Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 13 – uploaded by Dietmar Müller

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 13: Synthetic wells, W1 and W2 (see Figs. 10 and 11), from LEMs showing paleo-water depth at the time of deposition, compared to stacked paleogeographic column extracted from Struckmeyer and Totterdell (1990). At location W2, uplift and erosion has removed sediments deposited after ~90 Ma across all our models. The age layer exposed at the surface for this location is given at the top of each column.

Figure 13 Synthetic wells, W1 and W2 (see Figs. 10 and 11), from LEMs showing paleo-water depth at the time of deposition, compared to stacked paleogeographic column extracted from Struckmeyer and Totterdell (1990). At location W2, uplift and erosion has removed sediments deposited after ~90 Ma across all our models. The age layer exposed at the surface for this location is given at the top of each column.

Related Figures (17)

Table 2: pyBadlands static parameters common to all LEMs. These values are uniform across all LEM models tested to isolate the effects of dynamic topography and sea level on the models. Rainfall values from Harrington et al. (2019). For 10 Ma to the present day we apply pyBadlands’ orographic rainfall functionality, scaling rainfall linearly with elevation for this time period. Table 3: Dynamic topography models. y(r) viscosity factor defined for four layers: above 160 km, 160-310 km, 310-660 km and below 660 km depth. —100 indicates viscosity increases linearly to 100 in the lower mantle.
Table 2: pyBadlands static parameters common to all LEMs. These values are uniform across all LEM models tested to isolate the effects of dynamic topography and sea level on the models. Rainfall values from Harrington et al. (2019). For 10 Ma to the present day we apply pyBadlands’ orographic rainfall functionality, scaling rainfall linearly with elevation for this time period. Table 3: Dynamic topography models. y(r) viscosity factor defined for four layers: above 160 km, 160-310 km, 310-660 km and below 660 km depth. —100 indicates viscosity increases linearly to 100 in the lower mantle.
Table 3: Timing and total values of uplift and subsidence of rifted and collisional terranes. Geometries following reconstruction Zahirovic et al. (2016) and Harrington et al. (2019). Table 4: LEM model parameters. Rainfall, erodibility, and lithospheric elastic flexure remain constant for these LEMs as per Table 3.
Table 3: Timing and total values of uplift and subsidence of rifted and collisional terranes. Geometries following reconstruction Zahirovic et al. (2016) and Harrington et al. (2019). Table 4: LEM model parameters. Rainfall, erodibility, and lithospheric elastic flexure remain constant for these LEMs as per Table 3.
Figure 4: Total sediment thickness in the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) from Geoscience Australia (2013d) calculated from base of Jurassic-Cretaceous units (base of Hooray Sandstone and equivalents, including the Algebuckina and Namur Sandstones, Tithonian-Valanginian in age) to present day, with basin subdivisions: EB, Eromanga Basin; SB, Surat Basin; CB, Carpentaria Basin. Maximum sediment thickness is 2175 m. Exhumation estimates (red) since the mid Cretaceous from Raza et al. (2009). Subsidence recorded at wells Charleville 1 and Eromanga 1 previously assessed in relation to dynamic topography acting on the GAB by Matthews et al. (2011).
Figure 4: Total sediment thickness in the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) from Geoscience Australia (2013d) calculated from base of Jurassic-Cretaceous units (base of Hooray Sandstone and equivalents, including the Algebuckina and Namur Sandstones, Tithonian-Valanginian in age) to present day, with basin subdivisions: EB, Eromanga Basin; SB, Surat Basin; CB, Carpentaria Basin. Maximum sediment thickness is 2175 m. Exhumation estimates (red) since the mid Cretaceous from Raza et al. (2009). Subsidence recorded at wells Charleville 1 and Eromanga 1 previously assessed in relation to dynamic topography acting on the GAB by Matthews et al. (2011).
Figure 3: (A) Combined and paleogeography of the Australian continent (AUS) and New Guinea (NG) from Struckmeyer and Totterdell (1990) and Norvick (2003). Reconstructed positions of future rifted continental blocks of Antarctica (ANT), Greater India (IND), Lord Howe Rise (LHR) and the future collisional Sepik Terrane (SP). Tasman Line divides the model surface into regions of relatively high (east) and low (west) erodibility. Estimated elevations for each paleoenvironment was used to generate the initial paleo-topography (B) per Harrington et al. (2019).
Figure 3: (A) Combined and paleogeography of the Australian continent (AUS) and New Guinea (NG) from Struckmeyer and Totterdell (1990) and Norvick (2003). Reconstructed positions of future rifted continental blocks of Antarctica (ANT), Greater India (IND), Lord Howe Rise (LHR) and the future collisional Sepik Terrane (SP). Tasman Line divides the model surface into regions of relatively high (east) and low (west) erodibility. Estimated elevations for each paleoenvironment was used to generate the initial paleo-topography (B) per Harrington et al. (2019).
Figure 4: Alternative plate reconstructions used in our geodynamic models. The key differences in these reconstructions are in the longitudinal position of the East Gondwana subduction zone in the Cretaceous, and the evolution of the plate boundaries in the New Guinea region since the latest Jurassic.
Figure 4: Alternative plate reconstructions used in our geodynamic models. The key differences in these reconstructions are in the longitudinal position of the East Gondwana subduction zone in the Cretaceous, and the evolution of the plate boundaries in the New Guinea region since the latest Jurassic.
