Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sedimentary Geology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s e d g e o

Tidal effects on the shoreface: Towards a conceptual framework

Shahin E. Dashtgard a,⁎, James A. MacEachern a, Shannon E. Frey a, Murray K. Gingras b
a
Applied Research in Ichnology and Sedimentology (ARISE) Group, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6
b
Ichnology Research Group (IRG), Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Tidal processes can have a significant impact on the sedimentological and ichnological character of wave-
Received 4 May 2010 dominated shoreface deposits. As the influence of tides increases, the resulting shoreface successions begin to
Received in revised form 7 July 2010 depart markedly from those postulated by the conventional, wave-dominated shoreface model, which was
Accepted 3 September 2010
built upon essentially non-tidal shoreline settings. In shoreface settings subject to stronger tidal flux, tides can
Available online 15 September 2010
be manifest either directly or indirectly. Direct tidal effects refer to those characteristics imparted by tidal
Keywords:
energy (e.g., tidal currents) per se, and are best expressed in offshore and lower shoreface positions. Key
Tides evidence of direct tidal control includes uniform sediment calibres from the upper shoreface to the offshore,
Beach and little or no mud preserved in the lower shoreface. Additionally, sands in the lower shoreface and offshore
Facies models tend to be intensely bioturbated. Where primary stratification is preserved, it largely comprises current-
Sedimentology generated structures. Such shoreface deposits are referred to herein as “tide-influenced shorefaces”, and are
Ichnology expected in settings with low storm-wave input coupled with strong tidal currents (e.g., straits). Indirect tidal
Storm-dominated influences are manifest by the lateral translation of wave zones across the shoreface profile owing to changes
in water depth during the tidal cycle. This is best developed in macrotidal to megatidal settings. Indirect tidal
influences are more pronounced in the upper and lower shoreface, and are recorded through the interbedding
of sedimentary structures produced by shoaling waves, breakers and surf, swash–backwash, and surface
runoff. The boundaries between shoreface subenvironments are correspondingly poorly defined. The
foreshore in settings of elevated tidal range is also generally much thicker (typically 4 to 5 m). Bioturbation
tends to be patchy in distribution across the shoreface, and dominated by vertical structures. Such systems are
defined as “tidally modulated shorefaces”.
Using well-established sedimentological and ichnological criteria for recognizing wave-dominated (non-
tidal) shorefaces — wherein sediment deposition is nearly wholly controlled by fair-weather wave and storm-
wave processes — a conceptual model is developed for discriminating fair-weather (non-tidal) shorefaces,
storm-influenced (non-tidal) shorefaces, and tidally influenced shorefaces. Five shoreface archetypes are
defined: storm-affected, storm-influenced, storm-dominated, tide-influenced, and tidally modulated.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction on sediment deposition, however, tidal effects on the character of the

Shoreface deposits are conceptually taken to represent settings
wholly dominated by wave processes (Dalrymple et al., 1992).
However, shorefaces occur in a wide range of coastal settings and,
consequently, display a wide range of variability in their sedimento-
logical and ichnological characteristics. The character of preserved
shoreface successions is, in part, determined by relative seal level
change (e.g., normal regressive, forced regressive, and transgressive)
(Posamentier et al., 1992; Plint and Nummendal, 2000; Posamentier
and Morris, 2000). Further controls on the preserved character are
mainly autogenic and include the relative influence of fair-weather
waves, storm waves, and tides. Unlike fair-weather and storm effects
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 778 782 5492; fax: +1 778 782 4198.
E-mail address: sdashtga@sfu.ca (S.E. Dashtgard).
shoreface are relatively poorly understood.
The shoreface depositional model is well established in the
geological literature (Bluck, 1967; Clifton et al., 1971; Davidson-
Arnott and Greenwood, 1976; Komar, 1976; Walker and Plint, 1992;
Galloway and Hobday, 1996; Reading and Collinson, 1996; Short,
1999b; Clifton, 2006), where the predictable shore-normal zonation
of the shoreface reflects the collapse of wave orbitals (both wind
waves and ocean swells (Allen, 1997)) near the shoreline (Fig. 1). The
base of the shoreface is defined by the depth at which fair-weather-
wave orbitals can mobilize sediment at the seafloor (fair-weather
wave base (Hallermeier, 1981)). Landward of this position, a decrease
in water depth and elevated frictional interaction of wave orbits with
the seafloor forces the circular wave orbital into a more elliptical
pattern (Komar and McDougal, 1994; Allen, 1997). The collapse of
waves onshore is manifest sedimentologically by distinct distribu-
tions of sediments and sedimentary structures. Moreover, wave

0037-0738/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2010.09.006
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61 43

Fig. 1. Idealized schematic of the shoreface and beach. The positions of the various shoreface zones, wave zones, fair-weather wave base (FWWB), high tide (HT), and low tide (LT)
are indicated.

Fig. 2. Beach profiles commonly developed in macrotidal and megatidal settings with the dominant wave processes indicated (modified after Masselink and Hegge, 1995 and
Masselink and Short, 1993). Symbols used: mean high tide (HT), mean sea level (MSL), mean low tide (LT).

processes and their impact on the sediments impart a significant
control on the infauna colonizing the shoreface and beach (foreshore).
Predictable distributions of traces fossils (mainly burrows) are
evident in the various wave zones (Howard and Frey, 1984;
Pemberton and Frey, 1984; MacEachern and Pemberton, 1992;
Pemberton et al., 1992a).
Existing shoreface models rarely account for tidal effects. Tides can
be manifest in one of two ways across the shoreface: either as direct
controls on sediment deposition or, with increasing tidal range, as
tidal modulation. Direct tidal controls are observed in settings with
strong tidal currents and intermittent slack-water periods. Such
tidally driven sediment transport and deposition is most evident in
the lower shoreface and, to a lesser extent, the middle shoreface. In
these zones, tidal-current velocities operating parallel to the coastline
exceed fair-weather wave orbital velocities (Frey and Dashtgard,
2012), and hence, dominate sediment transport and deposition.
Unlike direct tidal controls, referred to herein as “tide-influence”,
tidal modulation refers to the lateral translation of wave zones across
the shoreface profile in response to the rising and falling of tides.
Where tides are relatively small, such as in microtidal and low
mesotidal settings, the translation of wave zones along depositional
dip is limited, and wave zones are generally well constrained laterally
(Fig. 1). With increasing tidal range (macrotidal and megatidal
settings), the translation of wave zones is increasingly pronounced.
In megatidal settings (N8 m tidal range), it is not uncommon at low
tide to expose intertidally sediments that lie under 12 m of water at
high tide (Fig. 2)(Masselink and Short, 1993; Masselink and Hegge,
1995; Masselink and Turner, 1999; Short, 1999b; Levoy et al., 2000,
2001; Anthony et al., 2004, 2005; Dashtgard and Gingras, 2007;
Dashtgard et al., 2009). The sedimentological and ichnological
expression of such significant tides is distinct, and the resulting
shoreface character is referred to as a “tidally modulated shoreface”
(Dashtgard et al., 2009).
Herein, we describe the sedimentology and ichnology of shoreface
settings (offshore to foreshore) exposed to a range of storm-wave and
tidal influences. This data leads to the development of a conceptual
model permitting the recognition and differentiation of the different
shoreface archetypes (Table 1). Shoreface settings that experience
limited tidal influence are referred to as “wave-dominated”, whereas
strongly tidally affected settings are divided into “tide-influenced”
and “tidally modulated” categories. Wave-dominated shorefaces are
further sub-divided, based upon the degree of storm-wave influence,
into “storm-affected”, “storm-influenced”, and “storm-dominated”
settings (cf. MacEachern and Pemberton, 1992). Although these five
types do not encapsulate all variability inherent in shoreface settings,
they do provide recurring archetypes for comparison.
2. Storm-affected, storm-influenced and
storm-dominated shorefaces
Wave-dominated, generally non-tidal shoreface successions have a
long history of sedimentological (e.g., Bluck, 1967; Hayes, 1967; Clifton,
1969; Clifton et al., 1971; Sonu, 1973; Davidson-Arnott and Greenwood,
1976; Komar, 1976; Kumar and Sanders, 1976; Hunter et al., 1979;
Wright et al., 1979; Leckie and Walker, 1982; Bourgeois and Leithold,
1984; Davis and Hayes, 1984; Niedoroda et al., 1984; Short, 1984; Duke,

Table 1
List of the shoreface archetypes defined in this paper. For each archetype, the relative storm-wave energy, tidal range, and tidal current strengths are listed. Note that storm-affected
shorefaces, storm-influenced shorefaces, and storm-dominated shorefaces are grouped into the broader category of wave-dominated shorefaces.

Shoreface type Abbr. Relative storm energy Tidal range Tidal currents

Storm-affected shoreface SAS Low Microtidal to lower mesotidal Low

Storm-influenced shoreface SIS Medium Microtidal to lower mesotidal Low
Storm-dominated shoreface SDS High Microtidal to lower mesotidal Low
Tide-influenced shoreface TIS Low to medium Microtidal to upper mesotidal Moderate to high
Tidally modulated shoreface TMS Low to medium Macrotidal to megatidal Low to high
44 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61

Fig. 3. Photos of typical facies observed in offshore settings lying seaward of wave-dominated non-tidal shoreface settings. Storm influence progressively increases to the right. Black and
white bands on scale bars are 1 cm each. A. LOff, SIS: Intensely and uniformly bioturbated (BI 6) sandy mudstone. Burrows are mainly horizontal structures (e.g., Asterosoma, Planolites,
Rhizocorallium, Teichichnus, and Zoophycos) and surface grazing structures (e.g., Phycosiphon) with secondary deep-penetrating structures (e.g., Chondrites and Thalassinoides). (Jurassic
Heather Formation, Norwegian Shelf) B. UOff, SIS: Note the remnant bedding expressed by highly bioturbated (BI 5) muddy sandstone beds and intensely bioturbated sandy mudstone
layers. Burrows are dominantly horizontal (e.g., Cosmorhaphe). (Upper Cretaceous Cardium Formation, Alberta, Canada) C. UOff, SDS: Erosional sand-dominated storm beds are
interspersed with highly bioturbated (BI 5) sandy mudstone. Yellow arrows indicate the base of laterally discontinuous sand beds interpreted as storm-deposited beds. (Lower
Cretaceous, Bow Island Formation, Alberta, Canada). Symbols used: Asterosoma (As), Chondrites (Ch), Cosmorhaphe (Cr), Phoebichnus (Po), Phycosiphon (Ph), Planolites (P), Rhizocorallium
(Rh), Teichichnus (Te), Thalassinoides (Th), Zoophycos (Z).

