GeolCarp_Vol68_No5_403

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, OCTOBER 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

doi: 10.1515/geoca-2017-0027

www.geologicacarpathica.com

Stratigraphic and tectonic control of deep-water scarp

accumulation in Paleogene synorogenic basins: a case

study of the Súľov Conglomerates (Middle Váh Valley,

Western Carpathians)

JÁN SOTÁK

1,2

, ZUZANA PULIŠOVÁ

, DUŠAN PLAŠIENKA

and VIERA ŠIMONOVÁ

Earth Science Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Ďumbierska 1, 974 01 Banská Bystrica, Slovakia;

sotak@savbb.sk, pulisova@savbb.sk

Department of Geography, Faculty of Education, KU Ružomberok, Hrabovská cesta 1, 03401 Ružomberok, Slovakia

Department of Geology and Paleontology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava 4, Slovakia;

plasienka@fns.uniba.sk

Department of Geography and Geology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Matej Bel University, Tajovského 40, 974 01 Banská Bystrica, Slovakia;

viera.simonova@umb.sk

(Manuscript received February 13, 2017; accepted in revised form June 9, 2017)

Abstract: The Súľov Conglomerates represent mass-transport deposits of the Súľov–Domaniža Basin. Their lithosomes

are intercalated by claystones of late Thanetian (Zones P3 – P4), early Ypresian (Zones P5 – E2) and late Ypresian to early

Lutetian (Zones E5 – E9) age. Claystone interbeds contain rich planktonic and agglutinated microfauna, implying

deep-water environments of gravity-flow deposition. The basin was supplied by continental margin deposystems, and

filled with submarine landslides, fault-scarp breccias, base-of-slope aprons, debris-flow lobes and distal fans of debrite

and turbidite deposits. Synsedimentary tectonics of the Súľov–Domaniža Basin started in the late Thanetian – early

Ypresian by normal faulting and disintegration of the orogenic wedge margin. Fault-related fissures were filled by

carbonate bedrock breccias and banded crystalline calcite veins (onyxites). The subsidence accelerated during the

Ypresian and early Lutetian by gravitational collapse and subcrustal tectonic erosion of the CWC plate. The basin

subsided to lower bathyal up to abyssal depth along with downslope accumulation of mass-flow deposits. Tectonic

inversion of the basin resulted from the Oligocene – early Miocene transpression (σ

rotated from NW–SE to NNW–SSE),

which changed to a transpressional regime during the Middle Miocene (σ

rotated from NNE–SSW to NE–SW). Late

Miocene tectonics were dominated by an extensional regime with σ

axis in NNW–SSE orientation.

Keywords: carbonate breccias, Súľov Fm., late Thanetian–Lutetian, mass-transport deposits, deep-water basin,

subduction, tectonic erosion.

Introduction

The Súľov Conglomerates occur in the Middle Váh Valley

area as coarse-grained lithosomes in the Súľov–Domaniža

Basin (SDB). This basin is superposed on the frontal units of

the Central Western Carpathians (CWC). The thickness of the

Súľov Conglomerates is estimated between 750 m and 1200 m.

Western and eastern belts of the Súľov Conglomerates are

divided by the Prečín–Súľov fault, and separated by the Creta-

ceous formations of the Krížna and Manín Units cropping out

in the Súľov window (Marschalko & Kysela 1980; Rakús &

Hók 2003) — Fig. 1. In general, the tectonic structure of the

area resulted from the Cretaceous nappe stacking (prior to

Middle Turonian) of the CWC Fatric and Hronic nappe sys-

tems, post-nappe folding, gravitational collapse of the oro-

genic wedge and accommodation of the Late Cretaceous–

Paleogene basins, and early Miocene transpression and

transtension. Kinematic and paleostress analyses of brittle

fault structures of the Mesozoic nappe units was performed in

the western part of the Pieniny Klippen Belt (PKB) and

Peri-Klippen zones (Kováč & Hók 1996; Bučová et al. 2010;

Šimonová & Plašienka 2011, 2017). Current research has

completed these tectonic investigations by structural analysis

of the Paleogene formations of the Middle Váh Valley area,

providing information about younger tectonic phases, which

controlled the subsidence and inversion of the Súľov–

Domaniža Basin.

The sedimentary formations of the Súľov–Domaniža Basin

are divided into the Súľov Fm. (Andrusov 1965) and Domaniža

Fm. (Samuel 1972). The Súľov Fm. consists of three litostrati-

graphic units, which begin with basal conglomerates over-

lying the Manín Unit and the higher Fatric and Hronic nappes

(Svinské chlievy Mb. sensu Salaj 1993), followed by thick

lithosomes of carbonatic breccias and conglomerates (Súľov

Conglomerates s.s.) and intraformational conglomerates in

flysch-type sediments (Paština Závada Mb. sensu Buček &

Nagy in Mello et al. 2011).

Stratigraphic assessment of the Súľov Conglomerates is

constrained by their superposition above the Upper Paleocene

to Lower Eocene limestones and carbonatic sandstones of the

404

SOTÁK, PULIŠOVÁ, PLAŠIENKA and ŠIMONOVÁ

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

Jablonové Formation, as well as above the flysch sediments

with blocks of biohermal limestones of the Hričovské

Podhradie Fm. and their conglomerate lithosomes (Ovčiarsko

Mb.). Their stratigraphic age was determined predominantly

by using large benthic foraminifers from underlying forma-

tions (Samuel et al. 1972) and planktonic foraminifers from

the overlying Domaniža Fm. (Samuel & Salaj 1968; Samuel et

al. 1972). However, direct evidence for the stratigraphic age of

the Súľov Conglomerates acquired by planktonic microfauna

is still missing.

The paper presents new structural, sedimentological and

biostratigraphic data gathered by investigation of the Súľov

Conglomerates in the Middle Váh Valley area.

Regional geological setting

The geological structure of the

Middle Váh Valley area (Fig. 1) is

very complicated due to frontal

thrust stacking of the Central

Carpathian nappes and PKB

Oravic units (Manín, Kostelec,

Klape, Podháj, Podmanín units,

etc. — Mello et al. 2011), super-

posed by Late Cretaceous flysch

units, Gosau-type sediments

(Rašov facies), and Paleogene

sediments of the Hričov–Žilina

belt and Súľov–Domaniža Basin

(“flysch” means a regional widely

used term for turbiditic deep-sea

fan sediments in the Northern

Apennines, Alps and Carpathians

— for historical review see Mutti

et al. 2009).

The tectonic position of the

Mesozoic units has been a matter

of debate for a long time. Different

views concern especially the tec-

tonic position of the Manín Unit,

which was placed between the

Tatricum and PKB (Andrusov

1938, 1945), or its attribution to

a marginal development of the

Tatric or Fatric units was pro-

posed by Maheľ (1946, 1948,

1950). The Manín Unit shows

affinity to the PKB units by the

presence of thick prisms of Albian

flysch formations (Rakús &

Marschalko 1997; Marschalko &

Kysela 1980). The relationship of

the Manín Unit to the Tatricum

was preferred by Rakús & Hók

(2005), considering the Turonian

age of its youngest stratigraphic

formations. Senonian formations

of the Podmanín Group, which were formerly assigned to the

Manín Unit (Kysela et al. 1982) or to the Podháj Unit (Salaj

1990), were included in a footwall unit close to the Klape and

Oravic units (Rakús & Hók 2005). According to Plašienka &

Soták (2015), the Senonian formations could represent a new

sedimentary cycle after a nappe thrusting of the Manín and

Klape units, so belonging to the Gosau Group (see also Salaj

2006).

During the Late Cretaceous to Paleogene tectogenesis, units

of the Klippen Belt were folded and incorporated into the

Mesoalpine accretion wedge. The geological structure of the

Klippen and Peri-Klippen units in the Middle Váh Valley area

has also been the subject of current research (Kováč & Hók

Váh

Považská

Bystrica

Žilina

Pružina

Domaniža

Súľov

0 km

15 km

Manín Unit;

Jurassic-Cenomanian

Krížna Unit;

Upper Triassic - Lower Cretaceous

Klape Unit;

Tithonian-Lower Santonian

Žilina - Hričov Zone - flysch with blocks
of bioherm limestones;

Paleocene

Biele Karpaty Unit (Svodnica Fm, Bystrica Mb);

Paleocene-Lower Eocene

Kysuce Unit;

Upper Campanian-Maastrichtian

Huty Formation;

Upper Eocene - Oligocene

Hronic Unit;

Triassic

Tatric Unit (Lúžna and Werfen Fm.);

Scythian

Neogene sediments

Legend

Domaniža Formation;

Lutetian-Bartonian

Súľov conglomerates; Ypresian - Lutetian

overthrust of Hronic nappes

overthrust of Fatric nappes

reverse faults

Fig. 1. Simplified geological map of the Middle Váh region showing the frontal nappe units of the

Central Western Carpathians (Malenica, Manín, Hradná, Kostolec, and other units), Peri-Klippen

zone (Klape, Podháj, Praznov–Jablonica and Hričov–Žilina units) and Pieniny Klippen Belt. These

Mesozoic units are overlain by Paleogene sediments of the Súľov–Domaniža Basin, predominantly

by thick formations of the Súľov Conglomerates (based on the maps by Biely et al. 1996 and Mello

et al. 2011).

