Discussion

Towards the standardization of sequence stratigraphy: Is the parasequence concept

to be redened or abandoned?
Massimo Zecchin
Istituto Nazionale di Oceanograa e di Geosica SperimentaleOGS, Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/c, 34010 Sgonico (TS), Italy
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 14 December 2009
Accepted 22 March 2010
Available online 31 March 2010
Keywords:
parasequence
cyclicity
sequence stratigraphy
1. Denitions
After more than thirty years from the introduction of the
sequence-stratigraphic concepts (Payton, 1977), and their renement
in the classic SEPM special publication 42 (Wilgus et al., 1988),
sequence stratigraphy has become more mature and nowrepresents a
widely used tool to study sedimentary successions. More recently,
review publications (e.g. Miall, 1997; Posamentier and Allen, 1999;
Catuneanu, 2006; Catuneanu et al., 2009) have put order among the
various sequence-stratigraphic models and attempted to standardize
the terminology.
Among the historical issues raised by sequence-stratigraphic
concepts and terminology, one deals with the high-frequency cycles
that compose sequences, which have been named parasequences. A
parasequence was dened as a relatively conformable succession of
genetically related beds or bedsets bounded by marine ooding
surfaces and their correlative surfaces... Parasequences are prograda-
tional and therefore the beds within parasequences shoal upward
(Van Wagoner et al., 1987, 1988, 1990). The ooding surface was
dened as a surface across which there is an abrupt shift of facies that
may indicate an increase in water depth or a decrease in sediment
supply (Van Wagoner et al., 1988, 1990). Parasequences may be
stacked to form progradational, aggradational and retrogradational
parasequence sets, which typify systems tracts composing a sequence
(Van Wagoner et al., 1990), the latter being dened as a stratigraphic
unit composed of a relatively conformable succession of genetically
related strata and bounded at its top and base by unconformities or
their correlative conformities (Mitchum, 1977).
2. Problems with the parasequence denition and its usage
Despite its simple and apparently clear denition, the parase-
quence concept was soon criticized by several researchers, who
highlighted inconsistencies in the denition itself and in its usage.
Arnott (1995) noted that the parasequence denition assumes that
transgressive deposits are absent or insignicant, whereas they can be
well represented and even dominant in elementary cycles composing
sequences, as evidenced for example by Zecchin (2007). Walker
(1992) stated that parasequences and facies successions ... are
essentially the same thing, except that the concept of facies succession
is broader, while Miall (1997) underlined that shallowing-upward
successions identical to those forming parasequences may be
produced also by autocyclic processes (delta switching) unrelated to
relative sea-level changes. Furthermore, Catuneanu (2002) dened
the parasequence concept as equivocal and questionable, since it may
coincide with that of a transgressiveregressive (TR) sequence
(Embry and Johannessen, 1992) if transgressive deposits are present,
or of a genetic stratigraphic sequence (Galloway, 1989) if transgres-
sive deposits are absent. This equivocal concept is further highlighted
by the nature of the bounding surfaces, i.e. the ooding surfaces, since
they may coincide case by case with ravinement, transgressive and
maximum ooding surfaces, or with simple facies contacts (Catu-
neanu, 2002).
The usage of the parasequence termhas increased confusion in its
meaning, as authors commonly limited it to shallow-marine cycles
developed without intervening relative sea-level falls, while others
extended the termto successions recording full cycles of relative sea-
level change or even in deep-water and alluvial settings. Following
the most common usage of the term, along a basin margin that
recorded active tectonics and eustatic variations it is possible to
recognize classical parasequences bounded by ooding surfaces,
where the subsidence rate suppressed relative sea-level falls, which
pass laterally into sequences recording full cycles of relative sea-level
change and showing systems tract differentiation (e.g. Ito et al.,
1999). This means that parasequences and sequences may be even
objects of the same rank that differ only in their bounding surfaces
and internal architecture, and they may pass laterally each other.
Such situation, therefore, underlines another equivocal aspect
inherent in the parasequence concept. Nummedal et al. (1993)
already considered parasequences and sequences simply as two
different ways to subdivide the stratigraphic record: the former are
bounded by surfaces of deepening and the latter by surfaces of
shallowing.
