GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, JUNE 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
doi: 10.2478/geoca-2019-0014
www.geologicacarpathica.com
The foreland state at the onset of the flexurally
induced transgression: data from provenance analysis
at the peripheral Carpathian Foredeep (Czech Republic)
SLAVOMÍR NEHYBA
1,
, JIŘÍ OTAVA
2
, PAVLA TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ
2
and ADÉLA GAZDOVÁ
1
1
Department of Geological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, 611 37 Brno, Czech Republic;
slavek@sci.muni.cz
2
Czech Geological Survey, Leitnerova 22, 658 68 Brno, Czech Republic; jiri.otava@geology.cz, pavla.petrova@geology.cz
(Manuscript received October 25, 2018; accepted in revised form April 1, 2019)
Abstract: The Žerotice Formation recognised in a confined area NE–SE of Znojmo represents a basal member of
the sedimentary succession of the southwestern margin of the Carpathian Foredeep in Moravia (Czech Republic).
Two facies associations were recognised within the formation. The first one mantles the pre-Neogene basement with
an irregular unconformity, reflects arid climatic conditions and deposition of episodic shallow, high-energy stream flows
and/or mass flows (alluvial to fluvial deposits). The second facies association is interpreted as lagoonal to distal
flood plain deposits. The barren unfossiliferous deposits of the Žerotice Formation are covered by nearshore marine
Eggenburgian deposits. The boundary between these deposits represents a sequence boundary (i.e. the basal forebulge
unconformity). Detailed provenance studies of successive beds below and above this sequence boundary showed
differences in the source area and paleodrainage. Both the local primary crystalline rocks (Moravian and Moldanubian
Unit, Thaya Batholith) and older sedimentary cover (especially Permo–Carboniferous sedimentary rocks) form the source
of the Žerotice Formation. All these geological units are located only a few km away from the preserved areal extent of
the deposits of the Žerotice Formation (short transport and a local source). The source areas of the overlying marine
Eggenburgian beds are located far more to the W and NW in the Moldanubian and Moravian Units (longer transport,
extended source area). Local confined preservation of the Žerotice Formation is preliminarily explained as connected
with a tectonically predisposed paleovalley.
Keywords: Moravia, peripheral foreland basin, cratonward margin, paleovalley infill, basal forebulge unconformity,
Egerian/Eggenburgian.
Introduction
Start of the deposition along the distal (i.e. “cratonward”) mar-
gins of the peripheral foreland basins is generally strongly
influenced by the local morphology of the foreland, itself
partly controlled by former structural features of the bedrock.
The paleovalleys entrenched into the bedrock are commonly
preserved along basal unconformity surfaces (Baker 1984).
Sedimentary infill of such paleovalleys provides unique infor-
mation about the flexurally induced sea-level changes, the fore-
land paleodrainage network and the role of external factors
(climate, tectonics, sediment supply and paleogeomorpho-
logy), supplies information about the geological situation
bellow the foreland-basin succession and constitutes basic
data for the stratigraphic organisation of sedimentary basins
(Gupta 1999; Dalrymple 2004). The stratigraphic architecture
of these valleys is determined by: a) the antecedent topo-
graphy of the terrestrial valley system before inundation, and
b) the rate of fluvial sediment influx vs. the rate of relative
sea-level rise (Schumm & Etheridge 1994; Zaitlin et al. 1994;
Gupta 1999).
The basal sedimentary cover of the southwestern margin of
the Carpathian Foredeep (Alpine-Carpathian peripheral fore-
land basin) is deposited on a highly irregular erosional surface
evolved in the crystalline rocks of the Bohemian Massif or its
Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Paleogene sedimentary cover. Deep
troughs/paleovalleys cut into the foreland are oriented mostly
in a NW–SE direction almost perpendicularly to the main
basin axis. Erosional troughs in partly similar position are
also known from the Polish part of the Carpathian Foredeep
(Oszczypko & Tomaś 1976; Jucha 1985; Oszczypko & Ślączka
1985; Karnkowski 1989; Połtowicz 1998; Karnkowski &
Ozimkowski 2001; Oszczypko et al. 2006; Głuszyński &
Aleksandrowski 2016), Ukraine (Shpak et al. 1999), from
the North Alpine Foreland Basin (Kempf & Pfiffner 2004).
Numerous fluvial incised valleys are also known from the
southern margin of the Bohemian Massif in Austria, filled with
e.g., St.Marein–Freischling Fm., Langau Fm., Freistadt Fm. of
the Alpine–Carpathian Foredeep. Fluvial deposition in these
paleovalleys started in Late Oligocene and was forced back
during the Early Miocene transgression (Roetzel 2002).
An origin of the previously mentioned paleovalleys has been
explained by early-Paleogene fluvial erosion of the uplifted
Carpathian Foreland (Oszczypko & Tomaś 1976; Karnkowski
1989; Połtowicz 1998; Picha et al. 2006), partly or completely
controlled structurally (Oszczypko & Ślączka 1985; Krzywiec
1997, 2001). These assumptions fit with the about 1.5 km
deep Vranovice and Nesvačilka troughs filled with Paleogene
242
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
clastic deposits (Picha 1979; Picha et al. 2006). Newly the Žero-
tice trough was defined by Krejčí et al. 2017. According to
Jarosiñski et al. (2009) the fluvial incision of the Mesozoic
and older strata of the Polish Carpathian Foreland occurred
during late Oligocene to early Miocene and the incision only
shortly or directly preceded the deposition of the flexurally
induced transgression.
Deposits below and above the flexurally induced transgres-
sion within the paleovalleys are separated by “peripheral fore-
bulge unconformity”. The peripheral forebulge unconformity
is a megasequence boundary separating the overlying foreland
basin fills from the underlying passive margin sequences and
differs from type 1 unconformity characterized by a major
eustatic sea level fall (Crampton & Allen 1995).
