Estimation of the paleoflux of terrestrial-derived solids across

ancient basin margins using the stratigraphic record

Andrew L. Petter1,, Ronald J. Steel1, David Mohrig1, Wonsuck Kim1, and Cristian Carvajal2
1
Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, C1100,
Austin, Texas 78712-0254, USA
2
Chevron Energy Technology Company, 1500 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, USA

ABSTRACT
A simple inversion scheme for estimat-
ing sediment flux from ancient shelf-margin
successions is presented here by treating
shelf-margin clinothems as the product of
deposition associated with migration of a
shelf-edge clinoform with constant shape at
a rate equal to the shelf-margin prograda-
tion rate. Assuming sediment conservation,
deposition can be broken into components of
(1) response to subsidence and sea-level
changes, and (2) basinward migration of the
clinoform profile. Sediment flux can there-
fore be estimated with knowledge of progra-
dation rate, subsidence/sea-level change rate,
and clinoform dimensions. An advantage
of this methodology is that it requires only
two-dimensional data (i.e., dip-oriented cross
sections) rather than three-dimensional vol-
umes, making it ideal for use with sparse data
sets as well as with outcrops. This methodol-
ogy is also useful for analyzing areally lim-
ited data sets because it can predict the flux
of sediment transported beyond the area of
data coverage. The approach is able to accu-
rately reproduce the sediment-flux estimates
of previous workers from several margins
(the Fox HillsLewis, Zambezi, New Jersey,
and North Slope margins) using both volu-
metric and forward-modeling methods. Not
only are the predicted distributions for sedi-
ment flux across ancient shelf-margins simi-
lar to distributions predicted by more data-
intensive theoretical models, the estimated
magnitudes for paleofluxes favorably com-
pare with measured loads from modern riv-
ers. Growth of continents is achieved in part
by accretion of sediment on shelf margins.
The rates and patterns of continental expan-
sion are therefore partially dependent on the
magnitude and distribution of mass transfer
from eroding hinterlands to continental mar-
gins, fluxes which also play a critical role in
global biogeochemical cycles. Flux estimates
cast into a mass-balance framework suggest
that approximately two-thirds of continental-
margin sediments are exported past the shelf
edge into deeper water at long-term geologic
time scales. This finding implies that two-
thirds of the terrestrial-derived, particulate
organic carbon (POC) delivered from rivers
to the ocean can be stored in deep water over
geologic time scales. The observations pre-
sented here indicate that repetitive delivery
of sediment to margins by shelf-edge deltas
is fundamental to the long-term process of
margin accretion.
INTRODUCTION
Quantitative analysis of the rates of sediment
delivery to ancient depositional basins can be
difficult and time-consuming and is therefore
rarely undertaken in spite of the insights that
could be gleaned from such data for a wide
range of geologic subdisciplines. The amount
of sediment supplied to a depositional basin
per unit time is one of three rates (along with
rates of eustatic sea-level change and subsid-
ence) originally recognized as controlling
whether shorelines regress or transgress, and
consequently one that shapes the development
of stratigraphic sequences (Sloss, 1962; Pitman,
1978; Galloway, 1989; Swift and Thorne, 1991;
Schlager, 1993). This rate controls the volumes
of material available for growth at the margins,
which in turn plays a role in controlling a va-
riety of geologic and stratigraphic properties,
such as regional-scale crustal subsidence pat-
terns (Reynolds et al., 1991; Coakley and Watts,
1991), the distribution of depositional systems
tracts across a margin (Galloway, 1989), and
by extension, the distribution of strata which
control the flow properties and dimensions of
fluid-bearing reservoirs. We define sediment
flux (qs, units of L2/T) as the volume of sediment
transported at a given rate across a given area.
It is equal to the sediment discharge (L3/T) per
unit width of the transport system. The sediment
flux associated with ancient stratal successions
is generally described in qualitative terms (e.g.,
high/moderate/low, supply-dominated/limited,
enhanced or accentuated/diminished or starved
supply). This approach allows a relative com-
parison between stratigraphic sequences within
a single basin, but it does not allow for direct
comparison between basins or to the rich catalog
of modern river-load studies (e.g., Milliman and
Meade, 1983; Milliman and Syvitski, 1992). In
addition, sediment flux is a necessary input for
virtually all computational stratigraphic models
(Paola, 2000).
Estimation of paleosediment flux provides
a gateway to paleogeographic, paleotectonic,
and paleoclimatic interpretations. Variability in
modern river loads has been ascribed to a host of
basinal parameters: drainage basin area and re-
lief (Schumm and Hadley, 1961; Wilson, 1973;
Milliman and Meade, 1983; Pinet and Souriau,
1988; Milliman and Syvitski, 1992), uplift
rate (Hovius, 1998), latitude (Syvitski et al.,
2003), climatic conditions such as temperature
(Syvitski et al., 2003), precipitation, seasonal-
ity, or water balance (Langbein and Schumm,
1958; Wilson, 1973; Leeder et al., 1998; Edgar
and Cecil, 2003), and catchment slope and li-
thology (Leeder et al., 1998). Sediment flux can
vary significantly and rapidly, therefore provid-
ing a key parameter detailing basin history and

Present address: St. Anthony Falls Laboratory and Department of Earth Sciences, University of MinnesotaTwin Cities, 2 Third Avenue SE, Minneapolis, Min-
nesota 55414, USA; e-mail: andrew.l.petter@gmail.com.

GSA Bulletin; March/April 2013; v. 125; no. 3/4; p. 578593; doi: 10.1130/B30603.1; 12 figures; 3 tables.

For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org

578
2013 Geological Society of America

climate evolution. For example, Goodbred and
Kuehl (2000) calculated a twofold increase in
the Ganges-Brahmaputra sediment discharge
over a 4 k.y. time interval, which they attributed
to strengthening of the early Holocene South
Asian monsoon, while Molnar (2004) has in-
terpreted a threefold rise in global terrestrial
sediment flux over the past 5 m.y. as a result of
increased global climatic instability.
Estimation of paleosediment flux also has
applicable value for evaluation and extraction
of natural resources. For example, a common
problem encountered in petroleum exploration
is that sand-rich basin-floor fan deposits are
often located beyond or below the extent of
existing hard data sets (i.e., well data). This
is a significant issue, because these deposits
have the potential to form large hydrocarbon
reservoirs due to their high likelihood for both
stratigraphic and structural trapping and prox-
imity to organic-rich source rocks (Weimer and
Link, 1991). It is clear that the presence and size
of these deposits are highly dependent upon the
available sediment flux (Galloway, 1989; Wet-
zel, 1993; Carvajal et al., 2009). Estimation of
the absolute volume of sediment flux bypassing
the shelf edge, when combined with predictions
of the delivery route and style of downslope sed-
iment transport and resulting downslope sand/
mud partitioning, can provide an important ad-
vantage when planning exploration strategies
because good predictions of reservoir presence
play a key role in exploration success.
One of the ways in which continents grow
through time is by deposition of sediment at
continental margins (e.g., Dorsey, 2010). On
many modern and ancient margins, this sedi-
ment is terrestrially derived detritus. Conse-
quently, it is important to quantify the rate of
delivery of this material to ancient shelves and
shelf margins in order to evaluate its role in ba-
sin infilling and building clastic wedges at the
margins of continents.
Two main approaches have been under-
taken to understand basin-margin accretion:
(1) the study of stratal geometries and stack-
ing patterns within stratigraphic sequences
(i.e., sequence stratigraphy; Vail, 1987; Gallo-
way, 1989); and (2) the study of transport and
depositional processes on continental margins
(e.g., source-to-sink type programs such as
STRATAFORM [Nittrouer, 1999], EuroSTRA-
TAFORM [Syvitski et al., 2004], and MAR-
GINS S2S [Litchfield et al., 2008]). Sequence
stratigraphy primarily emphasizes increments
of growth on the shelf (aggradation) and shelf
margin (progradation) in response to relative
sea-level changes, while source-to-sink pro-
grams have focused heavily on the partitioning
of sediment budgets across modern and Holo-
Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013
Paleosediment flux estimation on shelf margins
cene shelves. Consequently, sequence stratigra-
phy has remained a sea-leveldriven model of
margin evolution without direct consideration
of sediment flux, while source-to-sink studies
have mostly centered on a single segment of the
shelf-margin clinoform (the topset, and, in par-
ticular, the marine shelf) within the Holocene,
a recent and short time window when sediment
delivery to the shelf edge has most likely been
at near-minimum values (Broecker et al., 1958;
Curray, 1965). Neither sequence stratigraphy,
with its strong emphasis on relative sea level and
stacking patterns, nor the study of modern and
Holocene margins provides the tools for evalu-
ating sediment flux across ancient shelf margins
at time intervals in excess of tens of thousands
of years.
The model presented here attempts to sim-
plify the estimation of paleosediment flux by
introducing a new inversion methodology for
quantifying long-term (tens of thousands of
years to millions of years) sediment-flux pat-
terns from ancient shelf-margin successions. We
explore how the morphology, growth rate, and
self-similar nature of large-scale, shelf-margin
clinoforms are directly related to spatial pat-
terns in sediment flux and show how stacking
patterns within these deposits can be used to es-
timate the sediment flux at any point along the
clinoform. The scheme is then applied to several
case studies in order to compare the results with
published flux estimates derived using other
methodologies. Finally, we examine the spatial
distribution of sediment flux across margins in
a mass-balance framework and discuss its rela-
tionship to biogeochemical cycles and the ex-
pansion of continents.
Previous Attempts to Quantify Ancient
Sediment Flux
Proxies for Sediment Flux
Sedimentation rates are the most com-
monly used proxy for sediment flux (e.g., Poag
and Sevon, 1989; Galloway and Williams,
1991; Galloway, 2001) and are most often
calculated as the temporal rate of change in
sediment-column thickness (units of L/T) or as
a downward-directed flux of sediment (units of
L2/T) onto the sediment-fluid interface. It must
be stressed, however, that sedimentation rates
do not provide a good estimate of total sediment
flux to the basin for several reasons. First, they
are a measure of the flux of sediment being de-
posited and preserved at a certain point or area,
a measure that may not include the amount of
sediment being bypassed to other parts of the
basin, which may not be covered by the data set
(Liu and Galloway, 1997; Leeder et al., 1998).
The Exner equation, an expression for conserva-
tion of sediment mass (Eq. 1; Paola and Voller,
2005), clearly illustrates that the depositional
rate (/t) is a function of the spatial change
in sediment flux (qs/x) across the depositional
site rather than the sediment flux (qs[x]):
1 qs ,
= (1)
t x
where bed is the concentration of sediment in the
bed (i.e., 1 porosity). Sedimentation rates vary
spatially within a basin due to depositional set-
tings, basin geometry, shear-stress distributions,
and loss of sediment flux due to deposition
elsewhere in the basin (Sadler, 1981; Mtivier,
2002; McCave and Swift, 1976; Pirmez et al.,
1998). Linear rates from cores, measured sec-
tions, or well data may be unrepresentative of
the complexity of sediment distribution patterns
(Molnar, 2004), though Romans et al. (2009)
have shown a linear relationship between de-
posit thickness and deposit volumes in a sim-
ple basin-floor fan environment in the Santa
Monica Basin. The linkage of thickness and
volume works in this case because the available
terrestrial-derived sediment is entirely deposited
within the basin-floor fan (i.e., qs goes to zero at
the distal end of the system, and characteristic
thinning rates, governed by transport processes,
lead to the observed relationship). Volumetric
sedimentation rates integrate local measures
over some area and are necessary for calculat-
ing total sediment discharge, but they result in
a loss of spatial information. More precise es-
timates for long-term sediment discharges can
be calculated for systems where the total depos-
ited volume of grains and the time interval for
sedimentation are known by removing porosity
and externally derived cement volumes from
total rock volumes (Liu and Galloway, 1997).
This method has been used by several research-
ers to estimate sediment flux on basinal and
global scales at both short (k.y.) and long (m.y.)
geologic time scales (Hay et al., 1988; Wold
and Hay, 1990; Pazzaglia and Brandon, 1996;
Liu and Galloway, 1997; Goodbred and Kuehl,
2000; Walford et al., 2005; Covault et al., 2011;
Guillocheau et al., 2011; Smme et al., 2011).
Volumetric approaches are subject to the same
errors as linear rates measurements are not taken
over the entire deposit. Finally, an important
consideration is that measured sedimentation
rates are dependent upon time scale; sedimenta-
tion rates systematically decrease at greater time
scales of observation (Sadler, 1981). Consider
that deltaic sedimentation rates at the 1 k.y. and
100 k.y. time scales are on the order of 0.01 m/yr
and 0.001 m/yr, respectively (Jerolmack and
Sadler, 2007). At the 1 k.y. time scale, deltaic
deposition occurs over a profile length on the
579
 Petter et al.

