Aphotic zone carbonate production on a Miocene ramp, Central Apennines, Italy

Abstract

The lower Miocene Latium–Abruzzi platform was a low-angle ramp that developed under tropical-to-subtropical conditions, but was dominated by bryomol and rhodalgal sediment associations. The Aquitanian to Serravallian sequence described here paraconformably overlies the Cretaceous limestones. It consists of a lowstand systems tract, a transgressive systems tract and a highstand systems tract. Based on facies analysis and on the light dependence of biotic associations, the ramp is divided into three parts: an inner ramp, a middle ramp and an outer ramp. The inner ramp facies are represented by a few metres of coral framestone, rhodolith floatstone–rudstone and balanid macroids floatstone without wave-related structures. The middle ramp consists of structureless bioclastic grainstone to packstone, floatstone and rudstone with rhodoliths and larger foraminifera. The outer ramp facies—proximal sector—are composed of crudely stratified bryozoan-dominated packstone to floatstone which extend over the whole platform. The outer ramp facies—intermediate sector—are represented by wackestone, packstone and rarely grainstone with foraminifera and echinoid fragments. The final depositional profile of the ramp was strongly influenced by the main organisms producing sediment. During the lowstand, the resulting profile is a ramp type. During the transgressive phase, the rapid spreading of the outer ramp facies belt, as a consequence of the enhanced productivity of the light-independent biota, is believed to be promoted by a change from oligotrophic to eutrophic conditions. Climate and/or tectonics are presumed to have played an important role in continental runoff and then in the nutrients delivery. During the highstand phase, the system returns to rates of production uniform throughout the platform. The high rates of carbonate production occurring in the aphotic zone are quite unusual in tropical settings and represent a provocative trend in apparent contrast with the common idea about the locus of the most significant carbonate production, as derived from the “tropical model”. The example described here shows that carbonate production and accumulation below the photic zone might be higher than in the shallow euphotic zone even in tropical conditions.