See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285457128

Delta types and sea level cycle

Article · January 2001

CITATIONS READS

7 1,027

2 authors:

Szczepan Jan Porębski Ronald J. Steel

AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków University of Texas at Austin; Heriot-Watt University
45 PUBLICATIONS   1,018 CITATIONS    285 PUBLICATIONS   9,697 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Morphology and origin of modern seabed features in the central basin of the Gulf of Thailand View project

Facies and architecture of a tide-dominated segment of the Late Pliocene Orinoco Delta (Morne L'Enfer Formation) SW Trinidad View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronald J. Steel on 06 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2006, v. 76, 0–0
Research Article
DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2006.034

DELTAS AND SEA-LEVEL CHANGE

SZCZEPAN J. PORE˛BSKI1 AND RONALD J. STEEL2

1
Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geological Sciences, Kraków Research Centre, Senacka 1, 31-002 Kraków, Poland
2
The University of Texas at Austin, Geological Sciences Department, 1 University Station C1100, Austin, Texas 78712-0254, U.S.A.
e-mail: ndporebs@cyf-kr.edu.pl

ABSTRACT: Sea-level shift from the innermost shelf out to the shelf edge produces bayhead, inner-shelf, mid-shelf, and shelf-
margin deltas. We suggest that these delta types are distinguishable in the ancient record and that such distinction has
advantages as compared to the conventional, entirely process-based classification. Bayhead and inner-shelf deltas tend to form
thin clinoforms (a few meters to tens of meters amplitude, respectively), and as they aggrade with rising relative sea level they
generate a ‘‘tail’’ of thick paralic deposits. Mid-shelf deltas produce clinoforms as high as the mid-shelf water depth, tend to
follow a subhorizontal trajectory, generate little or no paralic tail, and are commonly thinned by transgressive ravinement.
Shelf-edge deltas in a stable-to-falling relative sea level usually have no paralic tail, create by far the highest clinoforms, and
can have a thick succession of sandy turbidites on the delta fronts. If sea level falls below the shelf margin, the shelf-edge delta
becomes incised by its own channels and large volumes of sand can be delivered onto the slope and the basin floor.
Many deltas require a strong fluvial drive to attain a shelf transit, though as they approach the outer shelf they commonly
become wave dominated. Tidal influence can increase on the outermost shelf if relative sea level is falling, if the shelf-break is
poorly developed, and if basinal water depth is shallow. During transgression, the system tends to be tidally and/or wave
influenced.
Deltas that transit back and forth on the shelf on short time scales (tens of kiloyears to 100 ky) and that are driven largely by
sea-level fluctuations are referred to here as accommodation-driven deltas. Deltas that can reach the shelf edge without sea-
level fall are termed supply-driven deltas. These highstand deltas deposit thick, sandy, stacked parasequences during their shelf
transit, and they tend to have an extensive muddy delta front on reaching the shelf-edge area. Such deltas would not normally be
incised at the shelf edge, and they would produce a progradational, shelf-edge attached, sandy slope apron (Exxonian shelf-
margin systems tract) rather than basin-floor fans.
Sequence boundaries are best developed on accommodation-driven deltas, and are likely to be represented on a variety of
time scales (third, fourth, and fifth order). Sequence boundaries in supply-dominated deltas may be identifiable only at lower-
order time scales, or they may be non-existent.

STEADY-STATE VERSUS EVOLUTIONARY DELTA CLASSIFICATION
Deltas have traditionally been classified in terms of process–product
reaction, where delta type is defined by the relative contribution of
fluvial-, wave-, or tidal-energy flux that was dominant during deposition
at the seaward edge of the delta (Galloway 1975). In this actualistic (based
on present highstand of sea level) and uniformitarian (steady-state)
approach, the delta system is seen as the outcome of intrabasinal
processes, whereas external controls are held constant. However, studies
of Quaternary shelves have shown that deltas also vary greatly in their
external geometry and internal characteristics in response to falling and
rising of sea level (e.g., McMaster et al. 1970; Suter and Berryhill 1985;
Kolla et al. 2000; Tesson et al. 2000). End members in this sea-level-
driven family are bayhead deltas, inner-shelf (or shoal-water platform)
deltas, mid-shelf (or shelf-phase) deltas, and shelf-margin (shelf-edge, or
deep-water) deltas. There is also an analogous family of deltas in a ramp
(non-shelf–slope break) setting (Fig. 1). The regressive–transgressive
transits of deltas during repeated sea-level cycles produce the shelf
platforms and shelf margins known to occur around the edges of
deepwater basins. If a delta reaches a platform-margin position, it also
has the potential to deliver, directly or indirectly, significant volumes of
sand into the deep-water areas (but see Steel et al. 2003).
Although it has long been known that inner-shelf and middle-shelf
deltas are different from shelf-edge deltas (Edwards 1981; Winker 1982;
Suter and Berryhill 1985; Suter et al. 1987; Elliot 1989), there is
surprisingly little mention of these delta types from pre-Pleistocene
successions. We suggest that this type of delta classification and the
recognition of this family of deltas in the ancient record is important;
because: (1) it emphasizes mixed energy systems rather than the
conventional end-member energy categories, and places deltas within
a more dynamic sequence stratigraphic context, (2) it is a powerful tool
for prediction of sand partitioning across the shelf, onto slope and basinal
settings, and (3) it can help in choosing the best location for the sequence
boundary.
We are not suggesting the above delta types as alternatives to the
process-based, conventional classification (Galloway 1975 and its
modifications) (Orton and Reading 1993; Postma 1990), but we believe
that both of these approaches should be integrated to achieve better
understanding of deltas. We are following the concept outlined by Boyd

Copyright E 2006, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/06/076-xxx/$03.00

Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:55:42 1

0 S.J. PORE˛BSKI AND R.J. STEEL JSR

FIG. 1.— Classification of shelf deltas in terms of relative sea-level change in shelf–slope (A–D) setting. A similar suite of deltas also exists in ramp setting (based
on Pore˛bski and Steel 2003).

Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:55:58 2

 JSR DELTAS AND SEA-LEVEL CHANGE
et al. (1992), based on the seminal paper of Curray (1964), where direction
of base-level (sea-level) change was used to distinguish regressive
coastlines from transgressive ones (see also Swift et al. 1991). We also
build here on previous suggestions about how deltas tend to change
during falling relative sea level by Edwards (1981), Suter and Berryhill
(1985), Postma (1995), Posamentier and Allen (1999), Suter (1999), Kolla
et al. (2000), Pore˛bski and Steel (2001, 2003), and Anderson et al. (2004).
Although we are emphasizing deltas in settings with a shelf–slope break,
an analogous suite of deltas exists in shallow-water, ramp settings.
SHELF TRANSITS BY DELTAS: CONTROLS AND DURATION
Deltas are river-attached (point-sourced) shorelines that can prograde
during either rise or fall in relative sea level. They tend to prograde across
the preexisting ‘‘ramp’’ of shallow-water basins, or the shelf platform of
deeper-water basins that have a shelf–slope break. Although these
shallow-water platforms vary greatly in their width and tectonic setting
(Swift and Thorne 1991, their fig. 1), we refer loosely here to the ‘‘inner,’’
‘‘middle,’’ and ‘‘outer’’ segments of such morphological shelves. Repeated
regressive and transgressive transits of the ramp or shelf platform cause
an aggradation of the shelf, accretion of the shelf margin, and eventually
the infilling of the basin.
Shelf and Delta Regimes
In more dynamic terms, deltas are coastal bulges formed where
sediment input (Q) of a given grain size (M) exceeds the combined effect
of relative sea-level rise (R, where R $ 0) and reworking capacity (D) of
marine processes (Swift and Thorne 1991, p. 13). These geohistorical
variables were used to define the shelf regime ratio, ¥ 5 RD/Q M, which
can be used to differentiate between accommodation-dominated and
supply-dominated shelf regimes (Thorne and Swift 1991, p. 195–197).
Accommodation-dominated regime (¥ . 1) characterizes transgressive
shelves with the concomitant development of estuaries and retreating
shorefaces, whereas supply-dominated regime (¥ , 1) describes re-
gressive shelf conditions with the prevalence of deltas and prograding
strandplains (see also Galloway 1989; Boyd et al. 1992; Meckel and
Galloway 1996).
The trajectory of the delta’s offlap break reflects stratigraphic
adjustment to a changing sediment accommodation to sediment supply,
and can vary between progradation with downstep (¥ R 0), horizontal
progradation (¥ , 1), aggradation (¥ 5 1), and landward stepping
rather than retrogradation (¥ . 1). At two extremes, this adjustment
may however take place in response to changes in only one of the critical
regime terms. Thorne and Swift (1991, p. 197) introduced the concept of
sedimentation modes, where the R-dominated mode is dynamically
governed by relative sea-level change (¥ is proportional to R), whereas the
Q-dominated mode is one where variations in sediment input exerts the
primary control upon sedimentation (¥ is inversely proportional to Q).
Such a concept appears also applicable for deltaic-shelf conditions
(¥ , 1) prevailing on a fourth-order time scale (e.g. Meckel and
Galloway 1996), where two general scenarios emerge. (1) In R mode,
a forced-regressive delta is driven across the shelf only by relative sea-level
fall, and the subsequent rapid rise shifts the deltaic depocenter back onto
the inner shelf (e.g., Posamentier et al. 1992; Kolla et al. 2000). (2) In Q
mode, high or increasing sediment supply drives the delta in a setting of
only modestly varying accommodation.
These two scenarios correspond to two contrasting delta regimes (see
also Reading and Collinson 1996, p. 171). Accommodation-driven deltas
(or R-dependent deltas) will transit back and forth across the shelf on
time scales of surprisingly short duration (see below). Supply-driven
deltas (Q-dependent deltas) not only can prograde to the shelf break and
beyond but also can remain on the outer shelf for longer periods, even
during times of minor accommodation increase.
Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:56:30
0
Accommodation-Driven versus Supply-Driven Deltas
During regression with sea-level rise, great sediment flux is required to
maintain delta progradation, because of the need to fill an ever-increasing
accommodation space behind the rising delta front. Lack of sufficient
sediment flux and rising relative sea level usually results in an inevitable
shoreline retreat (auto-retreat) after a brief interval of deltaic prograda-
tion and aggradation, even without any change in the rates of sediment
supply or relative sea-level rise (Muto and Steel 1992, 1997). For river
feeders of small to moderate size, it seems likely that deltas can prograde
only some tens of kilometers, if sea level is rising even modestly (Muto
and Steel 2002).
In the case of regression with stable or falling sea level, however, the
delta transits the entire width of the shelf without any auto-retreat
tendency. This creates a flat-to-falling shoreline trajectory (purely
progradational stratigraphic pattern), and generally enables the delta to
cross a wide shelf relatively quickly, without having to access an
unusually high sediment supply. Calculations of time necessary for
modern deltas to cross their respective shelf widths under such conditions
are given by Burgess and Hovius (1998) and Muto and Steel (2002).
Results show that the transit time varies with sediment and water
discharge, subaerial delta gradient, shelf width, shelf gradient, and delta-
front slope as well as with sea-level behavior, but indicate that only rarely
is more than 100 ky required for shelf transit, for even the widest shelves,
provided that the delta is able to reach the shelf edge at all.
Shelf transit times calculated for a relative sea-level rise of 2.1 m/ky (a
value typical for Holocene highstand systems tracts) are plotted against
sediment supply (Fig. 2A; for calculation details, see Muto and Steel
2002). The plot suggests that many of the modern deltas that are presently
on the inner shelf (e.g., Colorado, Mackenzie, Orinoco, Po) would never
be able to reach the shelf edge with such a rate of base-level rise (Fig. 2A).
However, the late Pleistocene eustatic fall brought these deltas to the shelf
margin, and the Holocene rise shifted them 100–200 km back updip on
the shelf. This illustrates that high-amplitude, high-frequency variations
in accommodation are one of the main controls on deltaic transit across
the shelf. However, these calculated transit times (Fig. 2A) appear
conservative, because they ignore changes in the delta-mouth hydraulic
regime during progradation with relative sea-level rise. The increasing
wave impact upon the delta entering deeper and more open waters can
expend much, or all, of the sediment budget on building shoals and spits
(Galloway 2001), before the delta ever nears the shelf edge. Hence, many
more modern deltas may actually belong to the R-dependent category
than implied by the graph in Figure 2A.
In terms of shelf width and inclination, accommodation-driven deltas,
together with large-yield (. 100 km3/ky) deltas tend to be associated
with wide and low-gradient shelves (Fig. 2B). This suggests that for deltas
of intermediate sediment load (ca. 10–80 km3/ky) entering shelves wider
than 100 km, a lowering in relative sea level becomes critical in bringing
the delta to the shelf edge.
The diagrams in Figure 2 suggest that, for great shelf widths and supply
ranges, deltas are likely to form shelf-wide sandbodies within the forced
regressive, lowstand, and highstand systems tracts of fourth-order
sequences, generated by only small-amplitude fluctuations in accommo-
dation. Such supply-driven deltas would be commonplace on relatively
narrow and high-gradient shelves, but extremely high-discharge rivers,
particularly those that tap glaciated terrains or rising mountain belts, can
also drive deltas that defy auto-retreat on the widest shelves. An obvious
example of this is the Balize lobe of the present-day Mississippi River.
This delta lobe, now in moderately deep water (Fisk 1955; Gould 1970),
not only reached nearly to the shelf edge during the last 1000 years of the
Holocene highstand but was able to retain its birdfoot geometry across
the entire open shelf. Goodbred et al. (2003), in their study of the late
Quaternary Ganges–Brahmaputra delta, concluded that this delta system
3
0 S.J. PORE˛BSKI AND R.J. STEEL
came into existence much earlier than other Holocene deltas, due to an
extremely high sediment yield (combined result of tectonically active
catchment and monsoonal climate). The high and sustained sediment
supply apparently hindered transgression and maintained conditions of
vigorous delta progradation despite significant sea-level rise (see also
Goodbred and Kuehl 2000).
Galloway (1989, 1990) drew attention to several distinct periods of
shelf-edge delta development in the Cenozoic evolution of the northern
Gulf of Mexico Coast. Whereas the Pliocene and Pleistocene stratigraphic
sequences of the Gulf reflect predominantly ‘‘icehouse’’ cyclicity
(Galloway 1989) and, accordingly, probably contain mostly accommo-
dation-controlled deltas, the Paleogene record, in contrast, contains
a strong supply signature in the delta stratigraphy (Edwards 1981;
Galloway 1989, 1990, 2001). For instance, Xue and Galloway (1995)
divided the Paleocene middle Wilcox strata of Texas coastal plain into
two genetic stratigraphic sequences, 0.75–1.1 My in duration, both
typified by strongly aggradational stacking patterns without any marked
relative base-level falls. Each sequence in the Rio Grande embayment
contains shelf-edge deltas that belong both to highstand (lower sequence)
and lowstand (upper sequence) deposits (Xue and Galloway 1995,
p. 224). Even so, middle Wilcox deltas were typified by rather low
accumulation rates (Galloway and Williams 1991) and presumed low
Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:56:30
JSR
FIG. 2.— A) Graph showing relationships
between constant sediment supply and travel
time necessary for a delta to reach the shelf edge
for the rate of relative sea-level rise 2.1 m/ky,
which is typical for the Holocene highstand
(travel times after Muto and Steel 2002, based
on database of Burgess and Hovius 1998). Open
squares mark deltas that would require relative
sea-level drop in order to cross the entire shelf
(accommodation-driven deltas). Solid circles
mark deltas that are able reach the shelf edge
during highstands up to 50 ky in duration
(supply-driven deltas). Note, however, that
calculated transit times ignore increased impact
of wave energy, which tends to slow down or
even arrest delta progradation during highstand
conditions. Therefore, more modern deltas are
likely to fall into the accommodation-driven
class than implied by the graph. B) Delta
stratigraphic regime versus shelf geometry.
Wide and low-gradient shelves tend to support
predominantly accommodation-driven deltas.
Irrespective of its absolute value, supply factor
can become the sufficient driver for highstand
deltas prograding onto relatively narrow and
steep shelves.
sediment-input rates (Galloway 2001, his fig. 2); they were obviously able
to attain the shelf edge even in conditions of progradation with base-level
rise, which suggest a strong supply control. Similarly, the Eocene Yegua
Formation (except in its uppermost part) records a supply-dominated
shelf regime alternating with periods of quasi-equilibrium conditions.
This interval contains deltas that, during sea-level oscillations of ca.
0.8 My periodicity, appear to have moved only short distances back and
forth on the outer shelf, in close proximity to the shelf-edge (Meckel and
Galloway 1996).
The above discussion strongly suggests that although supply rate can
be a critical factor controlling the distribution of deltas on narrow
shelves, it becomes subordinate in importance to high-amplitude sea-level
oscillations on wide shelves. It is therefore likely that accommodation-
driven deltas were particularly common on passive margins during
icehouse times.
It is worth noting that the concept of accommodation-driven and supply-
driven delta complexes advocated above bears some resemblance to the
former Exxonian Type 1 and Type 2 sequences (Vail et al. 1984) respectively,
particularly supply-driven deltas and the sand-rich, progradational ‘‘shelf-
margin systems tracts.’’ However, the delta concept, in contrast to the
abandoned sequence types (Posamentier and Allen 1999), will tolerate
considerable along-strike variability in architecture and morphology.
4
 JSR DELTAS AND SEA-LEVEL CHANGE
SEA-LEVEL CHANGE AND DELTA TYPES
Sea-level shift from the innermost shelf out to the shelf edge produces
a family of delta types consisting of bayhead, inner-shelf, mid-shelf, and
shelf-margin deltas. Evolution of a delta system transiting the shelf along
such a path reflects (1) the increasing degree of wave reworking when
deltas leave river- or tide-dominated intracoastal settings, and (2)
increased accommodation, which determines the primary height of the
delta clinoform, while (3) subsequent transgressive ravinement controls
the degree of preservation of delta topsets and foresets.
We believe that these processes generate a range of characteristic
features allowing the main members of this sea level-driven delta family to
be distinguished in the ancient record. However, establishing a compre-
hensive set of diagnostic criteria is hindered at present by several factors.
As Bhattacharya and Giosan (2003) have pointed out, interpretation of
a fossil delta in terms of a tripartite process model can be controversial
because many delta systems are a product of a mixed-energy system, and
fluvial, tidal, vs. wave domination can vary even between individual lobes
on the same delta (see also Lambiase et al. 2003). Another serious
problem is that, although delta facies descriptions from the ancient record
are legion, usually little is known about the location of the delta on the
shelf. Conversely, even where this location is well established, as in many
seismically aided, subsurface studies, insufficient facies information from
cores is available (e.g., Xue and Galloway 1995; Pore˛bski et al. 2003).
These deficiencies in our database may result in overemphasizing criteria
that may have a local significance only, or lead to unjustified general-
izations. Keeping in mind these potential pitfalls, we hope, however, that
the description below can serve at least as an initial conceptual framework
for classifying deltas in terms of their position on the shelf.
The classification below is underpinned by the notion that construc-
tional shelves are shallow platforms built gradually by sediment-delivery