405

THE SÚĽOV CONGLOMERATES — STRATIGRAPHY AND TECTONICS

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

1993; Bučová et al. 2010; Šimonová & Plašienka 2011, 2017;

Plašienka 2012; Prokešová et al. 2012; Bučová 2013).

Carbonate conglomerates in the Middle Váh Valley area

were introduced under the name Súľov Conglomerates by Štúr

(1860). They form a complex brachysynclinal structure

spreading in the NW–SE direction, which is underlain by the

mid-Cretaceous formations of the Kostolec and Manín units

(Hradná succession sensu Rakús & Hók 2005). Starting from

the earliest research, the Súľov Conglomerates were consi-

dered as basal transgressive sediments of the Central

Carpathian Paleogene formations (Uhlig 1903). Based on this

position, a Middle to Late Eocene age of the Súľov

Conglomerates and breccias was assumed (Andrusov 1965;

Chmelík 1967). However, later studies found that the Súľov

Conglomerates are developing from the Jablonové Fm., which

proves to be of Ilerdian–Cuisian age (Samuel et al. 1972). That

was a reason why an Early Eocene age (Cuisian=Ypresian)

was also assigned to the Súľov Conglomerates. The conglo-

merates are overlain by turbiditic sediments of the Domaniža

Fm., the Lutetian age of which was proven by planktonic

foraminifers and nannofossils (Samuel et al. 1972; Peterčáková

1987). The transitional part of these formations is formed by

the Paština Závada Mb., in which the conglomerates are inter-

calated with claystones and turbiditic deposits of the Domaniža

Fm. (Buček & Nagy in Mello et al. 2011). Nevertheless, until

now the exact age of conglomerates of the Súľov Fm. and

Paština Závada Mb. has been documented only very rarely

by planktonic microfauna (e.g., Globigerina conglomerata,

G. eocaena, Globorotalia cf. crassaformis, etc.; Benešová in

Maheľ et al. 1962).

The Súľov Conglomerates form rocky crests in two moun-

tain belts. The western belt is formed by steeply SE-dipping up

to subvertical (60°– 80°) lithosomes of conglomerates in rocky

cliffs at Baňa (662.5 m a.s.l.), Veľký Pezínok (416.2 m),

Zámok (660.0 m), Brada (816.0 m) and Holý vrch (658.9 m)

hills — Fig. 2A. Conglomerates of the western belt form

a plunging syncline, which is steeply amputated and over-

thrust by the conglomerates of the eastern belt along the Prečín

fault. The conglomerate lithosomes of the eastern branch

are gently dipping (25°– 40°), forming the rocky crests

between Roháč (802.7 m) and Žibrid (867.0 m) hills

(Fig. 2B), and extending to Lietava, Babkov and Peklina

villages. Basinward to the Brezany and Domaniža–Pružina

depressions, they form thick intraformational conglomerates of

the Paština Závada Mb.

The Súľov Conglomerates belong to the Súľov Fm. of the

Myjava–Hričov Group (Danian–Middle Lutetian). This for-

mation started to develop by the Early Eocene transgression

(Mello et al. 2011). The transgressive conglomerates overlay

the Upper Paleocene–Lower Eocene organodetritic limestones

in the Pružina area (e.g., Riedka locality) and Hričov–

Jablonové area. The synclinal belts of the Súľov Conglomerates

exhibit no conformity with basement structures of the

Paleogene basin. This points to a structural discordance

between the Súľov–Domaniža Basin and the Mesozoic nappe

and Klippen belt units (cf. Marschalko & Samuel 1993).

Material and methods

The Súľov Formation consists of monogenic carbonate

breccias and conglomerates (Fig. 3). The term breccia is valid

for very poorly sorted to unsorted, coarse-grained sediments

composed of angular, often shard-like clasts of limestones and

dolo stones (Eyles & Januszczak 2007). Breccias and con-

glomerates of the Súľov Fm. represent various types of gravity

flow deposits (Marschalko & Samuel 1993). However, the

classification and terminology of gravity flow deposits is

purely constrained. Different authors emphasized manifold

parameters in their classification schemes, like sediment con-

centration, fluid turbulence, rheology and physical properties

of the flows (Gani 2004, and references herein). Interpretation

of debris-flow deposits also differs in two distinct models:

viscoplastic and inertial grain flow models (see Sohn 2000 for

the review). Debrites are commonly regarded as sediments of

cohesive flows (e.g., Lowe 1982). For genetic classification of

the Súľov Conglomerates, as dominantly mud-free deposits,

an inertial grain flow model proposed by Takahashi (1978,

Fig. 2. Panoramic view of rocky crests built by the Súľov

Conglomerates. A — Veľký Pezínok–Dolné Skálie group of rocky

cliffs in the western belt of the Súľov Conglomerates; B — Roháč

group of rocky cliffs in the eastern belt of the Súľov Conglomerates.

407

THE SÚĽOV CONGLOMERATES — STRATIGRAPHY AND TECTONICS

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

1991, 1997) is more reliable. This model interprets the debris

flow deposition by grain collisions, shear stress and dispersive

pressure, which drops leading to “freezing” of the flow.

Therefore, coarse-grained sediments, like those in the Súľov

Fm., can include both debrites of cohesive flows (with

Bingham plastic rheo logy) and non-cohesive flows (non-

Newtonian dilatant fluid rheology — sensu Gani 2004).

Biostratigraphic data come from planktonic foraminiferal

microfauna, which has been obtained from claystones in basal

parts of the Súľov Fm. (loc. Pažice in Hradná creek, 220 m SE

above the Jablonové quarry (N 49°10’32.2”; E 18°34’20.2”),

from claystone interbeds within the Súľov Conglomerates at

the locality Čierny potok Creek (N 49°09’0.3”; E 18°33’38.7”),

Lúka pod hradom (N 49°10’43.1”; E 18°35’13.1”), and

from the Paština Závada Beds at the locality Lietava

(N 49°10’7.7”; E 18°40’34.6”), Lietavská Závada (N 49°10’46.7”;

E 18°37’42.6”) and Prečín (N 49°08’5.1”; E 18°51’51.6”).

The microfauna has been analysed using systems of taxo-

nomic classification and biostratigraphic zonation of

Paleogene foraminifers (Blow 1979; Berggren & Miller 1988;

Olsson et al. 1999; Berggren & Pearson 2005; Pearson et al.

2006; Wade et al. 2011). The age data were constrained on the

basis of foraminiferal index species, marked by their lowest

and highest occurrences (LO, HO).

Field investigations were focused on the structural analysis

of tectonic deformation of the Súľov Conglomerates in the

Middle Váh Valley area, and on sampling of sections for

biostratigraphic research. The structural research involves

kine matic interpretation of joints, fault planes and shear-sense

indicators on fault planes (fault striae, Riedel shears, accre-

tionary mineral steps). The measured fault data have been

processed by the paleostress inversion method (Angelier

1994) and P–T axis method, using software package TENSOR

(Delvaux 1993; Delvaux & Sperner 2003).

The field data give a structural record of several successive

deformation events. In order to determine individual deforma-

tion phases, it was necessary to perform paleostress analysis in

rocks of different ages. Therefore, the structural data were

measured in Triassic complexes of the Hronic Ostrá Malenica

and Považie nappes, mid-Cretaceous formations of the Fatric

Krížna unit and Kostolec–Manín units (Hradná succession),

Ilerdian–Cuisian formations (Jablonové, Riedka), Súľov

Conglomerates and Paština Závada Member (Lutetian). There

were very rare possibilities to identify successive deforma-

tional phases from intersection of slickenside structures

observed on the fault plane. Our data on brittle tectonic struc-

tures in the Súľov Conglomerates have been combined with

previous structural works of other authors (e.g., Šimonová &

Plašienka 2011, 2017; Bučová 2013).

Biostratigraphic data and depositional age

Planktonic foraminiferal microfauna has been obtained

from five localities in different parts of the Súľov Fm. (Fig. 4).

Basal part of the formation occurs in turbiditic beds between

the Súľov Conglomerates and Jablonové Fm. (loc. Pažice,

Hradná creek, 220 m above the Jablonové quarry). Claystones

are poor in planktonic foraminifers, which comprise

Globanomalina pseudomenardi, Acarinina mckannai, A. nitida,

A. caoligensis, Morozovella acuta, M. praeangulata,

Subbotina triloculinoides, S. triangularis and S. cancellata.

Some of these species are important in foraminiferal biostra-

tigraphy, having their highest occurrences in the Late

Paleocene (Globanomalina pseudomenardi, Morozovella

praeangulata). Therefore, they represent marker species of the

Late Paleocene biozones (P 3–P 4 sensu Berggren & Pearson

2005). This indicates that, the underlying sediments of the

Jablonové Fm. should not be younger than Thanetian, and the

overlying conglomerates of the Súľov Fm. should not be older

than early Ypresian (i.e. late Ilerdian).

