KLIMCHOUK, Alexander B. Hypogene Speleogenesis

Klimchouk A.B. Hypogene Speleogenesis - Treatise on Geomorphology: Karst Geomorphology, 2010, edited by A.
Frumkin
Hypogene Speleogenesis
Alexander B. Klimchouk
Ukrainian Institute of Speleology and Karstology, Ministry of Education and Science and National Academy
of Sciences of Ukraine, 4 Vernadskogo Prospect, Simferopol 95007, Ukraine
Abstract: Recognition of the wide occurrence, significance and specific characteristics of hypogene
speleogenesis during last two decades signify a major paradigm shift in karst science, previously
overwhelmingly dominated by the epigene concepts and models. Recent studies around the world have
demonstrated that hypogene karst is one of the fundamental categories of karst, at least of equal importance
with more familiar epigenic karst. The current burst of interest in hypogene speleogenesis in karst science
has been largely related to the establishment of a hydrogeological rather than geochemical approach to its
definition, which allowed to place hypogene speleogenesis into the systematic context of regional
groundwater hydraulics and highlighted the common hydrogeological genetic background and similarity of
caves previously seen as unrelated, thus broadening the family of hypogenic caves.
Hypogene and epigenic karst systems are regularly associated with different types, patterns and segments of
flow systems, which are characterized by distinct hydrokinetic, chemical and thermal conditions. Epigenic
karst systems are predominantly local systems receiving recharge from the overlying or immediately
adjacent surface. Hypogene karst is associated with discharge regimes of regional or intermediate flow
systems dominated by upward flow, although mixing with local systems is commonly involved. It tends to
operate over long time spans, continuously or intermittently. Hypogene karst may not be expressed at the
surface and is largely climate-independent.
Hypogene speleogenesis is the formation of solution-enlarged permeability structures by water that recharges
the cavernous zone from below, independent of recharge from the overlying or immediately adjacent surface.
It develops in leaky confined conditions although it may continue through unconfined ones. Vertical
hydraulic communication across lithological boundaries and different porosity systems allows deeper
groundwaters in regional or intermediate flow systems to interact with shallower and more local systems,
permitting a variety of dissolution mechanisms at transitional geochemical environments and thresholds that
commonly occur along interfaces between different flow regimes and cross-formational flowpaths. There is a
specific hydrogeologic mechanism inherent in hypogenic transverse speleogenesis (restricted input/output)
that suppresses the positive flow-dissolution feedback and speleogenetic competition seen in the
development of initial flowpath networks in epigenic speleogenesis.
Hypogenic caves are found in different soluble rocks in a wide range of geological and tectonic settings,
basinal through orogenic. The overall position of cave-forming zones is controlled by the 3D distribution of
soluble rocks, their position and hydraulic function within the hierarchic structure of flow systems and the
pattern of geochemical environments in a given flow configuration. Overall patterns of cave systems are
strongly guided by patterns of the initial (pre-speleogenetic) permeability features in a sedimentary sequence,
i.e. by the spatial distribution of the initial permeability structures and hydrostratigraphic interfaces within
the soluble and adjacent units, by the mode of water input to, and output from, cave-forming zones and by
the overall recharge-discharge configuration in the multiple aquifer system. Modes of recharge and
discharge, again, depend on interaction between permeability structures within cave-forming zones and units
that lie below and above them. The presence of cross-cutting permeability features, such as faults, can exert
strong effects on cave patterns through their inflow, throughflow and outflow controls. Because of its
transverse nature, hypogene caves have a clustered distribution in plan view, although initial clusters may
merge during further development and extend over considerable areas.
Hypogene caves display remarkable similarity in their patterns and meso-morphology, strongly suggesting
that the type of flow system is the primary control. They commonly demonstrate a characteristic suite of
cave morphologies resulting from rising flow across the cave-forming zone, with distinct input components
from below and buoyancy dissolution components elsewhere.
The rapidly evolving understanding of hypogene speleogenesis has broad implications for many applied
fields such as hydrocarbon reservoirs prospecting and characterization, groundwater management, geological
engineering, mineral resources industries, etc.
Klimchouk A.B. Hypogene Speleogenesis - Treatise on Geomorphology: Karst Geomorphology, 2010, edited by A.Frumkin
Introduction
During the 20th century, studies of karst systems had been mainly concerned with shallow, unconfined
geologic settings, supposing that the karstification is ultimately related to the Earth's surface and that
dissolution is driven by downward water recharge. The respective karst systems are termed epigenic.
Concepts and models in karst geomorphology and hydrogeology that deal with origin, functioning and
evolution of epigene karst overwhelmingly predominate. Recent advancements in karst and cave science,
however, lead to the growing recognition of the fact that karst development driven by upward recharge to the
soluble formation (hypogene speleogenesis) is not less important.
The idea that some caves could form at depth by rising waters was introduced as early as in the mid-19th
century with regard to thermal systems. More significant attention has been given to hydrothermal
speleogenesis since the mid-20th century, particularly in Eastern Europe (Kunsky, 1957; Maksimovich,
1965; Dzulinski, 1976; Jakucs, 1977; Mller and Srvry, 1977; Dublyansky V., 1980; Dublyansky Yu.,
1990, 2000a). Later on, another chemical mechanism of cave development by rising waters was recognised,
the oxidation of H2S and dissolution by sulfuric acid (Egemeier, 1973, 1981; Maslyn, 1979; Davis, 1980,
Hill, 1981, 1987). By the end of the 20th century the term and concept of hypogene speleogenesis has been
established, although largely limited to caves formed by the above dissolution mechanisms (Ford and
Williams, 1989; Palmer, 1991; Hill, 2000). A classical paper by Palmer (1991) on the origin of caves was a
particularly important contribution to recognition and understanding of principal features of hypogene
speleogenesis.
Recent two decades have witnessed a growth in number of in-depth studies of different kinds of hypogene
speleogenesis in various places around the world, such as in the Western Ukraine (Klimchouk, 1992, 1996b,
2000b), Central Italy (Galdenzi and Menichetti, 1995; Galdenzi, 2009; Menichetti, 2009), Middle East
(Frumkin and Fischhendler, 2005; Frumkin and Gvirtzman, 2006), Guadalupe Mountains and the Pecos
River basin, New Mexico and Texas, USA (Hose and Pisarowicz, 2000; Land et al., 2006; Stafford et al.,
2009b), Australia (Osborn, 2001, 2007) and other regions. Also, it was recognized that cave development by
various processes in deep-seated environments is much more common than previously thought (Palmer,
1995; Klimchouk, 2000a).
At the same time, sedimentologists and industry geologists concerned with the origin of porosity began to
realize limitations of the heavily used subaerial meteoric diagenetic (freshwater) model, which implied that
deep-seated porosity in carbonates is related to unconformities and is mainly due to dissolution in paleovadose and paleo-phreatic freshwater zones (i.e. is paleokarst). They come to realize that deep-burial
diagenesis in the mesogenetic environment can contribute significantly to secondary dissolution porosity and
permeability evolution in many carbonate hydrocarbon reservoirs ( e.g., Mazzullo and Harris, 1992; 1994).
Karst and cave scientists would treat this as karstification, or speleogenesis, although deep-seated
(Klimchouk, 2000a). Geologists studying the origin of carbonate-hosted ore deposits also often deal with
deep-seated karst processes.
The current burst of interest in hypogene speleogenesis in karst science has been largely related to the
establishment of a hydrogeological rather than geochemical approach to its definition, which allowed to
place hypogene speleogenesis into the systematic context of regional groundwater hydraulics (sensu Tth,
1995, 1999) and highlighted the common hydrogeological genetic background and similarity of caves
previously seen as unrelated, thus broadening the family of hypogenic caves (Klimchouk, 2007). The latter
work has demonstrated that hypogene speleogenesis is not just an aberrant curious phenomena within the
otherwise predominantly epigenic karst paradigm but is one of the fundamental categories of karst, at least of
equal importance with epigene karst.
The development of the hydrogeologic approach to hypogene speleogenesis was significantly promoted by
acknowledgement of ideas of regional hydraulic continuity, well recognized in mainstream hydrogeology
since the mid-20th Century but largely overlooked in karst science until recently. The artesian paradigm,
with its notions of confined flow through largely isolated aquifers, was replaced with the basin hydraulic
paradigm, with its notions of a multiple aquifer system and significant leakage through strata (crossformational communication). The term "confined aquifer" is not used anymore (and particularly in this
chapter) in the sense of hydraulic isolation; a notion of semi-confinement is more appropriate as separating
aquitards are commonly leaky at certain time and space scales. The recognition of the importance of crossformational communication is particularly important for understanding of hypogene speleogenesis
(Klimchouk, 2007, 2009a).
New developments have stimulated an intense ongoing re-evaluation of the origin of many caves and
previously accepted regional paleohydrogeological and karst evolution concepts according to the new
understanding of hypogene speleogenesis, as well as further theoretical and modeling efforts. The recent
advances in the topic were presented in two collections of papers (2009), "Advances in Hypogene Karst
Studies", published by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (USA; Stafford et al., 2009a), and
"Hypogene Speleogenesis and Karst Hydrogeology of Artesian Basins", published by the Ukrainian Institute
of Speleology and Karstology (Klimchouk and Ford, 2009). These volumes were the outcomes of the two
major international theme conferences held in 2008 (a special symposium within the GSA-2008 program,
Houston, USA) and 2009 (a conference in Chernivtsy, Ukraine).
Speleogenesis is the creation and development of organized permeability structures that have evolved
primarily through dissolution of a host rock. It is the result of a complex interaction between geological,
hydrogeological and geochemical factors. These factors, as well as their interaction, are in some ways
different for hypogene speleogenesis as compared to better studied epigene speleogenesis. Despite of the
recent rapid progress in studying hypogene speleogenesis, we are only at the beginning of its in-depth
understanding. This chapter is an overview of principal regularities and factors of hypogene speleogenesis
and features of respective solution porosity structures.
Basic concept and definitions