order of 10 km, requiring a length-averaged
sediment flux of 100 m2/yr. At the 100 k.y.
time scale, deltaic transit and lobe switching
lead to deposition over a profile length on the
order of 100 km, thus requiring the same length-
averaged sediment flux of 100 m2/yr. Therefore,
we see that the same sediment flux generates
time-scaledependent sedimentation patterns.
Sedimentation rates can only be used as an ac-
curate proxy for sediment flux when appropriate
spatial and temporal averaging is applied. For an
example of the difficulty in using accumulation
rates as a proxy for sediment flux, see the debate
regarding Cenozoic sediment flux from the Hi-
malayas and Tibetan Plateau (e.g., Rea, 1992;
Burbank et al., 1993; Mtivier et al., 1999; Clift
and Gaedicke, 2002; Clift, 2006).
Recently, large-scale shelf-margin accretion
rates have been used as a proxy for sediment
flux (Carvajal et al., 2009). Shelf-margin pro-
gradation and aggradation rates are determined
from the horizontal and vertical components of
the shelf-edge trajectory (sensu Steel and Olsen,
2002; Fig. 1, and , respectively). Modern
deep-water fan dimensions have been shown to
be directly proportional to modern river loads
(Wetzel, 1993), and Carvajal et al. (2009) ex-
tended this relationship to shelf-margin pro-
gradation rates. The time-scale dependency
of sedimentation rates documented by Sadler
(1981) will also affect accretion rates.
Numerical Modeling of Sediment Flux
Estimation of sediment flux using numeri-
cal modeling can be approached using two
different methods (Hovius and Leeder, 1998):
(1) sediment-production models can be used to
calculate the rates at which bedrock in catch-
ments weathers, erodes, and is delivered as
sediment to the fluvial system (e.g., Tucker and
Slingerland, 1996; Leeder et al., 1998; Weltje
et al., 1998; Syvitski et al., 2003; Smme et al.,
2011), and (2) forward models of basin filling
can be used to match known stratigraphic and
sedimentologic characteristics with a range of
sediment-flux conditions (e.g., Robinson and
Slingerland, 1998; Prather, 2000). These mod-
els are powerful tools capable of producing a
wealth of stratigraphic information. However, a
review of these models (Paola, 2000) reveals a
wide and overwhelming array of model choices,
each possessing its own idiosyncrasies and un-
derlying assumptions influencing their output.
The ability of models to provide a unique so-
lution is limited by the precision of the infor-
mation provided by input parameters, and the
amount of required information increases with
model complexity.
Clinoforms, Shelf Margins, and
Sediment Flux
In this paper, we will consider shelf-margin
clinoforms as complete sigmoidal forms con-
sisting of a topset, foreset, and bottomset (Steel
and Olsen, 2002), and clinothems as deposits
bounded by clinoform surfaces (Rich, 1951).
The clinoform morphology results from non-
uniform sedimentation rates. Relatively large
volumes of sediment bypass the shelf-margin
topset because its near-horizontal profile mini-
mizes the gradients of change in transport
conditions that induce deposition. Sediment is
primarily transported across the shelf-margin
topset in two ways: (1) via shallow-marine pro-
cesses driven by wind, waves, tides, storms, and
currents (Kuehl et al., 1986, 1989; Niedoroda et
al., 1995; Pirmez et al., 1998; Paola, 2000; Im-
ran and Syvitski, 2000), or (2) by deltaic shore-
line progradation across the topset to the shelf
edge (Burgess and Hovius, 1998; Porbski and
Steel, 2003). Sedimentation on modern conti-
nental margins is especially concentrated near
the shoreline (Swift and Thorne, 1991), with
only minor fractions of the total sediment bud-
get contributing to the growth of the margin
beyond the shelf edge, except in cases where
the shelf is narrow enough to allow interac-
tion of the shelf edge with shelfal transport
mechanisms (e.g., Walsh and Nittrouer, 2003;
Boyd et al., 2008; Romans et al., 2009). This
pattern of sediment flux does not match obser-
vations of large-scale and long-term growth of
continental margins in the rock record, which
require large volumes of sediment delivery to
the slope to drive margin progradation. It is
clear that superposition of river deltas with the
shelf edge is important for significant margin
growth (Steel et al., 2008). In such a scenario,
sedimentation rates reach a maximum on the
upper slope as the near-bed shear-stress field
decreases and shallow-marine transport gives
way to sediment gravity-flow transport (Ross
et al., 1994). This results in an apron of sedi-
ment on the upper slope, i.e., the basic element
of shelf-margin clinoform progradation. Sedi-
mentation diminishes downslope because sedi-
ment flux has been depleted by deposition. The
upper-slope apron may be partially redistrib-
uted or further bypassed by gravity flows that
have the potential to move sediment out onto
the lower slope and basin floor. However, this
remobilization of sediment does not change the
overall pattern of nonuniform sedimentation
that produces clinoforms.
Toward a New Quantitative Approach
for Estimating Sediment Flux from
Ancient Deposits
Our approach takes advantage of the relation-
ship between progradation rates and sediment
flux demonstrated by Carvajal et al. (2009) via
a kinematic wave equation (sensu Paola, 2000)

, (2)
= P
t x

where P denotes a wave speed, and x denotes

a down-basin coordinate (Fig. 1). Equation 2
considers clinoforms as a migrating sediment
wave with consistent geometry. Under this as-
sumption, the rate of change of bed elevation
(/t) is proportional to the local topographic
Figure 1. Schematic cross section illustrating the migration of clinoform profiles and the slope (/t) and the rate at which the clino-
resulting shelf-edge trajectory. The horizontal () and vertical () components of the shelf- form migrates horizontally (P). Higher deposi-
edge trajectory divided by the time between deposition of the two profiles are the prograda- tion rates are required where slopes are steeper
tion rate (P) and sink rate (A), respectively. The datum is the surface onto which the profiles in order to maintain a given wave speed. We
downlap, and the coordinate origin is located at the proximal pinchout of the clinoform- use the horizontal component () of the shelf-
bounded deposit with positive x-values toward the right. margin trajectory divided by the time interval

580 Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013


(shelf-margin progradation rate of Carvajal et
al., 2009) for the wave speed.
Clearly, clinoforms do not perfectly maintain
a steady profile during progradation and will
change shape based upon the basin configura-
tion, proximity to the sediment source (e.g., the
river mouth; Olariu and Steel, 2009), magnitude
and composition of sediment flux, and basin en-
ergy (Swift and Thorne, 1991; Ross et al., 1994;
Pirmez et al., 1998). However, a comparison of
modern clinoforms of various scales (Pirmez et
al., 1998) illustrates that clinoform profiles are
more similar than different, and that the degree
to which a clinoform profile will change shape
during progradation of a shelf margin should be
small enough to be ignored in most cases. The
maximum foreset slopes within the data set of
Pirmez et al. (1998) vary between 0.5 and 6.3.
Recall from Equation 1 that the rate of change
of bed elevation can be related to the spatial
variation in sediment flux. As discussed already,
the downdip spatial variation in sediment flux
is directly related to clinoform morphology and
progradation (Pirmez et al., 1998). If we com-
bine Equations 1 and 2 and add a sink term (A)
to account for changes in relative sea level (the
combined effects of eustasy and subsidence),
we obtain an equation that relates the prograda-
tion rate and morphology of clinoforms to the
spatial variation of sediment flux,
1 qs , (3)
P A(x) =
x x
A first-order approximation for A can be ob-
tained by dividing the vertical component ()
of the shelf-margin trajectory by the clinothem
duration (shelf-margin aggradation rate of Car-
vajal et al., 2009). This term bears some rela-
tionship to the accommodation concept (Jervey,
1988), but we choose to avoid this term be-
cause of the inherent difficulty in establishing
its magnitude quantitatively (Muto and Steel,
2000; Kim et al., 2006). Accommodation rate
and the time-normalized vertical component of
clinoform-rollover trajectory have been equated
previously by Kim et al. (2006).
Integrating Equation 3 with respect to x al-
lows us to calculate the sediment flux at any
point x along a clinoform elevation profile with
a total length L,
1 qs
P A(x) dx = dx (4)
x x
and
1 (clinoform dimensions and accretion rates) can
P(L x) A(x)dx = [qs(L) qs(x)] . (5)
Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013
Paleosediment flux estimation on shelf margins
L is the downdip location of the distal clinothem
pinchout, L (equal to zero) and x are the clino-
form elevations at L and x, respectively, and
qs(L) is the sediment flux at the distal pinchout.
Sediment is assumed to be entirely conserved
within the clinothem, and, therefore, qs(L) is
also equal to zero. Solving for qs(x) gives
qs(x) = P(x) + A(x)dx . (6)
This equation is similar to the bed-load equa-
tion for dunes and ripples originally developed
by Simons et al. (1965), as well as the equa-
tion for calculating sediment flux at the deltaic
shoreline in the geometric model of Kim et al.
(2006) and the inverse box model of Wolinsky
et al. (2010). The calculated value is a measure
of the amount of sediment per unit time neces-
sary for the clinoform to build to an elevation
at point x given a certain rate of progradation,
as well as accounting for the sediment neces-
sary for the profile to maintain its position in
spite of subsidence and sea-level change. The
integrated sink term (Adx) is the sediment flux
required to aggrade in response to subsidence
and sea-level change, and thus represents the
threshold flux for progradation. The elevation
at any point on the clinoform cannot perma-
nently rise independently of the other points
if the clinoform geometry is to be maintained.
Thus, progradation does not occur until each
point on the clinoform profile has received the
necessary sediment flux required to migrate the
entire profile at the given rate. Values are given
in units of L2/T (i.e., the same units for width-
averaged sediment flux), and can be converted
to sediment discharge (units of L3/T) by multi-
plying by a length scale, such as basin width,
and then to sediment load (units of M/T) by
multiplying by the grain density.
To better visualize the relationship between
these factors, consider a shelf margin prograd-
ing at some rate P1 into a basin with a gently
dipping floor (Fig. 2) and rising relative sea
level. As the clinoform migrates into deeper
water, it must increase the height of its foreset
(se), and subsequently, its length (dxse), where
the subscript indicates a shelf-edge position. In
order to maintain a constant progradation rate,
the sediment flux must increase to satisfy the
depositional requirements of a larger clinoform
(Fig. 2A). If sediment flux does not increase,
the progradation rate will decrease (Fig. 2B) as
the shelf margin builds into increasingly deeper
water. Consequently, sediment flux can be es-
timated for ancient shelf-margin successions
using the outlined scheme if these properties
be measured from the rock record.
Estimating Pinchout Position and Depth
Since the horizontal distance framework and
elevation datum are tied to the distal pinchout
of the clinothem, a method is needed to esti-
mate this position. Clinothem thinning rates
offer a way to estimate the pinchout distance
from available clinothem thickness data. The
thinning rates of shelf-margin clinothems can
be approximated by an exponential spatial de-
cay function basinward of the position of maxi-
mum thickness (Fig. 3A), which is generally
located near the rollover of the upper bounding
clinoform. Exponential spatial decay of clino-
them thickness matches observations of mod-
ern slope morphologies, which can often be fit
with exponential curves (Adams et al., 1998).
Thinning rates of sigmoidal clinothems are
best fit with half-Gaussian curves (Adams and
Schlager, 2000), though exponential curves pro-
vide a close approximation. Figure 3B (Lower/
Middle Miocene, Zambezi margin) shows a
spatial thickness pattern of exponential decay
from the thickness maximum breaking into a
linear trend at 72 km. This break is interpreted
as the position at which pelagic deposition
starts to dominate over terrigenous deposition.
Sedimentation rates over this interval (~750 m
deposited over ~12 m.y. 6.3 105 m/yr)
match average sedimentation rates for pelagic
accumulation at this time scale (Sadler, 1981).
Points beyond this break should be removed for
curve fitting. Distal pinchout distance (xo) can
be solved by
T
1n p/a
x0 = , (7)
k
where Tp is the pinchout thickness (some ar-
bitrary value; we use 5 m as a conservative
cutoff for a time scale of millions of years),
a is the initial coefficient, and k is the de-
cay constant. Without detailed data on the
fractional components of basinal sediments,
the exclusion of some of the terrigenous
component of hemipelagic sedimentation
as well as the inclusion of a component of
pelagic sedimentation are unavoidable with
this procedure.
Advantages of this Methodology
This method is advantageous compared to
other ways of calculating sediment flux in that
it requires minimal data (i.e., elevation pro-
files, clinoform accretion rates, and a porosity
value) from two-dimensional data sets. Time
is incorporated within the accretion rates. The
two-dimensional nature of the method allows
for application to sparsely populated data sets.
Full knowledge of the clinoform profile is not
581
 Petter et al.

