High‐energy inundation events versus long‐term coastal processes – room for misinterpretation. Issue 3 (31st October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Spiske, Michaela; Garcia Garcia, Anna‐Marietta; Tsukamoto, Sumiko; Schmidt, Volkmar
• Editors: Costa, Pedro
• Other Names: Pufahl Peir guestEditor.; Kane Ian guestEditor.; Della Porta Giovanna guestEditor.; Costa Pedro guestEditor.; Andrade César guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: Sedimentology. Volume 67:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 1460
• Page End: 1480
• Publication Date: 2018-10-31
• Subjects: Chevrons -- coastal boulder deposits -- cyclone -- dunes -- OSL‐dating -- shore platform erosion -- tsunami; Sedimentology -- Periodicals; 552.5
• DOI: 10.1111/sed.12524
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0037-0746

Abstract

Abstract: Coastal boulder deposits and chevrons are two features whose origin have triggered controversial discussions. Boulders are often used as indicators of past tsunamis and storms, with the former interpretation in many cases preferred due to the clast size. Chevrons, defined as large parabolic sand bodies, were previously attributed to (mega‐)tsunami, potentially caused by oceanic impacts, because of their dimensions, height above sea level and alignment of the central axis. This study documents that chevrons along the Quobba coast in Western Australia are parabolic dunes and not related to tsunami inundation; their age is consistent with an arid period at about 3·9 to 2·3 ka when the sea level was 1 to 2 m higher than today. The internal age distribution proves an inland migration. Weakly developed soil horizons represent phases of intermittent dune stabilization and later reactivation. The calculated velocities required for wind transport and the prevailing wind directions are consistent with on‐site meteorological parameters. The boulders at Quobba are most likely to be remnants of in situ platform denudation that produces shell hash, coral clasts and boulders. An unknown portion of the boulders was certainly moved by tropical cyclones. A previously proposed tsunami origin is unsustainable because the observed features can be explained by processes other than tsunamis. Boulders were tilted during gravitative platform collapse, standing water caused dissolution of the boulder bottoms, creating 'pseudo‐rockpools', consequently not applicable as upside‐down criteria, and ages of attached encrusting organisms document their colonization at higher sea level and (sub)recent frequent inundation by wave splash during rough seas.