THREE-DIMENSIONAL NUMERICAL MODELING OF DELTAIC DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCES 1:
INFLUENCE OF THE RATE AND MAGNITUDE OF SEA-LEVEL CHANGE
BRYAN D. RITCHIE,* ROB L. GAWTHORPE, AND STUART HARDY**
Basin and Stratigraphic Studies Group, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
e-mail: Rob.Gawthorpe@man.ac.uk
ABSTRACT: A three-dimensional numerical model of deltaic deposition
is used to investigate the influence of sea-level changes on delta devel-
opment and sequence variability. Results illustrate the three-dimen-
sional morphology of key stratal surfaces and architecture of stratal
units (systems tracts) and highlight the importance of the rate and
magnitude of sea-level change in controlling the evolution of deltaic
depositional sequences. High rates of sea-level fall lead to the devel-
opment of a limited number of major incised channels that focus sed-
iment supply to a few elongate, finger-like forced regressive lobes sep-
arated by large areas of nondeposition. In contrast, low rates of sea-
level fall cause only minor channel incision, which occurs late during
sea-level fall. As a result, sediment is supplied more uniformly to the
delta front, leading to an attached, laterally continuous forced regres-
sive apron. During lowstand and subsequent sea-level rise, the delta
morphology and internal geometry are strongly controlled by the rate
of rise. High rates lead to: i) poorly developed lowstand wedges that
are drowned early, ii) high-magnitude transgressions, and iii) the late
development of maximum flooding surfaces. The stratigraphy devel-
oped during sea-level rise is also strongly influenced by the incised-
valley system created during the preceding sea-level fall. If deep, major
valleys developed that captured most of the sediment supply, the re-
sultant stratigraphy has well developed lowstand wedges that are flood-
ed relatively late during sea-level rise. Even within a single delta, sys-
tems tracts and key stratal surfaces show three-dimensional variability
and two-dimensional sections often lack significant elements of the stra-
tigraphy. As a result, analysis of two-dimensional sections can often
lead to miscorrelation and erroneous interpretations of the controlling
processes.
INTRODUCTION
Existing sequence stratigraphic models (e.g., Vail et al. 1977; Jervey
1988; Posamentier et al. 1988; Posamentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier et
al. 1992b; Hunt and Tucker 1992; Hunt and Gawthorpe 2000) are largely
two-dimensional, dip-oriented, and dominated by global and regional
changes in relative sea-level/accommodation (Fig. 1). Although these mod-
els give considerable insight into the effects of eustatic change, sediment
supply, and tectonics on delta morphology and stacking patterns, a number
of limitations are apparent with the application of two-dimensional models
to three-dimensional sedimentary basin fills (e.g., Helland-Hansen and
Gjelberg 1994; Martinsen and Helland-Hansen 1995; Poulsen et al. 1998).
Many sedimentological and tectonic processes vary in three dimensions
and may result in notable local variability in accommodation space, sedi-
ment supply, and basin physiography (e.g., Posamentier and Allen 1993;
Wehr 1993; Schlager 1993; Gawthorpe et al. 1994; Helland-Hansen and
* Present address: BP Exploration, Sunbury on Thames, Middlesex TW16 7LN,
United Kingdom
** Present address: ICREA (Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats)
and GGAC, Facultat de Geologia, Universitat de Barcelona, C/ Martı́ i Franquès
s/n, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
JOURNAL OF SEDIMENTARY RESEARCH, VOL. 74, NO. 2, MARCH, 2004, P. 203–220
Copyright q 2004, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/04/074-203/$03.00
Gjelberg 1994; Martinsen and Helland-Hansen 1995; Church and Gaw-
thorpe 1997; Gawthorpe et al. 1997). Furthermore, key stratigraphic ele-
ments such as incised channels and delta lobes cannot be fully represented
in two-dimensional models. These local controls and key stratigraphic el-
ements can produce marked three-dimensional variability during sequence
evolution, especially in facies stacking patterns and stratal geometry (e.g.,
Posamentier and Allen 1993; Wehr 1993; Gawthorpe et al. 1994).
Although various local controls on sequence development have been
recognized, such as subsidence and sediment supply, few studies to date
have attempted to examine the three-dimensional variability of sequences
and address the fundamental controls on sequence development in a quan-
titative way. This is largely because it is difficult to isolate and quantify
the controlling processes from the stratigraphic record. Two methods which
allow quantitative testing of sequence stratigraphic models are physical
analogue modeling developed in large flume tanks (e.g., Schumm et al.
1987; Wood et al. 1993a,b; Koss et al. 1994; Milana 1998; Heller et al.
2001; van Heijst et al. 2001) and numerical modeling (e.g., Helland-Hansen
et al. 1989; Muto and Steel 1992; Hardy and Gawthorpe 1998; Ritchie et
al. 1999).
Quantitative forward numerical modeling has been used to test strati-
graphic conceptual models and investigate the controls on stratigraphic de-
velopment, but published results have been based predominantly on two-
dimensional approaches (e.g., Kenyon and Turcotte 1985; Jervey 1988;
Helland-Hansen et al. 1989; Hardy and Waltham 1992; Hardy et al. 1994;
Bowman and Vail 1999; Steckler 1999). Therefore they cannot fully sim-
ulate the three-dimensional form of depositional systems. Recently several
groups have developed three-dimensional stratigraphic models (e.g., Hardy
and Gawthorpe 1998; Driscoll and Karner 1999; Granjeon and Joseph
1999; Quiquerez et al. 2000). However, these models do not include sed-
imentary processes such as channel incision and lobe formation (Ritchie et
al. 1999) that are important in the evolution of many deltaic depositional
sequences.
We adopt the numerical model of Ritchie et al. (1999) to investigate
some of the major global and local controls on the three-dimensional evo-
lution of deltaic depositional sequences (Fig. 2A). In this paper we build
on the general results of Ritchie et al. (1999) by focusing on the rate and
magnitude of sea-level (or lake-level) change and the resultant geometry,
evolution, and variability of depositional sequences and their component
stratal surfaces (e.g., sequence boundaries and flooding surfaces) and stratal
units (systems tracts). We model a simple system comprising a single drain-
age basin outlet supplying sediment at a constant rate to a ramp-like basin
margin subject to sinusoidal sea-level cycles of different amplitude, and to
asymmetric sea-level cycles (Fig. 2B, C). In a companion paper (Ritchie
et al. 2004), we investigate the impact of local controls such as sediment
supply, fault-controlled subsidence and basin-margin physiography on se-
quence evolution.
NUMERICAL MODEL
Our three-dimensional numerical model is designed to characterize the
essential features of coarse-grained deltaic depositional systems in order to
KMWin
204 B.D. RITCHIE ET AL.
FIG. 1.—Idealized sequence stratigraphic model illustrating the four systems-tract divisions used in this paper (modified after Hunt and Tucker 1992). A) Dip section
highlighting systems tracts and key stratal surfaces. B) Simplified relative sea-level interpretation. Adapted from Gawthorpe et al. (2000).
provide a better understanding of the relationships between various external
controls on coarse-grained deltaic deposition over time intervals of 10 2 to
106 years. The modeling approach does not attempt to simulate the detailed
physics of every process involved in erosion, transport, and deposition on
a daily or monthly timescale. Rather, the model simulates the essential
elements (over timescales of hundreds of years) of: i) transport of coarse-
grained sediment from a drainage-basin outlet to a depositional basin, ii)
fluvial incision along sediment transport pathways, iii) deltaic deposition,
and iv) submarine slope failure.
In the model, the Earth’s surface is represented by a grid of cells, with
the cell size, here 40 m by 40 m, appropriate to the scale of the processes
being modeled (Ritchie et al. 1999). The temporal evolution of the model
involves updating, at each time step (in this case every 20 yr), the height
of the cells as a result of erosional or depositional processes. The choice
of a time step of 20 years is driven by stability constraints of the erosional
and depositional algorithms used. In the following section we outline the
key elements of the modeling approach; for a full mathematical and al-
gorithmic description of the model, the reader is referred to Ritchie et al.
(1999).
A combined random-walk/steepest-descent algorithm is used to simulate
sediment delivery from a drainage-basin outlet to the depositional shoreline.
A volume of sediment is transported from an input cell (a drainage-basin
outlet) to open water (a marine basin or lake) using either a random-walk
algorithm where the topographic surface is subhorizontal (, 0.58), or a
steepest-descent algorithm where the surface is steeper than a threshold
value (0.58). Upon arrival at open water, the transported sediment is de-
posited in the available accommodation space (see Hardy and Gawthorpe
1998). A nonlinear (threshold) three-dimensional diffusion equation is used
to model downslope sediment movement (e.g., slumping, avalanching etc.)
when delta foresets exceed a critical slope angle. The modification of the
delta front by tide and wave processes is not included in the model.
A fundamental feature of sequence stratigraphic models is the develop-
ment of incised valleys during sea-level fall. Although there are a number
of factors that control fluvial incision (e.g., stream power, bedrock lithol-
ogy, rate of sea-level change etc.), a first-order control on channel incision
is thought to be slope change (e.g., Posamentier et al. 1992b; Schumm
1993; Wescott 1993; Leeder and Stewart 1996). Therefore we model chan-
nel incision as a simple advective process that is dependent on local slope
and an advective erosion-rate constant; the model does not take into ac-
count discharge variations along transport pathways (channels). Incision
thus occurs along transport pathways where the slope is greater than an
imposed equilibrium slope (representing the equilibrium profile of a fluvial
channel). Thus, channels are initiated and cut back headwards from convex-
up breaks of slope where the gradient is above this equilibrium value (e.g.,
exposed delta-top to delta-front slope break) in a manner similar to natural
channels (Posamentier et al. 1992a; Posamentier et al. 1992b; Wood et al.
1993a; Wood et al. 1993b; Leeder and Stewart 1996). When the sediment
package reaches the shoreline it thus includes the initial sediment supply
and any eroded material collected on its transport path.
The initial basin physiography is a simple 28 basinward-dipping ramp
with one sediment source located in the center of the landward edge of the
model providing a constant sediment supply of 1000 m3 /yr throughout the
model run (Fig. 2B). This source delivers a total sediment volume of 1 3
108 m3 over the 100 kyr model run. The assumption of constant sediment
KMWin
SEA-LEVEL CONTROL ON DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCES 205