The concept of hypogene speleogenesis does not necessarily mean cave development at great depth but,
rather, refers to the origin of the cave-forming agency from depth.
Palmer (1991) defined hypogenic caves as those formed by acids of deep-seated origin, or epigenic acids
rejuvenated by deep seated processes. Such caves have no relation to recharge through the overlying or
adjacent surface. Later on, he broadened the definition: hypogenic caves are formed by water in which the
aggressiveness has been produced at depth beneath the surface, independent of surface or soil CO2 or other
near surface acid sources (Palmer, 2000). Substituting "acids" for "aggressiveness" is important, as
aggressiveness in hypogene settings can be supplied also by non-acidic mechanisms. Speleogenetic studies
in many regions during last two decades have shown that caves that have no relations to recharge through the
overlying surface form by a variety of geochemical mechanisms including those that do not rely on acids
(such as dissolution of evaporites). At the same time, hypogene caves formed in different lithologies and by
different dissolution processes demonstrate remarkable similarity in their patterns, morphologies,
hydrostratigraphic occurrence and current or inferred hydrogeologic functioning, which suggests their
common hydrogeologic backgrounds.
The modern hydrogeology recognizes the geologic role of groundwater flow systems (e.g. Sharp and Kyle,
1988; Tth, 1995, 1999). Speleogenesis, one of the most expressive manifestations of the role of
groundwater as a geologic agent, is a result of interaction between groundwater and its environment,
determined by the various components and attributes of the two respective systems seeking equilibration. To
cause speleogenetic development, dissolution effects of disequilibria have to accumulate over sufficiently
long periods of time and/or to concentrate within relatively small rock volumes or areas. The systematic
transport and distribution mechanism capable of supporting the required disequilibrium conditions is the
groundwater flow system (Tth, 1999), which suggests that the latter has to be a primary consideration.
The present author adopts the hydrogeologic approach to hypogene speleogenesis, in which the latter is
defined as the formation of solution-enlarged permeability structures by water that recharges the cavernous
zone from below, independent of recharge from the overlying or immediately adjacent surface (Ford, 2006;
Klimchouk, 2007, 2009a).
The difference between the two approaches outlined above determines to a large extent characteristics of
speleogenetic environments and samples of caves to be considered as hypogene. For instance, the emphasis
on aggressiveness (the geochemical approach) would imply that cave development in the mixing zone of
unconfined karst aquifers (those receiving recharge from the overlying surface), such as by mixing of vadose
and phreatic waters, or fresh and marine waters along the seacoast, would fall into the hypogene category,
because the aggressiveness by mixing in the above situations is produced at depth below the surface and is
not related to the latter. On the other hand, caves formed in gypsum strata by rising flow from an underlying
aquifer, such as giant maze caves in the Western Ukraine, or giant chamber caves ("Schlotten") in the South
Hartz (Germany), would not classify as hypogene caves because the aggressiveness with regard to gypsum in
these cases, although not related to near surface acid sources, has not been gained at depth but kept since
fresh groundwater infiltrated to the basal aquifers at distant recharge areas. Based on the geochemical
approach, Palmer (2007) places the artesian cave development into the realm of epigenic speleogenesis, and
the cave development at mixing zone in unconfined aquifers is placed into the hypogenic category. Within
the hydrogeologic approach advocated by the present author (Klimchouk, 2007), the classifying these
environments is the opposite.
The ongoing debates and live developments in studying hypogene speleogenesis will help to resolve this
issue.
Hypogene speleogenesis in the framework of hierarchical flow systems

The hydrogeological approach to hypogene speleogenesis allows placing it in the context of hierarchical
organization of flow systems, characterized by hydraulic continuity and cross-formational hydraulic
communication (e.g., Pinneker, 1982; Sharp and Kyle, 1988; Shestopalov, 1981, 1989; Tth, 1995, 1999).
Principal continental karst-forming environments (epigene and hypogene) and resultant karst/speleogenetic
styles are regularly associated with flow systems of different scales and their distinct regimes, dominated by
distinct hydrokinetic, chemical and thermal conditions (Klimchouk, 2007; Figure 1), which is a primary
cause of genetic, functional, structural and morphologic distinctions between epigenic and hypogene
speleogenesis.
Epigenic speleogenesis, directly related to the infiltration of meteoric water, is predominantly associated with
local flow systems and/or recharge regimes of intermediate to regional flow systems. The recharge regime is
characterized by highly variable input parameters, relatively high hydraulic heads, decreasing with depth,
downward and divergent flow, chemically aggressive groundwaters with low TDS, oxidizing conditions and
negative anomalies of geothermal heat and gradient (Tth, 1999).
Hypogene speleogenesis is associated with discharge regimes of regional or intermediate flow systems,
either terminal or intervening, which establish in areas of potentiometric lows and breaches through major
confinement. Discharge regimes are characterized by little variations of input parameters with low
dependence on climate, relatively low hydraulic heads that decrease upward resulting in converging and
ascending flow, high TDS of groundwaters, chemical precipitation, accumulation of transported mineral
matter, reducing conditions and positive anomalies of geothermal heat and gradient (Tth, 1999).
Figure 1. A generalized sketch of hypogene speleogenetic situations in various geologic settings and in the
context of hierarchical flow systems: A = in active orogenic setting, B = in variously disturbed cratonic
basinal settings. Some elements of the diagram were adopted from drawings of Kovcs and Mller (1980),
Tth (1999), Klimchouk (2007), and Bayari et al. (2009).
Because of the vertical heterogeneity inherent in sedimentary sequences, an upwelling flow inherently
implies a certain degree of hydrogeological confinement. Hypogene speleogenesis at depth occurs in leaky
confined conditions. When hypogenic solution porosity structures are shifted to the shallower, unconfined
situation due to uplift and denudation but their further development continues to be driven by upwelling flow
from deeper systems, this is still hypogenic development although now unconfined. Unconfined hypogene
development can be regarded as an extinction phase of hypogene speleogenesis.
Exposed, unconfined karst aquifers are local systems characterized by recharge and discharge within the
same outcrop. Epigenic cave systems in unconfined aquifers commonly contain phreatic parts, in which
water flows under pressure in conduits being confined by the host rock itself. In discharge segments of
epigenic phreatic systems flow raises to surface outlets, but this is not a hypogene speleogenetic
environment. Hypogene speleogenesis occurs where the whole aquifer or its substantial part is confined (not
just water in individual passages) and where flow system of a larger scale contributes to the cave
development in a given locality, entering the cave-forming zone from below. More confusing situations, in
terms of discriminating between phreatic epigene and hypogene environments, are those where rising flow in
a generally unconfined soluble aquifer rises through an area of interbedded varieties of the same soluble rock
with different permeabilities, which creates local conditions of a leaky confined multiple aquifer system, and
sometimes characteristic hypogene speleomorphs. If this situation is local, not dominating the whole aquifer
or its large portion, it can be regarded as quasi-hypogene speleogenesis. But in many cases conditions often
treated as bathyphreatic, where water infiltrated through an unconfined karst area flows to considerable depth
(hundreds meters) and then raises to the surface through the inhomogeneous sequence, may actually
correspond to a multiple aquifer system and true hypogene speleogenesis.
In the continental domain, meteoric recharge and topography-driven flow often dominate in regional
groundwater systems, although non-meteoric waters and other energy sources, such as sediment compaction
and tectonic compression, can also contribute to variable extent. A topography-driven meteoric regime, with
its own hierarchy of flow systems and interaction between them, is commonly perched above a
compressional regime driven by tectonics. The interface between them migrates with geomorphic and
tectonic developments, as well as with changes of the hydraulic function of soluble formations due to
karstification. Zones of interaction between the two regimes are particularly favourable for hypogene
speleogenesis. Hypogene speleogenesis is often a part of mixed flow systems, where gravity-driven flow
interacts with flow driven by temperature or solute density gradients (Anderson and Kirkland, 1980;
Klimchouk, 2007).
Speleogenesis is a dynamic process capable of considerably changing primary porosity and permeability in
soluble and overlying rocks. The overall hydrogeologic role of hypogene speleogenesis is the enhancement
of vertical permeability and hydraulic communication across a sedimentary succession that contains soluble
units. It can create zones of high vertical permeability along initially insignificant (in terms of regional or
intermediate groundwater flow systems) cross-formational flow paths, or even without any initially guiding
discontinuities, e.g. through vertical stoping of breakdown above a hypogene chamber formed at the base of
a soluble stratum. Thus, hypogene speleogenesis may give rise to new discharge limbs and contribute to
segmenting laterally extensive "throughflow" regions (Klimchouk, 2007).
Evolution of hydrogeologic settings

Speleogenesis and the aquifer evolution have to be viewed from the perspective of the overall geologic
evolution. Evolutionary classification of karst types, elaborated by Klimchouk (1996a) and Klimchouk and
Ford (2000) provides a convenient framework to characterize speleogenetic environments (Figure 2). It
distinguishes major stages in the geologic evolution of a soluble sequence as the types of karst, marked by
distinct combinations of the diagenetic and structural prerequisites for groundwater flow and speleogenesis,
flow regimes, recharge/discharge configurations, groundwater chemistry, and degree of inheritance from
earlier conditions. They are (in the order as they potentially evolve): syngenetic/eogenetic karst in freshly
deposited rocks; deep-seated karst, which develops during the burial, particularly during mesogenesis (as
soluble rocks re-emerge to the surface due to uplift and erosion); subjacent karst, where the cover is locally
breached by erosion; entrenched karst, in which valleys incise below the bottom of the karst aquifer and
drain it, but where the soluble rocks are still covered by insoluble formations for the most part; denuded
karst, where the insoluble cover have been completely removed. If karst bypasses burial, or if the soluble
rock is exposed after burial without having experienced any significant karstification during burial, it
represents the open karst type.
Deep-seated karst, subjacent karst and entrenched karst represent the group of intrastratal karst types, while
denuded and open karst fall into the group of exposed karst types. Later on, karst may become mantled by a
cover that develops contemporary with karst, or re-buried under younger rocks again to form paleokarst, and
be re-exposed again (exhumed karst).
Figure 2. Evolutionary types of karst and speleogenetic environments (from Klimchouk and Ford, 2000).
Although this classification does not directly specify the origin of caves, it characterizes dominant
speleogenetic environments and their evolutionary changes. Karst types are viewed as stages of the
hydrogeologic/geomorphic evolution, between which the major boundary conditions, the overall circulation
pattern, and extrinsic factors and intrinsic mechanisms of karst development change considerably. The
classification of karst types correlates well with the three major types of speleogenetic settings distinguished
now (Klimchouk et al., 2000). Coastal and oceanic speleogenesis in diagenetically immature rocks falls into
the syngenetic/eogenetic karst domain. Deep-seated karst is exclusively hypogenic. In subjacent karst both
hypogene and epigenic speleogenesis may operate, depending on the scale of the flow system, but hypogene
speleogenesis still dominates. Entrenched and denuded karst types are overwhelmingly epigenic, with an
inheritance of hypogenic features, which can be re-worked by epigenic processes or get fossilized. In both
karst types, however, still active but dying hypogene systems may operate. Open karst has exclusively
epigenic speleogenesis.
In deep-seated settings, speleogenetic development is generally slow although it may encompass tens and
even hundreds of millions of years. Regional tectonic disturbances and related changes in deep flow systems
may cause pulses of efflux of basinal fluids and geogenic gases into upper sequences and hence affect
hypogene speleogenesis. When a cave-forming zone is shifted to a shallower position, cave development
accelerates due to increasing leakage of deep flow to the surface and more vigorous mixing with shallower
systems. The patterns of hypogene solution porosity structures establishes during this stage. A more dramatic
increase of flow and acceleration of cave growth occurs when a major confining formation begins to breach
by erosional entrenchment or upward propagation of stoping breakdown structures. Breaching of the major
confinement, although commonly local, signifies the transition to the subjacent karst stage, during which the
most of growth in hypogenic systems occurs. Flow pattern within cave systems re-organizes during this stage
and focuses on few favourable paths according to the new configuration of recharge/discharge conditions, so
that the patterns of hypogene caves can modify. Epigene processes start to contribute to karst development,
further reworking hypogene features. With the onset of entrenched karst, unconfined conditions establish and
epigenic karst processes began to dominate. They further modify or dramatically overprint hypogene features
depending on climate and configuration of a local flow system. This process continues and becomes more
diffused with the transition to denuded karst settings. However, hypogenic caves may pass the transient
stages without major modification by the newly established flow patterns.
Dissolution processes in hypogene speleogenesis