systems, especially deltas, as sediment is partitioned from land and into
the basin (Swift and Thorne 1991). The term ‘‘shelf’’ further implies the
presence of a break in slope between the shallow platform and a marine
slope beyond. Shelves gradually extend out from land by the basinward
migration of the shelf–slope break, i.e., by accretion of the shelf margin
because of the addition of sediment, mainly from shelf-transiting deltas.
The terms ‘‘inner’’ and ‘‘outer’’ shelf are frequently used, but only in
a purely qualitative manner, to describe the landward and seaward
reaches of the platform. Where the shelf becomes wider, e.g., . 30 km,
a middle zone or mid-shelf reach is also designated. Because the shelf
accretes by the repeated regressive–transgressive transits of a shoreline
(not all of which necessarily even reach the shelf edge), the sediment-
delivery system is referred to as being on the inner, middle, or outer shelf
at any point in time.
Inner-Shelf Deltas
Significant development of paralic delta-plain deposits is probably the
most distinctive feature of inner-shelf deltas (Fig. 1A). The delta-plain
deposits reflect deposition during rising relative sea level, and consequent
accommodation creation behind the delta front. This, together with the
shallow water depths into which this type of delta grows, generates low-
amplitude (a few tens of meters), long sigmoidal clinoforms. Proximity to
source area results in a high sediment yield and high rates of aggradation
and, in turn, an extensive areal development of mouth bars and rapidly
filling interdistributary bays (Gould 1970; Coleman 1988).
Depending on the dominant regime type, mouth-bar to delta-front
deposits range from heterolithic hyperpycnites in river-dominated deltas
(e.g., Rodriguez et al. 2000), hummocky cross-bedded facies in wave-
dominated systems (e.g., Bhattacharya and Walker 1992), to complex,
heterolithic bars in tide-dominated ones (Willis and Gabel 2001), or
a combination of these in mixed-energy systems (Bhattacharya and
Giosan 2003). It is worth emphasizing that for strong wave or tidal
Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:56:31
0
signatures, deltas may not always be easily distinguishable from
prograding shorefaces (Bhattacharya and Walker 1992), or estuarine
complexes (Pore˛bski 1995, 2000), respectively.
The combination of high sedimentation rates, abundance of under-
compacted mud in the system, and low slope promotes the generation of
a variety of bed-scale soft-sediment deformations. Even though these may
occasionally become voluminous (Bhattacharya and Davies 2001), they
are subordinate (in their scale) to the effects of growth faulting, rotational
sliding, and slumping, which affect shelf-edge deltas (e.g., Winker 1982)
and reflect a persistent tendency for slope gravity spreading in this high-
accommodation setting. Thick sandy turbidites are usually conspicuously
absent from deltas whose ‘‘fronts’’ are sited on the inner shelf, mainly
because of limited water depth, short runout slopes, and fast subsidence
of mouth-bar sands into rapidly compacted interdistributary fine-grained
sediments (Nummedal 1983).
In contrast to deltas farther out on the shelf, high aggradation rates
cause a significant degree of delta lobe switching on the inner shelf areas
(Gould 1970), leading to the development of wide and thick lobate delta
fronts composed of vertically stacked mouth bar and distributary bay
units (Coleman and Gagliano 1964; Posamentier and Allen 1999).
Mid-Shelf Deltas
Deltas Formed during Falling Relative Sea Level.—Although deltas
that have prograded out onto mid-shelf areas should be as thick as the
mid-shelf water depth, they are commonly thin, patchily developed, and
composed of low-angle-dipping clinoforms (Suter and Berryhill 1985).
This apparent contradiction is due to incision generated by both
distributary-channel feeders and major valley systems (Suter et al.
1987). Otherwise, midshelf-delta clinoforms are commonly truncated in
a landward direction by a transgressive ravinement surface and overlain
by open-shelf mudstones. This thin, patchy distribution, capping
erosional truncation, together with little to no occurrence of coastal-
plain deposits, are commonly interpreted to reflect delta progradation
under conditions of falling relative sea level (Suter and Berryhill 1985)
(Fig. 1B). Decreasing accommodation tends to stabilize distributary
channels through enhanced incision (Suter 1999; Posamentier and Morris
2000) and create distinct, widely separated delta lobes (Ritchie et al.
2004). It also results in laterally (frontally) stacked mouth bars separated
by minor downlap unconformities that mostly reflect minor discrete
pulses in base-level fall rather than an autocyclic switch (Tesson et al.
2000). Larger-amplitude falls, though not exposing the shelf edge, are
likely to be recorded in a series of basinward-detached delta bodies
overlain by a ravinement surface and then by transgressive muds
(Posamentier et al. 1992; Ainsworth and Pattison 1994).
Reworking of an increasingly emergent shelf substratum causes
sediment bypassing on the shelf and enhances sand content and sorting
of sand in distal (seaward) progradational increments (Sydow and
Roberts 1994; Anderson et al. 2004). This, in turn, can lead to a significant
steepening of the delta front as it reaches deeper mid-shelf waters and to
the deposition of sand in the deltaic toes from turbidity currents, grain
flows, and other high-concentration gravity flows. Sandy turbidites have
been reported from some Cretaceous shallow-water, ramp deltas of the
U.S. Western Interior Basin, such as the Panther Tongue of the Star Point
Formation (Van Wagoner et al. 1990; Posamentier and Morris 2000) and
the Ferron Sandstone Member of the Mancos Shale (Bhattacharya and
Davies 2001, 2004). These deltas are interpreted as forced-regressive
features deposited far basinwards from their initial highstand shorelines.
Therefore, the mechanisms of sediment bypass, of progressive sand
sorting at such distant shelf locations, or simply of strong river flooding
could possibly be responsible for the turbidite fronts or toes in these
deltas, although slope steepening due to local fault-induced accommo-
dation provides an alternative (cf. Bhattacharya and Davies 2001).
5
0 S.J. PORE˛BSKI AND R.J. STEEL
Because of the erosional truncation associated both with the down-
ward-directed, regressive transit of a delta across the shelf and with the
subsequent transgressive ravinement (can be 15–40 m deep on wave-
dominated systems; Rodriguez et al. 2001; Bhattacharya and Willis 2001,
p. 287–288; Cattaneo and Steel 2002), the preservation potential of mid-
shelf deltas associated with falling sea level is likely to be limited.
Deltas Formed during Transgression.—During transgression, deltas
tend to change into estuaries as the older distributary system becomes
backfilled (Dalrymple et al. 1992; Reinson 1992), although high-discharge
rivers can create mid-shelf deltaic lobes as punctuated regressions during
a longer-term relative sea-level rise (Bartek et al. 1990; Anderson et al.
2004). Little is known of such deltas and their preservation potential in
mid-shelf settings, and anomalous or dual terminologies, such as
transgressive estuarine–deltaic complexes, are sometimes adopted for
Quaternary deltas (Yoo and Park 2000).
Bartek et al. (1990) found that during the late Pleistocene–Holocene
sea-level rise, the Brazos River produced backstepping, deltaic clino-
forms, 9–10 m thick, interpreted from their geometry as formed within
wave-dominated deltas. Such mid-shelf clinoforms are likely to be more
muddy and devoid of sandy turbidites as compared to their forced-
regressive counterparts, because they are directly fed by the primary
fluvial source from an increasingly distant location through time.
Although already reduced by ravinement erosion, even such remnant
clinoforms have a low chance to be preserved intact, because they are
likely to be partly or entirely reworked by geostrophic circulation on an
increasingly open shelf as the water deepens during further transgression
and early highstand (cf. Rine et al. 1991). It is therefore probable that
mid-shelf deltas on transgressive shelves are transient phenomena. If
preserved, they may form cores to composite sand bodies, such as shoal-
retreat massifs attached to incised-valley estuaries (Swift et al. 1991, their
fig. 24), or shelf sand ridges (e.g., Nummedal and Suter 2002). Fast
(glacioeustatic) rises also hamper the formation of transgressive deltas in
mid-shelf settings. However, for supply-dominated systems and relatively
low rates of relative sea-level rise mid-shelf deltas are likely to form
a significant component of transgressive systems tracts.
Regressive mid- to outer-shelf deltas in ramp settings can begin to
aggrade significantly when sea level turns around from fall to rise.
Such deltas, commonly referred to as lowstand deltas (Mellere and Steel
2000), are broadly analogous to turbidite-bearing, lowstand systems
tracts in settings with a shelf–slope break. The aggradational behavior of
such lowstand deltas both increases the preservation potential and allows
the delta to develop a paralic ‘‘tail.’’ The ‘‘basinal’’ position of such
deltas, together with topographic enhancement and narrowing of the
seaway as sea level falls, appear to generate strong tidal influence on the
delta fronts. Examples from the Campanian Western Interior Seaway,
U.S.A., are discussed by Mellere and Steel (1995, 2000) and by Steel
et al. (2004).
Shelf-Margin Deltas
Deltas Formed during Falling Relative Sea Level.—When sea-level fall
brings the delta and its fluvial feeder to a position near the shelf break,
deltaic clinoforms of great height and length (commonly hundreds of
meters in amplitude and up to 10 km in length) can be developed, as the
delta drapes across the preexisting shelf margin, into deep water (Suter
and Berryhill 1985; Steel et al. 2000, 2003) (Fig. 1C). If sea level falls
below the shelf edge, the clinoforms suffer erosional truncation at their
landward side, but there need be no deep truncation between delta-front
and fluvial distributary if the sea level falls only briefly below the shelf
edge, or begins to rise after falling no lower than the shelf edge. No delta-
plain deposits develop behind such shelf-edge deltas while sea level is
falling, but paralic deposits do accumulate after sea level begins to rise
(late lowstand), when the delta becomes aggradational.
Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:56:31
JSR
The most proximal reaches of shelf-edge delta clinoforms can be very
steep (6–8u), and the clinoforms consist of thick mouth-bar sandstones
that commonly show evidence of slumping and sliding. The upper-to-mid
slope reaches of clinoforms tend to be less steep (max. 3–4u) and more
heterolithic. A characteristic feature is that they contain upward-
thickening lobes (5–15 m thick) of turbidite sand sheets (, 60 cm thick),
deep (several meters) but narrow feeder chutes also filled by massive
turbidite beds, as well as steep-fronted lobes at the terminations of chutes
(Plink-Björklund et al. 2001; Mellere et al. 2002). Shelf-margin delta
fronts are also a preferred site for river-flood-generated hyperpycnal
flows, because of the steeper slopes and longer runout distances (Plink-
Björklund and Steel 2004). The entire delta slope can be affected by large-
scale slope failure and growth faulting (Winker 1982; Winker and
Edwards 1983; Coleman and Prior 1988; Nemec et al. 1988; Wignall and
Best 2004). Shelf-edge delta clinoforms display a descending-to-ascending
pattern in their offlap-break trajectory (e.g., Sydow and Roberts 1994),
documenting delta growth during the change of relative sea level from fall
to rise. When sea level falls below the shelf break, deltas tend to be
cannibalized, leading to the linkage of shelf valleys to slope canyons, and
the delivery of turbidite sands to the basin floor (Mellere et al. 2003)
Deltas Formed during Rising Relative Sea Level.—There are two main
types of shelf-edge delta that develop during rising relative sea level,
namely highstand shelf-margin deltas and late-lowstand shelf-margin
deltas.
Highstand shelf-margin deltas occur particularly in basins with narrow
shelves and/or strong river input. Although auto-retreat makes it difficult
for deltas to reach the edges of wide shelves during rising relative sea level
(Muto and Steel 1997), a Q-dominated regime does allow this to happen
at times (Burgess and Hovius 1998), thus producing highstand deltas at
the shelf edge. Examples of such shelf-edge deltas, probably occurring
during rising relative sea level, occur in the Paleogene shelf margin of the
Gulf of Mexico (Xue and Galloway 1995; Meckel and Galloway 1996).
Despite the strong fluvial input necessary to bring these deltas to the shelf
edge, their open-coast morphology and shelf-edge location cause a very
strong, and even, dominant storm-wave imprint. Note that we are not
referring to the ‘‘late’’ highstand condition of some authors (e.g., Van
Wagoner et al. 1990; Anderson et al. 2004), where relative sea-level is
actually falling!
Late-lowstand shelf-margin deltas, forming immediately after a signifi-
cant fall of sea level, become reestablished at the shelf margin as sea level
rises back above the shelf edge. They often tend to show fluvial
dominance, with some tide influence. Storm-wave imprint is less
significant, probably because of irregular, lowstand coastal morphology.
They are part of the lowstand systems tract because they occur
basinwards and slightly below the early lowstand shelf edge. They are
variously known as lowstand wedges or progradational complexes (Vail
1987), late lowstand wedges (Posamentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier et
al. 1991), or simply late-lowstand deltas (Steel et al. 2003).
These two types of shelf-edge delta are responsible for much of the
accretion that occurs on shelf margins, and the following features allow
them to be distinguished:
Highstand deltas typically show an aggradational tendency (signaling
the rising relative sea level) on the outer shelf, and this causes them to be
relatively thick (up to some 100 m) and to display an internal architecture
of stacked upward-coarsening and -thickening, wave-influenced para-
sequences. This aggradation with repetition of parasequences can be seen
in the highstand deltas overlying MFS 16 and 17 in Figure 3. The
highstand deltas in Figure 3 become rapidly muddier at the shelf edge.
Thin-bedded, sandy tempestites (ungraded or flat-laminated units with
wave-ripple cappings) occur on the delta front, signaling storm-wave
influence at the shelf edge. Highstand deltas are underlain by a maximum
flooding surface in muddy strata, and are overlain by transgressive
deposits (Fig. 3).
6
 JSR DELTAS AND SEA-LEVEL CHANGE 0