Nehyba (2000) supposed the existence of a paleovalley
cut into the foreland margin of the southwestern margin of
the Car pathian Foredeep NE–SE of Znojmo (see Fig. 1).
The deposits of the Žerotice Formation (Oligocene/Miocene),
which represent the basal member of Neogene sedimentary
succession of the southwestern margin of the Carpathian
Foredeep were recognised within this paleovalley. The paper
presented is focused on the sedimentary infill of the paleo-
valley with several goals: (i) to provide the sedimentological
and provenance analysis of the Žerotice Fm.; (ii) to compare
the provenance of successive beds of the foreland-basin infill
below and above the flexurally induced transgressive surface/
basal forebulge unconformity and (iii) to describe the paleo-
drainage evolution.
Geological setting
The southwestern margin of the Carpathian Foredeep, where
the study area is located, represents a peripheral foreland basin
formed due to the tectonic emplacement and crustal loading of
the Alpine–Carpathian Thrust Wedge onto the passive margin
of the Bohemian Massif (Nehyba & Šikula 2007; Fig. 1A).
The stratigraphic range of the sedimentary infill of the Car pa-
thian Foredeep is Oligocene/lower Miocene (Egerian) to middle
Miocene (lower Badenian) (Brzobohatý & Cicha 1993; Fig. 2).
Fig. 1. Geographical location of the area
under study with: A — position of
the area within the Carpathian Fore-
deep; B — geological map of the area
under study with known areal extend
of the Žerotice Formation and location
of the studied boreholes. Quarternary
deposits and deposits of the Carpathian
Foredeep except the deposits of
the Žerotice Formation are removed.
243
FLEXURALLY INDUCED TRANSGRESSION IN THE CARPATHIAN FOREDEEP
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Brunovistulian, Moldanubian and Moravian
Units (Proterozoic–Paleozoic) create crystalline
basement of the southern part of the Carpathian
Foredeep. Culmian (Lower Carboniferous) sedi-
ments of the Moravosilesian Unit and Carbo-
niferous–Permian sediments of the Boskovice
Basin cover the crystalline fundament.
Whereas the Oligocene fluvial deposits of
the St. Marein–Freischling Formation preceding
the marine transgression of the Alpine Foredeep
in Lower Austria are outcropped in numerous sec-
tions in a relative broad area (Nehyba & Roetzel
2010), the basal deposits of the Carpathian Fore-
deep in Moravia known as the Žerotice Member
were recognised below the surface in a highly
restricted area about 10 km NE–SE of Znojmo
(Dlabač 1976; Čtyroký 1982, 1991). Originally
Prachař (1970) described these deposits as Žero-
tice series according to the village nearby to bore-
hole ZN-7, where they were firstly recognised.
Later Dlabač (1976) used the term Žerotice
Member and this term is still widely used
(Brzobohatý 2002; Adámek 2003 etc.). However,
from litostratigraphic point of view, these depo-
sits should be designed of the Žerotice Formation
(ŽFm) and this term is also used in this paper.
Recently Roetzel (2017) reported sediments
simi lar to the ŽFm at the margin of the Bohe-
mian Massif in Austria and described them as
the Ravels bach Fm.
The ŽFm forms a NW–SE prolonged narrow
(about 2 km in width and about 15 km in length)
belt localized between the village Žerotice and
Božice (Krejčí et al. 2017). The actually known
areal extent of the ŽFm is presented in Fig. 1B together with
a schematized geological map of the area and boreholes under
study (for position of the boreholes see Table 1).
Deposits of the ŽFm directly cover the crystalline basement
or its Pre-Cenozoic sedimentary cover (Dlabač 1976; Čtyroký
1982). These variegated clays, silts, sands and gravels are
barren of fossils and stratigraphically they are supposed to be
Egerian(?) to Eggenburgian (Čtyroký 1982, 1991, 1993) or
Oligocene (Dlabač 1976). Deposits of the ŽFm are overlain by
shallow marine Eggenburgian beds and Čtyroký (1993) sup-
posed a sedimentary transition between them. The deposits of
the ŽFm were interpreted as deltaic or flash flood deposits
under terrestrial conditions (Dlabač 1976). Čtyroký (1982)
supposed that the ŽFm represents an alternation of depositions
in shallow depression or lake sediments (green beds) and
terrestrial flash floods sediments (red and violet beds).
Interpretation of the ŽFm as terrestrial (alluvial, fluvial or
lacustrine) beds can be followed in Krystková & Krystek
(1981), Čtyroký (1991) and Brzobohatý & Cicha (1993).
The ŽFm is overlain by Eggenburgian, Ottnangian and
finally lower Badenian deposits. Eggenburgian sediments are
represented by diversified lithologies such as sands, siltstones
and claystones (46 m in borehole Že-1, Čtyroký 1982).
The spectrum of shallow water Eggenburgian sediments is
characterised by basal gravels, sands and sandstones, often
kaolinised, locally with numerous euhaline molluscs (e.g.,
Glycymeris fichtelli) or a brackish fauna (Granulolabium
moravicum, Crassostrea sp.), and also clays and claystones
with pieces of coal residues (Čtyroký 1982). A horizon of vol-
caniclastics has been recognized in this area and is correlated
with the late Eggenburgian (Nehyba et al. 1999).
During Ottnangian the connection to the open sea was
limited and Eggenburgian sediments were partly eroded
during lower Ottnangian. Sands and clays with remains of
fish and plants were deposited (Vítonice Clays) north of
Znojmo. Volcaniclastic horizons are known in the early
Ottnangian around Miroslav (Nehyba et al. 1999). A fresh-
water to brackish depositional environment, locally with
an anoxic regime, was recognised during Ottnangian
(Brzobohatý 2002).
Lower Badenian sediments that are represented by calca-
reous clays with typical foraminiferal fauna with Orbulina
suturalis are preserved in a tectonically predisposed depres-
sion e.g. nearby Šatov (Roetzel et al. 2004).
