A tale of two end members: Tidal deposits in a semi‐arid, low subsidence, open coastal setting versus a high runoff, high subsidence, restricted environment

Abstract

AbstractJurassic and Palaeocene tidal deposits of the epeiric Western Interior Sea in Wyoming, USA, differ significantly due to their contrasting climates and tectonic, geographic and depositional settings. Tidally generated, cross‐bedded sandstone bodies contained by incisions are common to both settings and can potentially be uncritically attributed to marine flooding of fluvial systems. Key differences in lithology, ichnology and relationships with surrounding sediment reveal fundamentally different depositional settings, however. The Jurassic system occupied a low accommodation, semi‐arid environment, with geographically open shorelines as relative sea‐level fell, creating an unconformable contact with the underlying, storm wave‐dominated shelf and shoreface deposits. Siliciclastic, intertidal flats formed adjacent to coastal aeolian and fluvial environments during brief turnarounds from the degradational (forced regressive) to aggradational and retrogradational (transgressive) system tract. Basinward of these environments, metre to decimetre‐scale cross‐bedded, bioclastic, subtidal compound dunes and tidal inlet complexes accumulated in areas of minimal clastic flux and within incisions created by submarine tidal currents. By contrast, the Palaeocene tidal systems formed in a high accommodation, subtropical setting, as rising sea levels forced the fluvial to marine transition zone landward and flooded coastal swamps, forming geographically irregular, back‐barrier complexes and tidally influenced fluvial systems. High volumes of siliciclastics, terrigenous organic material and freshwater were delivered by the rivers and created physicochemical stress on the marine embayments. Sandy tidal flat deposits accumulated in lagoons and interdistributary bays, but unlike the Jurassic examples, they do not mark a turnaround from the falling stage to the transgressive system tract. The potential preservation window for tidalites is significantly greater vertically in the aggradational to retrogradational setting than in the degradational system due to greater accommodation. The preservation window is vertically smaller, but areally greater in the Jurassic, forced regressive system because of basinward enhancement of tidal currents driven by complex palaeobathymetry caused by tectonic activity of local pre‐Laramide uplifts.