GeolCarp_Vol58_No1_53

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, FEBRUARY 2007, 58, 1, 53—69

www.geologicacarpathica.sk

Introduction

The  evolution  of  peripheral  foreland  basins  is  very  com-
plex.  Their  development  is  controlled  by  flexural  rigidity
of  both  the  foreland  plate  and  accretionary  wedge,  geome-
try,  density  and  migration  rate  of  thrust  load,  structures  of
the  active  and  passive  basin  margins,  intra-plate  stress,
eustasy,  climate,  volume  and  density  of  sediment  infill,  re-
activation  of  plate  structures,  and  along-strike  variations
(e.g.  Stevens  &  Moore  1985;  Allen  et  al.  1986;    Fleming
&  Jordan  1989;  Bradley  &  Kidd  1991;  Posamentier  &
Allen  1993;  Peper  et  al.  1995;  Sinclair  1997;  Cloetingh  et
al.  1998;  Castle  2001,  etc.).  Foreland  basin  fill  sequences
are  typically  asymmetric  in  cross-section  perpendicular  to
their  active  margin,  with  the  thickest  part  located  adjacent
to,  or  partially  beneath  the  associated  thrust  front.  This
asymmetry  results  from  the  location  of  tectonic  activity,
maximum  subsidence,  sedimentation  along  the  active
margin,  and  post-depositional  processes  (Blair  &  Bilodeau
1988;  Burbank  et  al.  1988;  Heller  et  al.  1988;  Sinclair  et
al.  1991).  The  tectonic  history  of  subsidence  and  infilling
is  commonly  expressed  in  terms  of  isostatic  adjustment  to
emplacement  of  a  thrust  load,  which  also  provides  ero-
sional  detritus  to  a  synorogenic  clastic  wedge  (Flemings  &
Jordan  1989).  The  dominant  ruling  factors  of  the  deposi-
tional  architecture  are  eustasy  and  tectonic  subsidence

Depositional architecture, sequence stratigraphy and

geodynamic development of the Carpathian Foredeep

(Czech Republic)

SLAVOMÍR NEHYBA

and JAN ŠIKULA

Institute of Geological Sciences, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, 611 37 Brno, Czech Republic; slavek@sci.muni.cz

Czech Geological Survey, Leitnerova 22, 658 69 Brno, Czech Republic

(Manuscript received January 9, 2006; accepted in revised form June 22, 2006)

Abstract: Five 3

-order depositional sequences were recognized within Neogene infill of the Carpathian Foredeep.

Individual sequences are characterized by the diverse shape and extent of the basin, by characteristic depositional
architecture and lithofacies. Their deposition was controled by the principal ruling factors, namely eustasy, tectonics,
sediment supply, and basement morphology. 4

-order depositional sequences (transgressive-regressive cycles) are also

identified within the 3

-order depositional sequences. Depositional sequences are related to three distinct stages of the

geodynamic history of the basin. The pre- (“main”) collisional stage (Egerian/Eggenburgian) is represented by sequence I
and was ruled by eustasy, sediment-supply rate and basement relief. The collisional stage (Eggenburgian—Late Karpatian)
is represented by three sequences. Sequence II (Eggenburgian—Early Karpatian) reflects the initiation of thrusting due to
loading of the West Carpathian accretionary wedge. This process was mainly responsible for creation of accommodation
space, while the other factors were supplementary. Sequence III (Karpatian) was ruled mainly by interactions between
tectonic/flexural subsidence and isostatic rebound associated with the forebulge migration toward the foreland and thrust
front. Sequence IV (Late Karpatian) is the upper part of the clastic wedge and reflects the main collision and rapid
subsidence in the foreland basin. The depositional architecture was dominantly driven by tectonic processes. The post-
(“main”) collisional stage (Early Badenian) is identical with sequence V, which was ruled both by eustasy and tectonics.
Accommodation space (incised valley?) developed in the internal parts of the basin.

Key words: Neogene, Carpathian Foredeep, peripheral foreland basin, depositional sequences, transgressive-regressive
cycles.

connected  with  thrust  loading.  Their  complex  interaction
affects  basin  infill  on  different  temporal  and  spatial  scales,
playing  more  regional  or  local  roles  during  various  peri-
ods  of  basin  evolution  (Flemings  &  Jordan  1989;  Sinclair
et  al.  1991;  Schlager  1993;  Posamentier  &  Allen  1993;
Busby  &  Ingersoll  1995;  Emery  &  Myers  1996;  Sinclair
1997;  Gupta  &  Allen  1999;  Einsele  2000;  Castle  2001).
Long-term  cycles  (2—10 Ma)  are  generally  thought  to  be
controlled  by  accretionary  wedge  loading  and  long-term
erosion  rates  within  the  orogen.  Short-term  fluctuations
(0.01—0.5 Ma)  are  attributed  to  high-frequency  eustasy,
thrust  events  or  changes  in  intraplate  stress  levels  (Peper
1993).  Recognizing  individual  controlling  factors  is  also
complicated  by  the  development  of  basin  depozones
(wedge-top,  foredeep,  forebulge  and  back-bulge),  lateral
shifting  of  them  through  time  (DeCelles  &  Gilles  1996),
and  the  contrasting  stacking  patterns  between  proximal
and  distal  settings  (Catuneanu  et  al.  1997).

Several models relate depositional sequence geometry

of  foreland  basin  and  tectonic  processes  (Blair  &  Bilodeau
1988;  Heller  et  al.  1988;  Burbanck  &  Beck  1991;  Plint  et
al.  1993;  Catuneanu  et  al.  1999;  etc.).  However,  the  mutu-
al  interplay  of  processes  of  continental  deformation  and
eustasy  challenges  sequence  stratigraphic  studies  adapt-
ing  classical  concepts  to  processes  of  tectonic/flexural
subsidence  (Flemings  &  Jordan  1989;  Sinclair  1997).

NEHYBA and ŠIKULA

Carpathian Foredeep – geological setting

The Carpathian Foredeep (CF) is a peripheral foreland

basin that developed on the European plate margin due to
the Carpathian accretionary wedge overthrust and deep
subsurface load. The CF exhibits striking lateral changes
in basin width, depth, stratigraphy of sedimentary infill,
along with variations in pre-Neogene basement composi-
tion and tectonic subsidence (Kováč et al. 1995; Krzywiec
& Jochym 1999; Zoetemeijer et al. 1999; Krzywiec 2001).

The rheologic anisotropy of the European plate was an

important controlling factor on the development of the
basin. The western part of the CF is located on the east-
ern margin of the Bohemian Massif, a complex terrane of
rigid lithosphere with estimated effective elastic thick-
ness (EET) values of ~10 km (Lankreijer et al. 1999) that
governed the bending of the Alpine-Carpathian transi-
tion zone. The Cadomian crystalline basement (Dyje and
Brno batholiths) was strongly reworked and sutured to
the eastern flank of the Bohemian Massif during the
Variscan orogeny (Kalvoda et al. 2007). Paleozoic sedi-
ments (Cambrian to Permian) with complex histories
overlay the basement along with local Jurassic to Creta-
ceous platform and basinal deposits. Mesozoic extension
produced normal faulting in the eastern part of the Bohe-
mian Massif (Ziegler 1980).

The study area (Fig. 1) in the western part of the CF is

filled by Neogene clastic deposits (Fig. 2). The sedimenta-
ry record started in the Eggerian/Eggenburgian (22.5 Ma)
and ended by the Early Badenian (15.5 Ma). Isolated out-
crops of marine deposits indicate that the CF extended
much further to the west and that its present-day western
boundary is related to erosional processes occurring main-
ly after the Miocene. The CF continues south into the
North Alpine Foredeep Basin (Alpine Molasse). Visible
widening of Neogene depositional space in the contact
area is a result of the generation and interaction of two pe-
ripheral foreland basins in the foreland of both Eastern
Alps and Western Carpathians. Varying intensity and ori-
entation of flexural loading along with a polyphase nature
of the active basin margin and gradual change of its posi-
tion influenced the basin architecture and infill.

The dominance of basinal deposits and relative insig-

nificance of terrestrial and carbonate sediments categorize
the basin as a filled to underfilled molasse type (e.g. Flem-
ings & Jordan 1989; Sinclair 1997). Cogan et al. (1993)
developed a conceptual model for the structural evolution
of the CF’s basement that proposed the formation of a se-
ries of down-faulted and flexed blocks and an elastic re-
sponse to thrust and sediment loading. Numerous
references to prior studies of the basin can be found in
Brzobohatý & Cicha (1993).

Fig. 1. Schematic map of the area under study and its position within the Carpatho-Pannonian region (modified after Kováč 2000).