Fig. 2. Generalized stratigraphic scheme of the sedimentary infill of the southern and
middle part of the Carpathian Foredeep with position of the Žerotice Formation
(modified after Brzobohatý 2002, Adámek 2003 and Adámek et al. 2003).
244
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Methods
The results of the study of deposits of the ŽFm and directly
overlying Eggenburgian beds are based on the study of the pre-
served cores from boreholes ZN-4, ZN-5, ZN-7, ZN-8, ZN-12
and HV-303. Unfortunately, the cores are rare, discontinuous
and volumetrically small because these boreholes were drilled
more than five decades ago. Similarly, mostly only general
descriptions of lithology and stratigraphy of sedimentary suc-
cessions are available (Dlabač 1976). Such a situation limits
the use of conventional methods of sedimentological analysis
(Walker & James 1992; Tucker 1995; Collinson et al. 2006).
Lithofacial analysis is therefore based mainly on primary
description and textural data, because sedimentary structures
were recognized rarely and mostly in preserved samples.
Lithofacies were grouped into facies associations, i.e. assem-
blages of spatially and genetically related facies, which are
also the expressions of different sedimentary environments.
Pebble petrography, shape and roundness were determined
both in deposits of the ŽFm (4 samples) and in the overlying
Eggenburgian beds (6 samples) within a grain-size fraction of
larger than 4 mm. Shape and roundness were estimated under
binocular microscope using the methods of Zingg (1935) and
Powers (1982).
Combined sieving and laser methods were used for grain size
analysis (12 analyses). The coarser grain fraction (4–0.063 mm,
wet sieving) was analysed by a Retch AS 200 sieving machine
and a Cilas 1064 laser diffraction granulometer was used for
the analyses of the finer fraction (0.4 µm–0.5 mm). Ultrasonic
dispersion, distillate water and washing in sodium polyphos-
phate were used prior to analyses in order to avoid flocculation
of the particles analysed. The average grain size is illustrated
by the graphic mean (Mz) and the uniformity of the grain size
distribution/sorting by the standard deviation (σ
I
) (Folk &
Ward 1957).
The gamma-ray spectra (GRS) was measured by a GR-320
enviSPEC laboratory spectrometer with a 3×3 in. NaI(Tl)
scintillation detector (Exploranium, Canada). Counts per
second in selected energy windows were directly converted
to concentrations of K (%), U (ppm) and Th (ppm). One mea-
surement of 30 minutes was performed for each sample mea-
sured (19 samples from the ŽFm and 7 samples from
Eggenburgian beds — min. 300 g). The total radioactivity i.e.
“standard gamma ray” labeled as SGR was estimated from
the following relationship: SGR [API] = 16.32 × K (%) + 8.09 ×
U (ppm) + 3.93 × Th (ppm) (API units/ American Petroleum
Institute units) (Rider 1996).
Heavy minerals were studied in 9 samples from 5 boreholes
in the grain size fraction 0.063–0.125 mm. The che mistry of
garnet was analysed in 87 grains, the chemistry of both rutile
and tourmaline was based on data from 21 grains each. Elec-
tron microprobe analysis was done on a CAMECA SX 100
electron microprobe analyser in the Laboratory of Electron
Microscopy and Microanalysis of the Faculty of Science,
Masaryk University, Brno. Measurements were carried out
under following conditions: wave propagation mode, accele-
rating voltage 15 keV, beam current 10 nA (tourmaline) and
20 nA (garnet, rutile), beam size 5 µm (tourmaline) and 2 µm
(garnet, rutile). Zircon studies (external morphology, colour,
presence of older cores, inclusions and zoning, elongation)
were carried out on 255 grains from 3 samples from 3 bore-
holes (grain size fraction 63–125 µm). Results of zircon typo-
logy are based on 55 crystals.
For a purpose of micropaleontological studies, 8 samples
from 4 boreholes, were used. Sediments were soaked in warm
water with sodium carbonate for disaggregation, and then
washed under running water through 63 µm mesh sieves.
Microfauna was picked from the fraction, and identified with
a NIKON SMZ 745T binocular microscope. Occurrence of
foraminiferal assemblages indicating biostra tigraphy and
paleoecology of sediments was supposed.
Results
Facies analysis
Sedimentological study of the succession led to the distinc-
tion of 13 lithofacies. Descriptions and interpretations of these
lithofacies are given in Table 2. These descriptions and inter-
pretations are a little vague due to poor primary description
and the very limited number of samples for revision. Three
facies associations (FA) have been identified within
the studied sedimentary succession. The distribution of litho-
facies and facies associations in selected boreholes is pre-
sented in Fig. 3. Deposits of FA 1 and FA 2 represent the ŽFm
and FA 3 comprise the overlying Eggenburgian deposits.
The first facies association (FA 1) mantles the pre-Neogene
basement with an irregular unconformity surface and is over-
laid by deposits of FA 2. FA 1 is composed of lithofacies M1,
S1, S3, G1 and G2. FA1 is formed mostly (47.0 %) by very
thick bedded (1–4 m thick) massive mudstones of facies M1.
Medium to very thick bedded (0.2–3 m) massive sandstones
of facies S1 are also common (23.0 %) similarly to the medium
to very thick bedded poorly sorted coarse grained sandstones
Table 1: List of boreholes under study and their geographic coor-
dinates (coordinate system WGS84).
Boreholes
Geographic coordinates
N
E
Že-1
48°55.4814
16°10.3320
ZN-2
48°53.0962
16°10.1938
ZN-3
48°49.5742
16°19.7166
ZN-4
48°50.0330
16°17.6581
ZN-5
48°50.8305
16°16.2531
ZN-7
48°55.4885
16°10.3415
ZN-7A
48°55.4858
16°10.3380
ZN-8
48°54.7603
16°11.9170
ZN-10
48°55.8003
16°14.7444
ZN-11
48°51.4763
16°10.0517
HV-303
48°49.1586
16°17.1272
245
FLEXURALLY INDUCED TRANSGRESSION IN THE CARPATHIAN FOREDEEP
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
of facies S3 (21.2 %). Poorly sorted pebbly mudstones of
facies G 1 (7.4 %) and massive clast- or matrix-supported peb-
bly conglomerates of facies G2 (1.4 %) are less common.