Figure 2. (A) Successive clinoforms prograding out into increasingly deeper water must receive increasing sediment flux to maintain a
constant progradation rate because of increasing clinoform dimensions. If sediment flux does not change (B), then the progradation rate is
diminished as the clinoform dimensions continue to lengthen. The cross-sectional area of the clinothem beyond the shelf edge is represented
by , and is equal to the shelf-edge sediment flux (L2/T) when normalized by the duration of the clinothem.

required as long as the distance and depth to
the distal pinchout of the clinothem can be es-
timated. Therefore, we can calculate sediment
fluxes for margin successions in which slope
and basin deposits are partly hidden and out-
of-reach of the data set. A major upside of this
method is that spatial variation in sediment flux
can be calculated, allowing us to examine the
way in which sediment is partitioned along a
source-to-sink cross section from river and delta
to basin floor.
Potential Sources of Error
Obviously, the precision of sediment-flux es-
timates depends upon the precision of inputs.
Improvements can be made by accounting for
spatial variability in the aggradation term and
the bed concentration due to grain size, sort-
ing, and cement distributions of the deposits.
Pore fractions of siliciclastic rocks range from
~0.1 to 0.4 (Nelson and Kibler, 2003), so the
maximum error due to bed concentration will
be around 30%. The methodology as presented
here does not account for the fraction of the
clinothem occupied by igneous or sedimentary
intrusions, but this could be included in the term
for bed concentration if necessary. The tempo-
ral variability of progradation and subsidence
rates can also be constrained given an adequate
chronostratigraphic framework. Inaccurate chro-
nostratigraphy is problematic for any methodol-
ogy of flux estimation. Any uncertainty in ages
of clinoform profiles affects flux estimates in

582 Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013

 Paleosediment flux estimation on shelf margins

this methodology through the progradation rate
and sink rate terms (P and A). The Sadler effect
(Sadler, 1981) on accretion rates becomes im-
portant at longer time scales, and any paleoflux
analysis must therefore recognize that estimates
represent minimum values due to the presence of
depositional hiatuses within stratal successions.
Burial and Compaction
Compaction of the clinoform succession
will also affect the sediment-flux estimate by
decreasing the clinoform height. The original
thickness of a clinothem is related its present-
day thickness by the ratio of the present-day
sediment fraction (1 N) to the original sedi-
ment fraction (1 O), where N and O are the the shelf margin is still accreting), and, conse-
present-day and original porosities, respectively
(Angevine et al., 1990; after Van Hinte, 1978).
Porosity decays exponentially with depth due to
compaction. Original (depositional) porosities
range from 40 to 50% and decrease with burial to
~10% for sandstones and <5% for shale (Sclater
and Christie, 1980). This puts the maximum
change in clinoform height due to compaction at
around twofold. However, much of the compac-
tion takes places during initial burial (i.e., while
quently, the clinoform architecture at final burial
depth may not be significantly different from the
depositional morphology. Deibert et al. (2003)
restored the Tertiary clinoform succession of
Spitsbergen to original depositional geometries
and found little difference in clinoform dimen-
sions relative to preserved geometries.
More significant errors are potentially accrued
due to postdepositional stratal rotation caused by
hinged subsidence patterns. Basinward rotation
of a clinoform profile alters the position of indi-
vidual points along the profile in both the verti-
cal and horizontal sense. This changes the values
of P, A, x, and for each point. The position of
points can be restored through application of a
two-dimensional rotation matrix if the magni-
tude of rotation can be estimated.

Pinchout Distance and Elevation

Potential errors in sediment-flux estimates
due to incorrect pinchout distance and height
estimates are shown in Figure 4. Sediment-flux
estimates become more sensitive to scale error
at high accommodation and progradation rates
because flux is a function of the product of these
terms with distance and height, respectively (Eq.
4). For moderate margin accretion rates (e.g.,
P < 10 km/m.y. and A < 200 m/m.y.), the el-
evation estimate for a given point of interest
could be off by 1000 m yet still result in a flux
estimate accurate to within 10 m2/yr, while the
estimate for distal pinchout position could be
inaccurate by 50 km and only accrue an ad-
ditional error in flux estimate of 10 m2/yr.

Spatial Variability in Subsidence and Loading

Figure 3. Clinothem thickness versus basinward distance
for a fourth-order clinothem from the Lewis margin (A) and
a third-order clinothem from the Zambezi margin (B) illus-
trating the spatial patterns of clinothem depocenters and
the exponential decay of clinothem thicknesses basinward of
the thickness maxima. Triangles in B indicate the portion of
the clinothem over which pelagic sedimentation is thought
to dominate over terrestrial-derived sedimentation.
The sink term within a basin is a function
of tectonic subsidence and uplift (Coakley
and Watts, 1991), eustasy (Pitman, 1978),
sediment loading (Reynolds et al., 1991), and
availability of a depositional site (Muto and
Steel, 2000; Prather, 2003; Kim et al., 2006).
The spatial and temporal form of the sink func-
tion depends upon basin type (Xie and Heller,
2009), and may increase toward the source
area (i.e., tectonic loading of foreland basins)
or toward the basin (i.e., hinged subsidence of
passive margins). Subsidence due to sediment
loading will be greatest where deposition is
greatest, which is near the rollover for the case
of shelf margins. Aggradation due to eustasy
it thought to peak near the shoreline and di-
minish away from the shoreline both landward
and seaward (Cross and Lessenger, 1995).
Aggradational variability due to depositional

Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013 583


Figure 4. Error in sediment-flux calculations derived from
error in clinoform-dimension estimates at different accretion
rates. Isolines show the error allowed in dimension estimates
for a desired degree of accuracy in flux estimate.
site accounts for the fact that sediment does
not deposit evenly across the basin due to two
conditions: (1) sediment is not available in
all parts of the basin at any point in time, and
(2) sediment cannot be deposited if transport
is too energetic due to basin topography (i.e.,
nondeposition by bedrock rivers in the hinter-
land, or bypass of gravity flows on the slope).
The shelf-margin clinothems under consid-
eration pinch out distally because the total
sediment flux is deposited along the clinoform
length (condition 1). Given that the spatial
variability in sediment flux and the local slope
both go to zero at the clinothem pinchout, we
can show that aggradation is nonexistent at
this point by plugging these values into Equa-
tion 3. Theoretically, the spatial aggradation
profile (x) can be derived from a modified
form of Equation 2 as
,
A(x) = +P (8)
t x
584 Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013
Petter et al.
where /t is determined by dividing the cli-
nothem-thickness profile by the clinothem dura-
tion. In practice, however, this becomes difficult
if local topographic slope is altered from origi-
nal depositional gradients by tectonic rotation.
Total and Fractional Sediment-Flux Estimates
We define the total sediment flux as the flux
entering into the upstream end of the deposi-
tional clinothem (i.e., the proximal pinchout or
coastal onlap of the clinothem). This position
can be estimated in the same manner as the dis-
tal pinchout by using landward-thinning rates of
the clinothem, though these rates are generally
approximated with a linear trend rather than
exponential decay. Estimation of total sediment
flux allows for downstream fluxes to be placed
in the context of fractional values and facilitates
comparison of spatial flux patterns between dif-
ferent clinothems and basins. Sediment flux can
then be considered in a manner similar to the
mass-balance framework proposed by Strong et
al. (2005), who suggested that the architecture
of alluvial systems is governed by the amount
of sediment extracted from transport by deposi-
tion, and can therefore be predicted within the
mass-balance framework.
DATA AND RESULTS
Four data sets from different basins are ana-
lyzed here using this methodology (Table 1).
The chosen data sets met two criteria: (1) pres-
ence of a prograding shelf-margin clinoform
succession and (2) existence of previous esti-
mates for sediment flux using other methods
(e.g., solid-grain volumes, sedimentation rates,
forward modeling). The data sets provide ex-
amples from both continental margins as well
as foreland basins developed on continental
crusts. These examples are not chosen to solve
any specific regional geologic problem, but
rather to demonstrate our method for estimat-
ing sediment flux, and to examine the distri-
bution of sediment-flux trends across margins
over geologic time scales. Therefore, we leave
paleoenvironmental interpretations from our
results for later work. Sediment flux to the Neo-
gene Ebro margin was also estimated using data
from Kertznus and Kneller (2009), but no previ-
ous estimates are available for comparison. The
parameters used for flux estimates are presented
in Table 2. Bed sediment concentrations of 0.8
were used for all estimates. The total error due
to porosity, compaction, and clinoform dimen-
sion errors is estimated to potentially be up to
200%300%. However, our results commonly
agree to within 50% of published estimates for
the studied margins. The error due to using a
single value for A rather than a function A(x) is
unclear for these data.
LanceFox HillsLewis Clinoforms, Great
DivideWashakie Basin, Wyoming, USA
Shelf-margin clinoforms >400 m high have
been interpreted from the Maastrichtian section
(Lance Formation, Fox Hills Sandstone, and
Lewis Shale) of the Laramide Great Divide
Washakie Basin of southwestern Wyoming
(Asquith, 1970; Pyles and Slatt, 2000; Carvajal
and Steel, 2006). Average sediment load of 4
16 Mt/yr has been estimated by Carvajal and
Steel (2012) using the solid-grain volumes
approach. Elevation profiles from 15 maxi-
mum flooding surfaces were used to calculate
sediment flux across five dip-oriented (north to
south) well-log cross sections (NS0 western-
most to NS4 easternmost; for precise locations,
see Carvajal and Steel, 2006). The steps for es-
timation of sediment flux for a single clinothem
 Paleosediment flux estimation on shelf margins

TABLE 1. STUDY MARGINS

Margin Age Previous workers Method of previous flux estimate
LanceFox HillsLewis Maastrichtian Carvajal and Steel (2012) Solid-grain volumes
Zambezi Oligocenepresent Walford et al. (2005) Solid-grain volumes
North Slope AptianAlbian Kaba (2004) Forward stratigraphic modeling
New Jersey Miocenepresent Steckler et al. (1999) Cross-sectional accumulation rates
Ebro Pliocenepresent Kertznus and Kneller (2009) NA