DEPOSITIONAL ARCHITECTURE, SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY, GEODYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT (CZECH REPUBLIC)

Methods

This study and results are based mainly upon subsurface

data  because  of  the  limited  extent  and  small  number  of
outcrops  (Fig. 3).  Sedimentologic  and  sequence  strati-
graphic  interpretations  of  well  logs  calibrated  by  well
cores  represent  the  primary  source  of  data  (similarly  Van
Wagoner  et  al.  1988;  Gorin  et  al.  1993;  Posamentier  &
James  1993;  Cant  1996;  Emery  &  Myers  1996;  Heller  et
al.  1998;  Martín-Martín  et  al.  2001).  Wells  with  well  logs
are  located  dominantly  along  the  eastern  (proximal)  part
of  the  basin.  Surface  outcrops  (Nehyba  2000)  and  shallow
drill  holes  (Nehyba  &  Petrová  2000)  provide  information
about  the  western,  marginal  parts  of  the  basin.

The quality of available well logs varied and predomi-

nantly  only  results  of  the  “standard”  well  log  techniques
of  spontaneous  potential  (SP)  and  resistivity  (Rag  2.12)
can  be  studied  (Nehyba  et  al.  2003;  Šikula  &  Nehyba
2004).  Seismic  reflection  profiles  calibrated  by  well  logs
show  the  basic  structure  of  the  Carpatian  Foredeep  (Nehy-
ba  et  al.  2000,  2003).  Sedimentological  studies  (sedimen-

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic scheme of the Miocene of the studied part of the
Carpathian  Foredeep  (modified  after  Brzobohatý  in  Chlupáč  et  al.
2002;  Adámek  et  al.  2003;  Adámek  2003  and  Mandic  et  al.  2004).
(“tegel”  –  olive  green  calcareous  clay;  “schlier”  –  calcareous
grey silstone to silty claystone with fine horizontal lamination.)

Fig. 3. Locations of drill holes, representative log cross-sections
and seismic reflection profile within the studied part of the basin.

tary  structures  and  textures,  facies  analyses)  provided  in-
sight  into  the  changing  depositional  environment  during
the  basin  evolution  (e.g.  Reineck  &  Singh  1984;  Walker
1990;  Reading  1996).  Sedimentary  petrography  (i.e.  peb-
ble  analyses,  thin  sections,  non-opaque  heavy  mineral
content,  garnet  and  tourmaline  compositions)  allows  us  to
recognize  the  source  area.  Tephrostratigraphy  as  an  alter-
native  stratigraphic  method  also  helps  to  correlate  strata  of
the  same  age  in  the  basin  (Nehyba  1997;  Nehyba  &  Roet-
zel  1999;  Nehyba  et  al.  1999).

Sequence stratigraphy

The CF’s sedimentary fill records a number of sea-level

fluctuations  of  different  frequency  and  magnitude.  The
dominant  seismic  response  of  the  sedimentary  fill  of  the  CF
is  in  the  form  of  topsets  (see  Fig. 17).  Aggradation  of  thick
topset  deposits  is  the  result  of  higher  tectonic  subsidence
along  the  active  basin  margin,  which  led  to  more  rapid  dep-
osition  in  its  proximal  parts  compared  to  distal  ones  situat-
ed  at  the  passive  basin  margin  (e.g.  Posamentier  &  Allen
1993).  The  dominance  of  lateral  transport  from  the  active

NEHYBA and ŠIKULA

basin

margin

assumed.

Changes in the creation of ac-
commodation space reflected in
the

depositional

architecture

(progradation,

aggradation

retrogradation)  are  influenced
by  the  balance  of  the  rate  of
sea-level  change  and  sediment
supply  and  the  areal  extent  of
topsets

(Milton

Bertram

1996).

Depositional

cycles

within

the CF of relative sea-level rise
and fall are similar to the trans-
gressive-regressive

cycles

Johnson et al. (1985), and
transgressive

and

highstand

systems  tracts  (TST  and  HST,
respectively)  can  be  identified.
A  sequence  boundary  is  con-
nected  with  the  change  from
progradational

retrograda-

tional  depositional  architecture.  This  surface  can  be
identified  as  the  surface  of  maximum  progradation
(MPS).  Evidence  of  subaerial  erosion  in  marginal  parts  of
basins  or  by  facies  dislocation  supports  an  interpretation
of  a  sequence  boundary.  Near  the  active  basin  margin
where  higher  subsidence  rates  occur,  subaerial  unconfor-
mities  do  not  extend  onto  marine  shelves,  and  conform-
able  successions  of  beds  occur  with  no  evidence  of
subaerial  exposure  (type 2  sequence  boundary).  They  pass
into  subaerial  unconformities  in  areas  of  lower  subsidence,
cutting  across  marine  shelves.  These  type 1  unconformities
amalgamate  in  areas  with  the  lowest  subsidence  rates,  form-
ing  composite  erosional  surfaces  with  larger  stratigraphic
gaps  towards  the  foreland  (Emery  &  Myers  1996).  These
broadly  planar  surfaces  can  coincide  with  later  flooding
surfaces  and  with  the  occurrence  of  lag  deposits.  A  TST
results  when  the  sediment  supply  is  lower  than  the  forma-
tion  of  accommodation  space.  Facies  belts  shift  toward
the  basin  margin  and  a  retrogradational  depositional  ar-
chitecture  can  be  followed.  An  HST  results  when  sedi-
ment  supply  exceeds  accommodation  space,  leading  to  a
progradational  depositional  architecture  following  the
aggradational  one.  A  maximum  flooding  surface  (MFS)
is  located  between  the  TST  and  HST.  A  TST  and  HST
(i.e.  one  T—R  cycle)  form  a  4

-order (“high-frequency”)

depositional  sequence  that  represents  a  time  period  of
0.1  to  0.5 Ma.  The  thickness  of  a  sequence  varies  gener-
ally  reaching    about  90 m.  Parasequences  and  parase-
quence  sets  (Posamentier  et  al.  1988;  Van  Wagoner  et  al.
1988;  Emery  &  Myers  1996;  Uličný  1999)  are  recog-
nized  within  the  systems  tracts.

The problem with the application of sequence stratig-

raphy  to  the  studied  deposits  is  the  clear  identification  of
individual  key  surfaces.  Syn-  and  post-depositional  pro-
cesses  affected  the  sedimentary  record  especially  in  the
marginal  parts  of  the  basin  (Nehyba  2000).  Sequence
boundaries  can  sometimes  be  evaluated  as  suspect  be-

Fig. 4. Representative log cross-section No. 1.

cause the change in geometry may be connected with a
different process than relative sea-level change.

The multiple amalgamations of sequence boundaries and

MFS’s along one surface, together with varying (prograda-
tional vs. retrogradational) framework indicate a record of

DEPOSITIONAL ARCHITECTURE, SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY, GEODYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT (CZECH REPUBLIC)

Fig. 5. Representative log cross-section No. 2.

cycles  of  several  orders.  Different
temporal  and  spatial  scales  of  cy-
clicity  record  different  scales  and
periodicities  of  relative  sea-level
change.

Parasequences

and

parasequence sets, 4

-order and

five 3

-order depositional se-

quences  represent  the  shortest,
middle  and  longest  cycles,  re-
spectively.  Five  3

-order depo-

sitional  sequences  characterized
by  different  basin  shape,  extent,
depositional  architecture  and
lithofacies

were

recognized

within  the  Neogene  infill  of  the
CF.  They  reflect  the  unique
combination  of  the  principal
ruling  factors  (eustasy,  tecton-
ics,  sediment  supply,  and  base-
ment  morphology)  and  record
the  dynamic  evolution  of  the
collisional

margin.

Deposi-

tional geometry of recognized
4

-order and 3

-order deposi-

tional  sequences  together  with
their  key  surfaces  can  be  fol-
lowed  in  Figs. 4,  5,  6  and  7.
Kováč  et  al.  (2004)  similarly
recognized  five  in  Eggenburg-
ian  to  Early  Badenian  deposits
of  the  Vienna  Basin.

The recognized 3

-order se-

quences  can  be  connected  into  3
stages  of  geodynamic  develop-
ment  of  the  basin  according  the
relation  to  the  “main”  collision
along  the  active  margin  of  the
basin.  The  role  of  thrust  loading
represents  the  principal  feature
of  peripheral  foreland  basins  in
general.

Pre- (“main”) collisional stage

The pre- (“main”) collisional stage is represented by

depositional  sequence I.  Deposition  in  the  CF  began  dur-
ing  the  Egerian—Early  Eggenburgian.  A  detailed  isopach
map  (Fig. 8)  shows  that  accommodation  space  developed
in  a  large  part  of  the  study  area  with  respect  to  morpholo-
gy  of  the  pre-Neogene  basement.  Areas  with  deposits  of
maximum  thickness  are  located  close  to  both  active  and
passive  basin  margins,  and  the  typical  wedge  geometry  of
foredeep  depozones  did  not  develop.