The thickness of FA 1 is difficult to estimate, because its
base was often not reached by the drillings. The facies succes-
sion mostly displays a fining upward trend, together with
an upward decrease of maximum grain size.
The second facies association FA 2 is composed by of litho-
facies M1, M2, S1, S3, G1, Fe and T. Thick to very thick bed-
ded (0.4–8m thick) massive mudstones of facies M1 form
the predominant part of FA 2 (59.1 %). Medium to very thick
bedded massive sandstones of facies S1 form 22.2 % and
poorly sorted coarse grained sandstones of facies S3 comprise
12 %. Occurrences of the rest of the facies are very low
(T — 1.0 %, G1 — 0.4 %, M2 — 0.2 % and Fe — 0.2 %). FA2
either overlies the deposits of FA1 or directly covers the bed-
rock. FA2 is overlaid by the deposits of FA3 with a sharp con-
tact. Ferriferous oxides and hydroxides are a significant part of
the residuum. From a micropaleontological point of view,
the residua are barren of foraminifers. Some fragments of
unidentifiable tests of gastropoda and bivalvia and fragments
of teleostei bones and vertebra were found. The recognized
thickness of deposits of FA1+2 (i.e. the ŽFm) varies highly
between 4.5 and 65 m. The higher thicknesses were generally
recognised towards NW.
The third facies association FA 3 is composed of lithofacies
M2, M3, S1, S2, S4 and S5, and represents the uppermost part
of the succession studied. Laminated fossiliferous mudstones
of facies M3, laminated or rippled very fine sandstones of
facies S4 and S5 prevail in the studied part of FA3. Deposits of
FA3 are typically calcareous with characteristic occurrence of
mollusc shells or their detritus. Only the lower most portion of
the sedimentary pile of FA 3 was evaluated. Sediments contain
relatively abundant fragments of mollusc tests (gastro poda
and bivalvia), rarely fragments of bones, scales, tooth and ver-
tebra of teleostei. Tests are damaged and wrinkled.
Symbol
Description
Interpretation
M1
Greyish green, light brown, olive brown, yellowish green, light green reddish or blue green
mottled “variegated” mudstone (siltstone, silty clay to claystone). Mostly massive, common
tectonic deformations (fractures, fault polish). Admixture of sand and of small pebbles
(mostly subangular, less commonly rounded) of whitish quartz, gneisses, limestones,
shales). Faint lamination very rare. Mz = 0.03–0.07 mm, σ
I
= 1.8–2.0 ϕ
Suspension deposits, admixture of
material transported by traction.
Fine-grained floodplain deposits to
lagoonal deposits.
M2
Greyish brown, dark grey mudstone (clay to claystone, clayey siltstone), massive, rich in
content of coalified plant detritus or coal fragments.
Estuarine–lagoon suspension deposits.
M3
Greenish grey, both light and dark grey mudstone (clayey silt to silty clay) with common
occurrence of shells or shell debris. Planar parallel laminated (mostly horizontal, less
commonly undulated). Rhythmic alternations of laminas rich and poor in content of shell
debris (Mollusca) recognised rarely.
Estuarine to marine–transition zone.
S1
Green grey, grey green, light green, sometime reddish mottled, fine, fine to medium
sandstone. Mostly relatively well sorted, less commonly admixture of gravelite (clast up to
5 mm in diameter). Massive, admixture of white mica, rare fragments of coalified plant
detritus. Mz = 0.13–0.27 mm, σ
I
= 1.9–2.8 ϕ
Fluvial bars to delta mouth bars.
S2
Whitish grey, yellowish grey medium to coarse grained sandstone. Well sorted. Mostly
calcareous.
Nearshore deposits.
S3
Grey to dark grey, dark green grey, olive green, medium, medium to coarse or very coarse
grained sandstone sometimes with admixture of subangular clasts up to 1 cm in diameter.
Massive, matrix rich in clay. Mz = 0.18 mm, σ
I
= 2.2 ϕ
Storm washover or fluvial flood flow
deposits.
S4
Grey, beige brown, very fine sandstone to siltstone, plane parallel lamination or ripple
lamination. Sometimes alternations of silty and sandy laminas. Common occurrence of
shell debris, significant content of light mica. Mz = 0.14 mm, σ
I
= 2.9 ϕ
Nearshore deposits.
S5
Grey, dark grey fine to medium grained sand to sandstone, relative well sorted, laminated,
calcareous. Higher content of shell detritus (Mollusca, Ostrea,..), rich in coalified plant
detritus.
Nearshore deposits.
G1
Green grey, dark green, reddish mottled pebbly mudstone. Subrounded to subangular
pebbles of crystalline rocks (up to 3 cm in diameter) scattered in claystone. Intraclasts of
darker claystones are less common. Sometime fractured and deformed. Mz = 0.28 mm,
σ
I
= 2.9 ϕ
Deposits of mass flows (cohesive debris
flows).
G2
Grey sandy gravel to conglomerate. Clast to matrix supported, massive. Subrounded
pebbles up to 5 cm in diameter (mostly about 2 cm). Pebbles are formed by quartz,
quartzite, granitoids. Poorly sorted coarse to very coarse sandstone matrix.
Mass flows (noncohesive debris flows),
stream flows (flood flows).
Fe
Green grey to yellow brown oolitic ironstone. Diameter of oolites of about 1 mm.
Protected coastal settings or lagoon.
T
Tectonic breccia — angular fragments of claystone and sandstone.
Postdepositional deformation of M1 or
M2 facies.