FIG. 2.—A) Diagrammatic illustration of the

main controls on deltaic depositional sequences
investigated in this and the companion paper
(Ritchie et al. 2004). B) Schematic illustration of
the sea-level delta model showing sediment input
point, initial sea-level position, and ramp-like
physiography. C) Sea-level curves used to
investigate the influence of sea level on sequence
development. See text for other model
parameters.

KMWin
206 B.D. RITCHIE ET AL.

FIG. 3.—Sequential evolution of the 25 m amplitude sinusoidal sea-level reference model at intervals of 12.5 kyr. Left-hand side shows oblique view of the delta
morphology, and right-hand side shows isopach for previous 12.5 kyr (same view as morphology). Note the delayed development of incised channels following the start
of sea-level fall, their evolution, and associated growth of forced regressive lobes (X, Y, Z). Vertical exaggeration 2:1.

KMWin
SEA-LEVEL CONTROL ON DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCES 207

FIG. 3. Continued

KMWin
208 B.D. RITCHIE ET AL.

FIG. 4.—Sequential development of the

reference model shown in Figure 3 expressed in
a representative dip section located 600 m along
strike from the sediment input point. Evolution
of the delta is presented every 25 kyr, with
surfaces recorded every 12.5 kyr. Note
downstepping deltaic wedges and updip erosion
during sea-level fall, and normal regression
followed by transgression during post-lowstand
sea-level rise. Vertical exaggeration 3:1.

supply neglects likely temporal variations in sediment supply due to sea-
sonal changes in runoff, or longer-term variations that may be caused by
climate change over the 100 kyr run time (e.g., Leeder et al. 1998). Al-
though clearly a simplification, this allows investigation of the sensitivity
of coarse-grained delta stratigraphy solely due to variations in the rate and
magnitude of sea-level change. Results of the interplay of cyclic sea-level
change and temporal variations in sediment supply will be presented else-
where.
The threshold gradient used to determine whether the random-walk or
steepest-descent algorithm is used for sediment transport is 0.58, with dis-
tributary channels having an imposed grade of 1.58, typical of coarse-
grained delta systems (e.g., Postma 1990). When distributary channels are
out of grade, erosion is modeled as being proportional to local slope using
an advective erosion-rate constant of 0.2 m/kyr. The importance of varia-
tion in the advective rate constant and its effect on delta morphology has
been investigated by Ritchie et al. (1999), and the value used here lies in
the in the middle of the range of values investigated by those authors.
Submarine slope failure is considered to occur at angles greater than 108,
a foreset inclination commonly found in natural coarse-grained deltas (Ne-
mec 1990), and is modeled using a diffusion coefficient of 4.0 m 2 /yr.
We specifically investigate the three-dimensional stratigraphic evolution
of coarse-grained deltas during a cycle of sea-level (or lake-level) change.
The sea-level curves cover a range of rates and magnitudes of sea-level
variation likely to be experienced by natural systems (e.g., Miall 1997).
Cycles of sea-level change are based on a sinusoid of 100 kyr period, with
or without a superimposed linear rise or fall (Fig. 2C). This type of ap-
proach has been used in other numerical models (e.g., Jervey 1988; Hardy
and Waltham 1992; Levell and Leu 1993; Cross and Lessenger 1998; Har-
dy and Gawthorpe 1998; Steckler 1999). Different sea-level amplitudes
(12.5 m, 25 m, and 50 m; Fig. 2C) reflect a range of natural amplitudes of
eustatic change that can occur depending on global climate, and reflect
icehouse and greenhouse conditions (e.g., Pitman and Golovchenko 1983;
Haq et al. 1988). Addition of a linear fall or rise to the sinusoidal sea-level
curve yields more complex sea-level changes. The resulting asymmetric

FIG. 5.—Strike sections showing final stratal geometry of the reference model shown in Figure 3. A) Proximal strike section located at initial shoreline position. B)
Distal strike section located 600 m downdip of Part A. Surfaces are recorded every 12.5 kyr. Note complex along-strike variation in stratal geometry in distal section (B)
due to the development of delta lobes during sea-level fall. Vertical exaggeration 3:1.

KMWin
SEA-LEVEL CONTROL ON DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCES 209

sea-level models (Fig. 2C) simulate sea-level changes associated with su-
perimposition of different orders of eustatic cyclicity, or relative sea-level
change associated with the addition of regional subsidence or uplift at rates
(0.5 m/kyr) representative of a wide variety of sedimentary basins (e.g.,
Hiroki 1994; Gawthorpe et al. 1994; Miall 1997).

STRATIGRAPHIC RESPONSE TO A SINUSOIDAL SEA-LEVEL CYCLE

OF 25 m: REFERENCE MODLE

We firstly describe the evolution of a reference model in which the

stratigraphy develops in response to a 25-m-amplitude, sinusoidal cycle of
sea-level change with a 100 kyr period. We present the results in terms of
3D perspective views of surface morphology and cross sections at selected
time intervals during the evolution of the model. This reference model acts
as a standard to which the other models presented in this paper, and those
in the companion paper, Ritchie et al. (2004), are compared.
The reference model starts with a sea-level rise of 25 m over the first
25 kyr (Fig. 2C). The delta initially retrogrades and has an irregular ge-
ometry in plan view (Fig. 3A). The retrogradational stacking pattern, with
landward-climbing shoreline trajectory, is characteristic of an accretionary
transgression formed when the rate of sea-level rise outpaces sediment
supply (e.g., Posamentier and Vail 1988; Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg
1994). Detailed analysis of the model results indicates that the delta be-
comes aggradational and then progradational, with a progressively shallow-
er basinward-climbing shoreline trajectory, as the rate of sea-level rise
slows towards zero at 25 kyr (sea-level highstand). The delta onlaps in a
landward direction, downlaps in a basinward direction, and develops a
smooth and arcuate delta front (Figs. 3B, 4A). The aggradational to pro-
gradational nature of the delta, together with the progressively shallowing
basinward-climbing shoreline trajectory are characteristics of deposition
during late rise and highstand of sea-level (Posamentier and Vail 1988;
Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg 1994).
Between 25 kyr and 75 kyr, sea level falls by 50 m, with the maximum
rate of fall of 1.57 m/kyr occurring at the inflection point at 50 kyr (Fig.
2C). During the initial period of sea-level fall from 25 to 37.5 kyr, depo-
sition occurs as a continuous fringe along the delta front as the delta plain
is exposed (Fig. 3C). As sea level continues to fall from 37.5 to 50 kyr,
channel incision occurs and channels erode headward towards the sediment
source from the exposed delta front (Fig. 3D). These channels incise into
the earlier deltaic deposits and, in plan view, are distributed approximately
radially about the sediment source. The channels are spaced approximately
150 m apart and typically erode headward some 400 m towards the sedi-
ment source by 50 kyr (Fig. 3D). Channels are active at different times
and erode headward at different rates, depending on the amount of sediment
transported through them. As the incised channels extend headward, and
thus capture more sediment, deposition along the delta front becomes more
lobate and focused at channel mouths (Fig. 3D). In proximal locations, the
channels are expressed as eroded ‘‘notches’’ on the upper surface of the
stratigraphy deposited during the previous interval of sea-level rise (Fig.
5A). The growth of the channels is a positive feedback process whereby
the amount of sediment that is captured and transported by the dominant
channels increases as they cut back towards the sediment source and cap-