Claystones from lower part of the Súľov Conglomerates

were sampled in the Čierny potok Creek around the forest road

from Súľov to Vrchteplá. They occur in turbiditic interbeds

within thick conglomerate lithosomes. The microfauna of the

claystones is very rich in morozovellid foraminifers, compri-

sing species of Morozovella acuta, M. ex gr. velascoensis,

M. aequa and M. subbotinae. They are associated with acari-

ninids (Acarinina nitida, A. strabocella, A. coalingensis,

A. mckannai), subbotinids (Parasubbotina inaequispira,

Subbotina triangularis, S. ex gr. velascoensis) and rare other

planktonic foraminifera (e.g., Igorina broedermanni). These

foraminifers provide evidence for Late Paleocene–Early

Eocene age, based on last appearances of morozovellid spe-

cies of M. velascoensis group and M. acuta (Zone E2) and

first appearances of M. subbotinae (Zone P5) and Para

subbotina inaequispira (Zone E1). Considering that, the clay-

stones from basal parts of the Súľov Conglomerates belong to

the late Thanetian–early Ypresian (Ilerdian).

A monotonous sequence of conglomerates and breccias is

interbedded by claystones in the middle part of the Súľov Fm.

They crop out in the saddle “Lúka pod hradom” north-west-

ward of Súľov village. The claystones are yellow-brown in

colour and rich in planktonic foraminifers or radiolarians (loc.

Prečín). Their foraminiferal associations markedly differ from

those in basal part of the Súľov Conglomerates by almost

complete absence of morozovellids (only M. cf. subbotinae)

and predominance of acarininids, belonging to the species

Acarenina pseudotopilensiss, A. aspensis, A. cuneicamerata,

A. wilcoxensis, A. pentacamerata and Acarenina collactea.

The acarininid species are associated with Turborotalia fron

tosa, Subbotina patagonica, S. eocaena, S. roesnaensis and

Catapsydrax unicavus. Foraminiferal microfauna from this

locality contains index species of middle Ypresian to early

Lutetian biozones (e.g., Acarenina pseudotopilensis), and

those appearing in Zone E5 (A. wilcoxensis, A. pentacame

rata) and Zone E7 (T. frontosa). Therefore, the age of con-

glomerates of the middle part of the Súľov Fm. is constrained

to the middle Ypresian to early Lutetian.

The uppermost part of the Súľov Fm. belongs to the Paština

Závada Mb., defined as Súľov-type conglomerates in clay-

stone- and flysch-type sediments of the Domaniža Basin

408

SOTÁK, PULIŠOVÁ, PLAŠIENKA and ŠIMONOVÁ

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

Epoch

Stage

Lithostr

unit

Section

Thickness

composite log

of the Súľov Fm.

E O C E N E

PALEOCENE

Thanetian

Ilerdian

p r

e s i a n

u t e t i a n

Ovčiarsko beds

Jablonové Fm.

S ú

o v F o r m

a t i o n

Paština Závada Beds

Farská

skala

Lietava

Lietavská
Závada

Babkov

Roháč Žibrid

Brada

Lúka pod
hradom

Zámok -

Toranie

Čierny

potok

Hoľazne

Pažice

Jablonové

quary

200

220

250

50m

370

60m

220

300

100m

Globanomalina

pseudomenardi

Morozovella

praeangulata

Acarinina nitida

Subbotina

cancelata

Morozovella acuta

Morozovella

velascoensis

Morozovella subbotinae

Igorina broedermanni

arasubbotina

inaequispira

Acarinina pentacamerata

Acarenina aspensis

carenina pseudotopilensis

Acarinina collactea

urborotalia frontosa

Acarinina bullbrooki

Morozovella gorrondatxensis

Acarinina praetopilensis

rochamminoides proteus

Paratrochamminoides

olszewskii

Fig. 4. Composite log of the Súľov Fm. with conglomerate lithosomes, hemipelagic interbeds and their microfauna. Foraminiferal species

imply the late Thanetian–early Ypresian (Ilerdian) up to early Lutetian age of conglomerate formation and deepening-upward sequence with

DWAF-type association in the uppermost part of the Súľov Fm.

409

THE SÚĽOV CONGLOMERATES — STRATIGRAPHY AND TECTONICS

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

(sensu Buček & Nagy in Mello et al. (2011). Claystone inter-

beds with foraminiferal microfauna were found in conglome-

rates at two localities. Greyish-blue and brown clays occur at

the Lietava locality within poorly stratified sandy-gravelly

sediments. Their microfauna differs in predominance of

planktonic foraminifers in brown clays and agglutinated

foraminifers in greyish-blue clays. Planktonic assemblage

comprises the species Acarinina bullbrooki, A. punktocari

nata, A. coaligensis, A. praetopilensis, Morozovella gorron

datxensis, M. gracilis, Igorina wartsteinensis, I. salisburgensis,

Subbotina senni and Parasubbotina hagni. The species

Acarinina bullbrooki is regarded as a marker of the early

Lutenian Zone in the Western Carpathians (= Acarinina cras

sata densa Zone sensu Samuel & Salaj 1968). Morozovellid

foraminifers are also present including early Lutetian species,

like M. gorrondatxensis (Orue-Etxebarria et al. 2014). Further

species of igorinids and subbotinids are known from the lower

Lutetian formations of the Helveticum, Betic Cordillera, etc.

(e.g., Rögl & Egger 2012; Gebhardt et al. 2013; Gonzalvo &

Molina 1998). Summary data from planktonic foraminiferal

microfauna of the uppermost part of the Súľov Conglomerates

(Paština Závada Mb.) provide evidence for an early Lutetian

age (Zone E8–E9).

Claystones from all interbeds of the Súľov Fm. contain

agglutinated foraminifers, as well. Their associations com-

prise Psammosiphonella cylindrica, Bathysiphon gerochi,

Nothia robusta, Trochamminoides subcoronatus, T. contortus,

T. proteus, T.? dubius, Paratrochamminoides olszewski,

P. deflexiformis, Haplophragmoides excavates, H. horridus,

Ammodiscus cretaceus, A. serpens, Psammosphaera irregu

laris and P. cf. fusca. Increasing content of agglutinated

foraminifers from the early Ypresian to early Lutetian reveals

an initial collapse subsidence of the basin to bathyal depth and

its deepening-upward to abyssal depths with DWAF-type

microfauna of agglutinated foraminifers in the uppermost part

of the Súľov Fm. (Paština Závada Mb.).

Structural analysis and paleostress reconstruction

Bedding of the Súľov Conglomerates is oriented in the

NNE–SSW direction and SE-ward tectonically inclined by

65° to 85°. The most steeply dipping bedding planes were

observed in fine-grained conglomerates in the Súľov area

(mean of 78°) and gently dipping in the Lietava area (ranging

from 9° to 30°).

The synsedimentary tectonics of the Súľov–Domaniža Basin

are recorded by fissures in the carbonate complexes of the

underlying Hronic unit. The fissures are bounded by sub ver-

tical scarps and filled by structureless carbonate breccias

(Fig. 5A — Baranova near Veľká Čierna). The fissures and

related normal faults form a conjungate system with NW–SE

and NE–SW orientation (Fig. 5D — Kardošova Vieska). They

were formed by extensional collapse during the initial D0

phase of basin tectonics, when maximum stress axis was ver-

tical (Table 1 ).

Marginal faulting of the Súľov–Domaniža Basin is recorded

in fault-bounded talus aprons of basal conglomerates (Riedka,

Svinské chlievy). This system of E–W trending normal faults,

which controlled progressive steepening of basinal slopes,

was formed during WNW–ESE to W–E compression and per-

pendicular extension (Fig. 6; Table 1 — D1a, D1b, D1c homo-

geneous groups). Their original direction prior to the Miocene

counterclockwise rotation has been restored as NNW–SSE to

N–S trending (e.g., Marko et al. 1995, Márton et al. 2016,

Šimonová & Plašienka 2017). Marginal faulting and block

tilting also led to opening of intraformational fissures, which

were filled with banded crystalline calcite veins known as the

Malenica onyxites (Salaj 1991; Fig. 5B, C). The vein systems

exhibit a structural predisposition to WNW–ESE trending

normal faults with dip-slip striations on the fault planes.

Post-sedimentary deformation of the Súľov conglomerates

started with compressional to transpressional tectonics during

the Oligocene to Early Miocene (cf. Marko et al. 1995; Kováč

& Hók 1996). The compressional stress axis was oriented in

the NW–SE direction with perpendicular extensional axis.

There are three homogeneous groups of faults recognized in

this phase (D2a, D2b, D2c; Fig. 6, Table 1). D2a group con-

sists of sixteen dextral strike-slip faults, which are oriented in

the ENE–WSW direction. Homogeneous group D2b is formed

by fifteen sinistral strike-slip faults with N–S direction. The last

homogeneous fault set, which is related to the first deforma-

tional phase, belongs to the D2c group. This group is repre-

sented by twenty four reverse faults with NE–SW directions.

Likely during this phase, the Paleogene sediments of the Peri-

Klippen zone, Rajec Basin and Turiec Basin were also defor-

med (Hók et al. 1998; Rakús & Hók 2003). That is also a case

of reverse faults with thrusting of Aptian sediments of the

Fatric Unit over Paleogene sediments in the Veľká Fatra Mts.

(Krpeľany, TK-3 borehole; Pulišová et al. 2015). Transpressive

deformation resulted from collision of the Western Carpathians

and North European Platform, which culminated during the

Late Oligocene–Early Miocene, also leading to inversion of

the fore-arc basins (Kováč 2000).

