DISCUSSION

E S T U A R I N E F A C I E S M O D E L S : C O N C E P T U A L BASIS A N D
STRATIGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS-DISCUSSION

PAUL A. WASHINGTON t ano STEVEN A. CHISICK2

' 1385 S. West Broad Street, Southern Pines, NC 28387 USA
: Sevenson Environmental Services, 333 West I95th Street, Glenwood, 1L 60611 USA

Dalrymple et al. (1992) presented an excellent synthesis of temperate-
zone estuarine sedimentology and stratigraphy. Their models provide a
much-needed overview of the stratigraphic variations in estuaries and, as
such, will serve as the basis for recognition ofestuarine systems in ancient shell buildups and peat deposits are significant (Nichols et al. 199 I). A set
deposits. Nevertheless, we believe that Dalrymple et at. overlooked some
important aspects of estuarine depositional systems, especially as devel-
oped in carbonate-producing environments, and that their terminology is
somewhat simplistic.
Dalrymple et al. developed their estuarine depositional models using
only two sediment sources: marine and fluvial. In doing so, they ignored
a third source: autochthonous sediments like carbonates and peat. In
noncarbonate estuaries, aulochthonous sediments are generally organic
sediments, like peat or other swamp deposits, that develop outside of the
primary tidal and river channels. In carbonate estuaries, autochthonous
sediments are generally algal and/or coral buildups along the sides of the
estuary and as islands or shoals in the estuary.
Autochthonous sediments become stratigraphically important where
neither fluvial nor marine sediments are able to overrun the central parts
of the estuary until significant amounts of autochthonous sediment have
accumulated. This can be expected in long estuaries, estuaries with high
autochthonous sediment production rates, and estuaries with low alloch-
thonous (marine + fluvial) sediment input rates, all of which are domi-
nated by autochthonous sediments in those parts of the estuary that Dal-
rymple et al. called the "central basin" of wave-dominated estuaries and
the "salt marsh" of tide-dominated estuaries (note that even the term
"salt-marsh" implies the production of autoehthonous material). Of course,
even where autochthonous sediments dominate, a central channel is gen-
erally maintained connecting the river to the sea, so longitudinal models
have been able to ignore this sediment.
Examples of modem estuaries with significant aulochthonous sedimen-
tation include Shark Bay (Australia) with autochthonous carbonates (Lo-
AUTOCHTHOHOUS
F-M
FLUVIAL MARINE
FIG.1.--Proposedsediment-sourceclassificationof estuaries.A autochthonous, allows the fluvial and/or marine sediments to be overwhelmed (or at least
F fluvial,M marine,A-Fautochthonous-fluvial,A-Mautochthonous-marine,F-M dwarfed) by the autochthonous sediments, especially if the allochthonous
fluvial-marine.A-F-Mmixed.
gan and Cebulski 1970), parts of Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds (North
Carolina, USA) where peat is the dominant modem sediment (Ingrain
1987), and the microtidal parts of the James River (Virginia, USA) where
of ancient estuary deposits in the Cambro-Ordovician carbonate shelf
deposits of the Champlain valley (Vermont, USA) show that the autoch-
thonous carbonates play a similar role in a mixed carbonate-siliciclastic
estuarine environment(Chisick et al. 1987; Washington 1992; Washington
and Chisick, in press). So-called lacustrine estuaries (see Nixon 1990 and
Herdendorf 1990) are commonly dominated by peat.
In terms of estuarine dynamics, Dalrymple et al. classify estuaries as
either wave-dominated or tide-dominated. Although this distinction is a
convenientconceptual tool and may be quite useful when studying modem
temperate estuarine environments, it obscures the underlying cause of the
resulting differences in morphology and internal stratigraphy. The true
basis for the morphologic differences is the relative rates of marine sedi-
ment input and sea-level rise. If the marine sediment input rate equals or
exceeds that necessary to fill the end of the estuary for a given rate of sea-
level rise, a "wave-dominated" morphology and stratigraphy is produced;
if the marine sediment input rate is less than that necessary to keep up
with the rate of water-level rise, a "tide-dominated" morphology and
stratigraphy is produced.
In addition, the marine end of an estuary coincides with the locus of
primary marine sediment input. By placing the marine end of their es-
tuaries even with the shoreline, Dalrymple et al. have inadvertently as-
sumed that the marine sediment is siliciclaslic,and so arrives at the estuary
mouth mainly by longshore drift on the shoreface. Estuaries developed in
carbonate-bank environments, on the other hand, do not receive their
marine sediment at the shoreface; rather, the primary drift of carbonate
sediment occurs near the outer edges of the bank. As a result, carbonate
estuaries do not end at the shoreline but extend out across the shelf as a
linear depression that ends in the area of rapid drift near the shelf margin.
This morphology allows for some marine sediment input by spillage from
the adjacent shelf into the sides of the estuary, making the facies distri-
butions in carbonate estuaries generally more complex.
From a stratigraphic perspective, there is a third variable to consider
for low-marine-input systems: whether the fluvial input is sufficient to
overrun the marine input before the marine input catches up with the rise
in water level. High marine input rates for silieiclastic systems are generally
driven by wave action, whereas tidal action results in low marine input
rates; thus, the distinction made by Dalrymple et al. is generally valid and
conceptually useful for temperate estuaries. On the other hand, the scheme
ignores scenarios with no significant fluvial input, no significant marine
input, and no significant sediment input from any external source. Gen-
erally, a lack of marine sediment input would appear to be unlikely in
normal marine environments. In "lacustrine estuaries", however, there is
often a virtual lack of lacustrine (equivalent to marine) sediment input.
Low fluvial input is linked to specificenvironmental conditions upstream.
The inclusion of autochthonous sediments in the models, however,
sediments are added at a sufficiently low rate. Even where the allochtho-

Journat oF S[DImentarv Researcr, Vot. B64, No. 1, FeBruary, 1994, e. 74-75

Copyright © 1994., $EPM {Societyfor Sedimentary Geology) 1073-1318/94/0B64-74,'$03.00
 DISC(!SSION
nous sediments are added at a rate sufficientto keep up with the subsidence,
a long estuary can generate significant autochthonous sediments that need
to he considered in the stratigraphic scheme.
The lerminology presented by Dalrymple et al. includes only two cat-
egories because they recognized only two sediment sources. The addition
of autochthonous sediments to the scheme generates seven basic types of
estuarine stratigraphic systems (Fig. 1): autochthonous, fluvial, marine,
autochthonous-fluvial, autochthonous-mafine, fluvial-marine, and mixed.
Despite the limitations just mentioned, we would like to emphasize that
the conceptual synthesis presented by Dalrymple et al. places the sedi-
mentology of estuaries into an elegant and easily grasped context that will
make this field more accessible to geologists working in ancient sedimen-
tary deposits. Therefore we applaud their work and hope that it is properly
extended to include these other factors, which can greatly influence the
nature of estuarine deposits.
REFERENCES
CH~s,~g,S.A., WasH~Nc,ton, P.A., and Fr~EDMa~,G.M., 1987, Carbonate-elastic synthems of the
middle Beekmantown group in the central and southern Champlain Valley: New England
Intercollegiate Geological Conference, 1987 Guidebook, p. 406-442.
75
DALRVMPLI~,R.W., 7ZarTLl~,B.A., a~o Bovo, R., 1992, Estuarine facies models: conceptual basis
and stratigraphic implications: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 62, p. 1130--1146.
HErr~nOORF,C. E., 1990, Great Lake estuaries: Estuaries, v. 13, p. 493--503.
INC~AM,R. L., 1987, Peat Deposits of North Carolina: North Carolina Geological Survey Bulletin
88, 84 p.
I..a~ra~, B.W, and CEBUtSKI,D.E., 1970, Sedimentary envirnnments of Shark Bay, Western
Australia: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 13, p. 1-37.
N,CHOtS,M.M., JONNSon,G.H., a~o PeEBL~, P.C., 1991, Modern sediments and facies models
for a microtidal coastal plain estuary, the James estuary, Virgmia: Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, v. 61, p. 883-.-899.
N,xoN, S.W., 1990, Toward a broeder definition of estuaries?: Estuaries, v. 13, p. 492.
WaSHnGrOn, P.A., 1992, Slratigraphic relations in the central Champlain Valley: recumng
estuarine deposits and a relreating shelf margin: Field Conference of Taconic Geologists,
1992 Guidebook, p. 1..-47.
Wasr~l~GroN,P.A., ANDCHtSlCK,S.A., in press, Foundering of the Cambro-Ordovician shelf margin
in the northern and central Appalachians: onset ofTaconian orogenesis or eustatic drowning,
in Dennison, J.M., and Ettensohn, F.R., eds., Sedimentary Cycle Control: Tectonics vs.
Eustasy, SEPM Special Publication.
Received 7 July 1993; accepted 7 July 1993.