Author’s Proof

Carefully read the entire proof and mark all corrections in the appropriate place, using the Adobe Reader commenting tools (Adobe Help).
We do not accept corrections in the form of edited manuscripts.

In order to ensure the timely publication of your article, please submit the corrections within 48 hours.
If you have any questions, contact [Link]@[Link].

Quick Check-List
• Author names - Complete, accurate and consistent with your previous publications.
• Affiliations - Complete and accurate. Follow this style when applicable: Department, Institute, University, City, Country.
• Tables - Make sure our formatting style did not change the meaning/alignment of your Tables.
• Figures - Make sure we are using the latest versions.
• Funding and Acknowledgments - List all relevant funders and acknowledgments.
• Conflict of Interest - Ensure any relevant conflicts are declared.
• Supplementary files - Ensure the latest files are published and that no line numbers and tracked changes are visible.
Also, the supplementary files should be cited in the article body text.
• Queries - Reply to all typesetters queries below.
• Content - Read all content carefully and ensure any necessary corrections are made.

Author Queries Form

Query No. Details required Author’s Response

Q1 Your article has been copyedited to ensure that we publish the highest
quality work possible. Please check it carefully to make sure that it is
correct and that the meaning was not lost during the process.

Q2 The citation and surnames of all of the authors have been highlighted.
Check that they are correct and consistent with the authors’ previous
publications, and correct if need be. Please note that this may affect
the indexing of your article in repositories such as PubMed.

Q3 Please ask the following authors to register with Frontiers (at https://
[Link]/Registration/[Link]) if they would like their
names on the article abstract page and PDF to be linked to a Frontiers
profile. Please ensure to provide us with the profile link(s) when
submitting the proof corrections. Non-registered authors will have the
default profile image displayed.
Héctor A. Leanza

Q4 Could you please confirm if all author affiliations are fine as listed?

Q5 Confirm that the email address in your correspondence section is

accurate.

Q6 If you decide to use previously published, copyrighted figures in your

article, please keep in mind that it is your responsibility, as the author,
to obtain the appropriate permissions and licenses and to follow
any citation instructions requested by third-party rights holders. If
obtaining the reproduction rights involves the payment of a fee, these
charges are to be paid by the authors.
Query No. Details required Author’s Response

Q7 Ensure that all the figures, tables and captions are correct, and that all
figures are of the highest quality/resolution.

Q8 Verify that all the equations and special characters are displayed
correctly.

Q9 Please confirm that the Data Availability statement is accurate. Note

that we have used the statement provided at Submission. If this is not
the latest version, please let us know.

Q10 Confirm that the details in the “Author Contributions” section are
correct.

Q11 Ensure to add all grant numbers and funding information, as after
publication this will no longer be possible.

Q12 Please reduce Keywords to maximum of eight words.

Q13 Please include the following references in the reference list.

Donselaar, 1989; Sadler, 1981.

Q14 Please confirm whether “Fm.” may be used as an abbreviation for

“formation” throughout the text.

Q15 Kindly confirm whether the heading levels have been correctly
identified.

Q16 Does these parenthetical numbers denote a citation? If so, please re-
render It in name–date format.

Q17 Please cite Figure 3E inside the text.

Q18 Please confirm insertion of “were” between “beds” and “formed” and
the insertion of a period after the parenthetical citations (done to
render this clause independent, so as to parse with the independent
clause that follows).

Q19 Please confirm replacement of hyphen with “to” between NNE and
SSW (done so to avoid ambiguity with “-striking”)

Q20 Please confirm replacement of hyphen with “to” between N and S

(done so to avoid ambiguity with “-oriented”)

Q21 Please confirm removal of parentheses around “high-frequency”

Q22 We have changed the heading “Conflict of interest” as “Funding.”

Please confirm if this is fine.

Q23 Please provide city name for the reference “Allen and Mercier, 1994.”
 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: xx June 2020
doi: 10.3389/feart.2020.00219
1 58
2 59
3 60
4 61
5 62
6 63
7
8 Sedimentary Architecture of 64
65
9
10 Storm-Influenced Tidal Flat Deposits 66
67
11
12 of the Upper Mulichinco Formation, 68
69
13
14 Neuquén Basin, Argentina 70
71
15 72
16 Arve R. N. Sleveland 1* , Ivar Midtkandal 1 , Olivier Galland 2 and Héctor A. Leanza 3 73
17 74 Q2
1
Tectonostratigraphic Research Group, Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 2 NJORD-Centre,
18 75
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 3 Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales Q4
Q3
19 Bernardino Rivadavia, Buenos Aires, Argentina 76
Q4
20 77
21 78
22 This study reports on the Lower Cretaceous upper Mulichinco Formation in the 79
Q1
23 Neuquén Basin, west-central Argentina. The studied succession comprises shallow 80
24 marine strata, deposited in a mixed wave and tidal flat environment where ebb-tidal 81
25 82
currents dominated. We describe mixed storm- and tide-influenced deposits within
26 83
27
progradationally stacked high-frequency sequences and discuss process interaction, 84
28
Edited by: sediment dispersal, and preservation potential. These storm and tidal deposits mix 85
David Mark Hodgson,
29
University of Leeds, United Kingdom
spatially on bed, bedset, and sequence scales, suggesting a multi-scale process 86
30 interaction. The study investigates a 12-km-long continuous outcrop, oriented sub- 87
Reviewed by:
31 88
Shahin Dashtgard, parallel to the paleocoastline. The succession comprises subtidal flat and meandering
32 89
Simon Fraser University, Canada
33
tidal channel complexes, with interbedding and interfingering of storm and tidal deposits. 90
Cornel Olariu,
34 The University of Texas at Austin, The tidal deposits are widespread and comprise moderately sorted sandstones with 91
35 United States bimodal paleocurrent directions, single and double mud drapes, reactivation surfaces, 92
36 Valentina Rossi, 93
National Research Council (Cnr), Italy
and inclined heterolithic stratification. Varying bimodal paleocurrent directions suggest
37 94
Q5 *Correspondence:
that the paleocoastline was irregular, consisting of both protrusions and bays. Storm
38 95
39 Arve R. N. Sleveland deposits are mainly found erosively interbedded with subtidal flat sandstones, and 96
[Link]@[Link]
40 exhibit decimeter-thick, well-sorted hummocky and swaley cross-stratified sandstones. 97
41
Specialty section:
These storm deposits show systematic lateral variations in abundance, from dominant 98
42 99
This article was submitted to to absent, which are linked to subtle variations in water depth along the irregular
43 Sedimentology, Stratigraphy and 100
44
paleocoastline. As the tidal deposits are widespread across the study area, and 101
Diagenesis,
45 a section of the journal with no significant facies change, the varying dispersal of storm-influenced deposits 102
46 Frontiers in Earth Science is considered a product of wave refraction, with converging and diverging wave 103
47 Received: 06 December 2019 energy at interpreted positions of coastal protrusions and embayments, respectively. 104
48 Accepted: 25 May 2020 105
Published: xx June 2020
Consequently, the irregular paleocoastline morphology caused spatial variability in wave
49 106
50 Citation:
impact and controlled preservation of interbedded storm and tidal deposits at the 107
51 Sleveland ARN, Midtkandal I, coastal protrusions while facilitating complete tidal remobilization of sediments in the 108
Galland O and Leanza HA (2020)
52 embayments. With no evidence for fluvial influence, ebb-tidal currents are considered 109
Sedimentary Architecture of
53 110
Storm-Influenced Tidal Flat Deposits as the main drivers for sediment dispersal onto the subtidal flat, through the meandering
54 111
of the Upper Mulichinco Formation, tidal channels.
55 Neuquén Basin, Argentina. 112
56 Front. Earth Sci. 8:219. Keywords: sedimentology, mixed-process, tidal, wave, modification processes, shallow marine, preservation, 113 Q12
57 doi: 10.3389/feart.2020.00219 Mulichinco Formation, Neuquén Basin 114

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 1 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

Q8 115 INTRODUCTION the frequency/magnitude of storms/wave impact, and how these 172
116 combine with tidal currents during neap and spring cycles. The 173

Q11 117 Shallow marine and coastal deposits are commonly classified successive alternation of storm and tidal deposits in the deltaic 174
118 with respect to their dominant depositional and modification Rannoch Fm., Northern North Sea (Wei et al., 2016), is an 175
119 processes (fluvial, wave, and tidal) on ternary diagrams example of how storm waves and tidal have altered architecture 176
120 (e.g., Galloway, 1975; Boyd et al., 1992; Dalrymple et al., of a delta shoreface by successively remobilizing each other’s 177
121 1992; Ainsworth et al., 2011). The classification schemes deposits. Other examples of similar process interactions have 178
122 are typically used to infer certain depositional styles and been recognized from other depositional systems where waves 179
123 three-dimensional (3D) architecture, based on the interpreted and tides interacted on deposition (Yang et al., 2005; Dashtgard 180
124 depositional environment, and have implications for predictive et al., 2009, 2012; Vakarelov et al., 2012; Leva López et al., 2016; 181
125 models for sediment body distribution. Ternary diagrams Vaucher et al., 2017) and environments that also recorded some 182
126 therefore offer a means of guiding our expectation of sediment degree of fluvial influence (Jordan et al., 2016; Van Cappelle et al., 183
127 distribution within a depositional system, but predictions of 2017; Peng et al., 2018). 184
128 heterogeneity in depositional process distribution both within In mixed-process coastal environments, fluvial, wave, 185
129 that system and along the paleo-strike are limited. Furthermore, and tidal processes all have the capacity to modify and 186
130 ternary diagrams do not account for how paleogeography redistribute sediments, which adds complexity and clutters our 187
131 and paleotopography/bathymetry impact process distribution understanding of initial sediment partitioning, sorting, textures, 188
132 within a sedimentary environment, ultimately affecting the 3D internal structures, and sediment body distribution. What is 189
133 architecture of a deposit. Shallow marine and coastal systems preserved from such dynamic coastal environments is not a 190
134 are highly dynamic environments where relative dominance of complete archive of processes active in the basin. To understand 191
135 depositional processes, their relative contribution, distribution, distribution of such mixed-process deposits hence relies on the 192
136 and level of interaction may shift through time and space accurate unraveling of the intrinsic behavior of their parental 193
137 (Ainsworth et al., 2011; Vakarelov and Ainsworth, 2013; Olariu, processes, and their spatiotemporal interaction. 194
138 2014; Rossi et al., 2017). For such systems, multiple ternary To constrain the process interplay in an ancient depositional 195
139 diagrams can be applied together to better explain and classify environment, its preservation potential must be considered. It has 196
140 the spatiotemporal development and distribution of architectural long been recognized that the preserved stratigraphic record is 197
141 elements (Ainsworth et al., 2011). Where fluvial influence is incomplete and filled with temporal hiatuses, which span from 198
142 low/absent, such as in a tidal flat or shoreface environment, years to millions of years (Sadler, 1981; Miall, 2015; Holbrook 199
143 a ternary diagram can be helpful to distinguish between fair- and Miall, 2020). For this reason, calculations of sedimentation 200
144 weather and storm waves and their contribution relative to tidal rates are time scale-dependent and inaccurate (Sadler, 1981), and 201
145 processes (Dashtgard et al., 2012). the stratigraphic record is thus unrepresentative in explaining 202
146 Mixed-process coastal deposits can be divided into two main the true development of a sedimentary environment (Miall, 203
147 types. First, there are deposits that form in separate domains 2015). Because of the high potential for having unpreserved 204
148 of process dominance. These are environments where process (missing) strata in a sedimentary succession, investigations of 205
149 dominance is restricted by morphology, such as in a barrier true process interplay are challenging. Additionally, preservation 206
150 island complex (wave dominance), back-barrier tidal lagoons of storm- and tide-generated deposits may vary according to 207
151 and channels, and potentially a fluvial-dominated bay-head delta grain size, following the different stages of the relative sea level 208
152 landward. Examples of such present-day environments are the cycle (Yoshida et al., 2007). Yoshida et al. (2007) presented 209
153 Friesian Islands coastline of the Netherlands (shown in Sixsmith how storm-generated structures are better preserved in fine and 210
154 et al., 2008, Figure 15) or the barrier-bay systems of the northern very fine sand and associated to transgressive and highstand 211
155 Gulf of Mexico (Simms et al., 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2010). coastlines, while current-driven (such as tidal) structures are 212
156 Similar ancient examples include the Upper Cretaceous Cliff typically favored in medium and coarse sand from falling stage 213
Q13 157 House Sandstone (Donselaar, 1989; Olsen et al., 1999) and and early lowstand coastlines. 214
158 Hosta Tongue Sandstone (Sixsmith et al., 2008) of New Mexico, In a setting where the sediment caliber and water depth 215
159 United States, the Upper Cretaceous Sego Sandstone of Utah allows for storms and tidal currents to rework the same 216
160 and Colorado, United States (e.g., Willis and Gabel, 2001, 2003; sediment, tidal currents are relentless along a (tidally active) 217
161 Painter et al., 2013; Legler et al., 2014; Burton et al., 2016), and coastline, while storm waves are relatively short-lived surges 218
162 the Middle Jurassic Lajas Formation of the Neuquén Basin, west- of higher energy and may therefore exert greater impact on 219
163 central Argentina (e.g., Rossi and Steel, 2016). In such coastal the sediment than tides, depending on storm frequency and 220
164 environments, process interaction is limited to the transition magnitude. Storm frequency controls the number of storm beds 221
165 zones between the sections of process dominance (Rossi and within a succession, while storm magnitude controls storm 222
166 Steel, 2016, Figures 20, 21), but the domains can shift through bed thicknesses. Low-frequency/magnitude storms, relative to 223
167 time, resulting in a successive mix of deposits in the rock constant tidal energy, favor tidal remobilization of their relatively 224
168 record. Second, there are deposits that form by a dynamic thin storm deposits, while high-frequency/magnitude storms 225
169 interaction of processes, where relative process contribution is favor complete wave reworking of tidal deposits. Both end- 226
170 approaching equal. This means that the interaction of coastal members can erase the opposing process completely, leaving 227
171 processes may vary by seasonal variations in fluvial discharge, the rock record empty of any signs that may help identify a 228