Several lithofacies and depositional environments are

distinguished  (Fig. 9  and  Table 1).  Fluvial  and  deltaic  de-
posits  occur  locally  on  the  base  of  the  succession  predom-
inantly  along  the  western  margin  of  the  basin.  Coastal  (i.e.
shoreface,  foreshore)  and  shallow  marine  deposits  form  the

dominant  proportion  of  the  succession  especially  towards
the  E.  The  association  of  non-opaque  heavy  minerals  is
highly  variable,  high  contents  of  stable  minerals  (i.e.  zircon,
tourmaline,  rutile),  staurolite,  apatite  and  generally  low  garnet
content  are  typical.

Nehyba (2000) proposed a sequence stratigraphic model

for  this  sequence  in  the  western  distal  parts  of  the  CF.  This
model  is  assumed  valid  for  the  entire  basin.  The  lower  se-
quence  boundary  is  a  very  irregularly  shaped  basal  unconfor-
mity  caused  by  longlasting  subaerial  erosion.  Dominantly
non-marine  sediments  of  an  early  transgressive  systems
tract  found  immediately  above  it  were  deposited  locally
within  paleovalleys.  These  terrestrial  deposits  progressive-
ly  grade  upward  at  different  rates  in  different  areas  into
coastal-shallow  marine  deposits  as  a  consequence  of  a  ma-
rine flooding from the S, SE and E, forming the TST with a
highly  variable  lithology  that  terminates  in  an  MFS.  Re-
lief  and  different  rates  of  sediment  supply  strongly  influ-
enced  the  shoreline  trajectory  during  this  time.  Deposition

Fig. 6. Representative log cross-section No. 3.

NEHYBA and ŠIKULA

of  an  HST  above  the  MFS  was  strongly  influenced  by  po-
sition  within  the  basin  and  the  rate  of  sediment  supply,
ending  in  an  unconformity  related  to  a  complete  reorgani-
zation  of  the  basin.

Basement relief, sediment supply and eustasy were the

principal  ruling  factors  of  this  sequence.  The  role  of  tec-
tonic  subsidence  was  possibly  connected  with  the  “early
Savian  phase”  of  thrusting  recorded  in  the  Eastern  Alps.
The  initial  stage  of  basin  development  typically  has  a
lower  subsidence  and  increase  in  accommodation  space
compared  to  later  stages.  Accommodation  space  was
formed  mostly  through  eustasy  (cycle  CPC 1  of  Kováč
2000;  cycle  TB 2.1.  Haq  1991).  The  study  area  can  be
correlated  with  the  development  in  the  marginal  parts  of

Fig. 7. Representative log cross-section No. 4.

Fig. 8. Thickness map of the deposits of stage I (Late Egerian/Early
Eggenburgian—Eggenburgian/Ottnangian).

the  Alpine  Foredeep  Basin.  Ma-
terial  was  shed  from  the  deeply
weathered  margins  of  the  Bohe-
mian  Massif  and  does  not  mark
the  initiation  of  West  Carpathian
accretionary  wedge  thrusting.

Collisional stage –

development of synorogenic

clastic wedge

A synorogenic clastic wedge

with a generally westward pro-
grading,

eastward

thickening

framework  dominates  the  whole
basin  fill.  During  this  stage,  ac-
commodation  space  was  created
foremost  through  flexural  sub-

sidence.  Three  depositional  sequences  (sequences  II,  III
and  IV)  overlying  the  initial  sequence  were  recognized
within  this  stage.  Sequence  II  represent  the  lower,  se-
quence  III,  the  middle  and  sequence  IV,  the  upper  part  of
the  clastic  wedge.

Fifteen lithofacies have been identified (Fig. 10 and

Table 2).  They  were  deposited  in  coastal  (foreshore,
shoreface),  shallow  marine  and  deeper  marine  (bathyal)
environments.  Shallow  marine  sediments  strongly  pre-
dominate.  Tectonic  subsidence  in  response  to  thrust
loading  provided  a  mechanism  for  their  accommodation
space,  while  fluctuations  in  relative  sea  level  provided
means  for  transporting  sand  to  depositional  sites  and  pro-
duced  a  repetition  of  lithological  patterns.  Typically
higher  content  of  plant  detritus  shows  that  the  rate  of  or-
ganic  carbon  productivity  was  high  relative  to  the  rate  of
siliciclastic  sediment  input,  probably  enhanced  by  a
warm  climate,  with  preservation  from  anaerobic  bottom
conditions  through  thermohaline  water  stratification  pre-
venting  vertical  circulation.  Facies  of  condensed  sec-
tions  are  characterized  by  higher  contents  of  authigenic
glauconite,  phosphates  and  pyrite  (e.g.  Loutit  et  al.
1988;  Amorosi  1995;  Tucker  2001).  Non-opaque  heavy
minerals  within  are  characterized  by  a  monotonous  gar-
net  association  and  low  stable  mineral  content.  Nehyba
&  Buriánek  (2004)  showed  that  this  transition  is  also
connected  with  a  distinct  change  in  garnet  chemistry.
These  observations  indicate  a  dramatic  shift  in  prove-
nance  from  a  passive  to  active  margin  of  the  basin.

The cyclic deposits of the clastic wedge can be subdi-

vided  into  temporally  discrete  packages  representing
mainly  variations  in  tectonic  activity;  therefore,  the  tem-
poral  resolution  of  these  cycles  improves  the  resolution
of  the  tectonic  history  of  the  active  basin  margin/thrust
front  (Mars  &  Thomas  1999).  Cyclicity  of  filling  of  the
peripheral  foreland  basin  is  schematized  in  Fig. 11.
Thick  fine-grained  deposits  reflecting  retrogradation  and
deepening  of  the  basin  are  connected  with  tectonic  activ-
ity  and  thrust  loading.  Increased  rates  of  subsidence
trapped  coarser-grained  material  in  proximal  parts  of  the

DEPOSITIONAL ARCHITECTURE, SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY, GEODYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT (CZECH REPUBLIC)

mencement  of  fine-grained  sedimentation  above  coarse-
grained  deposits  indicates  renewed  tectonic  activity.
However,  the  model  may  be  complicated  by  episodic  or
non-episodic  thrusting,  differences  in  the  distribution  of
loading  due  to  variations  in  thick-  and  thin-skinned
thrusting,  the  size  of  the  catchment  area,  and  erosion  of
the  wedge-top  depozone  (Blair  &  Bilodeau  1988;  Heller
et  al.  1988;  Plint  1988,  1991;  Burbank  &  Beck  1991;
Keith  1992;  Plint  et  al.  1993;  Mellere  &  Steel  1995;  De-
Celles  &  Gilles  1996).

The typical features of the peripheral foreland basin in-

cluding:  (1)  displacement  of  the  zone  of  maximum  sub-
sidence  toward  the  foreland  of  the  migrating  thrust  belt,
(2)  uplift,  migration  and  erosion  of  the  flexural  forebulge,
and  (3)  consecutive  onlapping  of  the  foreland  basement
by  foredeep  sediments  can  be  followed  within  the  basin
infill  of  the  CF  only  during  this  stage.

The position of the flexural hinge line (margin of the

forebulge)  in  Figs. 12—14  is  highly  approximate  and  was
located  according  to  the  map  of  the  regional  Bouguer
anomalies  –  reduction  density  2.67 g/cm

(Sedlák 2000).

Table 2: Description and interpretation of lithofacies of synorogenic clastic wedge.

Initial tectonic/flexural subsidence – lower

clastic wedge

Sequence II records the initiation of thrusting as the rul-

ing  factor  in  providing  sediments  accommodation  space,
leading  to  the  development  of  a  characteristic  peripheral
foreland  basin  (e.g.  Busby  &  Ingersoll  1995).  Orogenward
tilting  of  the  basement  through  forebulge  migration  pre-
ceded  the  onset  of  flexural  subsidence  and  clastic  wedge
deposition.  Initial  thrust  loading  produced  a  typical  un-
conformity  at  the  base  of  the  succession,  termed  a  basal
forebulge  unconformity  (Crampton  &  Allen  1995),  reflect-
ing  the  beginning  of  a  complete  reconstruction  of  the  ba-
sin  shape  and  a  shift  in  provenance.  Toward  the  passive
margin,  the  unconformity  is  overlain  by  progressively  on-
lapping  sediments  above  an  increasing  stratigraphic  gap.
Progressive  truncation  geometry,  extent  of  hiatus,  and  po-
larity  of  sediment  supply  are  the  main  differences  between
a  basal  forebulge  unconformity  and  an  unconformity  driv-
en  by  eustasy  (e.g.  Flemings  &  Jordan  1989;  Sinclair  et  al.
1991).

