Search

Ancient shoreline–shelf depositional systems are influenced by an unusually wide array of geological, biological and hydrodynamic processes, with sediment transport and deposition primarily determined by the interaction of river, wave (including storm) and tidal processes, and changes in relative sea level. Understanding the impact of these processes on shoreline–shelf morphodynamics and stratigraphic preservation remains challenging. Numerical modelling integrated with traditional facies analysis provides an increasingly viable approach, with the potential to quantify, and thereby improve understanding of, the impact of these complex coastal sedimentary processes. An integrated approach is presented here that focuses on palaeotidal modelling to investigate the controls on ancient tides and their influence on sedimentary deposition and preservation – one of the three cornerstones of the ternary process classification scheme of shoreline-shelf systems. Numerical tidal modelling methodology is reviewed and illustrated in three palaeotidal model case studies of different scales and focus. The results are synthesised in the context of shoreline–shelf processes, including a critique and modification of the process-based classification scheme. The emphasis on tidal processes reflects their global importance throughout Earth's history. Ancient palaeotidal models are able to highlight and quantify the following four controls on tidal processes: (1) the physiography (shape and depth) of oceans (1000s km scale) determines the degree of tidal resonance; (2) the physiography of ocean connections to partly enclosed water bodies (100–1000s km scale) determines the regional-scale flux of tidal energy (inflow versus outflow); (3) the physiography of continental shelves influences shelf tidal resonance potential; and (4) tides in relatively local-scale embayments (typically 1–10s km scale) are influenced by the balance of tidal amplification due to funnelling, shoaling and resonance effects versus frictional damping. In deep time, palaeogeographic and palaeobathymetric uncertainty can be accounted for in palaeotidal models by performing sensitivity analyses to different scenarios, across this range of spatial scales. These tidal process controls are incorporated into an updated predictive decision tree for determining shoreline–shelf process regime in terms of the relative interaction of wave, fluvial and tidal processes. The predictive decision tree considers the effects of basin physiography, shelf width and shoreline morphology on wave, fluvial and tidal processes separately. Uncertainty and ambiguity in applying the widely used three-tier process classification scheme are reduced by using the decision tree in conjunction with a proposed two-tier classification of process regime that is limited to primary and secondary processes. This two-tier classification scheme is illustrated in the three case studies, showing how integration of numerical modelling with facies analysis of the preserved stratigraphic record improves confidence in prediction of tide-influenced shoreline-shelf process regimes. Wider application of this approach will further improve process-based classifications and predictions of modern and ancient shoreline–shelf systems. [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]