4.5 Article

High resolution seismic study of the Holocene infill of the Elkhorn Slough, central California

期刊

CONTINENTAL SHELF RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 -, 页码 108-118

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.csr.2013.01.012

关键词

High-resolution seismic analysis; Marine transgression; Holocene; Elkhorn Slough; California

资金

  1. CICEET, the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology
  2. Fugro Geoconsulting Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The seismic analysis of the sedimentary infill of the Elkhorn Slough, central California, reveals a succession of three main seismic units: U1, U2, U3, with their correspondent discontinuities d(2), d(3). These units are deposited over a paleorelief representing the channel location at least 8k years ago. The location of that paleochannel has not changed with time, but the geometry of the infilling sedimentary packages has done so through the years. Discontinuities d(2) and d(3) show a relic island or relative high in the center of the Slough that separated the sedimentation into two main small basins at least 3k years ago. There is evidence of erosion in the last two sedimentary units showing that the present erosive pattern began decades ago at minimum. We have correlated radiocarbon data of selected cores with the high resolution chirp profiles and reconstructed the infill for the Elkhorn Slough. In the most recent unit, the occurrence of numerous lateral accretion surfaces on both ends of the main channel is discussed within their environmental setting, tidal currents and the net ebb flux of the area. We have interpreted the presence of gas in the sediments of the slough, with a gas front located at the tops of units 2 and 3, which are discontinuities that reflect an effective seal for the gas. Our data shows no obvious evidence for seepage, although the shallow presence of some of the fronts points out the fragility of the environment in the present erosive conditions. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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