Table 2: Descriptive summary list of lithofacies of the studied deposits distinguished in the cores or based on primary description of the bore-
holes. The graphic mean Mz and the standard deviation σ
I
were calculated after Folk & Ward (1957).
246
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Fig.
3.
Sediment
ological
core
logs of the
boreholes:
A
— borehole
ZN-4;
B
—
borehole
ZN-8;
C
—
borehole
ZN-5;
D
—
borehole
ZN-12;
E
— borehole
HV
-303;
F — borehole
ZN-7, with
litho
-
facies
and
facies
associations.
Log
legend:
1
—
gravel;
2
—
pebbly
mudstone;
3
—
sand;
4
—
sandy
mud,
silt;
5
—
clayey
mud,
clay;
6
—
Paleozoic/cry
stalline
basement;
7
—
tectonic
deformation,
fissures; 8 — plant fragments; 9 — shells; 10 — outsized pebbles, cobbles; 1
1 — mudstone intraclasts.
247
FLEXURALLY INDUCED TRANSGRESSION IN THE CARPATHIAN FOREDEEP
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Interpretation: The dominant thick bedded arrangement of
FA 1, poorly organized texture, evidence of clast- to matrix-
supported conglomerates and a general lack of stratification
point to a non-selective, en-masse style of deposition partly
(conglomeratic facies) from flows of high sediment concentra-
tion (Nemec & Steel 1984; Went 2005). Conglomeratic facies
are attributed to cohesive- and non-cohesive sediment debris
flows (Lowe 1982) or debris flows and hyperconcentrated
density flows (Mulder & Alexander 2001). However, the pre-
dominant massive mudstones of facies M1 reveal relatively
quiet depositional conditions with suspension deposition
(standing-water floodbasin). Alternation of deposits of M1
with sandstone lithofacies S1, S3, which are interpreted as
traction deposits and conglomerates G1, G2 signalize dramatic
changes in the transportation agents and deposition. Such
a situation is common in relatively arid climatic conditions
with episodic shallow, high-energy stream flows or mass flows
(Hampton & Horton 2007). The poor sorting is connected with
flashy discharge. Alternation of more or less humid/arid con-
ditions could be signalized by the variegated colour of depo-
sits. However, it could be also a signal of erosion of lateritic
crusts. Deposits of FA 1 are therefore interpreted as alluvial to
fluvial deposits. Deposition of facies M1 might have occurred
during recessional flood stages or during the long intervals
between major flash floods (Blair 1999) and represents a flood
plain (Bridge & Demicco 2008). The fining-upward arrange-
ment of FA 1 is interpreted as evidence of a decrease in trans-
porting capacity and discharge of the flows filling the negative
relief/valley and by infill aggradation (Lewin & Ashworth
2014). It might be an evidence of discharge variations and
water ponding that controlled the alternation between flooding,
stagnation and infiltration (Marconato et al. 2014). Another
possibility is a terminal fan/fluvial distributary system (Nichols
& Fischer 2007), which developed under the influence of
semi-arid to arid climatic regimes. Multiple small and shallow
distributive channels co-exist in such fan-like depositional
systems, leading to rapid shifting from an active to an aban-
doned tracts/part of the system (Weissmann et al. 2010).
The fining upward arrangement might also be connected with
the retrograding character of a depositional system (i.e. cra-
tonward retreat).
Deposits of FA 2 were interpreted as distal flood plain/flood
basin deposits influenced by water flows (Mertz & Hubert
1990). Variegated colour and mottling might signalize subae-
rial exposure and/or erosion of lateritic crusts. Occurrence of
coalified plant detritus, dominance of planar lamination, and
rhythmic alternation of mudstone and sandstone facies point
to alternation of deposition from suspension and traction, and
the common low relief of the depositional plane. Continued
fluvial influence and sediment support is indicated by the pre-
sence of thin flood-generated interbeds or thicker beds of
facies S1 or S3 (washover beds, crevasse-splay lobes, mouth
bars or a possible bayhead delta) within dominant mudstones
of facies M1 (standing-water conditions in floodbasins;
Fralick & Zaniewski 2012). Plant fragments reveal humid
conditions with a positive hydrological budget in the source
area and rapid deposition (e.g., Fielding 1985; Fernández et al.
1988; Lottes & Ziegler 1994).
Relatively good sorting (comparing to deposits of FA1+2)
of deposits of FA 3, the common clean texture of both sandy
and muddy facies suggest reworking by wave and/or tide
action in a nearshore environment, which is consistent with
the occurrence of fragments of unidentifiable tests of fossil
molluscs–gastropoda and bivalvia. A relatively proximal
marine realm can be inferred from the important role of sand-
stones and content of mollusc shells. The occurrence of terres-
trial organic matter debris suggests fluvial/deltaic support
nearby or coastal flats (Dietrich et al. 2017). Deposits of FA 3
are therefore interpreted as nearshore deposits connected with
Eggenburgian marine transgression. They are equivalent to
the marginal shallow marine development of Eggenburgian
deposits of Čtyroký (1982, 1991). The flexurally induced
transgressive surface is located along the base of FA3.
Provenance analysis
Provenance analysis is based on the pebble petrography and
analysis of heavy minerals.
Petrography and size of pebbles, shape and roundness of
pebbles
The composition of granules and pebbles within deposits of
the ŽFm varies. Quartz pebbles dominate in the majority of
samples forming 20–100 % of the pebble spectra. Varieties of
quartz are present. Whitish, milky quartz is the main type, with
dark or light grey, brown and pinkish types subordinating.
Crystalline metamorphic rocks form an important part of
the pebble and granule suite with a dominance of phyllites (up
to 40 %) and mica schists (up to 10 %). Quartzite, greenschist
and quartz + feldspar aggregate were recognised exceptionally.