NEHYBA and ŠIKULA

Sequence II began in the Late Eggenburgian (Savian

phase  of  thrusting)  and  ended  in  the  Ottnangian  or  Early
Karpatian  (early  Styrian  phase  of  thrusting).  Minor  differ-
ences  in  the  stratigraphy  are  found  between  more  proximal
and  distal  parts  of  the  basin.  Seismic  lines  and  deep  bore-
holes  show  a  progressive  deepening  of  the  basement/ba-
sin-fill  contact  toward  the  orogene.  Sequence II  deposits
are  observed  only  close  to  the  basin’s  present-day  eastern
margin  (Figs. 12  and  13).  They  reveal  a  typical  synoro-
genic  clastic-wedge  shape  and  thicken  toward  the  ac-
tive  margin.  They  are  typically  composed  of  fine-grained
siliciclastic  sediments  and  represent  the  lower  part  of  the
clastic  wedge.  The  basin  revealed  different  lithofacies,  ar-
chitecture,  extent,  and  position  of  its  active  and  passive
margins  during  sequence II  than  during  sequence I.

Three 4

-order depositional sequences (II.1., II.2., II.3.)

were  documented  that  show  progressive  onlap  of  the  suc-
cessive  sequences  toward  the  passive  margin  and  thicken-
ing  of  each  sequence  toward  the  active  margin  (see  Figs. 4,
5,  6,  7,  12  and  13).  Correlative  conformities  in  the  area  of
greater  subsidence  grade  into  amalgamated  unconformi-
ties  in  more  distal  parts  of  the  basin.  The  shingled  frame-

Fig. 11.  Cyclicity  of  filling  of  the  peripheral  foreland  basin  (accord-
ing  to  Plint  et  al.  1993):  1  –  Increase  pf  tectonic  activity  along  the
active margin, rapid subsidence, deposition of fine-grained clastics in
the  dominant  part  of  the  basin,  deposition  of  coarse  clastics  only  in
proximal parts of the basin. 2 – Cessation of tectonic activity along
the  active  margin,  reduction  of  subsidence  rate,  progradation  of  the
coarse deposits into the basin. 3 – Rejuvenation of the tectonic activi-
ty,  rapid  subsidence,  coarse-grained  material  trapped  in  proximal  parts
of the basin, fine-grained deposition in the dominant part of the basin.
4  –  Continuing  activity  of  the  thrust  front,  steepening  of  the  flexure
profile,  erosion  of  the  peripheral  forebulge,  deposition  of  coarse
clastics also in the distal parts of the basin (different provenance).

Fig. 13. Thickness map of the deposits of sequence II (sequence
II.3 – Ottnangian/Early Karpatian).

Fig. 12. Thickness map of the deposits of sequence II (sequences
II.1 and II.2 – Late Eggenburgian—Ottnangian/Early Karpatian).

work  of  these  generally  westward  prograding  sequences
suggests  a  history  of  a  progressively  increasing  subsid-
ence  rate  as  a  response  to  an  advancing  thrust  front  and  in-

DEPOSITIONAL ARCHITECTURE, SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY, GEODYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT (CZECH REPUBLIC)

creasing  thrust  load  and  sediment  supply  (Mars  &  Thomas
1999).  The  lateral  persistence  of  parasequences  and  sys-
tems  tracts  indicates  no  perceptible  erosion  prior  to  depo-
sition  of  the  next  sequence.  The  consistent  geometry  of
the  succession  and  transgressive  shale  onlap  suggest  con-
tinuous  loading  (Plint  et  al.  1993).

A high subsidence and sediment underfilling character-

ize  sequence  II  deposition.  Pre-flexural  basement  relief  in-
fluenced  smaller  scale  depositional  patterns  especially  in
marginal  areas  (e.g.  Gupta  &  Allen  1999).  Both  4

-order

sequences II.1.  and II.2.  reveal  a  limited  lateral  extent,
whereas  sequence  II.3.  has  a  much  greater  range  and  TST
thickness  (see  Figs. 12  and  13).    Therefore,  tectonics  (early
Styrian  phase)  and  eustasy  (cycle  CPC 2  of  Kováč  2000)
both  played  a  vital  role  throughout  deposition  of  the  se-
quence  II.3.

Relaxation – middle clastic wedge

The depositional architecture of sequence III was ruled

mainly  by  an  interaction  between  tectonic/flexural  sub-
sidence  and  migration  of  the  forebulge  toward  the  fore-
land,  and  isostatic  rebound  connected  with  migration  of
the  forebulge  toward  the  thrust  front  (e.g.  Flemings  &  Jor-
dan  1989;  Sinclair  et  al.  1991;  Schlunegger  et  al.  1997).
The  isopach  map  of  deposits  of  sequence  III  (Fig. 14)
shows  its  location  as  being  close  to  the  basin’s  active  mar-
gin,  the  shape  of  the  synorogenic  clastic  wedge,  and  the
considerable  thickness  of  these  Karpatian  deposits.  They
can  be  divided  into  five  4

-order sequences (III.1., III.2.,

III.3., III.4. and III.5.). The bases of these sequences are cor-

relative  conformities  in  the  proximal  (internal)  parts  of  the
basin,  whereas  toward  the  distal  parts  they  are  unconformi-
ties  and  often  amalgamated  (see  Figs. 4,  5,  6  and  7).  The
basal  forebulge  discontinuity  forms  the  base  of  prograding
sequences  only  in  the  most  distal  parts  of  the  basin,  re-
vealing  the  progressive  onlap  by  the  overlying  sediments.
The  erosive  zone  and  facies  belts  overlying  the  basal  fore-
bulge  unconformity  are  parallel  to  the  Western  Carpathian
thrust  front  and  migrated  into  the  foreland  over  time,
ahead  of  the  advancing  orogenic  accretionary  wedge.  The
erosional  gap  along  the  unconformity  is  wider  in  the  di-
rection  of  migration.  The  occurrence  of  sandy  facies  is  sig-
nificantly  higher  in  the  sequence  III  compared  to  sequence
II.  It  may  reflect  a  closer  distance  to  the  active  margin  or  a
significant  redistribution  of  deposits.  Typical  is  a  rhyth-
mic  framework  of  successive  sequences  with  alternating
progradation  with  onlap  advance  generally  toward  the
NW  and  retrogradation  with  relative  retreat  generally  to-
ward  the  SE.  The  whole  succession  reveals  an  overall  pro-
gradational  framework,  that  is  retreat  of  the  forebulge
toward  the  foreland  to  the  NW.  The  consistent  geometry  of
stratal  truncation  suggests  a  connection  with  episodic  up-
lift  and  migration  of  the  forebulge  (e.g.  Plint  et  al.  1993).

Thrusting in the Eastern Alps toward the N ended dur-

ing  the  Karpatian  but  continued  in  the  Western  Car-
pathians  (Kováč  2000).  Changes  in  the  stress  field  of  the
Alpine-Carpathian  Foreland  led  to  the  modification  of  the
basin’s  flexural  amplitude  and  profile,  and  possibly  a  reac-
tivation  of  basement  faults,  etc.  An  acceleration  of  subsid-
ence  in  response  to  thrust  loading  led  to  moderate  to  high
production  rates  of  accommodation  space  in  proximal
parts  of  the  basin.  The  role  of  sediment  redistribution  and
local  forebulge  erosion  may  also  have  influenced  the  dep-
ositional  architecture.  An  increase  in  sediment  supply  re-
distributes  the  loading  and  reduces  the  amount  of
accommodation  space  (Fleming  &  Jordan  1989).  The
shape  of  the  basin  and  position  of  its  active  and  passive
margins  differ  significantly  from  the  present.  Sequence  III
probably  represents  the  time  between  the  early  and  late
Styrian  phases  of  thrusting.

Main collision – upper clastic wedge

Sequence IV represents the Late Karpatian upper part of

the  synorogenic  clastic  wedge  and  records  the  main  collision
along  the  active  margin  coinciding  with  a  high  subsidence  in
the  foreland  basin.  The  high  rates  of  sediment  supply  and  in-
crease  in  accommodation  space  led  to  the  deposition  of  thick
successions  during  tectonic  processes  that  also  directly  af-
fected  the  basin  fill.  The  isopach  map  (Fig. 15)  shows  a  wide-
ly  distributed  wedge-shaped  body  of  deposits  that  thickens
toward  the  active  margin.  The  area  with  maximum  deposition
is  located  more  to  the  W  and  NW  compared  to  previous  stag-
es  and  is  aligned  with  the  active  margin.

Seven transgressive-regressive (T-R) cycles were recog-

nized within sequence IV deposits (see Figs. 4, 5, 6 and 7).
Their consideration as sequences however is suspect be-

Fig. 14. Thickness map of the deposits of sequence III (Karpatian).