1985; Plint and Walker, 1987; Massari and Parea, 1988; Rahmani and
Smith, 1988; Hart and Plint, 1989; Short, 1999b; Clifton, 2006) and
ichnological evaluation (e.g., Frey and Howard, 1972; Howard, 1972;
Howard and Reineck, 1981; Seilacher, 1982; Howard and Frey, 1984;
Pemberton and Frey, 1984; Frey, 1990; Frey and Howard, 1990;
Seilacher and Aigner, 1991; MacEachern and Pemberton, 1992;
Pemberton et al., 1992a,b; Pemberton and MacEachern, 1997;
MacEachern et al., 1999; MacEachern and Bann, 2008). This dataset
permits the establishment of a robust model for characterizing wave-/
storm-dominated, non-tidal shoreface successions. Storm-affected,
storm-influenced, and storm-dominated shorefaces represent the
spectrum of wave-dominated shorefaces from weakly to intensely
storm-influenced settings (Table 1; cf. MacEachern and Pemberton,
1992; MacEachern and Bann, 2008). Along the spectrum from fair-
weather wave to storm-wave-dominated regimes, there is an increase
in the severity of storms impacting the coastline. Given that the
magnitude of wind waves, swells, and storm waves is proportional to
wind duration and fetch length (Wilson, 1965; Ebuchi et al., 1992;
Goda, 2003), coastlines exposed to large fair-weather waves likely will
be influenced by large storm waves as well. This correlation is not
always the case, however, as regional weather patterns (e.g., hurri-
canes) also exert a major influence on the coastline (Hayes, 1967;
Kumar and Sanders, 1976; Siringan and Anderson, 1994).
The lower and upper offshore of wave-dominated shorefaces are
characterized by intensely bioturbated silty and sandy mud repre-
senting fair-weather deposition, with interbedded sand and silt beds
deposited during storms (Fig. 3). These sand beds are commonly finer
grained than their shoreface counterparts. In storm-affected settings

Fig. 4. Photos of the lower and middle shoreface of wave-dominated non-tidal shorefaces. The top row panels (A–C) are for the middle shoreface (MShf), the middle row panels
(D–F) are photos of the proximal lower shoreface (pLShf), and the bottom row panels (G–I) are for the distal lower shoreface (dLShf). Storm-affected shoreface (SAS) facies occur in
the first column (A, D, G), storm-influenced shoreface (SIS) deposits occur in the middle column (B, E, H), and facies of the storm-dominated shoreface (SDS) are shown in the last
column (C, F, I). Black and white bands on scale bar are 1 cm each unless indicated otherwise. A. MShf: SAS: Swaley cross-stratified sandstone with moderate degrees of bioturbation
(BI 3–4). Burrows are deep-penetrating (e.g., Ophiomorpha). (Upper Cretaceous Blackhawk Formation, Utah, USA) B. MShf: SIS: Laminated–scrambled appearance of amalgamated
storm-deposited sandstone. The lower part of storm beds are parallel laminated (possible swaley or hummocky cross-stratification) with few deep-penetrating burrows (BI 1).
Towards the top of these beds, burrowing by opportunistic colonizers produces intense bioturbation (BI 5–6), with an abundance of mainly vertical structures (e.g., Skolithos and
Ophiomorpha). (Upper Cretaceous Appaloosa Sandstone, Alberta, Canada) C. MShf, SDS: Amalgamated swaley to hummocky cross-stratified storm-beds with rare escape traces
(fugichnia). (Jurassic Tarbert Formation, Norwegian Shelf) D. pLShf, SAS: Intensely bioturbated (BI 5–6) muddy sandstone with permanent dwelling structures
(e.g., Schaubcylindrichnus, Siphonicnus, and Ophiomorpha) dominant. (Lower Cretaceous Viking Formation, Alberta, Canada) E. pLShf, SIS: Laminated–scrambled bedding with
laminated sandstone interbedded with intensely bioturbated (BI 6) muddy sandstone. Burrows are mainly permanent dwellings (Rosselia (Ro), O). (Lower Cretaceous Viking
Formation, Alberta, Canada) F. pLShf, SDS: Interbedded laminated storm beds (BI 0–2) with thin, moderately bioturbated (BI 3–4) sandy fair-weather beds. (Macaronichnus isp.)
(Lower Cretaceous Bluesky Formation, Alberta, Canada) G. dLShf, SAS: Intensely bioturbated muddy sandstone with vestiges of sandy tempestites evident. Burrows include
permanent dwellings (e.g., Thalassinoides and Rosselia), subsurface-deposit-feeding structures (e.g., Chondrites and Rhizocorallium), and surface-deposit-feeding structures
(e.g., Phycosiphon). (Permian Wasp Head Formation, south Sydney Basin, Australia) H. dLShf, SIS: Interbedded fair-weather muddy sandstone interbedded with and tempestite
sandstones. Yellow arrows mark the base of storm beds. (Permian Snapper Point Formation, south Sydney Basin, Australia) I. dLShf, SDS: Amalgamated hummocky cross-stratified
sandstone interbedded with intensely bioturbated fair-weather silty sandstone. Storm beds exhibit escape traces (fu) and opportunistic colonization reflected by top down
burrowing manifest by simple burrows. The yellow arrow marks the base of a tempestite. Also evident are more complex horizontal burrow forms developed in the fair-weather
beds (e.g., Asterosoma, Ophiomorpha, Phycosiphon, and Rosellia). (Jurassic Fensfjiord Formation, Norwegian Shelf). Symbols used: Asterosoma (As), Chondrites (ch), fugichnia (fu),
Macaronichnus (Ma), Ophiomorpha (O), Phycosiphon (Ph), Rhizocorallium (Rh), Rosselia (Ro), Schaubcylindrichnus (Sch), Siphonicnus (Si), Skolithos (Sk), Thalassinoides (Th).
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61 45

(i.e., limited storm influence on sediment deposition), intercalated lower offshore and become increasingly prevalent towards the
sand beds are rare and largely restricted to upper offshore positions. landward-end of the upper offshore. The defining characteristic of
With increasing storm influence, sand beds can be deposited in the the offshore, however, is expressed in the silty and sandy mudstone
46 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61 47

Fig. 6. Legend of symbols used for sedimentological and ichnological structures and abbreviations in Figs. 7, 9, and 14. Lithology symbols apply to Figs. 9 and 14 only.

facies (fair-weather deposits), which exhibit intense bioturbation
composed of mainly horizontal grazing structures (Fig. 3).
The lower shoreface (LShf) and middle shoreface (MShf) of wave-
dominated successions exhibit the greatest variability. At the storm-
affected shoreface (SAS) end of the spectrum, the LShf is dominated
by intensely bioturbated muddy sand (high mud content) grading
into intensely bioturbated silty sand (lower mud contents) of the
MShf (Fig. 4A, D, G). Storm beds are generally thin, and are commonly
bioturbated with limited preservation of primary sedimentary
structures. Burrows in the LShf of SAS include both horizontal
deposit-feeding structures, and vertical suspension- and interface-
deposit-feeding traces. The resultant trace-fossil suite corresponds to
proximal expressions of the Cruziana Ichnofacies (cf. MacEachern et
al., 2007; MacEachern and Bann, 2008). The trace assemblage of the
MShf in storm-affected settings is dominated by vertical structures
attributable to distal expressions of the Skolithos Ichnofacies, although
with the co-occurrence of higher energy facies-crossing elements of
the Cruziana Ichnofacies (e.g., Rosselia and Cylindrichnus). The
combined LShf and MShf thickness of SAS is relatively thin in
comparison to storm-influenced and storm-dominated settings.
With increasing storm influence, the LShf–MShf interval thickens.
As storm influence on sediment deposition increases, the propor-
tion of unburrowed or only slightly burrowed sand beds increases. In
storm-influenced settings, the LShf and MShf can be identified by the
characteristic laminated-to-burrowed appearance to the bedding,
wherein the laminated sandstone beds constitute the tempestites and
the burrowed sandstone beds represent the fair-weather deposits
(e.g., Howard and Frey, 1984; Pemberton and Frey, 1984; MacEachern
and Pemberton, 1992; Pemberton et al., 1992b; Pemberton and
MacEachern, 1997). In the LShf of storm-influenced systems, fair-

Fig. 5. Photos of the upper shoreface (UShf; E–H) and foreshore (FSh; A–D) of wave-dominated, non-tidal shorefaces. The UShf and FSh of all wave-dominated settings are
sedimentologically similar. Consequently, most photos are not attributed to a specific shoreface type. A. Shallowly seaward-dipping beds of very fine conglomerate and coarse-
grained sandstone. (Upper Pleistocene, Sardinia, Italy) B. Low-angle planar bedded pebbly sandstone between fine-grained conglomerate layers. Macaronichnus segregatis are
evident throughout the sandstone bed (BI 4). Scale is 3 cm. (Lower Cretaceous Cadotte Member, Alberta, Canada) C. Shallowly dipping plane bedded sandstone, intensely
bioturbated (BI 6) with Macaronichnus segregatis. (Lower Cretaceous Notikewin Member, Alberta, Canada) D. Outcrop of storm-dominated shoreface deposits with a sharp contact
(red arrow) developed between trough cross-bedded sand of the UShf and plane bedded sand of the FSh. (Upper Cretaceous, Panther Tongue, Utah, USA) E. Multi-directional trough
cross-beds of the UShf. Note the rare bioturbation (BI 1) with mainly vertical structures produced (Skolithos, fugichnia). (Upper Cretaceous, Panther Tongue, Utah, USA) F. Conichnus
(white arrow) in trough cross-bedded sandstone. Conichnus is commonly produced by the vertical movement of burrowing sea anemones. The position of this photo is show in
Fig. 5H by the white box. (Upper Cretaceous, Panther Tongue, Utah, USA) G. Highly bioturbated (BI 5) trough cross-bedded sandstone at the top of the UShf. Extensive burrowing
with Macaronichnus segregatis occurs near the UShf–FSh transition of storm-influenced and storm-dominated shorefaces. Scale is 3 cm. (Lower Cretaceous Cadotte Member, Alberta,
Canada) H. Outcrop of storm-dominated shoreface deposits with a sharp contact (red arrow) developed between swaley cross-stratified sandstone of the MShf and trough cross-
bedded sand of the UShf. The white box defines the position of the photo 5F. Person is 170 cm tall. (Upper Cretaceous, Panther Tongue, Utah, USA). Symbols used: fugichnia (fu),
Macaronichnus segregatis (Ma), Skolithos (Sk).
48 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61