←
FIG. 6.—Sequential evolution of model with a 12.5 m amplitude sinusoidal sea-
level curve illustrated every 25 kyr. Note lack of major fluvial incision and delta
lobes during sea-level fall compared to the reference model (Fig. 3). Vertical ex-
aggeration 2:1.

KMWin
210 B.D. RITCHIE ET AL.
ture more flow. As a result, some channels become inactive as their flow
is captured by others. Thus the evolution of the channels involves an in-
crease in channel length and depth and a decrease in the number of active
channels as sea level falls.
As the incised channels organize, three delta lobes (labeled X, Y, and
Z; Fig. 3E) begin to dominate, supplied by one or more channels by 62.5
kyr. These lobes are wedge-shaped deposits, attached to the preceding delta
front, that offlap, lack topset development, and have a basinward-falling
shoreline trajectory (Fig. 4B, C). These characteristics are typical of an
accretionary forced regression (e.g., Plint 1988; Hunt and Tucker 1992,
1995; Posamentier et al. 1992b; Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg 1994; Plint
and Nummedal 2000). As sea-level fall continues towards lowstand at 75
kyr, three of the channels become dominant, capturing most of the sediment
supplied to the system and feeding the three delta lobes (Figs. 3F, 5B).
The isopach for 62.5–75 kyr shows that by this time lobes Y and Z have
become more prominent than lobe X, suggesting that the incised valleys
feeding lobes Y and Z have captured a greater amount of the available
sediment than those feeding lobe X (Fig. 3F).
Following sea-level lowstand at 75 kyr, sea-level rises until 100 kyr,
with the rate of rise increasing towards the end of the model run (Fig. 2C).
Initially the three distinct lobes developed during the preceding sea-level
fall continue to grow and the isopach shows that the lobes expand laterally,
as well as prograding basinward, infilling the inter-lobe areas that were
starved of sediment during sea-level fall (Figs. 3G, 4D, 5B). The stratal
geometry within the lobes is progradational to aggradational, with a bas-
inward-climbing shoreline trajectory, during early part of the sea-level rise
(Fig. 4D). The lobes onlap the previously formed basinward-dipping ex-
posure surface in a landward direction and downlap basinward. Away from
the main delta lobes, very little sediment is transported to the delta front
during the early sea-level rise. The continued growth of the delta lobes and
the progradational to aggradational stacking pattern are characteristics of
normal regression during lowstand to early sea-level rise (Posamentier and
Vail 1988; Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg 1994).
As sea-level rise continues from 87.5 to 100 kyr, the shoreline trajectory
changes from climbing basinward to climbing landward and the delta back-
steps (retrogrades) towards the sediment source (Fig. 3H). As a result, the
locus of deposition shifts landward and the lower reaches of the incised
FIG. 7.—Sequential development of the 12.5 m
amplitude sinusoidal sea-level model shown in
Figure 6 expressed in a representative dip
section located 600 m along strike from the
sediment input point. Evolution of the delta
presented every 25 kyr, with surfaces recorded
every 12.5 kyr. Vertical exaggeration 3:1.
channels become onlapped and infilled (Figs. 3H, 4D, 5). During retrogra-
dation, sediment deposition becomes more widespread on the drowned
forced regressive and lowstand delta top (Figs. 3H, 5B). The landward-
climbing shoreline trajectory and retrogradational stacking pattern are char-
acteristic of an accretionary transgression where the rate of sea-level rise
outpaces that of sediment supply (Posamentier and Vail 1988; Helland-
Hansen and Gjelberg 1994).
STRATIGRAPHIC RESPONSE TO SINUSOIDAL SEA-LEVEL CYCLES
OF DIFFERENT AMPLITUDES
Several workers have suggested that the rate of sea-level change is a
major influence on sequence development, particularly in influencing ero-
sion and deposition during sea-level fall (e.g., Wood et al. 1993a; Heller
et al. 2001). To investigate the influence of different rates and magnitudes
of sea-level change on delta geometry and stratigraphic architecture, model
runs with sinusoidal sea-level cycles with half (12.5 m) and double (50 m)
the amplitude of the reference model are presented (Fig. 2C). In both the
higher- and lower-amplitude models, the duration of the different segments
of the sea-level curve are the same, so that the rates of change, as well as
the amplitudes, differ; all other model parameters are the same as the ref-
erence model.
During the initial sea-level rise and highstand (0–25 kyr), in both low-
and high-amplitude models, the deltas contain transgressive and regressive
elements (Figs. 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A). In the low-amplitude model, the delta
undergoes only minor retrogradation. The shoreline trajectory switches to
climb basinward earlier and the delta is more progradational than the ref-
erence model (cf. Figs. 4A and 7A). At sea-level highstand, the delta front
is smooth and arcuate in plan view (Figs. 6A, 7A). In contrast, in the high-
amplitude model, the initial 50 m sea-level rise results in thin, highly re-
trogradational delta deposits, with the shoreline migrating over 1 km land-
ward. Most of the initial sea-level rise causes landward migration of the
shoreline, and it is not until near sea-level highstand that the shoreline
trajectory switches to migrate basinward and the delta progrades. The
amount of progradation is much less than the reference model, but the
overall morphology is similar, with an arcuate delta front established by
25 kyr (Figs. 8A, 9A).
KMWin
SEA-LEVEL CONTROL ON DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCES 211

From 25 to 75 kyr sea level falls in both models, but by different mag-
nitudes and at different maximum rates (25 m, 0.78 m/kyr, and 50 m, 3.14
m/kyr for the low- and high-amplitude runs respectively; Fig. 2C), giving
rise to markedly different sequence geometries and evolution. In the low-
amplitude model, deposition occurs as a continuous fringe along the delta
front as the delta plain is exposed between 25 and 37.5 kyr, and even by
50 kyr only minor incised channels are apparent and no distinct deltaic
lobes have developed (cf. Figs. 3D and 6B). By lowstand at 75 kyr, ap-
proximately 12 minor incised channels become apparent and typically
erode headward c. 650 m. The channels are still too small and numerous
to localize sediment transport and form discrete delta-front lobes (Fig. 6C).
At the end of the sea-level fall the shoreline extends a maximum distance
of 1680 m into the basin. Thus the lower rate of sea-level fall results in
poorly developed, shallow, incised channels and an attached forced regres-
sive apron that lacks distinct delta lobes.
In the high-amplitude model, incision of the exposed delta top occurs
shortly after the onset of sea-level fall, with clear evidence of incised chan-
nels by 37.5 kyr, but with initial deposition still mainly as an attached
forced regressive apron (Fig. 9B). However, by 50 kyr, five minor and
three major incised channels have developed and supply sediment to three
elongate forced regressive delta lobes that are between 200 and 250 m wide
(lobes X, Y, and Z; Fig. 8B). As sea-level fall continues, the incised-
channel system organizes such that the incised channel feeding lobe Z
captures most of the sediment, and by sea-level lowstand at 75 kyr, lobe
Z dominates the morphology of the delta (Fig. 8C). The combination of
the dominance of lobe Z over other forced regressive lobes, the lateral
expansion of the lobe as sea-level approaches lowstand, and its sinuous
nature in plan view, means that it appears detached from highstand and
early sea-level fall deposits in many dip sections (Fig. 9C). It is attached
to the highstand delta, but only by the narrow (c. 250 m wide) section of
lobe Z that formed between 37.5 and 50 kyr. (Fig. 8C).
During the sea-level rise between 75 and 100 kyr, both the low- and
high-amplitude models show similar features to the reference model with
initial continued regression, followed by an abrupt change to a landward-
climbing shoreline trajectory and transgression. However, the responses
differ in detail. The low-amplitude delta continues to build basinward dur-
ing the early part of the sea-level rise and the deposits form a continuous
fringe along the delta front, but with a prominent aggradational component
(Figs. 6D, 7D). The shoreline climbs basinward until around 87 kyr, when
it switches to migrate slightly landward (, 100 m); the resultant trans-
gressive deposits are narrow and markedly aggradational (Figs. 6D, 7D).
In contrast, in the high-amplitude delta, the initial regressive deposits are
localized around lobe Z, which continues to prograde and expand laterally;
elsewhere the delta is sediment-starved (Fig. 8D). The change to trans-
gression and landward-climbing shoreline trajectory occurs earlier than in
the low-amplitude model and the retrogradational deposits vary markedly
along strike. Retrogradational packages are essentially restricted to around
the incised valley that fed lobe Z, forming an accretionary transgressive
unit that is generally thin and elongate in a dip-direction (Fig. 9D). Else-
where, the delta-front and prodelta environments continue to be sediment
starved.