General geochemical characteristics of the discharge regimes of regional flow systems may seem not to
favour speleogenesis. Also, there was a long belief in the karst literature, based on the now obsolete old
simplistic notion of the artesian mechanism, that confined conditions generally offer limited dissolution
potential for karstification as lateral artesian flow in aquifers containing soluble rocks would be saturated
through the most of throughflow areas. However, it is almost universally accepted now in mainstream
hydrogeology a great importance of cross-formational hydraulic communication, which means leakage
(recharge and discharge) across strata that were supposed to be "impermeable" within the old artesian
paradigm. The fundamental feature of hypogene speleogenesis is that it is driven mainly by transverse flow
across boundaries between different formations, strata and porosity systems, while the boundaries commonly
coincide with major contrasts in water chemistry, gas composition and temperature. This causes
disequilibrium conditions and supports multiple dissolution mechanisms.
Hypogene speleogenesis occurs where undersaturated fluids or hypogenic acids move from insoluble rocks
into soluble ones or where the aggressiveness is acquired or rejuvenated within the soluble formation in the
course of transverse flow across it because of mixing of different flow components, a drop in temperature,
oxidation of sulfides or other reactions. The variety of dissolution processes that can potentially operate in
hypogene speleogenesis has been characterised by Palmer (1991, 1995, 2000, 2007) and Klimchouk (2000a,
2007). The most important processes are briefly overviewed below.
Carbonic acid dissolution, which dominates epigenic carbonate speleogenesis, also operates as a hypogenic
agent, though the origin of the acidity is different. It can be related to CO2 generated from igneous processes,
by thermometamorphism of carbonates, or by thermal degradation and oxidation of deep-seated organic
compounds by mineral oxidants. The first two origins are indicated by 13C values (vs. VPDB) around or
above zero . Efflux of carbon dioxide of the deep origins into upper aquifers can be massive, point-wise
or disperse depending on geologic/structural conditions. CO2 from oxidation of deep-seated organic
compounds is common in the vicinity of hydrocarbon fields, where waters characteristically contain high
CO2 concentrations (Kaveev, 1963). In several regions the origin of CO2 by oxidation of methane is
confirmed by very low (up to -32 vs. VPDB) values of 13C measured in CO2 itself or in calcite deposited
with its participation (Gradzinsky et al., 2009; Klimchouk, 1994). CO2 is also a by-product of several other
reactions that take place in deep-seated environments, such as the reaction of calcite with sulphuric acid or
other strong acids.
Dissolution by cooling thermal water can occur along ascending flowpaths, even at constant CO2 levels. In a
closed system, the solubility of calcite increases with decreasing temperature, so that more calcite can be
dissolved. The effect increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. This mechanism is commonly labelled
as hydrothermal speleogenesis, occurring in high-gradient zones where ascending flow is localized along
some highly permeable paths (Malinin, 1979; Dublyansky V., 1980; Bakalowicz et al. 1987; Dubljansky
Yu., 1990, 2000; Ford and Williams, 1989; Palmer, 1991; Andre and Rajaram, 2005; see also Chapter XX in
this volume). However, Palmer (1991, 2007) notes that dissolution by cooling of thermal water alone can
produce substantial caves only under the most favourable conditions, such as at high thermal gradients
sustained through long periods of time, and that most caves thought to be thermal actually owe their origin to
the mixing of high-CO2 thermal water with low-CO2 water of shallower flow system.
Hydrogen sulfide is another common hypogene source of acidity, abundant in deep meteoric groundwater
and basinal brines. It is usually generated at depth by microbial or thermal reduction of sulphates at the
presence of organic carbon (Machel, 1992). When dissolved in water, hydrogen sulfide forms a mild acid,
but it can cause carbonate dissolution if this water flows elsewhere and mixes with water that has little or no
H2S content (Palmer, 1991, 2007), or escapes from reducing zones as a gas and is reabsorbed in fresh water.
H2S can also react with dissolved metals, such as iron, to produce sulfide ores and dissolve carbonate rocks.
Despite of abundance of both major geogenic gases, CO2 and H2S in deep-seated fluids, these fluids are
commonly saturated with respect to calcite due to the long residence time in deep flow paths. Dissolution by
water containing these hypogene gases is related to a drop in temperature (for CO2) or mixing (for both, CO2
or H2S) with water of shallower flow systems during the upwelling of the deep fluids. Where there is a lowpermeability lithologic barrier that prevents direct mixing between the upwelling deep fluid and the shallow
groundwater, the hyper filtration effect can operate that limits the migration of solute components whereas
allows permeation of dissolved gases, as demonstrated for hypogene karst in the central Anatolia, Turkey
(Bayari et al., 2009). As both CO2 and H2S are often present together in deep groundwater systems, and their
proportion changes in the course of basinal evolution, their particular contribution in hypogene speleogenesis
is difficult to assess.
Mixing of waters of contrasting chemistry, particularly those differing in CO2 or H2S content or salinity, can
renew or enhance solutional aggressiveness to carbonates due to the concavity of solubility curves (Laptev,
1939; Bogli, 1964; Wigley and Plummer, 1976; Palmer, 1991, 1995; see (Figure 3-A)), the effect widely
referred to in the karst literature as "mixing corrosion".
Gases have a greater effect than salinity in controlling mixing dissolution (Palmer, 1991). Mixing corrosion
is highly relevant for hypogene systems, where water that rises from depth encounters shallower meteoric
water along paths of the cross-formational flow (Klimchouk, 2007). Dissolution by mixing is favoured by a
large difference in equilibrium gas content between two solutions, especially if one gas content is very low.
The latter condition is more commonly met for H2S than for CO2.
Dissolution by sulfuric acid, a very strong speleogenetic agent, occurs in shallower conditions where H2Sbearing waters rise to interact with oxygenated shallower groundwaters. The depth to which this process can
take place is limited by the oxygen requirement (Palmer, 1991). It is recognized as the main speleogenetic
10
process for certain large caves ( e.g. caves in the Guadalupe reef complex in the USA and Frasassi Cave in
Italy) and many smaller caves. Based on this, some researchers distinguish sulfuric acid karst/speleogenesis
as a peculiar type (Hill, 2000; see also Chapter XX in this volume). Cave development by this process may
occur at depth, where oxygenated water in shallow aquifers converges with upwelling regional H2S-bearing
flow. The dissolution by sulfuric acid is most readily observable in caves that are now in unconfined settings
but continue receiving rising H2S-bearing water from depth. Intense production of sulfuric acid near the
water table and in the subaerial conditions causes pronounced speleogenic and mineralogical effects, which
led some researchers to believe that the most of the cave origin is due to subaerial sulfuric acid dissolution.
However, in many instances the water table and subaerial effects are overprinted on patterns and
morphologies suggestive of the development at considerable depth. Moreover, in some regions geochemical
and paleohydrogeological evidences suggest that other processes, such as carbonic acid dissolution due to a
drop of temperature or mixing of waters differing in H2S and CO2 content could have taken part in the earlier
development. The actual proportion of various deep-seated processes and the subaerial sulfuric acid
dissolution remains unclear in most cases.
Substantial sulfuric acid dissolution can also be caused by oxidation of iron sulfides such as pyrite and
marcasite, where it is localized in ore bodies (Bottrell et al., 2000). Lowe (1992) and Lowe and Gunn (1997)
suggested that oxidation of pyrite along certain horizons or bedding planes in carbonates ("inception
horizons") may create preferential flowpaths that latter will be inherited by epigenic speleogenesis.
Figure 3. Some mechanisms of renewal or enhancement of groundwater aggressiveness to soluble rocks.

A = Dissolution of carbonates by mixing. The graph shows saturation concentrations of calcite and dolomite
as a function of CO2 or H2S concentration (mmol/L). The saturation concentration is given as volume of
solid dissolved per liter (cm3/L). Mixing of two solutions (A, B) produces a solution that is undersaturated
(C). From Palmer, 2000.
B = Gypsum solubility as a function of concentration of other salts. Magnesium chloride and nitrate have a
particularly strong effect on gypsum solubility. From Shternina, 1949.
C = The effects of dissolution in mixed carbonate/sulfate strata. The diagram shows solubilities of calcite,
dolomite, and gypsum: (a) as individual minerals at 15 oC and PCO2 = 0.01 atm; (b) in a mixture of calcite and
gypsum (both become less soluble, although the effect on gypsum solubility is minor); (c) where water first
encounters calcite and dolomite, and then gypsum (both dolomite and gypsum become more soluble as
calcite is forced to precipitate). The shaded areas show the effect of 2 cm3/liter of dissolved salt (NaCl). In c,
calcite is held at SI = 0.1 to account for the residual supersaturation required to precipitate it. From Palmer
2007.
11
Dissolution of evaporites is a simple dissociation of the ions and diffusional mass transport from the surface
into the solution. The solubility of gypsum, the most common evaporite mineral, is one to three orders of
magnitude greater than that of calcite (depending on PCO2 for the latter), and the solubility of salt is roughly
140 times greater than that of gypsum in pure water. In contrast to carbonates, solubilities of evaporates do
not depend on dissolved gases and acidity. The solubility of gypsum increases significantly (up to 3-6 times)
with the presence of other salts in the solution (Shternina, 1949; Figure 3-B). Gypsum dissolution can be
rejuvenated by reduction of sulfates, which removes sulfate ions from the solution and allows more sulfates
to dissolve, and by dedolomitization, which generates further dissolutional capacity with respect to gypsum
because Ca2+ is removed from solution and the sulfate ions react with Mg. Because mixed evaporite
(gypsum/anhydrite and salt) and evaporate/carbonate formations are common in sedimentary successions,
the above effects are highly relevant to hypogene speleogenesis in them. Dissolution in the mixed
carbonate/sulfate strata deserves further attention (see below).
As evaporates dissolve at very high rates, and water in contact with them becomes saturated over short
distances, epigenic speleogenesis in evaporate rocks is limited to flow paths that support high
discharge/length ratio. Hypogene caves in gypsum are more common (and far more extensive). The
requirements for them to develop include that aggressive water would be delivered through adjacent
insoluble or carbonate aquifers, or through intervening permeable beds, or the aggressiveness would be
constantly rejuvenated.
Dissolution in mixed carbonate/sulfate strata is a kind of synergetic process, more complex than in each
lithology alone, also known as dedolomitization (Stankevich, 1970; Back et al., 1983; Bischoff et al., 1994;
Raines and Dewers, 1997). Palmer (2000, 2007) has stressed on its importance for hypogene speleogenesis.
This mechanism does not require an acid source. As water flows through carbonates, calcite is usually the
first mineral to approach saturation. Dolomite dissolves more slowly. If gypsum is then encountered, its
dissolution forces calcite to precipitate by the common-ion effect. This removes some calcium and
bicarbonate from solution, reduces the saturation ratios of both dolomite and gypsum and allows more of
them to dissolve. Compared to the solubilities of gypsum and dolomite alone, up to 1.5 times more gypsum
can dissolve, and up to 7 times more dolomite (Palmer, 2007). The effect increases with salinity of water.
Figure 3-C shows the combined effects in typical groundwater conditions.
Palmer has also indicated that in a simple carbonate-sulfate system, the volume of precipitated calcite is less
than 30% of the combined total volume of dissolved gypsum and dolomite, which results in considerable
solution porosity. The process is mediated by the relatively slow dissolution of dolomite, so that it a viable
mechanism for the development of dissolution paths in gypsum in deep-seated settings.
There are an increasing number of arguments and evidence suggesting that more than one process could be
involved in many cases, operating either in combination or sequentially in time. Either, carbonic acid or H2S
dissolution, or both can operate in hydrothermal systems, which are essentially ascending transverse
phenomena common in many regions. Mixing of contrasting waters is almost universally involved in
hypogenic speleogenesis in carbonates, at least at some stages. The synergetic dissolution process in
carbonate/sulfate mixed strata further illustrates the complexity. This, again, points to the benefits of the
hydrogeologic approach to defining hypogene speleogenesis. Hypogene speleogenesis can not be related to a
particular set of physical or chemical process. Cross-formation flow and its interaction with the shallower
environments is the main driving force for hypogenic speleogenesis, which can trigger and support many
dissolution processes and integrate them into the cave-forming process.
There may be other chemical conditions and reactions operative at depth, poorly known so far or still
overlooked in karst science. Some of them were discussed in Klimchouk (2000a), for instance, low-TDS
12
groundwater anomalies, often cross-formational, that are frequently documented at great depth, especially in
the vicinity of hydrocarbon fields (Kartzev, 1984; Kolodij et al., 1991), or radiolysis of groundwater (Vovk,
1979), which can locally modify redox conditions, and therefore the speciation and the solubility of the
compounds. It possibly accounts for the presence of oxygen in considerable amounts (up to 50 vol % of
dissolved gasses) in water at depths of 2 to 3 km and for related reactions involving oxidation of
hydrocarbons, sulfides, and other compounds.
The cursory review above shows that, contrary to the still existing views about limited potential for
speleogenesis in deep-seated conditions, it is in fact quite substantial. The amount of dissolution is small in
many processes. However, what has been mentioned by Palmer with regard to dissolution by mixing (2007)
is also true for most of the other described mechanisms: ".. the amount of dissolution is not as important as
where it takes place. In many places, dissolution caused by mixing occurs well beneath the surface, where its
effect is concentrated on forming caves and solutional pores, instead of on lowering the bedrock surface".
Also, in contrast to epigene settings where life cycle of caves is compatible to that of the landscape and is
commonly measured by hundreds of thousands or a few millions years, hypogene speleogenesis can operate
through time spans of tens and hundreds of millions years.
Distribution of hypogene speleogenesis

