Carbonate ramp depositional systems from a late Jurassic epeiric platform (Iberian Basin, Spain): a combined computer modelling and outcrop analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACTNo counterparts to epeiric‐sea carbonate ramps are known in present‐day environments. This hinders the interpretation of the factors controlling the growth and evolution of these depositional settings. In this study we analyse the facies and geometries of two Jurassic examples both from outcrop study and through computer modelling. This analysis is constrained by two important features of these Oxfordian and Kimmeridgian ramps: firstly, they are very well exposed, allowing accurate reconstruction of a 200‐km section from proximal to distal ramp environments, and, secondly, a time framework for correlation, section reconstruction and modelling is provided by a well‐defined ammonite biostratigraphy. The modelling results in a synthetic stratigraphy which closely matches the reconstructed cross‐sections and, when integrated with the field study, constrains and provides additional quantitative data on the following aspects of carbonate ramp systems.Resedimentation by storms is an important process in maintaining the ramp profile through time. Down‐ramp transport distances of between 25 and 40 km are indicated from the distribution of storm beds and shallow‐water allochems and from model‐matching known stratigraphic thicknesses and geometries.Modelling sediment production within the time constraints from the ammonite biozones indicates that shallow‐water carbonate production was 1–2 orders of magnitude less than that predicted for present‐day open‐marine carbonate platforms. Deeper‐water production rates were reduced by lesser amounts. These proportionally higher, outer‐ramp production rates also help to maintain ramp geometries through time.The enigmatic slope crest of ramps is shown to result from a combination of higher, shallow‐water production and erosion rates, together with loss of accommodation during highstands and high‐stillstands in the modelled sea‐level curves.The most parsimonious modelling of the two ramp sequences comes from a relative sea‐level curve composed of a linear subsidence component superposed by 20‐ and 100‐kyr cycles on a third‐order cycle. The third‐order cycles and their timing do not correspond to those of the Exxon curve.