Fig. 7. Theoretical strip logs for normally prograding wave-dominated (non-tidal) storm-affected, storm-influenced and storm-dominated shorefaces. Legend of symbols is provided
in Fig. 6.
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61 49

Fig. 8. Location map for the three beaches on Vancouver Island, Canada used to develop
the tide-influenced shoreface model.

weather beds consist mainly of muddy sand, with the number and
thickness of interbedded tempestites that preserve primary lamina-
tion increasing landwards (Fig. 4E, H). The ichnological character of
the fair-weather beds is similar to that of storm-affected settings. The
tops of storm beds may also be bioturbated with a suite of mainly
vertical dwellings and deposit-feeding structures representing initial
opportunistic colonization of the event bed following the storm
(Pemberton et al., 2001). In the MShf, sediments are mainly sandy and
commonly represent amalgamated storm beds. However, erosion of
previous tempestites is reduced in storm-influenced settings (relative
to storm-dominated settings) such that the tops of each storm bed are
colonized, producing the similar laminated–scrambled appearance as
seen in the LShf (Fig. 4B).
At the storm-dominated end of the spectrum, both the LShf and
MShf are composed almost entirely of erosionally amalgamated
tempestites, with the break between the LShf and MShf effectively not
recognizable (Clifton et al., 1971; MacEachern and Pemberton, 1992).
Low-angle undulatory and parallel laminated sandstone dominates
the LShf–MShf, with bioturbation intensities generally low (Fig. 4C, F,
I) and decreasing landwards. Bioturbated zones mainly comprise the
erosional remnants of deep-penetrating vertical structures (e.g.,
Skolithos and Ophiomorpha), whereas more complete burrow struc-
tures occur towards the base of the shoreface succession. The
combined LShf–MShf for storm-dominated systems is generally
thicker than in storm-influenced settings.
Unlike the LShf and MShf, facies of the upper shoreface (UShf)
remain sedimentologically consistent across the spectrum of storm
influence on wave-dominated shorefaces (Figs. 5, 6 and 7); storm
effects in these nearshore positions are predominantly erosional (Roy
et al., 1994). For storm-affected, storm-influenced and storm- Fig. 9. Theoretical strip log for a normally prograding tide-influenced shoreface. Legend
dominated shorefaces, grain sizes coarsen from the LShf to the UShf of symbols is provided in Fig. 6.
(Fig. 7). Where grain sizes are upper fine grained or coarser,
50 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61 51

Fig. 11. Photos and line-sketch interpretations of middle to upper shoreface sediments of tide-influenced shorefaces. All water depth (WD) measurements are reported relative to
mean spring high tide. A. MShf–UShf (5 m WD), Sandcut Beach: Hummocky cross-stratified, wavy-parallel laminated, wave-rippled, and current-rippled medium-grained sand
overlying intensely bioturbated (BI 6, grey area) sand. Traces attributable to Arenicolites (Ar), Palaeophycus (Pa), and Skolithos (Sk) traces are identified. B. MShf–UShf (5 m WD),
Sandcut Beach: Wave-rippled and current-rippled sand interbedded with plane bedded (possibly hummocky cross-stratification) sand. These sediments overlie hummocky cross-
stratified sand. Note the lack of bioturbation in this core. Cross-hatch pattern defines areas of distorted core. Symbols used: current ripples (cr), hummocky cross-stratification (hs),
plane bed (pb), wave ripples (wr), wavy-parallel laminae (wl); Arenicolites (Ar), Palaeophycus (Pa), Skolithos (Sk).

sediments are mainly deposited as multi-directional dunes (i.e.,
trough cross-bedding) and, to a lesser extent, current ripples. For
shorefaces composed of sediment calibres finer than upper fine-
grained sand, deposits are parallel laminated and current-rippled
(Rubin and McCulloch, 1980; Clifton, 2006). Beyond these similarities
there are a number of key differences between the settings. In storm-
affected settings, the UShf is generally thin with current ripples more
common than are observed in settings with greater storm influence.
The contact between the UShf and MShf is typically gradational,
reflecting the shift in the position of breaking waves as a function of
varying wave magnitude, as well as with the rising and falling tide
(Masselink and Short, 1993). Nevertheless, a sharp contact may be
developed in storm-affected settings where longshore bars are
developed in the UShf (Greenwood and Davidson-Arnott, 1979).
Bioturbation intensities are low to moderate, and suites are
dominated by vertical traces attributable to the Skolithos Ichnofacies
(e.g., Conichnus and Ophiomorpha).
In storm-influenced and storm-dominated settings, the UShf
increases in thickness in response to the increasing size of waves
impacting the coastline. With increasing fetch and wind duration,
which corresponds to an increase in the size of fair-weather as well as
storm waves (Goda, 2003), trough cross-beds comprise the dominant
sedimentary structure in the UShf, with cross-sets mainly oriented
onshore (Fig. 5E). The base of the UShf is commonly sharp (Figs. 5H
and 7), particularly for systems with well-developed longshore bars
(Hunter et al., 1979; Rahmani and Smith, 1988). Burrows in the UShf
are dominantly vertical traces attributable to the Skolithos Ichnofacies,
although the intensity of bioturbation is typically low (Fig. 5E–F).
Towards the upper contact of the UShf in storm-influenced and
storm-dominated shorefaces, it is not uncommon to observe intense
bioturbation composed solely of Macaronichnus segregatis (Fig. 5G)
(Clifton and Thompson, 1978; Saunders and Pemberton, 1990; Dafoe
et al., 2008), at the expense of suites attributable to the Skolithos
Ichnofacies.
The foreshore (beach) lies at the landward-end of all shorefaces.
The foreshore is typically the most sedimentologically uniform
deposit for all wave-dominated shorefaces in which tidal ranges are
equal. Here, variations in the sedimentology are observed as a
function of storm-influence and sediment calibre (Short, 1984,
1991, 1999b; Masselink and Short, 1993). Low-angle, seaward-
dipping planar beds and laminae deposited by swash–backwash
(Fig. 5A–D) dominate the facies of both sandy (Clifton, 1969;
MacEachern and Pemberton, 1992) and gravelly (Bluck, 1967; Hart
and Plint, 1989, 1995; Bluck, 1999) foreshores, although depositional

Fig. 10. Resin peels and line interpretations for the offshore/lower shoreface deposits of tide-influenced shorefaces (TIS). All water depth (WD) measurements are reported relative
to mean spring high tide. The landward and oceanward directions for all photos are indicated in the top right- and left-hand corners. A. LShf (13 m WD), Sandcut Beach: Current-
rippled and plane bedded medium-grained sand (BI 2) overlying intensely bioturbated (BI 5–6) sand (grey pattern). B. LShf (13 m WD), French Beach: Intensely bioturbated (BI 5–6)
medium-grained sand below a current-rippled surface. Burrows are mainly simple vertical and horizontal tubes. C. UOff–LShf (18 m WD), French Beach: Partial preservation of
intensely bioturbated (BI 6) medium-grain sand below a wave-rippled zone. D. UOff (20 m WD), China Beach: Partial preservation of current ripples near top of core, with increasing
sediment reworking with depth. Bioturbation index values increase from BI 2–3 near top of core to BI 6 near base. Symbols used: current ripples (cr), plane beds (pb), wave ripples
(wr); Arenicolites (Ar), Planolites (P), Skolithos (Sk), lined-Skolithos (lSk).
52 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61

Fig. 12. Photos and line-sketch interpretations of upper shoreface to foreshore sediments of tide-influenced shorefaces. All water depth (WD) measurements are reported relative to
mean spring high tide. A. FSh (0 m WD), French Beach: Rhythmically interbedded plane bedded and combined-flow/current-rippled sand. Note the absence of bioturbation and the
abundance of gravel. B. UShf–FSh (3 m WD), Sandcut Beach: Rhythmically interbedded plane bedded and current-rippled sand with isolated pebbles (dark grey) overlying parallel
laminated laminae interpreted as hummock cross-stratification. An escape trace (fugichnia) is evident at the left side of the core. C. UShf–FSh (3 m WD), China Beach: Rhythmically
interbedded plane bedded and combined-flow/current-rippled sand with isolated pebbles (dark grey) and shell fragments (light grey). Note the absence of bioturbation. D. UShf–FSh
(2 m WD), China Beach: Possible rhythmically interbedded trough cross-bedded, plane bedded and combined-flow/current-rippled sand. Note the absence of bioturbation. Symbols
used: combined-flow ripples (cfr), current ripples (cr), hummocky cross-stratification (hs), plane beds (pb), trough cross-beds (tx), wave ripples (wr); fugichnia (fu).

dips increase with increasing grain size (Sunamura, 1984; Hughes and
Turner, 1999). In sand-dominated foreshores, storms are generally
indicated by coarser-grained debris and/or low-angle scour surfaces.
Sediments display either a bioturbation index (BI) (Taylor and
Goldring, 1993) of 0, or BI 5–6 where the Macaronichnus segregatis
“toe-of-the-beach” assemblage is developed (Fig. 5B–C), typically
characterizing more reflective and/or storm-prone systems (cf.
Saunders et al., 1994). The thickness of the foreshore is partly
determined by the tidal range (the other factors include wave
magnitude and grain size), with increases in tidal range favouring
thicker foreshores. This relationship is not directly proportional,
however, as the foreshore zone, dominated by swash–backwash
processes, decreases as a percentage of the intertidal zone in upper
mesotidal to megatidal settings (Masselink and Short, 1993;
Dashtgard et al., 2009; Frey and Dashtgard, 2012).
3. Tide-influenced shorefaces
An example of a progradational succession of a tide-influenced
shoreface is provided in Frey and Dashtgard (2012), and is based on
three composite sand-and-gravel shorefaces developed along the Juan
de Fuca Strait, Canada (Fig. 8). Within the strait, tides are mesotidal,
with an average tidal range of 2.2 m and a maximum spring tidal
range of 4.4 m. An idealized beach-shoreface succession characteriz-
ing a tide-influenced shoreface is presented in Fig. 9, based on the Frey
and Dashtgard study.
The offshore and lower shoreface components of tide-influenced
shorefaces can be recognized by their fair-weather signatures,
wherein beds are dominated by sediment calibres equivalent to
those of the upper shoreface, and are typically intensely bioturbated
(Figs. 9 and 10). Current-generated structures, oriented parallel to the
shoreline, comprise the dominant preserved sedimentary structure,
although preservation of current ripples is rare (Fig. 10). Sandy storm
beds are interspersed with fair-weather beds. On the Juan de Fuca
Strait beaches, storm beds are sandy and appear to be hummocky
cross-stratified (possibly micro-hummocky cross-stratified (cf. Cheel
and Leckie, 1993; Bann et al., 2004)), or comprise massive to plane
bedded gravel (Fig. 9). Sandy fair-weather deposits are typically
extensively bioturbated, although strong tidal currents in the lower
shoreface and offshore favour sediment colonization by infauna
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61 53