FIG. 3.—There are three delta types illustrated in the succession here, two generated during relative sea-level rise and one during stable to falling relative sea level. Each
of the three types occurs in the shelf-edge reaches of a different fourth-order stratigraphic sequence. The highstand shelf-edge deltas, above mfs 16 and 17, are thick, are
visibly ‘‘layered’’ with parasequences, and are documented as being wave dominated (C. Uroza, personal communication 2005).The thickness, marked development of
parasequences, and apparent absence of a time-equivalent deep-water fan are consistent with the notion of rising relative sea level. The dark-colored late-lowstand delta,
below mfs 15, is situated just below the shelf edge, laps down onto the deep-water slope, and is river dominated, as shown by frequent thin hyperpycnal flows on the delta
front (A. Petter, personal communication 2005). The slope location of this delta and its timing as slightly younger than a basin-floor fan (off photo to right) is consistent
with a late-lowstand designation and relative rise of sea level. The falling-stage or early lowstand shelf-edge delta, below mfs 16, is thinner, lighter colored (coarser
grained), and has a more ‘‘compact’’ character (few parasequences) compared to the others. It is of mixed-energy (wave, fluvial, and tide) origin (A. Ponten, personal
communication 2005) and is interpreted as forced regressive.

Late-lowstand deltas also tend to be aggradationally stacked with EVOLUTIONARY PATTERNS

parasequences. They can be thick (50–70 m) and sandy at the shelf edge
but rapidly become heterolithic and muddy as they downlap onto the
early-lowstand slope deposits. Diagnostic features of such deltas
(compared to highstand deltas) are (1) stronger fluvial influence shown
by turbidite lobes and turbidite-filled chute channels (see Plink-Björklund
et al. 2001; Mellere et al. 2002), (2) a dominantly outer-shelf and slope
location, downlapping onto early lowstand turbidite channels and muddy
slope deposits, and (3) they underlie the maximum flooding surface in
their stratigraphic sequence. Some of these features can be seen in
Figure 3, where slope-downlapping, late-lowstand deltas of clinoform 14
can be seen.
Bayhead Deltas
Bayhead deltas form at the landward end of submerged incised valleys
(estuaries) and embayments after the deltaic shoreline has turned around
from regression to transgression during relative sea-level rise (Dalrymple
et al. 1992; Reinson 1992) (Fig. 1D). Bayhead deltas are relatively small,
funnel-shaped features that are entirely confined within either the
erosional base of the estuary or coastal reentrants; thus, they are unlikely
to be wave dominated (Dalrymple et al. 1992.) The confinement increases
tidal flow, but macrotidal estuaries lack deltaic phases at their head (Allen
and Posamentier 1993). Fluvial domination can create a birdfoot
geometry if the receiving central estuarine basin is sufficiently large
(Donaldson et al. 1970). Low-angle ripple-dominated heterolithic delta
foresets (3–8 m high commonly) are cut at the proximal end of the system
by shallow distributary channel sandstones, whereas they merge distally
into fine-grained, brackish, and tide-influenced sediments of the central
basin.
During a given fall-to-rise in relative sea-level cycle, the above-
described delta types are likely to form a predictable evolutionary pattern
in which they either form intergradational transitions or occur as distinct
entities separated in space and time by major discontinuities (Fig. 4).
Parallel Terminologies
Sequence stratigraphic terms are also used for the individual stages in
the evolutionary pattern of shelf deltas described above. Inner-shelf deltas
are sometimes referred to as highstand deltas, emphasizing that deltas
situated on the inner shelf are usually subject to ‘‘high’’ sea-level
conditions. Mid- to outer-shelf deltas are sometimes referred to as late-
highstand (Anderson et al. 2004), or more commonly as forced-regressive
(Posamentier et al. 1992) or falling-stage (Plint and Nummedal 2000)
deltas, because sea level usually needs to fall to cause shallow water in
a shelf-edge position.
Lowstand deltas typically occur in both shelf-edge settings, where they
may represent the main growth increments of the shelf margin (Chiocci
1994), and ramp settings, where they refer to deltas in a distal, basinal
position that are prograding-to-aggrading immediately after a fall of
relative sea level (Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg 1994; Mellere and Steel
1995; Bhattacharya and Willis 2001). Again, these are not competing
terminologies but complementary ones. For example, in most pre-
Quaternary cases it is easier to document that an ancient delta was
located near the basin margin, on the inner-shelf area, than to show that
sea level was near its relative highstand position.
Morton and Suter (1996) and Edwards (2002) suggested from their
work in the Quaternary of the Gulf of Mexico that highstand and
lowstand deltas cannot easily be distinguished on the basis of their facies

Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:56:31 7

0 S.J. PORE˛BSKI AND R.J. STEEL JSR

FIG. 4.— Conceptual dip section showing the family of accommodation-driven shelf deltas produced on shelf-break margin A) by high-amplitude, stepped fall in
relative sea level, followed by B) rapid rise, and C) the inferred parallel change in delta-front hydraulic regime. Sea-level pattern in part B is based on Kolla et al. (2000).

Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:56:37 8

 JSR DELTAS AND SEA-LEVEL CHANGE
spectra. However, we have shown above that this distinction can be made
in settings that were more sensitive to accommodation changes. This,
together with the fact that highstand deltas at the shelf edge differ from
those on the inner shelf illustrates a need for classification based on the
location of a delta on the shelf, although, admittedly, more facies
information from cores and outcrops is needed to better evaluate the set
of diagnostic criteria.
Process–Regime Change during Sea-Level Cycle
There are some tendencies to change the dominant process regime at
the delta front during the evolutionary cycles that were outlined above
(Fig. 4C) (see also Bhattacharya and Walker 1992; Miall 1997), although
there are clearly many other important controls on delta-front process,
such as grain size (Orton and Reading 1993), basin-margin configuration,
and shelf width (Galloway and Hobday 1996). We believe that there will
eventually be an integration of the process and base-level aspects of delta
classification. We emphasize that relationships between relative sea-level
position and basinal processes, suggested below, are merely tendencies
and not correlations. These tendencies can easily be upset as morphology,
or absolute values of sediment flux or basinal energy change through
time.
Regime Change during Falling Relative Sea Level.—Most low-latitude,
present-day shoreline systems are at or near sea-level highstand and tend
to assume an inner-shelf position, unless they have an unusually high
sediment supply. Modern deltas on the inner shelf can be dominated by
rivers, waves, or tides (Galloway 1975), with the tide domination being
particularly common in deltas present in the tropical belts (Sidi et al.
2003). During initial sea-level fall, when the shelf is still wide, there is
some evidence that forced regressive, inner- to mid-shelf deltas tend to be
strongly river influenced. Although mid- to outer-shelf deltas typically
require strong fluvial drive to bring them to such sites, they may also
become increasingly wave-influenced basinwards, because decreasing
shelf width during sea-level fall lessens frictional attenuation of wave
energy (Suter 1999). However, the irregularity of lowstand coastal
morphology dampens the wave energy; hence, it seems that forced-
regressive mid-shelf deltas are unlikely to be as wave-dominated as their
transgressive counterparts.
Shelf-margin deltas should generally be subject to the full impact of
waves and oceanic swell (Galloway and Hobday 1996), though there is
increasing evidence that when these deltas arrive at the shelf edge during
significant sea level fall (and coastlines are irregular) tidal influence can
increase and fluvial processes (hyperpycnal flow) can locally dominate the
distributary-mouth and delta-front zones. In these latter situations large
volumes of sand can be delivered to deepwater areas (Mulder and Syvitski
1995; Mellere et al. 2002, 2003; Plink-Björklund and Steel 2004).
Regime Change during Rising Relative Sea Level. —Deltas that
become reestablished at the shelf edge during late lowstand (early rise,
after sea-level fall) also have fronts that are dominated by fluvial and, to
a lesser extent, wave processes. Sediment gravity flows and slumps tend to
occupy a major proportion of the delta front. Transgressive deltas have
virtually no facies documentation, but it is not unlikely that they
experience wave domination (Anderson et al. 2004). The fluvial driver
dominates bayhead deltas (Dalrymple et al. 1992), though they can be
strongly influenced by tidal flows in the embayment setting during sea-
level rise. As the rise begins to slow down, deltas build to the open coast
into deepened water and experience an increased wave influence upon
their fronts, as documented for the Mekong River (Ta et al. 2002; Tanabe
et al. 2003). On wide shelves, such influence is likely to increase during
advanced highstand progradation and can produce more strike-aligned,
extensive depocenters and increased preservation of strandplains (Gallo-
way 2001). However, for supply-controlled systems, more narrowly
developed, river-dominated lobes may extend across the entire shelf, as
Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:56:57
0
exemplified by the modern Mississippi Delta. In cases where deltas
manage to prograde to the shelf margin without a significant fall of
relative sea level (Q-dependent case), there is commonly strong wave
influence on the front of the delta, and thick development of stacked
parasequences (Deibert et al. 2003).
Attached vs. Detached Geometries
Accommodation-Driven Deltas.—High-amplitude, stepped fall fol-
lowed by rapid rise of relative sea level promotes the development of an
irregular belt of detached deltas across the shelf down to the upper slope
(Kolla et al. 2000) (Fig. 4A). The length of bypass segments would be
controlled mainly by rate of relative sea-level change. Individual deltas in
the thin, forced-regressive segment on the outer shelf would be irregularly
linked by a series of basinward-younging and basinward-inclined surfaces
of bypass and downlap (Posamentier et al. 1992). The fluvial feeder would
erosively truncate this series of forced regressive surfaces, and the
irregularity of the deltaic belt would be further exaggerated by later
transgressive erosion across the top of the tract. The maximum lowstand
depocenter is formed by shelf-edge deltas.
During subsequent transgression, bayhead deltas are deposited above
the subaerial erosion surface and would be best developed where incision
was greatest, that is, at either the former highstand shoreline (Fig. 4A) or
the shelf edge when the latter became incised.
Because of the rapid rise, the reestablishment of deltaic deposition is
likely to begin at the former highstand shoreline, so that the newly formed
inner-shelf deltas are detached from the shelf-edge deltas by a trans-
gressive-mud blanket with shelf-wide persistence (e.g., Tesson et al. 2000).
The basinward extent of these inner-shelf (highstand) deltas is unlikely to
be great, because the ensuing sea-level fall forces the locus of active deltaic
deposition into mid-shelf and shelf-edge settings. All this results in
aggradation on the inner shelf during highstands and shelf-edge accretion
during lowstands (e.g., Chiocci 1994), the latter being damped or stopped
in areas where the fluvial feeder dissects the shelf edge, allowing the sand
to escape into deep water.
Supply-Driven Deltas.—For low-amplitude base-level oscillations
when fluctuations in supply rate becomes the dominant control, an
attached delta belt is likely to be generated across the wide shelf (Fig. 5A).
The landward reaches of the belt consist of aggrading inner-shelf deltas
with thick paralic tails, whereas mid-shelf deltas assume a flat to weakly
descending delta-front trajectory with a resultant lack or poor de-
velopment of paralic deposits. Upon crossing the shelf break, the deltaic
section expands considerably and there is an increasingly turbiditic delta
front because of the steepening and lengthening of the slope when the
delta meets increasingly deeper water. The subsequent transgressive
systems tract can be thick and either deltaic (Anderson et al. 2004), or
estuarine (Schellpeper 2000), but in contrast to R-dominated systems not
necessarily extending far inboard of the shelf edge (Meckel and Galloway
1996).
The resumed delta progradation during the ensuing highstand starts
from near mid-shelf locations, and this, together with high sediment
supply, allows the deltas to easily work their way back to the shelf edge,
particularly when relative-sea level rise begins to slow down. Little is
known about facies of highstand shelf-edge deltas. We speculate that the
sea-level rise, coupled with increasing wave domination, may arrest and
redistribute much of the sand on the shelf so that the deltas reaching the
shelf edge become more muddy. This, together with the heightened slope
(enlarged by highstand offlap; Fig. 5A), may generate large slides and
slumps as well as muddy hyperpycnal flows from the freshly constructed
deltaic shelf edge. The preservation potential of highstand shelf-edge
deltas may be small at times.
This scenario predicts shelf aggradation and progradation throughout
the entire relative-sea cycle. Though little or no fluvial erosion is present
9
0 S.J. PORE˛BSKI AND R.J. STEEL JSR

Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:56:57 10

 JSR DELTAS AND SEA-LEVEL CHANGE 0

at the shelf edge, linkage to the deep sea can occasionally develop during
both lowstand and highstand times, because the very high and sustained
sediment supply to the slope may enhance a tendency for slope chutes and
gullies to develop into submarine canyons (e.g., Pratson and Coakley
1996).
SEQUENCE BOUNDARY
Although the legitimacy of the ‘‘sequence boundary’’ as a single
widespread, synchronous surface is still being debated (J. Bhattacharya,
personal communication), there is probably more agreement about the
value of this term as an indicator of time intervals when base-level fall was
accompanied by significant (albeit local) sediment bypass in the subaerial
reaches of the sedimentary system. Recent numerical and physical
experimental work (Muto and Swenson in press) suggests that this state
or time interval corresponds with the condition of ‘‘grade’’ in the fluvial
system, and is effective during particular styles of base-level fall. Despite
this, steady base-level fall produces much complexity, with autogenic
shifting, erosion, and deposition (Muto and Steel 2004). Nevertheless,
a consideration of shelf-transiting deltas, especially the accommodation-
driven types, allows some insight regarding the debate about the broad
positioning of the sequence boundary (Posamentier et al. 1992; Morton
and Suter 1996; Edwards 2002): whether it should broadly correspond
with (1) the beginning or (2) the end of relative sea level fall (Fig. 4A). In
choosing the former, the sequence boundary is placed along the first,
forced-regressive downlap surface, separating the (highstand) deltas that
have a flat or rising, regressive trajectory from those that have
a downward-directed (falling-stage), regressive trajectory (Posamentier
et al. 1992; Posamentier and Morris 2000). In choosing the latter, the
sequence boundary is placed near the last and lowest, forced-regressive
downlap surface, separating falling-stage deposits from the deposits
generated after the initial rise of relative sea level, i.e., the lowstand
prograding wedge of Hunt and Tucker (1992), Helland-Hansen and
Gjelberg, (1994), and Plint and Nummedal (2000). In the latter choice, the
sequence boundary extends as an erosional unconformity back across the
top of the entire falling-stage systems tract, whereas in the former choice
it forms the basal, downlap surface for this tract.
Although there are compelling cases for both positions, we argue that,
for broad shelves, sea level commonly falls for a significant period of time
(tens of thousands of years) before deltas even reach the shelf margin, and
therefore before significant volumes of sand are delivered across the shelf
break. Choice (1) above, therefore, does not coincide with the main
introduction of sands into deep-water areas. Choice (2), on the other
hand, nearer to the time of incision of the shelf edge (provided that sea
level falls to or below the shelf edge) is more nearly time equivalent with
the first emplacement of deep-water sand (SB in Fig. 4A, B). Although
shelf-edge incision and lowest sea level (change from fall to rise) do not
necessarily coincide, the first major erosion surface linking the shelf edge
and slope can be argued to be a good practical choice of sequence
boundary, and reasonably justified conceptually. This choice assigns the
deposits below the shelf edge to the lowstand systems tract. In basins
without a shelf–slope break, the corresponding sequence boundary is
simply taken along the zone of shoreline change from falling to rising
(aggrading) regressive trajectory.
In the case of supply-driven deltas, the delineation of a sequence
boundary is fraught with even greater difficulties. In such deltas,
fluctuation in supply rates rather than relative sea-level change is the
dominant control on shelf transit, and sea level, if it falls at all, is less
likely to fall below the shelf edge. As a result of this, aggradation of the
deltas is a dominant theme, and a sequence boundary, sensu bypass and
graded condition, is likely to be absent, although there may be many local
erosion surfaces. In such cases there is a broad aggradational turnaround
from regression to transgression rather than any significant basinward
shift of facies.
CONCLUSIONS
Because deltas are the key element in the building of constructional
shelves and shelf margins, we advocate the use of a delta classification
based on shelf location, in addition to the conventional process-based
classification. Shelf-transiting deltas thus form a spectrum of types from
bayhead deltas, through inner- and mid-shelf deltas to shelf-margin
deltas, followed by transgressive deltas or estuaries, each with their own
geometrical, architectural, and facies characteristics. Main diagnostic
features include clinoform height, presence or lack of paralic tails, and
sand-turbiditic versus non-turbiditic delta front. The recognition of this
family of deltas is important because it provides an improved un-
derstanding of sequence stratigraphic patterns, is a powerful tool for
prediction of sand partitioning across the shelf onto slope and basinal
settings, it emphasizes mixed energy rather than the traditional end-
member energies, and it can help in choosing the best location for the
sequence boundary.
In transits to and from the shelf margin, deltas are either accommo-
dation driven (high amplitude and frequency of relative sea-level changes
as the main control, e.g., icehouse times) or supply driven (fluctuating
supply as main control, e.g., greenhouse times). The former tend to have
repeated, shelf-wide transits on short time scales (tens to hundreds of
thousands of years), change from highstand to falling-stage and to
lowstand deltas with transit distance on the shelf, and are deeply incised if
sea level falls significantly below the shelf edge. The latter can remain out
near the shelf-edge reaches (albeit with lateral shifting) for longer periods
as highstand deltas. Such highstand deltas are most common where rates
of sea-level rise are modest and shelf width is narrow to moderate, and
they would not normally be incised at the shelf edge (they do not
experience a fall of sea level at the shelf edge) and would therefore less
often have a focused or channelized shelf-edge to slope conduit.
Viewed in this dynamic context, deltas can undergo significant regime
change and sediment-budget partitioning across the shelf. Inner-shelf
deltas can be dominated by fluvial, wave, or tidal regimes. When deltas
approach the shelf edge, they can become increasingly wave reworked
because of exposure to ocean swell, particularly if sea level is still rising.
With forced-regressive conditions on the outer shelf they tend to develop
on an irregular coastline morphology, and so maintain their river-driven
character. Onset of sea-level rise (while sea level is still low and
progradation continues) tends to be accompanied by an increased tidal