Sandstones (brown or reddish fine or coarse grained quartzose
ones) were identified in some samples, forming up to 25 % of
the spectra. Pebbles and granules reveal a mostly (44 %) bladed
shape. Discs were less common (28.8 %), similarly to spheres
(17 %) or rods (10.2 %). Clasts were mostly angular (70.4 %)
followed by subangular ones (23.6 %). Subrounded (5.5 %) or
even rounded (0.5 %) clasts are significantly less common.
The composition of granules and pebbles of the overlying
Eggenburgian beds (FA 3) is remarkably simpler. Quartz con-
tent highly varies, forming up to 100 % in one sample and
missing in other ones. Clastic sedimentary rocks play a domi-
nant role in pebble and granule spectra. They are represented
by light grey siltstone (up to 100 %), fine to coarse grained
quartzose sandstone (up to 54.3 %), and calcareous fossil rich
sandstone (up to 28.6 %). Pebbles of crystalline rocks were not
recognised. Clasts reveal mostly (50.8 %) a disc shape. Blades
were also common (41 %) to the expense of spheres (4.5 %)
and rods (3.7 %). Clasts are mostly angular (49.4 %) or sub-
angular (36.6 %); however, the content of subrounded (11.2 %)
and rounded (3.0 %) clasts is higher than in deposits of
the ŽFm.
248
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Heavy minerals
Heavy minerals are sensitive indicators of provenance,
weathering, transport, deposition and diagenesis (Morton &
Hallsworth 1994), especially if combined with the chemistry
of selected heavy minerals (Morton 1984). The ZTR (zir-
con + tourmaline + rutile) index is widely accepted as a crite-
rion for the mineralogical “maturity” of heavy mineral
assem blages (Hubert 1962; Morton & Hallsworth 1994) in
the case of derivation from a similar source. Garnet, rutile,
zircon and tourmaline are relatively stable in diagenesis and
have a wide compositional range. Therefore, they enabled
a detailed evaluation of the deposits studied.
Heavy mineral assemblages
The heavy mineral assemblages of the ŽFm highly varied.
Whereas garnet (13.3–49.9 %) and also rutile (30–34.8 %)
were common in all samples studied, the content of zircon
(4.8–24.1 %), kyanite (0.2–22.4 %) and apatite (1.8–20 %)
significantly varied in individual samples. The other heavy
minerals i.e. staurolite, tourmaline, monazite, epidote, apatite,
titanite, spinel, andalusite, and sillimanite are accessory, for-
ming only a few percent each. The value of ZTR ranges
between 17.8 and 60.8 %.
The heavy mineral spectra of the overlying Eggenburgian
beds is significantly simpler with a typical garnet (49–53 %) –
staurolite (25–39 %) assemblage. The other heavy minerals
such as amphibole, epidote, kyanite, tourmaline, zircon, apa-
tite, rutile, sillimanite, titanite, andalusite, monazite, anatase
and brookite are accessory, forming only a few percent each.
The value of ZTR was always below 10 %.
The heavy mineral spectra of the underlying
Permian beds include in various ratios garnet,
rutile, and apatite and less commonly (under
10 mod. %) also zircone. Such assemblages are
generally common in Permian sediments in
close vicinity.
Composition of garnet
The chemistry of detrital garnet is widely
used for the more detailed determination of
source rocks (Morton 1984). Ten garnet types
were recognised for the deposits of the ŽFm
and eight garnet types were identified within
the overlying Eggenburgian beds (see Table 3).
It is evident that although the garnet types are
similar (with the strong dominance of alman-
dines), differences in the garnet spectra of these
two stratigraphic units exist.
Several ternary discrimination diagrams
were utilized for more detailed identification of
the primary source of garnet (Fig. 4). The PRP–
ALM+SPS–GRS diagram (Mange & Morton
2007) in Figure 4A reflects the dominant source
of garnets for rocks of the ŽFm from amphi bolite-facies
metasedimentary rocks or intermediate to felsic igneous rocks
(both 30 %). Significantly less common are garnets from high-
grade mafic rocks (15 %) and high-grade granulite-facies meta-
sediments and intermediate felsitic igneous rocks (12.5 %).
Garnets from ultramafics like pyroxenites and peridotites
(7.5 %) or metasomatic rocks, and very low-grade metamafic
rocks (5 %) are rare. The overlying marine Eggenburgian beds
reveal a dominant (31.4 %) source from amphibolite-facies
metasedimentary rocks and high-grade granulite-facies meta-
sediments or intermediate felsitic igneous rocks (28.6 %).
Garnets from intermediate to felsic igneous rocks (20 %) and
garnets from high-grade mafic rocks (17.1 %) are less com-
mon. Garnets from ultramafics (2.9 %) are rare.
The PRP–ALM–GRS diagram (Méres 2008; Aubrecht et al.
2009) in Figure 4B indicates the dominant (56.1 %) primary
source of garnets for the rocks of the ŽFm, derived from
amphibolite-facies rocks, serpentinites and igneous rocks.
Less common (22 %) are garnets from higher amphibolite- to
granulite-facies rocks and also garnets from eclogite- and
granulite-facies rocks (14.6 %). Garnets from high- to ultrahigh-
pressure rocks are rare (7.3 %). The overlying Eggenburgian
rocks reveal a dominant source from amphibolite facies rocks,
serpentinites and igneous rocks (47.1 %) and from eclogite-
and granulite-facies rocks (32.4 %). Less common (17.6 %)
are garnets from higher amphibolite- to granulite-facies rocks
and exceptional (2.9 %) are garnets from high- to ultrahigh-
pressure rocks.
Diagram GRS–SPS–PRP (Fig. 4C) enables a comparisson
to the potential source rocks of the eastern margin of
the Bohemian Massif (Otava et al. 2000; Čopjaková et al.
Garnet type
Žerotice
Fm.