(Clinothem 8 of Carvajal and Steel, 2006) are grain volumes from a three-dimensional (3-D) approach does not account for the Pleistocene
presented as a flowchart (Fig. 5). seismic data set in order to reconstruct the catch- section lying beyond the extent of the seismic
Figure 6 shows the sediment-flux profile and ment history of the Zambezi River. The Zambezi data. The seismic profile imaged ~40%65% of
the spatial change in sediment flux for clinothem Delta feeds a large (~1800 km long by 400 km the Oligocene to Pliocene clinothems (including
8 across section NS2. Note that flux diminishes wide) submarine fan, which is thought to have the thickest parts) but saw less than 20% of the
into the basin due to loss of sediment by depo- been active since the Oligocene (Kolla et al., Pleistocene clinothem. We estimate 81 Mt/yr
sition, and that the flux profile and clinoform 1980; Droz and Mougenot, 1987; Salman and of sediment escaped the study area, in agree-
profile share a similar morphology. Estimated Abdula, 1995). Clinoforms were digitized from ment with the presence of the large Zambezi fan.
depositional rate reaches a maximum ~6 km an interpreted seismic profile (see fig. 5b in Wal- Therefore, we believe that our estimate is closer
from the shelf edge, which coincides with the ford et al., 2005) and converted to depth (Fig. 9). than that of Walford et al. (2005) to the true
location of the greatest clinothem thickness. Our flux estimates for the Oligocene through Pleistocene sediment load for the Zambezi River.
Shelf-edge sediment flux increases through time, Pliocene (Fig. 10) are of the same order of mag-
with minor peaks at clinothems 6 and 9 (Fig. 7). nitude as the volumetric estimates of Walford et New Jersey Margin, Eastern United States
Average sediment flux at the shelf edge from all al. (2005) for the same time period, and they ad-
cross sections and clinothems was calculated to equately constrain the sediment-flux history of The Neogene clinoform set of the New Jer-
be 8.8 Mt/yr, within the range of volumetrically the margin. The differences, ranging from 25% sey passive margin has been well studied by a
derived estimates (416 Mt/yr) of Carvajal and to 106%, can be attributed to error in pinchout number of workers using seismic profiles and
Steel (2012). Figure 8 shows average sediment distance and height, basin width, and bed con- Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) cores (Steckler
flux by cross section. Streamwise sediment flux centration. Multiple seismic profiles would have et al., 1999). This work has included estimates
decreases from the basin axis toward the mar- increased the agreement between our estimates of sediment flux based on cross-sectional areas
gins ~0.1 Mt/yr per crosswise kilometer. and the volumetric estimates for the Oligocene of sequences interpreted from seismic profiles.
Pliocene section by accounting for lateral vari- Backstripping of surfaces interpreted from
Zambezi Shelf Margin, Mozambique Basin, ability in sediment flux. depth-converted seismic profiles has allowed
East Africa However, we estimate the average Pleisto- for reconstruction of original depositional clino-
cene Zambezi River load to have been at least form profiles (Steckler et al., 1999), and allows
Walford et al. (2005) estimated the Middle 88 Mt/yr, over six times the 14 Mt/yr estimated us an opportunity to compare flux estimates us-
Cretaceous to Holocene sediment load to the by Walford et al. (2005). We suggest that the ing our methodology for both restored and non-
Zambezi passive margin by calculating solid- reason for this discrepancy is that the volumetric restored profiles.
Figure 11 compares the flux estimates of
Steckler et al. (1999) with shelf-edge fluxes
TABLE 2. INVERSION PARAMETERS derived from our methodology using both re-
Margin Progradation rate Aggradation rate Clinoform height Clinoform length stored and nonrestored clinoform profiles. Our
(m/yr) (m/yr) (m) (km)
LanceFox HillsLewis 0.048 0.00027 400500 3050 estimates agree within 100% of the values of the
Zambezi previously published estimates, and the trend
Oligocene 0.0020 0.000018 3450 235
LowerMiddle Miocene 0.0032 0.0000085 3200 125 of increasing sediment flux from the early to
Upper Miocene 0.0010 0.000025 3900 165 middle Miocene is faithfully reconstructed. The
Pliocene 0.0017 0.000021 3500 103
Pleistocene 0.016 0.00025 4400 381
nonrestored profiles differ from the previously
North Slope 0.024 0.0001 5001300 560 published estimates by 10%83% (average
New Jersey*
m5.6 0.010 0.0000076 550 50
33%). The restored profiles consistently under-
m5.4 0.0052 0.0000091 650 60 estimate the flux by 37%69% (average 54%).
m5.2 0.0025 0.0000095 450 25 Hinged subsidence and differential loading
m5 0.0018 0.000010 850 75
m4 0.015 0.000017 750 70 of the New Jersey margin led to the clinoforms
m3 0.020 0.000020 500 25 being progressively rotated toward the basin.
m2.2 0.042 0.000027 850 70
New Jersey Backstripping of the clinoform surfaces elimi-
m6 0.0011 0.000012 250 45 nated this rotation and led to flattening of the
m5.4 0.0056 0.000010 250 50
m5 0.0021 0.000036 350 55 profiles, so that the overall height of the profiles
m4 0.013 0.000026 350 85 decreased in spite of decompaction. Deibert et
m3 0.020 -0.000010 200 25
Ebro al. (2003) reconstructed shelf-margin clinothems
Late Pliocene 0.0083 0.00023 1900 40 from outcrops in Spitsbergen. They found that
Early Pleistocene 0.0130 0.00044 2300 60
Late Pleistocene 0.0058 0.00047 2700 85 differential compaction caused the gradients and
*Nonreconstructed clinoforms. the heights of the clinothems to decrease, but that

Clinoforms reconstructed by backstripping (Steckler et al., 1999). differential loading (caused by the depositional

Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013 585

 Petter et al.

Figure 5. Flow chart illustrating the steps and calculations taken to estimate the shelf-edge sediment flux for clinothem 8 (of Carvajal and
Steel, 2006) of the Lewis margin. See Figure 6 for the entire sediment-flux profile.

patterns of the overlying clinothems) led to an
increase in clinothem gradient and height. The
net result, as mentioned previously, was little
difference between restored and nonrestored
clinothem geometries because the effects of dif-
ferential compaction and loading tend to cancel
each other out. In the case of the New Jersey
margin, however, thermal subsidence was also
a factor in the preserved clinothem geometries,
and it is the correction for the resulting rotation
which seems to be the main reason that our flux
estimates from the restored profiles are lower
than those of Steckler et al. (1999).
North Slope, Alaska, United States
The Aptian to early Cenomanian Nanushuk-
Torok Formations of the Colville Trough (North
Slope of Alaska) form a well-known shelf-
margin clinoform set within a foreland-basin set-
ting. The seismic stratigraphy of these deposits
has been described and interpreted by McMillen
(1991) using publicly available industry seismic
data from the U.S. Geological Survey (National
Petroleum Reserve, Alaska Legacy Data Ar-
chive). Kaba (2004) used a forward-modeling
approach with the STRATA modeling package
(Flemings and Grotzinger, 1996) to estimate the
basin conditions (e.g., subsidence rates, sediment
flux) for the Nanushuk-Torok shelf margin using
three fitting parameters: (1) progradation rate,
(2) ratio of topset thickness to clinoform height,
and (3) topset and foreset gradients to match data
on two east-west seismic lines. Two solutions
to the forward-modeling problem were pro-
posed, both of which matched the observations
of clinoforms geometries and long-term accre-
tion. One solution was modeled with no tectonic
subsidence, an initial water depth of ~1000 m,
and sediment fluxes on the order of several tens
of square meters per year. This scenario could
be equivalent to post-tectonic basin filling. The
other solution imposed a low subsidence rate to
the basin, which required an order of magnitude
greater sediment flux to create a match of the
seismically interpreted fitting parameters.
Using the same data, we estimate average
shelf-edge fluxes of 20 m2/yr and 26 m2/yr for
lines R13 and R14, respectively. Peak flux val-
ues for the two lines range from 25 to 30 m2/yr
for line R13 and from 40 to 50 m2/yr for line
R14. These estimates are similar to the fluxes
used in the zero-subsidence solution of Kaba
(2004), suggesting that the interpretation of a

586 Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013

 Paleosediment flux estimation on shelf margins

proximate this scenario because river deltas are

Figure 6. (A) Elevation profiles for bounding clinoforms of cli-
nothem 8, Lewis margin, plotted with the clinothem-thickness
profile. (B) Sediment-flux (qs) and spatial variation in sediment-
flux (dqs/dx) profiles for the same clinothem. Note the basin-
ward-diminishing trend in sediment flux, which is sharpest
near the clinothem rollover, as well as the associated peak in
the spatial flux variability.
post-tectonic or quiescent basin during depo-
sition of the Nanushuk-Torok succession in
this part of the basin may represent the more
likely solution. This analysis illustrates how the
addition of constraints on input parameters for
stratigraphic models can increase the unique-
ness of solution when estimating basin controls
using a forward-modeling approach.
DISCUSSION
Our methodology for sediment-flux estima-
tion improves significantly on previous meth-
odologies (e.g., sedimentation rates, forward
modeling) because of ease of use, uniqueness
of solutions, and the ability to recreate spatial
patterns of sediment flux within a sequence.
Our flux estimates generally agree within 10%
to 100% of previously published estimates de-
rived from other methodologies, a relatively low
degree of imprecision given that modern river
loads vary over five orders of magnitude (101
to 103 Mt/yr; Milliman and Syvitski, 1992).
The spatial pattern of sediment flux estimated
from ancient shelf-margin sequences (e.g., Fig.
6) matches expected patterns based on numeri-
cal models of clinoform progradation (Pirmez
et al., 1998), namely, a basinward-diminishing
flux caused by deposition, which is greatest near
the clinoform rollover. Most interestingly, shelf-
edge sediment fluxes averaged over long-term
geologic time scales are shown to be in the same
range of magnitudes as modern river loads, and
are several orders of magnitude higher than pres-
ent-day shelf-edge fluxes on margins with wide
shelves. These results show that these patterns
are persistent over geologic time scales, and that
repetitive progradations of deltas to the shelf
edge are fundamental to the long-term process
of continental-margin accretion, in agreement
with recent modeling results of Burgess et al.
(2008). Modern margins with narrow shelves ap-
close to the shelf edge, and in some cases feed
directly into submarine canyons (e.g., the Sepik
River; Walsh and Nittrouer, 2003). Additionally,
the near-rollover depositional maximum is likely
the primary driver for shelf-margin collapse and
shelf-edge growth faulting on large (>1000 m
high) shelf margins (Carvajal et al., 2009).
Equation 4 shows that both progradation
rate and the size of clinoforms are direct con-
sequences of the magnitude of sediment flux.
In other words, high sediment flux leads to
clinoforms which are large or rapidly prograd-
ing, or both. Shallow basins cannot build large
clinoforms, and high sediment flux in those ba-
sins will be expressed in the progradation rate.
Deeper basins will allow for larger clinoforms
to be built and accreted. It must be stressed,
however, that the maximum water depth of a ba-
sin does not necessarily equate with clinoform
height (and therefore, sediment flux). Modern
shelf margins are likely not depositional across
the entire slope because most present-day shelf-
edge sediment fluxes are a small fraction of the
Last Glacial Maximum values, when deltas re-
sided at the shelf edge (Broecker et al., 1958;
Curray, 1965). The sizes of modern shelf-margin
clinoforms are determined by the glacio-eustatic
lowstand shelf-edge delta sediment flux, and
currently active clinoforms are likely smaller
parasitic features on the upper slope of the mar-
gin. A similarly scaled feature would develop on
a shelf margin that was originally constructed by
shelf-edge deltas receiving a high sediment flux,
but which later experienced diminished flux dur-
ing deposition of a subsequent sequence. For ex-
ample, see the Pliocene sequence of the Zambezi
margin (Fig. 9), which appears to pinch out on
the slope of the Upper Miocene clinothem just
beyond the data coverage. In this case, the maxi-
mum water depth of the basin would be a mis-
leading measure of the depositional clinoform
height and would cause incorrect estimation of
sediment flux. In fact, our estimate suggests that
the Pliocene could have been the time of mini-
mum sediment flux to the Zambezi Delta since
the Oligocene (Fig. 10).
Another contribution of our methodology is
that it avoids the complexity required to model
the variety and interaction of processes that
actually transport sediment across the margin
and ultimately result in margin growth. Besides
the complexity of modeling these processes,
ancient margins may not provide direct mea-
sures of the variables necessary to model them.
Therefore, it is difficult to develop a purely
process-based approach to reproduce sediment-
flux patterns and clinothem accretion in ancient
shelf-margin successions from their fluvial to
deep-water segments.

Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013 587

 Petter et al.

Figure 8. Sediment-flux values for each

cross section temporally averaged for all
clinothems as well as values averaged both
spatially and temporally.

Continental Margins in the Mass-

Balance Framework

Continental margins are the ultimate sink of

terrigenous sediments, and source-to-sink stud-
ies have attempted to understand how sediment
is partitioned among the coastal plain, delta, and
shelf topset of the margin clinoform and the
deep water beyond the shelf edge. Walsh and
Nittrouer (2003) found that present-day margins
export from <10% to up to 90% of their sedi-
ment flux off the shelf, and that the degree of off-
shelf transport was dependent upon shelf width
(i.e., the proximity of rivers to the shelf edge).
Figure 12 shows the fraction of the total sedi-
ment flux reaching the shelf edge for three Neo-
Figure 7. Sediment-flux estimates at the shelf-edge and most-landward positions of 15 clino- gene continental margins (Ebro, Zambezi, and
thems from five different north-southoriented cross sections in the Washakie Basin (NS0 in New Jersey) based on our flux estimations. The
the west to NS4 in the east). See Carvajal and Steel (2006) for cross-section locations. Final fractional values cluster between 0.6 and 0.7,
panel shows the flux values for each clinothem spatially averaged across all five cross sections. with an average of 0.65, meaning that approxi-
mately two-thirds of sediments reach the shelf
edge over geologic time scales for these three
systems. We propose that one-third to the topset
Expansion of Continents through Accretion der since 155 Ma (DeCelles, 2004, see his Fig. and two-thirds to deep water represent the natu-
of Sediments 1) are comparable to (and even slightly lower ral long-term sediment partitioning of prograda-
than) rates of Gulf of Mexico margin accretion tional continental margins, and that deviations
The accretion of island arcs and microcon- along Texas and Louisiana since the Paleocene from this norm reflect either autostratigraphic
tinents to continents (i.e., terrane accretion) (Galloway, 2001; Carvajal et al., 2009, see transitions (sensu Muto et al., 2007) or major
has long been recognized as an important their Fig. 7). Growth rates are higher for sin- readjustment of the margin to allogenic forcing
mechanism for continental growth (Burchfiel gle-terrane accretion events such as the accre- or basin reconfiguration. Interestingly, Smme
and Davis, 1972; Coney et al., 1980). Dorsey tion of the Aleutia terrane to Alaska (Scholl et et al. (2009a) estimated that deltas would have
(2010) recently demonstrated that the Colo- al., 1986), while sedimentary accretion along been within 10 km of the shelf edge 60%75%
rado River delivers sufficient sediment to the the eastern margin of North America is an or- of the time since the Late Cretaceous based on
Gulf of California to build continental crust at der of magnitude lower than the Gulf of Mex- numerical modeling. For strongly aggradational
rates similar to island-arc growth and seafloor ico. The data collected in Table 3 suggest that shelf-margin growth in the WashakieGreat Di-
spreading. Here, we compare linear rates of sedimentation can rival tectonic accretion as a vide Basin, Carvajal and Steel (2012) estimated
continental growth through terrane accretion to mechanism for continental growth. Sediment that the total volumes of the supplied sediment
continental growth through margin sedimenta- accreted at continental margins also contrib- was partitioned into the topset, slope, and basin-
tion using the concept of progradation (Table utes to large-scale elemental segregation due floor compartments of clinothems with average
3). Growth rates via terrane accretion along to mechanical sorting of sands (predominantly ratios of ~1:1:1, i.e., two-thirds was delivered
the western North American margin from the quartz) and muds (clay minerals) during trans- beyond the shelf edge. The fractional fluxes
Alaska-Canada border to the U.S.-Mexico bor- port and deposition. in Figure 12 are plotted against the fractional

588 Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013

 Paleosediment flux estimation on shelf margins
Figure 9. Shelf-margin clinoform profiles from the Zambezi margin,
which were depth converted from Figure 5 of Walford et al. (2005) and
used to estimate sediment-flux values. Note the lack of data from the
distal Pleistocene clinothem.
Figure 10. Oligocene to Pleistocene shelf-edge sediment-flux estimates
from the Zambezi margin from both this paper (solid line) and Walford
et al. (2005). Note the general agreement in values except for the Pleis-
tocene estimates, which is due to incomplete coverage of the Pleistocene
clinothem (see Fig. 10) in the volumetric data set of Walford et al. (2005).
Figure 11. Comparison of Miocene sediment-flux estimates from Steckler
et al. (1999) and estimates from this paper using both restored and non-
restored clinoform profiles. See Steckler et al. (1999) for sequence ages.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013
clinothem length, which shows that the shelf
edge is most often positioned at 0.40.7 of the
total margin length. On average, approximately
half of the shelf-margin clinoform length con-
sists of the slope and basin floor. The fraction of
sediment exported beyond the shelf edge does
not seem to vary with the sink term (Fig. 12B),
which suggests that topset aggradation does not
affect the fractional partitioning of sediment be-
tween the topset and the deep water.
Implications for Global
Biogeochemical Cycles
Global biogeochemical cycles such as the car-
bon cycle (Berner et al., 1983) are directly con-
nected to the fluxes of solids from the land to the
ocean. The riverine flux of terrestrial particulate
organic matter (POC) is an important yet poorly
understood variable in the global carbon cycle.
The present-day riverborne POC flux is esti-
mated at 0.170.30 Gt C/yr (Sarmiento and Sun-
dquist, 1992; Sundquist and Visser, 2004). The
amount of this material that is only temporarily
stored in coastal and continental shelf deposits
versus that preserved for longer times in depos-
its of the continental slope can be estimated by
tracking the fate of associated mineral grains.
The recognition that two-thirds of terrestrial
sediment is stored below the shelf edge has im-
portant implications for the fate of terrestrial-
derived POC and its role in the global carbon
cycle. Terrestrial-derived POC within modern
marine sediments on continental shelves is
resistant to degradation (Hedges and Parker,
1976; Hedges and Mann, 1979; Berner, 1982),
but it would be susceptible to oxidation at
glacio-eustatic lowstands. The deposition rate of
terrestrial POC is directly related to sediment-
deposition rate (Hedges and Mann, 1979), and
therefore, terrestrial POC flux and terrestrial
sediment flux should also vary directly ac-
cording to Equation 1. Therefore, we propose
that, over geologic time scales, two-thirds of
the terrestrial-derived POC flux is delivered
and stored in deep-water marine-sediment
reservoirs. Based on present-day riverborne
POC flux estimates, the long-term deep-water
POC flux to this reservoir is estimated at 110
200 Gt C/k.y. Terrestrial organic carbon burial
rates near modern river mouths are one to two
orders of magnitude greater than biogenic (ma-
rine) organic carbon burial rates (Berner, 1982),
and therefore, storage of terrestrial-derived POC
is by far the most significant flux of carbon into
the marine-sediment reservoir. Deep-water stor-
age of carbon would primarily occur when del-
tas are at or near the shelf edge.
Continental weathering involves a drawdown
of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which
is then transferred as dissolved inorganic carbon
589
 Petter et al.

through rivers to the ocean (Urey, 1952). The
magnitude of river loads is a function of con-
tinental weathering (Judson and Ritter, 1964;
Pinet and Souriau, 1988; Summerfield and
Hulton, 1994), and, therefore, reconstruction
of paleosediment fluxes can serve as a key in-
dependent parameter for estimating the weath-
ering subcycle (Berner et al., 1983) as well as
the delivery of solutes such as Ca and Sr to the
oceans over geologic time. While one-to-one
relationships between solid terrestrial-derived
material fluxes and solute fluxes are unlikely, it
is probable that changes in solid flux occur in
concert with changes in solute flux.
Limits of Approach
Time Scales
This approach relies on the stacked repetition
of a self-similar form (the clinothem). The meth-
odology is invalid when this style of basin filling
is not present. It must also be emphasized that the
estimated rates are averaged rates for the time
interval represented by the clinothem deposit.
Fourth-order shelf-margin clinothems (e.g., the
LewisFox Hills margin) may give more accurate
estimates of river loads because the fundamental
time scale at which most fluviodeltaic systems
can traverse the shelf and maintain a shelf-edge
position ranges from 10 to 100 k.y. (Burgess and
Hovius, 1998; Muto and Steel, 2002). However,
lateral variability in shelf-margin accretion can
present potential problems at this time scale.
Third-order shelf-margin clinothems (e.g., the
Zambezi margin) will give average flux estimates
incorporating multiple regressive-transgressive
cycles, which eliminate some of the lateral vari-
ability in flux due to compensational stacking
of successive fourth-order shelf-edge delta se-
quences (Olariu and Steel, 2009) but miss the
temporal resolution provided by the fundamental
fourth-order sequences.
Resolution of Accretion-Rate Data
The rate at which clinoforms accrete de-
pends upon both the sediment flux and basin
geometry. The progradation rate can change
significantly if clinoforms encounter variable
basin geometries along their path of migration.
For instance, consider the clinoforms of the
Cenomanian Dunvegan Formation in the West-
ern Canada foreland basin (Plint et al., 2009),
which prograded into increasingly shallow wa-
ter depths as the system traversed a flexure in
the basin caused by variable tectonic load along
the thrust belt. Though these clinoforms are del-
taic clinoforms rather than margin clinoforms,
the same principles outlined previously herein
should apply at both scales. The age of the en-
tire Dunvegan Formation is weakly constrained,
and the ages of individual allomembers within
the Dunvegan are unclear. The changing basin
geometry encountered by the Dunvegan deltas
clearly would have affected the progradation
rate, but this signal cannot be untangled from
the sediment flux because the poor time resolu-
tion only allows for a single progradation rate to
be determined for the entire Dunvegan Forma-
tion. Therefore, application of our methodology
to this data set would be inappropriate.
Sediment Bypass
Large-scale bypass of the shelf margin (e.g.,
by shelf-margin collapse and funneling of sedi-
ment through resultant shelf-margin canyons
or channels) is one way to change the style of
shelf-margin accretion such that our methodol-
ogy becomes invalid. However, in the deposi-
tional record, such features become healed on
fairly short time scales and form part of the fab-
ric of the overall shelf-margin architecture (e.g.,
Galloway et al., 1991). Consider complete by-
passing of the shelf edge in the Exxonian slug
model (the lowstand basin-floor and slope fans
of Vail, 1987) or the slope-canyon filling model
of Galloway et al. (1991). Shelf-margin progra-
dation rates essentially go to zero during this
period. However, deposition of the bypassed
material at the base of the shelf-margin clino-
form raises the bottomset, providing a platform
to the clinoform height. Consequently, the pro-
gradation rates of subsequent deposits (i.e.,
the lowstand wedge of the Exxonian model or
the offlap-fill phase of the slope-canyon filling
model) are increased, and the average progra-
dation rate for the entire clinothem interval re-
mains unchanged regardless of the occurrence
of shelf-edge bypass because the principle of
sediment conservation within the shelf-margin
clinothem is not violated. Thus, the estimated
sediment flux should not be affected by shelf-
edge bypass within a sequence.
Not all segments of continental margins ac-
crete sediment through clinothem accretion.
Long-lived canyon systems, such as those of the
California margin, can efficiently funnel most of
the terrestrial-derived sediment delivered to the
ocean into deep-water fans. Clearly, the sedi-
ment flux to these margin types cannot be esti-
mated using our methodology. However, it may
not be unreasonable to consider the aforemen-
tioned deep-water fans as sediment waves of a
different (nonclinoformed) geometry that ac-
crete basinward due to nonuniform deposition,
and, therefore, model them in a similar fashion
through Equation 2.
CONCLUSIONS
We present a simple stratigraphic-based
methodology for estimating the flux of
terrestrial-derived material from eroding hinter-
lands to depositional continental margins. The
approach relies upon the relationship between
shelf-margin accretion rates and sediment
flux, as well as the principle of sediment con-
servation, and could be applied to other types
of prograding clinoforms such as deltas, since
these relationships are independent of scale. The
method is simple in that it can be utilized with
limited data, and it matches the results of flux
estimates taken from more complicated meth-
ods such as solid-grain volumes and forward
stratigraphic modeling within 100%. This
method allows for detailed spatial resolution
of sediment flux across shelf-margin deposits,
and it has provided insight into the distribu-
tion of sediment flux and sedimentation within

TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF CONTINENTAL ACCRETION RATES BY SEDIMENTATION AND TECTONICS

Duration of accretion Average accretion rate* Minimum accretion rate Maximum accretion rate
Style/margin (m.y.) (km/m.y.) (km/m.y.) (km/m.y.)
Sedimentation
Gulf of Mexico 61 4.8 3.6 4.9
Eastern North America# 178 0.37 N/A N/A

Tectonic
Western North America** 155 2.5 0.8 3.8
Aleutian 5055 1020 N/A N/A
*Width-averaged along the margin.