FIG. 5.—Dip section showing A) the family of supply-driven shelf-deltas produced on the shelf-break margin by low-amplitude fall followed by B) prolonged rise in
relative sea level, and C) the inferred parallel change in delta-front hydraulic regime. Although the fall did not expose the entire shelf, the high sediment supply drives the
delta beyond the former shelf break. The offlap break escapes a major incision because it is being constantly constructed seawards off the distributary channels during
delta progradation. During rise, wave-dominated deltas backstep on the outer shelf, and are followed up by a transgressive shale packet that because of the high supply is
unlikely to extend far landward on the shelf. The ensuing highstand progradation may bring the deltas back to the preexisting shelf edge, but the extended slope would
promote wave reworking and large-scale mass wasting rather than delta accretion. Hence, a slope-toe wedge of slumps and slides may record the arrival of highstand
deltas to the shelf edge. When the deltas are already at this location, the subsequent fall, even of a very small magnitude, may however result in the shelf-edge dissection
and the formation of basin-floor fans.

Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:57:32 11

0 S.J. PORE˛BSKI AND R.J. STEEL
influence, especially along parasequence tops. Continued rise during
transgression, particularly out near the shelf margin, tends to result in
stronger wave and tide influence.
Although the validity of the term ‘‘sequence boundary’’ in the sense of
a single synchronous surface is still legitimately debated, it is accepted as
an indicator of base-level fall, sediment bypass (at least locally) and
basinward facies shift. Sequence boundaries, generated during shelf
transits with significant subaerial sediment bypass and relative sea-level
fall, are best developed on accommodation-driven deltas, and are likely to
be represented on a variety of time scales (third, fourth, and fifth order).
Supply-driven deltas can reach and remain at the shelf margin for longer
periods and tend to be highly aggradational. Sequence boundaries in such
supply-dominated systems may be difficult to identify (and then only at
lower order time scales, e.g., third order), or may be non-existent if there
is little or no relative sea-level fall during delta transit.
We prefer to designate the extended period of erosion associated with
falling and lowest relative sea level as the sequence boundary, rather than
the time line of earliest fall, because of the tendency of lowest to early
rising sea level to be associated with channelization of the shelf margin.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper has grown partly out of WOLF project work at the Universities
of Wyoming and Texas at Austin (thanks to BP, BHP, ConocoPhilips,
ExxonMobil, Norsk Hydro, PDVSA, Shell, and Statoil for continued support
and discussion), and partly out of National Research Council support of
a Twinning Project (Poland–USA). The study was also supported by
Landmark Graphics Corporation via the Landmark University Grant
Program to Institute of Geological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences.
We are grateful to Bill Galloway, John Suter, Janok Bhattacharya, Antonio
Rodriguez, and Colin North for helpful and stimulating comments on an
early draft of this paper, and to Bob Dalrymple and Shuji Yoshida for
continued creative discussion on sea-level change and shoreline processes.
REFERENCES
AINSWORTH, R.B., AND PATTISON, S.A.J., 1994, Where have all the lowstands gone?
Evidence for attached lowstand systems tracts in the Western Interior of North
America: Geology, v. 22, p. 415–418.
ALLEN, G.P., AND POSAMENTIER, H.W., 1993, Sequence stratigraphy and facies model of
an incised valley fill: the Gironde estuary, France: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology,
v. 63, p. 378–391.
ANDERSON, J.B., RODRIGUEZ, A., ABDULAH, K.C., FILLON, R.H., BANFIELD, L.A.,
MCKEON, H.A., AND WELLNER, J.S., 2004, Late Quaternary stratigraphic evolution of
the northern Gulf of Mexico margin:a synthesis, in Anderson, J.B., and Fillon, R.H.,
eds., Late Quaternary Stratigraphic Evolution of the Northern Gulf of Mexico
Margin: SEPM, Special Publication 79, p. 1–23.
BARTEK, L.R., ANDERSON, J.B., AND ABDULAH, K.C., 1990, The importance of
overstepped deltas and interfluvial sedimentation in the transgressive systems tract
of high sediment yield depositional systems—Brazos–Colorado deltas, Texas, in
Armentrout, J.M., and Perkins, B.F., eds., Sequence Stratigraphy as an Exploration
Tool: Concepts and Practices in the Gulf Coast: SEPM, Gulf Coast Section, 11th
Annual Research Conference, Program and Abstracts, p. 59–70.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND DAVIES, R.K., 2001, Growth faults at the prodelta to delta-
front transition, Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone, Utah: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 18, p. 525–534.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND DAVIES, R.K., 2004, Sedimentology and structure of growth
faults at the base of the Ferron Member along Muddy Creek, Utah, in Chidsey, T.C.,
Adams, R.D., and Morris, T.H., eds., The Fluvial–Deltaic Ferron Sandstone:
Regional-to-Wellbore-Scale Outcrop Analog Studies and Applications to Reservoir
Modeling: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 50, p.
279–304.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND GIOSAN, L., 2003, Wave-influenced deltas: geomorphological
implications for facies reconstruction: Sedimentology, v. 50, p. 187–210.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND WALKER, R.G., 1992, Deltas, in Walker, R.G., and James,
N.P., eds., Facies Models—Response To Sea Level Change: Geological Association of
Canada, Geotext 1, p. 157–177.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND WILLIS, B.J., 2001, Lowstand deltas in the Frontier
Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming: Implications for sequence stratigraphic
models, U.S.A.: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 85, p.
261–294.
BOYD, R., DALRYMPLE, R.W., AND ZAITLIN, B.A., 1992, Classification of clastic coastal
depositional environments: Sedimentary Geology, v. 80, p. 139–150.
Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:57:33
JSR
BURGESS, P.M., AND HOVIUS, N., 1998, Rates of delta progradation during highstands:
consequences for timing of deposition in deep-marine systems: Geological Society of
London, Journal, v. 155, p. 217–22.
CATTANEO, A., AND STEEL, R.J., 2002, Transgressive deposits: a review of their
variability: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 62, p. 1–43.
CHIOCCI, F.L., 1994, Very high-resolution seismics as a tool for sequence stratigraphy
applied to outcrop scale—examples from the eastern Tyrrhenian margin Holocene/
Pleistocene deposits: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 78,
p. 378–395.
COLEMAN, J.M., 1988, Dynamics changes and processes in the Mississippi Delta:
Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 100, p. 999–1015.
COLEMAN, J.M., AND GAGLIANO, S.N., 1964, Cyclic sedimentation in the Mississippi
River deltaic plains: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Transactions,
v. 14, p. 67–80.
COLEMAN, J.M., AND PRIOR, D.B., 1988, Mass wasting on continental margins: Annual
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 16, p. 101–119.
CURRAY, J.R., 1964, Transgressions and regressions, in Miller, R.L., ed., Papers in
Marine Geology: New York, Macmillan, p. 175–203.
DALRYMPLE, R.W., ZAITLIN, B.A., AND BOYD, R., 1992, Estuarine facies models:
conceptual basin and stratigraphic implications: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology,
v. 62, p. 1130–1146.
DEIBERT, J., BENDA, T., LOESETH, T., SCHELLPEPER, M., AND STEEL, R.J., 2003, Eocene
clinoform growth in front of a storm-wave dominated shelf: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 73, p. 546–558.
DONALDSON, A.C., MARTIN, R.H., AND KANES, W., 1970, Holocene Guadalupe Delta of
Texas Gulf Coast, in Morgan, J.M., and Shaver, R.H., eds., Deltaic Sedimentation,
Modern and Ancient: SEPM, Special Publication 15, p. 107–137.
EDWARDS, M.B., 1981, Upper Wilcox Rosita delta system of South Texas: growth-
faulted shelf-edge deltas: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin,
v. 65, p. 54–73.
EDWARDS, M.B., 2002, The case for the regressive systems tract with examples from the
tertiary and Pleistocene of the northern Gulf Coast Basin: Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies, Transactions, v. 52, p. 243–255.
ELLIOT, T., 1989, Deltaic systems and their contribution to an understanding of basin-fill
successions, in Whateley, M.K.G., and Pickering, K.T., eds., Deltas:Sites and Traps
for Fossil Fuels: Geological Society of London, Special Publication 41, p. 3–10.
FISK, H.N., 1955, Sand facies of recent Mississippi delta deposits: World Petroleum
Congress, Rome, Proceedings, Section 1, p. 377–398.
GALLOWAY, W.E., 1975, Process framework for describing the morphologic and
stratigraphic evolution of deltaic depositional systems, in Broussard, M.L., ed.,
Deltas, Models for Exploration: Houston Geological Society, p. 87–98.
GALLOWAY, W.E., 1989, Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin analysis: II.
Application to northwest Gulf of Mexico Cenozoic basin: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 73, p. 153–154.