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 2 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

229 mix of coastal processes. Ancient shallow marine deposits can marine, and inner shelf-mixed carbonate-siliciclastic deposits of 286
230 therefore be classified as end-member single-process depositional the Mulichinco Fm. (Figure 1B) (Legarreta and Gulisano, 1989; 287
231 environments, even though they could have formed in mixed- Howell et al., 2005; Schwarz et al., 2006). The up to 400-m-thick 288
232 process environments. Adding to this intrinsic complexity, wave Mulichinco Fm. is subdivided into three informal members: 289
233 energy is not uniformly distributed along all coastlines. Irregular the lower, middle, and upper members (Figure 1B) (Schwarz, 290
234 coastlines experience wave refraction, where waves (and thereby 1999), according to their regressive, transgressive, and regressive 291
235 wave energy) converge/concentrate around coastal protrusions development, respectively. For the purpose of simplicity, these 292
236 (or shallowing bathymetry) and diverge in bays (e.g., Swift informal subunits are hereafter referred to as the lower, middle, 293
237 and Thorne, 1991). Consequently, the relative interplay between and upper Mulichinco Fm. 294
238 waves and tidal currents and their relative contribution and The lower Mulichinco Fm. represents a progradational 295
239 dominance depend on coastline morphology/bathymetry and succession of fluvial and flood plain deposits in the south, 296
240 storm frequency/magnitude. which grade and interfinger northward into beach- and 297
241 To further the understanding of sedimentary architecture heterolithic shallow marine strata. Bounded by a transgressive 298
242 where wave and tidal processes dynamically interact, a field study surface, the lower Mulichinco Fm. is overlain by a laterally 299
243 has been conducted on the shallow marine Lower Cretaceous extensive retrogradational succession of carbonate ramp 300
Q14 244 (Valanginian) Mulichinco Formation (Fm.) in the Neuquén deposits, which belong to the middle Mulichinco Fm. (Schwarz 301
245 Basin, west-central Argentina (Howell et al., 2005; Schwarz and and Howell, 2005). The middle Mulichinco Fm. contains 302
246 Howell, 2005; Schwarz et al., 2006). We identify and describe three coarsening- and shallowing-up oyster- and bivalve-rich 303
247 mixed wave- and tide-influenced deposits within the upper carbonate parasequences (sensu Catuneanu et al., 2009), with 304
248 Mulichinco Fm. and discuss sediment partitioning, dispersal, and ammonite body fossils (Schwarz and Howell, 2005; Schwarz et al., 305
249 preservation in this complex marginal marine environment. 2006). The upper Mulichinco Fm. comprises a progradational 306
250 succession that grades from mud-rich bay-fill in the south 307
251 to sand-rich shallow marine deposits in the north-northwest 308
252 GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK AND (Schwarz and Howell, 2005; Schwarz et al., 2006). These 309
Q15 253 STRATIGRAPHY shallowing-up units are locally capped by decimeter-thick oyster 310
254 and shell gravel carbonate beds, formed during low-sediment 311
255 The Upper Triassic to Lower Cenozoic Neuquén Basin is situated influx periods of transgression or non-deposition (Schwarz, 312
256 in west-central Argentina, between 32◦ and 40◦ South latitude, 2012; Schwarz et al., 2013, 2016). The Upper Valanginian 313
257 and covers an area of about 120,000 km2 (Figure 1A). This recorded the onset of basin-wide transgression (Vergani et al., 314
258 basin comprises a nearly 40,000-m-thick sedimentary succession, 1995), which is reflected through retrogradational stacking of 315
259 deposited in a retro-arc basin embayment that evolved into a the uppermost Mulichinco Fm. This transgression ultimately 316
260 foreland basin during the Lower Cretaceous, on the eastern side flooded the Mulichinco Fm. strata and formed the overlying 317
261 of the Andean Cordillera (Howell et al., 2005). The Neuquén carbonates and euxinic mudstones of the lowermost Agrio Fm. 318
262 Basin was bordered by the cratonic Sierra Pintada System to (Figure 1B) (Vergani et al., 1995). 319
263 the east and the North Patagonian Massif to the south and The Mulichinco Fm. offers several-kilometer-long, high- 320
264 has remained open to the north and partially to the west quality outcrops along the flanks of eroded anticlines of the Chos 321
265 through the proto-Andean volcanic arc (Howell et al., 2005) Malal fold and thrust belt (Figure 1C). This study examines the 322
266 (Figure 1A). Three main tectonic stages initiated and acted upon upper Mulichinco Fm. as expressed in a ca. 12-km-long outcrop 323
267 the Neuquén Basin deposition: (1) the Upper Triassic-Lower in the eastern foothills of the Tromen Volcano (Figures 1B,D), 324
268 Jurassic syn-rift stage, which initiated the basin formation; (2) which crops out as steeply dipping layers (50◦ –60◦ ) and is part 325
269 the Lower Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous postrift/back-arc, ramp- of the tight ramp anticline of the Tromen Thrust (Galland 326
270 type basin stage; and (3) the Lower Cretaceous-Cenozoic foreland et al., 2007). Schwarz and Howell (2005) and data from this 327
271 basin stage (Legarreta and Uliana, 1991; Franzese et al., 2003; study suggest that the outcrop is oriented sub-parallel to the 328
272 Howell et al., 2005). Continued Cenozoic contractional tectonism paleocoastline, which makes it an excellent candidate for studies 329
273 exhumed parts of the Neuquén Basin stratigraphy, which is of along-strike variability of sediment dispersal and architecture. 330
274 folded and deformed in the west, while nearly undeformed in 331
275 the east (Vergani et al., 1995; Franzese et al., 2003; Schwarz and 332
276 Howell, 2005). METHODS AND DATASET 333
277 The Neuquén Basin sedimentary succession reflects 334
278 deposition in continental, shallow marine, and deep marine The dataset includes (1) four measured sections from Cerro 335
279 environments, through multiple transgressive–regressive (T/R) Pampa Tril, Pampa Tril, Barranca Los Loros, and Río 336
280 cycles (Vergani et al., 1995; Howell et al., 2005). In the context of Pequenco localities (Figure 1D), where stratigraphic variation 337
281 a low-gradient ramp basin, the central Neuquén Basin contains and sedimentary composition have been determined through 338
282 Tithonian to Lower Valanginian organic-rich mudstones of the descriptive sedimentology. The measured sections include the 339
283 Vaca Muerta Fm., which was deposited in a tidally dominated exposed upper Mulichinco Fm., range between 150 and 210 m 340
284 carbonate-siliciclastic ramp setting (Spalletti et al., 2000). The thickness, and document the stratigraphic succession at 1:100 341
285 Vaca Muerta Fm. is overlain by Valanginian continental, shallow scale. Paleocurrent reconstructions from the focus interval of this 342

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 3 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

343 400
344 401
345 402
346 403
347 404
348 405
349 406
350 407
351 408
352 409
353 410
354 411
355 412
356 413
357 414
358 415
359 416
360 417
361 418
362 419
363 420
364 421
365 422
366 423
367 424
368 425
369 426
370 427
371 428
372 429
373 430
374 431
375 432
376 433
377 434
378 435
379 436
380 437
381 438
382 439
383 440
384 441
385 442
386 443
387 444
388 445
389 446
390 447
Q5 FIGURE 1 | (A) Overview map showing position and lateral extent of the Neuquén Basin, west-central Argentina, approximate extent of Mulichinco Fm. (both in
391 448
Q6 outcrop and subsurface) is indicated, map based on Schwarz (2012). (B) Stratigraphic column modified from Schwarz (2012), approximate thicknesses adapted
392 from Schwarz and Howell (2005; Figure 11a, p. 127). (C) Map showing Mulichinco Fm. outcrop distribution adjacent to the study area, main elements of the Chos 449
393 Malal fold and thrust belt indicated, modified from Schwarz and Howell (2005). (D) Map of studied outcrop with geologic information and location of measured 450
394 sections. 451
395 452
396 453
397
study were calculated from collected strike/dip measurements, Bioturbation intensity (BI) was recorded following a 0–6 454
398
which were subsequently back-rotated according to the bedform’s grade indexing scale (Bann et al., 2004), originally adapted 455
399
structural strike/dip values to obtain true paleocurrent directions. from Reineck (1963) and Taylor and Goldring (1993). BI 0 456

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 4 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

457 means that bioturbation is absent, and BI 6 means complete Facies Associations 514
458 bioturbation and total biogenic homogenization of the sediment FA1—Carbonate Deposits 515
459 (Bann et al., 2004). Carbonate facies were classified according Description 516
460 to Wright (1992), who revised classifications from Dunham FA1 comprises tabular and extensive (tens of kilometers) 2- to 517
461 (1962) and Embry and Klovan (1971). Ternary diagrams from 10-m-thick carbonate units. FA1 coarsens up from basal mud- 518
462 Dashtgard et al. (2012) were populated with visual estimates of and floatstones (Facies A), with scarce crushed skeletal material 519
463 process distribution at and between the four localities of this that increase in size and abundance upward into compact and 520
464 study; they are intended as graphic guides and not absolute structureless rudstones (Facies B) (Figure 2A), which are locally 521
465 measurements of process distribution. (2) Photographs were capped by 0.1- to 0.5-m-thick tabulate coral framestones (Facies 522
466 taken at and between the localities to document sedimentary C). Rudstones generally occur in meter-thick tabular beds with 523
467 structures, facies transitions, and bounding relations. (3) Aerial densely packed crushed shell gravel and up to decimeter-sized 524
468 photographs, taken from an unmanned aerial vehicle, were complete and upright bivalves and oysters. Ammonite body 525
469 used to construct (4) 3D Virtual Outcrop Models (VOMs), fossils with 5- to 25-cm diameters are abundant at the top 526
470 following the structure-from-motion photogrammetry principles of oyster rudstones (Figure 2A), most commonly found in 527
471 of Westoby et al. (2012). VOMs were constructed in Agisoft the south, at Cerro Pampa Tril and Pampa Tril (Figure 1D). 528
472 Metashape Pro v1.5.0 (Agisoft LLC, St. Petersburg, Russia), and Thalassinoides trace fossils occur (BI 1) (Figures 3A,B). FA1 529
473 3D interpretation was conducted in LIME (Buckley et al., 2019), is found throughout the studied succession, as decimeter-thick 530
474 a 3D visualization and interpretation software developed by units covering FA2 deposits, albeit it is most dominant in the 531
475 Virtual Outcrop Geology Group at NORCE Norwegian Research lower stratigraphic section where three stacked FA1 units are 532
476 Centre, Bergen, Norway. A VOM allows for the generation of mapped as the middle Mulichinco Fm. 533
477 distortion-free orthorectified outcrop images with no artificial 534
478 geometries, improving confidence in sedimentary architecture Interpretation 535
479 analysis. Four high-resolution (2-cm resolution) VOMs were FA1 represents upward shallowing carbonate cycles that 536
480 generated to help constrain spatial distribution of architectural developed during periods of low siliciclastic influx on a low 537
481 elements at each locality. One 50-cm resolution VOM that covers angle ramp profile (Schwarz and Howell, 2005; Schwarz et al., 538
482 the complete 12-km-long outcrop was constructed to establish a 2013). Mud- and floatstones were deposited from suspended 539
483 stratigraphic surface framework between (and beyond) the four load below fair-weather wave base, as they contain scarce skeletal 540
484 measured sections. material. Fair-weather waves provided habitable conditions 541
485 Based on the acquired data, a model is presented (Figure 13) for oysters and bivalves, which were packed into rudstones 542
486 to schematically illustrate how climatic changes of storm from natural biological activity and waves (Lazo, 2007; Schwarz 543
487 frequency and magnitude impact the depositional signature et al., 2016, 2018). Coral framestones developed laterally as 544
488 of a mixed storm- and tide-influenced sedimentary succession isolated patch reefs. 545
489 and how the impact of wave refraction has a comparable 546
490 depositional signature to these climatic parameters. This model FA2—Offshore to Lower Shoreface 547
491 relies on constant subsidence rate and tidal energy. Relative Description 548
492 storm frequency and magnitude are read from the x and y axes, FA2 is mud-dominated and consists of several-meters-thick 549
493 respectively. To be valid, the plotted data need to originate from laminated mudstones (Facies F) (Figure 2B) at the base, which 550
494 the same depositional environment. Storm bed thicknesses are transitions at the top into an interbedding with well-sorted, 551
495 plotted on the storm magnitude axis, while storm frequency is very fine, and fine-grained hummocky cross-stratified (HCS) 552
496 derived from the number of storm beds within every 5 m of the sandstones (Facies G) (Figures 2D,E). Decimeter-thick beds of 553
497 measured sections. Supplemental and approximate data gathered disorganized shell gravel with basal low-angle, cross-laminated 554
498 from the VOMs are plotted as well. sandstone clasts (Facies D) (Figure 2C) occur. HCS sandstones 555
499 occur as upward thickening 5- to 20-cm-thick layers, are 556
500 laterally extensive (several tens of meters to a few kilometers), 557
501 RESULTS: SEDIMENTOLOGY AND and interbed with equally thick successions of laminated 558
502 DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS mudstones. Interbedded mudstones and HCS sandstones are 559
503 arranged in up to 1.5-m-thick bedsets at the top of FA2. Rare 560
504 We report on the upper Mulichinco Fm. depositional Thalassinoides trace fossils are recorded in the mudstones (BI 561
505 development and architecture, utilizing the established 1), and sporadic Gyrochorte (Figures 3B–D,F) and Ophiomorpha 562
506 stratigraphic framework from Schwarz and Howell (2005) (Figures 3C,F,G) trace fossils are found in the HCS sandstones 563
507 and Schwarz et al. (2006) in light of the high-frequency (BI 1–4). FA2 grades or sharply transitions upward into FA1, 564
508 sequences described and demonstrated by Schwarz (2012) and FA2, or FA3 deposits. Where FA2 is overlain by FA2, this is 565
509 Schwarz et al. (2013, 2016). Sedimentary facies (18) are presented recognized where interbedded HCS sandstones and mudstones 566 Q16
510 in Table 1 and construct the basis for the (6) facies associations of FA2 sharply transitions upward into several meters thick FA2 567
511 (FAs) that are described and discussed in this paper. FAs are mudstone deposits. Where FA2 is overlain by FA3, this is marked 568
512 presented in ascending stratigraphic order. Selected sedimentary by a sharp increase in grain-size, from mud-dominated FA2 to 569
513 facies are shown in Figure 2. sand-dominated FA3. 570

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 5 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 627
626
625
624
623
622
621
620
619
618
617
616
615
614
613
612
611
610
609
608
607
606
605
604
603
602
601
600
599
598
597
596
595
594
593
592
591
590
589
588
587
586
585
584
583
582
581
580
579
578
577
576
575
574
573
572
571
TABLE 1 | Recorded sedimentary facies in the middle and upper Mulichinco Fm., facies are grouped according to their defining signature, and subordinately arranged in ascending stratigraphic order.
Sleveland et al.