Eggenburgian
beds
Boskovice
Basin
ALM
50–80
PRP
11–47
GRS
1–7
SPS
1–7
ADR
0–2
34.9 %
35.3 %
50.4 %
ALM
58–74
GRS
10–23
PRP
4–9
SPS
2–8
ADR
3–4
16.3 %
23.5 %
16.7 %
ALM
73–77
SPS
16–17
PRP
4–6
GRS
0–2
ADR
0–2
–
8.8 %
4.5 %
ALM
80–90
PRP
4–10
SPS
2–8
GRS
0–8
ADR
0–2
7.0 %
5.9 %
5.3 %
ALM
47–57
SPS25
–28
Prp
3–11
GRS
10–11
ADR
3–4
2.3 %
–
3.9 %
ALM
42–62
GRS
19–28
PRP
14–27
SPS
1–2
ADR
0–2
7 %
8.8 %
11.3 %
ALM
55–75
PRP
12–33
GRS
11–28
SPS
1–8
ADR
1–3
16.3 %
11.8 %
2.3 %
ALM
54–57
GRS
21–25
SPS
13–16
PRP
4
ADR
1–4
2.3 %
2.9 %
0.8 %
PRP
68–73
ALM
16–17
GRS
0–6
SPS
1–2
ADR
3–4
UVA
0–10
7.0 %
2.9 %
–
PRP
42
ALM
35
GRS
20
ADR
2
SPS
1
2.3 %
–
–
GRS
56–65
ADR
24–33
ALM
7
SPS
1–2
PRP
1
4.7 %
–
1.5 %
ALM
(69)
–PRP
(18)
–SPS
(12)
–
–
0.8 %
GRS
(74)
–PRP
(13)
–ADR
(12)
–
–
0.8 %
GRS
(50)
–ALM
(41)
–
–
0.8 %
PRP
(40)
–ADR
(36)
–ALM
(20)
–
–
0.8 %
Table 3: Recognised garnet types in the deposits of the Žerotice Formation, the over-
lying Eggenburgian beds and also Permo–Carboniferous beds of the Boskovice Basin
(data from Nehyba et al. 2012).
249
FLEXURALLY INDUCED TRANSGRESSION IN THE CARPATHIAN FOREDEEP
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
2002; Buriánek et al. 2012). A significant part of the garnets of
the ŽFm might originate from the Moravian Unit (27.8 %),
Moravian–Silesian Paleozoic/Culmian rocks (35.2 %) or from
the Moldanubian Unit (14.8 %). The source of garnets from
the Eggenburgian rocks is located in the Moravian Unit
(41.2 %) and Moravian–Silesian Paleozoic/Culmian rocks
(41.8 %).
Remarkable similarities can be recognized between garnets
from the ŽFm and garnet spectra from the Permo–Carbo-
niferous beds (Nehyba et al. 2012; Nehyba & Roetzel 2015) of
the Boskovice Basin (see Table 3).
Composition of rutile
Rutile as an ultrastable mineral is commonly used for
the provenance studies (Force 1980; Zack et al. 2004a, b;
Triebold et al. 2007).
The concentrations of the main diagnostic elements (Fe, Nb,
Cr and Zr) vary significantly in the ŽFm samples. The content
of Fe shows that 41.7 % of l rutiles evaluated originated from
magmatic rocks (pegmatites) and 58.3 % from metamorphic
rocks. The concentration of Nb ranges between 420 and 12130
(average/AVG 2781 ppm), the concentration of Cr varies
between 60 and 5540 ppm (AVG 1728 ppm), the concentra-
tion of Zr ranges between 100 and 1490 ppm (AVG 611 ppm)
and most (75 %) of log Cr/Nb values are negative. A discrimi-
nation plot of Cr vs. Nb is shown in Figure 5 and reveals that
the majority (50 %) of metamorphic rutiles originate from
metapelites (mica-schists, paragneisses, felsitic granulites),
and slightly more than one third (37.5 %) originate from
metamafic rocks (eclogites, basic granulites), according to
the grouping by Zack et al. (2004a, b) or Triebold et al. (2007).
According to the diagnostic criteria of Triebold et al. (2012)
all metamorphic rutiles originate from metapelites. The results
of Zr-in-rutile thermometry (applied to metapelitic rutiles only
— see Zack et al. 2004a, b; Meinhold et al. 2008) indicate that
Fig. 4. Ternary diagrams of the chemistry of detrital garnets
(ALM — almandine, GRS — grossular, PRP — pyrope, SPS — spes-
sartine): A — discrimination diagram according to Mange & Morton
(2007) (1 — pyroxenes and peridotites, 2 — high-grade granulite-
facies metasediments and intermediate felsic igneous rocks, 3 — inter-
mediate to felsic igneous rocks, 4 — amphibolite-facies metasdimentary
rocks, 5 — high-grade mafic rocks, 6 — metasomatic rocks, very
low- grade metamafic rocks and ultrahigh temperature metamor-
phosed calc–silicate granulites); B — discrimination diagram accor-
ding to Méres (2008), Aubrecht et al. (2009) (1 — pyroxenes and
peridotites, 2 — felsic and intermediate granulites, 3 — gneisses and
amphibolites metamorphosed under pressure and temperature condi-
tions transitional to granulite and amphibolite facies metamorphism,
4 — gneisses metamorphosed under amphibolite facies conditions);
C — Ternary diagram of the chemistry of detrital garnets in compari-
son with possible source areas (1 — Moravian Unit, 2 — Moldanubian
Unit, 3 — Svratka Crystalline Complex, 4 — granites of the Brno
Massif, 5 — migmatites of the Brno Massif, 6 — younger part of
the Moravian–Silesian Paleozoic/Culmian). Data from source rocks
according to Otava et al. (2000); Čopjaková et al. (2002, 2005) and
Buriánek et al. (2012).
250
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
rutiles originated from highly metamor-
phosed crystalline rocks (granulite, amphi-
bolite and eclogite facies).