GALLOWAY, W.E., 1990, Paleogene depositional episodes, genetic stratigraphic
sequences, and sediment accumulation rates NW Gulf of Mexico Basin (abstract):
Gulf Coast Section: SEPM Foundation, Eleventh Annual Research Conference,
Program and Abstracts, p. 165–176.
GALLOWAY, W.E., 2001, Cenozoic evolution of sediment accumulation in deltaic and
shore-zone depositional systems, Northern Gulf of Mexico Basin: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 18, p. 1031–1040.
GALLOWAY, W.E., AND HOBDAY, D.K., 1996. Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Systems:
Berlin, Springer, 489 p.
GALLOWAY, W.E., AND WILLIAMS, T.A., 1991, Sedimentation accumulation rates in time
and space: Paleogene genetic stratigraphic sequences of the north-western Gulf of
Mexico basin: Geology, v. 19, p. 986–989.
GOODBRED, S.L., JR., AND KUEHL, S.A., 2000, The significance of large sediment supply,
active tectonism, and eustasy on margin sequence development: Late Quaternary
stratigraphy and evolution of the Ganges–Brahmaputra delta: Sedimentary Geology,
v. 133, p. 227–248.
GOODBRED, S.L., JR., KUEHL, S.A., STECKLER, M.S., AND SARKER, M.H., 2003, Controls
on facies distribution and stratigraphic preservation in the Ganges–Brahmaputra
delta sequence: Sedimentary Geology, v. 155, p. 301–316.
GOULD, H.R., 1970, The Mississippi Delta complex, in Morgan, J.P., ed., Deltaic
Sedimentation, Modern and Ancient: SEPM, Special Publication 15, p. 3–30.
HELLAND-HANSEN, W., AND GJELBERG, J.G., 1994, Conceptual basis and variability in
sequence stratigraphy: a different perspective: Sedimentary Geology, v. 92, p. 31–52.
HUNT, D., AND TUCKER, M.E., 1992, Stranded parasequences and the forced regressive
wedge systems tract: deposition during base-level fall: Sedimentary Geology, v. 81, p.
1–9.
KOLLA, V., BIONDI, P., LONG, B., AND FILLON, R., 2000, Sequence stratigraphy and
architecture of the late Pleistocene Lagniappe delta complex, northeast Gulf of
Mexico, in Hunt, D., and Gawthorpe, R.L., eds., Sedimentary Responses to Forced
Regressions: Geological Society of London, Special Publication 172, p. 291–327.
LAMBIASE, J.J., DAMIT, A.R., SIMMONS, M.D., ABDOERRIAS, R., AND HUSSIN, A., 2003, A
depositional model and the stratigraphic development of modern and ancient tide-
dominated deltas in NW Borneo, in Sidi, F.H., Nummedal, D., Imbert, P., Darman,
H., and Posamentier, H.W., eds., Tropical Deltas of Southeast Asia; Sedimentology,
Stratigraphy, and Petroleum Geology: SEPM, Special Publication 76, p. 109–123.
MCMASTER, R.L., DE BOER, J., AND ASHRAF, A., 1970, Magnetic and seismic reflection
studies on continental shelf off Portuguese Guinea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, West
Africa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 54, p. 158–167.
12
 JSR DELTAS AND SEA-LEVEL CHANGE
MECKEL, L.D, III, AND GALLOWAY, W.E., 1996, Formation of high-frequency sequences
and their bounding surfaces: case study of the Eocene Yegua Formation, Texas Gulf
Coast, USA: Sedimentary Geology, v. 102, p. 155–186.
MELLERE, D., AND STEEL, R.J., 1995, Variability of lowstand wedges and their
distinction from forced regressive wedges in the Mesaverde Group, southeast
Wyoming: Geology, v. 23, p. 803–806.
MELLERE, D., AND STEEL, R.J., 2000, Style contrast between forced regressive and
lowstand/transgressive wedges in the Campanian of south-central Wyoming, in Hunt,
D., and Gawthorpe, R.L., eds., Sedimentary Responses to Forced Regressions:
Geological Society of London, Special Publication 172, p. 51–75.
MELLERE, D., AND STEEL, R.J., 1995, Variability of lowstand wedges and their
distinction from forced regressive wedges in the Mesaverde Group, southeast
Wyoming: Geology, v. 23, p. 803–806.
MELLERE, D., PLINK-BJÖRKLUND, P., AND STEEL, R.J., 2002, Anatomy of shelf-edge
deltas on a prograding Eocene shelf margin, Spitsbergen: Sedimentology, v. 49, p.
1181–1206.
MELLERE, D., BREDA, A., STEEL, R.J., 2003, Fluvially-incised shelf-edge deltas and
linkage to upper-slope channels (Central Tertiary Basin, Spitsbergen), in , ROBERTS,
H.H., ROSEN, N.C., FILLON, R.H., AND ANDERSON, J.B., 2003. Shelf-Margin Deltas
and Linked Downslope Petroleum Systems; Global Significance and Future
Exploration Potential, Gulf Coast Section: SEPM Foundation, 23rd Annual Research
Conference Houston, Texas, p. 231–266.
MIALL, A.D., 1997. The Geology of Stratigraphic Sequences: Berlin, Springer, 433 p.
MORTON, R.A., AND SUTER, J.R., 1996, Sequence stratigraphy and composition of Late
Quaternary shelf-margin deltas, northern Gulf of Mexico: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 80, p. 505–530.
MULDER, T., AND SYVITSKI, J.P.M., 1995, Turbidity currents generated at river mouths
during exceptional discharge to the world’s oceans: Journal of Geology, v. 103, p.
285–298.
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 1992, Retreat of the front in a prograding delta: Geology,
v. 20, p. 967–970.
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 1997, Principles of regression and transgression: the nature
of the interplay between accommodation and sediment supply: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 67, p. 994–1000.
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 2002, In defense of shelf-edge delta development during
falling and lowstand of relative sea level: Journal of Geology, v. 110, p. 421–436.
MUTO, T., AND STEEL, R.J., 2004, Autogenic response of fluvial deltas to steady sea-level
fall: Implications from flume-tank experiments: Geology, v. 32, p. 401–404.
MUTO, T., AND SWENSON, J.B., in press, Large-scale fluvial grade as a non-equilibrium
state in linked depositional systems: Theory and experiment: Journal of Geophysical
Research.
NEMEC, W., STEEL, R.J., GJELBERG, J., COLLINSON, J.D., PRESTHOLM, E.E., AND OXNEVAD,
I.E., 1988, Anatomy of collapsed and re-established delta front in Lower Cretaceous
of eastern Spitsbergen: gravitational sliding and sedimentation processes: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 72, p. 454–476.
NUMMEDAL, D., 1983, Rates and frequencies of sea-level changes: a review with
application to predict future sea level in Louisiana: Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies, Transactions, v. 33, p. 361–366.
NUMMEDAL, D., AND SUTER, J.R., 2002, Continental shelf sand ridges: genesis,
stratigraphy and petroleum significance: Gulf Coast Section: SEMP Foundation,
22nd Annual Bob F. Perkins Research Conference, 2002, p. 503–518.
ORTON, G.J., AND READING, H.G., 1993, Variability of deltaic processes in terms of
sediment supply, with particular emphasis on grain size: Sedimentology, v. 40, p.
475–512.
PLINK-BJÖRKLUND, P., AND STEEL, R.J., 2004, Initiation of turbidity currents: outcrop
evidence for Eocene hyperpycnal flow turbidites: Sedimentary Geology, v. 165, p.
29–52.
PLINK-BJÖRKLUND, P., MELLERE, D., AND STEEL, R.J., 2001, Turbidite variability and
architecture of sand-prone, deep-water slopes: Eocene clinoforms in the Central
Basin, Spitsbergen: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 71, p. 895–912.
PLINT, A.G., AND NUMMEDAL, D., 2000, The falling stage systems tract recognition and
importance in sequence stratigraphic analysis, in Hunt, D., and Gawthorpe, R.L.,
eds., Sedimentary Responses to Forced Regressions: Geological Society of London,
Special Publication 172, p. 1–17.
PORE˛BSKI, S.J., 1995, Lithofacies architecture of an incised-valley estuary: La Meseta
Formation (Eocene) of Seymour Island, Antarctic Peninsula: Studia Geologica
Polonica, v. 107, p. 7–97.
PORE˛BSKI, S.J., 2000, Shelf-valley compound fill produced by fault subsidence and
eustatic sea-level changes (Eocene La Meseta Formation, Seymour Island, Antarc-
tica): Geology, v. 28, p. 147–150.
PORE˛BSKI, S.J., AND STEEL, R.J., 2001, Delta types and sea level cycle (abstract):
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2001 Annual Convention, June 3–6,
2001, Denver, Colorado, Official Program, v. 10, A160 p.
PORE˛BSKI, S.J., AND STEEL, R.J., 2003, Shelf-margin deltas: their stratigraphic
significance and relation to deep-water sands: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 62, p.
283–326.
PORE˛BSKI, S.J., PIETSCH, K., HODIAK, R., AND STEEL, R.J., 2003, Origin and sequential
development of Upper Badenian–Sarmatian clinoforms in the Carpathian Foredeep
Basin, SE Poland: Geologica Carpathica, v. 5, p. 119–136.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND ALLEN, G.P., 1999, Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy:
Concepts and Applications: SEPM, Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology,
v. 9, 210 p.
Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:57:33
0
POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND MORRIS, W.R., 2000, Aspects of the stratal architecture of
forced regressive deposits, in Hunt, D., and Gawthorpe, R.L., eds., Sedimentary
Responses to Forced Regressions: Geological Society of London, Special Publication
172, p. 29–46.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND VAIL, P.R., 1988, Eustatic controls on clastic deposition. II.
Sequence and systems tract models, in Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Kendall,
C.G.St.C., Posamentier, H.W., Ross, C.A., and Van Wagoner, J.C., eds., Sea Level
Changes:An Integrated Approach: SEPM, Special Publication 42, p. 125–154.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., ERSKINE, R.D., AND MITCHUM, R.M, JR, 1991, Models for