Defining Facies Description Structures/composition Grain size Trace fossils Depositional interpretation Dominant
signature depositional/modification
process

Carbonate A Carbonate mud Loosely packed carbonate mudstone to Mudstone, Passive deposition on –
wackestone containing finely crushed Floatstone < 2cm carbonate ramp
(mm scale) shell fragments shell fragments
B (Figure 2A) Oyster gravel bed, Densely packed, finely to moderately Rudstone, <10 cm Thalassinoides Open marine shell bank Fair-weather waves
rudstone chrushed, cm-scale, oyster-, and bivalve shell fragments
shell fragments. Carbonate mud matrix

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link]

with occasional complete oysters and
bivalves preserved in upright position,
commonly toward bed top. Ammonite
body fossils occur in southern extent of
study area
C Coral framestone Densely packed framestone constructed Framestone In situ preservation of coral Fair-weather waves
by 3–15 cm long branched tabulate patch reef
corals
D (Figure 2C) Disorganized shell Crushed shell gravel bed, disorganized Rudstone-VF Storm-reworked and Storm waves
gravel arrangement, occasional tabulate coral -remobilized carbonate material
fragments, sharp bed boundaries, erosive
base with occasional ellipsoid-shaped

6
(3 × 10 cm) sandstone rip-up clasts with
low-angle cross-lamination
E Cross-stratified Densely packed oolite with Grainstone, <1 cm Deposition by tractional flow, Tidal currents
oolite grainstone undifferentiated crushed (>2 cm) shell shell fragments reworked and transported ooid
fragments, meter-scale trough-, and skeletal material, organized
tangential-, and sigmoidal in dunes
cross-stratification, sets <5-m thick
Well sorted F (Figure 2B) Laminated Plane parallel-laminated mudstone, gray Mud Thalassinoides Deposition from suspension in –
siliciclastics mudstone to green quiescent water conditions
G Hummocky Hummocky cross-stratified, VF Gyrochorte, Deposition by storm wave Storm waves
(Figures 2D,E) cross-stratified homogeneous sandstone. Stratification Ophiomorpha oscillation, between
sandstone amplitude 5–40 cm, wavelength fair-weather and storm wave
50–210 cm base, shallow marine
ichnofauna
H (Figure 2F) Swaley Swaley cross-stratified, homogeneous VF-M Thalassinoides, Deposition and erosion by Storm waves
cross-stratified sandstone, convolute bedding occurs, Ophiomorpha storm wave oscillation,
sandstone trough dimensions 10–40-cm-thick, convolute bedding reflects
30–120-cm-wide rapid waterlain deposition and
subsequent collapse by
dewatering, shallow marine
ichnofauna

(Continued)

June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

684
683
682
681
680
679
678
677
676
675
674
673
672
671
670
669
668
667
666
665
664
663
662
661
660
659
658
657
656
655
654
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
646
645
644
643
642
641
640
639
638
637
636
635
634
633
632
631
630
629
628
 741
740
739
738
737
736
735
734
733
732
731
730
729
728
727
726
725
724
723
722
721
720
719
718
717
716
715
714
713
712
711
710
709
708
707
706
705
704
703
702
701
700
699
698
697
696
695
694
693
692
691
690
689
688
687
686
685
TABLE 1 | Continued
Sleveland et al.

Defining Facies Description Structures/composition Grain size Trace fossils Depositional interpretation Dominant
signature depositional/modification
process

I Low angle Very well sorted, subhorizontal- to VF-F Upper oscillatory regime Storm waves
cross-stratified low-angle cross-stratified sandstone with (Arnott, 1993) and short-lived
sandstone occasional mud-draped horizons periods of standing water
conditions to deposit
mud-draped horizons
J (Figure 2G) Trough Trough cross-stratified sandstone, VF-F, <3 cm shell Deposition of 3D dunes, Storm waves

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link]

cross-stratified tangential bottomset terminations, fragments tangential bottomset
sandstone occasional mud-chip rip-up clasts, shell terminations indicate flow
gravel along bottomsets occur separation at dune crests,
clast-bearing lags are due to
erosive transport and rapid
deposition
Moderately K Trough Trough cross-stratified sandstone, VF-F, <3 cm shell Arenicolites Deposition of 3D dunes by Tidal currents
sorted (Figures 2H–J) cross-stratified herringbone cross-stratification common, fragments flowing water, herringbone
siliciclastics sandstone with tangential bottomset terminations, structures suggest current
reactivation undulating erosive dune bases, internal reversals, tangential bottomset
surfaces truncation surfaces, shell gravel along terminations indicate flow
bottomsets common, occasional separation at dune crests,

7
mud-chip rip-up clasts undulating erosive bases testify
sequential flow velocity
alterations, where these
erosional bases separate
foresets that migrate in the
same direction, they represent
reactivation surfaces
L Asymmetric and Asymmetric and combined flow ripple VF-F Deposition by unidirectionally Tidal currents
(Figures 2K,L) combined flow cross-laminated sandstone, mud-draped flowing water in lower flow
ripple foresets, and -bedding planes abundant regime, mud-drapes testify
cross-laminated periodic quiescent water
sandstone conditions, combined flow
ripples testify reworking by
oppositely directed flow and/or
wave oscillation
M Bundled symmetric Symmetric ripple cross-laminated VF-F Deposition in shallow water Fair-weather waves
ripple sandstone, bundled upbuilding, conditions, wave oscillation is
cross-laminated ripple-bounding mud-drapes occur dominant, mud draping during
sandstone standing water, and
swash-movement causes
bundling and trouphy internal
structure

(Continued)

June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

798
797
796
795
794
793
792
791
790
789
788
787
786
785
784
783
782
781
780
779
778
777
776
775
774
773
772
771
770
769
768
767
766
765
764
763
762
761
760
759
758
757
756
755
754
753
752
751
750
749
748
747
746
745
744
743
742
 855
854
853
852
851
850
849
848
847
846
845
844
843
842
841
840
839
838
837
836
835
834
833
832
831
830
829
828
827
826
825
824
823
822
821
820
819
818
817
816
815
814
813
812
811
810
809
808
807
806
805
804
803
802
801
800
799
Sleveland et al.

TABLE 1 | Continued

Defining Facies Description Structures/composition Grain size Trace fossils Depositional interpretation Dominant
signature depositional/modification
process

N Climbing ripple Climbing ripple cross-laminated VF-F Rapidly decreasing Tidal currents
cross-laminated sandstone, occasionally mud-draped unidirectional flow velocity
sandstone ripple-bounding horizons causes rapid deposition of

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link]

suspended load material and
preservation of both stoss and
lee side of ripple (Allen, 1973;
Nichols, 2009, p.53)
O (Figure 2M) Lenticular-bedded Oppositely directed asymmetric ripple Mud, VF-F Thalassinoides, Fluctuations between flowing Tidal currents
heterolith cross-laminated sandstone lenses in Gyrochorte and quiescent water
matrix of laminated mudstones conditions, current reversals,
shallow marine ichnofauna
P (Figure 2N) Wavy-bedded Compound symmetric-, and asymmetric Mud, VF-F Thalassinoides, Fluctuations between flowing Tidal currents
heterolith ripple cross-laminated sandstones Gyrochorte, and quiescent water
systematically interbedded with laminated Ophiomorpha, conditions, higher energy than
mudstones, mud-drapes and bidirectional Spongeliomorpha, Facies O, current reversals,

8
paleocurrent directions identified Palaeophycus shallow marine ichnofauna
Q (Figure 2O) Flaser-bedded Heterogeneous, mud-draped, Mud, VF-F Thalassinoides, Fluctuations between flowing Tidal currents
sandstone asymmetric ripple-laminated sandstone, Ophiomorpha and quiescent water
abundant internal erosional truncation conditions, higher energy than
surfaces Facies P, potentially internal
reactivation surfaces, shallow
marine ichnofauna
Mottled R Structureless Massive/structureless sandstone VF-F Rapid deposition by –
sandstone suspension, or turned
completely massive by
bioturbation, or crystalline
cementation may disturb
visibility of primary structures
S Bioturbated Mottled-, completely bioturbated VF-F Substantial pause in sediment –
sandstone sandstone, limited to no original input and consequent complete
sedimentary structures preserved, various bioturbation of deposits,
degree of burrow structure preservation, shallow marine ichnofauna
internal erosional bedding surfaces

June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

912
911
910
909
908
907
906
905
904
903
902
901
900
899
898
897
896
895
894
893
892
891
890
889
888
887
886
885
884
883
882
881
880
879
878
877
876
875
874
873
872
871
870
869
868
867
866
865
864
863
862
861
860
859
858
857
856
 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

913 970
914 971
915 972
916 973
917 974
918 975
919 976
920 977
921 978
922 979
923 980
924 981
925 982
926 983
927 984
928 985
929 986
930 987
931 988
932 989
933 990
934 991
935 992
936 993
937 994
938 995
939 996
940 997
941 998
942 999
943 1000
944 1001
945 1002
946 1003
947 1004
948 1005
949 1006
950 1007
951 1008
952 1009
953 1010
954 1011
955 1012
956 1013
957 1014
958 1015
959 1016
960 1017
961 1018
962 1019
963 1020
964 1021
965 1022
966 1023
967 1024
968 FIGURE 2 | Continued 1025
969 1026

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 9 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

1027 1084
FIGURE 2 | Overview of selected sedimentary structures recorded in the middle and upper Mulichinco Fm. (cf. Table 1). (A) Oyster gravel bed with ammonite
1028 (Facies B). (B) Laminated mudstone (Facies F); white arrows point to lamination. (C) Disorganized shell gravel sandstone clasts (Facies D). (D) HCS with indicated 1085
1029 wave crests (Facies G). (E) Overview of HCS (Facies G). (F) SCS with gutter cast (Facies H). (G) Trough cross-strata (Facies K). (H) Trough cross-strata with 1086
1030 reactivation surface (Facies K). (I) Trough cross-strata with herringbone structures (Facies K); photo and paleocurrent data from Cerro Pampa Tril. (J) Mud-draped 1087
1031 toesets in trough cross-strata (Facies K). (K) Asymmetric and combined flow ripples (Facies L). (L) Mud-draped combined flow ripples (Facies L). (M) Lenticular 1088
bedding (Facies O). (N) Herringbone in wavy bedding (Facies P). (O) Flaser bedding (Facies Q).
1032 1089
1033 1090
1034 1091
1035 1092
1036 1093
1037 1094
1038 1095
1039 1096
1040 1097
1041 1098
1042 1099
1043 1100
1044 1101
1045 1102
1046 1103
1047 1104
1048 1105
1049 1106
1050 1107
1051 1108
1052 1109
1053 1110
1054 1111
1055 1112
1056 1113
1057 1114
1058 1115
1059 1116
1060 1117
1061 1118
1062 1119
1063 1120
1064 1121
1065 1122
1066 1123
1067 1124
1068 1125
1069 1126
1070 1127
1071 1128
1072 1129
1073 1130
1074 1131
1075 1132
1076 1133
1077 1134
1078 1135
Q17 1079 FIGURE 3 | Representative overview of recorded fossils—Thalassinoides (Th), Gyrochorte (Gy), Ophiomorpha (Op), Spongeliomorpha (SP), Palaeophycus (Pa), and 1136
1080 Arenicolites (Ar); photographs cover selected facies and are not meant as indicating exclusivity of trace fossil. (A) Flaser bedding top surface view (Facies Q). (B) 1137
Wavy bedding top surface view (Facies P). (C) HCS top surface view (Facies G). (D) Wavy bedding bottom surface view (Facies P). (E) Lenticular bedding top
1081 1138
surface view (Facies O). (F) Wavy bedding top surface view (Facies P). (G) SCS vertical view (Facies H). (H) Trough cross-strata with reactivation surfaces vertical
1082 1139
view (Facies K).
1083 1140

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 10 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

