

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. We gratefully thank

Dr. Gheorghe Popescu for the very valuable contributions to the

taxonomic identifications.

References

Adams TD, Bourgeois F (1967) Asmari biostratigraphy. Iranian Oil

Operating Companies, Geological and Exploration Division,

IOOC Report, no. 1074 (unpublished)

Barattolo F, Bassim D, Romero R (2007) Upper Eocene larger

foraminiferal––coralline algal facies from the Klokova Mountain

(south continental Greece). Facies 53:361–375

Berberian M, King GCP (1981) Towards a paleogeography and

tectonic evolution of Iran. Can J Earth Sci 18:210–265

Boudagher-Fadel MK (2008) Evolution and geological significance of

larger Benthic Foraminifera. Elsevier, Amsterdam

Boudagher–Fadel MK (2013) Biostratigraphic and Geological Sig-

nificance of Planktonic Foraminifera. UK: Office of the Vice

Provost (Research), UCL. (OVPR UCL), 2nd (ed). London

Brandano M, Giannini E, Schiavinotto F, Verrubbi V (2007)

Miogypsina globulina (Michelotti) from lower Miocene Villa

S. Lucia section (M.TE Cairo, Central Apennines). Geol Romana

40:119–127

Brandano M, Morsilli M, Vannucci G, Parente M, Bosellini F, Vicens

G (2010) Rhodolith–rich lithofacies of the Porto Badisco

Calcarenites (upper Chattian, Salento, southern Italy). It J

Geosci 129(1):119–131

British Petroleum Company (1963) Isfahan geological map (a) and

Khorramabad geological map (b), 1:250000. London

Buois C, Armynot Du, Chatelet E, Cherchi A (2012) Benthic

Foraminiferal assemblages in the current–dominated Strait of

Bonifacio (Mediterranean Sea). J Foramin Res 42:39–55

Burchette TP, Wright VP (1992) Carbonate ramp depositional

systems. Sed Geol 79:3–57

Cahuzac B, Poignant A (1997) An attempt of biozonation of the

Oligo-Miocene in the European basin, by means of larger neritic

foraminifera. Bull Soc Geol Fr 168(2):155–169

Casini G, Gillespie PA, Verges J, Romaire I, Fernandez N, Casciello

E, Saura E, Mehl C, Homke S, Embry JC, Aghajari L, Hunt DW

(2011) Sub–seismic fractures in foreland fold and thrust belts:

insight from the Lurestan Province, Zagros Mountains. Iran

Petroleum Geosci 17:263–282

Corda L, Brandano M (2003) Aphotic zone carbonate production

on a Miocene ramp Central Apennines, Italy. Sed Geol

61:55–70

Drinia H, Tsaparas N, Antonarakou A, Goumas G (2003) Benthic

foraminiferal biofacies associated with Middle to early Late

Miocene oxygen deficient conditions in the Eastern Mediter-

ranean. In: Proceedings of the 8th International conference on

environmental science and technology Lemnos Island, Greece,

pp A 191–198

Esmaili K (2008) The study of microfacies and sedimentary

environment of the Tertiary deposits and coarse grain Quater-

nary fluvial sediments in south of Shahr Kord. Unpublished

MSc. thesis, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan (Isfahan)

branch

Fakhari MD, Axen GJ, Horton BK, Hassanzadeh J, Amini A (2008)

Revised age of proximal deposits in the Zagros foreland basin

and implications for Cenozoic evolution of the high Zagros.

Tectonophys 451:170–185

Flugel E (2004) Microfacies of carbonate rocks. Springer, Berlin

Gavillot Y, Axen GJ, Stockli DF, Horton BK, Fakhari MD (2010)

Timing of thrust activity in the High Zagros fold–thrust belt,

Iran, from (U–Th)/He thermochronometry. Tectonics

TC4025:25–29. doi:10.1029/2009TC002484

Geel T (2000) Recognition of stratigraphic sequences in carbonate

platform and slope deposits: empirical models based on

microfiches analysis of Paleogene deposits in southeastern

Spain. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 155:211–238

Hallock P, Glenn EC (1986) Larger foraminifera: a tool for

paleoenvironmental analysis of Cenozoic depositional facies.

Palaios 1(1):55–64

Homke S, Verges J, Graces M, Emami H, Karpuz R (2004) Magneto

stratigraphy of Miocene–Pliocene Zagros foreland deposits in

the front of the Pushe Kush Arc (Lurestan Province, Iran). Earth

Planet Sci Lett 225:397–410

James GA, Wynd JG (1965) Stratigraphic nomenclature of Iranian oil

consortium agreement area. AAPG Bull 49:2182–2245

Loeblich AR, Tappan H (1988) Foraminiferal genera and their

classification (2 vols). Van Nostrant Reinhold Company, New

York

Molinaro M, Guezou JC, Letutmy P, Eshraghi SA, De Lamotte DF

(2004) The origin of changes in structural style across the

Bandar Abbas syntaxis, SE Zagros (Iran). Mar Petrol Geol

21:735–752

Mossadegh ZK, Haig DW, Allan T, Adabi MH, Sadeghi A (2009)

Salinity changes during late oligocene to early miocene asmari

formation deposition, Zagros Mountains. Iran Palaeogeogr

Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 272:17–36

Petrova P (2004) Foraminiferal assemblages as an indicator of

foreland basin evolution (Carpathian Foredeep, Czech Republic).

Bulletin of Geosci 79:231–242

Rami M, Vaziri MR, Taherpour Khalil Abad M, Hosseini SA, Carevic

I, Allameh M (2012) Microbiostratigraphy of the lower creta-

ceous strata from the Bararig Mountain. SE Iran Rev Mex Cienc

Geol 29(1):63–75

Reiss Z, Hottinger L (1984) The Gulf of Aqaba, Ecological

micropaleontology (Ecol. Stud. 50). Springer, Tokyo

Reuter M, Piller WE, Harzhauser M, Mandic O, Berning B, Rogel F,

Kroh A, Aubry MP, Wielandt-Schuster U, Hamadani A (2009)

The Oligo–/Miocene Qom Formation (Iran): evidence for an

early Burdigalian restriction of the Tethyan Seaway and closure

of its Iranian gateways. Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch)

98:627–650

Romero J, Caus E, Rossel J (2002) A model for the paleoenviron-

mental distribution of larger foraminifera based on late middle

Eocene deposits on the margin of the south Pyrenean basin.

Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 179:43–56

Sepehr M, Cosgrove JW (2004) Structural framework of the Zagros

fold thrust belt. Iran Mar Pet Geol 21:829–843

Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38 37

123

Taherpour Khalil Abad M, Aryaei AA, Ashouri AR, Ghaderi A

(2011) Introducing some echinoderms from the Tirgan Forma-

tion, Kopeh-Dagh Basin. NE Iran Geopersia 1(1):83–94

Wilson JL (1975) Carbonate facies in geologic history. Springer, New

York

Zahedi M, Vaezipour J, Rahmati Ilkhchi M (1999) Geological

Quadrangle map of Iran (Shahr Kord), scale 1:250,000, no. E8.

Geological Survey of Iran

38 Carbonates Evaporites (2016) 31:25–38

123