The recent overview in Klimchouk (2007) and papers in Stafford et al. (2009) and Klimchouk and Ford
(2009) demonstrate that hypogene speleogenesis is much more widespread in nature than previously thought.
It operates in various geological and tectonic settings, active orogenic folded regions through cratonic basins,
at different depths (ranging from a few tens of meters to several kilometers), due to different dissolutional
mechanisms operating in various lithologies.
Hypogenic speleogenesis is largely independent of climate, but the epigenic overprint of hypogenic caves
inherited by entrenched and denuded karst types strongly depends on climate. The overprint is particularly
strong in regions of moderate and high runoff, from which most of karst knowledge historically originated,
which contributed to the dominance of the epigenic karst paradigm. In arid and semi-arid regions epigenic
speleogenesis and surface karst morphologies are normally subdued due to limited infiltration and short
supply of CO2 and organic acids, but hypogenic features are often abundant in the subsurface, resulting in a
strong contrast in the degree of karstification between the surface and subsurface (Auler and Smart, 2003;
Figure 4). Figure 4 serves to clarify another common misconception about hypogenic karst in the karst
literature, namely that hypogenic karst is peculiar to arid climates and less common in humid regions. In
reality, it is just better preserved and more readily recognizable in arid regions, but it is overall equally
present, although overwhelmed by the epigenic development in shallow systems in humid karst regions.
Figure 4. Schematic representation of the relative importance of hypogene and epigenic karst in shallow
subsurface environments in different climatic settings (modified after Auler and Smart, 2003).
13
Hydrogeologic control of hypogene speleogenesis

The nature of groundwater recharge is the most important factor in determining cave patterns (Palmer, 1991).
This holds largely true for hypogenic caves, although with some important peculiarities, imposed by the
external controls of flow through a hypogene cave system through hydraulic properties of adjacent insoluble
formations.
Epigenic caves are formed by recharge through an overlying or adjacent karst surface. The karst surface, and
hence the mode of recharge, evolves in coordination with the development of solution conduits (Bauer et al.,
2005). The evolution is characterised by the strong flow/dissolution feedback mechanism, and by a switch
from the hydraulic control of flow (by size of a conduit itself) to the catchment control (available recharge)
when the conductivity of a growing conduit becomes larger than available recharge (Palmer, 1991).
In contrast, in hypogene settings recharge to a cave-forming zone comes from below and is independent from
the surface conditions. The mode of recharge is conservative as water comes from the adjacent insoluble
formation, although the amount and chemical characteristics of recharge may change in geologic time-scales
as the regional flow system changes. Discharge conditions are dynamic in the long term as they change with
denudation and erosion of the cover and with breaching of the major confinement. The breaching can be by
external geomorphological processes, such as erosional entrenchment in the surface, or by the internal
development of the hypogene cave system, such as the formation of an outlet through vertical stoping of a
breakdown structure above a cavity. If there was no major geologic confinement, e.g. the initial confined
development was mainly due to the discordance of permeability structures at different levels within the
soluble strata itself, changes in the discharge conditions are most dynamic and occur through the internal
development of a cave system.
In a multiple aquifer system, soluble units are commonly vertically conterminous with insoluble or less
soluble units of initially higher permeability. Variants are manifold in combinations and a scale. Typical
examples include alternations of limestone and pervious clastic rocks, gypsum and dolomite, etc. Thick
overall soluble formations can contain intercalations of more pervious, fractured beds, insoluble or less
soluble. More permeable beds support predominantly lateral flow in the system (Figure 5, A-B).
Indurated soluble rocks often serve as separating beds (aquitards, or hydrostratigraphic barriers) prior to
speleogenesis and during its early stage due to their low matrix permeability. Flow is predominantly vertical
in them (transverse; Figure 5). A situation where the soluble unit is sandwiched between insoluble pervious
rocks is one of the most favourable for hypogene speleogenesis. However, it is also common that soluble
rock units or formations are separated from major aquifers by some beds of lower bulk permeability.
Distinct integrated permeability structures (hydrostratigraphic units, or hydrofacies sensu Eaton, 2006),
relatively independent of each other, can be comprised by several lithostratigraphic units or be related to
single beds. Contrasts and discordance between permeability structures in different hydrostratigraphic units
are common, so that the vertical hydraulic connection between them can be limited even where units of
relatively high lateral bulk permeability are immediately adjacent to each other (hydrostratigraphic
interface). Leakage through the hydrostratigraphic interface occurs though points where permeable features
of adjacent units vertically intersect (Figure 5, C).
Though both insoluble and soluble units can initially serve as hydrostratigraphic barriers in an aquifer
system, their further behaviour is different. The vertical permeability of the latter remains conservative,
while in the former the conduit permeability develops in the course of speleogenesis, so that they loose their
separating function. The same happens with hydrostratigraphic interfaces within an inhomogeneous soluble
succession. In this way, hypogene speleogenesis serves to facilitate cross-formational hydraulic
14
communication across initially less pervious soluble beds or hydrostratigraphic interfaces. The net result is
that multiple aquifer system achieves greater integration.
Prior to speleogenesis, cross-formational hydraulic communication across hydrostratigraphic barriers and
interfaces occurs through regular cross-cut jointing, points of intersection of vertically adjacent permeability
structures, prominent disruptions (conductive faults), and sedimentary windows (local areas where a barrier
bed has a higher fabric-controlled permeability). The distribution of these features in the lower and the upper
adjacent units and their connection with the permeability structures comprised by the soluble unit determines
the mode of recharge and discharge to the cave-forming zone (Klimchouk, 2007, 2009a). Both recharge into
and discharge out of the cave-forming zone can be diffuse or point-wise, which determines to a large extent
the pattern of speleogenesis.
The overall flow pattern in a multiple aquifer system, and recharge/discharge pattern for particular aquifers,
is complex, influenced by the topography, geological structure, lithostratigraphy, prominent cross-cutting
disruptions and sedimentary windows (Figure 5, A-B).
Figure 5. Flow patterns in leaky confined multiple aquifer systems. A = Topography-driven flow in
undisturbed relatively shallow settings (from Shestopalov, 1981); B = Flow generated by a pressure source at
the domain's base in the vicinity of a cross-cut conductive fault displacing aquifers (as modelled by Matthi
and Roberts, 1996; modified by Czauner et al., 2008). Legend: l = fluid pressure isobars (MPa), 2 = fluidflow vectors, 3 = log permeability (m2). C = Transverse flow across several hydrostratigraphic units and
interfaces. n denotes exchange terms between different permeability structures (from Klimchouk, 2003a).
As recharge to and discharge from the cave-forming zone occurs through underlying and overlying insoluble
or less soluble units, flow rates are determined by the conductivity of the least permeable member. Thus
there is an external conservative hydraulic control on the amount of flow through the evolving conduits.
When conduits have evolved (i.e. after kinetic breakthrough) and the hydraulic gradient across the unit
diminished, their further growth is not accelerated significantly as flow across the cave-forming unit is
controlled not by the hydraulic resistance of the conduit system but by the permeability of the least
permeable member, and by the boundary conditions of the system. This suppresses the positive flowdissolution feedback and speleogenetic competition, the main mechanism acting in unconfined (epigenic)
speleogenesis, and promotes more pervasive and uniform enlargement of initial permeability structures in the
cave-forming zone where recharge is diffuse (Klimchouk, 2000a, 2003a, 2007). Conditions and
manifestations of this effect depend on different variables that have been studied by numerical modeling of
speleogenesis in gypsum in artesian hypogenic settings (Birk, 2002; Birk et al., 2003, 2005; Rehl et al.,
15
2008). The presence of hydrostratigraphic interfaces within the soluble formation, as well as the restricted
outflow, also favour pervasive conduit development. If recharge and discharge is though a single cross-cut
fracture, such as a conductive fault, the conduit development is localised, although it can get dispersed below
the upper insoluble barrier that restricts outflow despite of the growth of the conduit in the soluble unit. In
hydrothermal speleogenesis in carbonates there is another specific mechanism, caused by the thermal
coupling between the fluid and rock, that also suppresses speleogenetic competition (Andre and Rajaram,
2005).
As forced-flow regimes in leaky confined settings are commonly sluggish and water with lesser density
enters the cave-forming zone from below, free convection flow patterns powered by either solute or thermal
density gradients are widely operative in hypogenic speleogenesis. Various morphological effects of
buoyancy dissolution are recognized in hypogenic caves, among which upward pointing dissolution morphs
are most common (Klimchouk, 1997; 2000a, 2007, 2009b). Speleogenesis at the base of the soluble unit due
to buoyancy dissolution may operate even without guiding disruptions and forced though-flow across the
unit. In this way, large isolated cavities can form at the base of thick evaporites underlain by an aquifer that
supplies fresh groundwater and takes away a solute load. More common, however, are mixed convection
systems, where buoyancy dissolution effects are particularly pronounced during the mature stage of
speleogenesis, when considerable conduit space has been created and vertical hydraulic gradients across the
cave-forming zone are diminished.
Solution porosity patterns produced by hypogene speleogenesis