1141 Interpretation mainly suggest deposition by NE–SW bidirectional currents, 1198

1142 FA2 reflects upward shallowing units from offshore to lower with dominance toward southwest, and a few measurements 1199
1143 shoreface environments. The several-meters-thick accumulations go in other directions (Figure 1D). Measurements from Pampa 1200
1144 of laminated mudstones in lower FA2 suggest a low-energy Tril (n = 7) and Río Pequenco (n = 25) sections indicate 1201
1145 depositional environment where sedimentation occurred from deposition by NW–SE bidirectional currents, with dominance 1202
1146 suspended load material. HCS deposits are typically associated toward northwest, and a few measurements go in other directions 1203
1147 with the lower shoreface and offshore transition (Harms et al., (Figure 1D). Thalassinoides, Gyrochorte, and Ophiomorpha trace 1204
1148 1975), and it is therefore interpreted that FA2 represents deposits fossils are abundant (BI 3–6), whereas Spongeliomorpha and 1205
1149 that grade up from offshore (laminated mudstone) into a Palaeophycus (Figure 3D) are found at Pampa Tril (BI 3) and 1206
1150 lower shoreface environment, where storm waves reworked and Arenicolites (Figure 3H) is found at Cerro Pampa Tril (BI 2). 1207
1151 remobilized sand and deposited HCS sandstones. Disorganized Beds are 20- to 50-cm thick, and their bases are either sharp-flat 1208
1152 shell gravel reflects storm reworking of shells on the shelf, and erosional or gradually overlying the clean sandstones. Bed tops 1209
1153 the preservation of low-angle, cross-laminated sandstone clasts are in sharp erosional contact with overlying strata. 1210
1154 at their base suggests that the sandstones were at least semi- 1211
1155 consolidated or lithified prior to the storm event that formed Interpretation 1212
1156 the disorganized shell gravel. This facies relation can have two FA3 reflects sand-rich subtidal flat deposits, which at places 1213
1157 explanation—either that carbonate production in the system preserve interbedded storm-influenced deposits. This 1214
1158 provided very early cementation for the sandstone beds or that interpretation derives from the abundance of tidal process 1215
1159 a substantial hiatal surface is located between the two deposits, indicators across the studied section, the lateral extent, 1216
1160 allowing for the sandstone beds to semi-consolidate before they dimensions, and tabular appearance of the succession and 1217
1161 were incorporated into Facies D deposits. However, the presence its relation to neighboring stratigraphic units. HCS and SCS beds 1218
1162 of a hiatal surface should imply that bored hardgrounds are were formed by storm waves (Harms et al., 1975; Leckie and 1219 Q18
1163 expected to be found in the succession, but such facies have not Walker, 1982; Duke, 1985; Dumas et al., 2005). HCS typically 1220
1164 been observed in this study. grades shoreward into SCS sandstone deposits in the middle 1221
1165 shoreface, due to the increased wave energy (Leckie and Walker, 1222
1166 FA3—Storm-Influenced Subtidal Flat 1982). Seen in stratigraphic context, LaCS at Cerro Pampa Tril 1223
1167 Description is also interpreted to belong to the lower to middle shoreface 1224
1168 FA3 constitutes the thickest vertical accumulation of sandstone environment, deposited from intense storm wave activity in 1225
1169 deposits in this study and appears tabular across the 12-km- conditions similar to upper oscillatory regime (Arnott, 1993). 1226
1170 long studied outcrop. It accommodates two types of very fine Only minor preservation of fair-weather wave structures occurs 1227
1171 to fine-grained sandstones; one is well sorted and the other is in FA3, represented by combined flow ripples and bundled 1228
1172 moderately sorted. They interbed (Figure 4) and form up to 8- symmetric ripples, even though these structures could also have 1229
1173 m-thick bedsets. At Cerro Pampa Tril, two genetically separate formed from lesser wave energy in the waning of storms. 1230
1174 bedsets are stacked together to form a ca. 15-m-thick compiled Bidirectional current measurements from the moderately 1231
1175 bedset. The moderately sorted sandstones dominate FA3 and are sorted sandstones (Facies K–L) (Figures 1D, 2H and Table 1232
1176 found across the entire study area. The well-sorted sandstones are 1) reflect systematic current reversals and indicate that the 1233
1177 found in highest concentration at Cerro Pampa Tril and Barranca cross-strata truly migrate in opposite directions and that this 1234
1178 Los Loros localities. is not just an artificial effect of trough cross-stratification. 1235
1179 The clean, well-sorted sandstones (Figure 4, yellow color) Climbing ripples suggest rapid deceleration of current flow 1236
1180 comprise HCS (Facies G), swaley (SCS) (Facies H) (Figure 2F), velocity and associated rapid deposition of suspended load 1237
1181 low-angle (LaCS) (Facies I), and trough cross-stratification material (Facies N and Table 1) (Allen, 1973; Nichols, 2009, p.53). 1238
1182 (Facies J) (Figure 2G), with sporadic Thalassinoides, Gyrochorte, Abundancy in lenticular, wavy, and flaser bedding (Facies O– 1239
1183 and Ophiomorpha trace fossils (BI 1-2). LaCS occurs only at Cerro Q), with double and single mud drapes, testify of alternations 1240
1184 Pampa Tril. Beds are 10- to 50-cm-thick, and their sharp, flatly of flowing and standing water conditions. These sedimentary 1241
1185 to gently undulating erosional bases exhibit <30-cm relief. Bed structures infer a depositional environment that was dominated 1242
1186 tops are either in sharp erosional contact with or grading into the by flowing currents and current reversals. Combining this 1243
1187 moderately sorted muddy sandstones (Figure 5). interpretation with a marine trace fossil assemblage suggests 1244
1188 The muddy, moderately sorted sandstones (Figure 4, brown that the moderately sorted sandstones were deposited in a tide- 1245
1189 color) contain trough cross-stratification with reactivation influenced environment. In this context, double mud drapes 1246
1190 surfaces (sensu Klein, 1970) and herringbone structures (Facies point toward a subtidal environment, where mud draping 1247
1191 K) (Figures 2H–J); asymmetric and combined flow ripple occurred at both high and low tide. The overall extensive 1248
1192 (Facies L) (Figures 2K,L), bundled symmetric ripple (Facies bed tabularity reflects that these deposits accumulated in a 1249
1193 M), and climbing ripple cross-lamination (Facies N); lenticular, subtidal flat environment. Some of the combined flow ripples 1250
1194 wavy, and flaser bedding (Facies O–Q) (Figures 2M–O); and are interpreted to represent reworking of unidirectional current 1251
1195 structureless and intensively bioturbated sandstone beds (Facies ripples during current reversals. Presence of climbing ripples 1252
1196 R–S). Paleocurrent reconstructions (included in Figure 1D) at are not definitive or characteristic for a specific depositional 1253
1197 Cerro Pampa Tril (n = 10) and Barranca Los Loros (n = 19) environment; they are widespread in fluviatile and turbidity 1254

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 11 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

1255 1312
1256 1313
1257 1314
1258 1315
1259 1316
1260 1317
1261 1318
1262 1319
1263 1320
1264 1321
1265 1322
1266 1323
1267 1324
1268 1325
1269 1326
1270 1327
1271 1328
1272 1329
1273 1330
1274 1331
1275 1332
1276 1333
1277 1334
1278 1335
1279 1336
1280 1337
FIGURE 4 | Panel overview of FA3 facies arrangement at Barranca Los Loros (Figure 1D) and the corresponding sedimentary log. Figure location indicated in
1281 Figure 9. Storm deposits comprise HCS (Facies G) and SCS (Facies H) sandstones, while bimodal current indicators, reactivation surfaces, and single- and 1338
1282 double-mud drapes define the heterogeneous tidal sandstones. Paleocurrent measurements and ternary diagram bedset plot included (modified from Dashtgard 1339
1283 et al., 2012). SW, storm wave; FW, fair-weather wave; T, tide. 1340
1284 1341
1285 1342
1286 1343
1287 1344
1288 1345
1289 1346
1290 1347
1291 1348
1292 1349
1293 1350
1294 1351
1295 1352
1296 1353
1297 1354
1298 1355
1299 1356
1300 1357
1301 1358
1302 1359
1303 1360
FIGURE 5 | Facies transition recorded at Barranca Los Loros (Figure 1D). Figure location is indicated in Figure 9. Gradual transition from storm (yellow) to tidal
1304 1361
(brown) deposits, shown by original picture (left) and overlay interpretation (right). Yellow color corresponds to clean HCS sandstone (Facies G), brown color
1305 represents muddy sandstone, and gray color reflects laminated mudstone (Facies F); bracketed letters refer to Facies ID (cf. Table 1), ternary diagram bed plot 1362
1306 included (modified from Dashtgard et al., 2012); SW, storm wave; FW, fair-weather wave; T, tide. 1363
1307 1364
1308 1365
1309 current deposits (Allen, 1973 and the references therein), but Lanier et al., 1998). The paleocurrent reconstructions from 1366
1310 they are also common in association with tidal dynamics on each locality show that some measurements go in directions 1367
1311 a tidal flat or lagoon environment (Yokokawa et al., 1995; at an angle to the measured bidirectionality, especially at Río 1368

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 12 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

1369 Pequenco (Figure 1D). These particular paleoflow directions IHS indicate that there was a systematic alternation between 1426
1370 are interpreted to reflect influence from longshore currents and flowing and quiescent water conditions, and the abundance of 1427
1371 fair-weather waves along the subtidal flat. mud-drapes in the sand-dominated facies (ripple-laminated and 1428
1372 Interbedding and the erosional contacts between storm- and flaser-bedded sandstones) reveal periodic mud-draping during 1429
1373 tide-influenced deposits reflect process interaction and their the quiescent water conditions. Abundance of shell gravel in 1430
1374 capacity to remobilize each other’s deposits (as documented by, the troughs of FA4 trough cross-stratified sandstones places 1431
1375 e.g., Rossi and Steel, 2016; Van Cappelle et al., 2016, 2017; Wei the deposits in a marginal marine environment. Reactivation 1432
1376 et al., 2016). The documented gradual transitions from storm surfaces are representative of subtidal environments, but if they 1433
1377 into tidal deposits upward (Figure 5) are interpreted to represent are not cyclically distributed, they may also originate from fluvial 1434
1378 the ability for tides to gradually regain relative dominance for streams (Gugliotta et al., 2016 and the references therein). The 1435
1379 sediment reworking in the aftermath of storm events. sedimentary facies assemblage can be explained in two ways: 1436
1380 FA4 was deposited under conditions of tidal currents or under 1437
1381 FA4—Tidal or Tide-Influenced Channels the influence from a fluvial system that experienced seasonal 1438
1382 Description discharge variations. 1439
1383 FA4 is the coarsest (fine- to medium-grained sand) and most Looking at the architectural elements, the seven concave- 1440
1384 competent, ledge-forming unit in the study area, but it does also up erosive features are interpreted to represent channel- 1441
1385 comprise some easily weathered heteroliths. Facies included in shapes, meaning that the contained FA4 strata reflect channel 1442
1386 FA4 are laminated mudstones (Facies F), trough cross-stratified deposits. The orthorectified drone photos in Figures 6A”, 7A’ 1443
1387 sandstones with shell gravel and abundant reactivation surfaces show that the channels cut the underlying FA3 deposits with 1444
1388 (Facies K), asymmetric ripple (Facies L) and climbing ripple an angle that approximates oblique to perpendicular to the 1445
1389 cross-laminated sandstones (Facies N), and wavy- and flaser- outcrop orientation, as both sides of the channels are exposed 1446
1390 bedded sandstones (Facies P–Q). Single and double mud-drapes in the outcrop transect. The IHS neighboring the channels 1447
1391 are widespread in the sand-dominated facies, while basal shell (Figures 6A”,C) are considered to be evidence of lateral accretion 1448
1392 gravel within trough cross-stratified sandstones (Facies K) is most surfaces, from channel and bar migration, as they follow the 1449
1393 abundant at the base of FA4, and the facies grades upward into orientation and dip of the channel bases. In modern and 1450
1394 better sorted, fine-grained sandstones. FA4 varies in lateral extent ancient systems, lateral accretion surfaces that are organized in 1451
1395 from a few tens of meters and up to ca. 8 km. The top bounding IHS are found throughout tide-dominated channels and fluvial- 1452
1396 surface of FA4 is sharp-flat, while the base bounding surface caps dominated channels with seasonal discharge (Thomas et al., 1987; 1453
1397 FA3 by a sharp, flatly to gently inclined erosive base. At Barranca Sisulak and Dashtgard, 2012 and the references therein). 1454
1398 Los Loros (Figure 6), and 1 km south (Figure 7), a total of Considering the stratigraphic context, most contacts between 1455
1399 seven erosive FA4 units are recorded, with a concave-up erosional FA3 and FA4 are erosional, meaning that possible base level 1456
1400 base, on top of FA3 deposits. These erosive features belong to changes between the two units cannot be completely disregarded. 1457
1401 the same stratigraphic unit, are 30- to 100-m wide (Figures 6A, However, even though a sharp erosional contact between 1458
1402 7A), exhibit up to 5-m erosional relief (Figures 6A”, 7B), cut FA3 and FA4 deposits may be concealed within the finer- 1459
1403 FA3 deposits by a sharp erosional contact (Figure 7C), and carve grained IHS at Barranca Los Loros (Figure 6C), the seemingly 1460
1404 into FA3 well-sorted HCS (Facies G) (Figure 7D) and moderately conformable and gradual transition suggests that FA3 and FA4 1461
1405 sorted sandstones. FA4 strata are at places organized in gently are genetically related, preserving continuous sedimentation 1462
1406 inclined heterolithic strata (IHS) (sensu Thomas et al., 1987) (see across the transition, indicating that there is no substantial 1463
1407 log in Figure 4, and photos in Figures 6B,C), located next to the time-gap or base-level change. Given the subtidal setting for 1464
1408 concave-up erosive features. The IHS comprise up to 10-cm-thick FA3 deposits, it is considered most appropriate to their genetic 1465
1409 individual layers of asymmetric ripple-laminated sandstones with relation that the systematic current energy variations recorded 1466
1410 mud-drapes (Facies L), which are interbedded with laminated in FA4 are linked to tidal influence on deposition at a subtidal 1467
1411 mudstones (Facies F) (Figure 6B) and resemble wavy-bedded position, similar to the conditions that formed FA3. However, 1468
1412 heteroliths (Facies P). Orthorectified photos from VOMs reveal whether or not these channel deposits were disconnected from 1469
1413 that these deposits dip with a ca. 5◦ angle to the underlying a potentially fluvial sediment feeder system further inland 1470
1414 bedding surface of FA3 deposits (Figure 6C), following the remains unknown, as there is no known data or published 1471
1415 orientation of the down-cutting erosive features described above material on the landward extent of the upper Mulichinco 1472
1416 (Figures 6A”,C). The contact between the IHS and the underlying Fm. in the area. 1473
1417 FA3 deposits appears to be conformably gradual at some places 1474
1418 (Figure 6C) and otherwise sharply erosional (log in Figure 4). FA5—Ooid Bars or Dunes With Bioclastic Shell 1475
1419 Fragments 1476
1420 Interpretation Description 1477
1421 FA4 records meandering subtidal channel deposits. The FA5 records 1- to 5-m-thick tangential to sigmoidal cross- 1478
1422 interpretation of FA4 as tide-influenced is threefold, starting stratified oolitic grainstone with shell fragments (Facies E). FA5 1479
1423 with the sedimentary composition. The sedimentary facies is exclusive to Cerro Pampa Tril and caps FA3 deposits by a 1480
1424 assemblage reflects that FA4 was mainly deposited by flowing sharp, undulating, and erosional contact, which exhibits up to 1481
1425 currents. The heterolithic components of wavy bedding and 6 m of erosional relief (Figure 8). Its extent in outcrop limits 1482