←
FIG. 8.—Sequential evolution of model with a 50 m amplitude sinusoidal sea-
level curve illustrated every 25 kyr. Note major horizontal translation of the shore-
line during the cycle. Also note the early development of major incised channels,
and the elongate nature of the delta lobes (X, Y, Z) formed during sea-level fall,
and the lowstand expansion of lobe Z. Vertical exaggeration 2:1.

KMWin
212 B.D. RITCHIE ET AL.
The different amplitudes of sea-level change also have a major impact
on the overall morphologies and geometries of the deltas. This is best
displayed in the final surfaces and dip-orientated cross sections (Figs. 6D,
7D, 8D, 9D). Low-amplitude sea-level changes affect only a small part of
the ramp-like basin margin, and the resulting deltaic depositional sequences
and component systems tracts are narrow in a depositional dip direction
(e.g., Fig. 7D). Also, the systems tracts overlap so that several systems
tracts are stacked vertically. For example, in the mid-to-distal part of the
delta, vertical sections through the stratigraphy encounter parts of the
forced regressive, lowstand prograding wedge and retrogradational trans-
gressive deposits (Fig. 7D). In contrast, high-amplitude sea-level changes
affect a large proportion of the ramp and resulting sequences are markedly
elongate, with systems tracts spatially separate (Figs. 9D).
STRATIGRAPHIC RESPONSE TO ASYMETRICAL SEA-LEVEL CYCLES
In addition to variations in amplitude and rate of sea-level change for
simple sinusoidal cycles, asymmetrical sea-level cycles are important where
high-frequency cycles are superimposed on rising or falling limbs of lower-
order sea-level cycles, and where simple regional uplift or subsidence are
superimposed on sinusoidal eustatic cycles. We simulate these scenarios
by superimposing a linear fall or rise of 0.5 m/kyr on the sinusoidal, 25-
m-amplitude sea-level cycle used for the reference model (Fig. 2C). The
superimposed linear rise produces an initial sea-level rise of 38.78 m and
occurs over 30 kyr. This is followed by 27.5 m sea-level fall over 40 kyr,
at a maximum rate of 1.07 m/kyr, and a final phase of sea-level rise starting
at 70 kyr (Fig. 2C). For the superimposed linear fall, initially sea-level rises
only 13.78 m over the first 20 kyr, followed by sea-level fall for 60 kyr,
with a maximum rate of fall of 2.07 m/kyr. Finally, sea level rises from
80 to 100 kyr (Fig. 2C). All other parameters are the same as the reference
model.
In the model with superimposed linear rise, the initial deltaic deposits
are thin and highly retrogradational, with the delta backstepping to the
landward edge of the model in the first 12.5 kyr years of sea-level rise
(Figs. 10A, 11A). Only towards the end of the initial phase of sea-level
rise at 30 kyr does the shoreline climb basinward, leading to progradation
of the delta. At sea-level highstand the delta has a broad arcuate delta front
(Fig. 10A).
FIG. 9.—Sequential development of the 50 m
amplitude sinusoidal sea-level model shown in
Figure 8 expressed in a representative dip section
located 600 m along strike from the sediment
input point. Evolution of the delta presented every
25 kyr, with surfaces recorded every 12.5 kyr.
Note the apparent bypass zone separating the
deposits of early sea-level fall from the regressive
deposits of late fall, lowstand, and initial rise.
Vertical exaggeration 3:1.
During the initial period of sea-level fall, the delta continues to prograde
over the retrogradational deposits of the initial sea-level rise, but no prom-
inent incised channels have developed by 50 kyr (Fig. 10B). Deposition
occurs as a broad apron around the earlier highstand delta front and has
the characteristic basinward-falling shoreline trajectory of forced regressive
wedges (Fig. 11B). Minor incised channels do not form until 62.5 kyr, 32.5
kyr after the onset of sea-level fall. As sea-level fall continues to lowstand
at 70 kyr, five minor incised channels feed sediment to two broad lobes
(X and Y in Fig. 10C) that merge along strike to form an almost continuous
apron attached to the highstand and early fall deposits. Overall, the amount
of forced regression during sea-level fall is small (c. 1 km).
After limited regression during the initial stages of sea-level rise at 70
kyr, the shoreline changes direction abruptly and begins to migrate land-
ward. Thus, much of the rising limb between 70 and 100 kyr is character-
ized by landward migration of the shoreline (Figs. 10C, D, 11D). Deposits
associated with this landward-climbing shoreline trajectory are thin, or even
absent, over much of the drowned delta top such that the transgression is
largely non-accretionary (Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg 1994) (Fig. 11D).
By the end of the model run, the shoreline has migrated across all of the
earlier stratigraphy and is located along the landward edge of the model
(Figs. 10D, 11D).
In contrast to this enhancement of transgressive elements, the stratigra-
phy resulting from the superimposed linear fall is dominated by regression
and incision (Figs. 12, 13). During the initial rise the delta undergoes very
limited retrogradation, and the stratal surfaces for 12.5 and 25 kyr are
aggradational to progradational, with a shoreline trajectory that climbs bas-
inward at progressively shallower angles (Fig. 13A). The delta-plain radius
at 25 kyr is 800 m and the maximum thickness of the delta is 25 m (Fig.
12A). The low rate of sea-level rise and thus accommodation creation due
to the superimposed linear fall results in a much earlier onset of regression
and a more progradational stacking pattern than the reference model.
During the initial period of the 20 to 80 kyr sea-level fall, deposition
occurs as a continuous fringe along the delta front (Fig 13B). However,
channel incision occurs early on the falling limb and, by 50 kyr, eight
minor and four major incised channels have developed and supply sediment
to a number of forced regressive lobes (lobes W, X, Y, and Z; Fig. 12B).
The major incised channels are deep and have cut headward by up to 550
KMWin
SEA-LEVEL CONTROL ON DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCES 213

m. As sea-level fall continues the incised-channel system organizes such

that by 75 kyr the major incised channels feeding lobes Y and Z cut back
farther than the incised channels feeding lobes W and X. As a result, lobes
Y and Z receive more sediment and reach farther into the basin. The delta
lobes are more elongate and finger-like than those of the reference model
(Fig. 12C). Although sections down the axes of the main lobes indicate an
attached forced regressive unit, over large areas a bypass surface separates
the highstand and early forced regressive deposits from those formed to-
wards the end of sea-level fall (Fig. 13C).
Following the onset of sea-level rise at 80 kyr, the four main delta lobes
continue to prograde basinward and expand laterally as sediment is still
fed through the main incised channels (Fig. 12D). Delta lobes Y and Z
amalgamate to form one large lobe (Y 1 Z; Fig. 12D) such that the shore-
line at the point of maximum regression comprises three laterally connected
delta lobes. Each of these lobes is c. 1 km wide and onlaps onto the pre-
viously formed basinward-dipping erosion surface that caps the forced re-
gressive units. Despite having a prominent lowstand wedge, the delta back-
steps shortly after the onset of sea-level rise at 80 kyr. However, because
of the low rate of sea-level rise, the shoreline shifts landward by only a
small amount (500–600 m) and the associated deposits form a thick retro-
gradational unit that caps the drowned portion of the forced regressive and
lowstand delta top (Figs. 12D, 13D). In addition, the low magnitude of the
rise means that much of the incised channel-forced regressive wedge to-
pography remains exposed at the end of the model run (Fig. 12D).