Solution porosity patterns in hypogenic speleogenesis are the result of the complex interaction of structural,
hydraulic and geochemical conditions, all varying in the course of geological evolution. The overall position
of cave-forming zones is controlled by the 3D distribution of soluble rocks, their position and hydraulic
function within the hierarchic structure of flow systems and the pattern of geochemical environments in a
given flow configuration. Overall patterns of cave systems are strongly guided by patterns of the initial (prespeleogenetic) permeability features in a sedimentary sequence, i.e. by the spatial distribution of the initial
permeability structures and hydrostratigraphic interfaces within the soluble and adjacent units, by the mode
of water input to, and output from, cave-forming zones and by the overall recharge-discharge configuration
in the multiple aquifer system. Modes of recharge and discharge, again, depend on interaction between
permeability structures within cave-forming zones and units that lie below and above them. The presence of
cross-cutting permeability features, such as faults, can exert strong effects on cave patterns through their
inflow, throughflow and outflow controls. In contrast to epigene settings where initial effective permeability
structures are exploited by speleogenesis in a very selective manner, hypogene speleogenesis tends to exploit
most of them within cave-forming zones, provided the aggressiveness is maintained. Geochemical
interactions of flow components guided by transverse and lateral permeability pathways determine zones of
pronounced speleogenetic development and influence the resultant patterns. General evolutionary factors,
such as regional tectonic and geomorphic developments that control rates and architecture of flow and timing
of speleogenesis, also affect cave patterns forming in hypogene settings.
Hypogene caves demonstrate a variety of patterns, as classified and briefly described below. For more
extended discussion the reader is referred to Palmer (1991, 2000, 2007), Ford and Williams (2007),
Klimchouk (2000a, 2007, 2009b) and Audra et al. (2009b). Same patterns are known to form in different
lithologies and by different dissolution mechanisms. Most of patterns known to be produced by hypogene
speleogenesis can also be formed locally in epigenic environments, although respective caves are not large or
extensive. Conversely, branchwork patterns, the most common for epigenic speleogenesis, with conduits
16
converging as tributaries in the downstream direction, never form in hypogenic settings. This reflects the
fundamental difference between the mechanisms of epigenic speleogenesis, largely competitive, and of
hypogenic speleogenesis, in which the competition between alternative flowpaths is subdued.
The following elementary cave patterns are typical (although not necessarily exclusive) for hypogene
speleogenesis:
Cavernous edging along hypogene conduits
Single passages or rudimentary networks of passages
Network maze
Spongework maze
Irregular isolated chambers
Rising, steeply-inclined passages or shafts
Collapse shafts over large hypogenic voids
Cavernous edging (or selvedge) of hypogene conduits is a common feature of hypogene speleogenesis, less
appreciated in cave science due to its traditional focus on larger voids. Zones of cavernous porosity
comprised by closely spaced irregular small vugs and conduits (up to 2-5 cm in diameter) frequently border
walls of transverse hypogene conduits, such as fracture-type passages or solution-enlarged fractures
("underdeveloped passages"), up to depth of a meter. Size of voids diminishes with depth, and further into
the rock they pinch out. Such cavernous edging is stratiform, or distributed by clusters along the
fracture/conduit walls (Figure 6). The formation of this type of cavernousity is apparently related to the
mixing corrosion effect, where pore water in more diffusely permeable beds or zones converges toward a
large fracture that conducts flow from a deeper source.
Figure 6. Zones of cavernous porosity bordering hypogene passage (a) and a solution-enlarged fracture (b) in
the Paleocene limestones of the Piedmont cuesta ridge (Crimea, Ukraine).
Single isolated passages or rudimentary networks of passages are probably the most common cave structures
for hypogene speleogenesis. They form by transverse flow across a single soluble bed where guiding crosscut fractures are single or have poor lateral connection. The passages are typically slot-like, sometimes with
rounded section in the middle part of the cross-section, single or combining in small clusters of few
17
intersecting passages according to the pattern of guiding fractures. Their notable characteristic is that they
are dead-end in every direction, if not encountered by erosion or mines. They can be observed directly when
exposed in cliffs or encountered by underground mines. In the south of Ukraine there are many examples of
such relict caves developed in Neogene and Paleocene limestones, naturally exposed by erosion through the
large artesian basin. An outstanding case is the area of the city of Odessa, where more than 100 such caves
are documented, encountered by a huge (more than 1000 km of integrated passages) old limestone mine
(Klimchouk, 2007; Pronin, 2009). Most of them are single passages, but some are rudimentary networks up
to 1.3 km of integrated passages (Figure 7). A good example in gypsum is Denis Parisis Cave, also
encountered by a mine in the Paris Basin.
Figure 7. Single isolated passages (A) and rudimentary networks (B) encountered by mines in the Neogene
limestones beneath Odessa city, south Ukraine. More than 100 documented caves there range between a
single-passage shown in A and a largest maze cluster shown in B (1292 m). More commonly they are
composed by a few intersecting passages. Photos show typical cross-sections. These caves are fed through
fractures at the bottom of passages, now obscured by sediment fill (photo 1 and 3), along which more
prominent point-wise feeders can be locally developed (in the front of photo 2). Photo 1 shows a passage cut
by a mine. Photos and cave maps by K.Pronin.
Network maze patterns are most common for hypogenic caves. Passages are strongly fracture-controlled and
form more or less uniform networks, which may display either systematic or polygonal patterns, depending
on the nature of the fracture networks. Systematic, often rectilinear, patterns are most common, reflecting
tectonic influence on the formation of fracture networks (Figure 8). Polygonal patterns are guided by
discontinuities of syndepositional or diagenetic origin. Networks displaying different patterns may be present
within a single area or at various stories/parts of a single cave, especially when confined to different rock
units (Figure 8, A). Network maze caves of hypogene origin are known in carbonates, dolomites and
gypsum, often in mixed limestone-dolomite-gypsum strata, and also in conglomerates.
When aggressive recharge from below is uniformly distributed, passages that hold similar positions in the
system in relation to the flowpaths' arrangement (guided by the same set of fractures and occurring within a
single cave series or at the same storey) are commonly uniform in size and morphology. Larger volumes may
18
be dissolved where aggressive recharge from below is concentrated by virtue of hydraulic properties and the
porosity structure of the feeding aquifer (Figure 8, A). A common feature of network mazes is a very high
passage density (Klimchouk, 2003).
Figure 8. Examples of network maze patterns in the Ozerna cave, a 131 km long maze in the Neogene
gypsum rocks (entrenched karst settings, Western Ukraine). (A) is a map of the southern part of the cave (A)
showing a clustered distribution of passage networks, (B) is a zoomed fragment showing distribution of
feeders at the lower level through the master passage network. The master network is at the middle level,
shown in grey. Passages at the lower level can form continuous networks such as in the SW parts of A and B,
shown in red. More commonly, separate steeply rising conduits at the lower level are diffusely scattered
through the area and join the master passages in many points (feeders). They are not shown in A, but shown
as blue circles in B. Passages and rooms at the upper level (outlet segments of the system) are sparse, shown
in green in A. Maps by Ternopil Speleological Club "Podillya".
Spongework maze patterns are less common than networks. Highly irregular passages develop through
enlargement and coalescing of pore- vuggy-type initial porosity in those horizons of the cave-forming zone
that have no major fractures but interconnected pores and vugs. Clusters or levels of spongework-type mazes
are commonly combined with other patterns in adjacent horizons to form complex cave structures. An
enlarged version of spongework, locally called boneyard, is represented in parts of some caves of the
Guadalupe Mountains.
Large isolated chambers commonly occur at the bottoms of soluble formations. They form in two situations:
1) by buoyant dissolution at the bottom of the a soluble formation, commonly evaporites, where a major
aquifer immediately underlies it; 2) where the recharge from below is localized and aggressiveness is
enhanced by mixing of a deep source of geogenic gases with a shallower flow system. Irregular chambers of
hypogene origin can attain very large dimensions, such as directly documented cavities in evaporates of
southern Harz, Germany (cavities of the schlotten type; Kempe, 1996), the Big Room in Carlsbad Cavern,
or a huge cavity encountered by boreholes in the Archean and Proterozoic marbles in southern Bulgaria with
19
a maximum vertical dimension of 1340 m and an estimated volume of 237.6 million m3 (Dublyansky V.,
2000), probably the largest known, although not accessible, cave chamber on Earth. Lesser but instructive
examples of hypogenic isolated chambers are described by Frumkin and Fischhendler (2005) from the
central mountain range of Israel. Where such large irregular chambers are complicated by blind branches
extending outward, the pattern is termed ramiform (Palmer, 1991).
Rising, steeply-inclined passages or shafts are outlets of deep hypogene systems in which the root structure
remains unknown in most cases. A type example is the 392-m deep Pozzo del Merro near Rome, Italy,
presumably formed by rising thermal water charged with CO2 and H2S (Caramana, 2002). It shows the
morphology of a rising shaft, in contrast with roughly cylindrical morphology, with walls diverging from
each other toward the bottom, of shafts of the El Zacatn and obruk type, where hydrothermal cavities at
depth are supposed to open to the surface through collapse.
Collapse shafts over large hypogenic voids can form mega-sinkholes at the surface, locally termed "cenote"
(Mexico) and "obruks" (Turkey). The type examples are Sistema El Zacatn in Mexico (several features with
depth up to 329 m from the surface and ~317 meters below the water table; Gary and Sharp, 2006) and
obruks in the Central Anatolia, Turkey (71 features with depth up to 125 m from the surface; Bayari, 2009).
They are clearly collapse features over giant chambers formed by thermal fluids charged with geogenic CO2.
In Sistema El Zacaton, methane is also measured at depth. Fossil features of this type are known as breccia
pipes, collapse columns, or geologic organs, and also termed "vertical through structures", a common byproduct of hypogene speleogenesis in a variety of geological settings (see Figure 1). They originate from
collapse of large cavities, commonly at the base of soluble formations, and propagate upward by stoping
across sedimentary successions that include soluble rocks. Such features may reach many hundred of meters
in the vertical extent. They are not merely breakdown structures but complex hydrogeologic structures whose
development depends on (and favours to) focused cross-formational groundwater circulation and continuing
dissolution of intercepted soluble beds and infallen c1asts (Huntoon, 1996; Klimchouk and Andrejchouk,
1996).
Composite 3D systems are comprised by various elementary patterns at different levels, such as irregular
large chambers, clusters of network or spongework mazes, and rising sub-vertical conduits and other morphs
connecting them. Composite 3D systems include many of the worlds largest caves. Their organization
reflects vertical heterogeneity in distribution of initial permeability structures that guided or impeded rising
flow within a soluble formation, and interplay between structural, hydrogeological and chemical factors.
Composite 3D cave structures may develop within a rather thin formation and be laterally extended ( e.g.
two- to four-storey mazes in the western Ukraine confined within the 1630 m thick gypsum formation), or
be vertically extended through a range of several hundred meters ( e.g. Monte Cucco system, Central Italy:
930 m; Lechuguilla Cave in the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, USA: 490 m).
Multi-storey mazes are layered variants of composite 3D systems. Many seemingly single-storey mazes
are in fact also 3D structures as they have feeders at the lower level randomly or systematically distributed,
connected to a master passage network. In multi-storey mazes, storeys (up to 5-6) are commonly comprised
by stratiform networks differing in patterns, connected via rising conduits or "chimneys", or cross-cutting rift
passages. The storeys can superpose each other within the same area or display a staircase arrangement
within a system, with cave areas at different storeys shifted relative to each other ( e.g. in the Wind Cave,
South Dakota, USA). The lateral shift of storeys and outlet passages is because areas of preferential recharge
from below commonly do not coincide with areas of discharge from a confined system, so that general
pattern of upwelling flow becomes staircase-like.
20
In a typical system, lower storeys or individual rising conduits are recharge elements to a cave system
(Figure 8). Master storeys develop at intermediate elevations where fracture networks are well connected
laterally. They provide for lateral distribution of upwelling flow to areas of preferential discharge. Upper
storeys serve as outflow structures (outflow mazes of Ford, 1989). Small patches of mazes, or blind lateral
extensions of high domepit structures may develop at higher or highest elevations without bearing outflow
functions (adventitious mazes of Ford), especially in systems where buoyancy flow plays a role. Storeys in
ascending hypogenic systems form simultaneously within a complex transverse flow path, in contrast to
epigenetic caves where storeys reflect progressive lowering of the water table in response to the evolution of
local erosional base levels, hence upper storeys being older than the lower. However, distinct horizontal
storeys superimposed onto otherwise ascending 3D pattern may develop at former water table levels during
the extinction phase of hypogene speleogenesis, especially where sulfuric acid dissolution is involved.
Some vertically extensive caves in the Guadalupe Mountains have prominent feeders as large isolated
steeply ascending passages or clusters of rift-like passages connecting to some master levels of passages and
chambers, and prominent outlet segments rising from the latter. The resultant 3D structures are composed of
network and spongework mazes at various levels connected through rising vertical conduits, coalescing with
large chambers and passages. Other prominent examples include Monte Cucco system in Italy, complex
bushlike upward-branching structures of hydrothermal caves in the Buda Hills, Hungary, composed by rising
sequences of chambers and large spherical cupolas (Dublyansky Yu., 2000b), and network maze clusters at
the base of the Joachim Dolomite in eastern Missouri, USA, with ascending staircase limbs of vertical pits
and sub-horizontal passages (an outlet component; Brod, 1964). Composite 3D structures dominated by large
irregular chambers, from which blind branches extending outward, are distinguished as ramiform patterns
(Palmer, 1991).
Because of the transverse nature of hypogene speleogenesis, caves and their parts tend to have a clustered
distribution in plan view, although clusters may merge to extend over considerable areas (Figure 8). Laterally
extensive multi-storey maze caves such as in the Western Ukraine, or in the Black Hills, South Dakota, or
vertically extensive 3D structures such as in the Guadalupe Mountains, are in fact combinations of many
clusters of passages representing relatively independent transverse flow sub-systems.
Meso-morphology features of hypogene caves