Fig. 13. Location map for Waterside Beach, Bay of Fundy, Canada. This beach was used
to develop the tidally modulated shoreface model.

employing burrow morphologies more typical of the Skolithos

Ichnofacies (e.g., mainly simple, vertical structures; Figs. 9 and 10).
Tidal currents in the middle shoreface likewise generate current
ripples oriented parallel to the shoreline. These currents are
sufficiently strong (N0.2 m/s) to entrain and ultimately deposit
sand-sized sediments of similar calibres to those of the upper
shoreface. Current ripples, however, are not consistently preserved,
as sediments are reworked by propagating fair-weather waves. Wave
ripples and plane beds are the dominant fair-weather wave-
generated structures, whereas swaley and hummocky cross-
stratification comprise the dominant storm-wave-generated
structures (Fig. 11). Current ripples constitute subordinate structures
in the middle shoreface. Burrows typical of the Skolithos Ichnofacies
occur in the middle shoreface, and include elements that are
morphologically similar to Arenicolites, Skolithos, and Conichnus.
Breaking waves and surf processes dominate sediment deposition
across the upper shoreface of tide-influenced shorefaces (Fig. 9).
Tidally generated sedimentary structures generally are not present in
this zone, although rhythmic interbedding of combined-flow/current
ripples and plane beds and, to a lesser extent, trough cross-beds is
observed in the lower intertidal zone (transitional between UShf and
FSh; Fig. 12). This rhythmicity records sediment deposition via
shoaling waves (combined-flow ripples), breaking waves and surf
(trough cross-beds), and swash–backwash (plane beds), which
occurs as tides force the lateral translation of wave zones across the
intertidal zone. Sediments coarsen onshore. Although sediment cores
display rhythmic interbedding of sediment deposited under fair-
weather conditions, the preserved character of the UShf more likely Fig. 14. Theoretical strip log for a normally prograding tidally modulated shoreface.
will be dominated by trough cross-beds formed during periods of Legend of symbols is provided in Fig. 6.
elevated wave energy. Upper shoreface sediments are trough cross-
54 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61

bedded and display comparable multi-directionality comparable to constitute vertical structures typical of the Skolithos Ichnofacies (e.g.,
that observed in wave-dominated non-tidal shorefaces (Fig. 12B). fugichnia (Fig. 12B), Arenicolites). The Macaronichnus segregatis “toe-
Ichnological structures are rare in the upper shoreface, and mainly of-the-beach” assemblage may be developed at the landward-end of
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61 55

the upper shoreface (e.g., Vakarelov et al., this volume), although this
was not encountered in the Juan de Fuca beaches.
Swash–backwash processes dominate sediment deposition in the
foreshore of microtidal settings. In mesotidal settings, such as the Juan
de Fuca Strait, breaking waves and surf dominate sediment entrain-
ment and deposition in the lower foreshore. Low-angle, seaward-
dipping plane beds are interbedded with trough cross-beds and
current ripples (Fig. 12). The preserved character of this zone,
therefore, is more likely to be dominated by trough cross-stratification.
The foreshore tends to be unbioturbated or can contain variable
abundances of Macaronichnus segregatis, particularly at lower inter-
tidal positions. At the landward edge of the foreshore, pebbly sand and
gravel beds dip seaward at angles of up to 8°. The transition from a
pebbly upper foreshore to the sandy middle to lower foreshore is
sharp. In sandy foreshores, though, the depositional angle is reduced
(Sunamura, 1984; Hughes and Turner, 1999) and the contact between
seaward-dipping plane bedded sand and trough cross-bedded sand
can be sharp or gradational.
4. Tidally modulated shorefaces
Tidally modulated shorefaces (TMS) occur at the tide-dominated
end of the spectrum of shoreface successions. With increasing tidal
influence, TMS evolve into open-coast tidal flats (Masselink and Short,
1993; Masselink and Turner, 1999; Yang et al., 2005, 2008). The TMS is
the expected shoreface type in macrotidal to megatidal settings prone
to strong wave energies, wherein the rising and falling tide forces the
pronounced lateral translation of wave zones along the depositional
profile of the beach and shoreface (Dashtgard et al., 2009). An
example of a TMS occurs at Waterside Beach, Bay of Fundy, Canada
(Fig. 13; Dashtgard et al., 2009). Tidal range averages 8.5 m, with a
spring tidal range of 11.5 m. During spring low tide, up to 1200 m of
intertidal zone is exposed in the dip direction. Grain sizes fine offshore
across the intertidal zone, and sedimentary structures are predom-
inantly wave generated. The shoreface dips seaward at 0.3° in the
lower and middle intertidal zone, and at 2° to 4° in the upper intertidal
zone. Based on the sedimentological characteristics of the intertidal
zone, lower-, middle-, and upper-shoreface-equivalent subenviron-
ments, as well as the foreshore are recognized. These distributions are
used to propose an idealized prograding succession for tidally
modulated shorefaces (Fig. 14).
The offshore to lower shoreface boundary in tidally modulated
shorefaces should be characteristically gradational, as with all shore-
face types. For TMS, mean low-tide fair-weather wave base is picked as
a transitional contact between the shoreface and offshore. Above mean
low-tide fair-weather wave base, the seafloor is regularly exposed to
fair-weather-wave shoaling. Below this point, fair-weather-wave
interaction with the seafloor is sporadic. Storms that periodically
affect the TMS can redistribute sediments at significant depths below
the intertidal zone. Given that TMS are most common in macrotidal to
megatidal settings, the position of storm-wave base may be signifi-
cantly further seaward than is typically observed: this remains to be
determined. In the example of a TMS (Waterside Beach), the base of
the shoreface is identified from grain size trends and seismic profiles; a
distinct break in the profiles occur at 5 m below the spring low-tide
limit (Dashtgard et al., 2009). As such, the LShf of Waterside Beach is
approximately 5 to 7 m thick. This LShf thickness matches that
reported by Ainsworth et al. (2008) for a Jurassic-aged TMS in the
Plover Formation of Australia, and suggests that a thin LShf (relative to
the total thickness of the shoreface) may be characteristic of TMS.
The proximal lower shoreface of Waterside Beach is dominated by
oscillation-generated structures with subordinate unidirectional-
current-generated structures. In lower calibre sediments (average grain
size of fine sand and silt), oscillatory and combined-flow ripples, micro-
hummocky cross-stratification, and hummocky cross-stratification
are common (Fig. 15B–C). Interbedded with these structures are
trough cross-beds (Fig. 15C–D) that reflect higher energy wave
conditions, locally with muddy flasers (Fig. 15A), which were
deposited under quieter-water conditions. Ichnologically, the proxi-
mal lower shoreface of a TMS is characterized by a low abundance and
low diversity of burrows. The trace suite includes structures common
to both the Skolithos and Cruziana ichnofacies; however, grazing
behaviors, elaborate deposit-feeding behaviors, and deep-probing
structures do not appear to be present.
The lateral translation of wave zones across TMS blurs the
boundaries between shoreface zones, such that the middle shoreface
cannot be reliably differentiated from the overlying upper shoreface
and underlying lower shoreface subenvironments. Consequently, the
lower shoreface appears to share a gradational boundary with the
upper shoreface. The upper shoreface is dominated by multi-
directional trough cross-bedding (Fig. 16), with the dominant dip-
directions directed onshore. Secondary planar-tabular cross-bedding
may also be developed, marking the passage of two-dimensional
dunes (Anthony et al., 2004, 2005; Dashtgard and Gingras, 2007;
Dashtgard et al., 2009). Ebb-oriented current ripples and combined-
flow ripples, produced by surface runoff during the falling tide and at
low tide, are interbedded with the trough cross-beds and planar-
tabular cross-beds (Fig. 16A–C). Additionally, plane beds associated
with surface runoff and with swash–backwash are preserved across
this zone (Fig. 16B, C). Muddy flasers and laterally discontinuous mud
beds are uncommon in the lower half of the upper shoreface, but
become increasingly prevalent seaward. Muddy flasers and mud beds
are rare in the proximal UShf. Swaley cross-stratification can poten-
tially develop in this zone, but was not observed on Waterside Beach.
Overprinting the sedimentological structures of the upper shoreface is
a low-diversity trace assemblage typical of the distal expression of the
Skolithos Ichnofacies. Burrow distributions tend to be patchy. Overall,
the upper shoreface ranges in thickness from 3 to 5 m (Fig. 14).
The foreshore of Waterside Beach is characterized by low-angle (2
to 4°), seaward-dipping plane beds that are unburrowed (Fig. 17B).
Swash–backwash dominates sediment deposition, and the foreshore
is thick (up to 5 m vertical extent). For TMS with a gravelly foreshore,
the contact with the upper shoreface is sharp (Fig. 17A), reflecting the
change in depositional slope from 4° to 0.3° (e.g., low-tide terrace-
type beaches; Fig. 2). For TMS with sandy foreshores, this transition is
expected to be more gradual, with a lower angle depositional dip
across the foreshore (e.g., ultra-dissipative-type beaches, Fig. 2;
Masselink and Short, 1993).
5. Discussion
Shoreface settings are commonly regarded to be one of the
conceptually simplest depositional environments. Typically, these
environments are exclusively wave-dominated, with sediment trans-
port and deposition driven by oscillatory wave processes. However, as
described herein, there is significant sedimentological and ichnological