The next deformation phase (D3) succeeded a transpres-

sional tectonic regime (Fig. 6; Table 1). Our data allowed

selection of three homogeneous groups of faults (D3a; D3b;

D3c) in the Súľov Conglomerates. Twenty two sinistral strike-

slip faults with NNE–SSW orientation (D3a group), seventeen

reverse faults (D3b group) and eight normal faults generally

oriented in NNE–SSW direction (D3c group) were recorded.

The maximum compressive stress axis (σ

) of the D3 phase

was oriented in a NNW–SSE direction, like that, which

operated during the Ottnangian to Lower Badenian (Marko et

al. 1995; Kováč & Hók 1996; Fodor et al. 1999; Šimonová &

Plašienka 2011, 2017; Bučová 2013).

The fourth deformation phase is expressed by σ

rotation in

a NNE–SSW direction with perpendicular extensional axis to

maximum compression (Fig. 6; Table 1). Transpressional

faulting was changed to transtensional tectonic regime. It was

possible to choose four homogeneous groups of analysed

faults. There are four dextral strike-slip faults with NW–SE

410

SOTÁK, PULIŠOVÁ, PLAŠIENKA and ŠIMONOVÁ

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

orientation (D4a), completed by sixteen

sinistral strike-slip faults with NE–SW

orientation (D4b), seven inverse faults

with NW–SE orientation (D4c) and twelve

normal faults with NE–SW orientation

(D4d). Transtensional fault systems of

ALCAPA were activated from the middle

to late Badenian (Csontos et al. 1991).

The next deformational phase D5 (Fig. 6;

Table 1) continued in a trans tensional tec-

tonic regime during the Sarmatian (cf.

Marko et al. 1995; Kováč & Hók 1996;

Fodor et al. 1999). The compressional

component of the paleo stress field rotated

to a NE–SW direction with perpendicular

extensional stress axis. During this tec-

tonic regime, new systems of dextral

strike-slip, sinistral strike-slip and normal

faults were gene rated. Dextral strike-slip

faults were oriented in a N-S direction

(D5a), sinistral strike-slip faults were

oriented gene rally in WNW–ESE direc-

tion (D5b). Their systems were related to

NE–SW normal faults (D5c).

Transtensional deformation of the Súľov

Conglomerates was finally changed to

an extensional tectonic regime (Fig. 6,

Table 1). Extensional stress axes were

oriented in a NNW–SSE direction, as is

recorded by normal faults with an ENE–

WSW orientation (D6) and extensional

joints with a NE–SW orientation and

60°–70° inclination (Fig. 6). Faults with

a similar orientation were found by

Králiková et al. (2010), Pešková et al.

(2009) and Vojtko et al. (2008), corres-

ponding to extensional tectonics, which

probably operated during the Pliocene

(Šimonová & Plašienka 2011; Šimonová

2013).

Discussion

Sediment gravity flows and their deposits

The Súľov Formation (sensu Andrusov

1965) is formed by conglomerates of dif-

ferent continental, basin slope and

deep-water settings. Continental margin

sediments are represented by talus brec-

cias and alluvial fan, braided stream and

fan-delta conglomerates that filled paleo-

valleys, karst forms (red-stained conglo-

merates) and riverine channels. Coastal

onlap of bedrocks and scarp breccias is

Fig. 5. Structures of synsedimentary tectonics and normal faulting in the Súľov

Conglomerates. A — Large-scale tensional fissure filled by Paleogene breccias in the

Triassic complexes of the Krížna Unit. These fissures were formed by NNW–SSE extension

and filled with material derived from steep fault scarps and (Loc. Baranovo near Veľká

Čierna); B — Normal faults in basal conglomerates of the Súľov Fm. with down-dip linea-

tion and veins of banded crystalline calcite (Fig. C for detail). Normal faulting and vein

dilatation refers to a layer-parallel extension related to block tilting and tectonic subsidence

of the Súľov–Domaniža Basin (Loc. Svinské chlievy, Ostrá Malenica Hill); D — Conjugate

sets of normal faults in conglomerates of the Paština Závada Mb. (Loc. Kardošova Vieska).

411

THE SÚĽOV CONGLOMERATES — STRATIGRAPHY AND TECTONICS

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

developed as a flat- bedded or clinostratified sequence of calci-

clastic shoreface sediments with parallel lamination and oscil-

latory ripples (Fig. 3A).

Extrabasinal sources supplied the SDB with monogenic

clastic material from the Triassic carbonate complexes, but

there are also some components with intrabasinal origin (e.g.,

Paleocene reefal limestones of the Kambühel Fm.). The clastic

supply was enhanced by slope oversteepening and gravity

flow accumulation of thick conglomerate lithosomes in the

Súľov–Domaniža Basin. Their coarse-grained particles, poor

sorting and thick structureless megabeds (Fig. 3B) imply a fast

accumulation of debris avalanches and cohesive debris flows,

which came to be frozen “en masse” after reaching a deep

basin (see Marschalko & Samuel 1993). Unlike megabeds,

there are also lithosomes stacked by conglomerate units,

which are amalgamated, internally truncated, channelized

(dish structures), graded or laminated (frictional lamination)

and upwardly penetrated by large clasts and claystone chips

(Fig. 3B, C). It seems, that these conglomerates were depo-

sited from non-cohesive debris flows with basal friction,

incremental aggradation, erosion and dispersive grain pressure

(rafted and floated clasts). Downslope movement and trans-

formation of debris flow was facilitated by their dilution and

reducing a drag on the sea-floor by hydroplaning (e.g., Mohring

et al. 1998). The conglomerates of uppermost lithosomes

(Paština Závada Mb.) are increasingly sorted, horizontally

stratified, matrix-supported and intercalated by mudstones

(Fig. 3E, F). They were deposited from frictional (non-cohe-

sive) up to hyperconcentrated density flows in deep-water

slope channels and base-of-slope lobes.

Subsidence history

Gravitational movement and mass-transport deposition of

the Súľov Conglomerates revealed a steep marginal escarp-

ment, which could have been active as a master fault for

the tectonic subsidence. Initial subsidence and syntectonic

deposition started from 56 Ma, which is dated by HO of

Gl. pseudo menardi, and recorded by accumulation of about

300 m thick conglomerate lithosomes. Their occasional

pelagic interbeds indicate a rapid deepening to upper bathyal

depth (cca 600 m). Based on biostratigraphic data (HOs of

M. acuta and M. subbotinae, LO of I. broedermanni), this sub-

sidence phase lasted approximately 2 Ma during the early

Ypresian.

Tectonic subsidence increased during the middle Ypresian,

when the basin reached a bathyal depth and was filled with up

to 620 m of carbonate debris flow sediments. The duration of

this phase is approximated between 54 and 50 Ma, implying

an accumulation rate of 155 m/Ma. The age of the upper litho-

somes of this cycle is dated to the late Ypresian, based on FOs

of Turborotalia frontosa and the acarininid assemblage-zone

(A. pentacamerata, A. pseudotopilensis, A. aspensis). Bathy-

metric data indicate the subsidence rate of 300 to 700 m/Ma,

which is roughly the same value as in fore-arc basins governed

by subduction tectonic erosion (von Huene & Lallemand 1990,

Wagreich 1995).

Tectonic subsidence of the Súľov–Domaniža Basin was not

followed by a significant thermal subsidence, since the basin-

fill sediments did not record a higher grade of thermal altera-

tion. The lack of thermal subsidence is a typical feature of

Tensor name

R΄

F5 (α)

Q (Qrw)

Stress regime

D1a

084/21

283/68

176/06

0.56

1.44

6.84

pure strike-slip

D1b

274/07

006/17

162/71

0.44

2.44

5.31

pure compressional

D1c

165/88

271/01

001/02

0.5

8.38

extension

D2a

116/07

325/82

206/04

0.41

1.59

10.57

pure strike-slip

D2b

126/01

026/83

216/07

0.46

1.54

19.39

extensional strike-slip

D2c

117/02

027/01

273/88

0.52

2.52

10.07

pure compressional

D3a

162/01

268/85

072/05

0.44

1.56

7.48

pure strike-slip

D3b

339/08

247/07

117/80

0.5

2.5

5.36

pure compressional

D3c

135/85

351/04

261/03

0.66

17.03

extension

D4a

002/08

145/80

271/06

0.55

1.45

4.95

pure strike-slip

D4b

198/04

032/86

288/01

0.69

1.31

9.34

extensional strike-slip

D4c

208/06

118/00

024/84

0.5

2.5

2.44

pure compressional

D4d

202/55

029/35

269/03

0.5

2.07

extension

D5a

257/04

053/85

166/02

0.55

1.45

4.58

pure strike-slip

D5b

043/14

134/06

247/75

0.54

1.52

11.7

pure strike-slip

D5c

186/80

051/07

320/07

0.43

7.98

extension

117/68

261/18

355/12

0.57

20.11

extension

Table 1: Homogenous fault groups recorded in area studied. Explanations: n — number of fault-slip data; σ

, σ

— principal stress axes in

format azimuth/dip (in degrees); R — stress ratio (σ

− σ

)/ (σ

− σ

); R΄ — tensor type; F5 (α) — mean slip deviation (angle between observed

and computed slip directions, in degrees); Q (Qrw) – World Stress Map project quality ranking as defined in Sperner et al. (2003) from A – best

to E – worst.