Hypogene caves can be formed by a number of dissolution mechanisms, occur in various geological and
structural conditions, and may have different patterns. Despite these variabilities, meso-morphological
features of hypogene caves exhibit remarkable similarity, generally indicating sluggish flow conditions.
Individual occurrences of some of these features, such as cupola-form solution pockets, are also found in
epigenic caves where they form in unconfined phreatic (especially in eogenetic environments; Mylroie and
Mylroie, 2009) or subaerial conditions. Specific to hypogene speleogenesis is, however, that different
morphologies commonly occur in spatially related groups where fluid flow paths, including distinct
convection flow components, can be traced from rising inlet conduits, through transitional wall and ceiling
features (rising wall channels and ceiling half-tubes), to outlet features (cupolas and domepits). This
particular combination has been distinguished as the morphologic suite of rising flow (MSRF; Klimchouk,
2007) and provides diagnostic evidence for hypogene speleogenesis (Figure 9). It has been recognized in
hundreds of hypogene caves across the globe. The diagram is generic and elastic; it can be stretched
vertically, and complexity can be added to allow for multiple storeys. The combination of the forms will
repeat itself on each storey, and functional relationships between the forms will remain the same. Hypogene
caves may consist of a few elementary segments like the one depicted in Figure 9, or combine hundreds and
thousands of them within a single system.
21
Figure 9. The morphologic suite of rising flow (MSRF), diagnostic of hypogenic transverse origin of caves.
Modified from Klimchouk, 2003a.
Among elementary morphs in this suite, inlet features are the most indicative of recharge from below and
hence the hypogene origin for a cave. They are termed also vents, feeders, or risers in recent publications.
Because of their diagnostic role, they are characterised in some detail below.
Original feeders are basal input points to hypogenic cave systems, the lowermost components, vertical or
sub-vertical conduits, through which fluids rise from the source aquifer. Such conduits are commonly
separate but sometimes they form small networks at the lowermost storey of a system, which bear the
feeding function relative to the upper storey (see Figure 8). Feeders join master passages located at the next
upper storey and commonly scatter rather uniformly through their networks. Feeders are commonly point
features (Figure 10, A through K); they may join the passage from the end, from a side, or are scattered
through the passage floor. Where a passage occurs at the very base of a soluble bed, it can receive recharge
throughout the entire length of a guiding fracture which serves as a linear rift-like feeder (L through O).
In composite 3-D caves there can be several storeys of lateral passage development in the system. Where
storeys are superimposed, the lower ones function to recharge the upper ones. In that case, feeders at the
upper storey are continuations of outlet features at the adjacent lower storey. Sizes of feeders vary greatly,
from small conduits or rifts on the order of tens of centimeters to features many meters in the cross-section.
The vertical extent of feeders also varies greatly: from less than a meter to many tens and even a few
hundred meters.
Feeders observable in currently shallow-lying relict multi-storey maze caves in dolomites of the
Neoproterosoic Vazante Group, Minas Gerais, Brasil, extend down for more than two hundreds meters, as
evidenced by their interceptions at different levels by an underlying mine. In many instances, dimensions of
feeder conduits are smaller in their lower parts and they often have ear-shaped orifices. This is due to
buoyancy effects, shielding of walls in the lower parts from dissolution by more saturated water in sinking
limbs of free convection cells, and mixing effects, enhanced dissolution at the orifices due to mixing of
waters of different chemistry. Interestingly enough, in hypogene caves that have not experienced much
sediment influx from the surface during the epigenic stage, feeders tend to remain empty of sediments
despite that master passages they join can be filled considerably by fine sediments. This is due to the fact that
in many cases feeders continued to conduct rising water during late phases of hydrogeologic activity such as
the water table phase (Figure 10, E). However, in relict hypogene caves that passed the transition long ago,
feeders are commonly obscured by the sediment fill, but still can be identified by the presence of rising wall
channels above them (if feeders connect a passage from a side, beneath a hanging wall.
22
Figure 10. Variability and similarity in the morphology of feeders. Point-wise feeders: A = Robber Baron
Cave, Texas, USA (Cretaceous limestones); B = Ozerna Cave, Western Ukraine (Miocene gypsum); C =
Fuchslabyrinth Cave, Germany (Triassic Muschelkalk limestone); D = Carlsbad Cavern, Guadalupe
Mountains, NM, USA (Permian limestone); E = Ordynskaya Cave, Fore-Urals, Russia, an active feeder in an
underwater cave (Permian gypsum); F and G = Toca da Boa Vista Cave, Brazil (Precambrian limestone and
dolomite); H and I = Hamilton and Troat caves, West Virginia, USA (Devonian Helderberg limestone); J =
Optymistychna Cave, Western Ukraine (Miocene gypsum); K = Endless Cave, Guadalupe Mountains, NM,
USA (Permian limestone); Fissure- and rift-like feeders in passage floors: L = Natalina Cave, Black Sea
region, south Ukraine (Neogene limestone); M = Aneva Cave, Israel (Cretaceous limestone); N = Mlynki
Cave, western Ukraine (Miocene gypsum); O = Knock Fell Caverns, Northern Pennines, UK (Carboniferous
limestones. Photo E by P.Sivinskykh, H and I by G.Schindel, L by K.Pronin, M by A. Frumkin, other photos
by A. Klimchouk.
23
When a water table is established at a given level within a former confined hypogenic cave system,
significant lateral widening and merging of passages into large chambers may occur, with characteristic
speleogens such as horizontal notches and corrosion tables (Audra et al., 2009a). This is typical for caves in
evaporites and limestones subjected to back-flooding from a nearby river, and for limestone caves where
deep recharge by sulfidic deep waters continues during the unconfined development. In the latter case,
distinct upward-oriented morphological effects of subaerial sulfuric acid dissolution (condensation
corrosion) may also develop, such as air-convection cupolas, which are difficult to distinguish from
speleogens formed under submerged conditions. Their distribution, however, is restricted to the zone
immediately above the water table, while in composite 3D systems the elements of the MSRF are
systematically distributed through various storeys in large vertical ranges.
For a more extended recent discussions of the morphology of hypogene caves the reader is referred to
Klimchouk (2007, 2009a), Palmer (2007) and Audra et al. (2009a,b).
Hypogene speleogenesis and paleokarst

Within the conventional, predominantly epigenic, karst paradigm, instances of deep-seated karst have
commonly been interpreted as paleo(epigenetic) karst because the possibility of karstification in deep
environments without recharge from the immediately overlying or adjacent surface has been neglected for a
long time.
Paleokarst is not a particular type of karst but is, rather, a fossilized condition. Features become paleokarst as
they get hydrologically decoupled from contemporary systems, in contrast to relict features that exist within
contemporary systems but are removed from the environment in which they developed (Ford and Williams,
1989). True paleokarst is buried karst (see Figure 1), which is a complete infilling and burial of epigenic
(including coastal/oceanic) karst by later materials such as transgressive marine sediments. Paleokarst
horizons are reliably recognized where they underlie unambiguous stratigraphic unconformities related to
subaerial exposure.
With growing recognition of hypogenic speleogenesis, it becomes increasingly obvious that in many
(although certainly not in all) cases features previously interpreted as paleo(epigenetic) karst, including
coastal/oceanic karst, can be better explained as active or relict hypogenic features. Review of the
international literature, especially concerned with carbonate-hosted hydrocarbon reservoirs, reveals that in
many cases, because of their occurrence beneath distinct formational contacts, paleokarst features have been
dubiously interpreted as evidence of subaerial exposure by a process of reciprocal reasoning. Other common
cases of problematic paleokarst are stratiform breccia horizons which are often the ultimate result of
hypogenic speleogenesis, namely the collapse of laterally extensive, stratigraphically-comformable maze
caves.
Hypogene speleogenesis tends to operate over long time spans, intermittently or being repeatedly suspended
and re-activated. Hypogenic features may become relict but still remain within the contemporary systems,
e.g. in a system where original confinement was breached and the flow pattern reversed from upwelling to
descending. Hypogenic features are not paleokarst unless their evolution is completely halted by the removal
of the cave-forming units from the geological section (stratiform breccia horizons), complete sealing by
cementation (mineralization) or lithification of the fill material, or by closure of the contemporary
hydrogeological cycle with a new marine transgression. However, establishing the paleo-status of hypogenic
features and their distinction from epigenic paleokarst requires additional discussion.
Many important hydrocarbon and mineral deposits are karst-related, but commonly thought to be related to
paleo(epigenic) karst. Better understanding of hypogene speleogenesis is of paramount importance for their
24
proper genetic interpretation, which in turn is crucial for the development of more adequate approaches to
the prediction, prospecting and exploitation of these resources.
Summary
Recognition of the wide occurrence, significance and specific characteristics of hypogene speleogenesis
during last two decades signify a major paradigm shift in karst science, previously overwhelmingly
dominated by the epigene concepts and models. The more comprehensive approach to karst that emerges
implies that speleogenesis should be viewed in times scales of the host formation life, in the context of
regional groundwater flow systems and their evolution in response to diagenetic and tectonic processes,
uplift, denudation and geomorphic development. The rapidly evolving understanding of hypogene
speleogenesis has broad implications for many applied fields such as hydrocarbon reservoirs prospecting and
characterization, groundwater management, geological engineering, mineral resources industries, etc.
The list below is an attempt to summarize essential features and roles of hypogene speleogenesis. In brief,
hypogene speleogenesis:
1. Occurs much wider than previously thought, in various geological settings and in different soluble
lithologies.
2. Has no genetic relationship with groundwater recharge from the overlying or immediately adjacent
surface, and may have no surface manifestation at all.
3. Develops by recharge from adjacent underlying formations mainly under leaky confined conditions, which
determines specific speleogenetic mechanisms, imposed on by the external controls of flow through
hypogene systems through hydraulic properties of adjacent insoluble formations. However, hypogene
speleogenesis may continue to operate in unconfined conditions at the latest phases.
4. Involves various dissolution mechanisms at transitional geochemical environments and thresholds that
commonly occur along interfaces between different flow regimes and cross-formational flowpaths.
5. Is controlled by the 3D distribution of soluble rocks, their position and hydraulic function within the
hierarchic structure of flow systems and the pattern of geochemical environments in a given flow
configuration.
6. Creates solution porosity structures which are commonly quite distinct from those formed by epigenic
speleogenesis. They range from concordant structures controlled by individual strata to discordant crosscutting structures within tens and hundreds of meters of sedimentary sequences. Combination of discordant
and concordant elements is common.
7. Creates aerially extensive (although commonly clustered) or localized zones of high vertical permeability.
8. Serves to enhance cross-formational communication and converges flow to such zones by opening
migration paths across soluble formations and overlying non-karstic aquitards.
9. Plays an important role in (re)organization of regional flow systems.
10. May operate during long time spans (millions to hundreds of millions of years).
25
References
Anderson, R.Y., Kirkland, D.W., 1980. Dissolution of salt deposits by brine density flow. Geology 8, 66-69.
Andre, B.J., Rajaram, H., 2005. Dissolution of limestone fractures by cooling waters: Early development of
hypogene karst systems. Water Resour. Res. 41, doi:10.1029/2004WR003331.
Audra, Ph., Mocochain, L., Bigot J.-Y., Nobecourt J.-C., 2009a. Morphological indicators of speleogenesis:
hypogenic speleogens. In: Klimchouk, A.B. and Ford, D.C. (eds.), Hypogene Speleogenesis and Karst
Hydrogeology of Artesian Basins: Ukrainian Institute of Speleology and Karstology, Simferopol, Special
Paper 1, 17-22.
Audra, Ph., Mocochain, L., Bigot, J.-Y., Nobecourt, J.-C., 2009b. Hypogene cave patterns. In:
A.B.Klimchouk, and D.C.Ford (eds.), Hypogene Speleogenesis and Karst Hydrogeology of Artesian Basins:
Ukrainian Institute of Speleology and Karstology, Simferopol, Special Paper 1, 23-32.
Auler, A.S., Smart, P.L., 2003. The influence of bedrock-derived acidity in the development of surface and
underground karst: evidence from the Precambrian carbonates of semi-arid Northeastern Brasil. Earth Surf.
Process. and Landforms 28, 157-168.
Back, W.B., Hanshaw, B.B., Plummer, L.N., Rahn, P.H., Rightmire, C.T., Rubin, M., 1983. Process and rate
of dedolomitization; mass transfer and 14C dating in a regional carbonate aquifer. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 94:12, p. 1415-1429.
Bauer, S., Liedl, R., Sauter, M., 2005. Modeling the influence of epikarst evolution on karst aquifer genesis:
A time-variant recharge boundary condition for joint karst-epikarst development. Water Resour. Res. 41,
W09416, doi:10.1029/2004WR003321.
Bayari, C.S., Ozyurt, N., Pekkans, E., 2009. Giant collapse structures formed by hypogenic karstification: the
obruks of the Central Anatolia, Turkey. In: Klimchouk, A.B. and Ford, D.C. (eds.), Hypogene Speleogenesis
and Karst Hydrogeology of Artesian Basins: Ukrainian Institute of Speleology and Karstology, Simferopol,
Special Paper 1, 83-90.
Birk, S., 2002. Characterisation of karst systems by simulating aquifer genesis and spring responses: Model
development and application to gypsum karst. Tubinger Geowissenschaftliche Arbeiten C60, 122 p.
Birk, S., Liedl, R., Sauter, M., Teutsch, G., 2003. Hydraulic boundary conditions as a controlling factor in
karst genesis: A numerical modeling study on artesian conduit development in gypsum. Water Resour. Res.
39:1, 1004, doi:10.1029/2002WR001308.
Birk, S., Liedl, R., Sauter, M., Teutsch, G., 2005. Simulation of the development of gypsum maze caves.
Environ. Geol. 48:3, 296306.
Bischoff, J.L., Julia, R., Shanks, W.C., Rosenbauer, R.J., 1994. Karstification without carbonic acid; bedrock
dissolution by gypsum-driven dedolomitization: Geology 22:11, 995-998.
Bgli, A., 1964. Mischungskorrosion, ein Beitrag zur Verkarstungsproblem: Erdkunde 18, 83-92.
Bottrell, S.H., Gunn, J. Lowe, D.J., 2000. Calcite dissolution by sulfuric acid. In: Klimchouk, A., Ford, D.C.,
Palmer, A.N. and Dreybrodt, W. (eds.), Speleogenesis: Evolution of karst aquifers. National Speleological
Society, Huntsville, pp.304-308.
Brod, L.G., 1964. Artesian origin of fissure caves in Missouri. National Speleological Society Bulletin 26: 3,
83114.
Caramana, G. 2002., Le porte dell acqua. Speleologia (Italy) 46, 32-39.
Czauner, B., Madl-Szonyi, J., Tth, J., and Pogcss, G., 2008. Hydraulic behaviour of faults in the western
part of the Trans-Tisla region. In: From the Artesian Paradigm to Basin Hydraulics. Etvs Lornd
University, Budapest.
Davis, D.G., 1980. Cave development in the Guadalupe Mountains: a critical review of recent hypotheses.
National Speleological Society Bulletin 42 (3), 42-48.
Dubljansky, Yu.V., 1990. Regularities of the formation and modelling of hydrothermal karst. Nauka,
Novosibirsk, 151 pp. (in Russian).
26
Dubljansky, Yu.V., 2000a. Dissolution of carbonates by geothermal waters. In: Klimchouk, A., Ford, D.C.,
Palmer, A.N. and Dreybrodt, W. (eds.), Speleogenesis: Evolution of karst aquifers. National Speleological
Society, Huntsville, pp. 158-159.
Dublyansky, Yu.V., 2000b. Hydrothermal speleogenesis in the Hungarian Karst. In: Klimchouk, A., Ford,
D.C., Palmer, A.N., Dreybrodt, W. (eds.), Speleogenesis:Evolution of Karst Aquifers. National Speleological
Society, Huntsville, pp. 298303.
Dublyansky, V.N., 1980. Hydrothermal karst in the alpine folded belt of southern parts of the U.S.S.R.: Kras
I Speleologia 3 (12), 18-36.
Dublyansky, V.N., 2000. A giant hydrothermal cavity in the Rhodope Mountains, Bulgaria, in A.
Klimchouk, D. Ford, A. Palmer, and W. Dreybrodt (eds.), Speleogenesis evolution of karst aquifers:
Huntsville, Ala., National Speleological Society, pp. 317-318.
Dzulinski, S., 1976. Hydrotermal karst and Zn-Pb sulfide ores. Roszn. polsk. tow geol. Krakow, n. 1-2, p.
217-230.
Eaton, T.T., 2006. On the importance of geological heterogeneity for flow simulation. Sedimentary Geology
184, 187201.
Egemeier, S.J., 1973. Cavern development by thermal waters with a possible bearing on ore deposition:
Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 88 p.
Egemeier, S.J., 1981. Cavern development by thermal waters. National Speleological Society Bulletin 43 (2),
31-51.
Ford, D.C., 1989. Features of the genesis of Jewel Cave and Wind Cave, Black Hills, South Dakota. National
Speleological Society Bulletin 51, 100110.
Ford, D.C., 2006. Karst geomorphology, caves and cave deposits: A review of North American contributions
during the past half century. In Harmon, R.S. and Wicks, C.W. (eds.), Perspectives on Karst
Geomorphology, Hydrology and Geochemistry, Geological Society of America Special Paper 404, p. 1-14.
Ford, D.C., Williams, P.W., 1989. Karst geomorphology and hydrology. London, Unwin Human, 601 p.
Ford, D.C., Williams, P.W., 2007. Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. Chichester, Wiley and Sons,
562 p.
Frumkin, A., Fischhendler, I., 2005. Morphometry and distribution of isolated caves as a guide for phreatic
and confined paleohydrological conditions. Geomorphology 67, 457471.
Frumkin, A., Gvirtzman, H., 2006. Cross-formational rising groundwater at an artesian karstic basin: the
Ayalon Saline Anomaly, Israel. Journal of Hydrology 318, 316333.
Galdenzi, S., 2009. Hypogene caves in the Apennines (Italy). In: Klimchouk, A.B. and Ford, D.C. (eds.),
Hypogene Speleogenesis and Karst Hydrogeology of Artesian Basins: Ukrainian Institute of Speleology and
Karstology, Simferopol, Special Paper 1, 101-116.
Galdenzi, S., Menichetti, M., 1995. Occurrence of hypogenic caves in a karst region: examples from central
Italy. Environmental Geology 26, 3947.
Gary, M.O., Sharp, J.M., 2006. Volcanogenic karstification of Sistema Zacatn, Mexico. In: Harmon, R.S.,
Wicks, C.W. (eds.), Perspectives on Karst Geomorphology, Hydrology and Geochemistry, GSA Special
Paper 404, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 7989.
Gradziski M., Duliski M., Hercman H., ywiecki M., Barya J., 2009. Cave development influenced by
