TY - JOUR
T1 - Distinguishing brackish lacustrine from brackish marine deposits in the stratigraphic record
T2 - A case study from the late Miocene and early Pliocene Bouse Formation, Arizona and California, USA
AU - Bright, Jordon
AU - Cohen, Andrew S.
AU - Starratt, Scott W.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding for this project was provided by the Geological Society of America's Limnogeology Division's Kerry Kelts Research Award (JB), by the University of Arizona's Maxwell Short Scholarship (JB), by the U.S. Geological Survey, and by a National Science Foundation grant (NSF-EAR1545998) to AC. We appreciate the insightful comments from three anonymous reviewers that helped improve this long manuscript. We greatly appreciate the use of the Candona stable isotope data from Lake Bonneville provided by Jack Oviatt (Kansas State University; retired). The concept of boom-bust population dynamics discussed in Section 4.3 is credited to S.T. Hasiotis during a southern Bouse field trip in April, 2017. We appreciate discussions with J.C. Braga (University of Granada), L. Pomar (Universitat Illes Balears), R. Riding (University of Tennessee), and H. Verbruggen (University of Melbourne) about the southern Bouse “Halimeda”. We appreciate conversations with Jenny E. Ross about the introduction of Gillichthys detrusus to the Salton Sea. We appreciate discussions with C. Smart and K. Darling about Streptochilus. We appreciate the identification of Cyprinodon cf. macularius by Gerald R. Smith (University of Michigan). The Cyprinodon material is archived at the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan. We acknowledge the contributions of Laurie Crossey, Ryan Crow, Becky Dorsey, Brian Gootee, Steve Hasiotis, Mindy Homan, Kyle House, Keith Howard, Karl Karlstrom, David Miller, Brennan O'Connell, Phil Pearthree, and Jon Spencer that have greatly improved our understanding of the Bouse Formation.
Funding Information:
Funding for this project was provided by the Geological Society of America ’s Limnogeology Division’s Kerry Kelts Research Award (JB), by the University of Arizona ’s Maxwell Short Scholarship (JB), by the U.S. Geological Survey , and by a National Science Foundation grant (NSF-EAR1545998) to AC. We appreciate the insightful comments from three anonymous reviewers that helped improve this long manuscript. We greatly appreciate the use of the Candona stable isotope data from Lake Bonneville provided by Jack Oviatt ( Kansas State University ; retired). The concept of boom-bust population dynamics discussed in Section 4.3 is credited to S.T. Hasiotis during a southern Bouse field trip in April, 2017. We appreciate discussions with J.C. Braga ( University of Granada ), L. Pomar (Universitat Illes Balears), R. Riding ( University of Tennessee ), and H. Verbruggen ( University of Melbourne ) about the southern Bouse “ Halimeda ”. We appreciate conversations with Jenny E. Ross about the introduction of Gillichthys detrusus to the Salton Sea. We appreciate discussions with C. Smart and K. Darling about Streptochilus . We appreciate the identification of Cyprinodon cf. macularius by Gerald R. Smith ( University of Michigan ). The Cyprinodon material is archived at the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan . We acknowledge the contributions of Laurie Crossey, Ryan Crow, Becky Dorsey, Brian Gootee, Steve Hasiotis, Mindy Homan, Kyle House, Keith Howard, Karl Karlstrom, David Miller, Brennan O’Connell, Phil Pearthree, and Jon Spencer that have greatly improved our understanding of the Bouse Formation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - Brackish marine and brackish continental environments are fundamentally different from a compositional perspective. Brackish water is often defined as having salinity lower than that of standard seawater but higher than that of freshwater, but less regard is given to the origin of the salts involved. The simple dilution of standard seawater by freshwater in a coastal or estuarine setting constitutes a brackish environment, but so do lakes where continental fresh water is impounded and becomes more saline through a variety of solute evolution pathways. The range of potential compositions of brackish lake water is diverse and includes water with “seawater-like” compositions. Isolated brackish lake environments located hundreds of kilometers inland can evolve towards sodium chloride-dominated, low alkalinity environments that mimic the composition of brackish seawater environments. These types of lakes can harbor a variety of continentally invasive but typically marine organisms, including but not limited to algae, foraminifers, mollusks, diatoms, and crustaceans. Distinguishing brackish marine from brackish lake environments in the geologic record can be difficult. In this paper, the enigmatic late Miocene and early Pliocene southern Bouse Formation of southern Arizona and California, USA, considered by many to represent a marine transgression along the lower Colorado River corridor, is discussed within a broad framework that incorporates hydrochemical, biogeographical, and species niche concepts. A brackish lake interpretation provides a powerful platform that can comprehensively account for the enigmatic mixed marine and continental fossil assemblage and possible tidal rhythmites that feature prominently in the southern Bouse Formation controversy. A review of the broader regional (paleo)environmental context for the southern Bouse supports a sodium chloride-dominated, low alkalinity, mildly brackish (10-5 ppt) Colorado River-fed lake depositional environment that was populated by an intriguing but predictable array of euryhaline, opportunistic, and continentally invasive marginal marine organisms.
AB - Brackish marine and brackish continental environments are fundamentally different from a compositional perspective. Brackish water is often defined as having salinity lower than that of standard seawater but higher than that of freshwater, but less regard is given to the origin of the salts involved. The simple dilution of standard seawater by freshwater in a coastal or estuarine setting constitutes a brackish environment, but so do lakes where continental fresh water is impounded and becomes more saline through a variety of solute evolution pathways. The range of potential compositions of brackish lake water is diverse and includes water with “seawater-like” compositions. Isolated brackish lake environments located hundreds of kilometers inland can evolve towards sodium chloride-dominated, low alkalinity environments that mimic the composition of brackish seawater environments. These types of lakes can harbor a variety of continentally invasive but typically marine organisms, including but not limited to algae, foraminifers, mollusks, diatoms, and crustaceans. Distinguishing brackish marine from brackish lake environments in the geologic record can be difficult. In this paper, the enigmatic late Miocene and early Pliocene southern Bouse Formation of southern Arizona and California, USA, considered by many to represent a marine transgression along the lower Colorado River corridor, is discussed within a broad framework that incorporates hydrochemical, biogeographical, and species niche concepts. A brackish lake interpretation provides a powerful platform that can comprehensively account for the enigmatic mixed marine and continental fossil assemblage and possible tidal rhythmites that feature prominently in the southern Bouse Formation controversy. A review of the broader regional (paleo)environmental context for the southern Bouse supports a sodium chloride-dominated, low alkalinity, mildly brackish (10-5 ppt) Colorado River-fed lake depositional environment that was populated by an intriguing but predictable array of euryhaline, opportunistic, and continentally invasive marginal marine organisms.
KW - Bouse Formation
KW - Brackish water fauna
KW - Solute evolution
KW - Streptochilus
KW - Tidal rhythmite
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053059612&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053059612&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.08.011
DO - 10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.08.011
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85053059612
VL - 185
SP - 974
EP - 1003
JO - Earth-Science Reviews
JF - Earth-Science Reviews
SN - 0012-8252
ER -