EFFECT OF SEA-LEVEL CONTROL ON THREE-DIMENSIONAL

SEQUENCE DEVELOPMENT

In this section we discuss the similarities and differences in three-di-

mensional depositional sequence evolution on the basis of the results from
the various sea-level cycles used in this paper. In doing so, we develop a
model for the three-dimensional evolution of a deltaic depositional se-
quence and highlight the major variations resulting from changing the rates
and magnitudes of sea-level rise and fall. We also compare key features
that arise from our results with natural examples of deltas and the results
of other modeling (analogue and numerical) projects.

Three-Dimensional Sequence Development

Our modeling results illustrate the importance of sea-level change in the
evolution of deltaic depositional systems and highlight the complex three-
dimensional response of the deltaic system to a cycle of sea-level change
given a constant sediment supply. Several key evolutionary stages in se-
quence development can be recognized in all models and are summarized
here (Fig. 14).
During the late stages of sea-level rise, as the rate of rise slows to zero
at highstand, the delta downlaps basinward and evolves from aggradational
to progradational with a shoreline trajectory that climbs basinward at pro-
gressively shallower angles. These features are all characteristic of normal
regression in a highstand systems tract, and they develop because the vol-
ume of sediment supplied to the delta is able to fill (and overfill) the newly
added accommodation space (e.g., Posamentier and Vail 1988; Helland-
Hansen and Gjelberg 1994). As sea level approaches highstand, the delta

←
FIG. 10.—Sequential evolution of model with 0.5 m/kyr rise superimposed on 25 m
amplitude sinusoidal sea-level curve illustrated every 25 kyr. Note the poor develop-
ment of incised channels and along-strike continuity of the deposits formed during
sea-level fall with poorly-defined lobes (X and Y). Vertical exaggeration 2:1.

KMWin
214 B.D. RITCHIE ET AL.
develops a subhorizontal delta top that passes basinward into a smooth
arcuate delta front (Fig. 14A).
During sea-level fall, deposition is focused progressively farther into the
basin as the shoreline is forced to translate downward and basinward. Two
distinct stages in the evolution of the depositional system can be recog-
nized: (i) an early stage dominated by a broad forced regressive apron and
numerous poorly developed, shallowly incised channels (Fig. 14B), and (ii)
a later stage during which a limited number of major, deeply incised chan-
nels transport sediment to forced regressive lobes at their mouths (Fig.
14C). This two-stage evolution is similar to that suggested by analogue
models of river-shelf systems described by van Heijst et al. (2001). Our
results suggest that these two stages are not tied to a particular segment on
the falling sea-level limb and that the depositional system may not evolve
into the second stage if the amplitude and/or rate of sea-level fall is low.
Absence of incised channels during the early stages of sea-level fall can
make it difficult to pick the start of sea-level fall and the change from
normal regression to forced regression in the final model stratal geometry
(Fig. 14B). As the rate of fall increases, numerous minor incised channels
nucleate at the shoreline and propagate both landward and basinward with
time. In a landward direction the incised channels evolve by headward
migration of knickpoints that originate at the shoreline in a manner similar
to natural channels (e.g., Posamentier et al. 1992a; Posamentier et al.
1992b; Leeder and Stewart 1996) and analogue models (Wood et al. 1993a;
Wood et al. 1993b; Heller et al. 2001; van Heijst et al. 2001). In a basin-
ward direction, the incised channels cut into deltaic deposits formed earlier
in the fall as they are exposed by continuing sea-level fall. As the incised
channels extend headward they capture more sediment and deposition along
the delta front becomes increasingly lobate and focused at incised-channel
mouths (Fig. 14C). A small number of major incised channels become
dominant as they cut headward and capture sediment from other channels
which become inactive. During sea-level fall, the shoreline trajectory trans-
lates basinward and downward and the associated deposits downstep and
offlap (Fig. 14B, C). These features are characteristics of an accretionary
forced regression and forced regressive systems tract (e.g., Hunt and Tucker
1992; Posamentier et al. 1992a; Posamentier et al. 1992b; Helland-Hansen
and Gjelberg 1994; also termed the falling stage systems tract, Plint and
Nummedal 2000). At the end of sea-level fall, the highstand and forced
FIG. 11.—Sequential development of the
model with 0.5 m/kyr rise superimposed on 25
m amplitude sinusoidal sea-level curve shown in
Figure 10 expressed in a representative dip
section located 600 m along strike from the
sediment input point. Evolution of the delta is
presented every 25 kyr, with surfaces recorded
every 12.5 kyr. Note the limited regression and
enhancement of the transgressive elements in the
stratigraphy. Vertical exaggeration 3:1.
regressive systems tracts have become widely exposed and incised, creating
a prominent stratal surface characterized by local incised channels and
widespread exposed interfluves (Fig. 14C). This surface is the most prac-
tical surface to pick as a sequence boundary in the model stratigraphy.
During sea-level lowstand and early rise, sediment transport is still fo-
cused through the previously incised channels and deposition is focused at
their mouths. As a result, the rate of sediment supply exceeds accommo-
dation development at the channel mouths and the delta lobes continue to
prograde. In contrast to the basinward-falling shoreline trajectory of the
forced regressive systems tract, the shoreline trajectory now climbs bas-
inward. The lobes also expand laterally and onlap the previously exposed
and incised top of the forced regressive units and infill the distal reaches
of the incised valleys (Fig. 14D). The progradational to aggradational stack-
ing pattern and onlap are characteristic of deposition of a lowstand wedge
that forms part of the lowstand systems tract (Posamentier and Vail 1988).
In all models there is an abrupt change in shoreline trajectory from bas-
inward-climbing to landward-climbing shortly after the onset of sea-level
rise (Fig. 14E). This marks the onset of transgression and results because
the volume of sediment supplied to the delta is insufficient to fill the new
accommodation space. Although this switch in shoreline trajectory could
be an autoretreat response inherent in any delta (e.g., Muto and Steel 1992,
1997), we feel its occurrence when the rate of addition of accommodation
is increasing and the abrupt nature of the switch suggest that the autoretreat
mechanism is a secondary influence in our models. This switch in the
shoreline trajectory direction represents the transgressive surface (or initial
flooding surface) that marks the top of the compound regressive stratal
packages formed during late rise, highstand, fall, lowstand, and early rise
of sea level (Fig. 14E). Above the transgressive surface in updip locations
incised channels continue to be infilled, whereas down dip, on the drowned
lowstand delta top, sediment is deposited as a set of retrogradational units.
These units become more laterally extensive as the influence of the incised
channels on sediment transport pathways decreases (Fig. 14E). The land-
ward-climbing shoreline trajectory and the retrogradational stacking pattern
are characteristic of an accretionary transgression and the transgressive sys-
tems tract (Posamentier and Vail 1988; Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg
1994).
KMWin
SEA-LEVEL CONTROL ON DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCES 215