Minimum/maximum rate along the margin.

Measured from Lower Wilcox shelf edge to Sangamonian shelf edge (see Fig. 7 in Carvajal et al., 2009).
#
Measured from hinge zone to present shelf edge (see Fig. 1B in Pazzaglia and Brandon, 1996).
**Measured from combined widths of Belt of accreted terranes and Cordilleran magmatic arcs (Fig. 1 in DeCelles, 2004).

Figure 2 and text in Scholl et al. (1986). Magnitude of accretion is estimated as 6001000 km.

590 Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013

 Paleosediment flux estimation on shelf margins
Figure 12. (A) Estimated fraction of total sediment flux trans-
ported to the shelf edge for clinothems from three Neogene
continental margins (Ebro, Zambezi, and New Jersey). Frac-
tional sediment flux is the sediment flux at some point divided
by the total sediment flux entering the system. Values are plot-
ted against fractional distance along the clinothem (distance
from the proximal clinothem pinchout divided by total length
of the clinothem). The data suggest that, on average, two-thirds
of the total sediment flux delivered to passive margins is ex-
ported beyond the shelf edge over geologic time scales. (B) Es-
timated fraction of total sediment flux transported to the shelf
edge versus sink rate. The sediment flux delivered to the shelf
edge does not vary systematically across this range of sink
rates.7606(1951)62
continental-margin sequences over geologic rivers are available (e.g., Milliman and Syvitski,
time scales. Knowledge of sediment flux for 1992), which can be compared to ancient fluxes
ancient shelf-margin successions is useful for a to help determine appropriate depositional ana-
number of specific reasons: logs, and to reconcile sequence-stratigraphic
(1) paleoenvironmental reconstruction of the models with source-to-sinkstyle sediment-
drainage basin and the hinterland via source-to- budget studies;
sink relationships (sensu Smme et al., 2009b) (3) hydrocarbon exploration screening
tectonic and climatic histories of the source area projectsestimation of sediment flux allows
can be inferred from this information; margins receiving high sediment flux to be pri-
(2) comparison with modern analog sys- oritized for exploration where the deepest-water
temsdata sets of sediment flux for modern deposits are as yet poorly imaged;
Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013
(4) constraints on inputs for stratigraphic and
tectonic modelsconstraining an unknown forc-
ing from depositional histories allows for greater
uniqueness of solutions from numerical models;
(5) improved understanding of mechanisms
of continental expansion beyond tectonic accre-
tion (Dorsey, 2010); and
(6) complete reconstruction of biogeochemi-
cal cyclesthe transfer of terrestrial-derived
matter from continents to oceans is a crucial
component in global cycles and is likely to fol-
low patterns of sediment flux.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the RioMAR Consortium
and the Jackson School of Geosciences at the Univer-
sity of TexasAustin for funding this work. Discus-
sions with Brandon McElroy, Chris Paola, Cornel
Olariu, and Bob Dalrymple provided helpful insights
into the development of the methodology and un-
derstanding of clinoform dynamics, and reviews by
Brian Romans, Peter Burgess, and Henning Dypvik
improved our initial manuscript tremendously.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, E.W., and Schlager, W., 2000, Basic types of subma-
rine slope curvature: Journal of Sedimentary Research,
v. 70, p. 814828, doi:10.1306/2DC4093A-0E47-11D7
-8643000102C1865D.
Adams, E.W., Schlager, W., and Wattel, E., 1998, Subma-
rine slopes with an exponential curvature: Sedimen-
tary Geology, v. 117, p. 135141, doi:10.1016/S0037
-0738(98)00044-X.
Angevine, C.L., Heller, P.L., and Paola, C., 1990, Quanti-
tative Sedimentary Basin Modeling: American Asso-
ciation of Petroleum Geologists Continuing Education
Course Note Series 32, 133 p.
Asquith, D.O., 1970, Depositional topography and major
marine environments, Late Cretaceous, Wyoming:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bul-
letin, v. 54, p. 11841224.
Berner, R.A., 1982, Burial of organic carbon and pyrite
sulfur in the modern ocean: Its geochemical and envi-
ronmental significance: American Journal of Science,
v. 282, p. 451473, doi:10.2475/ajs.282.4.451.
Berner, R.A., Lasaga, A.C., and Garrels, R.M., 1983, The
carbonate-silicate geochemical cycle and its effect on
atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 100 million
years: American Journal of Science, v. 283, p. 641
683, doi:10.2475/ajs.283.7.641.
Boyd, R., Ruming, K., Goodwin, I., Sandstrom, M., and
Schroder-Adams, C., 2008, Highstand transport of
coastal sand to the deep ocean: A case study from Fra-
ser Island, southeast Australia: Geology, v. 36, p. 15
18, doi:10.1130/G24211A.1.
Broecker, W.S., Turekian, K.K., and Heezen, B.C., 1958,
The relation of deep sea sedimentation rates to varia-
tions in climate: American Journal of Science, v. 256,
p. 503517, doi:10.2475/ajs.256.7.503.
Burbank, D.W., Derry, L.A., and France-Lanord, C., 1993,
Reduced Himalayan sediment production 8 Myr ago
despite an intensified monsoon: Nature, v. 364, p. 48
50, doi:10.1038/364048a0.
Burchfiel, B.C., and Davis, G.A., 1972, Structural framework
and evolution of the southern part of the Cordilleran oro-
gen, Western United States: American Journal of Science,
v. 272, p. 97118, doi:10.2475/ajs.272.2.97.
Burgess, P.M., and Hovius, N., 1998, Rates of delta progra-
dation during highstands: Consequences for timing
of deposition in deep-marine systems: Journal of the
Geological Society of London, v. 155, p. 217222,
doi:10.1144/gsjgs.155.2.0217.
Burgess, P.M., Steel, R.J., and Granjeon, D., 2008, Stratigraphic
forward modeling of basin-margin clinoform systems:
591