NEHYBA and ŠIKULA

cause of missing data from the marginal parts of the basin.
The architecture of individual cycles differs significantly
from that of 4

-order depositional sequences (T-R cycles)

of sequences II and III. They have a wedge shape with the
lower boundary inclined toward the active basin margin
and an almost horizontal upper boundary (onlap) during
sequences II and III. T-R cycles of sequence IV reveal, on
the contrary, a subhorizontal or even slightly inclined
base toward the distal parts of the basin to the W or NW.
The number of T-R cycles also rises in this direction be-
cause of the occurrence of upper cycles. Successive T-R
cycles upward through the succession reveal gradual ad-
vance of their maximal thickness towards the basin (gener-
ally to W). Lower T-R cycles are generally thicker in
proximal parts of the basin, whereas upper T-R cycles are
thicker in central parts. All of these features reflect a migra-
tion of the zone of maximum deposition toward the W
(compared to the sequences II and III), which can be attrib-
uted to acceleration of thrusting along the active margin.
The presence of sandy facies within these cycles in proxi-
mal and distal parts of the basin reflects both the relative
proximity to the active margin and sediment redistribution.

During sequence IV deposition, the basin underwent a

complete reorganization that affected its shape and lateral
extent during assumed extensive flooding of the foreland.
The position of the basin’s active margin was generally
similar to its present-day location. Karpatian (late Styrian
phase) NW-SE compression observed as final thrusting of
the Flysch Belt characterizes the collisional zone along the
eastern margin of the Bohemian Massif in the study area.

Post- (“main”) collisional stage

All major architectonic elements of foreland basins are

conventionally considered to accumulate due to flexural
subsidence of the foreland plate with typically regional
orogen-ward thickening on a basinal scale (Beaumont
1981). The distinctive geometry of deposits of the basin’s
final stage suggests that flexural subsidence was not the
major generator of accommodation space.

Sequence V (Early Badenian) deposits are located in the

central parts of the basin where a significant oblique seis-
mic termination surface cutting the Neogene basin fill is
seen in seismic reflection profiles. This surface forms a
broad depression throughout middle parts of the basin
elongated along the generally SW-NE trend of the basin
axis. Sequence IV deposits mostly fill the lower part of de-
pression, whereas sequence V deposits fill the upper part.
Sequence V (Early Badenian) is dominated by two lithofa-
cies with areas of maximum thickness forming an almost
symmetrical depression (Figs. 16, 17). The first lithofacies
are basal or marginal coarse clastics deposited in coarse-
grained Gilbert deltas (Nehyba 2001) and contain an
abundance of intraclasts indicating cannibalization of
older basin fill. These clastics are located along both W
and E margins of the depression and have a maximum
thickness of 175 m. The second lithofacies are basinal
pelites (“tegel”) with maximum thickness of ~ 600 m that

Fig. 15. Thickness map of the deposits of sequence IV (Late Karpa-
tian).

were deposited in deep-water. Pelites are almost uniformly
distributed in the whole depositional area.

The depression’s origin is obscured by limited data on

deposits close to the termination surface. Tomek (1999)
suggests a pre-Early Badenian compressional origin (pop-
up structure). On the contrary, Jiříček (1995) interpreted the
depression as the slope of outer molasse. We preliminarily
proposed the formation of the depression as an incised val-
ley formed within the basin along the active margin. Its ori-
gin was probably tectonically induced. Compression of the
Carpathian orogenic wedge oriented towards NNW and NW

Fig. 16. Thickness map of the deposits of sequence V (Early Bad-
enian).

DEPOSITIONAL ARCHITECTURE, SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY, GEODYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT (CZECH REPUBLIC)

changed  its  orientation  towards  NNE  and  NE  during  Late
Karpatian  and  Early  Badenian  (Kováč  2000).  This  shift  led
to  the  dominant  formation  of  accommodation  space  (flexur-
al  subsidence)  in  the  northern  part  of  the  CF  whereas  its
south-western  part  (studied  here)  was  affected  by  relative
uplift.  Older  basin  infill  (predominantly  Karpatian  in  age)
were  eroded  and  deformed.  Longitudinal  depression  along
the  basin  axes  (i.e.  SW-NE  direction)  was  formed  (incised
valley).  These  processes  led  to  the  formation  of  Gilbert  del-
tas  along  the  basin  margin  with  basinward  transport  direc-
tion  and  sources  from  both  opposite  NW  and  SE  margins.
Final  flooding  of  the  “entire”  basin  was  dominated  by  dep-
osition  of  basinal  pelites  (Nehyba  2001).  This  process  was
combined  with  eustatic  sea-level  change  (TB  2.3  of  Haq
1991,  CPC 3  of  Kováč  2000).  Two  Early  Badenian  trans-
gressive  phases  of  sea-level  rise  are  supposed  in  the  CF
(Brzobohatý  &  Cicha  1993)  with  the  last  probably  the
most  extensive.  This  preliminary  model  could  be  further
complicated  with  speculative  allochthonous  position  of
sequence IV,  by  the  role  of  NW-SE  oriented  extension/tran-
stension  within  the  formed  stress  field  (Kováč  2000)  or  by
possible  reactivation  of  basement  faults  (especially  NW-SE
and  NE-SW  oriented)  and  tectonic  origin  of  the  valley.
Some  similar  patterns  were  described  by  Janbu  et  al.  (in
print).  The  proposed  schematic  evolution  of  the  CF  during
the  Early  Badenian  is  presented  in  Fig. 18.  Tectonic  activi-
ty  combined  with  eustatic  sea-level  change  were  the  domi-
nant  ruling  factor  of  basin  formation  and  deposition  during
the  Late  Karpatian  and  Early  Badenian.

Discussion

A generally westward (towards passive basin margin)

propagation  of  the  synorogenic  clastic  wedge,  recorded  in
sequences  II,  III  and  IV  (see  Figs. 4,  5,  6  and  7),  generally
illustrates  successive  basin  filling  in  response  to  foreland
subsidence.  The  sequence  II  occurred  in  the  eastern  part  of
the  basin  where  greater  subsidence  is  reflected  in  greater
thicknesses  with  limited  westward  extent.  Subsequent  se-

Fig. 17. Regional reflection seismic profile 294 calibrated by wells crossing the Carpathian Foredeep from the proximal to the distal/mar-
ginal parts of the basin. See Fig. 3 for location of the profile.

quences  prograded  further  westward,  where  less  subsid-
ence  provided  less  accommodation  space,  resulting  in  a
thinner  but  wider  extent  of  them.  Progressively  increasing
subsidence  in  response  to  an  advancing  thrust  front,  in-
creasing  thrust  load,  isostatic  adjustment  to  the  load,  and
infilling  of  the  basin  with  a  synorogenic  clastic  wedge,
demonstrating  diachronous  differential  subsidence  in  differ-
ent  parts  of  the  basin  are  the  explanation  for  these  observa-
tions.  Along-strike  variations  in  stratigraphic  thickness  and
systems  tract  and  parasequence  distributions  reflect  the  in-
fluence  of  structural  irregularities  along  the  collisional  mar-
gin  superimposed  on  a  described  long-term  pattern.  The
short  time  taken  for  forebulge  migration  reveals  rapid  oro-
genic  advance  rates  increasing  the  likelihood  of  underfill-
ing  (e.g.  Sinclair  et  al.  1991).

The progression of main tectonic subsidence from the

Late  Egerian  in  the  S  part  to  the  Middle  Miocene  in  the  NE
part  of  the  CF  reflects  an  evolution  in  orientation  of  the
main  convergence  between  the  Alpine/Carpathian  nappe
stack  and  its  foreland  along  the  eastern  margin  of  the  Bohe-
mian  Massif.  If  we  accept  significant  strike  variations  in  tec-
tonic  processes  (diachronous  collision  between  margins
inclined  at  an  angle)  then  we  may  presume  that  the  position
of  basin  depozones  and  axes  changed  dramatically  through
the  time.  The  combination  of  lateral  and  longitudinal  trans-
port  led  to  repeated  redistribution  of  deposits  and  compli-
cated  the  recognition  of  source  areas.

These results may provide insight into the discussion

about  the  occurrence  of  Ottnangian  deposits  in  the  CF
(Jiříček  1983;  Čtyroký  1991,  etc.).  They  are  generally  re-
stricted  within  the  basin  only  to  the  NW  marginal  area  (Rze-
hakia  Beds)  but  with  a  very  limited  occurrence  in  their
internal  parts.  They  are  highly  probably  related  to  sequenc-
es  I,  II,  and  reveals  an  aggradational  depositional  architec-
ture.  These  deposits  represent  an  erosional  relic  and  may  be
connected  to  deposition  in  the  forebulge  or  back-bulge  de-
pozone.  Because  of  the  generally  low  rate  of  tectonic  sub-
sidence  particularly  in  the  distal  area,  eustatic  influence
upon  sedimentation  may  have  been  greater  than  a  tectonic
one.  The  forebulge  became  a  barrier  for  sediment  distribu-

NEHYBA and ŠIKULA

tion  so  that  different  provenances  in  opposite  parts  of  the
basin  can  be  traced.  The  transgressive  onlap  of  Karpatian
deposits  (sequences III  and IV)  upon  deposits  of  various  se-
quences  and  stages  (i.e.  different  extents  of  hiatus)  indicates
erosion  of  Ottnangian  deposits  in  more  proximal  parts  of
the  basin.  The  position  of  the  basin’s  different  depozones
and  their  successive  migration  (reciprocal  stratigraphy)  also
played  an  important  role.  During  a  single  thrusting  event,
flexural  uplift  of  the  forebulge  and  subsidence  of  the  fore-
deep  and  back-bulge  occur  simultaneously.  As  a  result,  op-
posing  relative  trends  in  accommodation  space  or  relative
sea-level  change  are  produced  in  laterally  equivalent  strata.
In  areas  undergoing  flexural  subsidence  (foredeep,  back-
bulge)  accommodation  space  increases  and  deposits  reflect
relative  sea-level  rise.  In  contrast,  accommodation  space  de-
creases  in  areas  undergoing  uplift  (wedge-top,  forebulge)  and

deposits

reveal

shoaling-upward

progradational  trends  ending  in  un-
conformity  surfaces  (Giles  &  Dick-
inson  1995;  Catuneanu  et  al.  1999).

