Comment on Non‐unique stratal geometries: implications for sequence stratigraphic interpretations, by: P.M. Burgess and G.D. Prince, Basin Research (2015) 27, 351–365. (13th July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Catuneanu, Octavian; Zecchin, Massimo
• Is Part Of: Basin research. Volume 29:Number 5(2017:Oct.)
• Page Start: 625
• Page End: 629
• Publication Date: 2016-07-13
• Subjects: Sedimentation and deposition -- Periodicals; Sedimentary basins -- Periodicals; 551
• DOI: 10.1111/bre.12192
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0950-091X

Abstract

Abstract: The non‐unique variability highlighted by Burgess & Prince ( Basin Res . 2015, 27, 351) (i.e. the origin and timing of maximum flooding surfaces, maximum regressive surfaces and subaerial unconformities; the process of topset aggradation in relation with the various types of shoreline trajectory; and the multiple controls that may affect the progradation and retrogradation of a shoreline) is irrelevant to the workflow of sequence stratigraphy. What is relevant is the observation of the unique stratal geometries that are diagnostic to the definition of all units and surfaces of sequence stratigraphy. In downstream‐controlled settings, these unique stratal stacking patterns relate to the forced regressive, normal regressive and transgressive shoreline trajectories. Multiple controls interplay during the formation of each type of stacking pattern, including accommodation, sediment supply and the energy of the sediment‐transport agents. This interplay explains the non‐unique variability, but does not change the unique criteria that afford a consistent application of sequence stratigraphy. Failure to rationalize the non‐unique variability within the context of unique stratal geometries is counterproductive, and obscures the simple workflow of sequence stratigraphy.