Implications for controls on topset and shelf width and
timing of formation of shelf-edge deltas, in Hampson,
G.J., Steel, R.J., Burgess, P.M., and Dalrymple, R.W.,
eds., Recent Advances in Models of Siliciclastic Shallow-
Marine Stratigraphy: Society for Sedimentary Geology
Special Publication 90, p. 3545.
Carvajal, C.R., and Steel, R.J., 2006, Thick turbidite successions
from supply-dominated shelves during sea-level high-
stand: Geology, v. 34, p. 665668, doi:10.1130/G22505.1.
Carvajal, C., and Steel, R., 2012, Source-to-sink sedi-
ment volumes within a tectono-stratigraphic model
for a Laramide shelf-to-deep-water basin: Methods
and results, in Busby, C., and Prez, A.A., eds., Tec-
tonics of Sedimentary Basins: Recent Advances:
Chichester, UK, JognWiley & Sons, p. 131151, doi:
10.1002/9781444347166.
Carvajal, C., Steel, R., and Petter, A., 2009, Sediment sup-
ply: The main driver of shelf-margin growth: Earth-
Science Reviews, v. 96, p. 221248, doi:10.1016/j
.earscirev.2009.06.008.
Clift, P., 2006, Controls on the erosion of Cenozoic Asia
and the flux of clastic sediment to the ocean: Earth
and Planetary Science Letters, v. 241, p. 571580,
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2005.11.028.
Clift, P., and Gaedicke, C., 2002, Accelerated mass
flux to the Arabian Sea during the middle to late
Miocene: Geology, v. 30, p. 207210, doi:10.1
130/0091-7613(2002)030<0207:AMFTTA>2.0.CO;2.
Coakley, B.J., and Watts, A.B., 1991, Tectonic con-
trols on the development of unconformities: The
North Slope, Alaska: Tectonics, v. 10, p. 101130,
doi:10.1029/90TC01982.
Coney, P.J., Jones, D.L., and Monger, J.W.H., 1980, Cor-
dilleran suspect terranes: Nature, v. 288, p. 329333,
doi:10.1038/288329a0.
Covault, J.A., Romans, B.W., Graham, S.A., Fildani, A., and
Hilley, G.E., 2011, Terrestrial source to deep-sea sink
sediment budgets at high and low sea levels: Insights
from tectonically active Southern California: Geology,
v. 39, p. 619622, doi:10.1130/G31801.1.
Cross, T.A., and Lessenger, M.A., 1995, Sediment volume
partitioning: Rationale for stratigraphic model evalu-
ation and high-resolution stratigraphic correlation, in
Gradstein, F.M., Sandvik, K.O., and Milton, N.J., eds.,
Sequence StratigraphyConcepts and Applications:
Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF) Special Publica-
tion 8, p. 171195.
Curray, J.R., 1965, Late Quaternary history, continental
shelves of the United States, in Wright Jr., H.E., and
Frey, D.G., eds., The Quaternary of the United States;
a Review Volume for the VII Congress of the Interna-
tional Association for Quaternary Research: Princeton,
New Jersey, Princeton University Press, p. 723735.
DeCelles, P.G., 2004, Late Jurassic to Eocene evolution of
the Cordilleran thrust belt and foreland basin system,
western U.S.A.: American Journal of Science, v. 304,
p. 105168, doi:10.2475/ajs.304.2.105.
Deibert, J.E., Benda, T., Loseth, T., Schellpeper, M., and
Steel, R.J., 2003, Eocene clinoform growth in front of a
storm-wavedominated shelf, Central Basin, Spitsber-
gen: No significant sand delivery to deepwater areas:
Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 73, p. 546558,
doi:10.1306/011703730546.
Dorsey, R.J., 2010, Sedimentation and crustal recycling
along an active oblique-rift margin: Salton Trough and
northern Gulf of California: Geology, v. 38, p. 443
446, doi:10.1130/G30698.1.
Droz, L., and Mougenot, D., 1987, Mozambique upper fan:
Origin of depositional units: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 71, p. 13551365.
Edgar, N.T., and Cecil, C.B., 2003, Influence of climate on
deepwater clastic sedimentation: Application of a mod-
ern model, Peru-Chile Trough, to an ancient system,
Ouachita Trough, in Cecil, C.B., and Edgar, N.T., eds.,
Climate Controls on Stratigraphy: Society for Sedi-
mentary Geology Special Publication 77, p. 185191.
Flemings, P.B., and Grotzinger, J.P., 1996, STRATA: Free-
ware for analyzing classic stratigraphic problems: GSA
Today, v. 6, no. 12, p. 17.
Galloway, W.E., 1989, Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin
analysis: I. Architecture and genesis of flooding-surface
bounded depositional units: American Association of Pe-
troleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 73, p. 125142.
592 Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013
Petter et al.
Galloway, W.E., 2001, Cenozoic evolution of sediment ac-
cumulation in deltaic and shore-zone depositional
systems: Northern Gulf of Mexico Basin: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 18, p. 10311040.
Galloway, W.E., and Williams, T.A., 1991, Sediment accu-
mulation rates in time and space: Paleogene genetic
stratigraphic sequences in the northwestern Gulf of
Mexico basin: Geology, v. 19, p. 986989, doi:10
.1130/0091-7613(1991)019<0986:SARITA>2.3.CO;2.
Galloway, W.E., Dingus, W.F., and Paige, R.E., 1991,
Seismic and depositional facies of Paleocene-Eocene
Wilcox Group submarine canyon fills, northwest Gulf
Coast, U.S.A., in Weimer, P., and Link, M.H., eds.,
Seismic Facies and Sedimentary Processes of Subma-
rine Fans and Turbidite Systems: New York, Springer-
Verlag, p. 247271.
Goodbred, S.L., and Kuehl, S.A., 2000, Enormous Ganges-
Brahmaputra sediment discharge during strengthened early
Holocene monsoon: Geology, v. 28, p. 10831086, doi:10.
1130/0091-7613(2000)28<1083:EGSDDS>2.0.CO;2.
Guillocheau, F., Rouby, D., Robin, C., Helm, C., Rolland, N.,
Le Carlier de Veslud, C., and Braun, J., 2011, Quantifi-
cation and causes of the terrigenous sediment budget at
the scale of a continental margin: A new method applied
to the NamibiaSouth Africa margin: Basin Research,
v. 24, p. 330, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2011.00511.x.
Hay, W.W., Sloan, J.L., and Wold, C.N., 1988, Mass/age dis-
tribution and composition of sediments on the ocean
floor and the global rate of sediment subduction: Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research, v. 93, p. 14,93314,940,
doi:10.1029/JB093iB12p14933.
Hedges, J.I., and Mann, D.C., 1979, The lignin geochemis-
try of marine sediments from the southern Washing-
ton coast: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 43,
p. 18091818, doi:10.1016/0016-7037(79)90029-2.
Hedges, J.I., and Parker, P.L., 1976, Land-derived organic
matter in surface sediments from the Gulf of Mexico:
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 40, p. 1019
1029, doi:10.1016/0016-7037(76)90044-2.
Hovius, N., 1998, Controls on sediment supply by large riv-
ers, in Shanley, K.W., and McCabe, P.J., eds., Relative
Role of Eustasy, Climate, and Tectonism in Continen-
tal Rocks: Society for Sedimentary Petrology Special
Publication 59, p. 316.
Hovius, N., and Leeder, M., 1998, Clastic sediment
supply to basins: Basin Research, v. 10, p. 15,
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117.1998.00061.x.
Imran, J., and Syvitski, J.P.M., 2000, Impact of extreme river
events on the coastal ocean: Oceanography (Washington,
D.C.), v. 13, p. 8592, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2000.17.
Jerolmack, D.J., and Sadler, P., 2007, Transience and per-
sistence in the depositional record of continental mar-
gins: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 112, F03S13,
doi:10.1029/2006JF000555.
Jervey, M.T., 1988, Quantitative geological modeling of si-
liciclastic rock sequences and their seismic expression,
in Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Posamentier, H., Van
Wagoner, J., Ross, C.A., and Kendall, C.G.St.C., eds.,
Sea-Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: Society
of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Spe-
cial Publication 42, p. 4869.
Judson, S., and Ritter, D.F., 1964, Rates of regional denu-
dation in the U.S.: Journal of Geophysical Research,
v. 69, p. 33953401, doi:10.1029/JZ069i016p03395.
Kaba, C., 2004, Reconstructing Long-Term Sediment Flux
from the Brooks Range, Alaska, Using Shelf Edge
Clinoforms [M.S. thesis]: Cambridge, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 75 p.
Kertznus, V., and Kneller, B., 2009, Clinoform quantifica-
tion for assessing the effects of external forcing on con-
tinental margin development: Basin Research, v. 21,
p. 738758, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00411.x.
Kim, W., Paola, C., Voller, V.R., and Swenson, J.B., 2006, Ex-
perimental measurement of the relative importance of
controls on shoreline migration: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 76, p. 270283, doi:10.2110/jsr.2006.019.
Kolla, V., Kostecki, J.A., Henderson, L., and Hess, L.,
1980, Morphology and Quaternary sedimentation of
the Mozambique Fan and environs, southwestern In-
dian Ocean: Sedimentology, v. 27, p. 357378, doi:10
.1111/j.1365-3091.1980.tb01188.x.
Kuehl, S.A., DeMaster, D.J., and Nittrouer, C.A., 1986,
Nature of sediment accumulation on the Amazon con-
tinental shelf: Continental Shelf Research, v. 6, p. 209
225, doi:10.1016/0278-4343(86)90061-0.
Kuehl, S.A., Hariu, T.M., and Moore, W.S., 1989, Shelf
sedimentation off the Ganges-Brahmaputra river sys-
tem: Evidence for sediment bypassing to the Bengal
fan: Geology, v. 17, p. 11321135, doi:10.1130/0091
-7613(1989)017<1132:SSOTGB>2.3.CO;2.
Langbein, W.B., and Schumm, S.A., 1958, Yield of sedi-
ment in relation to mean annual precipitation: Eos
(Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 39,
p. 10761084.
Leeder, M.R., Harris, T., and Kirkby, M.J., 1998, Sedi-
ment supply and climate change: Implications for
basin stratigraphy: Basin Research, v. 10, p. 718,
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117.1998.00054.x.
Litchfield, N., Berryman, K., Brackley, H., Carter, L.,
Marden, M., Page, M., and Trustrum, N., 2008, The
Waipaoa Sedimentary System: Research review and
future directions, in Schmidt, J., Cochrane, T., Phillips,
C., Elliott, S., Davies, T., and Basher, L., eds., Sedi-
ment Dynamics in Changing Environments: Interna-
tional Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS)
Publication 325, p. 408416.
Liu, X., and Galloway, W.E., 1997, Quantitative determina-
tion of Tertiary sediment supply to the North Sea basin:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin, v. 81, p. 14821509.
McCave, I.N., and Swift, S.A., 1976, A physical model for
the rate of deposition of fine-grained sediments in the
deep sea: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 87,
p. 541546, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1976)87<541:
APMFTR>2.0.CO;2.
McMillen, K.J., 1991, Seismic stratigraphy of Lower Cretaceous
foreland basin submarine fans in the North Slope, Alaska,
in Weimer, P., and Link, M.H., eds., Seismic Facies and
Sedimentary Processes of Submarine Fans and Turbidite
Systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 289302.
Mtivier, F., 2002, On the use of sedimentation rates in deci-
phering global change: Geophysical Research Letters,
v. 29, doi:10.1029/2002GL015261.
Mtivier, F., Gaudemer, Y., Tapponnier, P., and Klein, M.,
1999, Mass accumulation rates in Asia during the
Cenozoic: Geophysical Journal International, v. 137,
p. 280318, doi:10.1046/j.1365-246X.1999.00802.x.
Milliman, J.D., and Meade, R.H., 1983, World-wide deliv-
ery of river sediment to the oceans: The Journal of Ge-
ology, v. 91, p. 121, doi:10.1086/628741.
Milliman, J.D., and Syvitski, J.P.M., 1992, Geomorphic/
tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: The
importance of small mountainous rivers: The Journal
of Geology, v. 100, p. 525544, doi:10.1086/629606.
Molnar, P., 2004, Late Cenozoic increase in accumulation
rates of terrestrial sediment: How might climate change
have affected erosion rates?: Annual Review of Earth
and Planetary Sciences, v. 32, p. 6789, doi:10.1146/
annurev.earth.32.091003.143456.
Muto, T., and Steel, R.J., 2000, The accommodation con-
cept in sequence stratigraphy: Some dimensional prob-
lems and possible redefinition: Sedimentary Geology,
v. 130, p. 110, doi:10.1016/S0037-0738(99)00107-4.
Muto, T., and Steel, R.J., 2002, In defense of shelf-edge
delta development during falling and lowstand of rela-
tive sea level: The Journal of Geology, v. 110, p. 421
436, doi:10.1086/340631.
Muto, T., Steel, R.J., and Swenson, J.B., 2007, Autostratig-
raphy: A framework norm for genetic stratigraphy:
Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 77, p. 212,
doi:10.2110/jsr.2007.005.
Nelson, P.H., and Kibler, J.E., 2003, A Catalog of Porosity and
Permeability from Core Plugs in Siliciclastic Rocks: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-420, 7 p.
Niedoroda, A.W., Reed, C.W., Swift, D.J.P., Arato, H., and
Hoyanagi, K., 1995, Modeling shore-normal large-
scale coastal evolution: Marine Geology, v. 126,
p. 181199, doi:10.1016/0025-3227(95)98961-7.
Nittrouer, C.A., 1999, STRATAFORM: Overview of its
design and synthesis of its results: Marine Geology,
v. 154, p. 312, doi:10.1016/S0025-3227(98)00128-5.
Olariu, C., and Steel, R.J., 2009, Influence of point-source
sediment-supply on modern shelf-slope morphol-
ogy: Implications for interpretation of ancient
shelf margins: Basin Research, v. 21, p. 484501,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00420.x.