413

THE SÚĽOV CONGLOMERATES — STRATIGRAPHY AND TECTONICS

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

(Fig. 5). Basal breccias and conglomerate lags often occur at

scarps generated by tilting and synsedimentary normal faul-

ting (Figs 5B, 5D). Open fissures are occasionally infilled by

gravitational breccias with material derived from the fissure

walls (Fig. 5A). Layer-parallel extension was accompanied by

opening of discrete fissures filled with banded veins of the

Malenica onyxites, which were erroneously interpreted as

lacustrine sediments in conglomerates of the Svinské Chlievy

Mb. (Salaj 1991, 1993, 2002) — Fig. 5A, B. Their lacustrine

origin was already questioned by Buček & Nagy (in Mello et

al. 2011). The Malenica onyxites are formed by syntaxial

overgrowth of palisade, fibrous and prismatic crystals, similar

to those from pre-Eocene karst flowstones in the Tatra Mts.

(Jach et al. 2016) or Late Eocene sedimentary dykes in the

Buda paleoslope (Fodor et al. 1992). The flowstone deposits

in fissures were precipitated from descending meteoric waters

or ascending fluids with elevated temperature. It is possible,

that the driving mechanism for fluid flow might have been

seismic pumping (see Roberts & Steward 1994). Syntectonic

origin of the flowstones is documented by their occasional

fragmentation due to renewed fold activity and by carbonate

clasts derived from fault gouge. The coastal fault-blocks pro-

bably emerged in the vadose zone, because such flowstones

could have been precipitated in bedrocks uplifted above the

water-table (Tucker & Wright 1990; Roberts & Stewart 1994).

Accordingly, the Súľov–Domaniža Basin experienced a high

topographic differentiation with active fault scarps and raised

mainland drainage for providing a huge amount of carbonate

gravity-flow breccias (Fig. 7).

Gravitational collapse, bathyal to abyssal deepening and

mass-transport deposition in the Súľov–Domaniža Basin

could have been controlled by the subduction tectonic erosion,

which is a prominent process in most convergent plate-margin

systems (e.g., von Huene & Lallemand 1990; von Huene &

Ranero 2003; von Huene et al. 2004a; Vannucchi et al. 2001,

2004). Subcrustal tectonic erosion of the Austroalpine

microplate was also considered as a driving mechanism for

rapid subsidence and deep-water sedimentation of the Gosau

basins in the Eastern Alps (Wagreich 1993, 1995; Wagreich &

Marschalko 1995; Kázmér et al. 2003). The Súľov–Domaniža

Basin began to develop when the Oravic ribbon continent

entered the subduction zone, which resulted in an over-

thickened orogenic wedge with supercritical taper (Plašienka

& Soták 2015). Enormous uplift of the plate margin could

occur due to buckling of the ribbon continent in the subduction

zone. This was followed by basal erosion of the upper plate,

which led to gravitational collapse and seaward tilting of basi-

nal slopes (Fig. 8). The steep marginal escarpment of the upper

plate above a ribbon buttress led to submarine landsliding and

mass-wasting of scarp breccias and conglomerates in deep-

water basins (Figs. 7, 8). Mass-transport deposition in the

Súľov–Domaniža Basin could be forced by seismotectonic

activity, since subduction of seamounts creates a highly poten-

tial for earthquakes (e.g., von Huene et al. 2004a). That is

Fig. 7. Conceptual model for mass-transport deposition of breccias and conglomerates in the Súľov–Domaniža Basin. The model is designed

as a fault-bounded deep-water basin with alluvial systems (AF), coastal plain (CP), eroded reef buildups (Kambühel Lms. — KR), reduced

shelf (SF), marginal escarpment (ME), TF — tension fissures (TF), failure slopes (FS), landslide scarp blocks (LSB), scours and slumps (SSL),

fissure-filling breccias (FFB), talus breccias (TB), slope conduits (SC), toe-of-slope aprons (TSA), debris flow lobes (DFL), seafloor debris-

flow sheets (SF), hyperconcentrated flow deposit (HFD), basinal turbidites (BTU) and surface hemipelagic plume (SHP). Basin topography

and sedimentary architecture reflects the basins on the active plate margins affected by slope failure and submarine mass-transport deposition

(e.g., von Heune et al. 2004b; Gamberi et al. 2011; Loucks et al. 2011; Posamentier & Martinsen 2011; Principaud et al. 2015; Ruh 2016).

414

SOTÁK, PULIŠOVÁ, PLAŠIENKA and ŠIMONOVÁ

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

the reason why the mass-transport deposits are frequently con-

nected with seismic activity (e.g., Ratzov et al. 2010; Gamberi

et al. 2011).

Conclusions

Our structural and biostratigraphic evaluation of the Súľov

Conglomerates has come to the following conclusions:

• The Súľov–Domaniža Basin is filled with upper Thanetian–

lower Ypresian (Ilerdian) to lower Lutetian carbonatic scarp

breccias and conglomerates, which were accumulated in

response to collapse subsidence, slope instability, downslope

sliding and mass-transport wasting. The coarse clastics and

scarp breccias moved downward across a narrow or missing

shelf and steep slope into the basin. They were further trans-

ported by gravity-driven flows, which became largely frozen

“en

mass” in a deep-water basin.

• The Súľov–Domaniža Basin started to develop in the latest

Paleocene to Early Eocene by gravitational collapse of

an overthickened orogenic wedge, which is recorded by fis-

sure-filling breccias, scarp breccias and fault-related veins

of onyxites. Initial subsidence led to accumulation of talus

breccias derived from extrabasinal sources and intrabasinal

highs (e.g., the Kambühel Lms.), submarine landsliding and

rapid deepening of basinal depocentres to bathyal depth.

The subsidence continued during the Middle Eocene with

deepening around the CCD (DWAF, radiola rians) and accu-

mulation of gravelly and sandy debris-flow lobes in the

abyssal basin. The coarse-grained slope system was con-

nected with deep-sea fans, which are represented by distal

turbidites of Domaniža Fm. Maximum deepening

of the SDB is recorded by non-calcareous red-beds with

Reticulophragmium amplectens.

• The Upper plate margin of the CWC collapsed due to sub-

duction and underthrusting of Oravic ribbon continent,

which led to a supercritical taper of the orogenic wedge,

subsequently followed by the subcrustal erosion and gravi-

tational collapse along an extensional master fault escarp-

ment. The marginal deep-seated escarpment was able to

accumulate a high volume of scarp and slope-apron breccias

and conglomerates derived from the Hronic carbonate com-

plexes of the CWC orogenic wedge. Gravitational move-

ment and mass-transport wasting of the Súľov Conglomerates

was probably enhanced by the seismotectonic activity, since

earthquakes generated by ridge subduction can lead to huge

slumping on the active continental margins (e.g., von Huene

et al. 2004b; Hühnerbach et al. 2005). This was likely the

case of the Oravic ribbon subduction, as well.

• Tectonic inversion of the Súľov–Domaniža Basin started

with intra-wedge shortening under NW–SE directed com-

pression, Late Eocene–Oligocene uplift and post-Lutetian

denudation (Kováč et al. 2016). During these events, the

Paleogene sediments in the Rajec Basin and Turiec Basin

were deformed, as well (Hók et al. 1998; Rakús & Hók

2003; Pulišová et al. 2015).

Acknowledgements: The authors are deeply grateful to

Róbert Marschalko for fruitful discussion concerning the

problems of stratigraphy and sedimentology of the Súľov

Conglomerates. Michael Wagreich and an anonymous

reviewer are gratefully acknowledged for their constructive

comments and suggestions, which greatly improving the early

version of the manuscript. We thank Dana Troppová for

laboratory works in processing of micropaleontological

samples and Branislav Ramaj for assistance in field works.

The research was funded by projects APVV-14-0118 and

APVV-0212-12 from the Slovak Research and Development

Agency, and by grant 2/0034/16 from the VEGA Scientific

Agency.

Magura subduction

Tatric

CHU

Súľov

conglomerates

CCPB

Bartonian - Priabonian

Ypresian - Lutetian

Magura oceanic

basement

Oravic ribbon

continent

Tatric

Súľov-Domaniža Basin

CHU

Tatric

Oravic

ribbon

continen

Proč Basin

wedge-top

basin

Kambühel reefs

orogenic wedge

uplift

Paleocene

Vahic subduction

Magura subduction

NW (present)

Fig. 8. Diagrammatic sections of the CWC orogenic wedge and

subducting Oravic ribbon continent by using of seamount subduction

model by von Huene et al. (2004b). This model seems to be appropriate

for interpretation of tectonic erosion, upper plate weakening, gravita-

tional collapse, marginal and mid-slope faulting, rapid tectonic

subsidence, mass-transport wasting and abyssal deepening of

the Súľov–Domaniža Basin. Abbrevations: KU — Krížna Unit;

CHU — Choč Unit; CCPB — Central-Carpathian Paleogene Basin.

Modified after Plašienka & Soták (2015).

415

THE SÚĽOV CONGLOMERATES — STRATIGRAPHY AND TECTONICS

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

References

Andrusov D. 1938: Étude géologique de la zone des Klippes internes

des Carpathes Occidentales, III partie: Tectonique. Rozpravy

Státniho Geologického Ústavu ČSR, Praha, 9, 1–135 (in Czech

and French).