Fig. 15. Photos, x-ray radiographs, and line-sketch interpretations of middle and lower shoreface-equivalent deposits of a TMS. All images are from Waterside Beach, New Brunswick,
Canada. A. pLShf–dUShf: Laterally discontinuous muddy flasers below a plane bedded sand surface deposited near the landward limit of the LShf. Muddy flasers were deposited on the
lee side of small bars and in ripple troughs. Note the razor clam, which produces a Siphonichnus-like structure. B. pLShf: Complex vertical succession of wave ripples, current ripples,
micro-hummocky cross-stratification, plane beds, and hummocky cross-stratification. Sediment is muddy sand (lighter colours indicative of higher mud content). Bioturbation is low
(BI 1–2) and is dominated by vertical structures (e.g., Polykladichnus and Skolithos). C. pLShf: Muddy sand dominated by wave ripples, micro-hummocky cross-stratification. Trough
cross-beds are also observed. D. pLShf: Wavy-parallel laminae and current ripples in sand, interbedded with trough cross-bedded pebbly sand. Symbols used: current ripples (cr),
hummocky cross-stratification (hs), flaser beds (fb), micro-hummocky cross-stratification (mhs), plane beds (pb), trough cross-beds (tx), wave ripples (wr), wavy-parallel laminae
(wl); Palaeophycus (Pa), Planolites (P), Polykladichnus (Pk), Siphonichnus (Si), Skolithos (Sk).
56 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61 57

Fig. 17. Foreshore photos of a TMS (Waterside Beach). A. Overview photo taken during the falling tide, showing the relative position and subaerial exposure of the foreshore and
UShf. The foreshore dips seaward at 2 to 4° and is 100 to 200 m wide. B. Trench through beds of pebbly sand and gravel that dip seaward (to the right).

variability in the character of shoreface successions, as a function of
storm influence as well as tidal effects. Of these two, storm influence is
significantly better understood. At present, our understanding of tidal
processes on the shoreface is based on only few modern and ancient
case studies (Dashtgard et al., 2006, 2008, 2009; Dashtgard and Gingras,
2007; Ainsworth et al., 2008; Frey and Dashtgard, 2012). These studies
provide the framework for recognizing tide-influenced shorefaces in the
rock record, but are not likely to capture the range of variability inherent
to these settings. Below we discuss the sedimentological and ichnolo-
gical structures that can be used to define both wave/storm- and tide-
influenced shorefaces. As well, Fig. 18 schematically illustrates where
the five shoreface archetypes described above plot on diagrams of
varying fair-weather wave, storm-wave, and tidal influence. Riverine
influences on the shoreface are not accounted for in this framework.
5.1. Recognition of storm influence on the beach and shoreface
Storm-wave controls on sediment deposition produce predictable
sediment distributions across the shoreface depositional profile
(Fig. 7). The most notable differences occur in the middle and lower
shoreface positions. With increasing storm-control on deposition,
there is a progressive change from intensely bioturbated muddy sand
with intercalated moderately bioturbated, wavy-parallel laminated
sand and silt beds to hummocky and swaley cross-stratified sand
alternating with erosional remnants of intensely bioturbated muddy
to silty sand. Increasing storm influence also leads to progressive
changes in ichnofacies of the lower and middle shorefaces. Minimal
storm influence favours intense bioturbation with suites attributable
to a proximal expression of the Cruziana Ichnofacies in the lower
shoreface, and distal expressions of the Skolithos Ichnofacies in the
middle shoreface (MacEachern and Pemberton, 1992; MacEachern et
al., 2007; MacEachern and Bann, 2008). The upper shoreface of such
settings is also characterized by the Skolithos Ichnofacies, and a
notable absence of the Macaronichnus segregatis suite in the foreshore
(Clifton and Thompson, 1978). As systems pass towards storm-
domination, there is a marked decrease in the intensity of burrowing
in preserved shoreface successions, and if the foreshore is burrowed at
all, it is the Macaronichnus segregatis suite that is most likely to
develop (Fig. 7). Fair-weather and storm-bed trace-fossil suites in the
lower shoreface are characteristic of the Skolithos Ichnofacies.
Opportunistic colonization of storm beds is predominant, with partial
preservation if at all, of deep-penetrating trace fossils such as
Ophiomorpha (Clifton, 1981; MacEachern and Pemberton, 1992;
Pemberton et al., 1992a, 2001) as erosional amalgamation of
tempestites increases.
Shoreface thicknesses also vary as a function of the wave climate,
wherein larger fair-weather waves lead to thicker shorefaces (the
base of shoreface defined by fair-weather wave base). Given that the
magnitude of both fair-weather waves and storm waves is partly
proportional to the fetch of the basin (Wilson, 1965; Ebuchi et al.,
1992; Goda, 2003), coastlines exposed to larger fair-weather waves
will likewise be subjected to larger storm waves. As a result, storm-
dominated shorefaces are typically thicker than storm-affected
shorefaces (Fig. 7).
5.2. Recognition of tidal influence on the beach and shoreface
Compared to storm influence on the shoreface, tidal influence is
poorly understood. Nevertheless, tides produce sedimentologically
and ichnologically distinct shoreface successions, with tidal controls
on sediment deposition either direct or indirect. Shorefaces exhibiting
direct tidal effects are referred to as “tide-influenced”, whereas those
reflecting mainly indirect tidal effects are referred to as “tidally
modulated” (Fig. 18). These two tidal expressions commonly overlap,
but reflect distinct tidal impacts on the system.
For tide-influenced shorefaces (TIS), the recognition of tidal
processes is most evident in the lower shoreface and offshore
(Fig. 10) and, to a lesser extent, the middle shoreface (Fig. 11). Across
all three of these subaqueous zones, grain sizes either remain constant
or coarsen slightly in the offshore direction, and mud content of the
sediment is very low (Frey and Dashtgard, 2012). In the offshore and
LShf, sand-sized sediments, with grain calibres equivalent to or slightly
larger than those of the upper shoreface, dominate the substrate. Sands
accumulate as current-generated structures, although they are
commonly obliterated by pervasive bioturbation. Burrows are pre-
dominantly vertical structures (Fig. 9), and are attributable to the
archetypal Skolithos Ichnofacies. By comparison, the offshore and LShf
of storm-affected shorefaces exhibit a clear offshore fining in grain