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 13 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

1483 1540
1484 1541
1485 1542
1486 1543
1487 1544
1488 1545
1489 1546
1490 1547
1491 1548
1492 1549
1493 1550
1494 1551
1495 1552
1496 1553
1497 1554
1498 1555
1499 1556
1500 1557
1501 1558
1502 1559
1503 1560
1504 1561
1505 1562
1506 1563
1507 1564
1508 1565
1509 1566
1510 1567
1511 1568
1512 1569
1513 1570
1514 FIGURE 6 | Overview of FA4 deposits at Barranca Los Loros (Figure 1D). Figure location is indicated in Figure 9. (A) Orthorectified overview photograph of 1571
FA3–FA4 interval. (A’) Overlay interpretation with FA4 tidal channels. (A”) Same as A’, five times vertical exaggeration. (B) Close-up picture of inclined heterolithic
1515 1572
strata (IHS). (C) Close-up orthorectified photograph with (C’) overlay interpretation of FA4 tidal channel and adjacent lateral accretion surfaces (IHS), overlying
1516 storm-influenced subtidal flat deposits (FA3). 1573
1517 1574
1518 1575
1519 to ca. 370-m width and ca. 6-m thickness. VOMs reveal that The 1- to 5-m-thick cross-sets of FA5 (Figures 8B,C) indicate 1576
1520 FA5 cross-strata are amalgamated and erosively based (Figure 8). water depths of 5 m minimum, whereas the deposits of Schwarz 1577
1521 Cross-set thicknesses range between 1 and 5 m (Figures 8B,C), et al. (2016) formed in at least 0.6 m water depth. Ooids 1578
1522 the thickest of which contains sigmoidal foresets (Figure 8C). form in high-energy environments, above a fair-weather wave 1579
1523 Paleocurrent measurements (n = 10) from one of the cross-sets base (Reeder and Rankey, 2008 and the references therein), 1580
1524 (Figure 8B) indicate unidirectional flow toward southwest. but the stratigraphic context of a subtidal environment in FA3 1581
1525 may suggest that the ooids and shell fragments in FA5 were 1582
1526 Interpretation reworked and transported onto the subtidal flat and deposited 1583
1527 FA5 reflects ooid bars or compound dunes with bioclastic as compound dunes. 1584
1528 shell fragments. This interpretation is driven by the thick 1585
1529 dimensions and complex dune-like geometry of the cross-strata, 1586
1530 resembling the compound bioclastic dunes of Olariu et al. (2012) Correlation and Outcrop Orientation 1587
1531 and is strengthened by the stratigraphic context of a subtidal Correlation across the study area is based on confident visual 1588
1532 environment in FA3. FA5 could also be the outcrop expression of tracing of surfaces and strata from VOMs that cover the study 1589
1533 the up to 4-m-thick oolitic-skeletal grainstone-packstone facies area. Eight regional flooding surfaces (FSs) (sensu Catuneanu 1590
1534 of Schwarz et al. (2016), which were identified from subsurface et al., 2009), which separate high-frequency stratigraphic 1591
1535 core material alone, approximately 45 km northeast of Pampa sequences (Schwarz, 2012; Schwarz et al., 2013, 2016), are 1592
1536 Tril (this study). Schwarz et al. (2016) interpreted these deposits used as correlative markers (Figure 9) and treated as sequence 1593
1537 to represent ooid shoals that formed above a fair-weather wave boundaries for this study. A higher order maximum regressive 1594
1538 base, but as the cross-set thicknesses were described as less surface (MRS) (sensu Helland-Hansen and Martinsen, 1996) 1595
1539 than 60 cm, the FA5 deposits may be of a different origin. is identified toward the top of the most regressive sequence, 1596

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 14 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

1597 1654
1598 1655
1599 1656
1600 1657
1601 1658
1602 1659
1603 1660
1604 1661
1605 1662
1606 1663
1607 1664
1608 1665
1609 1666
1610 1667
1611 1668
1612 1669
1613 1670
1614 1671
1615 1672
1616 1673
1617 1674
1618 1675
1619 1676
1620 1677
1621 1678
1622 1679
1623 1680
1624 1681
1625 1682
1626 1683
1627 1684
1628 1685
1629 1686
1630 1687
1631 1688
1632 1689
1633 1690
1634 1691
1635 1692
1636 1693
1637 1694
1638 1695
FIGURE 7 | Overview of FA4 deposits 1 km south of Barranca Los Loros (BLL) (Figure 1D); figure location indicated in Figure 9. (A) Orthorectified overview
1639 1696
photograph of FA3-FA4 interval. (A’) Overlay interpretation of A with FA4 tidal channels indicated in brown. (B) Close-up orthorectified photograph showing cutting
1640 relation of tidal channel (FA4) into storm-influenced subtidal flat deposits (FA3). Dotted white line indicates bedding surfaces of FA3. (C) Close-up of sharp erosional 1697
1641 contact between FA4 and FA3, with (C’) overlay interpretation, HCS (Facies G). (D) Close-up view of HCS (Facies G) within FA3 deposits. 1698
1642 1699
1643 1700
1644 located between FS6 and FS7 (Figures 9, 10) and completes the Barranca Los Loros, while thinner or absent at Pampa Tril and 1701
1645 correlative surface framework. Río Pequenco localities. Distribution of these interbedded storm 1702
1646 The main target for this study is located between FS5 and deposits defines 3.5 km wide and <8 m thick lensoids (Figure 10), 1703
1647 MRS (Figures 9, 10), which represents the most sand-rich part as expressed in the outcrop. 1704
1648 of the upper Mulichinco Fm. This succession highlights subtidal High-frequency FSs within the upper Mulichinco Fm. 1705
1649 flat complexes (FA3), tidal channels (FA4), and ooid bars or help constrain sedimentary architecture of genetically related 1706
1650 dunes (FA5). Spatial distribution of interbedded storm and tidal stratigraphic units (Figure 10). At Río Pequenco (Figure 10), 1707
1651 deposits of FA3 vary significantly, with the relative presence FS5.3 forms an apparent NW-dipping clinoform, interpreted 1708
1652 of storm deposits varying from 60 to 0% (Figure 10). Storm to represent the northern extent of the underlying subtidal 1709
1653 deposits are thickest and most abundant at Cerro Pampa Tril and flat complex. The remaining FSs and stratigraphic units appear 1710

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 15 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

1711 1768
1712 1769
1713 1770
1714 1771
1715 1772
1716 1773
1717 1774
1718 1775
1719 1776
1720 1777
1721 1778
1722 1779
1723 1780
1724 1781
1725 1782
1726 1783
1727 1784
1728 1785
1729 1786
1730 1787
1731 1788
1732 1789
1733 1790
1734 1791
1735 1792
1736 1793
1737 1794
1738 1795
1739 1796
1740 FIGURE 8 | Overview of FA5—ooid bars or dunes deposits at Cerro Pampa Tril (Figure 1D), figure location indicated in Figure 9. (A) Orthorectified overview 1797
photograph looking into structural dip. (A’) Overlay interpretation of outcrop photo, blue indicates FA5 extent, and white fill indicates the 3D dune in sub-figure B.
1741 1798
(B) Panorama picture from 3D dune in upper FA5; white dotted lines indicate tangential cross-strata with transport direction southwestward. Paleocurrent data
1742 included; note that the apparent dip toward NW in the picture is due curved cross-sets. (C) Orthorectified photograph of sigmoidal foresets, indicated by white 1799
1743 dotted lines, paleoflow toward northwest; note: photo-mirrored. 1800
1744 1801
1745 1802
1746 otherwise tabular across the studied NNE- to SSW-striking Schwarz and Howell (2005) recorded a basinward facies 1803 Q19
1747 outcrop. Additionally, as no consistent facies change is recorded change toward the northwest in the upper Mulichinco Fm. and 1804
1748 across the outcrop, we consider the outcrop to be oriented sub- placed the associated N- to S-oriented paleocoastline east of the 1805 Q20
1749 parallel to the paleocoastline, primarily showing along-strike Pampa Tril area of this study (Figure 11A). As the paleocurrent 1806
1750 variability of its deposits. dataset of this study (Figures 1D, 10) exhibits bidirectionality 1807
1751 with dominant paleocurrent directions toward northwest and 1808
1752 southwest, away from the paleocoastline of Schwarz and Howell 1809
1753 Paleocoastline and Sedimentary (2005), we propose that the coastal system was dominated 1810
1754 Environment by ebb-tidal currents. Additionally, this documented variation 1811
1755 Several past studies suggest that the upper Mulichinco Fm. in paleocurrent directions of FA3 is considered as evidence 1812
1756 sedimentary succession is a product of systematic fluctuations of deposition along an irregular paleocoastline, consisting 1813
1757 in relative sea level on a low-gradient ramp, where carbonate of both protrusions and bays (Figure 11B). These coastal 1814
1758 production (FA1 and FA5) dominated the transgressive morphologies directly affected wave and tidal process distribution 1815
1759 phases and siliciclastic deposition (FA2, 3, and 4) dominated and interaction through wave refraction (Figure 11C). With an 1816
1760 the regressive phases (Schwarz, 2012; Schwarz et al., 2013, expected increased wave energy at coastal protrusions (Swift and 1817
1761 2016). This study focuses on the mixing of storm- and tide- Thorne, 1991), the relatively higher abundance of storm deposits 1818
1762 influenced siliciclastic deposits in FA3, and the reconstruction of at Cerro Pampa Tril and Barranca Los Loros (Figures 1D, 10) 1819
1763 sedimentary environment is hence centered on the siliciclastic- suggest that paleocoastal protrusions where positioned close to 1820
1764 dominated stages of the upper Mulichinco Fm. Consequently, these localities (Figures 11C,D). Accordingly, lower abundance 1821
1765 this contribution does not further discuss the sedimentary and absence of storm deposits at Pampa Tril and Río Pequenco 1822
1766 environments of the carbonate-dominated development suggest that the paleoenvironments of these localities experienced 1823
1767 stages (FA1 and FA5). weaker wave energy, which is expected in embayments. 1824

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 16 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

1825 1882
1826 1883
1827 1884
1828 1885
1829 1886
1830 1887
1831 1888
1832 1889
1833 1890
1834 1891
1835 1892
1836 1893
1837 1894
1838 1895
1839 1896
1840 1897
1841 1898
1842 1899
1843 1900
1844 1901
1845 1902
1846 1903
1847 1904
1848 1905
1849 1906
1850 1907
1851 1908
1852 1909
1853 1910
1854 1911
1855 1912
1856 1913
1857 1914
1858 1915
1859 1916
1860 1917
1861 1918
1862 1919
1863 1920
1864 1921
1865 1922
1866 1923
1867 1924
1868 1925
1869 1926
1870 1927
1871 1928
1872 1929
1873 1930
1874 1931
1875 1932
1876 1933
1877 1934
FIGURE 9 | Correlation panel of the recorded succession of middle and upper Mulichinco Fm. deposits; orientation is indicated in top corners. Colors correspond to
1878 1935
FAs. FS, flooding surface; MRS, maximum regressive surface. Bold font type corresponds to regional stratigraphic surfaces, decimal numbers correspond to
1879 1936
subordinate and local flooding surfaces, and blue dotted lines refer to subordinate flooding surfaces (interpreted from facies correlation and not from virtual outcrop
1880 models); relative content of sand (yellow), mud (gray), and carbonate (blue) is indicated by lithologic columns to the left of each log trace. See legend for 1937
1881 representative structures and symbols. Annotations of stratigraphic location of figures included; paleocurrent rose plots for focus interval of FA3 included. 1938

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 17 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