Andrusov D. 1945: Geological investigation of the Inner Klippen Belt

in the Western Carpathians IV–V. Práce Štát. geol. Úst. 13,

Bratislava, 1–176 (in Slovak).

Andrusov D. 1965: Geology of the Czechoslovakian Carpathian Mts.,

III. part. Bratislava, Veda, Publisher of Slovak Academy of Sci

ences, 392 pp. (in Slovak).

Angelier J. 1994: Fault slip analysis and paleostress reconstruction.

In: Hancock P.L. (Ed.): Continental deformation. Pergamon

Press, University of Bristol (U. K.), London, 53–100.

Berggren W.A. & Miller K.G. 1988: Paleogene tropical planktonic

foraminiferal biostratigraphy and magnetobiochronology.

Micro paleontology 34, 362–380.

Berggren W.A. & Pearson P.N. 2005: A revised tropical to subtropical

planktonic foraminiferal zonation of the Eocene and Oligocene:

J. Foram. Res. 35, 279–298.

Biely A., Bezák V., Elečko M., Kaličiak M., Konečný V., Lexa J.,

Mello J., Nemčok J., Potfaj M., Rakús M., Vass D., Vozár J &

Vozárová A. 1996: Geological map of Slovak Republic

1:500,000. D. Štúr Geological Institute, Bratislava.

Blow W.H. 1979: The Cainozoic Globigerinidae. 3 vols., E.J. Brill,

Leiden, 1–1452.

Bučová J. 2013: Geological structure and tectonic development of the

western part of the Pieniny Klippen Belt. PhD Thesis, Faculty of

Natural Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, 1–147 (in

Slovak).

Bučová J., Plašienka D. & Mikuš V. 2010: Geology and tectonics of

the Vršatec klippen area (Pieniny Klippen Belt, western

Slovakia). In: Christofides , G., Kantiranis, N., Kostopoulos, D.

S. & Chatzipetros, A. A. (Eds): Proceedings of the XIX Con-

gress of the CBGA, Thessaloniky, Greece. Scientific Annals,

School of Geology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniky, Spec.

Vol. 100, 197–207.

Chmelík F. 1967: Paleogene of the Central Carpathians. In: Buday et

al. (Ed.): Regionální geologie ČSSR, díl II, Západní Karpaty,

sv. 2. Vyd. Ústř. Úst. geol., Praha, 287–383.

Csontos L., Tari G., Bergerat F. & Fodor L. 1991: Evolution of the

stress fields in the Carpatho-Pannonian area during the Neogene.

Tectonophysics 199, 73–91.

Delvaux D.F. 1993: The TENSOR program for paleostress recon-

struction: examples from the east African and Baikal rift zones.

EUG VII Strasbourg, France, 4–8 April 1993. Abstract supple

ment N°1 to Terra Nova 5, 216.

Delvaux D. & Sperner B. 2003: New aspect of tectonic stress inver-

sion with reference to the TENSOR program. In: Nieuwland

D.A. (Ed.): New Insights into Structural Interpretation and

Modelling. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 212, 75–100.

Eyles N. & Januszczak N. 2007: Syntectonic subaqueous mass flow

of the Neoproterozoic Otavi Group, Namibia: where is the evi-

dence of global glaciation. Basin Res. 19, 179–198.

Fodor L., Magyari A., Kázmér M. & Fogarasi A. 1992: Gravity-flow

dominated sedimentation on the Buda paleoslope (Hungary):

Record of Late Eocene continental escape of the Bakony unit.

Geol. Rundsch. 81, 3, 695–716.

Fodor L., Csontos L., Bada G., Györfi I. & Benkovics L. 1999:

Tertiary tectonic evolution of the Pannonian Basin system and

neighbouring orogens: a new synthesis of paleostress data.

In: Durand B., Jolivet L., Horváth F. and Séranne M. (Eds.):

The Mediterranean Basins: Tertiary Extension within

the Alpine Orogen. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 156,

295–334.

Gamberi F., Rovere M. & Marani M. 2011: Mass-transport evolution

in a tectonically active margin (Gioia Basin, Southeastern

Tyrrhenian Sea). Mar. Geol. 279, 98–110.

Gani R.M. 2004: From turbid to lucid: a straightforward approach to

sediment gravity flow and their deposits. The Sedimentary

Record 2, 3, 4–8.

Gebhardt H., Adekeye C. & Olusegun Akande S. 2013: Late Paleo-

cene to Initial Eocene Thermal Maximum (IETM) foraminiferal

biostratigraphy and paleoecology of the Dahomey basin, south-

western Nigeria. J. Geol. B.A. 150, 3+4, 407–419.

Gonzalvo C. & Molina E. 1998: Planktic foraminiferal biostrati graphy

across the Lower-Middle Eocene transition in the Betic Cordillera

(Spain). N. Jb. Geol. Paläont. Mh. 11, 671–693.

Hók J., Kováč M., Rakús M., Kováč P., Nagy A., Slamková-Kováčová

M., Sitár V. & Šujan M. 1998: Geologic and tectonic evolution

of the Turiec depression in the Neogene. Slovak Geol. Mag. 4, 3,

165–176.

Hühnerbach V., Masson D.G., Bohrmann G., Bull J.M. & Winrebe W.

2005: Deformation and submarine landsliding caused by sea-

mout subduction beneath the Costa Rica continental margin —

new insights from high-resolution sidescan sonar data. In:

Hodgson D.M. & Flint S.S. (Eds): Submarine Slope Systems:

Processes and products. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 244,

195–205.

Jach R., Gradzinski M. & Hercman H. 2016: New data on pre-Eocene

karst in the Tatra Mountains, Central Carpathians, Poland. Geol.

Quarterly 60, 2, 291–300.

Kázmér M., Dunkl I., Frisch W., Kuhlemann J. & Ozsvárt P. 2003:

The Palaeogene forearc basin of the Eastern Alps and Western

Carpathians: subduction erosion and basin evolution. J. Geol.

Soc., London 160, 413–428.

Kováč M. 2000: Geodynamic, paleogeographic and structural

develop ment of the Carpathian-Pannonian region during Mio-

cene: new insight on the Neogene basins of the Slovakia. VEDA,

Publishing house of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava,

1–202 (in Slovak).

Kováč M., Plašienka D., Soták J., Vojtko R., Oszczypko N., Less G.,

Ćosovič V., Fügenschuh B. & Králiková S. 2016: Paleogene

paleogeography and basin evolution of the Western Carpathians,

Northern Pannonian domaine and adjoining areas. Global

Planet. Change 140, 9–27.

Kováč P. & Hók J. 1993: The Central Slovak Fault System — the field

evidence of a strike slip. Geol. Carpath. 44, 3, 155–159.

Kováč P. & Hók J. 1996: Tertiary development of the western part of

Klippen Belt. Slovak Geol. Mag. 2, 137–149.

Králiková S., Hók J. & Vojtko R. 2010: Stress change inferred from

the morphostructures and faulting of the Pliocene sediments in

the Hronská pahorkatina highlands (Western Carpathians).

Acta Geologica Slovaca 2, 1, 17–22 (in Slovak with English

summary).

Kysela J., Marschalko R. & Samuel O. 1982: Lithostratigraphical

classification of Upper Cretaceous sediments of the Manín Unit.

Geologické Práce, Správy 78, 143–167 (in Slovak with English

summary).

Loucks R.G., Kerans Ch., Janson X. & Rojano M.A.M. 2011: Litho-

facies analysis and stratigraphic architecture of a deep-water car-

bonate debris apron: Lower Cretaceous (Latest Aptian to Latest

Albian) Tamabra Formation, Poza Pica field area, Mexico. In:

Shipp, C.R., Weimer, P. & Posamentier, H.W. (Eds.): Mass-transport

deposits in deepwater setting. SEPM Spec. Publ. 96, 367–389.

Lowe D.R. 1982: Sediment gravity flows: II. Dopositional model

with special reference to the deposits of high-density turbidity

currents. J. Sediment. Petrol. 52, 279–297.

Maheľ M. 1946: Geology of the middle part of the Strážovská

hor natina Mts. Práce Št. geol. ústavu 14, Bratislava, 1–116

(in Slovak).

416

SOTÁK, PULIŠOVÁ, PLAŠIENKA and ŠIMONOVÁ

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

Maheľ M. 1948: Geology in surroundings of Trenčianske Teplice city.

Práce Št. geol. ústavu 17, Bratislava, 187–249 (in Slovak).

Maheľ M. 1950: Envelope serie of the Inovec Mts. Geol. sborník 1,

47–58 (in Slovak).

Maheľ M., Brestenská E., Buday T., Čechovič V., Eliáš K., Franko O.,

Hanáček J., Kamenický L., Kullman E., Kuthan M., Matějka A.,

Mazúr M. & Salaj J. 1962: Explanations to general geological

map od Czechoslovak Republic, 1:200,000, sheet map M-34-

XXV Žilina. Geofond – Vyd., Bratislava, 1–272.

Marko F., Plašienka D. & Fodor L. 1995: Meso-Cenozoic tectonic

stress fields within the Alpine-Carpathians transition zone:

a review. Geol. Carpath. 46, 19 – 27.

