Search

The interaction of river and marine processes in the fluvial to marine transition zone fundamentally impacts delta plain morphology and sedimentary dynamics. This study aims to improve existing models of the facies distribution, stratigraphic architecture and preservation in the fluvial to marine transition zone of mixed‐process deltas, using a comprehensive sedimentological and stratigraphic dataset from the Middle Miocene Lambir Formation, Baram Delta Province, north‐west Borneo. Eleven facies associations are identified and interpreted to preserve the interaction of fluvial and marine processes in a mixed‐energy delta, where fluvial, wave and tidal processes display spatially and temporally variable interactions. Stratigraphic successions in axial areas associated with active distributary channels are sandstone‐rich, comprising fluvial‐dominated and wave‐dominated units. Successions in lateral areas, which lack active distributary channels, are mudstone‐rich, comprising fluvial‐dominated, tide‐dominated and wave‐dominated units, including mangrove swamps. Widespread mudstone preservation in axial and lateral areas suggests well‐developed turbidity maximum zones, a consequence of high suspended‐sediment concentrations resulting from tropical weathering of a mudstone‐rich hinterland. Within the fluvial to marine transition zone of distributary channels, interpreted proximal–distal sedimentological and stratigraphic trends suggest: (i) a proximal fluvial‐dominated, tide‐influenced subzone; (ii) a distal fluvial‐dominated to wave‐dominated subzone; and (iii) a conspicuously absent tide‐dominated subzone. Lateral areas preserve a more diverse spectrum of facies and stratigraphic elements reflecting combined storm, tidal and subordinate river processes. During coupled storm and river floods, fluvial processes dominated the fluvial to marine transition zone along major and minor distributary channels and channel mouths, causing significant overprinting of preceding interflood deposits. Despite interpreted fluvial–tidal channel units and mangrove influence implying tidal processes, there is a paucity of unequivocal tidal indicators (for example, cyclical heterolithic layering). This suggests that process preservation in the fluvial to marine transition zone preserved in the Lambir Formation primarily records episodic (flashy) river discharge, river flood and storm overprinting of tidal processes, and possible backwater dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2 to 5 km thick, sandstone‐dominated (>90%) Jura Quartzite is an extreme example of a mature Neoproterozoic sandstone, previously interpreted as a tide‐influenced shelf deposit and herein re‐interpreted within a fluvio‐tidal deltaic depositional model. Three issues are addressed: (i) evidence for the re‐interpretation from tidal shelf to tidal delta; (ii) reasons for vertical facies uniformity; and (iii) sand supply mechanisms to form thick tidal‐shelf sandstones. The predominant facies (compound cross‐bedded, coarse‐grained sandstones) represents the lower parts of metres to tens of metres high, transverse fluvio‐tidal bedforms with superimposed smaller bedforms. Ubiquitous erosional surfaces, some with granule–pebble lags, record erosion of the upper parts of those bedforms. There was selective preservation of the higher energy, topographically‐lower, parts of channel‐bar systems. Strongly asymmetrical, bimodal, palaeocurrents are interpreted as due to associated selective preservation of fluvially‐enhanced ebb tidal currents. Finer‐grained facies are scarce, due largely to suspended sediment bypass. They record deposition in lower‐energy environments, including channel mouth bars, between and down depositional‐dip of higher energy fluvio‐ebb tidal bars. The lack of wave‐formed sedimentary structures and low continuity of mudstone and sandstone interbeds, support deposition in a non‐shelf setting. Hence, a sand‐rich, fluvial–tidal, current‐dominated, largely sub‐tidal, delta setting is proposed. This new interpretation avoids the problem of transporting large amounts of coarse sand to a shelf. Facies uniformity and vertical stacking are likely due to sediment oversupply and bypass rather than balanced sediment supply and subsidence rates. However, facies evidence of relative sea level changes is difficult to recognise, which is attributed to: (i) the areally extensive and polygenetic nature of the preserved facies, and (ii) a large stored sediment buffer that dampened response to relative sea‐level and/or sediment supply changes. Consideration of preservation bias towards high‐energy deposits may be more generally relevant, especially to thick Neoproterozoic and Lower Palaeozoic marine sandstones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]