Fig. 16. Photos, x-ray radiographs and line-sketch interpretations of upper shoreface-equivalent deposits of a TMS. All images are from Waterside Beach, New Brunswick, Canada.
A. pUShf: Onshore-directed trough cross-beds in sand, interbedded with ebb-oriented current ripples. B. dUShf: Shore-parallel section through trough cross-bedded pebbly sand.
Current ripples and plane beds also present. C. dUShf–pLShf: Trough cross-bedded and current-rippled sand with interbedded wavy-parallel laminated sand (possibly swaley cross-
stratification). D. Shore-perpendicular trench through wave-rippled sand. Note the dominance of trough cross-beds preserved in the underlying sediment. Symbols used: current
ripples (cr), plane beds (pb), trough cross-beds (tx), wavy lamination (wl).
58 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61
Fig. 18. Conceptual model proposed for shoreface deposits. The top ternary diagram is
modified after Dalrymple et al. (1992) and Dashtgard et al. (2009), showing the relative
position of tidally modulated shorefaces (the tidal end-member of shorefaces) with
respect to wave-, tide-, and river influence on sediment deposition. The middle ternary
diagram is developed strictly for shorefaces, and considers the three main influences on
sediment deposition in these settings. The letters A through E correspond to the 5
shoreface archetypes described in this manuscript (A = Storm-Dominated Wave-
Dominated (non-tidal) Shoreface; B = Storm-Influenced Wave-Dominated (non-tidal)
Shoreface; C = Storm-Affected Wave-Dominated (non-tidal) Shoreface; D = Tide-
Influenced Shoreface; E = Tidally Modulated Shoreface). The lower diagram considers
only tidal processes (currents and tidal range), and their influences on shoreface
character.
size, a marked increase in mud contents seaward, and trace-fossil
suites that reflect the basinward change from proximal expressions of
the Cruziana Ichnofacies to the archetypal Cruziana Ichnofacies (Figs. 3,
4 and 7). In the MShf, LShf and offshore of storm-dominated
shorefaces, grain size is either constant or fines slightly offshore
(Short, 1986, 1999a; Roy et al., 1994). However, sands are deposited as
wave-generated structures (e.g., SCS and HCS), with relatively limited
preservation of bioturbated beds in the MShf and LShf (Fig. 4).
Of the parameters used to define storm influence versus tide
influence on the shoreface, grain size trends are the most problematic
(Cowell et al., 1999). Although the uniform sediment calibres
observed in the Juan de Fuca Strait shorefaces can be assigned to
tidal processes (where tidal currents are energetic enough to maintain
mud in suspension and prevent settling on the seafloor), similar grain
size trends are reported from the relatively steep (N1°), mixed wave-
current influenced coast of SE Australia, where grain sizes actually
coarsen offshore before fining again (Field and Roy, 1984; Roy et al.,
1994; Cowell et al., 1999). Field and Roy (1984) speculate that these
sands are transported offshore by downwelling currents generated
during storms, and are subsequently modified by currents moving
parallel to the coastline. The similarity in grain size trends between
the tide-influenced shorefaces of the Juan de Fuca Strait and the sandy
shorefaces and offshore of SE Australia suggests that multiple
mechanisms are capable of depositing sand in offshore and lower
shoreface positions. As such, a uniform grain size profile from the
upper shoreface to the offshore should be used as only one line of
evidence for recognizing tide-influenced shorefaces.
Tidally modulated shorefaces constitute the tidal end-member of
the wave-tidal spectrum for shoreface settings (Fig. 18). The TMS
differs markedly from all other shoreface settings, in that sediments
deposited at water depths equivalent to the LShf may be exposed
intertidally at low tide. TMS are identified by: 1) common interbed-
ding of sedimentary structures down the shoreface profile, 2) the
notable absence of an obvious middle shoreface, 3) an anomalously
thick foreshore, and 4) the presence of trace-fossil suites comprising
structures common to both the Skolithos and Cruziana ichnofacies in
lower shoreface units (Dashtgard et al., 2009). Firstly, sedimentary
structures produced by shoaling waves, breakers and surf, and swash–
backwash are interbedded across much of the TMS depositional
profile as a result of lateral shift of wave zones during the tidal cycle
(Figs. 14 to 16). This differs significantly from storm-affected and
storm-influenced shorefaces, where wave zones are vertically and
laterally well constrained, and sediments accumulating within each
wave zone are characterized by a few distinct sedimentary structures.
The sedimentological characteristics of TMS also differ significantly
from those of storm-dominated shorefaces, particularly in that the
fair-weather signature is more likely to be preserved, and the LShf is
not dominated by SCS or HCS sand.
With increasing storm-wave influence within the TMS, sedimen-
tary structures produced by storm waves (i.e., HCS and SCS) are
increasingly dominant throughout the UShf and LShf (Ainsworth et
al., 2008). In the Ainsworth et al. (2008) study of a Jurassic-aged
storm-influenced TMS, the UShf is thick and dominated by HCS and
SCS sandstones with interbedded trough cross-beds and current
ripples. In contrast, they found that the LShf from the same succession
is thin and mud dominated, and contains interbedded HCS and SCS
sand beds. Extending this trend to the storm-wave end-member, a
storm-dominated TMS should be characterized by a thick foreshore
and UShf overlying a thin LShf. The UShf sandstones will be
dominated by SCS and HCS intercalated with subordinate trough
cross-beds, whereas sandstones of the LShf will be characterized by
HCS and SCS beds locally separated by mudstone interbeds.
Secondly, as a result of regular lateral shifting of wave zones, the
sedimentological and ichnological criteria normally used to identify
the middle shoreface (e.g., swaley cross-stratification and trace-fossil
suites of the archetypal Skolithos Ichnofacies) become interbedded
with structures typically attributed to the UShf and/or LShf.
Consequently, a MShf zone cannot be differentiated in the TMS, and
the LShf appears to grade landward into the UShf (Fig. 14). In contrast,
the MShf is identifiable in both storm-affected and storm-influenced
shorefaces, although it is not readily identifiable in storm-dominated
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61
settings owing to the high degree of tempestite erosional amalgam-
ation and paucity of preserved fair-weather beds (Fig. 7) (MacEachern
and Pemberton, 1992; Saunders et al., 1994).
The third criterion for recognizing TMS is the anomalous thickness
of the foreshore and, to a lesser extent, the change in dip angle
between the FSh and UShf in gravel-prone settings (low-tide terrace;
Fig. 2). TMS foreshores are typically 4 to 5 m thick (Figs. 2, 14, and 17),
which is at least twice that of a microtidal, storm-affected shoreface
(Fig. 7). Although FSh thicknesses are significantly less than the
vertical tidal range under which TMS develop, a thick foreshore does
suggest an increased tidal range. In addition, for gravel-rich FSh, beds
dip seaward at 2 to 4°, and the basal contact of the zone is commonly
sharp (Dashtgard et al., 2009). For sandy foreshores, this contact will
likely be gradational and the depositional angle of beds will be
reduced (ultra-dissipative; Fig. 2)(Masselink and Short, 1993). A
sharp change in dip angles between the FSh and UShf is common in
composite sand-and-gravel beaches, where the foreshore is gravelly
and the upper shoreface is sandy (Kirk, 1980; Clifton, 1981, 2006;
Jennings and Shulmeister, 2002; Frey and Dashtgard, 2012). As
such, the sharp contact between the FSh and UShf, and the increase
in bed dips from b1° in the UShf to 4°, may be useful criteria for
identifying TMS only if found in association with an anomalously
thick FSh.
The remaining criteria for recognizing TMS are ichnological. For
storm-affected and storm-influenced shorefaces, with little tidal
influence, fair-weather beds of the LShf and MShf are locally intensely
bioturbated. The mainly vertical burrows typical of the archetypal
Skolithos Ichnofacies in the MShf are replaced by predominantly
horizontal burrows characteristic of proximal expressions of the
Cruziana Ichnofacies in the LShf (MacEachern and Pemberton, 1992).
In the LShf of TMS, however, BI values are low in sand beds, typified
mainly by deep-penetrating structures such as Ophiomorpha or
Thalassinoides (Ainsworth et al., 2008). In the intervening mud beds,
bioturbation intensities are low to moderate, with a low-diversity
suite consisting of horizontal (e.g., Planolites) and vertical (e.g.,
Skolithos) burrows (Dashtgard et al., 2008).
With increasing storm influence on both the TMS and tide-
influenced shoreface, it is likely that the preserved depositional
character will become more akin to that of a storm-dominated non-
tidal shoreface. In both the wave-dominated and tidal scenarios,
sediments that are deposited and bioturbated under fair-weather
conditions tend to be preferentially eroded during subsequent storms,
so that the resulting preserved succession will largely comprise
amalgamated tempestites. Tidal influence in such successions,
therefore, may not be readily discernible. Tidal processes are best
expressed in the facies of low and moderate storm-influenced
settings, where fair-weather deposits retain a higher preservation
potential.
6. Towards a conceptual shoreface framework
The sedimentological and ichnological criteria for defining wave-
dominated non-tidal shorefaces have been well established in the
literature (Clifton et al., 1971; Davidson-Arnott and Greenwood,
1976; Bourgeois and Leithold, 1984; Greenwood and Mittler, 1985;
MacEachern and Pemberton, 1992; Walker and Plint, 1992; Reading
and Collinson, 1996; Clifton, 2006). Storm-affected and storm-
influenced shorefaces are likely to be developed in settings with a
small tidal range and limited tidal-current energy. Such settings
typically occur along protected coastlines or in embayments, where
storm waves are limited in wavelength and amplitude. With
increasing fetch and/or increases in the magnitude and intensity of
storms, storm influence on deposition along the shoreface deposi-
tional profile increases and storm-affected systems are progressively
replaced by storm-influenced ones. Large embayments, partly
protected coastlines, and coastlines oblique to the dominant storm-
59
wave direction are all sites wherein storm-influenced shorelines may
develop (Plint and Walker, 1987; MacEachern et al., 1999; Fielding et
al., 2006).
Open-coast shorelines are abundant along the margins of the
world's oceans. These shorelines are subjected to both large fair-
weather waves and large storm waves, favouring a storm-dominated
character. Large ocean swells and regular storms (and associated
currents) erode and rework the fair-weather deposits into sedimen-
tologically and ichnologically distinct facies (Clifton et al., 1971;
Clifton, 1973; Clifton and Thompson, 1978; Short, 1984; Hart and
Plint, 1989; Walker and Plint, 1992; Hart and Plint, 1995; Reading and
Collinson, 1996; Short, 1999b; Clifton, 2004).
The morphodynamics of tides on the shoreface have also been
discussed extensively in the literature (Hayes, 1979; Wright et al.,
1982; Niedoroda et al., 1984; Masselink, 1993; Masselink and Short,
1993; Masselink and Hegge, 1995; Masselink and Turner, 1999; Levoy
et al., 2000; Anthony and Orford, 2002; Anthony et al., 2004). For the
purposes of rock-record identification of tide-influenced shorefaces,
tidal processes are sub-divided into two categories: those with direct
tidal controls on sedimentation (e.g., tidal-current sediment transport
and deposition: i.e., tide-influenced shoreface (TIS)) and those with