Marschalko R. & Kysela J. 1980: Geology and sedimentology of

Klippen Belt and Manín Unit between Žilina and Považská

Bystrica. Západné Karpaty, sér. geológia 6, 7–79 (in Slovak with

English summary).

Marschalko R. & Samuel M. 1993: Sedimentology of Súľov Con-

glomerates eastern branch. Západné Karpaty, sér. geológia 17,

7–38 (in Slovak with English summary).

Márton E., Grabowski J., Tokarski A. & Túnyi I. 2016: Paleomagnetic

results from the fold and thrust belt of the Western Carpathians:

an overview. Geological Society Special Publications, 425,

7–36.

Mello J., Boorová D., Buček S., Filo I., Fordinál K., Havrila M.,

Iglárová Ľ., Kubeš P., Liščák P., Maglay J., Marcin D., Nagy A.,

Potfaj M., Rakús M., Rapant S., Remšík A., Salaj J., Siráňová Z.,

Teťák F., Zuberec J., Zlinská A. & Žecová K. 2011: Explanations

to geological map of the Middle Váh region (stredné Považie),

1:50,000. D. Štúr Geo logical Institute, Bratislava, 1–378 (in Slo-

vak with English summary).

Mohring D., Whipple K.X., Hondzo M., Ellis C. & Parker G. 1998:

Hydroplaning of subaqueous debris flows. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.

110, 387–394.

Mutti E., Bernoulli D., Ricci Lucchi F. & Tinterri R. 2009: Turbidites

and turbidity currents from Alpine “flysch” to the exploration of

continental margins. Sedimentology 56, 267–318.

Olsson R.K., Hemleben Ch., Berggren W.A. & Huber B.T. 1999:

Atlas of Paleocene planktonic foraminifera. Smithsonian Contri

butions to Paleobiology 85, 1–250.

Orue-Etxebarria X., Payros A., Caballero F., Apellaniz E., Pujalte V.

& Ortiza S. 2014: Morozovella gorrondatxensis (Orue-Etxe-

barria 1985) vs M. crater (Hornibrook 1985): taxonomy and sig-

nificance for Early/Middle Eocene boundary biostratigraphy.

Stratigraphy 11, 2, 173–183.

Pälike H., Lyle M.W., Nishi H, Raffi I., Ridgwell A., Kusali G., Klaus A.,

Acton G., Anderson L., Backman J., Baldauf J., Beitran C.,

Bohaty S.M., Bown P., Bisch W., Channell J.E.T., Chun C.O.J.,

Delaney M., Dewangan P., Dunkley Jones T., Edgar K.M.,

Evans H., Fitch P., Foster G.L., Gussoune N., Hasegawa H.,

Hathorne E.C., Hayashi H., Herrle J.O., Holbourn A., Hovan S.,

Hyeong K., Iijima K., Ito T., Kamikuri S., Kimoto K., Kuroda J.,

Leon-Rodriguez L., Malinverno A., Moore T.C., Murphy B.H.,

Murphy D.P., Nakamura H., Ogane K., Ohneiser Ch., Richter C.,

Robinson R., Rohling E., Romero O., Sawada K., Scher H.,

Schneider L., Sluijs A., Takata H., Tian J., Tsujimoto A., Wade

B.S., Westerhold T., Wilkens R., Williams T., Wilson P.A., Ya-

mamoto Y., Yamamoto S., Yamazaki T. & Yeebe R.E. 2012:

A Cenozoic record of the equatorial Pacific carbonate compen-

sation depth. Nature 488, 609–614.

Pearson P.N., Olsson R.K., Huber B.T., Hemleben Ch. & William A.

2006: Atlas of Eocene Planktonic Foraminifera. Chushman

Foundation, Special Publication 41, 1–509.

Pešková I., Vojtko R., Starek D. & Sliva Ľ. 2009: Late Eocene to

Quaternary deformation and stress field evolution of the Orava

region (Western Carpathians). Acta Geologica Polonica 59, 1,

73–91.

Peterčáková M. 1987: Calcareous nannoplankton of the Palaeogene

of Domaniža Depression (West Carpathians). Geologický

zborník — Geol. Carpath. 38, 6, 705–722.

Plašienka D. 2012: Jurassic syn-rift and Cretaceous syn-orogenic,

coarse-grained deposits related to opening and closure of the

Vahic (South Penninic) Ocean in the Western Carpathians —

an overview. Geol. Quarterly 56, 601–628.

Plašienka D. & Soták J. 2015: Evolution of late Cretaceous–Paleo-

gene synorogenic basins in the Pieniny Klippen Belt and adja-

cent zones (Western Carpathians, Slovakia): Tectonic controls

over a growing orogenic wedge. Annales Societatis Geologorum

Poloniae 85, 43–76.

Posamentier H.W. & Martinsen O.J. 2011: The character and genesis

of submarine mass-transport deposits: insights from outcrop and

3D seismic data. In: Shipp C.R., Weimer P. & Posamentier H.W.

(Eds.): Mass-transport deposits in deepwater setting, SEPM

Spec. Publ. 96, 7–38.

Principaud M., Mulder T., Gillet H. & Borgomano J. 2015:

Large-scale submarine mass-wasting along the northwestern

slope of the Great Bahama Bank (Bahamas): Morphology,

architecture, and mechanisms. Sediment. Geol. 317, 27–42.

Prokešová R., Plašienka D. & Milovský R. 2012: Structural

pattern and emplacement mechanisms of the Krížna cover nappe

(Central Western Carpathians). Geol. Carpath. 63, 1, 13–32.

Pulišová Z., Soták J. & Šurka J. 2015: Lithostratigraphy and

tectonic structure of the Fatric-Hronic units in the northern

slope of the Veľká Fatra Mts. Mineralia Slovaca 46, 3–4

(in Slovak).

Rakús M. & Hók J. 2003: Geological structure of the Kozol anticline,

Lúčanská Fatra Mts., Western Carpathians). Mineralia Slovaca

35, 75–88 (in Slovak).

Rakús M. & Hók J. 2005: The Manín and Klape units: Lithostrati-

graphy, tectonic classification, paleogeographic position and

relationship to Váhicum. Mineralia Slovaca 37, 9–26 (in Slovak

with English summary).

Rakús M. & Marschalko R. 1997: Position of the Manín, Drietoma

and Klape units at the boundary of the Central and Outer

Carpathians and related areas. In: Plašienka D. et al. (Eds.):

Alpine evolution of the Western Carpathians and related areas.

Dionýz Štúr Publishers, Bratislava, 79–97.

Ratzov G., Collot J-Y., Sosson M. & Migeon S. 2010: Mass-transport

deposits in the northern Ecuador subduction trench: result of

frontal erosion over multiple seismic cycles. Earth Planet. Sci.

Lett. 296, 89–102.

Rea D.K. & Lyle M.W. 2005: Paleogene calcite compensation depth

in the eastern subtropical Pacific: Answers and questions.

Paleoceanography, 20, PA 101, doi: 10.1029/2004PA001064.

Roberts G. & Stewart I. 1994: Uplift, deformation and fluid involve-

ment with an active normal fault zone in the Gulf of Corinth,

Greece. J. Geol. Soc., London 151, 531–541.

Rögl F. & Egger H. 2012: A revision of lower Paleogene planktonic

foraminifera described by K.H.A. Gohrbandt from the North-

western Tethyan realm (Helvetic nappe system, Salzburg,

Austria). Austrian J. Earth Sci. 105, 1, 39–49.

Ruh J.B. 2016: Submarine landslides caused by seamounts entering

accretionary wedge systems. Terra Nova 28, 163–170.

Salaj J. 1990: Geological structure of the Klippen and Periklippen

zones in the Middle Váh river valley and lithological classifica-

tion of Cretaceous sediments from the newly defined sequences.

Mineralia Slovaca 22, 155–174 (in Slovak).

Salaj J. 1991: Lacustrine limestone horizons in Súľov conglomerates

of the Pružina area and their significance for paleogeogra phical-

tectonic evolution of the area. Mineralia Slovaca, 23, 215–222

(in Slovak).

Salaj J. 1993: The Súľov paleogene of the Domaniža Basin in the

light of new findings. Geol. Carpath. 44, 2, 95–104.

417

THE SÚĽOV CONGLOMERATES — STRATIGRAPHY AND TECTONICS

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

Salaj J. 2002: Reflection of paleoclimate in Paleogene sediments of

Súľov, Biele Karpaty and Javorníky areas (Slovakia). Mineralia

Slovaca 34, 147–158.

Salaj J. 2006: Microbiostratigraphy of the Gosau development in the

Klape Unit, Western Carpathian Paleoalpine accretionary belt.

Mineralia Slovaca 38, 1–6.

Samuel O. 1972: Remarks on the lithological-facial and strati-

graphical division of the Paleogene of the Klippen Belt. Geo

logické Práce, Správy 59, 285–299 (in Slovak with English

summary).

Samuel O & Salaj J. 1968: Microbiostratigraphy and foraminifera of

the Slovak Carpathian Paleogene. D. Štúr Geological Institute,

Bratislava, 1–224.

Samuel O., Borza K. & Köhler E. 1972: Microfauna and lithostrati-

graphy of the Paleogene and adjacent Cretaceous of the Middle

Váh Valley (West Carpathian). D. Štúr Geological Institute,

Bratislava, 1–246, Plates I-CLXXX.