A possible explanation for the

limited  width  of  the  basin  is  an
overall  post-flexural  uplift.  Be-
cause  of  the  basin’s  asymmetrical
shape,  this  process  may  have  ac-
cordingly  narrowed  the  basin  and
accentuated  the  bulge  area.

Conclusions

Five 3

-order depositional se-

quences of the Carpathian Fore-
deep

Basin

were

recognized

within  its  Neogene  infill.  Individ-
ual  sequences  are  characterized  by
typical  basin  shape,  extent,  depo-
sitional  architecture  and  lithofa-
cies,  that  is  by  the  various  roles  of
the  principal  ruling  factors  (eusta-
sy,  tectonics,  sediment  supply,  and
basement  morphology).  4

-order

depositional sequences (transgres-
sive-regressive cycles and their
systems

tracts

were

identified

within these five stages. Recog-
nized 3

-order sequences can be

connected  into  3  stages  of  geody-
namic  development  of  the  basin
according  the  relation  to  the
“main”  collision  within  the  West
Carpathian

accretionary

wedge.

Pre-  (“main”)  collisional  stage
(Eggerian/Eggenburgian)  is  repre-
sented  by  sequence I.  The  most
important

ruling

factors

were

eustasy,  rate  of  sediment  supply
and  basement  relief.  Deposition  in
the  basin  can  be  compared  with

deposits  in  the  marginal  parts  of  the  Alpine  Foredeep  Ba-
sin.  The  collisional  stage  is  reflected  in  three  sequences.
Sequence II  (Eggenburgian—Early  Karpatian)  reflects  the
initiation  of  thrusting  as  the  primary  ruling  factor  creating
accommodation  space,  while  the  role  of  other  factors  (i.e.
eustasy,  sediment  supply  and  relief)  was  supplementary.  A
peripheral  foreland  basin  with  all  the  typical  characteris-
tics  was  formed.  Three  4

-order sequences were recog-

nized  that  are  related  to  deposition  of  the  lower  part  of  the
synorogenic  clastic  wedge.  Sequence  III  (Karpatian)  was
ruled  mainly  by  interactions  between  tectonic/flexural
subsidence  and  isostatic  rebound  associated  with  the  fore-
bulge  migrating  toward  the  foreland  and  thrust  front,  re-
spectively.  Five  4

-order sequences were identified

belonging to the middle part of the clastic wedge. Se-
quence IV (Late Karpatian) comprises the upper part of the

Fig. 18. Schematic evolution of the Carpathian Foredeep. A – Deposition during sequences III
and IV, B – Formation of central depression (incised valley), C – Deposition of sequence V.

– Transport direction.

DEPOSITIONAL ARCHITECTURE, SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY, GEODYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT (CZECH REPUBLIC)

synorogenic  clastic  wedge  that  represents  the  main  colli-
sional  event  and  high  subsidence  in  the  foreland  basin.
Tectonic  processes  dominated  the  depositional  architec-
ture,  directly  affecting  the  basin  fill.  During  this  time,  the
basin  underwent  a  complete  reconstruction,  affecting  its
shape  and  lateral  extent  while  extension  was  causing
flooding  of  the  foreland.  Seven  T-R  cycles  are  recognized;
however,  their  placement  into  4

-order sequences is un-

clear.  Post-  (“main”)  collisional  stage  (Early  Badenian)  is
reflected  in  sequence  V.  Deposition  was  ruled  by  tectonics
and  eustasy.  Accommodation  space  developed  dominant-
ly  in  the  internal  parts  of  the  basin  (incised  valley?).

The sequence stratigraphic study of the western part of

the  Carpathian  Foredeep  suggests  a  complicated  evolu-
tion  of  the  foreland  basin  that  developed  in  the  collisional
zone  located  between  the  Bohemian  Massif  and  both  East-
ern  Alps  and  Western  Carpathians.  The  depositional  archi-
tecture’s  response  to  various  intensities  and  orientations
of  flexural  loading  and  the  active  margin’s  polyphase  na-
ture  can  provide  a  significant  addition  to  the  general  evo-
lutionary  model  of  peripheral  foreland  basins.

Acknowledgments:  This  study  was  graciously  sponsored
by  grant  No. 205/03/1204  of  the  Czech  Grant  Agency  and
by  the  Research  Project  MSM  0021622412.  We  thank
Prof.  M.  Kováč,  Dr.  B.  Šály  and  another  anonymous  re-
viewer  for  their  constructive  revisions  and  comments  on
the  drafts  of  this  paper.  The  manuscript  also  greatly  bene-
fited  from  the  discussions  with  Prof.  W.  Nemec.

References

Allen J.R.L. 1982: Mud drapes in sand wave deposits: a physical

model  with  application  to  the  Folkestone  Beds  (Early  Creta-
ceous,  southern  England).  Philos.  Trans.  Roy.  Soc.  London,
Ser.  A  306,  291—345.

Allen P.A., Homewood P. & Williams G.D. 1986: Foreland basins:

an introduction. Spec. Publ. Int. Assoc. Sed. 8, 3—12.

Amorosi A. 1995: Glaucony and sequence stratigraphy: a concep-

tual framework of distribution in siliciclastic sequences. J. Sed.
Res. 65, 4, 419—425.

Beaumont C. 1981: Foreland basins. Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc.

55, 291—329.

Blair T.C. & Bilodeau W.L. 1988: Development of tectonic cy-

clothems in rift, pull-apart, and foreland basins: Sedimentary
response to episodic tectonism. Geology 16, 517—520.

Bradley D.C. & Kidd W.S.F. 1991: Flexural extension of the upper

continental crust in collisional Foredeeps. Geol. Soc. Amer.
Bull. 103, 1416—1438.

Brzobohatý R. & Cicha I. 1993: Carpathian Foredeep. In: Přichys-

tal A., Obstová V. & Suk M. (Eds.): Geology of Moravia and
Silesia. MZM, PřF MU 123—128 (in Czech).

Burbank D.W. & Beck R.A. 1991: Models of aggradation versus

progradation in the Himalayan Foreland. Geol. Rdsch. 80, 3,
623—638.

Burbank D.W., Beck R.A., Raynolds R.G.H., Hobbs R. & Ta-

hirkhell R.A.K. 1988: Thrusting and gravel progradation in
foreland basins: A test of post-thrusting gravel dispersal. Geol-
ogy 16, 1143—1146.

Busby C.J. & Ingersoll R.V. 1995: Tectonics of sedimentary basins.

Blackwell Sci., 1—579.

Cant D.J. 1996: Sedimentological and sequence stratigraphic orga-

nization of foreland clastic wedge, Manville Group, Western
Canada basin. J. Sed. Res. 66, 6, 1137—1147.

Castle J.W. 2001: Appalachian basin stratigraphic response to con-

vergent margin structural evolution. Basin Res. 13, 397—418.

Catuneanu O., Beaumont C. & Waschbusch P. 1997: Interplay of

static  loads  and  subduction  dynamics  in  foreland  basins:  Re-
ciprocal  stratigraphies  and  the  “missing”  peripheral  bulge.  Ge-
ology  25,  12,  1087—1090.

Catuneanu O., Sweet A.R. & Miall A.D. 1999: Concept and styles

of reciprocal stratigraphies: Western Canada Foreland system.
Terra Nova 11, 1, 1—8.

Cloetingh S., Van Balen R.T., Ter Voorde M., Zoetemeijer B.P. &

Den  Bezemer  T.  1997:  Mechanical  aspects  of  sedimentary  ba-
sin  formation:  development  of  integrated  models  for  lithos-
pheric and surface processes. Geol. Rdsch. 86,  226—240.

Cogan J., Lerche I., Dorman J.T. & Kanes W. 1993: Flexural plate

inversion: application to the Carpathian Foredeep, Czechoslo-
vakia. Modern. Geol. 17, 355—392.

Crampton S.L. & Allen P.A. 1995: Recognition of forebulge un-

conformities  associated  with  early  stage  foreland  basin  devel-
opment:  example  from  the  north  Alpine  foreland  basin.  AAPG
Bull.  79,  1495—1514.