mainly indirect tidal control (e.g., lateral shift of wave zones
throughout the tidal cycle: i.e., tidally modulated shoreface (TMS)).
Of these, TIS develop in settings where tidal currents are significant,
particularly in the offshore to middle shoreface. For most shorefaces
developed in protected embayments and along open coastlines,
shoaling waves dominate sediment deposition across the shoreface,
and evidence of tidal processes is masked by wave-driven sediment
deposition. However, in straits, fjords and elongate bays, tidal currents
can attain significant velocities (e.g., up to 1 m/s in the Juan de Fuca
Strait; Frey and Dashtgard, 2012) and dominate sediment transport.
Preservation of tidal-current-generated structures is likely to be
particularly well developed where waves are small and have minimal
effect on the seafloor. Tide-influenced shorefaces can develop in any
marginal-marine setting with sufficiently reduced wave energies and
elevated tidal currents; as such, they are largely independent of tidal
range (Fig. 18). However, given that increased tidal flow tends to be
associated with larger tidal prisms, tide-influenced shorefaces are
probably more common in settings that experience larger tidal ranges.
There is an upper limit to this, however. In macrotidal to megatidal
settings, the effects of tidal modulation on the wave regimes
operating on the shoreface overprints the direct effects of tidally
driven sediment deposition, and the system evolves into a tidally
modulated shoreface. With increasing tidal controls on sediment
deposition, TMS grade into open-coast tidal flats (Yang et al., 2005,
2008).
Although the sedimentological and ichnological criteria for
recognizing TMS are presently limited to a single modern example
(Dashtgard et al., 2009) and a single ancient example (Ainsworth et
al., 2008), the widespread occurrence of TMS in upper macrotidal to
megatidal settings in the modern (Short, 1991; Masselink and Short,
1993; Masselink and Hegge, 1995; Levoy et al., 2000, 2001; Anthony
et al., 2004, 2005) suggests that TMS should be common in the rock
record. TMS are readily developed in embayments where tidal
amplification is pronounced, but wave energy is low to moderate.
Storm-dominated TMS are also likely to develop, and would be
expected in embayments with both significant tidal amplification and
a pronounced wave climate.
Although we describe five separate shoreface “archetypes” with
various fair-weather wave, storm wave, and tidal influences, this
framework only accounts for some of the variation that can be
expected in shoreface successions. Fluvial influence also impacts the
preserved character of prograding shorefaces (Ainsworth et al., 2012).
Proximity to fluvial point sources lead to the influx of considerable
volumes of sand and mud to the shoreline, coupled with physico-
chemical stresses associated with elevated water turbidities, salinity
60 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61
variations, and high sedimentation rates. Additional research is
necessary to assess the spectrum of shallow marine settings exposed
to variations in fair-weather wave, storm wave, and tidal flux, as well
as fluvial input.
Acknowledgements
This work is a synthesis of shoreface research completed by the
authors. Modern research was made possible through generous
funding from Nexen Inc., Imperial Oil Ltd., the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council (Canada), Petro-Canada, ConocoPhillips,
BP, Talisman Energy, and Devon Energy. Rock-record studies were
made possible through the generous support of PanCanadian
Petroleum (now EnCana Corporation), NorskHydro (now Statoil
ASA), and NSERC. Kerrie Bann kindly permitted the use of photos in
Figs. 4G and 5C. Many thanks to the two reviewers, Boyan Vakarelov
and Gary Hampson, for their insightful reviews of this manuscript.
References
Ainsworth, R.B., Flint, S.S., Howell, J., 2008. Predicting coastal depositional style:
influence of basin morphology and accommodation/sediment supply regime
within a sequence stratigraphic framework. Recent Advances in Shallow-Marine
Stratigraphy. : In: Hampson, G.J., Steel, R.J., Burgess, P.B., Dalrymple, R.W. (Eds.),
Special Publication, 90. SEPM, Tulsa, pp. 237–263.
Ainsworth, R.B., Vakarelov, B.K., Nanson, R.A., 2012. Dynamic spatial and temporal
prediction of changes in depositional processes on clastic shorelines: towards
improved subsurface uncertainty reduction and management. American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 95, 267–297.
Allen, P.A., 1997. Earth Surface Processes. Blackwell Science, London, UK. 404 pp.
Anthony, E.J., Orford, J.D., 2002. Between wave- and tide-dominated coasts: the middle
ground revisited. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 36, 8–15.
Anthony, E.J., Levoy, F., Monfort, O., 2004. Morphodynamics of intertidal bars on a
megatidal beach, Merlimont, northern France. Marine Geology 208, 73–100.
Anthony, E.J., Levoy, F., Monfort, O., Degryse-Kulkarni, C., 2005. Short-term intertidal
bar mobility on a ridge-and-runnel beach, Merlimont, northern France. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 30, 81–93.
Bann, K.L., Fielding, C.R., MacEachern, J.A., Tye, S.C., 2004. Differentiation of estuarine
and offshore marine deposits using integrated ichnology and sedimentology:
Permian Pebbley Beach Formation, Sydney Basi, Australia. The Application of
Ichnology to Palaeoenvironmental and Stratigraphic Analysis. : In: McIlroy, D. (Ed.),
Special Publication, 228. Geological Society, London, London, England, pp. 179–211.
Bluck, B.J., 1967. Sedimentation of beach gravels: examples from south Wales. Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology 37, 128–156.
Bluck, B.J., 1999. Clast assembling, bed-forms, and structure in gravel beaches.
Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences 89, 291–323.
Bourgeois, J., Leithold, E.L., 1984. Wave-worked conglomerates — depositional
processes and criteria for recognition. Sedimentology of Gravels and Conglomer-
ates. : In: Koster, E.H., Steel, R.J. (Eds.), Memoir, 10. Canadian Society of Petroleum
Geologists, Calgary, pp. 331–343.
Cheel, R.J., Leckie, D.A., 1993. Hummocky cross-stratification. Sedimentology Review, 1.
Blackwell Scientific, Boston, UK, pp. 103–122.
Clifton, H.E., 1969. Beach lamination: nature and origin. Marine Geology 7, 553–559.
Clifton, H.E., 1973. Pebble segregation and bed lenticularity in wave-worked versus
alluvial gravel. Sedimentology 20, 173–187.
Clifton, H.E., 1981. Progradational sequences in Miocene shoreline deposits, south-
eastern Caliente range, California. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 51, 165–184.
Clifton, H.E., 2004. Supply, segregation, successions, and significance of shallow marine
conglomeratic deposits. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 51, 370–388.
Clifton, H.E., 2006. A re-examination of facies models for clastic shorefaces. Facies
Models Revisited. : In: Posamentier, H.W., Walker, R.G. (Eds.), Special Publication
No. 84. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Tulsa, USA, pp. 293–337.
Clifton, H.E., Thompson, J.K., 1978. Macaronichnus segregatis: a feeding structure of
shallow marine polychaetes. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 48, 1293–1302.
Clifton, H.E., Hunter, R.E., Phillips, R.L., 1971. Depositional structures and processes in the
non-barred high-energy nearshore. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 41, 651–670.
Cowell, P.J., Hanslow, D.J., Meleo, J.F., 1999. The shoreface. In: Short, A.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
pp. 39–71.
Dafoe, L.T., Gingras, M.K., Pemberton, S.G., 2008. Determining Euzonus mucronata
burrowing rates with application to ancient Macaronichnus segregatis trace makers.
Ichnos 15, 78–90.
Dalrymple, R.W., Zaitlin, B.A., Boyd, R., 1992. Estuarine facies models: conceptual basis
and stratigraphic implications. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62, 1130–1146.
Dashtgard, S.E., Gingras, M.K., 2007. Tidal controls on the morphology and
sedimentology of gravel-dominated deltas and beaches: examples from the
megatidal Bay of Fundy, Canada. Journal of Sedimentary Research 77, 1063–1077.
Dashtgard, S.E., Gingras, M.K., Butler, K.E., 2006. Sedimentology and stratigraphy of a
transgressive, muddy gravel beach: Waterside Beach, Bay of Fundy, Canada.
Sedimentology 53, 279–296.
Dashtgard, S.E., Gingras, M.K., Pemberton, S.G., 2008. Grain-size controls on the
occurrence of bioturbation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
257, 224–243.
Dashtgard, S.E., Gingras, M.K., MacEachern, J.A., 2009. Tidally modulated shorefaces.
Journal of Sedimentary Research 79, 793–807.
Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D., Greenwood, B., 1976. Facies relationships on a barred coast,
Kouchibouguac Bay, New Brunswick, Canada. Beaches and Nearshore Sedimenta-
tion. : In: Davis, R.A.J., Ethington, R.L. (Eds.), Special Publication No. 24. Society for
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Tulsa, USA, pp. 149–168.
Davis, R.A.J., Hayes, M.O., 1984. What is a wave-dominated coast? Marine Geology 60,
313–329.
Duke, W.L., 1985. Hummocky cross-stratification, tropical hurricanes, and intense
winter storms. Sedimentology 32, 167–194.
Ebuchi, N., Kawamura, H., Toba, Y., 1992. Growth of wind waves with fetch observed by
the Geostat altimeter in the Japan Sea under winter monsoon. Journal of
Geophysical Research 97, 809–819.
Field, M.E., Roy, P.S., 1984. Offshore transport and sand body formation: evidence from
a steep, high-energy shoreface, southeastern Australia. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 54, 292–302.
Fielding, C.R., Bann, K.L., MacEachern, J.A., Tye, S.C., Jones, B.G., 2006. Cyclicity in the
nearshore marine to coastal, Lower Permian Pebbley Beach Formation, southern
Sydney Basin, Australia: a record of sea level fluctuation at the close of the Late
Paleozoic Gondwanan ice age. Sedimentology 54.
Frey, R.W., 1990. Trace fossils and hummocky cross-stratification, upper Cretaceous of
Utah. Palaios 5, 203–218.
Frey, S.E., Dashtgard, S.E., 2012. Sedimentology, ichnology, and hydrodynamics of
strait-margin, sand-and-gravel beaches and shorefaces: Juan de Fuca Strait, British
Columbia, Canada. Sedimentology 58, 1326–1346.
Frey, R.W., Howard, J.D., 1972. Georgia Coastal Region, Sapelo Island, U.S.A.; sedimentology
and Biology VI, radiographic study of sedimentary structures made by beach and
offshore animals in aquaria. Senckenbergiana Maritima 4, 169–182.
Frey, R.W., Howard, J.D., 1990. Trace fossils and depositional sequences in a clastic shelf
setting, Upper Cretaceous of Utah. Journal of Paleontology 64, 803–820.
Galloway, W.E., Hobday, D.K., 1996. Terrigenous clastic depositional systems; applica-
tions to fossil fuel and groundwater resources, Second Edition. Springer, New York.
Goda, Y., 2003. Revisiting Wilson's formulas for simplified wind-wave prediction.
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 129, 93–95.
Greenwood, B., Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D., 1979. Sedimentation and equilibrium in
wave-formed bars: a review and case study. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
16, 312–332.
Greenwood, B., Mittler, P.R., 1985. Vertical sequence and lateral transitions in the facies
of a barred nearshore environment. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 55, 366–375.
Hallermeier, R.J., 1981. A profile zonation for seasonal sand beaches from wave climate.
Coastal Engineering 4, 253–277.
Hart, B.S., Plint, A.G., 1989. Gravelly shoreface deposits: a comparison of modern and
ancient facies sequences. Sedimentology 36, 551–557.
Hart, B.S., Plint, A.G., 1995. Gravelly shoreface and beachface deposits. Special
Publication of the International Association of Sedimentologists 22, 75–99.