Sequence Variability: Influence of the Rate and Magnitude of

Sea-Level Change
Although the key stratal surfaces and systems tracts are developed in all
the modeling results, different rates and magnitudes of sea-level change,
for a given sediment supply, have a marked influence on delta morphology,
internal stratal architecture, and systems-tract development and lead to dif-
ferences in sequence evolution.
During the initial sea-level rise to highstand, all models show some de-
gree of initial retrogradation (transgressive systems tract) followed by pro-
gradation (highstand systems tract), but the timing of the development of
these systems tracts, their relative proportions, and their external geometries
vary markedly depending on the nature of the sea-level rise. Rapid sea-
level rise results in highly retrogradational deltaic deposits that are thin and
backstep a long way towards the sediment source. The subsequent high-
stand systems tract occurs late in the rise, near sea-level highstand, and is
poorly developed; there is limited regression. In contrast, slow sea-level
rise results in little or no retrogradation. The transgressive systems tract
tends to be poorly developed and, from relatively early in the rise, the
stratigraphy is dominated by normal regression of a highstand systems tract
that is initially largely aggradational but becomes strongly progradational.
The change from a retrogradational stacking pattern to an aggradational to
progradational stacking pattern, i.e., the maximum flooding surface, occurs
at different times on the rising limb depending on the rate of sea-level rise.
Similar variations in the timing of maximum flooding and the magnitude
of transgression due to slow and rapid sea-level rises have been docu-
mented in analogue flume experiments (e.g. Heller et al. 2001).
The model results suggest that different rates and magnitudes of sea-
level fall have a major impact on sequence development and the character
of sequence boundaries. The results are similar to, but more extreme than,
those of analogue models of rapid and slow sea-level fall (Heller et al.
2001). Rapid sea-level fall results in deeply incised channels that capture
flow relatively early during the fall and localize sediment transport and
deposition down-dip (Fig. 15). These incised channels organize quickly into
a limited number of major channels that capture most of the sediment
supply and feed it to a few narrow, elongate lobes at their mouths (Fig.
15). The highest rates and magnitudes of fall modeled in this study lead
to forced regressive lobes that appear detached from highstand deposits and
isolated in a basinward position. However, sections down the axis of the
forced regressive lobes indicate that the apparently detached late-stage
forced regressive and lowstand deposits are attached to the older highstand
and initial forced regressive apron in three dimensions. Such apparently
detached lobes are similar to isolated shelf sandbodies interpreted by some
workers as the products of forced regression (e.g., Plint 1988; Posamentier
et al. 1992).
In contrast, low rates of sea-level fall result in channel incision starting
significantly after the onset of fall, and the incised channel system never
organizes into major, deep valleys. Instead, numerous, shallow, incised-
channels form and sediment continues to be supplied to a broad area of
the delta front (Fig. 15). A series of well connected forced regressive wedg-
es create an apron-like fringe that lacks distinct delta lobes (Fig. 15). These

←
FIG. 12.—Sequential evolution of model with 0.5 m/kyr fall superimposed on 25
m amplitude sinusoidal sea-level curve illustrated every 25 kyr. Note the early de-
velopment of major incised channels and the elongate nature of the delta lobes (W,
X, Y, Z) formed during sea-level fall. Also note the lowstand expansion of lobes
W and X, and amalgamation of lobes Y and Z. Vertical exaggeration 2:1.

KMWin
216 B.D. RITCHIE ET AL.
deposits are a three-dimensional example of the ‘‘attached lowstand’’ de-
scribed by Ainsworth and Pattison (1994) from the Cretaceous Western
Interior Seaway and are similar to the forced regression of the modern Alta
delta, Norway (e.g., Corner et al. 1990). This attached forced-regressive
apron is significantly different from the incised valley-lowstand wedge
model commonly cited in the sequence stratigraphic literature (e.g., Posa-
mentier and Vail 1988; Van Wagoner et al. 1990). The subtle offlap and
downstep developed during slow, low-magnitude sea-level fall means that
it is difficult to distinguish the forced regressive deposits from those of the
preceding highstand systems tract. Furthermore, the lack of major incision
suggests that the sequence boundary would also be difficult to pick in
natural systems, because the depths of the incised channels would be com-
parable to the depths of channels in the underlying highstand systems tract.
The timing of the change from regression to transgression that marks
the change from the progradational to aggradational lowstand systems tract
to the retrogradational transgressive systems tract is strongly influenced by
the rate of rise (Fig. 16). The higher the rate of sea-level rise, the earlier
transgression occurs. In instances of slow sea-level rise, the forced regres-
sive delta lobes continue to grow basinward and to expand laterally. This
often results in marked progradation during the early stages of sea-level
rise and lateral amalgamation of previously distinct delta lobes to form a
large, broad lowstand wedge (Fig. 16). In contrast, in the case of very rapid
sea-level rise no lowstand wedge is developed and transgression occurs
immediately following forced regression (Fig. 16).
Sequence evolution during early sea-level rise is also influenced by the
geomorphology developed during the preceding sea-level fall, particularly
the nature of the incised-valley system. Where deeply incised valleys are
present, sediment transport is localized at the shoreline, resulting in en-
hanced sediment supply at the mouths of the incised valleys and growth
of the delta lobes during early sea-level rise. Where numerous shallowly
incised channels developed during sea-level fall, sediment is supplied to
the entire delta front. The resultant stratigraphy comprises a poorly devel-
oped lowstand wedge with an apron-like geometry that is transgressed early
during sea-level rise (e.g., Fig. 10C, D).
The retrogradational transgressive systems tract deposits associated with
rapid sea-level rise tend to be thin and backstep over much of the former
FIG. 13.—Sequential development of the
model with 0.5 m/kyr fall superimposed on 25
m amplitude sinusoidal sea-level curve shown in
Figure 12 expressed in a representative dip
section located through the sediment input point.
Evolution of the delta is presented every 25 kyr,
with surfaces recorded every 12.5 kyr. Note the
apparent bypass zone between the deposits of
early sea-level fall and the regressive deposits of
the late fall, lowstand, and initial rise. Vertical
exaggeration 3:1.
exposed delta top. Very rapid sea-level rise may result in non-accretionary
transgressions (Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg 1994), where virtually no re-
trogradational deposits are preserved. This is similar to the stratigraphies
associated with some Carboniferous and Quaternary rapid postglacial sea-
level rises, where upward-shoaling highstand deposits lie directly on a
transgressive lag (e.g., Church and Gawthorpe 1997; McMurray and Gaw-
thorpe 2000). In contrast, slow sea-level rise results in an accretionary
transgression with thicker transgressive units deposited as the delta back-
steps more slowly.
SUMMARY
Three-dimensional numerical modeling shows how the rates and mag-
nitudes of sea-level change influence the morphology and internal archi-
tecture of coarse-grained deltas. Although we have modeled a relatively
simple system of small, coarse-grained deltas, results and observations are
generally applicable to the sequence stratigraphic evolution of a wide range
of depositional systems. The modeling results reproduce the three-dimen-
sional morphologies, stratal geometries, stratal termination patterns, and
shoreline trajectories that are representative of, and observed in, natural
systems. These key elements occur in a systematic order relative to the rate
and direction of sea-level change, as predicted by sequence stratigraphic
models (e.g., Vail et al. 1977; Jervey 1988; Posamentier et al. 1988; Po-
samentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier et al. 1992b; Hunt and Tucker 1992).
Different rates of sea-level change, for a given rate of sediment supply,
can result in delta geometries and stacking patterns that are significantly
different from one another. In particular, high rates of sea-level fall lead
to the development of a limited number of deeply incised channels. These
major channels capture sediment and focus sediment supply to a few, elon-
gate, finger-like, forced-regressive lobes that are separated by large areas
of nondeposition. In contrast, low rates of sea-level fall cause only minor
incision that occurs late during sea-level fall, if at all. As a result, sediment
is uniformly supplied to a continuous fringe at the delta front, producing
an attached, forced regressive apron that may be difficult to distinguish
from highstand progradation. These attached forced regressive deposits are
the end member opposite to the incised valley-lowstand wedge model (e.g.,
KMWin
 SEA-LEVEL CONTROL ON DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCES 217

FIG. 14.—Summary of the general three-dimensional evolution of deltaic depositional sequences during a cycle of sea-level change. A) Sea-level highstand, B) Maximum
rate of fall with moderate development of incised valleys and laterally continuous forced regressive wedge. C) Sea-level lowstand with well developed incised channels
and forced regressive lobes. D) Early sea-level rise with normal regression leading to development of lobate lowstand prograding wedges. E) Later in sea-level rise
compared to Part D, with drowning of lowstand prograding wedge and transgression of the delta.