1939 1996
1940 1997
1941 1998
1942 1999
1943 2000
1944 2001
1945 2002
1946 2003
1947 2004
1948 2005
1949 2006
1950 2007
1951 2008
1952 2009
1953 2010
1954 2011
1955 2012
1956 2013
1957 2014
1958 2015
1959 2016
1960 2017
1961 2018
1962 2019
1963 2020
1964 2021
1965 2022
1966 2023
1967 2024
1968 FIGURE 10 | Correlation panel of the maximum regressive unit; panel position is indicated in Figure 9 correlation panel; colors correspond to FAs as indicated by 2025
legend; relative content of sand (yellow), mud (gray), and carbonate (blue) is indicated by lithologic columns to the left of each log trace; FS, flooding surface; MRS,
1969 2026
maximum regressive surface. Bold font type corresponds to regional stratigraphic surfaces; decimal numbers correspond to subordinate and local flooding surfaces;
1970 2027
blue dotted lines refer to subordinate flooding surfaces (interpreted from facies correlation and not from VOMs), and outcrop data coverage is indicated at top. VOM,
1971 virtual outcrop model; CPT, Cerro Pampa Tril; PT, Pampa Tril; BLL, Barranca Los Loros; RP, Río Pequenco (Figure 1D). FA3 paleocurrent data and ternary diagram 2028
1972 plots for FA3 bedsets included (modified from Dashtgard et al., 2012). SW, storm wave; FW, fair-weather wave; T, tide. 2029
1973 2030
1974 2031
1975 The sedimentary environment (Figure 11B) consisted of efficient convergence of wave energy favored local storm 2032
1976 offshore to lower shoreface siliciclastics (FA2), storm-influenced influence along the subtidal flat environment (Figures 10, 11C). 2033
1977 subtidal sand flat complexes (FA3), and neighboring tidal Between these protrusions, embayments decreased wave energy, 2034
1978 channels (FA4). Storm- and tide-influenced deposits mix spatially favoring complete tidal remobilization of wave-influenced 2035
1979 on bed- (Figure 5), bedset- (Figure 4), and high-frequency deposits at Pampa Tril and Río Pequenco localities (Figures 1D, 2036
Q21 1980 sequence scales (Figure 10), i.e., the upper Mulichinco coastal 10, 11C,D). Interplay between waves and tides was in this 2037
1981 and inner shelf environment experienced multi-scale interaction way governed by the dispersal of wave energy along the 2038
1982 between storm waves and tides. However, the tide-influenced irregular paleocoastline. 2039
1983 deposits are prevalent across the outcrop, suggesting that the tidal Understanding of wave and tidal process distribution in 2040
1984 currents were persistent, while storm-influence was erratic and the upper Mulichinco Fm. can be graphically visualized by 2041
1985 common only at specific localities. Mapping of landward facies, plotting its deposits onto ternary diagrams. As there is no 2042
1986 such as intertidal and supratidal/continental/fluvial equivalents, definitive fluvial structure recorded/preserved in this study, the 2043
1987 is impossible, as there is no known data or published material on ternary diagram from Dashtgard et al. (2012) is considered 2044
1988 these deposits adjacent to the study area. most useful to apply, as it allows for distinguishing between the 2045
1989 relative contribution of fair-weather and storm waves and tides. 2046
1990 Figures 4, 5, 10, 11D include several of such ternary diagrams, 2047
1991 DISCUSSION together expressing the variability in relative contribution of 2048
1992 wave and tidal processes on bed-scale (Figure 5), bedset-scale 2049
1993 Sediment Dispersal and Process Mixing (Figure 4), and between localities (FA3 and bulk locality plots in 2050
1994 Cerro Pampa Tril and Barranca Los Loros localities (Figure 1D) Figures 10, 11). Combined, these plots can graphically visualize 2051
1995 were located close to coastal protrusions (Figure 11B), where the process heterogeneity in the study area, not as a single point, 2052

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 18 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

2053 2110
2054 2111
2055 2112
2056 2113
2057 2114
2058 2115
2059 2116
2060 2117
2061 2118
2062 2119
2063 2120
2064 2121
2065 2122
2066 2123
2067 2124
2068 2125
2069 2126
2070 2127
2071 2128
2072 2129
2073 2130
2074 2131
2075 2132
2076 2133
2077 2134
2078 2135
2079 2136
2080 2137
2081 2138
2082 2139
2083 2140
2084 2141
2085 2142
2086 2143
2087 2144
2088 2145
2089 2146
2090 2147
2091 2148
2092 2149
2093 2150
2094 2151
2095 2152
2096 2153
2097 2154
2098 2155
2099 2156
2100 2157
FIGURE 11 | (A) Paleogeographic reconstruction of the upper Mulichinco Fm. basin development, modified from Schwarz and Howell (2005; Figure 12f); study
2101 2158
area, cities, and national border are indicated. (B) Interpretation of sedimentary environment of the upper Mulichinco Fm. regressive development in the study area,
2102 based on the succession between FS5.2 and FS6 (Figure 10), scale and localities indicated; absolute distance to shoreline not intended, and landward extent of 2159
2103 depositional setting remains unknown. CPT, Cerro Pampa Tril; PT, Pampa Tril; BLL, Barranca Los Loros; RP, Río Pequenco (Figure 1D). (C) Storm wave refraction 2160
2104 as explanation for the concentration of storm deposits at BLL and CPT localities, while limited or absent at PT and RP localities. (D) Block diagram showing 2161
distribution of storm- versus tide-influenced deposits of FA3, based on succession between FS5.2 and FS5.3 (Figure 10); ternary diagram plots included for the
2105 2162
portrayed FA3 succession (diagrams modified from Dashtgard et al., 2012), close-up views of representative sedimentary facies and observed architecture are from
2106 annotated figures, vertical scale is exaggerated, and absolute water depth and proximity to shoreline is not intended. See legend for facies and trace fossils; letters 2163
2107 refer to Table 1, BI, bioturbation intensity. 2164
2108 2165
2109 2166

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 19 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

2167 Wesolowski et al. (2018) concluded that Puerta Curaco was 2224
2168 entirely wave-dominated (non-tidal) and did not identify any 2225
2169 sign of tidal influence (Figure 12). In light of their findings, 2226
2170 and the southwestward increase in wave energy documented in 2227
2171 this study, we suggest that the upper Mulichinco Fm. represents 2228
2172 a coastal system that experienced both spatial differences in 2229
2173 relative process dominance, on regional and local scales, and 2230
2174 dynamic interaction of wave and tidal processes on local scale; 2231
2175 overall, wave processes dominated in the Puerta Curaco area 2232
2176 (Wesolowski et al., 2018) while tides dominated in the Pampa Tril 2233
2177 area (this paper). 2234
2178 Similar to the FA3 deposits of this study, Wei et al. (2016) 2235
2179 documented facies relations within the Rannoch Fm., Northern 2236
2180 North Sea. Their study was based on core data and showed 2237
2181 that the Rannoch Fm. exhibits a successive alternation of 2238
2182 erosive storm and tidal deposits in a lower to middle shoreface 2239
2183 setting. Wei et al. (2016, Figure 9) developed a schematic 2240
2184 depositional model to explain how waves and tides efficiently 2241
2185 remobilized sediments and successively replaced each other’s 2242
2186 roles as dominant modification processes. Their model relies on 2243
2187 a fluvial source for sediment transport. However, waves and tidal 2244
2188 currents are capable of remobilizing and transporting sediments 2245
2189 along the coastline, through, e.g., swash and longshore currents, 2246
2190 storm-related processes, and tidal currents. Even though they are 2247
2191 thought of as modification processes, waves and tidal currents 2248
2192 may in this way act as the only sediment transport agents to 2249
2193 coastal environments neighboring a deltaic system (Swift and 2250
2194 Thorne, 1991; Legler et al., 2014), so that these environments may 2251
FIGURE 12 | Ternary diagram for shoreface environment, modified from
2195
Dashtgard et al. (2012) to include tidal flat environment; plots include upper
not contain any signs of fluvial influence. 2252
2196 Mulichinco Fm. bulk locality plots for this study’s four study localities, The landward extent of the sedimentary paleoenvironment, 2253
2197 approximate bulk plot for the study area in blue-green, and bulk plot for the and thereby the driving mechanisms behind the creation of the 2254
2198 Puerta Curaco area in gray (Wesolowski et al., 2018). FW, fair-weather; CPT, proposed irregular paleocoastline, remain unknown. However, 2255
Cerro Pampa Tril; PT, Pampa Tril; BLL, Barranca Los Loros; RP, Río
2199 fluvial, wave, and tidal processes were responsible for the 2256
Pequenco, see legend.
2200 paleocoastal morphology, as long as there were no substantial 2257
2201 differences in lithology that would naturally make the waves 2258
2202 erode the paleocoastline irregularly. Waves tend to smooth and 2259
2203 but contoured to simultaneously show relative dominance and straighten coastlines (e.g., Boyd et al., 1992), meaning that the 2260
2204 variability (Figure 12). These approximate plots indicate storm paleocoastal protrusions of the upper Mulichinco Fm. were 2261
2205 dominance and tide-influence at Cerro Pampa Tril and Barranca constructed and maintained by tidal and/or fluvial processes, 2262
2206 Los Loros, and tide-dominance at Pampa Tril and Río Pequenco which brought sediments into the basin. Both fluvial and tidal 2263
2207 (Figures 10, 11D, 12). channels construct protruding mouth bars (modern examples 2264
2208 The dataset exhibits a gently increased storm wave dominance in Allen, 1970; Allen and Mercier, 1994), which at an early 2265
2209 toward southwest (Figure 10). Cerro Pampa Tril records the stage represent subaqueous protrusions that converge waves 2266
2210 thickest accumulation of mixed wave- and tide-influenced and provide excellent sources for sand to be reworked by both 2267
2211 deposits (between FS5.2 and FS6, Figure 10) and accommodates waves and tidal currents. The presence of a fluvial sediment 2268
2212 the highest concentration of storm deposits of this study (between feeder system remains undocumented for this study, but as 2269
2213 FS6.1 and FS6.2; Figure 10). Wesolowski et al. (2018) described braided and meandering fluvial continental deposits have been 2270
2214 the upper Mulichinco Fm. deposits at Puerta Curaco (Figure 1C), evidenced from the lower Mulichinco Fm. outcrops (Schwarz 2271
2215 a locality ca. 20 km southwest of this study. Their results show and Howell, 2005; Schwarz et al., 2006), it is relevant to consider 2272
2216 a succession that was deposited in a higher energy setting, that a similar fluvial system could have been active during 2273
2217 governed by storm and fair-weather wave reworking. Meters- deposition of the upper Mulichinco Fm. as well. From the 2274
2218 thick amalgamated HCS and SCS deposits, and a generally aforementioned arguments, the sand-rich FA3 storm deposits 2275
2219 much-better sorted succession than the one documented in are interpreted to have been reworked at or near channel 2276
2220 this study, were reported from the same study. Wesolowski mouths (as illustrated in Figure 11). The FA4 tidal or tide- 2277
2221 et al. (2018) further identified upper shoreface deposits, which influenced channels at Barranca Los Loros (Figure 10) further 2278
2222 arguably positions the locality marginally closer to the shoreline strengthen this interpretation, as they are situated directly on 2279
2223 than the deposits documented in this study. Nevertheless, top of storm-influenced deposits. Both waves and tidal currents 2280

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 20 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

2281 2338
2282 2339
2283 2340
2284 2341
2285 2342
2286 2343
2287 2344
2288 2345
2289 2346
2290 2347
2291 2348
2292 2349
2293 2350
2294 2351
2295 2352
2296 2353
2297 2354
2298 2355
2299 2356
2300 2357
2301 2358
2302 2359
2303 2360
2304 2361
2305 2362
2306 2363
2307 2364
FIGURE 13 | (A) Sketch diagram showing depositional signature as an effect of variations in storm frequency (x-axis) and magnitude (y-axis), relative to constant
2308 2365
tidal energy and subsidence rate. (B) Data from the upper Mulichinco Fm. FA3 deposits, from the focus interval (Figure 10), black circles and dotted lines indicate
2309 data from measured sections, and teal (blue-green) color indicates approximate data from VOMs. CPT, Cerro Pampa Tril; PT, Pampa Tril; BLL, Barranca Los Loros; 2366
2310 RP, Río Pequenco (Figure 1D). 2367
2311 2368
2312 2369
2313 further dispersed sand along the paleocoastline, away from the a certain process is not a definite evidence for its absence 2370
2314 channel mouths, and into the bays. during deposition. 2371
2315 From the lack of any definitive fluvial deposits, the measured Understanding how different basin-specific parameters 2372
2316 sections of this study appear to have developed in positions affected deposition helps constrain what factors influenced on 2373
2317 too far removed from fluvial influx points for this to have preservation. For the studied upper Mulichinco Fm., subsidence 2374
2318 directly affected the preserved stratal architecture. Based on rate and distribution of depositional and modification processes 2375
2319 the presented data, ebb-tidal current dominance is therefore (tidal energy and storm frequency/magnitude) are the known 2376
2320 suggested to have been the main driver for sediment dispersal parameters that directly affected preservation. Subsidence rate 2377
2321 and progradation onto the subtidal flat environment (FA3) is impossible to constrain from this dataset and is therefore 2378
2322 through meandering tidal channels (FA4). This observed ebb- considered constant. Tidal energy is also considered constant. As 2379
2323 tidal current dominance could be the result of a fluvial the studied succession is a product of the interaction of episodic 2380
2324 system inland that helped transport the sediments in a storms and persistent tides along an irregular paleocoastline, the 2381
2325 basinward direction; but this remains unknown. The preserved distribution of wave energy is considered a major control on its 2382
2326 mixed-process deposits were hence entirely governed by the preservation. Due to wave refraction, the upper Mulichinco Fm. 2383
2327 interaction of waves and tides, and even if a potential fluvial shows that the potential to preserve storm-influenced deposits 2384
2328 system did influence on stratal architecture, all fluvial traces within a tide-dominated succession is relatively high along 2385
2329 were overprinted. an irregular coastline, but it depends on the relative interplay 2386
2330 between tidal currents and waves. 2387
2331 Preservation Potential Climatic changes of storm frequency and magnitude could 2388
2332 As mixed coastal processes successively alter sediment sorting, have played a major part in giving the upper Mulichinco Fm. 2389
2333 textures, internal structures, and distribution through time and its depositional signature, but the result of wave refraction 2390
2334 space, the preserved sedimentary deposits are only products of could potentially have overprinted/cluttered these climatic 2391
2335 the last processes that acted on the sediments before lithification. signals (Figure 13A). Near coastal protrusions, converging wave 2392
2336 The sediments may thus have been reworked several times energy results in high wave impact frequency/magnitude, while 2393
2337 before preservation, meaning that the lack of signals from diverging wave energy in deeper bays results in low wave impact 2394