Figure 5: Dynamic topography snapshots from geodynamic models with a Boussinesq Approximation (D9) (left) and Extended Boussinesq Approximation (D10) (right). Both models shown here are based on the same plate reconstruction. For input to our LEMs, these grids are rotated to an Australian fixed reference frame, where the difference between each timestep is calculated and applied as an uplift condition. The EBA model produces an
Figure 5: Dynamic topography snapshots from geodynamic models with a Boussinesq Approximation (D9) (left) and Extended Boussinesq Approximation (D10) (right). Both models shown here are based on the same plate reconstruction. For input to our LEMs, these grids are rotated to an Australian fixed reference frame, where the difference between each timestep is calculated and applied as an uplift condition. The EBA model produces an
Figure 6: Dynamic topography (DT) extracted through time from geodynamic models (Table 1) at Charlieville 1 (Figure 1). Three alternate sea level curves tested in our LEMs: HST, Hybrid short-term level curve combining Hac et al. (1987) updated sea level curve (as presented in Miller et al. (2005)) for the Cenozoic, Haq (2014) for the Jurassic, and Haq (2017) for the Cretaceous; HLT, Long-term version of the hybrid curve; MM6, sea level curve derived from ocean basin volume from Miller et al. (2018).
Figure 6: Dynamic topography (DT) extracted through time from geodynamic models (Table 1) at Charlieville 1 (Figure 1). Three alternate sea level curves tested in our LEMs: HST, Hybrid short-term level curve combining Hac et al. (1987) updated sea level curve (as presented in Miller et al. (2005)) for the Cenozoic, Haq (2014) for the Jurassic, and Haq (2017) for the Cretaceous; HLT, Long-term version of the hybrid curve; MM6, sea level curve derived from ocean basin volume from Miller et al. (2018).
Figure 7: Regions of additional uplift and subsidence applied to the surface process model to impose ‘tectonic uplift/subsidence’ events such as rifting and collision of terranes. See Table 3 for corresponding uplift and subsidence values.
Figure 7: Regions of additional uplift and subsidence applied to the surface process model to impose ‘tectonic uplift/subsidence’ events such as rifting and collision of terranes. See Table 3 for corresponding uplift and subsidence values.
Figure 8: Time-dependent topographic evolution of LEMs and their match to corresponding paleogeographic snapshots from Struckmeyer and Totterdell (1990) (Paleoenvironment legend in Figure 2). Ocean areas below 1500 m below sea level are not shown. Model M4, our preferred model (P), produces flooding of the Eromanga Sea from ~135 Ma, beginning its retreat northward through from 105 Ma.
Figure 8: Time-dependent topographic evolution of LEMs and their match to corresponding paleogeographic snapshots from Struckmeyer and Totterdell (1990) (Paleoenvironment legend in Figure 2). Ocean areas below 1500 m below sea level are not shown. Model M4, our preferred model (P), produces flooding of the Eromanga Sea from ~135 Ma, beginning its retreat northward through from 105 Ma.
Figure 9: Residual topography for LEMs at the final time step and present-day topography of the Australian continent from ETOPO-1. All models show at least a slight (50-150 m) overestimation of present-day elevations in the east and underestimation in the west, however, the strong east-west tilt in BA based LEM in M1 and M6 shows a much poorer fit to present day topography than EBA based models M2-M4. Outline of GAB shown.
Figure 9: Residual topography for LEMs at the final time step and present-day topography of the Australian continent from ETOPO-1. All models show at least a slight (50-150 m) overestimation of present-day elevations in the east and underestimation in the west, however, the strong east-west tilt in BA based LEM in M1 and M6 shows a much poorer fit to present day topography than EBA based models M2-M4. Outline of GAB shown.
Figure 10: Modelled thickness of sediment in Great Artesian Basin at the final time-step. The location of basin cross sections in Figure 11 is indicated by dashed lines, and the location of the synthetic wells W1 (west) and W2 (east) along the section as white dots. All LEMs model a primary depocenter within the bounds of the GAB.
Figure 10: Modelled thickness of sediment in Great Artesian Basin at the final time-step. The location of basin cross sections in Figure 11 is indicated by dashed lines, and the location of the synthetic wells W1 (west) and W2 (east) along the section as white dots. All LEMs model a primary depocenter within the bounds of the GAB.
Figure 11: Cross sections through GAB, with synthetic well locations indicated, lines represent 1 Myr intervals, thick black lines indicate change in key periods: base of Early Cretaceous (145 Ma), Aptian (126 Ma) , Albian (113 Ma) , Turonian (94 Ma), and Cenozoic (66 Ma). Dotted base of Albian (113 Ma) line approximate divide between Early Cretaceous marine sediments, and transition to fluvial sediments. The bottom right panel represents the real-world thickness of sediments from Geoscience Australia base depths for the Hooray Sandstone (2013d), Rolling Downs Group (2013c), Mackunda formation (2013b), and Cenozoic sediments (2013a).
Figure 11: Cross sections through GAB, with synthetic well locations indicated, lines represent 1 Myr intervals, thick black lines indicate change in key periods: base of Early Cretaceous (145 Ma), Aptian (126 Ma) , Albian (113 Ma) , Turonian (94 Ma), and Cenozoic (66 Ma). Dotted base of Albian (113 Ma) line approximate divide between Early Cretaceous marine sediments, and transition to fluvial sediments. The bottom right panel represents the real-world thickness of sediments from Geoscience Australia base depths for the Hooray Sandstone (2013d), Rolling Downs Group (2013c), Mackunda formation (2013b), and Cenozoic sediments (2013a).
Related topics:
Earth SciencesGeologyPaleontologyBasin analysisGeotectonics and GeodynamicsEarth Surface ProcessesMarine transgressionDynamic topographySurface Processes
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved