The thickness variability of fluvial cross‐strata as a record of dune disequilibrium and palaeohydrology proxy: A test against channel deposits

• Published in: Sedimentology Vol. 71; no. 2; pp. 590 - 618
• Main Authors: Colombera, Luca, Reesink, Arnold J. H., Duller, Robert A., Jeavons, Victoria A., Mountney, Nigel P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Madrid Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.02.2024
• Subjects: Bed forms; Bedform; Bedforms; Coefficient of variation; cross‐bedding; cross‐set; Deposits; Discharge; discharge variability; Dunes; Empirical analysis; Fluvial deposits; Hydrologic regime; Paleohydrology; Preservation; Product models; river; River beds; River systems; Rivers; Sedimentary structures; Spatial variations; Strata; Stratigraphy; Thickness; Variability; Variation
• ISSN: 0037-0746; 1365-3091
• DOI: 10.1111/sed.13147

ABSTRACT Strata produced by fluvial dunes can provide insight into the hydrological regime of ancient rivers. Recent experiments indicate that conditions of disequilibrium between bedforms and formative flows may be inferred from the coefficient of variation of preserved dune cross‐set thickness, suggesting that this quantity may act as a proxy for the flashiness of river floods relative to the time required for full bedform translation. To assess whether this idea is applicable to interpretations of the stratigraphic record, this study examines published data relating to more than 2600 cross‐sets from 53 sedimentary units of 19 river systems. The presented analyses must not be over‐interpreted, because the considered rivers span different environmental settings, the data sources are heterogeneous in terms of type and dimensionality, and some variables were established by applying empirical relationships. Yet, significant findings are revealed. Larger rivers exhibit discharge and bedform characteristics that are more conducive to disequilibrium; however, a modest increase in the coefficient of variation of cross‐set thickness, CV(Dst), as opposed to the expected decrease, is seen as a function of river size. Crucially, smaller CV(Dst) values are not systematically associated with conditions that should favour dune disequilibrium. Meanwhile, only ca 25% of the studied examples demonstrate cross‐set thickness statistics compatible with quantitative formulations of the autogenic control by variable dune topography – the notion of ‘variability‐dominated’ preservation. These findings indicate that the variability in cross‐set thickness may be a poor predictor of discharge variability, perhaps because of the multiplicity of factors controlling dune preservation, such as bedform hierarchy, transport stage and depth‐dependent variations in dune disequilibrium. To improve interpretations of cross‐stratified deposits, further research is needed: (i) to establish the value of process‐to‐product models for reverse product‐to‐process interpretations; and (ii) to define representative samples for preserved dune deposits accounting for temporal and spatial variability in preservation potential.