Paola, C., 2000, Quantitative models of sedimentary basin
filling: Sedimentology, v. 47, supplement 1, p. 121
178, doi:10.1046/j.1365-3091.2000.00006.x.
Paola, C., and Voller, V.R., 2005, A generalized Exner equa-
tion for sediment mass balance: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 110, F04014, doi:10.1029/2004JF000274.
Pazzaglia, F.J., and Brandon, M.T., 1996, Macrogeomorphic
evolution of the post-Triassic Appalachian Mountains
determined by deconvolution of the offshore basin
sedimentary record: Basin Research, v. 8, p. 255278,
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117.1996.00274.x.
Pinet, P., and Souriau, M., 1988, Continental erosion
and large-scale relief: Tectonics, v. 7, p. 563582,
doi:10.1029/TC007i003p00563.
Pirmez, C., Pratson, L.F., and Steckler, M.S., 1998, Clino-
form development by advection-diffusion of sus-
pended sediment: Modeling and comparison to natural
systems: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 103, no.
B10, p. 24,14124157, doi:10.1029/98JB01516.
Pitman, W.C., 1978, Relationship between eustasy and strati-
graphic sequences of passive margins: Geological So-
ciety of America Bulletin, v. 89, p. 13891403, doi:10.
1130/0016-7606(1978)89<1389:RBEASS>2.0.CO;2.
Plint, A.G., Tyagi, A., Hay, M.J., Vargan, B.L., Zhang, H.,
and Roca, X., 2009, Clinoforms, paleobathymetry,
and mud dispersal across the Western Canada Creta-
ceous foreland basin: Evidence from the Cenomanian
Dunvegan Formation and contiguous strata: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 79, p. 144161, doi:10.2110/
jsr.2009.020.
Poag, C.W., and Sevon, W.D., 1989, A record of Appala-
chian denudation in postrift Mesozoic and Cenozoic
sedimentary deposits of the U.S. Middle Atlantic con-
tinental margin: Geomorphology, v. 2, p. 119157,
doi:10.1016/0169-555X(89)90009-3.
Porbski, S.J., and Steel, R.J., 2003, Shelf-margin deltas:
Their stratigraphic significance and relation to deepwa-
ter sands: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 62, p. 283326,
doi:10.1016/S0012-8252(02)00161-7.
Prather, B.E., 2000, Calibration and visualization of depo-
sitional process models for above-grade slopes: A
case study from the Gulf of Mexico: Marine and Pe-
troleum Geology, v. 17, p. 619638, doi:10.1016/
S0264-8172(00)00015-5.
Prather, B.E., 2003, Controls on reservoir distribution, ar-
chitecture and stratigraphic trapping in slope settings:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 20, p. 529545,
doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2003.03.009.
Pyles, D., and Slatt, R., 2000, A high-frequency sequence strati-
graphic framework for shallow through deep-water de-
posits of the Lewis Shale and Fox Hills Sandstone, Great
Divide and Washakie Basins, in, Weimer, P., Slatt, R.M.,
Coleman, J., Rosen, N.C., Bouma, H.C., Styzen, M.J., and
Lawrence, D.T., eds., Deep-Water Reservoirs of the World
(CD-ROM): Houston, Texas, Gulf Coast Section Society
for Sedimentary Geology (GCSSEPM) 20th Annual Re-
search Conference, p. 836861.
Rea, D.K., 1992, Delivery of Himalayan sediment to north-
ern Indian Ocean and its relation to global climate, sea
level, uplift and seawater strontium, in Duncan, R.A.,
Rea, D.K., Kidd, R.B., von Rad, U., and Weissel, J.K.,
eds., Synthesis of Results from Scientific Drilling in
the Indian Ocean: American Geophysical Union Geo-
physical Monograph 70, p. 387402.
Reynolds, D.J., Steckler, M.S., and Coakley, B.J., 1991,
The role of sediment load in sequence stratigraphy:
The influence of flexural isostasy and compaction:
Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 96, p. 69316949,
doi:10.1029/90JB01914.
Rich, J.L., 1951, Three critical environments of deposition and
criteria for recognition of rocks deposited in each of them:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 62, p. 120,
doi:10.1130/0016-t7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2.
Robinson, R.A.J., and Slingerland, R.L., 1998, Grain-size
trends, basin subsidence and sediment supply in the
Campanian Castlegate Sandstone and equivalent con-
glomerates of central Utah: Basin Research, v. 10,
p. 109127, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117.1998.00062.x.
Romans, B.W., Normark, W.R., McGann, M.M., Covault,
J.A., and Graham, S.A., 2009, Coarse-grained sedi-
ment delivery and distribution in the Holocene Santa
Monica Basin, California: Implications for evaluating
source-to-sink flux at millennial timescales: Geologi-
Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2013
Paleosediment flux estimation on shelf margins
cal Society of America Bulletin, v. 121, p. 13941408,
doi:10.1130/B26393.1.
Ross, W.C., Halliwell, B.A., May, J.A., Watts, D.E., and Syvitski,
J.P.M., 1994, Slope readjustment: A new model for the de-
velopment of submarine fans and aprons: Geology, v. 22,
p. 511514, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1994)022<0511:SR
ANMF>2.3.CO;2.
Sadler, P.M., 1981, Sediment accumulation rates and the
completeness of stratigraphic sections: The Journal of
Geology, v. 89, p. 569584, doi:10.1086/628623.
Salman, G., and Abdula, I., 1995, Development of the Mo-
zambique and Ruvuma sedimentary basins, offshore
Mozambique: Sedimentary Geology, v. 96, p. 741,
doi:10.1016/0037-0738(95)00125-R.
Sarmiento, J.L., and Sundquist, E.T., 1992, Revised budget
for the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon diox-
ide: Nature, v. 356, p. 589593, doi:10.1038/356589a0.
Schlager, W., 1993, Accommodation and supplyA dual con-
trol on stratigraphic sequences: Sedimentary Geology,
v. 86, p. 111136, doi:10.1016/0037-0738(93)90136-S.
Scholl, D.W., Vallier, T.L., and Stevenson, A.J., 1986, Terrane
accretion, production, and continental growth: A perspec-
tive based on the origin and tectonic fate of the Aleu-
tianBering Sea region: Geology, v. 14, p. 4347, doi:10
.1130/0091-7613(1986)14<43:TAPACG>2.0.CO;2.
Schumm, S.A., and Hadley, R.F., 1961, Progress in the Ap-
plication of Landform Analysis in Studies of Semiarid
Erosion: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 437, 14 p.
Sclater, J.G., and Christie, P.A.F., 1980, Continental stretch-
ing: An explanation of the postMid-Cretaceous sub-
sidence of the central North Sea Basin: Journal of
Geophysical Research, v. 85, no. B7, p. 37113739,
doi:10.1029/JB085iB07p03711.
Simons, D.B., Richardson, E.V., and Nordin, C.F., 1965,
Bedload Equation for Ripples and Dunes: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Professional Paper 462-H, 9 p.
Sloss, L.L., 1962, Stratigraphic models in exploration: Jour-
nal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 32, p. 415422.
Smme, T.O., Helland-Hansen, W., and Granjeon, D., 2009a,
Impact of eustatic amplitude variations on shelf morphol-
ogy, sediment dispersal, and sequence stratigraphic inter-
pretation: Icehouse versus greenhouse systems: Geology,
v. 37, p. 587590, doi:10.1130/G25511A.1.
Smme, T.O., Helland-Hansen, W., Martinsen, O.J., and Thur-
mond, J.B., 2009b, Relationships between morphological
and sedimentological parameters in source-to-sink sys-
tems: A basis for predicting semi-quantitative charac-
teristics in subsurface systems: Basin Research, v. 21,
p. 361387, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00397.x.
Smme, T.O., Piper, D.J.W., Deptuck, M.E., and Helland-
Hansen, W., 2011, Linking onshore-offshore sediment
dispersal in the Golo source-to-sink system (Corsica,
France) during the late Quaternary: Journal of Sedi-
mentary Research, v. 81, p. 118137.
Steckler, M.S., Mountain, G.S., Miller, K.G., and Christie-
Blick, N., 1999, Reconstruction of Tertiary prograda-
tion and clinoform development on the New Jersey
passive margin by 2-D backstripping: Marine Geology,
v. 154, p. 399420.
Steel, R.J., and Olsen, T., 2002, Clinoforms, clinoform tra-
jectories and deepwater sands, in Armentrout, J.M.,
and Rosen, N.C., eds., Sequence Stratigraphic Models
for Exploration and Production: Evolving Methodol-
ogy, Emerging Models and Application Histories:
Proceedings of the Gulf Coast Section Society for
Sedimentary Geology (GCSSEPM) 22nd Research
Conference: Society for Sedimentary Geology, Hous-
ton, Texas, p. 367381.
Steel, R.J., Carvajal, C., Petter, A., and Uroza, C., 2008,
Shelf and shelf-margin growth in scenarios of rising
and falling sea level, in Hampson, G.J., Steel, R.J.,
Burgess, P.M., and Dalrymple, R.W., eds., Recent
Advances in Models of Siliciclastic Shallow-Marine
Stratigraphy: Society for Sedimentary Geology Special
Publication 90, p. 4771.
Strong, N., Sheets, B., Hickson, T., and Paola, C., 2005, A
mass-balance framework for quantifying downstream
changes in fluvial architecture, in Blum, M.D., Mar-
riott, S.B., and Leclair, S.F., eds., Fluvial Sedimentol-
ogy VII: International Association of Sedimentologists
Special Publication 35, p. 243253.
Summerfield, M.A., and Hulton, N.J., 1994, Natural con-
trols of fluvial denudation rates in major world drain-
age basins: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 99,
p. 13,87113,883, doi:10.1029/94JB00715.
Sundquist, E.T., and Visser, K., 2004, The geologic history
of the carbon cycle, in Schlesinger, W.H., ed., Biogeo-
chemistry, Volume 8, Treatise on Geochemistry (Hol-
land, H.D., and Turekian, K.K., eds.): Oxford, U.K.,
Elsevier-Pergamon, p. 425472.
Swift, D.J.P., and Thorne, J.A., 1991, Sedimentation on con-
tinental margins: I. A general model for shelf sedimen-
tation, in Swift, D.J.P., Oertel, G.F., Tillman, R.W., and
Thorne, J.A., eds., Shelf Sand and Sandstone Bodies:
International Association of Sedimentologists Special
Publication 14, p. 331.
Syvitski, J.P.M., Peckham, S.D., Hilberman, R., and Mul-
der, T., 2003, Predicting the terrestrial flux of sedi-
ment to the global ocean: A planetary perspective:
Sedimentary Geology, v. 162, p. 524, doi:10.1016/
S0037-0738(03)00232-X.
Syvitski, J.P.M., Weaver, P.P.E., Bern, S., Nittrouer, C.A.,
Trincardi, F., and Canals, M., 2004, Introduction to this
special issue on strata formation on European margins:
A tribute to EU-NA cooperation in marine geology:
Oceanography (Washington, D.C.), v. 17, p. 1415,
doi:10.5670/oceanog.2004.18.
Tucker, G.E., and Slingerland, R., 1996, Predicting sediment
flux from fold and thrust belts: Basin Research, v. 8,
p. 329349, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117.1996.00238.x.
Urey, H.C., 1952, The PlanetsTheir Origins and Develop-
ment: New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press,
245 p.
Vail, P.R., 1987, Seismic stratigraphy interpretation using se-
quence stratigraphy: Part 1: Seismic stratigraphy inter-
pretation procedure, in Bally, A.W., ed., Atlas of Seismic
Stratigraphy, Volume 1: American Association of Petro-
leum Geologists Studies in Geology 27, p. 110.
Van Hinte, J.E., 1978, Geohistory analysisApplication to
micropaleontology in exploration geology: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 62,
p. 201222.
Walford, H.L., White, N.J., and Sydow, J.C., 2005, Solid
sediment load history of the Zambezi Delta: Earth
and Planetary Science Letters, v. 238, p. 4963,
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2005.07.014.
Walsh, J.P., and Nittrouer, C.A., 2003, Contrasting styles
of off-shelf sediment accumulation in New Guinea:
Marine Geology, v. 196, p. 105125, doi:10.1016/
S0025-3227(03)00069-0.
Weimer, P., and Link, M.H., 1991, Global petroleum oc-
currences in submarine fans and turbidite systems, in
Weimer, P., and Link, M.H., eds., Seismic Facies and
Sedimentary Processes of Submarine Fans and Turbi-
dite Systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 970.
Weltje, G.J., Meijer, X.D., and de Boer, P.L., 1998, Strati-
graphic inversion of siliciclastic basin fills: A note on
the distinction between supply signals resulting from
tectonic and climatic forcing: Basin Research, v. 10,
p. 129153, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117.1998.00057.x.
Wetzel, A., 1993, The transfer of river load to deep-sea fans:
A quantitative approach: American Association of Pe-
troleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 77, p. 16791692.
Wilson, L., 1973, Variations in mean annual sediment yield as a
function of mean annual precipitation: American Journal
of Science, v. 273, p. 335349, doi:10.2475/ajs.273.4.335.
Wold, C.N., and Hay, W.W., 1990, Estimating ancient
sediment fluxes: American Journal of Science, v. 290,
p. 10691089, doi:10.2475/ajs.290.9.1069.
Wolinsky, M.A., Swenson, J.B., Litchfield, N., and Mc-
Ninch, J.E., 2010, Coastal progradation and sediment
partitioning in the Holocene Waipaoa sedimentary sys-
tem, New Zealand: Marine Geology, v. 270, p. 94107,
doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2009.10.021.
Xie, X., and Heller, P.L., 2009, Plate tectonics and basin sub-
sidence history: Geological Society of America Bulle-
tin, v. 121, p. 5564 doi:10.1130/B26398.1.
SCIENCE EDITOR: CHRISTIAN KOEBERL
ASSOCIATE EDITOR: HENNING DYPVIK
MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 12 SEPTEMBER 2011
REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 14 DECEMBER 2011
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED 22 DECEMBER 2011
Printed in the USA
593