Hayes, M.O., 1967. Hurricanes as geological agents, south Texas coast. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 51, 937–956.
Hayes, M.O., 1979. Barrier island morphology as a function of tidal and wave regime. In:
Leatherman, S.P. (Ed.), Barrier Islands — From the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of
Mexico. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–27.
Howard, J.D., 1972. Trace fossils as criteria for recognizing shorelines in stratigraphic
record. Recognition of Ancient Sedimentary Environments. : In: Rigby, J.K.,
Hamblin, W.K. (Eds.), Special Publication, 16. Society of Economic Paleontologists
and Mineralogists, Tulsa, USA, pp. 215–225.
Howard, J.D., Frey, R.W., 1984. Characteristic trace fossils in nearshore to offshore
sequences, Upper Cretaceous of east-central Utah. Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences 21, 200–219.
Howard, J.D., Reineck, H.-E., 1981. Depositional facies of high-energy beach-to-offshore
sequence: comparison with low-energy sequence. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 65, 807–830.
Hughes, M., Turner, I., 1999. The beachface. In: Short, A.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Beach and
Shoreface Morphodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 119–144.
Hunter, R.E., Clifton, H.E., Phillips, R.L., 1979. Depositional processes, sedimentary
structures, and predicted vertical sequences in barred nearshore systems, southern
Oregon coast. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 49, 711–726.
Jennings, R., Shulmeister, J., 2002. A field based classification scheme for gravel beaches.
Marine Geology 186, 211–228.
Kirk, R.M., 1980. Mixed sand and gravel beaches: morphology, processes and
sediments. Progress in Physical Geography 4, 189–210.
Komar, P.D., 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Komar, P.D., McDougal, W.G., 1994. The analysis of exponential beach profiles. Journal
of Coastal Research 10, 59–69.
Kumar, N., Sanders, J.E., 1976. Characteristics of shoreface storm deposits: modern and
ancient examples. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 46, 145–162.
Leckie, D.A., Walker, R.G., 1982. Storm- and tide-dominated shorelines in the
Cretaceous Moosebar-lower Gates interval — outcrop equivalents of deep basin
gas trap in western Canada. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin
66, 138–157.
Levoy, F., Anthony, E.J., Monfort, O., Larsonneur, C., 2000. The morphodynamics of
megatidal beaches in Normandy, France. Marine Geology 171, 39–59.
Levoy, F., Monfort, O., Larsonneur, C., 2001. Hydrodynamic variability on megatidal
beaches, Normandy, France. Continental Shelf Research 21, 563–586.
 S.E. Dashtgard et al. / Sedimentary Geology 279 (2012) 42–61
MacEachern, J.A., Bann, K.L., 2008. The role of ichnology in refining shallow marine
facies models. In: Hampson, G.J., Steel, R.J., Burgess, P.B., Dalrymple, R.W. (Eds.),
Recent Advances in Models of Siliciclastic Shallow-Marine Stratigraphy, 90. Society
for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM), Tulsa, USA, pp. 73–116.
MacEachern, J.A., Pemberton, S.G., 1992. Ichnological aspects of Cretaceous shoreface
successions and shoreface variability in the Western Interior Seaway of North
America. Applications of Ichnology to Petroleum Exploration, A Core Workshop. :
In: Pemberton, S.G. (Ed.), Core Workshop, 17. SEPM Society for Sedimentary
Geology, Tulsa, pp. 57–84.
MacEachern, J.A., Zaitlin, B.A., Pemberton, S.G., 1999. A sharp-based sandstone of the Viking
Formation, Joffre Field, Alberta, Canada: criteria for recognition of transgressively
incised shoreface complexes. Journal of Sedimentary Research 69, 872–892.
MacEachern, J.A., Bann, K.L., Pemberton, S.G., Gingras, M.K., 2007. The ichnofacies
paradigm: high-resolution paleoenvironmental interpretation of the rock record.
Applied Ichnology. : In: MacEachern, J.A., Bann, K.L., Gingras, M.K., Pemberton, S.G.
(Eds.), Short Course Notes No. 52. SEPM, Tulsa, USA, pp. 27–64.
Massari, F., Parea, G.C., 1988. Progradational gravel beach sequences in a moderate- to
high-energy, microtidal marine environment. Sedimentology 35, 881–913.
Masselink, G., 1993. Simulating the effects of tides on beach morphodynamics. Journal
of Coastal Research Special Issue 15, 180–197.
Masselink, G., Hegge, B.J., 1995. Morphodynamics of meso- and macrotidal beaches.
Examples from central Queensland. Marine Geology 129, 1–23.
Masselink, G., Short, A.D., 1993. The effect of tidal range on beach morphodynamics and
morphology: a conceptual beach model. Journal of Coastal Research 9, 785–800.
Masselink, G., Turner, I., 1999. The effects of tides on beach morphodynamics. In: Short,
A.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. John Wiley & Sons,
Toronto, Canada, pp. 204–229.
Niedoroda, A.W., Swift, D.J.P., Hopkins, T.S., Ma, C.-M., 1984. Shoreface morphody-
namics on wave-dominated coasts. Marine Geology 60, 331–354.
Pemberton, S.G., Frey, R.W., 1984. Ichnology of storm-influenced shallow marine
sequence; Cardium Formation (Upper Cretaceous) at Seebe, Alberta. The Mesozoic
of Middle North America. : In: Stott, D.F., Glass, D.J. (Eds.), Memoir, 9. Canadian
Society of Petroleum Geologists, Calgary, Canada, pp. 281–304.
Pemberton, S.G., MacEachern, J.A., 1997. Ichnological signature of storm deposits; the
use of trace fossils in event stratigraphy. In: Brett, C.E., Baird, G.C. (Eds.),
Paleontological Events; Stratigraphic, Ecological, and Evolutionary Implications.
Columbia University Press, New York, USA, pp. 73–109.
Pemberton, S.G., Van Wagoner, J.C., Wach, G.D., 1992a. Ichnofacies of a wave-
dominated shoreline. In: Pemberton, S.G. (Ed.), Applications of Ichnology to
Petroleum Exploration, A Core Workshop No.17. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary
Geology), Calgary, Alberta, pp. 339–383.
Pemberton, S.G., MacEachern, J.A., Frey, R.W., 1992b. Trace fossil facies models:
environmental and allostratigraphic significance. In: Walker, R.G., James, N.P.
(Eds.), Facies Models: Response to Sea Level Change. Geological Association of
Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland, pp. 47–72.
Pemberton, S.G., Spila, M., Pulham, A.J., Saunders, T., MacEachern, J.A., Robbins, D.,
Sinclair, I.K., 2001. Ichnology and Sedimentology of Shallow to Marginal Marine
Systems: Ben Nevis and Avalon Reservoirs, Jeanne d'Arc Basin. Geological
Association of Canada, St. John's, p. 343.
Plint, A.G., Nummendal, D., 2000. The falling stage systems tract: recognition and
importance in sequence stratigraphic analysis. Sedimentary Responses to Forced
Regressions. : In: Hunt, D., Gawthorpe, R.L. (Eds.), Special Publication, 172.
Geological Society of London, London, UK, pp. 1–17.
Plint, A.G., Walker, R.G., 1987. Cardium Formation 8. Facies and environments of the
Cardium shoreline and coastal plain in the Kakwa field and adjacent areas,
northwestern Alberta. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 35, 48–64.
Posamentier, H.W., Morris, W.R., 2000. Aspects of the stratal architecture of forced
regressive deposits. Sedimentary Responses to Forced Regressions. : In: Hunt, D.,
Gawthorpe, R.L. (Eds.), Special Publication, 172. Geological Society of London,
London, UK, pp. 19–46.
Posamentier, H.W., Allen, G.P., James, D.P., Tesson, M., 1992. Forced regressions in a
sequence stratigraphic framework: concepts, examples, and exploration signifi-
cance. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 76, 1687–1709.
61
Rahmani, R.A., Smith, D.G., 1988. The Cadotte Member of northwestern Alberta; a high-
energy barred shoreline. Sequences, Stratigraphy, Sedimentology; Surface and
Subsurface. : In: James, D.P., Leckie, D.A. (Eds.), Memoir, 15. Canadian Society of
Petroleum Geologists, Calgary, Canada, pp. 431–437.
Reading, H.G., Collinson, J.D., 1996. Clastic coasts, In: Reading, H.G. (Ed.), Sedimentary
Environments; Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy, 3rd edn. Blackwell Science,
Oxford, U.K., pp. 154–231.
Roy, P.S., Cowell, P.J., Ferland, M.A., Thom, B.G., 1994. Wave-dominated coasts. In:
Carter, R.W.G., Woodroffe, C.D. (Eds.), Coastal Evolution: Late Quaternary Shoreline
Morphodynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 121–186.
Rubin, D.M., McCulloch, D.S., 1980. Single and superimposed bedforms: a synthesis of
San Francisco Bay and flume observations. Sedimentary Geology 26, 207–231.
Saunders, T., Pemberton, S.G., 1990. On the palaeoecological significance of the trace
fossil Macaronichnus. 13th International Sedimentological Congress. International
Association of Sedimentologists, Nottingham, England.
Saunders, T., MacEachern, J.A., Pemberton, S.G., 1994. Cadotte Member sandstone:
progradation in a boreal basin prone to winter storms. In: Pemberton, S.G., James,
D.P., Wightman, D.M. (Eds.), Mannville Core Conference: Exploration Update.
Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Calgary, pp. 331–349.
Seilacher, A., 1982. Distinctive features of sandy tempestites. In: Einsele, G., Seilacher, A.
(Eds.), Cyclic and Event Stratification; Symposium. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.
339–349.
Seilacher, A., Aigner, T., 1991. Storm deposition at the bed, facies, and basin scale; the
geologic perspective. In: Einsele, G., Ricken, W., Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Cycles and
Events in Stratigraphy. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 249–267.
Short, A.D., 1984. Beach and nearshore facies: southeast Australia. Marine Geology 60,
261–282.
Short, A.D., 1986. Sandy shore facies in southeast Australia. In: Frankel, E., Keene, J.B.,
Waltho, A.E. (Eds.), Recent Sediments in Eastern Australia. NSW Division,
Geological Society of Australia, pp. 87–100.
Short, A.D., 1991. Macro-meso tidal beach morphodynamics. Journal of Coastal
Research 7, 417–436.
Short, A.D., 1999a. Beach and dune stratification. In: Short, A.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 279–292.
Short, A.D. (Ed.), 1999b. Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. John
Wiley & Sons, Toronto, Canada. 379 pp.
Siringan, F.P., Anderson, J.B., 1994. Modern shoreface and inner-shelf storm deposits off
the east Texas coast, Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Sedimentary Research 64, 99–110.
Sonu, C.J., 1973. Three-dimensional beach changes. Journal of Geology 81, 42–64.
Sunamura, T., 1984. Quantitative prediction of beach-face slopes. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 95, 242–245.
Taylor, A.M., Goldring, R., 1993. Descriptions and analysis of bioturbation and
ichnofabric. Journal of the Geological Society (London) 150, 141–148.
Walker, R.G., Plint, A.G., 1992. Wave- and storm-dominated shallow marine systems.
In: Walker, R.G., James, N.P. (Eds.), Facies Models, Response to Sea Level Change.
Geological Association of Canada, St. John's, NF, Canada, pp. 219–238.
Wilson, B.W., 1965. Numerical prediction of ocean waves in the North Atlantic for
December, 1959. Ocean Dynamics 18, 114–130.
Wright, L.D., Chappell, J., Thom, B.G., Bradshaw, M.P., Cowell, P., 1979. Morphodynamics
of reflective and dissipative beach and inshore systems: Southeastern Australia.
Marine Geology 32, 105–140.
Wright, L.D., Nielsen, P., Short, A.D., Green, M.O., 1982. Morphodynamics of a macrotidal
beach. Marine Geology 50, 97–128.
Yang, B.C., Dalrymple, R.W., Chun, S.S., 2005. Sedimentation on a wave-dominated,
open-coast tidal flat, south-western Korea: a summer tidal flat–winter shoreface.
Sedimentology 52, 235–252.
Yang, B.C., Dalrymple, R.W., Chun, S.S., Johnson, M.F., Lee, H.J., 2008. Tidally modulated
storm sedimentation on open-coast tidal flats, southwestern coast of Korea:
distinguishing tidal-flat from shoreface storm deposits. Recent Advances in Models
of Siliciclastic Shallow-Marine Stratigraphy. : In: Hampson, G.J., Steel, R.J., Burgess,
P.B., Dalrymple, R.W. (Eds.), Special Publication, 90. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary
Geology), Tulsa, pp. 161–176.