Čtyroký P. 1991: Division and correlation of the Eggenburgian

and Ottnangian in the Carpathian Foredeep in Southern
Moravia. Západ. Karpaty, Sér. Geol. 15, 67—109 (in Czech).

DeCelles P.G. & Giles K. A. 1996: Foreland basin systems. Basin

Res. 8, 105—123.

Dott R. & Bourgeois J. 1982: Hummocky cross-stratification: sig-

nificance of its variable bedding sequences. Bull. Geol. Soc.
Amer. 93, 663—680.

Driese S.G., Fischer M.W., Easthouse K.A., Marks G.T., Gogola A.R.

& Schoner A.E. 1992: Model for genesis of shoreface and shelf
sequences,  southern  Appalachians:  palaeoenvironmental  recon-
struction of an Early Silurian shelf system. In: Swift D.J.P., Oer-
tel  G.F.,  Tillman  R.W.  &  Thorne  J.A.  (Eds.):  Shelf  sand  and
sandstone  bodies.  IAS,  Spec.  Publ.  14,  309—338.

Einsele G. 2000: Sedimentary basins. Evolution, facies and sedi-

ment budget. Springer, Berlin, 1—792.

Emmery D. & Myers K.J. 1996: Sequence stratigraphy. Blackwell

Sci., London, 1—297.

Flemings P.B. & Jordan T.E. 1989: Stratigraphic modelling of fore-

land basins: Interpreting thrust deformation and lithospere rhe-
ology. Geology 18, 430—434.

Giles K.A. & Dickinson W.R. 1995: The interplay of eustasy and

lithospheric flexure in forming stratigraphic sequences in fore-
land  settings:  an  example  from  the  Antler  foreland,  Nevada
and  Utah.  Stratigraphic  Evolution  of  Foreland  Basins,  SEPM
Spec.  Publ.  52,  187—198.

Gorin G.E., Signer C. & Amberger G. 1993: Structural configura-

tion of the western Swiss Molasse Basin as defined by reflec-
tion seismic data. Eclogae Geol. Helv. 86, 3, 693—716.

Greenwood B. & Sherman D.J. 1986: Hummocky cross-stratifica-

tion in the surf zone: flow parameters and bedding genesis.
Sedimentology 33, 33—45.

Gupta S. & Allen P.A. 1999: Fossil shore platforms and drowned grav-

el beaches: evidence for high frequency sea-level fluctuations in
the distal Alpine foreland basin. J. Sed. Res. 69, 394—413.

Hamblin A.P. & Walker R.G. 1979: Storm dominated shallow ma-

rine deposits: The Fernie-Kootenay (Jurassic) transition, south-
ern Rocky Mountains. Canad. J. Earth Sci. 16, 1673—1690.

Haq U.B. 1991: Sequence stratigraphy, sea-level change, and sig-

nificance for deep sea. Spec. Publ. Int. Assoc. Sed. 12, 3—39.

Harms J.C., Southard J.B. & Walker R.B. 1975: Structures and se-

quences in clastic rocks. Short Course Soc. Econ. Paleont.
Miner., Tulsa 9.

NEHYBA and ŠIKULA

Heller P.L., Angevine C.L., Winslow N.S. & Paola C. 1988: Two

phase stratigraphic model of foreland – basin sequences. Ge-
ology 16, 501—504.

Hill P.R., Meulé S. & Longuépée H. 2003: Combined-flow process-

es  and  sedimentary  structures  on  the  shoreface  of  the  wave-
dominated  Grande-Riviere-De-La-Baleine  delta.  J.  Sed.  Res.
73,  2,  217—226.

Hunter R.E. & Clifton H.E. 1982: Cyclic deposits and hummocky

cross-stratification  of  probable  storm  origin  in  Upper  Creta-
ceous  rocks  of  Cape  Sebastian  area,  southwestern  oregon.  J.
Sed.  Petrology  52,  127—144.

Janbu N.E., Nemec W., Kirman E. & Özaksoy V. (in print): Facies

anatomy  of  a  sand-rich  channelized  turbiditic  system:  the
Eocene  Kusuri  Formation  in  the  Sinop  Basin,  north-central
Turkey.  IAS,  Spec.  Publ.

Jiříček R. 1983: Geology of Lower Miocene in the Carpathian Fore-

deep in the section South. Zemní Plyn nafta 28, 2, 197—212
(in Czech).

Jiříček R. 1995: Stratigraphy and geology of the Lower Miocene

sediments of the Carpathian Foredeep in South Moravia and
adjacent part of Lower Austria. Nové výsledky v terciéru Zá-
padních Karpat II, Knihovnička ZPN, 16, 37—65 (in Czech).

Johnson D.C. & Beaumont C. 1995: Preliminary results from a

planform  kinematic  model  of  orogen  evolution,  surface  pro-
cesses  and  the  development  of  clastic  foreland  basin  stratigra-
phy.  Stratigraphic  Evolution  of  Foreland  basins,  SEPM  Spec.
Publ.  52,  1—24.

Johnson J.G., Klapper G. & Sandberg C.A. 1985: Devonian eustatic

fluctuations in Euramerica. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 96, 567—587.

Kalvoda J., Bábek O., Fatka O., Leichmann J., Melichar R., Nehyba

S. & Špaček P. (2007): Brunovistulian terrane (Bohemian
Massif, Central Europe) from late Proterozoic to late Paleozo-
ic. Int. J. Geosci. (in print).

Keith D.A.W. 1992: Truncated prograding strandplain or offshore

sand  body?  –  Sedimentology  and  geometry  of  the  Cardium
(Turonian)  sandstone  and  conglomerate  at  Willesden  Green
field,  Alberta.  In:  Swift  D.J.P.,  Oertel  G.F.,  Tillman  R.W.  &
Thorne  J.A.  (Eds.):  Shelf  sand  and  sandstone  bodies.  IAS,
Spec.  Publ.  14,  457—487.

Kelling G. & Mullin P.R. 1975: Graded limestones and limestone-

quartzite couplets: possible storm deposits from the Moroccan
Carboniferous. Sed. Geol. 13, 161—190.

Kováč M. 2000: Geodynamic, paleogeographical and structural de-

velopment  of  the  Miocene  Carpatho-Pannonian  region.  New
view  on  the  Slovak  Neogene  basins.  Veda,  Bratislava,  1—176
(in  Slovak).

Kováč M., Nagymarosy A., Soták J. & Šútovská K. 1995: Late Ter-

tiary paleogeographic evolution of the Western Carpathians.
Tectonophysics 226, 401—415.

Kováč M., Baráth I., Harzhauser M., Hlavatý I. & Hudáčková N.

2004: Miocene depositional systems and sequence stratigraphy
of the Vienna basin. Cour. Forschungsinst. Senckenberg 246,
187—212.

Krzywiec P. 2001: Contrasting tectonic and sedimentary history of

the central and eastern parts of the Polish Carpathian Foredeep
basin – results of seismic data interpretation. Mar. Petrol.
Geol. 18, 13—38.

Krzywiec P. & Jochym P. 1997: Characteristics of Miocene sub-

ductional zone in the Polish Carpathians: results of flexural
modeling. Przegl. Geol. 45, 8, 785—792 (in Polish).

Lankreijer A., Bielik M., Cloetingh S. & Maicin D. 1999: Rheology

predictions  across  the  western  Carpathians,  Bohemian  massif,
and  the  Pannonian  basin:  Implications  for  tectonic  scenarios.
Tectonics  18,  6,  1139—1153.

Loutit T.S., Hardenbol J. & Vail P.R. 1988: Condensed sections: the

key to age determination and correlation of continental margin

sequences.  In:  Wilgus  C.K.,  Hastings  B.S.,  Kendall  C.G.St.C.,
Posamentier H.W., Ross C.A. & VanWagoner J.C. (Eds.): Sea
Level  changes:  An  integrated  approach.  SEPM,  Spec.  Publ.
42,  183—213.

Mandić O., Harzhauser M. & Roetzel R. 2004: Taphonomy and se-

quence  stratigraphy  of  spectacular  shell  accumulations  from
the type stratum of the Central Parathethys stage Eggenburgian
(Lower  Miocene,  NE  Austria).  Cour.  Forschungsinst.  Senck-
enberg  246,  69—88.

Mars J.C. & Thomas W.A. 1999: Sequential filling of a Late Paleo-

zoic foreland basin. J. Sed. Res. 69, 6, 1191—1208.

Martín-Martín M., Rey J., Alcala-Garcia F.J., Tosquella J., Dera-

mond  J.,  Lara-Corona  E.,  Duranthon  F.  &  Antoine  P.O.  2001:
Tectonic controls on the deposits of a foreland basin: an exam-
ple  from  the  Eocene  Corbières-Minervois  basin,  France.  Basin
Res.  13,  419—433.