submarine-fan deposition within sequence stratigraphic framework, in Weimer, P.,
and Link, M.H., eds., Seismic Facies and Sedimentary Processes of Submarine Fans
and Turbidite Systems: New York, Springer, p. 127–136.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., ALLEN, G.P., JAMES, D.P., AND TESSON, M., 1992, Forced
regressions in a sequence stratigraphic framework: concepts, examples, and
exploration significance: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin,
v. 76, p. 1687–1709.
POSTMA, G., 1990, Depositional architectures and facies of river and fan deltas, in
Colella, A., and Prior, D.B., eds., Coarse-Grained Deltas: International Association
of Sedimentologists, Special Publication 10, p. 13–27.
POSTMA, G., 1995, Causes of architectural variability in deltas, in Oti, M.N., and
Postma, G., eds., Geology of Deltas: Rotterdam, Balkema, p. 3–16.
PRATSON, L.F., AND COAKLEY, B.J., 1996, A model for the headward erosion of
submarine canyons induced by downslope eroding sediment flows: Geological Society
of America, Bulletin, v. 108, p. 225–234.
READING, H.G., AND COLLINSON, J.D., 1996, Clastic Coasts, in Reading, H.G., ed.,
Sedimentary Environments; Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy: Oxford, U.K.,
Blackwell, p. 154–231.
REINSON, G.E., 1992, Transgressive barrier island and estuarine systems, in Walker,
R.G., and James, N.P., eds., Facies Models: Response To Sea Level Change:
Geological Association of Canada, Geotext 1, p. 179–194.
RINE, J.M., TILLMAN, R.W., CULVER, S.J., AND SWIFT, D.J.P., 1991, Generation of late
Holocene sand ridges on the middle continental shelf of New Jersey, U.S.A. —
evidence for formation in a mid-shelf setting based on comparison with nearshore
ridge, in Swift, D.J.P., Oertel, G.F., Tillman, R.W., and Thorne, J.A., eds., Shelf Sand
and Sandstone Bodies: International Association of Sedimentologists, Special
Publication 14, p. 395–423.
RITCHIE, B., GAWTHORPE, R.L., AND HARDY, S., 2004, Three-dimensional numerical
modelling of deltaic depositional sequences 1: influence of the rate and magnitude of
sea-level change: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 74, p. 203–220.
RODRIGUEZ, A.B., HAMILTON, M.D., AND ANDERSON, J.B., 2000, Facies and evolution of
the modern Brazos Delta, Texas; wave versus flood influence: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 70, p. 283–295.
RODRIGUEZ, A.B., FASSELL, M.L., AND ANDERSON, J.B., 2001, Variations in shoreface
progradation and ravinement along the Texas coast, Gulf of Mexico: Sedimentology,
v. 48, p. 837–853.
SCHELLPEPER, M., 2000. Basin analysis of the Central Tertiary Basin and sequence
stratigraphy of an Eocene clinoform in the Battfjellet Formation, Spitsbergen, [MS
thesis]: Laramie, University of Wyoming, 63 p.
SIDI, F.H., NUMMEDAL, D., IMBERT, P., DARMAN, H., and POSAMENTIER, H.W., eds.,
Tropical Deltas of Southeast Asia; Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, and Petroleum
Geology: SEPM, Special Publication 76, 276 p.
STEEL, R.J., CRABAUGH, J., SCHELLPEPER, M., MELLERE, D., PLINK-BJÖRKLUND, P.,
DEIBERT, J., AND LOESETH, T., 2000, Deltas versus rivers on the shelf edge: their relative
contributions to the growth of shelf margins and basin-floor fans (Barremian and
Eocene, Spitsbergen): Gulf Coast Section: SEPM Foundation, 20th Annual Research
Conference, Deep-Water Reservoirs of the World, Houston, Texas, p. 981–1009.
STEEL, R.J., PORE˛BSKI, S.J., MELLERE, D., SCHELLPEPER, M., AND PLINK-BJÖRKLUND, P.,
2003, Shelf-edge delta types and their sequence-stratigraphic relationships, in Roberts,
H., Rose, N., Fillon, R.H., and Anderson, J.B., eds., Shelf Margin Deltas and Linked
Down Slope Petroleum Systems: Global Significance and Future Exploration
Potential:: Gulf Coast Section, SEPM Foundation, 23rd Annual Research Conference
Houston, Texas, p. 205–230.
STEEL, R.J., CRABAUGH, J., DALRYMPLE, R.J., MARTINSEN, R., PORE˛BSKI, S.J., AND
YOSHIDA, S., 2004. Isolate basinal sandbodies of the Western Interior Basin revisited
(abstract): American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Annual Convention:
Dallas, Texas, A132 p.
SUTER, J.R., 1999. Thirty years of evolution in deltaic facies models (abstract): American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Annual Meeting: San Antonio, Texas, A136 p.
SUTER, J.R., AND BERRYHILL, H.L., JR., 1985, Late Quaternary shelf-margin deltas,
northwest Gulf of Mexico: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin,
v. 69, p. 77–91.
SUTER, J.R., BERRYHILL, H.L., JR., AND PENLAND, S., 1987, Late Quaternary sea-level
fluctuations and depositional sequences, southwest Louisiana continental shelf, in
Nummedal, D., Pilkey, O.H., and Howard, J.D., eds., Sea-Level Fluctuation and
Coastal Evolution: SEPM, Special Publication 41, p. 199–219.
SWIFT, D.J. P, AND THORNE, J.A., 1991, Sedimentation on continental margins,
I:a general model for shelf sedimentation, in Swift, D.J.P., Oertel, G.F., Tillman,
R.W., and Thorne, J.A., eds., Shelf Sand and Sandstone Bodies: International
Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication 14, p. 3–31.
SWIFT, D.J.P., PHILLIPS, S., AND THORNE, J.A., 1991, Sedimentation on continental
margins, IV: lithofacies and depositional systems, in Swift, D.J.P., Oertel, G.F.,
Tillman, R.W., and Thorne, J.A., eds., Shelf Sand and Sandstone Bodies:
International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication 14, p. 89–152.
13
 0 S.J. PORE˛BSKI AND R.J. STEEL
SYDOW, J., AND ROBERTS, H.H., 1994, Stratigraphic framework of a late Pleistocene
shelf-edge delta, northeast Gulf of Mexico: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Bulletin, v. 78, p. 1276–1312.
TA, T.K.O., NGUYEN, V.L., TATEISHI, M., KOBAYASHI, I., SAITO, Y., AND NAKAMURA, T.,
2002, Sediment facies and late Holocene progradation of the Mekong River Delta in
Bentre Province, southern Vietnam: an example of evolution from a tide-dominated
to a tide- and wave-dominated delta: Sedimentary Geology, v. 152, p. 313–325.
TANABE, S., TA, T.K.O., NGUYEN, V.L., TATEISHI, M., KOBAYASHI, I., AND SAITO, Y.,
2003, Delta evolution model inferred from the Holocene Mekong Delta, southern
Vietnam, in Sidi, F.H., Nummedal, D., Imbert, P., Darman, H., and Posamentier,
H.W., eds., Tropical Deltas of Southeast Asia; Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, and
Petroleum Geology: SEPM, Special Publication 76, p. 175–188.
TESSON, M., POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND GENSOUS, B., 2000, Stratigraphic organization of
late Pleistocene deposits of the western part of the Golfe du Lion Shelf (Langedoc
Shelf), western Mediterranean Sea, using high-resolution seismic and core data:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 84, p. 119–150.
THORNE, J.A., AND SWIFT, D.J.P., 1991, Sedimentation in continental margins
VI:a regime model for depositional sequences, their component systems tracts, and
bounding surfaces, in Swift, D.J.P., Oertel, G.F., Tillman, R.W., and Thorne, J.A.,
eds., Shelf Sand and Sandstone Bodies: International Association of Sedimentologists,
Special Publication 14, p. 189–255.
VAIL, P.R., 1987, Seismic stratigraphy interpretation procedure, in Bally, B., ed., Seismic
Stratigraphic Atlas: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Geology Studies,
no. 27, p. 1–10.
VAIL, P.R., HARDENBOL, J., AND TODD, R.G., 1984, Jurassic unconformities,
chronostratigraphy and sea-level changes from seismic stratigraphy and biostratig-
raphy, in Schlee, J.S., ed., Interregional Unconformities and Hydrocarbon Accumu-
lation: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 36, p. 129–144.
Journal of Sedimentary Research sedp-76-02-06.3d 30/11/05 07:57:34
View publication stats
JSR
VAN WAGONER, J.C., MITCHUM, R.M., CAMPION, K.M., AND RAHMANI, V.D., 1990.
Silicilastic Sequence Stratigraphy in Well Logs, Cores, and Outcrops: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Methods in Exploration Series, 7, 155 p.
WIGNALL, P.B., AND BEST, J.L., 2004, Sedimentology and kinematics of a large,
retrogressive growth-fault system in Upper Carboniferous deltaic sediments, western
Ireland: Sedimentology, v. 52, p. 1343–1358.
WILLIS, B.J., AND GABEL, S., 2001, Sharp-based, tide-dominated deltas of the Sego
Sandstone, Book Cliffs, Utah, USA: Sedimentology, v. 48, p. 479–506.
WILLIS, B.J., BHATTACHARYA, J.B., GABEL, S.L., AND WHITE, C.D., 1999, Architecture of
a tide-influenced delta in the Frontier Formation of Central Wyoming, USA:
Sedimentology, v. 46, p. 667–688.
WINKER, C.D., 1982, Cenozoic shelf margins, northwestern Gulf of Mexico, in Morad,
M.A., et al. (1982). Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies: Transactions,
v. 32, p. 427–448.
WINKER, C.D., AND EDWARDS, M.B., 1983, Unstable progradational clastic shelf
margins, in Stanley, D.J., and Moore, G.T., eds., The Shelfbreak, Critical Interface on
Continental Margins: SEPM, Special Publication 33, p. 139–157.
XUE, L., AND GALLOWAY, W.E., 1995, High-resolution depositional framework of the
Paleocene Middle Wilcox strata, Texas coastal plain: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 79, p. 205–230.
YOO, D.G., AND PARK, S.C., 2000, High-resolution seismic study as a tool for sequence
stratigraphic evidence of high-frequency sea-level changes: latest Pleistocene–
Holocene example from the Korea Strait: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 70,
p. 296–307.
Received 2 February 2005; accepted 8 September 2005.
14