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 21 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

2395 frequency/magnitude (Figures 11C,D, 13). Looking at the upper DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 2452
2396 Mulichinco Fm. dataset (Figure 13B), the deposits from Pampa 2453
2397 Tril and Río Pequenco localities (Figure 1D) exhibit few to no All datasets generated for this study are included in the 2454 Q8
2398 storm deposits in the focus interval (Figure 10); preservation article/supplementary files. 2455
2399 at these localities compares to low storm frequency/magnitude 2456
2400 relative to tidal energy (Figures 13A,B). As follows, for Cerro 2457
2401 Pampa Tril and Barranca Los Loros localities (Figure 1D), thicker AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS 2458
2402 and higher abundance of storm deposits compare to an elevated 2459
2403 storm frequency/magnitude (Figures 11D, 13A,B). Apparent AS and IM led the research. AS wrote the manuscript and created 2460 Q9
2404 temporal changes in storm frequency and magnitude may hence the figures. All authors contributed to insightful discussions 2461
2405 be attributed to wave refraction on paleomorphology and not that formed this paper and greatly improved the manuscript 2462
2406 solely due to syn-depositional climatic changes. Studies that and figures. IM contributed significantly to the scientific 2463
2407 target to reveal the true temporal changes in storm frequency and progress of the research. AS, IM, and OG collected data. 2464
2408 magnitude, based on the sedimentary composition of deposits OG planned all necessary fieldwork logistics and located key 2465
2409 alone, should therefore take this into account. research localities together with AS and IM in the field. HL 2466
2410 provided knowledge on regional geology as well as detailed 2467
2411 knowledge on the research target, and aided fieldwork planning 2468
2412 CONCLUSION and logistics. 2469
2413 2470
2414 • The shallow marine depositional environment of the upper 2471
2415 Mulichinco Formation comprises regional separation of FUNDING 2472
2416 wave and tidal process dominance and experienced a local 2473
2417 dynamic interaction of waves and tides. The authors would like to thank AkerBP ASA for financial 2474 Q22
2418 • Preservation of interbedded storm and subtidal flat support. The funder was not involved in the study design, 2475
2419 deposits, as well as wave and tidal process distribution, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this 2476
2420 interaction, and relative contribution were entirely article, or the decision to submit it for publication. 2477
2421 governed by the effect of wave refraction along an 2478
2422 irregular paleocoastline. 2479
2423 • Ebb-tidal currents dominated this tidal flat and channel ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2480
2424 complex and were the main intrabasinal driver for 2481
2425 progradation and basinward siliciclastic sediment dispersal. The authors would like to thank Y-TEC and Octavio Palma 2482
2426 • The stratigraphic pattern in mixed storm and tidal deposits for insightful discussions and fieldwork planning assistance. 2483
2427 reflects the balance between continuous tidal deposition Special thanks are directed to Fredrik Wesenlund for assistance 2484
2428 and intermittent disruptive reworking by storms. and great company during fieldwork. The authors would also 2485
2429 • Several ternary diagrams can be combined to graphically like to thank the reviewers and editor David M. Hodgson for 2486
2430 explain spatiotemporal variability in relative process their elaborate and insightful comments that greatly improved 2487
2431 dominance in mixed-process coastal environments. this manuscript. 2488
2432 2489
2433 2490
2434 REFERENCES Bann, K. L., Fielding, C. R., MacEachern, J. A., and Tye, S. C. (2004). 2491
Differentiation of estuarine and offshore marine deposits using integrated
2435 2492
Ainsworth, R. B., Vakarelov, B. K., and Nanson, R. A. (2011). Dynamic spatial and ichnology and sedimentology: permian pebbley beach formation, sydney Basin,
2436 temporal prediction of changes in depositional processes on clastic shorelines: Australia. Geol. Soc. Lon. Spec. Publ. 228, 179–211. doi: 10.1144/[Link].2004.228. 2493
2437 toward improved subsurface uncertainty reduction and management. AAPG 01.10 2494
2438 Bull. 95, 267–297. doi: 10.1306/06301010036 Boyd, R., Dalrymple, R., and Zaitlin, B. A. (1992). Classification of clastic coastal 2495
Allen, J. R. L. (1970). “Sediments of the modern niger delta: a summary and depositional environments. Sediment. Geol. 80, 139–150. doi: 10.1016/0037-
2439 2496
review,” in Deltaic Sedimentation, Modern and Ancient, eds J. P. Morgan and 0738(92)90037-R
2440 2497
R. H. Shaver (Tulsa, OK: SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology), 138–151. Buckley, S. J., Ringdal, K., Naumann, N., Dolva, B., Kurz, T. H., and Howell,
2441 doi: 10.2110/pec.70.11.0138 J. A. (2019). LIME: software for 3-D visualization, interpretation, and 2498
2442 Allen, J. R. L. (1973). A classification of climbing-ripple cross-lamination. J. Geol. communication of virtual geoscience models. Geosphere 15, 222–235. doi: 10. 2499
2443 Soc. 129, 537–541. doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.129.5.0537 1130/ges02002.1 2500
Allen, G. P., and Mercier, F. (1994). “Reservoir facies and geometry in mixed tide Burton, D., Flaig, P. P., and Prather, T. J. (2016). Regional controls on depositional
2444 2501
and fluvial dominated delta mouth bars: example from the modern Mahakam trends in tidally modified deltas: insights from sequence stratigraphic
2445 delta (East Kalimantan),” in Proceedings Indonesian Petroleum Association, correlation and mapping of the Loyd and Sego Sandstones, Uinta and Piceance 2502
Q23
2446 IPA94-1.1-189, 23rd Annual Convention, 261–273. Basins of Utah and Colorado, U.S.A. J. Sediment. Res. 86, 763–785. doi: 10.2110/ 2503
2447 Arnott, R. W. C. (1993). Quasi-planar-laminated sandstone beds of the Lower jsr.2016.48 2504
2448 cretaceous bootlegger member, north-central montana; evidence of combined- Catuneanu, O., Abreu, V., Bhattacharya, J. P., Blum, M. D., Dalrymple, R. W., 2505
flow sedimentation. J. Sediment. Res. 63, 488–494. doi: 10.1306/d4267b31- Eriksson, P. G., et al. (2009). Toward the standardization of sequence
2449 2506
2b26-11d7-8648000102c1865d stratigraphy. Earth Sci. Rev. 92, 1–33. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2008.10.003
2450 2507
2451 2508

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 22 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

2509 Dalrymple, R. W., Zaitlin, B. A., and Boyd, R. (1992). Estuarine facies models; Sedimentarias Argentinas, eds G. Chebli and L. Spalletti (San Miguel de 2566
2510 conceptual basis and stratigraphic implications. J. Sediment. Res. 62, 1130–1146. Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán), 221–243. 2567
doi: 10.1306/d4267a69-2b26-11d7-8648000102c1865d Legarreta, L., and Uliana, M. A. (1991). “Jurassic—marine oscillations and
2511 2568
Dashtgard, S. E., Gingras, M. K., and MacEachern, J. A. (2009). Tidally modulated geometry of back-arc basin fill, central argentine andes,” in Sedimentation,
2512 shorefaces. J. Sediment. Res. 79, 793–807. doi: 10.2110/jsr.2009.084 Tectonics and Eustasy Sea level Changes at Active Plate Margins, ed. D. I. M. 2569
2513 Dashtgard, S. E., MacEachern, J. A., Frey, S. E., and Gingras, M. K. (2012). Tidal MacDonald (Oxford: International Association of Sedimentologists Special 2570
2514 effects on the shoreface: toward a conceptual framework. Sediment. Geol. 279, Publication), 429–450. doi: 10.1002/9781444303896.ch23 2571
2515 42–61. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.09.006 Legler, B., Hampson, G. J., Jackson, C. A. L., Johnson, H. D., Massart, B. Y. G., 2572
Duke, W. L. (1985). Hummocky cross-stratification, tropical hurricanes, and and Sarginson, M. (2014). Facies relationships and stratigraphic architecture of
2516 2573
intense winter storms. Sedimentology 32, 167–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3091. distal, mixed tide- and wave-influenced deltaic deposits: lower Sego Sandstone,
2517 1985.tb00502.x Western Colorado, U.S.A. J. Sediment. Res. 84, 605–625. doi: 10.2110/jsr.2014. 2574
2518 Dumas, S., Arnott, R. W. C., and Southard, J. B. (2005). Experiments on oscillatory- 49 2575
2519 flow and combined-flow bed forms: implications for interpreting parts of the Leva López, J., Rossi, V. M., Olariu, C., and Steel, R. J. (2016). Architecture and 2576
2520 shallow-marine sedimentary record. J. Sediment. Res. 75, 501–513. doi: 10.2110/ recognition criteria of ancient shelf ridges; an example from campanian almond 2577
jsr.2005.039 formation in hanna basin. USA. Sedimentol. 63, 1651–1676. doi: 10.1111/sed.
2521 2578
Dunham, R. J. (1962). “Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional 12279
2522 texture,” in Classification of Carbonate Rocks-a Symposium, ed. W. E. Ham Miall, A. D. (2015). Updating uniformitarianism: stratigraphy as just a set of ‘frozen 2579
2523 (Tulsa, OK: American Association of Petroleum Geologists), 108–121. accidents’. Geol. Soc. Lon. Spec. Publ. 404, 11–36. doi: 10.1144/sp404.4 2580
2524 Embry, A., and Klovan, J. E. (1971). A late devonian reef tract on northeastern Nichols, G. (2009). Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 2581
2525
Banks Island, NWT. Bull Can. Pet. Geol. 19, 730. Olariu, C. (2014). “Autogenic process change in modern deltas,” in From 2582
Franzese, J., Spalletti, L., Pérez, I. G., and Macdonald, D. (2003). Tectonic Depositional Systems to Sedimentary Successions on the Norwegian Continental
2526 2583
and paleoenvironmental evolution of Mesozoic sedimentary basins along the Margin, Vol. 46, eds A. W. Martinius, R. Ravnås, J. A. Howell, R. J. Steel, and
2527 Andean foothills of Argentina (32◦ –54◦ S). J. South Am. Earth Sci. 16, 81–90. J. P. Wonham (Oxford: International Association of Sedimentologists Special 2584
2528 doi: 10.1016/S0895-9811(03)00020-8 Publication), 149–166. doi: 10.1002/9781118920435.ch7 2585
2529 Galland, O., Hallot, E., Cobbold, P. R., Ruffet, G., and de Bremond d’Ars, J. (2007). Olariu, C., Steel, R. J., Dalrymple, R. W., and Gingras, M. K. (2012). Tidal 2586
Volcanism in a compressional andean setting: a structural and geochronological dunes versus tidal bars: the sedimentological and architectural characteristics
2530 2587
study of Tromen volcano (Neuquén province, Argentina). Tectonics 26:TC4010. of compound dunes in a tidal seaway, the lower baronia sandstone (Lower
2531 doi: 10.1029/2006TC002011 Eocene), Ager Basin, Spain. Sediment. Geol. 279, 134–155. doi: 10.1016/[Link]. 2588
2532 Galloway, W. E. (1975). “Process framework for describing the morphologic and 2012.07.018 2589
2533 stratigraphic evolution of deltaic depositional systems,” in Deltas: Models for Olsen, T. R., Mellere, D., and Olsen, T. (1999). Facies architecture and geometry 2590
2534 Exploration, ed. M. L. Broussard (Houston: Houston Geological Society), 87–98. of landward-stepping shoreface tongues: the Upper Cretaceous Cliff House 2591
Gugliotta, M., Flint, S. S., Hodgson, D. M., and Veiga, G. D. (2016). Recognition Sandstone (Mancos Canyon, south-west Colorado). Sedimentology 46, 603–625.
2535 2592
criteria, characteristics and implications of the fluvial to marine transition zone doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3091.1999.00234.x
2536 in ancient deltaic deposits (Lajas Formation. Argentina). Sedimentology 63, Painter, C. S., York-Sowecke, C. C., and Carrapa, B. (2013). Sequence stratigraphy 2593
2537 1971–2001. doi: 10.1111/sed.12291 of the Upper Cretaceous Sego Sandstone Member reveals spatio-temporal 2594
2538 Harms, J. C., Southard, J. B., Spearing, D. R., and Walker, R. G. (1975). changes in depositional processes, Northwest Colorado, U.S.A. J. Sediment. Res. 2595
2539 “Stratification and sequence in prograding shoreline deposits,” in Depositional 83, 323–338. doi: 10.2110/jsr.2013.21 2596
Environments as Interpreted From Primary Sedimentary Structures and Peng, Y., Steel, R. J., Rossi, V. M., and Olariu, C. (2018). Mixed-energy process
2540 2597
Stratification Sequences, eds J. C. Harms, J. B. Southard, D. R. Spearing, and R. G. interactions read from a compound-clinoform delta (paleo–Orinoco Delta,
2541 Walker (Tulsa, OK: SEPM Short course), 81–102. doi: 10.2110/scn.75.01.0081 Trinidad): preservation of river and tide signals by mud-induced wave 2598
2542 Helland-Hansen, W., and Martinsen, O. J. (1996). Shoreline trajectories and damping. J. Sediment. Res. 88, 75–90. doi: 10.2110/jsr.2018.3 2599
2543 sequences; description of variable depositional-dip scenarios. J. Sediment. Res. Reeder, S. L., and Rankey, E. C. (2008). Interactions between tidal flows and ooid 2600
2544
66, 670–688. doi: 10.1306/d42683dd-2b26-11d7-8648000102c1865d shoals, northern Bahamas. J. Sediment. Res. 78, 175–186. doi: 10.2110/jsr.2008. 2601
Holbrook, J. M., and Miall, A. D. (2020). Time in the rock: a field guide to 020
2545 2602
interpreting past events and processes from siliciclastic stratigraphy. EarthSci. Reineck, H.-E. (1963). Sedimentgefüge im Bereich der Südlichen Nordsee. Frankfurt:
2546 Rev. 203:103121. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.103121 Waldemar Kramer. 2603
2547 Howell, J. A., Schwarz, E., Spalletti, L. A., and Veiga, G. D. (2005). The Neuquén Rodriguez, A. B., Simms, A. R., and Anderson, J. B. (2010). Bay-head deltas across 2604
2548 Basin: an overview. Geol. Soc. Lon. Spec. Publ. 252, 1–14. doi: 10.1144/[Link]. the northern gulf of Mexico back step in response to the 8.2 ka cooling event. 2605
2005.252.01.01 Q. Sci. Rev. 29, 3983–3993. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.10.004
2549 2606
Jordan, O. D., Gupta, S., Hampson, G. J., and Johnson, H. D. (2016). Preserved Rossi, V. M., Perillo, M. M., Steel, R. J., and Olariu, C. (2017). Quantifying
2550 stratigraphic architecture and evolution of a net-transgressive mixed wave- and mixed-process variability in shallow-marine depositional systems: what are 2607
2551 tide-influenced coastal system: the cliff house sandstone, Northwestern New sedimentary structures really telling us? J. Sediment. Res. 87, 1060–1074. doi: 2608
2552 Mexico, U.S.A. J. Sediment. Res. 86, 1399–1424. doi: 10.2110/jsr.2016.83 10.2110/jsr.2017.49 2609
2553 Klein, G. D. (1970). Depositional and dispersal dynamics of intertidal sand Rossi, V. M., and Steel, R. J. (2016). The role of tidal, wave and river currents 2610
bars. J. Sediment. Res. 40, 1095–1127. doi: 10.1306/74d72144-2b21-11d7- in the evolution of mixed-energy deltas: example from the Lajas Formation
2554 2611
8648000102c1865d (Argentina). Sedimentology 63, 824–864. doi: 10.1111/sed.12240
2555 Lanier, W. P., Tessier, B., Alexander, C. R., Davis, R. A., and Henry, V. J. (1998). Schwarz, E. (1999). Facies sedimentarias y Modelo Deposicional de la 2612
2556 Climbing-ripple bedding in the fluvio-estuarine transition; a common feature Formación Mulichinco (Valanginiano), Cuenca Neuquina Septentrional. 2613
2557 associated with tidal dynamics (modern and ancient analogues). Spec. Publ. Soc. Revista de la Asociación Argentina de Sedimentología [Online], Vol. 6. 2614
2558 Sediment. Geol. 61, 109–117. doi: 10.2110/pec.98.61.0109 Available: [Link] 2615
Lazo, D. G. (2007). Análisis tafonómico e inferencia del grado de mezcla temporal 63601999000100003&lng=es&tlng=es (Accessed Oct 18th 2018).
2559 2616
y espacial de la macrofauna del Miembro Pilmatué de la Formacion Agrio, Schwarz, E. (2012). Sharp-based marine sandstone bodies in the mulichinco
2560 Cretácico Inferior de cuenca Neuquina, Argentina. Ameghiniana 43, 311–326. formation (Lower Cretaceous), neuquén basin, argentina: remnants of 2617
2561 Leckie, D. A., and Walker, R. G. (1982). Storm-and tide-dominated shorelines in transgressive offshore sand ridges. Sedimentology 59, 1478–1508. doi: 10.1111/ 2618
2562 cretaceous moosebar-lower gates interval–outcrop equivalents of deep basin gas j.1365-3091.2011.01314.x 2619
2563
trap in western Canada. AAPG Bull. 66, 138–157. Schwarz, E., Álvarez-Trentini, G., and Valenzuela, M. E. (2013). Ciclos 2620
Legarreta, L., and Gulisano, C. A. (1989). “Análisis estratigráfico secuencial de la mixtos carbonáticos/silicoclásticos en el Miembro superior de la Formación
2564 2621
Cuenca Neuquina (Triásico superior-Terciario inferior, Argentina),” in Cuencas Mulichinco (Yacimiento Cañadón Amarillo, Cuenca Neuquina central,
2565 2622