McCave I.N. 1970: Deposition of fine-grained suspended sediment

from tidal currents. J. Geophys. Res. 75, 4151—4159.

McCave I.N. 1971: Wave effectiveness at the sea bed and its rela-

tionship to bed-forms and deposition of mud. J. Sed. Petrolo-
gy 41, 89—96.

Mellere D. & Steel R.J. 1995: Facies architecture and sequentiality

of nearshore and “shelf” sandbodies; Haystack Mountains For-
mation, Wyoming, USA. Sedimentology 42, 551—574.

Milton N.J. & Bertram G.B. 1996: Tectonic controls on system tract

development:  implication  for  hydrocarbon  exploration.  In:
Hesselbo S.P. & Parkinson D.N. (Eds.): Sequence stratigraphy
and  its  application  to  the  British  stratigraphic  record.  Geol.
Soc.,  London,  Spec.  Publ.,  1—130.

Nehyba S. 1997: Miocene volcaniclastics of the Carpathian Fore-

deep in the Czech Republic. Bull. Czech Geol. Surv. 72, 4,
313—327.

Nehyba S. 2000: The cyclicity of the lower Miocene deposits of the

SW  part  of  the  Carpathian  Foredeep  as  the  depositional  re-
sponse  to  sediment  supply  and  sea-level  changes.  Geol.  Car-
pathica  51,  1,  7—17.

Nehyba S. 2001: Lower Badenian coarse-grained deltas in the

southern part of the Carpathian Foredeep (Czech Republic).
Abstracts of IAS Meeting 2001, 97, Davos.

Nehyba S. & Petrová P. 2000: Karpatian sandy deposits in the

southern part of the Carpathian Foredeep in Moravia. Bull.
Czech Geol. Surv. 75, 1, 53—66.

Nehyba S. & Buriánek D. 2004: Chemistry of garnet and tourma-

line – contribution to provenance studies of fine-grained
Neogene deposits of the Carpathian Foredeep. Acta Mus.
Moraviae, Sci. Geol. 1994, 149—159 (in Czech).

Nehyba S. & Roetzel R. 1999: Lower Miocene volcaniclastics in

South Moravia and Lower Austria. Jb. Geol. Gessel., Wien
141, 4.

Nehyba S., Roetzel R. & Adamová M. 1999: Tephrostratigraphy of

the Neogene volcaniclastics (Moravia, Lower Austria, Poland).
Geol. Carpathica, Spec. Issue 50, 126—128.

Nehyba S., Petrová P. & Šikula J. 2000: Correlation of Karpatian

deposits in the southern part of the Carpathian Foredeep. Geo-
lines 10, 57—58.

Nehyba S., Hubatka F. & Šikula J. 2003: Structural configuration and

lithofacies of the southeastern part of the Carpathian Foredeep ba-
sin as defined by subsurface data. Geolines 2003, 16, 78.

Peper T. 1993: Tectonic control on the sedimentary record in fore-

land basins. PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 1—188.

Peper T., van Balen R. & Cloetingh S. 1995: Implications of oro-

genic  wedge  growth,  intraplate  stress  variations,  and  eustatic
sea-level  change  for  foreland  basin  stratigraphy  –  inferences
from  numerical  modeling.  Stratigraphic  Evolution  of  Fore-
land  basins,  SEPM,  Spec.  Publ.  52,  25—35.

Plint A.G. 1988: Sharp-based shoreface sequences and “offshore

DEPOSITIONAL ARCHITECTURE, SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY, GEODYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT (CZECH REPUBLIC)

bars”  in  the  Cardium  Formation  of  Alberta:  their  relationship
to relative changes in sea level. In: Wilgus C.K., Hastings B.B.,
Kendall C.G.St.C., Posamentier H.W., Ross C.A. & Van Wag-
oner  J.C.  (Eds.):  Sea-level  changes  –  an  integrated  approach.
SEPM,  Spec.  Publ.  42,  357—370.

Plint A.G. 1991: High-frequency relative sea level changes. In:

MacDonald D.I.M. (Ed.): Sedimentation, tectonics and eusta-
sy. IAS, Spec. Publ. 12, 409—428.

Plint G.A., Hart B.S. & Donaldson S. 1993: Lithosperic flexure as a

control on stratal geometry and facies distribution in Upper
Cretaceous rocks of the Alberta foreland basin. Basin Res. 5,
69—77.

Posamentier H.W. & Allen G.P. 1993: Siliciclastic sequence strati-

graphic patterns in foreland ramp type basins. Geology 21,
455—458.

Posamentier H.W. & James D.P. 1993: An overview of sequence

stratigraphic concepts: uses and abuses. In: Posamentier H.W.,
Summerhayes C.P., Haq B.U. & Allen G.P. (Eds.): Sequence
stratigraphy and facies associations. IAS, Spec. Publ. 18, 3—18.

Posamentier H.W., Jervey M.T. & Vail P.R. 1988: Eustatic controls

on  clastic  deposition  II  –  conceptual  framework.  In:  Wilgus
C.K.,  Hastings  B.B.,  Kendall  C.G.St.C.,  Posamentier  H.W.,
Ross C.A. & Van Wagoner J.C. (Eds.): Sea-level changes. An
integrated  approach.  SEPM,  Spec.  Publ.  42,  125—154.

Reading H.G. 1996: Sedimentary environments: processes, facies

and stratigraphy. Blackwell Sci., Oxford, 3

ed. 154—232.

Reineck H.E. & Singh I.B. 1984: Depositional sedimentary envi-

ronments. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1—549.

Sedlák J. 2000: Map of complete Bouguer anomalies of the Czech

Republic 1 : 200,000. Geofyzika, Brno.

Schlager W. 1993: Accommodation and supply – a dual control

on stratigraphic sequences. Sed. Geol. 86, 111—133.

Schlunegger F., Leu W. & Matter A. 1997: Sedimentary sequences,

seismic facies, subsidence analysis and evolution of the Burdi-
galian Upper marine Molasse Group, Central Switzerland.
AAPG Bull. 81, 7, 1185—1207.

Sinclair H.D. 1997: Tectonostratigraphic model for underfilled pe-

ripheral foreland basin: An Alpine perspective. Geol. Soc.

Amer. Buill. 109, 3, 324—346.

Sinclair H.D., Coakley B.J., Allen P.A. & Watts A.B. 1991: Simula-

tion of foreland basin stratigraphy using a diffusion model of
mountain belt uplift and erosion: An example from the central
Alps, Switzerland. Tectonics 10, 599—620.

Stevens S.H. & Moore G.F. 1985: Deformational and sedimentary

processes in trench slope basins of the Western Sunda arc, In-
donesia. Mar. Geol. 69, 93—112.

Šikula J. & Nehyba S. 2004: Lithofacies analysis of Miocene sedi-

ments in the southern part of Carpathian Foredeep based on
the re-interpretation of drill logging data. Bull. Geosci. 79, 3,
167—176.

Thorne J.A. & Swift D.J.P. 1992: Sedimentation on continental

margins  VI:  a  regime  model  for  depositional  sequences,  their
component  systems  tracts,  and  bounding  surfaces.  In:  Swift
D.J.P.,  Oertel  G.F.,  Tillman  R.W.  &  Thorne  J.A.  (Eds.):  Shelf
sand  and  sandstone  bodies.  IAS,  Spec.  Publ.  14,  189—255.

Tomek V. 1999: Inversion of the Carpathian Foredeep in Moravia: re-

flection seismic evidence. Buil. Panst. Inst. Geol. 387, 189—190.

Tucker M.E. 2001: Sedimentary petrology. Blackwell Science,

Oxford, 1—262.

Uličný D. 1999: Sequence stratigraphy of the Dakota Formation

(Cenomanian), southern Utah: interplay of eustasy and tecton-
ics in a foreland basin. Sedimentology 46, 807—836.

Van Wagoner J.C., Posamentier H.W., Mitchum R.M., Vail P.R.,

Sarg  J.F.,  Loutit  T.S.  &  Hardenbol  J.  1988:  An  overview  of
fundamentals  of  sequence  stratigraphy  and  key  definitions.  In:
Wilgus  C.K.,  Hastings  B.B.,  Kendall  C.G.St.C.,  Posamentier
H.W., Ross C.A. & Van Wagoner J.C. (Eds.): Sea-level chang-
es. An integrated approach. SEPM, Spec. Publ.  42,  39—44.

Walker R.G. 1990: Facies modeling and sequence stratigraphy. J.

Sed. Petrology 60, 5, 778—786.

Walker R.G. & Plint A.G. 1992: Wave- and storm-dominated shal-

low marine systems. In: Walker R.G. & James N.P. (Eds.): Fa-
cies Models. Geol. Assoc. Canada, 219—238.

Zoetemeijer R., Tomek C. & Cloetingh S. 1999: Flexural expres-

sion of European continental lithosphere under the Western
Outer Carpathians. Tectonics 18, 843—861.