Earth-Science Reviews 102 (2010) 117119
E-mail address: mzecchin@ogs.trieste.it.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Earth-Science Reviews
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ ear sci r ev
0012-8252/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.03.004
3. Possible solutions: a redenition of the concept or another
terminology is advisable?
The inconsistencies in the parasequence denition and the
confusion generated by its usage, have induced some authors to
suggest that this term should be avoided (Walker, 1992; Catuneanu,
2006; Zecchin, 2007). This is not a simple problem of terminology, as
the parasequence denition is referred to as a precise architecture and
implies particular generating processes.
In their recent review aimed to standardize sequence stratigraphy,
Catuneanu et al. (2009) re-proposed the parasequence concept, and
resumed previous considerations by Posamentier and Allen (1999),
who recommended to use the term parasequence only to designate
shallowing-upward successions bounded by ooding surfaces and
developed in marine (or lacustrine) basin-margin settings. Moreover,
these authors stated that the mappability of parasequences only
within coastal and shallow-water systems marks a difference
between the concept of sequence (which may include the entire
array of depositional systems across a sedimentary basin) and
parasequence (Catuneanu et al., 2009). However, they did not discuss
the problemof the equivocal meaning of ooding surface, the variable
architecture exhibited by individual cycles composing larger-scale
sequences, and that parasequences and sequences of the same rank
may be laterally equivalent.
Thus, the signicance of the parasequence concept remains limited
and still it is referred to only one kind of cycle architecture and
depositional setting. As the sedimentary record provide evidence of a
noticeable variability of shallow-marine elementary cycles, which
may be composed of successions showing predominant shallowing-
or deepening-upward trends, or a deepening- to shallowing-upward
trend (e.g. Kidwell, 1997; Saul et al., 1999; Massari et al., 2002; Di
Celma et al., 2005; Zecchin, 2005; Di Celma and Cantalamessa, 2007;
Nalin et al., 2007; Spence and Tucker, 2007; Zecchin, 2007; Zecchin et
al., 2009), and may be bounded by erosional or non-erosional
surfaces, the usage of the term parasequence, in its current sense, is
not very useful because of its restricted meaning.
Spence and Tucker (2007) proposed a redenition of the
parasequence concept for peritidal carbonates, extending the term
to all meter-scale cycles regardless if they are bounded or not by
ooding surfaces. However, this term is not expandable to all
elementary cycles irrespective of their anatomy, as several of them
show features typical of a sequence. Moreover, the usage of the term
parasequence with a different or broader meaning than the original
denition, would favor further confusion.
For these reasons, my opinion is that the term parasequence
should be avoided, or at least not standardized in a sequence-
stratigraphic framework. Catuneanu (2002, 2006) suggested to
replace this term with others already existing, such as TR sequence,
genetic sequence, etc., depending on the specic case. This approach is
clearly reasonable, although it may not be very practical if several
kinds of cycle features and bounding surfaces are recognizable
vertically and/or horizontally in a sedimentary succession.
The usage of a generic, descriptive terminology, rather than a
name that is tied to a specic architecture and depositional
environment such as parasequence, can be effective to describe cyclic
successions. This is particularly useful where cycles are not obviously
classiable as sequences, and/or where various kinds of cycle
architectures and bounding surfaces are present. For example, Walker
(1992) used the termfacies succession instead of parasequence, as the
former may be extended to any depositional environment and is not
restricted to shallow-marine settings. Zecchin (2007) proposed the
term small-scale cycle to designate the cyclicity composing larger-
scale sequences. Transgressiveregressive small-scale cycles have a
scale of meters to decameters, are stacked to form systems tracts or
large-scale trends, and may be further classied following their kind
of symmetry (Zecchin, 2007). Another, more known term is
cyclothem, which originally referred to upper Paleozoic cyclic
successions of North America (Weller, 1930; Wanless and Shepard,
1936), and was recently adopted for example by Abbott and Carter
(1994) and Massari et al. (2002) for Pleistocene cycles composed of
marine to continental sediments.
The advantages of a generic terminology consist in its indepen-
dence from temporal scales, genetic mechanisms, and specic stratal
architectures, bounding surfaces and depositional settings. Moreover,
generic terms such as small-scale cycle do not preclude a more
specic or genetic designation, as they at the same time may
correspond to sequences if their diagnostic features are found. A
generic terminology does not necessarily have to be standardized.