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 23 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219

 Sleveland et al. Mixed-Process Deposits Mulichinco Formation

2623 Argentina): implicancias secuenciales y para caracterización de reservorios. offshore Norway. Mar. Pet. Geol. 80, 1–22. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.11. 2680
2624 Latin Am. J. Sedimentol. Basin Anal. 20, 21–49. 013 2681
Schwarz, E., and Howell, J. A. (2005). Sedimentary evolution and depositional Van Cappelle, M., Stukins, S., Hampson, G. J., and Johnson, H. D. (2016). Fluvial
2625 2682
architecture of a lowstand sequence set: the lower cretaceous mulichinco to tidal transition in proximal, mixed tide-influenced and wave-influenced
2626 formation. Neuquén Basin, Argentina. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 252, 109– deltaic deposits: cretaceous lower Sego Sandstone. Utah, USA. Sedimentology 2683
2627 138. doi: 10.1144/[Link].2005.252.01.06 63, 1333–1361. doi: 10.1111/sed.12267 2684
2628 Schwarz, E., Spalletti, L. A., and Howell, J. A. (2006). Sedimentary response to a Vaucher, R., Pittet, B., Hormière, H., Martin, E. L. O., and Lefebvre, B. (2017). 2685
2629 tectonically induced sea-level fall in a shallow back-arc basin: the mulichinco A wave-dominated, tide-modulated model for the lower ordovician of the 2686
formation (Lower Cretaceous), Neuquén Basin, Argentina. Sedimentology 53, anti-atlas. Morocco. Sedimentology 64, 777–807. doi: 10.1111/sed.12327
2630 2687
55–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3091.2005.00753.x Vergani, G. D., Tankard, A. J., Belotti, H. J., and Welsink, H. J. (1995). “Tectonic
2631 Schwarz, E., Veiga, G. D., Álvarez-Trentini, G., Isla, M. F., and Spalletti, evolution and paleogeography of the Neuquén Basin, Argentina,” in Petroleum 2688
2632 L. A. (2018). Expanding the spectrum of shallow-marine, mixed carbonate- Basins of South America, eds A. J. Tankard, R. Suárez Soruco, and H. J. Welsink 2689
2633 siliciclastic systems: processes, facies distribution and depositional controls of (Tulsa, OK: AAPG Memoir), 383–402. 2690
2634 a siliciclastic-dominated example. Sedimentology 65, 1558–1589. doi: 10.1111/ Wei, X. J., Steel, R. J., Ravnas, R., Jiang, Z. X., Olariu, C., and Li, Z. Y. (2016). 2691
sed.12438 Variability of tidal signals in the Brent Delta Front: new observations on the
2635 2692
Schwarz, E., Veiga, G. D., Álvarez-Trentini, G., and Spalletti, L. A. (2016). Rannoch Formation, northern North Sea. Sediment. Geol. 335, 166–179. doi:
2636 Climatically versus eustatically controlled, sediment-supply-driven cycles: 10.1016/[Link].2016.02.012 2693
2637 carbonate–siliciclastic, high-frequency sequences in the Valanginian of the Wesolowski, L. J. N., Buatois, L. A., Mángano, M. G., Ponce, J. J., and Carmona, 2694
2638 Neuquén Basin (Argentina). J. Sediment. Res. 86, 312–335. doi: 10.2110/jsr. N. B. (2018). Trace fossils, sedimentary facies and parasequence architecture 2695
2639
2016.21 from the lower cretaceous mulichinco formation of argentina: the role of fair- 2696
Simms, A. R., Anderson, J. B., and Blum, M. (2006). Barrier-island aggradation weather waves in shoreface deposits. Sediment. Geol. 367, 146–163. doi: 10.1016/
2640 2697
via inlet migration: mustang Island, Texas. Sediment. Geol. 187, 105–125. doi: [Link].2018.02.007
2641 10.1016/[Link].2005.12.023 Westoby, M. J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N. F., Hambrey, M. J., and Reynolds, 2698
2642 Sisulak, C. F., and Dashtgard, S. E. (2012). Seasonal controls on the development J. M. (2012). ’Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: a low-cost, effective 2699
2643 and character of inclined heterolithic stratification in a tide-influenced, fluvially tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179, 300–314. doi: 10.1016/j. 2700
dominated channel: fraser River, Canada. J. Sediment. Res. 82, 244–257. doi: geomorph.2012.08.021
2644 2701
10.2110/jsr.2012.21 Willis, B. J., and Gabel, S. (2001). Sharp-based, tide-dominated deltas of the Sego
2645 Sixsmith, P. J., Hampson, G. J., Gupta, S., Johnson, H. D., and Fofana, J. F. Sandstone, Book Cliffs, Utah, USA. Sedimentology 48, 479–506. doi: 10.1046/j. 2702
2646 (2008). Facies architecture of a net transgressive sandstone reservoir analog: the 1365-3091.2001.00363.x 2703
2647 cretaceous hosta tongue. New Mexico. AAPG Bull. 92, 513–547. doi: 10.1306/ Willis, B. J., and Gabel, S. (2003). Formation of deep incisions into tide-dominated 2704
2648 01020807017 river deltas: implications for the stratigraphy of the Sego Sandstone. Book Cliffs, 2705
Spalletti, L. A., Franzese, J. R., Matheos, S. D., and Schwarz, E. (2000). Sequence Utah, U.S.A. J./ Sediment. Res. 73, 246–263. doi: 10.1306/090602730246
2649 2706
stratigraphy of a tidally dominated carbonate-siliciclastic ramp; the Tithonian- Wright, V. P. (1992). A revised classification of limestones. Sediment. Geol. 76,
2650 Early Berriasian of the Southern Neuquen Basin, Argentina. J. Geol. Soc. 157, 177–185. doi: 10.1016/0037-0738(92)90082-3 2707
2651 433–446. doi: 10.1144/jgs.157.2.433 Yang, B. C., Dalrymple, R. W., and Chun, S. S. (2005). Sedimentation on a wave- 2708
2652 Swift, D. J. P., and Thorne, J. A. (1991). “Sedimentation on continental margins, dominated, open-coast tidal flat, south-western Korea: summer tidal flat – 2709
2653 I: a general model for shelf sedimentation,” in Shelf Sand and Sandstone Bodies winter shoreface. Sedimentology 52, 235–252. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3091.2004. 2710
: Geometry, Facies and Sequence Stratigraphy, eds D. J. P. Swift, G. F. Oertel, 00692.x
2654 2711
R. W. Tillman, and J. A. Thorne (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications), Yokokawa, M., Kishi, M., Masuda, F., and Yamanaka, M. (1995). “Climbing ripples
2655 3–31. recording the change of tidal current condition in the middle Pleistocene 2712
2656 Taylor, A. M., and Goldring, R. (1993). Description and analysis of bioturbation Shimosa Group, Japan,” in Tidal Signatures in Modern and Ancient Sediments, 2713
2657 and ichnofabric. J. Geol. Soc. 150, 141–148. doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.150.1.0141 eds B. W. Flemming and A. Bartholomä (Blackwell Science Ltd), 301–312. 2714
2658
Thomas, R. G., Smith, D. G., Wood, J. M., Visser, J., Calverley-Range, E. A., Yoshida, S., Steel, R. J., and Dalrymple, R. W. (2007). Changes in depositional 2715
and Koster, E. H. (1987). Inclined heterolithic stratification—Terminology, processes - An ingredient in a new generation of sequence-stratigraphic models.
2659 2716
description, interpretation and significance. Sediment. Geol. 53, 123–179. doi: J. Sediment. Res. 77, 447–460. doi: 10.2110/jsr.2007.048
2660 10.1016/S0037-0738(87)80006-4 2717
2661 Vakarelov, B. K., and Ainsworth, R. B. (2013). A hierarchical approach to Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the 2718
2662 architectural classification in marginal-marine systems: Bridging the gap absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a 2719
between sedimentology and sequence stratigraphy. AAPG Bull. 97, 1121–1161. potential conflict of interest.
2663 2720
doi: 10.1306/11011212024
2664 Vakarelov, B. K., Ainsworth, R. B., and MacEachern, J. A. (2012). Recognition Copyright © 2020 Sleveland, Midtkandal, Galland and Leanza. This is an open- 2721
2665 of wave-dominated, tide-influenced shoreline systems in the rock record: access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2722
2666 variations from a microtidal shoreline model. Sediment. Geol. 279, 23–41. doi: License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, 2723
2667 10.1016/[Link].2011.03.004 provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the 2724
Van Cappelle, M., Ravnås, R., Hampson, G. J., and Johnson, H. D. (2017). original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
2668 2725
Depositional evolution of a progradational to aggradational, mixed-influenced practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
2669 deltaic succession: jurassic Tofte and Ile formations, southern Halten Terrace, with these terms. 2726
2670 2727
2671 2728
2672 2729
2673 2730
2674 2731
2675 2732
2676 2733
2677 2734
2678 2735
2679 2736

Frontiers in Earth Science | [Link] 24 June 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 219