KMWin
218 B.D. RITCHIE ET AL.
Posamentier and Vail 1988; Van Wagoner et al. 1990) and are the three-
dimensional expression of the attached lowstand of Ainsworth and Pattison
(1994). Furthermore, during lowstand and early sea-level rise, delta mor-
phology and internal architecture are strongly controlled by the rate of rise.
High rates of rise lead to: (1) poorly developed lowstand wedges that are
drowned early, (2) high-magnitude transgressions, and (3) the late devel-
opment of maximum flooding surfaces. We find that the stratigraphy de-
veloped during sea-level rise is also strongly influenced by the incised-
valley system created during the preceding sea-level fall. If major, deep
valleys develop, the resultant stratigraphy has prominent lowstand wedges
that are flooded relatively late during sea-level rise.
Many of the modeled deltas and their component stratal units are, by
their nature, three-dimensional, and two-dimensional analysis of the model
results can lead to erroneous correlations and interpretations of controlling
processes. Two-dimensional sections through the model stratigraphy often
FIG. 15.—Schematic diagram summarizing the
variations in sequence morphology due to
different rates of sea-level fall for a given
sediment supply. Low rates of fall lead to apron-
like forced regressive deposits and late-formed,
poorly developed incised valleys, whereas high
rates of fall lead to early formed major incised
valleys and elongate forced regressive lobes.
lack key elements such as forced regressive and lowstand lobes and incised
channels that are well-developed in adjacent areas alongstrike. The three-
dimensional morphology of the stratal units also results in key stratal sur-
faces that have complex geometries, and locally amalgamate with one an-
other to create composite surfaces representing two or more key stratal
surfaces. The effects of this three-dimensional complexity are most appar-
ent in strike-parallel and oblique sections (e.g., Fig. 5). Without an under-
standing of this three-dimensional complexity, relating depositional archi-
tectures to relative sea-level changes will be difficult in natural systems
(cf. Helland-Hansen and Gjelberg 1994). These aspects of sequence vari-
ability have important implications for the application of the sequence
stratigraphic methodology to outcrop and subsurface data in many sedi-
mentary basins. In the companion paper, Ritchie et al. (2004), we extend
our analysis of the role of sea-level change in controlling depositional se-
quences and focus on the impact of local controls.
KMWin
 SEA-LEVEL CONTROL ON DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Gawthorpe and Hardy acknowledge support from the Natural Environment Re-
search Council (ROPA grant NER/C/S/2000/00588) and Norsk Hydro; Ritchie ac-
knowledges a British Petroleum PhD Scholarship. Hardy also acknowledges support
from ICREA (Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats). Visualization of
the model results was undertaken using Gocad with support from Professor J.-L.
Mallet, and Richard Hartley drafted the summary figures. We thank Mike Leeder,
Ron Steel, James Syvitski, Lincoln Pratson, and Craig Fulthorpe for their helpful
reviews and comments, and we would particularly like to acknowledge the advice
and support of Mary Kraus and David Budd during the revision period.
REFERENCES
AINSWORTH, R.B., AND PATTISON, S.A., 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.
BOWMAN, S.A., AND VAIL, P.R., 1999, Interpreting the stratigraphy of the Baltimore Canyon
section, offshore New Jersey with PHIL, a stratigraphic simulator, in Harbaugh, J.W., Wat-
219
FIG. 16.—Schematic diagram summarizing the
variation in delta sequence morphology due to
different rates of post-sea-level lowstand rise for
a given sediment supply. Low rates of sea-level
rise lead to development of a broad, laterally
continuous lowstand prograding wedge and a
late-formed transgressive surface, whereas high
rates of rise lead to rapid drowning of the forced
regressive wedge(s) associated with early
initiation of the transgressive surface, no
prograding lowstand wedge, and high-magnitude
transgression.
ney, W.L., Rankey, E.C., Slingerland, R., Goldstein, R.H., and Franseen, E.K., eds., Nu-
merical Experiments in Stratigraphy: Recent Advances in Stratigraphic and Sedimentologic
Computer Simulations: SEPM, Special Publication 62, p. 117–138.
CHURCH, K.D., AND GAWTHORPE, R.L., 1997, Sediment supply as a control on the variability of
sequences: an example from the late Namurian of Northern England: Geological Society of
London, Journal, v. 154, p. 55–60.
CORNER, G.D., NORDAHL, E., MUNCH-ELLINGSEN, K., AND ROBERTSON, K.R., 1990, Morphology
and Sedimentology of an emergent fjord-head Gilbert-type delta: Alta delta, Norway, in
Colella, A., and Prior, D., eds., Coarse-Grained Deltas: International Association of Sedi-
mentologists, Special Publication 10, p. 155–168.
CROSS, T.A., AND LESSENGER, M., 1998, Sediment volume partitioning: Rationale for stratigraph-
ic model evaluation and high-resolution stratigraphic correlation, in Sandvik, K.O., Grad-
stein, F., and Milton, N., eds., Predictive High Resolution Sequence Stratigraphy: Norwegian
Petroleum Society, Special Publication 8, p. 171–196.
DRISCOLL, N.W., AND KARNER, G.D., 1999, Three-dimensional quantitative modeling of clino-
form development: Marine Geology, v. 154, p. 383–398.
GAWTHORPE, R.L., FRASER, A.J., AND COLLIER, R.E.LL., 1994, Sequence stratigraphy in exten-
sional basins: implications for the interpretation of ancient basin-fills: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 11, p. 642–658.
GAWTHORPE, R.L., HALL, M., SHARP, I., AND DREYER, T., 2000, Tectonically enhanced forced
KMWin
220 B.D. RITCHIE ET AL.
regressions: examples from growth folds in extensional and compressional settings, the Mio-
cene of the Suez rift and the Eocene of the Pyrenees, in Hunt, D., and Gawthorpe, R.L.,
eds., Sedimentary Responses to Forced Regressions: Geological Society of London, Special
Publication 172, p. 177–191.
GAWTHORPE, R.L., SHARP, I., UNDERHILL, J.R., AND GUPTA, S., 1997, Linked sequence stratigraph-
ic and structural evolution of propagating normal faults: Geology, v. 25, p. 795–798.
GRANJEON, D., AND JOSEPH, P., 1999, Concepts and applications of a 3-D multiple lithology,
diffusive model in stratigraphic modeling, in Harbaugh, J.W., Watney, W.L., Rankey, E.C.,
Slingerland, R., Goldstein, R.H., and Franseen, E.K., eds., Numerical Experiments in Stra-
tigraphy: Recent Advances in Stratigraphic and Sedimentologic Computer Simulations:
SEPM, Special Publication 62, p. 197–210.
HAQ, B.U., HARDENBOL, J., AND VAIL, P.R., 1988, Mesozoic and Cenozoic chronostratigraphy
and eustatic cycles, 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. 71–108.
HARDY, S., AND GAWTHORPE, R.L., 1998, Effects of variations in fault slip rate on sequence
stratigraphy in fan deltas: Insights from numerical modeling: Geology, v. 26, p. 911–914.
HARDY, S., AND WALTHAM, D., 1992, Computer modelling of tectonics, eustasy, and sedimen-
tation using the Macintosh: Geobyte, v. 7, p. 42–52.
HARDY, S., DART, C.J., AND WALTHAM, D., 1994, Computer modelling of the influence of tec-
tonics on sequence architecture of coarse-grained fan deltas: Marine and Petroleum Geology,
v. 11, p. 561–574.
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.
HELLAND-HANSEN, W., STEEL R., NAKAYAMA, K., AND KENDALL, C.G.ST.C., 1989, Review and
computer modelling of the Brent Group stratigraphy, 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. 237–252.
HELLER, P.L., PAOLA, C., HWANG, I., JOHN, B., AND STEEL, R., 2001, Geomorphology and se-
quence stratigraphy due to slow and rapid base-level changes in an experimental subsiding
basin (XES 96–1): American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 85, p. 815–838.
HIROKI, Y., 1994, Quaternary crustal movements from facies distribution in the Atsumi and
Hamana areas, central Japan: Sedimentary Geology, v. 93, p. 223–235.
HUNT, D., AND GAWTHORPE, R.L., EDS., 2000, Sedimentary Responses to Forced Regressions:
Geological Society of London, Special Publication 172, 383 p.
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.
HUNT, D., AND TUCKER, M.E., 1995, Stranded parasequences and the forced regressive wedge
systems tract: deposition during base-level fall—reply: Sedimentary Geology, v. 95, p. 147–160.
