4.2 Article

The Kulm Facies of the Montagne Noire (Mississippian, southern France)

期刊

GEOLOGICA BELGICA
卷 19, 期 1-2, 页码 69-80

出版社

GEOLOGICA BELGICA
DOI: 10.20341/gb.2015.018

关键词

Mississippian; stratigraphy; sea-level; basin dynamic; palaeogeography; Rhenish Massif; Massif Central

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Kulm facies of the Montagne Noire formed in a foreland basin south of the French Massif Central. During the preorogenic phase (Tournaisian - early late Visean) two major facies domains can be differentiated in the Montagne Noire. The Mont Peyroux Succession represents more distal environments with an almost continuous stratigraphical record, which displays the development from a deeper-water carbonate platform to a starved basin facies, which is followed by the onset of calciturbidite deposition. The contemporaneous Ecailles Succession, only found in exotic blocks, represents the proximal environments with important stratigraphical gaps. The synorogenic phase of the basin (early late Visean - Serpukhovian?) is characterized by flysch deposits, which contain in the later stages large exotic blocks indicating the final collapse of a mixed-siliciclastic carbonate shelf system. Differences in the Kulm sequence of the Carboniferous foreland basin of southern France (Montagne Noire, Mouthoumet Massif and Pyrenees) are due to different local palaeotopographies and distances to platform areas and sediment sources in the preorogenic sedimentation, and the timing of the onset of the synorogenic sedimentation and the migration of the depocentre from east to west. Striking similarities in respect to the overall facies, but also to the development of particular facies during a particular time slice exist to the succession of the Rhenish Kulm Basin, especially its north-western part; e.g. dark shales with phosphatic nodules during the Lower Alum Shale Event or the interruption of the bedded chert deposition by deeper water carbonates during the latest Tournaisian - earliest Visean.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据