Present considerations, therefore, suggest avoiding the use of
terms that imply inconsistencies and problems notwithstanding their
historical adoption, and may contribute to develop a more mature and
widely accepted nomenclature that satises the full evidence fromthe
stratigraphic record.
Acknowledgments
I thank Maurice Tucker (Durham University) and the Editor
Andrew Miall for their constructive comments.
References
Abbott, S.T., Carter, R.M., 1994. The sequence architecture of mid-Pleistocene (c.1.1.
0.4 Ma) cyclothems from New Zealand: facies development during a period of
orbital control on sea-level cyclicity. In: De Boer, P.L., Smith, D.G. (Eds.), Orbital
Forcing and Cyclic Sequences: International Association of Sedimentologists
Special Publication, vol. 19, pp. 367394.
Arnott, R.W.C., 1995. The parasequence denitionare transgressive deposits inade-
quately addressed? Journal of Sedimentary Research B65, 16.
Catuneanu, O., 2002. Sequence stratigraphy of clastic systems: concepts, merits, and
pitfalls. Journal of African Earth Sciences 35, 143.
Catuneanu, O., 2006. Principles of Sequence Stratigraphy. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 386.
Catuneanu, O., Abreu, V., Bhattacharya, J.P., Blum, M.D., Dalrymple, R.W., Eriksson, P.G.,
Fielding, C.R., Fisher, W.L., Galloway, W.E., Gibling, M.R., Giles, K.A., Holbrook, J.M.,
Jordan, R., Kendall, C.G., St, C., Macurda, B., Martinsen, O.J., Miall, A.D., Neal, J.E.,
Nummedal, D., Pomar, L., Posamentier, H.W., Pratt, B.R., Sarg, J.F., Shanley, K.W.,
Steel, R.J., Strasser, A., Tucker, M.E., Winker, C., 2009. Toward the standardization of
sequence stratigraphy. Earth-Science Reviews 92, 133.
Di Celma, C., Cantalamessa, G., 2007. Sedimentology and high-frequency sequence
stratigraphy of a forearc extensional basin: the Miocene Caleta Herradura
Formation, Mejillones Peninsula, northern Chile. Sedimentary Geology 198, 2952.
Di Celma, C., Ragaini, L., Cantalamessa, G., Landini, W., 2005. Basin physiography and
tectonic inuence on the sequence architecture and stacking pattern: Pleistocene
succession of the Canoa Basin (central Ecuador). Geological Society of America
Bulletin 117, 12261241.
Embry, A.F., Johannessen, E.P., 1992. TR sequence stratigraphy, facies analysis and
reservoir distribution in the uppermost TriassicLower Jurassic succession, western
Sverdrup Basin, Arctic Canada. In: Vorren, T.O., Bergsager, E., Dahl-Stamnes, O.A.,
Holter, E., Johansen, B., Lie, E., Lund, T.B. (Eds.), Arctic Geology and Petroleum
Potential: NorwegianPetroleumSociety(NPF) Special Publication, vol. 2, pp. 121146.
Galloway, W.E., 1989. Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin analysis I: architecture
and genesis of ooding-surface bounded depositional units. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 73, 125142.
Ito, M., Nishikawa, T., Sugimoto, H., 1999. Tectonic control of high-frequency
depositional sequences with duration shorter than Milankovitch cyclicity: an
example from the Pleistocene paleo-Tokyo Bay, Japan. Geology 27, 763766.
Kidwell, S.M., 1997. Anatomy of extremely thin marine sequences landward of a
passive-margin hinge zone: Neogene Calvert Cliffs succession, Maryland, U.S.A.
Journal of Sedimentary Research 67, 322340.
Massari, F., Rio, D., Sgavetti, M., Prosser, G., D'alessandro, A., Asioli, A., Capraro, L.,
Fornaciari, E., Tateo, F., 2002. Interplay between tectonics and glacio-eustasy:
Pleistocene succession of the Crotone basin, Calabria (southern Italy). Geological
Society of America Bulletin 114, 11831209.
Miall, A.D., 1997. The Geology of Stratigraphic Sequences. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 433.