JERVEY, M.T., 1988, Quantitative geological modeling of siliciclastic rock sequences and their
seismic expression, 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. 47–69.
KENYON, P.M., AND TURCOTTE, D.L., 1985, Morphology of a delta prograding by bulk sediment
transport: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 96, p. 1457–1465.
KOSS, J.E., ETHRIDGE, F.G., AND SCHUMM, S.A., 1994, An experimental study of the effects of
base-level change on fluvial, coastal plain, and shelf systems: Journal of Sedimentary Re-
search, v. B64, p. 90–98.
LEEDER, M.R., AND STEWART, M.D., 1996, Fluvial incision and sequence stratigraphy: alluvial
responses to relative sea-level fall and their detection in the geological record, in Hesselbo,
S.P., and Parkinson, D.N., eds., Sequence Stratigraphy in British Geology: Geological So-
ciety of London, Special Publication 103, p. 25–39.
LEEDER, M.R., HARRIS, T., AND KIRKBY, M.J., 1998, Sediment supply and climate change: im-
plications for basin stratigraphy: Basin Research, v. 10, p. 7–18.
LEVELL, B., AND LEU, W., 1993, Stratigraphic basin modelling—recent advances, in Doré, A.G.,
Augustson, J.H., Hermanrud, C., Stewart, D.J., and Sylta, O., eds., Basin Modelling: Ad-
vances and Applications: Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF), Special Publication 3, p. 71–83.
MARTINSEN, O.J., AND HELLAND-HANSEN, W., 1995, Strike variability of clastic depositional sys-
tems: Does it matter for sequence-stratigraphic analysis?: Geology, v. 23, p. 439–442.
MCMURRAY, L.S., AND GAWTHORPE, R.L., 2000, Along-strike variability of forced regressive
deposits; late Quaternary, northern Peloponnesos, Greece, in Hunt, D., and Gawthorpe, R.L.,
eds., Sedimentary Responses to Forced Regressions: Geological Society of London, Special
Publication 172, p. 363–377.
MIALL, A.D., 1997, The Geology of Stratigraphic Sequences: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 433 p.
MILANA, J.P., 1998, Sequence stratigraphy in alluvial settings: a flume based model with ap-
plications to outcrop and seismic data: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bul-
letin, v. 82, p. 1736–1753.
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.
NEMEC, W., 1990, Aspects of sediment movement on steep delta slopes, in Colella, A., and
Prior, D., eds., Coarse-Grained Deltas: International Association of Sedimentologists, Spe-
cial Publication 10, p. 29–73.
PITMAN, W.C., III, AND GOLOVCHENKO, X., 1983, The effect of sea-level change on the shelf
edge and slope of passive margins, in Stanley, D.J., and Moore, G.T., eds., The Shelfbreak:
Critical Interface on Continental Margins: SEPM, Special Publication 33, p. 41–58.
PLINT, A.G., 1988, Sharp-based shoreface sequences and ‘‘offshore bars’’ in the Cardium For-
mation of Alberta: their relationship to relative changes in sea-level, in Wilgus, C.K., Has-
tings, 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. 357–370.
PLINT, A.G., AND NUMMEDAL, D., 2000, The falling stage systems tract: recognition and impor-
tance 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.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND ALLEN, G.P., 1993, Variability of the sequence stratigraphic model:
effects of local basin factors: Sedimentary Geology, v. 86, p. 91–109.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., JERVEY, M.T., AND VAIL, P.R., 1988, Eustatic control on clastic deposition
I—Conceptual framework, 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 Ap-
proach: SEPM, Special Publication 42, p. 109–124.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND VAIL, P.R., 1988, Eustatic control 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 Ap-
proach: SEPM, Special Publication 42, p. 125–154.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., ALLEN, G.P., AND JAMES, D.P., 1992a, High resolution sequence stratigra-
phy—The East Coulee Delta, Alberta: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 62, p. 310–317.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., ALLEN, G.P., JAMES, D.P., AND TESSON, M., 1992b, Forced regressions in a
sequence stratigraphic framework: concepts, examples, and exploration significance: Amer-
ican Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 11, p. 1687–1709.
POSTMA, G., 1990, Depositional architecture and facies of river and fan deltas: a synthesis: in
Colella, A., and Prior, D., eds., Coarse-Grained Deltas: International Association of Sedi-
mentologists, Special Publication 10, p. 13–27.
POULSEN, C.J., FLEMINGS, P.B., ROBINSON, R.A.J., AND METZGER, J.M., 1998, Three-dimensional
stratigraphic evolution of the Miocene Baltimore Canyon region: Implications for eustatic
interpretations and the systems tract model: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 110,
p. 1105–1122.
QUIQUEREZ, A., ALLEMAND, P., AND DROMART, G., 2000, DIBAFILL: a 3-D two-lithology dif-
fusive model for basin infilling: Computers & Geosciences, v. 26, p. 1029–1042.
RITCHIE, B.D., GAWTHORPE, R.L., AND HARDY, S., 2004, Three-dimensional numerical modeling
of deltaic depositional sequences 2: influence of local controls: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 74, p. 221–238.
RITCHIE, B.D., HARDY, S., AND GAWTHORPE, R.L., 1999, Three-dimensional numerical modeling
of coarse-grained clastic deposition in sedimentary basins: Journal of Geophysical Research,
v. 104, p. 17759–17780.
SCHLAGER, W., 1993, Accommodation and supply—a dual control on stratigraphic sequences:
Sedimentary Geology, v. 86, p. 111–136.
SCHUMM, S.A., 1993, River response to baselevel change: implications for sequence stratigra-
phy: Journal of Geology, v. 101, p. 279–294.
SCHUMM, S.A., MOSLEY, M.P., AND WEAVER, W.E., 1987, Experimental Fluvial Geomorphology:
New York, John Wiley, 413 p.
STECKLER, M.S., 1999, High-resolution sequence stratigraphic modeling 1: the interplay of
sedimentation, erosion, and subsidence, in Harbaugh, J.W., Watney, W.L., Rankey, E.C.,
Slingerland, R., Goldstein, R.H., and Franseen, E.K., eds., Numerical Experiments in Stra-
tigraphy: Recent Advances in Stratigraphic and Sedimentologic Computer Simulations:
SEPM, Special Publication 62, p. 139–149.
VAIL, P.R., MITCHUM, R.M., AND THOMPSON, S., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes
in sea level, part 3: Relative changes of sea level from coastal onlap, in Payton, C.E., ed.,
Seismic Stratigraphy—Application to Hydrocarbon Exploration: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 26, p. 63–81.
VAN HEIJST, M.W., POSTMA, G., MEIJER, X.D., SNOW, J.N., AND ANDERSON, J.B., 2001, Quantitative
analogue flume-model study of river-shelf systems: principles and verification exemplified by
the Late Quaternary Colorado river-delta evolution: Basin Research, v. 13, p. 243–268.
VAN WAGONER, J.C., MITCHUM, R.M., CAMPION, K.M., AND RAHMANIAN, V.D., 1990, Siliciclastic
sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores, and outcrops: Concepts for high-resolution cor-
relation of time and facies: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Methods in
Exploration Series 7, 55 p.
WEHR, F.L., 1993, Effects of variation in subsidence and sediment supply on parasequence
stacking patterns, in Weimer, P., and Posamentier, H.W., eds., Siliciclastic Sequence Stra-
tigraphy—Recent Developments and Applications: American Association of Petroleum Ge-
ologists, Memoir 58, p. 369–379.
WESCOTT, W.A., 1993, Geomorphic thresholds and complex response of fluvial systems—some
implications for sequence stratigraphy: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bul-
letin, v. 77, p. 1208–1218.
WOOD, L.J., ETHRIDGE, F.G., AND SCHUMM, S.A., 1993a, The effects of base-level fluctuation on
coastal-plain, shelf and slope depositional systems: an experimental approach, in Posamentier,
H.W., Summerhayes, C.P., Haq, B.U., and Allen, G.P., eds., Sequence Stratigraphy and Facies
Associations: International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication 18, p. 43–53.
WOOD, L.J., ETHRIDGE, F.G., AND SCHUMM, S.A., 1993b, An experimental study of the influence
of subaqueous shelf angles on the coastal plain and shelf deposits, in Weimer, P., and
Posamentier, H.W., eds., Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy—Recent Developments and
Applications: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 58, p. 381–391.
Received 15 December 2000; accepted 13 September 2003.
KMWin