Séguret M., Séranne M., Chauvet A. & Brunel M. 1989: Collapse

basin: A new type of extensional sedimentary basin from the

Devonian of Norway. Geology 17, 127–130.

Slotnick B.S., Lauretano V., Backman J., Dickens G.R., Sluijs A. &

Lourens L. 2015: Early Paleogene variations in the calcite com-

pensation depth: new constranits using old borehole sediments

from across Ninetyeast Ridge, central Indian Ocean. Clim. Past

11, 473–493.

Sohn Y.K. 2000: Coarse-grained debris-flow deposits in the Miocene

fan deltas, SE Korea: a scaling analysis. Sediment. Geol. 130,

45–64.

Sperner B., Muller B., Heidbach O., Delvaux D., Reinecker J. &

Fuchs K. 2003: Tectonic Stress in the Earth´s Crust: Advances

in the World Stress Map Project. In: Nieuwland D. (Ed.): New

Insights into Structural Interpretation and Modelling. Geol. Soc.

London, Spec. Publ. 212, 101–116.

Šimonová V. 2013: Tectonic position of the Manín Unit in relation to

Fatric units and Pieniny Klippen Belt. Dissertation thesis, Come

nius University in Bratislava, 1–144 (in Slovak).

Šimonová V. & Plašienka D. 2011: Fault kinematics and paleostress

analysis in the Butkov quarry (Manín Unit, Western Carpathians).

Acta Geologica Slovaca 3, 1, 21–31 (in Slovak with English

summary).

Šimonová V. & Plašienka D. 2017: Stepwise clockwise rotation of the

Cenozoic stress field in the Western Carpathians as revealed by

kinematic analysis of minor faults in the Manín Unit (western

Slovakia). Geol. Quarterly 61, 1, 252–265.

Štúr D. 1860: Bericht über die geologische Übersichtsaufnahme des

Wassergebietes der Waag und Neutra. In: Jb. Geol. Reichsanst.

(Wien) 9, 17–151. Translated by: Fusán O. 1960: Dionýz Štúr

works — selected papers. Report on general geological mapping

in Váh and Nitra catchment area. Bratislava. D. Štúr Geological

Institute, 34–181(in Slovak).

Takahashi T. 1978: Mechanical characteristics of debris flow.

J. Hydraul., Div. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 104, 1153–1169.

Takahashi T. 1991: Debris flows. IAHR Monograph Series. Balkema,

Rotterdam, 1–165.

Takahashi T. 1997: Dynamics of the inertial and viscous debris flows.

In: Armanini A., Michiue M. (Eds.): Recent Developments in

Debris Flows. Springer, Berlin, 117–143.

Tucker M.E. & Wright V.P., 1990: Carbonate sedimentology. Black

well Scientific Publication, Oxford, 1–482.

Uhlig V. 1903: Bau and Bild der Karpathen (in Bau und Bild

Öster reichs). In: Diener C., Hoernes R., Suess F.F. & Uhlig V:

Bau und Bild Osterreichs. Tempsky, Freytag, Wien-Leipzig,

651–911.

Uchman A., Malata E., Olszewska B. & Oszczypko N. 2006: Paleo-

bathymetry of the Outer Carpathian basins. In: Oszczypko N.,

Uchman A. & Malata E. (Eds.): Paleotectonic evolution of

the Outer Carpathian and Pieniny Klippen Belt basins. Inst.

nauk geologicznych Univ. Jagellonskiego, Kraków, 85–110

(in Polish).

Vannucchi P., Scholl D.W., Meschede M. & McDougall-Reid K.

2001: Tectonic erosion and consequence collapse of the Pacific

margin of Costra Rica. Combined implications from ODP Leg

170, seismic offshore data, and regional geology. Tectonics 20,

5, 649–668.

Vannucchi P., Galeotti S., Clift P.D, Ranero C.R. & von Huene R.

2004: Long-term subduction erosion along the Guatemala

margin of the Middle America Trench. Geology 32, 7,

617–620.

Vojtko R., Hók J., Kováč M., Sliva Ľ., Joniak P. & Šujan M. 2008:

Pliocene to Quaternary stress field change in the western part of

the Central Western Carpathians (Slovakia). Geol. Quarterly, 52,

1, 19–30.

von Huene R. & Lallemand S. 1990: Tectonic erosion alaong the

Japan and Peru convergent margins. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull 122,

704–720.

von Huene R. & Ranero C.R. 2003: Subduction erosion and basal

friction along the sediment-starved convergent margin off

Antofagasta, Chile. J. Geophys. Res. 108, B2, 2079, doi:

10.1029/2001JB001569.

von Huene R., Ranero C.R. & Vannucchi P. 2004a: Generic model of

subduction erosion. Geology 32, 10, 913–916.

von Huene R., Ranero C.R. & Watts P. 2004b: Tsunamigenic slope

failure along the Middle America Trench in two tectonic setting.

Mar. Geol. 203, 303–317.

Wade B.S., Pearson P.N., Berggren W.A. & Pälike H. 2011:

Review and revision of Cenozoic tropical planktonic fora miniferal

biostratigraphy and calibration to the geomagnetic polarity and

astronomical time scale. EarthSci. Rev. 104, 111–142.

Wagreich M. 1993: Subcrustal tectonic erosion in orogenic belts —

A model for Late Cretaceous subsidence of the Northern Calca-

reous Alps (Austria). Geology 21, 941–944.

Wagreich M. 1995: Subduction tectonic erosion and Late Cretaceous

subsidence along the northern Austroalpine margin (Eastern

Alps, Austria). Tectonophysics 242, 63–78.

Wagreich M. & Marschalko R. 1995: Late Cretaceous to Early

Tertiary paleogeography of the Western Carpathians (Slovakia)

and the Eastern Alps (Austria): implications from heavy mineral
data. Geol. Rundsch. 84, 187–199.

418

SOTÁK, PULIŠOVÁ, PLAŠIENKA and ŠIMONOVÁ

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2017, 68, 5, 403–418

Appendix

Checklist of foraminiferal species mentioned in the text:

Acarinina aspensis (Colom, 1954)

Acarinina bullbrooki (Bolli, 1957)

Acarinina caoligensis (Cushman & Hanna, 1927)

Acarenina collactea (Finlay, 1939)

Acarinina crassata densa (Cushman, 1925)

Acarinina cuneicamerata (Blow, 1979)

Acarinina mckannai (White, 1928)

Acarinina nitida (Martin, 1934)

Acarinina pentacamerata (Subbotina, 1947)

Acarinina praetopilensis (Blow, 1979)

Acarenina pseudotopilensis Subbotina, 1953

Acarinina punktocarinata Fleischer, 1974

Acarinina strabocella (Loeblich & Tappan, 1957)

Acarinina wilcoxensis (Cushman & Ponton, 1932)

Ammodiscus cretaceous (Reuss, 1845)

Ammodiscus serpens (Grzybowski, 1898)

Bathysiphon gerochi Mjatliuk, 1966

Catapsydrax unicavus Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957

Globanomalina pseudomenardi (Bolli, 1957)

Globigerina conglomerata Schwager, 1866

Globigerina eocaena, Guembel, 1868

Globorotalia crassaformis (Galloway & Wissler, 1927)

Haplophragmoides horridus (Grzybowski, 1901)

Haplophragmoides excavates Cushman & Waters, 1927

Igorina broedermanni (Cushman & Bermúdez, 1949)

Igorina salisburgensis (Gohrbandt, 1967)

Igorina wartsteinensis (Gohrbandt, 1967)

Morozovella acuta (Toulmin, 1941)

Morozovella aequa (Cushman & Renz, 1942)

Morozovella gorrondatxensis (Orue-Etxebarria, 1985)

Morozovella gracilis (Bolli, 1957)

Morozovella praeangulata (Blow, 1979)

Morozovella subbotinae (Morozova, 1939)

Morozovella ex gr. velascoensis (Cushman 1925)

Nothia robusta (Grzybowski, 1898)

Parasubbotina hagni (Gohrbandt, 1967)

Parasubbotina inaequispira (Subbotina, 1953)

Paratrochamminoides olszewskii (Grzybowski, 1898)

Paratrochamminoides deflexiformis (Noth, 1912)

Psammosiphonella cylindrical (Glaessner, 1937)

Psammosphaera irregularis (Grzybowski, 1898)

Psammosphaera fusca Shulze, 1875

Reticulophragmium amplectens (Grzybowski, 1898)

Subbotina cancellata Blow, 1979

Subbotina eocaena (Guembel, 1868)

Subbotina patagonica (Todd & Kniker, 1952)

Subbotina roesnaensis Olsson & Berggen, 2006

Subbotina senni (Beckmann, 1953)

Subbotina triangularis (White, 1928)

Subbotina triloculinoides (Plummer, 1926)

Subbotina ex gr. velascoensis (Cushman, 1925)

Trochamminoides subcoronatus (Grzybowski, 1898)

Trochamminoides contortus (Karrer, 1866)

Trochamminoides proteus (Karrer, 1866)

Trochamminoides? cf. dubius (Grzybowski, 1901)

Turborotalia frontosa (Subbotina, 1953)