Mitchum Jr., R.M., 1977. Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, part 11:
glossary of terms used in seismic stratigraphy. In: Payton, C.E. (Ed.), Seismic
StratigraphyApplications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: Memoir, vol. 26. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, pp. 205212.
Nalin, R., Massari, F., Zecchin, M., 2007. Superimposed cycles of composite marine
terraces: the example of Cutro terrace (Calabria, Southern Italy). Journal of
Sedimentary Research 77, 340354.
Nummedal, D., Riley, G.W., Templet, P.L., 1993. High-resolution sequence architecture:
a chronostratigraphic model based on equilibrium prole studies. In: Posamentier,
H.W., Summerhayes, C.P., Haq, B.U., Allen, G.P. (Eds.), Sequence Stratigraphy and
Facies Associations: International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publica-
tion, vol. 18, pp. 5568.
118 M. Zecchin / Earth-Science Reviews 102 (2010) 117119
Payton, C.E. (Ed.), 1977. Seismic stratigraphy: applications to hydrocarbon exploration:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, 26, p. 516.
Posamentier, H.W., Allen, G.P., 1999. Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphyconcepts and
applications. SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology 7, 1210.
Saul, G., Naish, T.R., Abbott, S.T., Carter, R.M., 1999. Sedimentary cyclicity in the marine
PliocenePleistocene of the Wanganui basin (New Zealand): sequence strati-
graphic motifs characteristic of the past 2.5 m.y. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 111, 524537.
Spence, G.H., Tucker, M.A., 2007. A proposed integrated multi-signature model for
peritidal cycles in carbonates. Journal of Sedimentary Research 77, 797808.
Van Wagoner, J.C., Mitchum, R.M., Posamentier, H.W., Vail, P.R., 1987. Seismic
stratigraphy interpretation using sequence stratigraphy, part 2: key denitions of
sequence stratigraphy. In: Bally, A.W. (Ed.), Atlas of Seismic Stratigraphy: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Stud. Geol., vol. 27, pp. 1114.
Van Wagoner, J.C., Posamentier, H.W., Mitchum, R.M., Vail, P.R., Sarg, J.F., Loutit, T.S.,
Hardenbol, J., 1988. An overview of the fundamentals of sequence stratigraphy and
key denitions. In: Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Kendall, C.G.St.C., Posamentier, H.W.,
Ross, C.A., Van Wagoner, J.C. (Eds.), Sea-Level Changes: An Integrated Approach:
SEPM Special Publication, vol. 42, pp. 3945.
Van Wagoner, J.C., Mitchum, R.M., Campion, K.M., Rahmanian, V.D., 1990. Siliciclastic
sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores, and outcrops. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Methods in Exploration, vol. 7, p. 55.
Wanless, H.R., Shepard, E.P., 1936. Sea Level and climatic changes related to Late
Paleozoic cycles. Geological Society of America Bulletin 47, 11771206.
Walker, R.G., 1992. Facies, facies models and modern stratigraphic concepts. In: Walker,
R.G., James, N.P. (Eds.), Facies Models: Response to Sea Level Change. Geological
Association of Canada, pp. 114.
Weller, J.M., 1930. Cyclic sedimentation of the Pennsylvanian Period and its
signicance. Journal of Geology 38, 97135.
Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Kendall, C.G.St.C., Posamentier, H.W., Ross, C.A., Van
Wagoner, J.C. (Eds.), 1988. Sea-Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM
Special Publication, vol. 42, p. 407.
Zecchin, M., 2005. Relationships between fault-controlled subsidence and preservation
of shallow-marine small-scale cycles: example from the lower Pliocene of the
Crotone Basin (southern Italy). Journal of Sedimentary Research 75, 300312.
Zecchin, M., 2007. The architectural variability of small-scale cycles in shelf and ramp
clastic systems: the controlling factors. Earth-Science Reviews 84, 2155.
Zecchin, M., Civile, D., Caffau, M., Roda, C., 2009. Facies and cycle architecture of a
Pleistocene marine terrace (Crotone, southern Italy): a sedimentary response to
late Quaternary, high-frequency glacio-eustatic changes. Sedimentary Geology
216, 138157.
119 M. Zecchin / Earth-Science Reviews 102 (2010) 117119