hydrocarbon oxidation: an example from the Polish Tatra Mts. In: White, W. (ed.), Proceedings of 15th
International Congress of Speleology, held in Kerrville, Texas, USA, July 19-26, vol. 2, pp. 1511.
Hill, C.A., 1981. Speleogenesis of Carlsbad Caverns and other caves of the Guadalupe Mountains.
Proceedings of 8th International Congress of Speleology, Bowling Green, Ky., pp. 143-144.
Hill, C.A., 1987. Geology of Carlsbad Cavern and other caves in the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico
and Texas. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 117, 150 p.
Hill, C.A., 2000a. Sulfuric acid hypogene karst in the Guadalupe Mountains of New Mexico and West
Texas. In: Klimchouk, A., Ford, D.C., Palmer, A.N. and Dreybrodt, W. (eds.), Speleogenesis: Evolution of
karst aquifers. National Speleological Society, Huntsville, pp. 309-316.
27
Hose, L.D., Pisarowicz, J.A. (eds.), 2000. The Caves of the Guadalupe Mountains Research Symposium.
Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 62: 2, 179 p.
Huntoon, P.W., 1996. Large-basin groundwater circulation and paleo-reconstruction of circulation leading to
uranium mineralization in Grand Canyon breccia pipes, Arizona. The Mountain Geologist 33:3, 71-84.
Jakucs, L., 1977. Morphogenetics of karst regions. New York, Wiley, 284 p.
Kartsev, A.A., 1985. Low mineralized waters of oil and gas deposits, their origin and significance. In:
Kolodij, V.V. (ed.), Low mineralized waters of deep-seated horizons of oil- and gas-bearing provinces, Kiev,
Naukova Durnka, p. 4-6 (in Russian).
Kaveev, M.C., 1963. About enfluence of carbon dioxide, originated during destruction of oil deposits, on
development of karst processes. Doklady AN SSSR 152:3. (in Russian).
Kempe, S., 1996. Gypsum karst of Germany. In: Klimchouk, A., Lowe, D., Cooper, A., Sauro, U. (eds.),
Gypsum karst of the world. International Journal of Speleology Theme Issue, 25:34, 209224.
Klimchouk, A.B., 1992. Large gypsum caves in the Western Ukraine and their genesis. Cave Science 19:1,
311.
Klimchouk, A.B., 1994. Speleogenesis in gypsum and geomicrobiological processes in the Miocene
sequence of the Pre-Carpatian region. Breakthroughs in Karst Geomicrobiology and Redox Geochemistry
(Abstracts and Field Trip Guide for the symposium held February 16-19, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado).
Karst Water Institute, Special Publications 1, 40-42.
Klimchouk, A.B., 1996a. The typology of gypsum karst according to its geological and geomorphological
evolution. In: Klimchouk, A., Lowe, D., Cooper, A., and Sauro, U. (eds.), Gypsum Karst of the World,
International Journal of Speleology Theme issue 25: 3-4, 49-60.
Klimchouk, A.B., 1996b. Gypsum karst in the Western Ukraine. In: Klimchouk, A., Lowe, D., Cooper, A.,
and Sauro, U. (eds.), Gypsum Karst of the World, International Journal of Speleology Theme issue 25: 3-4,
263-278.
Klimchouk, A.B., 2000a. Speleogenesis under deep-seated and confined settings. In: Klimchouk, A., Ford,
D.C., Palmer, A.N., Dreybrodt, W. (eds.), Speleogenesis: Evolution of Karst Aquifers. National
Speleological Society, Huntsville, pp. 244260.
Klimchouk, A.B., 2000b. Speleogenesis of great gypsum mazes in the Western Ukraine. In: Klimchouk, A.,
Ford, D.C., Palmer, A.N., Dreybrodt, W. (eds.), Speleogenesis: Evolution of Karst Aquifers. National
Klimchouk, A.B., 2000c. Dissolution and conversions of gypsum and anhydrite. In: A.Klimchouk, D.Ford,
A.Palmer, W.Dreybrodt, Eds: Speleogenesis: Evolution of karst aquifers. Huntsville: Natl. Speleol. Soc.,
pp.160-169.
Klimchouk, A.B., 2003a. Conceptualisation of speleogenesis in multi-storey artesian systems: a model of
transverse speleogenesis. Speleogenesis and Evolution of Karst Aquifers 1:2. www.speleogenesis.info 18
pp., http://www.speleogenesis.info/archive/publication.php?PubID=24&Type=publication.
Klimchouk, A.B., 2003b. Unconfined versus confined speleogenetic settings: variations of solution porosity.
Speleogenesis and Evolution of Karst Aquifers, 1:2. www.speleogenesis.info 7 p.,
http://www.speleogenesis.info/archive/publication.php?PubID=23&Type=publication.
Klimchouk, A.B., 2007. Hypogene Speleogenesis: Hydrogeological and Morphogenetic Perspective.
National Cave and Karst Research Institute Special Paper 1, Carlsbad, 106 p.
Klimchouk, A.B., 2009a. Principal features of hypogene speleogenesis. In: A.B.Klimchouk, and D.C.Ford
(eds.), Hypogene Speleogenesis and Karst Hydrogeology of Artesian Basins: Ukrainian Institute of
Speleology and Karstology, Simferopol, Special Paper 1, 7-16.
Klimchouk, A., 2009b. Morphogenesis of hypogenic caves. Geomorphology 106, 100117,
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.09.013
Klimchouk, A.B., Ford, D.C. (eds.), 2009. Hypogene Speleogenesis and Karst Hydrogeology of Artesian
Basins. Ukrainian Institute of Speleology and Karstology, Simferopol, Special Paper 1, 280 p.
28
Klimchouk, A.B., Ford, D., Palmer, A., Dreybrodt, W. (eds.), 2000. Speleogenesis: Evolution of Karst
Aquifers. National Speleological Society, Huntsville, 527 pp.
Klimchouk, A.B., Ford, D.C., 2000. Types of karst and evolution of hydrogeologic settings. In: Klimchouk,
A., Ford, D.C., Palmer, A.N., Dreybrodt, W. (eds.), Speleogenesis: Evolution of Karst Aquifers. National
Klirnchouk, A.B ., Andrejchouk, V.N., 1996. Breakdown development in cover beds, and landscape features
induced by intrastratal gypsum karst, in Klimchouk, A., Lowe, D., Cooper, A., Sauro, U. (eds.). Gypsum
karst of the world. International Journal of Speleology 25 (3-4), 127-144.
Kolodij, V.V., et al., 1991. Low-mineralized waters of the deep-seared horizons of oil- and gas-bearing
confined basins of Ukraine. Kiev. Naukova Dumka, 184 p. (in Russian).
Kunsky, J., 1957. Termomineral karst and kayes of Zbrasov. Zborn. Zemepisne Ceskoslovenske spoletnosti
62, 67-72.
Land, L., Lueth, V., Raatz, B., Boston, P., Love, D. (eds.), 2006. Caves and Karst of Southeastern New
Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook 57, 280 pp.
Laptev, F.F., 1939. Agressive action of water on carbonate rocks, gypsum and concrete. Moscow-Leningrad,
120 pp. (in Russian).
Lowe, D.J., 1992, The origin of limestone caverns: an inception horizon hypothesis: Ph.D. thesis,
Manchester Polytechnic University, Manchester, U.K., 512 pp.
Lowe, D.J., and J. Gunn, 1997, Carbonate speleogenesis: an inception horizon hypothesis. Acta Carsologica
26:2, 457-488.
Machel, H.G., 1992. Low-temperature and hightemperature origin of elementar sulfur in diagenetic
envirinments. In: Wessel, G.R.and Wimberly, B.H. (eds.), Native sulfur. Developments in geology and
exploration, Littleton, Colorado, 3-22.
Maksimovich, G.A., 1965. Hydro-termal karst. Resumes de communications IV Congres Intern. de speleol.
Ljubljana, p. 41.
Malinin, S.D., 1979. Physical chemistry of hydrothermal systems with carbon dioxide. Nauka, Moscow, 111
pp. (in Russian).
Matthi, S.K., and Roberts, S.G. 1996. The influence of fault permeability on single-phase fluid flow near
fault-sand intersections: results from steady-state high resolution models of pressure-driven fluid flow.
AAPG Bulletin, 80:11, 1763-1779.
Maslyn, R.M., 1979. Cavern development via H2S dissolved in hot spring and natural gas field waters
(abstract). National Speleological Society Bulletin 41:4, p. 115.
Mazzullo, S.J., Harris, P.M., 1991. An overview of dissolution porosity development in the deep-burial
environment, with examples from carbonate reservoirs in the Permian Basin. In Candelaria, M. (ed.),
Permian Basin Plays Tomorrows Technology Today. West Texas Geological Society, Publ. 91-89, 125138.
Mazzullo, S.J., Harris, P.M., 1992. Mesogenetic dissolution: its role in porosity development in carbonate
reservoirs. AAPG Bulletin 76, 607-620.
Menichetti, M., 2009. Speleogenesis of the hypogenic caves in Central Italy. In: White, W. (ed.),
Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Speleology, held in Kerrville, Texas, USA, July 19-26, vol. 2,
pp. 909-915.
Mller, P., Srvry, I., 1977. Some aspects of developments in Hungarian speleology theories during the last
10 years. Karst es Barlang, Special issue, 53-60.
Mylroie, J.E., Mylroie, J.R., 2009. Diagnostic features of hypogenic karst: is confined flow necessary? In:
K.W.Stafford, L.Land, and G.Veni, Advances in Hypogene Karst Studies: NCKRI Symposium 1, Carlsbad,
pp. 12-26.
Osborne, R.A.L., 2001. Non-meteoric speleogenesis: evidence from eastern Australia. In: Brasilia, D.F.
(ed.), Proc. 13th International Congress of Speleology, Brazil, July 1522, 2001, vol. 1, pp. 97101.
Osborne, R.A.L., 2007. Cathedral Cave, Wellington Cave, New South Wales, Australia. A multiphase, nonfluvial cave. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32, 20752103.
29
Palmer, A.N., 1991. Origin and morphology of limestone caves. Geological Society of America Bulletin
103:1, 1-21.
Palmer, A.N., 1995. Geochemical models for the origin of macroscopic solution porosity in carbonate rocks,
in D.A. Budd, P.M. Harris, and A. Saller (eds.), Unconformities in carbonate strata: their recognition and the
significance of associated porosity: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 63, 77-101.
Palmer, A.N. 2000. Hydrogeologic control of cave patterns. In: Klimchouk A., Ford D., Palmer A. and
Dreybrodt W. (eds.), Speleogenesis: Evolution of Karst Aquifers. Huntsville: National. Speleological
Society, 77-90.
Palmer, A.N., 2007. Cave Geology. Dayton, Cave Books, 454 p.
Pinneker, E.V., 1982. Paleohydrogeologic reconstructions. In: Principles of hydrogeology. Geological
activity and history of water in the Earth subsurface. Nauka, Novosibirsk, 153-188. (in Russian).
Pronin, K.K., 2009. Natural caves of the Prichernomorsko-Azovsky and Moldavsko-Podolsky karst regions.
Ukrainian Institute of Speleology and Karstology, Simferopol, 126 p.
Raines, M.A., Dewers, T.A., 1997. Dedolomitization as a driving mechanism for karst generation in Permian
Blaine Formation, southwestern Oklahoma, U.S.A. Carbonates and Evaporites 12, p. 24-31.
Rehrl, C., Birk S., Klimchouk, A. B., 2008. Conduit evolution in deep-seated settings: Conceptual and
numerical models based on field observations. Water Resour. Res. 44, W11425,
doi:10.1029/2008WR006905.
Sharp, J. M., Jr., Kyle, J. R., 1988. The role of ground-water processes in the formation of ore deposits: In:
Back, W., Rosenshein, J. S., and Seaber, P. R., (eds.), The Geology of North America, Hydrogeology, Geol.
Soc. America, Boulder, Colorado, v. 0-2, Ch. 47, p. 461-483.
Shestopalov, V.M., 1981. Natural resources of underground water of platform artesian basins of the Ukraine.
Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 195 pp. (in Russian).
Shestopalov, V.M., 1989 (ed.). Water exchange in hydrogeological structures of the Ukraine. Water
exchange under natural conditions. Naukova dumka, Kiev, 288 pp. (in Russian).
Stafford, K., Land, L., Veni, G. (eds.), 2009a. Advances in Hypogene Karst Studies: NCKRI Symposium 1.
National Cave and Karst Research Institute, Carlsbad, NM, 182 p.
Stafford, K., Land, L., Klimchouk, A., Gary, M., 2009b. The Pecos River hypogene speleogenetic province:
a basin-scale karst paradigm for Eastern New Mexico and West Texas, USA. In: K.W.Stafford, L.Land, and
G.Veni, Advances in Hypogene Karst Studies: NCKRI Symposium 1, Carlsbad, pp. 121-135.
Stankevich, E.F., 1970. On the possibility of development of deep- seated karst: Perm University, Voprosy
Karstovedeniya 2, 43-47 (in Russian).
Shternina, E.B., 1949. Solubility of gypsum in water solutions of salts. lzvestija sectora fiz.-him. analiza
IONH AN SSSR 17, 203-206 (in Russian).
Tth, J., 1995. Hydraulic continuity in large sedimentary basins. Hydrogeology Journal 3:4, 4-15.
Tth, J., 1999. Groundwater as a geologic agent: An overview of the cases, processes and manifestations.
Hydrogeology Journal 7, 1-14.
Vovk, I.E., 1979. Radiolysls of underground waters and its geochemical role. Moscow: Nedra, 231 p. (in
Russian).
Wigley, T.M.L., Plummer, L.N, 1976. Mixing of carbonate waters: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 40,
989-995.

KLIMCHOUK, Alexander B. Hypogene Speleogenesis

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

KLIMCHOUK, Alexander B. Hypogene Speleogenesis

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Klimchouk A.B. Hypogene Speleogenesis - Treatise on Geomorphology: Karst Geomorphology, 2010, edited by A.

Basic concept and definitions

Hypogene speleogenesis in the framework of hierarchical flow systems

Evolution of hydrogeologic settings

Dissolution processes in hypogene speleogenesis

Figure 3. Some mechanisms of renewal or enhancement of groundwater aggressiveness to soluble rocks.

Distribution of hypogene speleogenesis

Hydrogeologic control of hypogene speleogenesis

Solution porosity patterns produced by hypogene speleogenesis

Meso-morphology features of hypogene caves

Hypogene speleogenesis and paleokarst

Anda mungkin juga menyukai