The concentrations of the main diag-
nostic elements (Fe, Nb, Cr and Zr) also
vary significantly in the samples from
Eggenburgian deposits. The content of Fe
shows that 22.2 % of rutiles originate from
magmatic rocks (pegmatites) and 87.8 %
from metamorphic rocks. The concen-
tration of Nb ranges between 640 and
15990 ppm (AVG 3580 ppm), the concen-
trations of Cr ranges between 100 and
4080 ppm (AVG 1204 ppm), the concen-
tration of Zr varies between 100 and
8800 ppm (AVG 2100 ppm) and most
(88.9 %) of log Cr/Nb values are negative. The discrimination
plot of Cr vs. Nb (Fig. 5) reveals that the metamorphic rocks
mostly originate from metapelites (75 %) and the source from
metamafic rocks is less common (25 %) (Zack et al. 2004a, b;
Meinhold et al. 2008; Triebold et al. 2012). According to
the diagnostic criteria of Triebold et al. (2012) all metamor-
phic rutiles originated from metapelites. The application of
“Zr-in-rutile thermometry” in metapelitic rutiles (Zack et al.
2004a, b; Meinhold et al. 2008) points to broad spectra of
metamorphic rocks (green schists, amphibolite-, granulite-,
eclogite-facies).
Zircon studies
Zircon as very stable mineral is used for evaluation of
the source rock, the role of recycling and the erosion rate
(Poldervaart 1950; Mader 1980; Winter 1981; Lihou & Mange-
Rajetzky 1996). Zircons were evaluated only for the ŽFm.
Euhedral zircons represent 4.3 to 11.8 %, subhedral zircons
form 25.9 to 32.4 % and rounded to subrounded ones 55.9 %
to 67.6 % of the zircon spectra. Crystal faces were identified at
52.7 to 78.1 % zircon grains. Fracturing of zircon grains were
relatively common (33.6 % to 49.1 % of the grain spectra).
Grains fractured nearly parallel to the c-axis were more com-
mon (28.3 to 41.8 %) than grains fractured perpendicular to
the c-axis (5.3 to 7.3 %). Cracks were recognised in the majo-
rity of grains (72.7 to 96.9 %). The high portion of broken
zircons points to primarily higher content of zircons with high
value of elongation. Colourless zircons form 23.5 % to 41.1 %,
zircons with a pale colour 49.1 to 60.9 %, brown ones 3.1 to
3.3 % and pink zircons 0 to 1.8 %. The proportion of zoned
zircons was relatively low (10 to 21.9 %), zircons with older
cores were rare (0.9 to 8 %). Inclusions were recognised in
79.1 to 93.8 % of the grains studied.
Elongation (the relationship between the length and width
of crystals) was used as an indicator for possible host rocks,
cooling rate and transport duration (Poldervaart 1950; Hoppe
1966; Zimmerle 1979; Finger & Haunschmid 1988). The ave-
rage value of elongation of the zircons studied is 2.05 and
the distribution of elongation is shown in Figure 6A. Zircons
with elongation < 2.0 are more common (60.4 %) than zircons
with elongation > 2.0 (39.6 %). Zircons with an elongation
of > 3 represent 6.3 %. Such zircons are supposed to reflect
a volcanic origin and/or limited transport (Zimmerle 1979).
The maximum elongation was 6.75; however, broken prisms
of columnar crystals of zircon were relatively common.
%
Fig. 5. Discrimination plot Cr vs. Nb of investigated rutiles (after Zack et al. 2004b).
Fig. 6. Diagrams for studied zircons. A — Histogram of zircon elon-
gation; B — typology of the zircons in the Pupin diagram (Pupin 1980).
251
FLEXURALLY INDUCED TRANSGRESSION IN THE CARPATHIAN FOREDEEP
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Evaluation of zircon typology according to Pupin (1980,
1985) is based on the external zircon faces (both pyramids and
prisms). This method assumes that the parent magma (espe-
cially the aluminium and alkali content and the crystallisation
temperature) show a correlation with the produced zircon sub-
type. A standard designation was proposed for 64 zircon sub-
types (Pupin 1980, 1985). In the case studied, a relatively broad
spectrum of subtypes has been recognised. The most common
were the typological subtypes S12 (17.9 %), S17 (14.5 %),
S23 (11.6 %) and S18 (10.2 %). Further subtypes i.e. S7, S19,
S22, S13, S24, S16, S8, S21, S14, S11 and J3 were less com-
mon. The distribution and abundance of zircon subtypes in
the typological diagram of Pupin (1980) are shown in Figure 6B.
The diagram shows a slightly higher occurrence of crystals
with flat [101] pyramids over steep ones [211] and a predomi-
nance of the prism form [100] over the form [110] and points
to the hybrid character of the parent magma.
Tourmaline
Generally, tourmaline chemistry of the analysed grains from
the ŽFm and Eggenburgian beds range to a moderate degree in
major and minor element concentrations — SiO
2
: 34.3–36.3 %,
Al
2
O
3
: 28.1–34.5 %, FeO: 5.2–12.0 %, MgO: 1.9–8.3 %, CaO:
0.1–2.1 %, Na
2
O: 1.2–2.5 %, TiO
2
: 0.4–2.3 %, F: 0.1–0.6 %,
K
2
O: 0–0.1 % and MnO: 0–0.3 %. Analyzed tourmalines rep-
resent mixtures of dravite and schorl (Fig. 7). Tourmalines of
the ŽFm are slightly more commonly dravites (66.7 %) than
shorls (33.3 %), similarly to the tourmalines of Eggenburgian
beds (dravites 53.8 % and schorls 46.2 %).
Several ternary discrimination diagrams were utilized for
more detailed identification of the primary source of tourma-
line (Fig. 8). The Al–Fe+Mn–Mg and Fe–Mg–Ca diagrams
(after Henry & Guidotti 1985) in Figure 8A and 8B indicate
the source of tourmaline of both the ŽFm and marine Eggen-
burgian beds to be mostly from metapelites and metapsamites
and also from Li-poor granitoids. Provenance-discrimination
plots of Al–Fe+Mn–Mg and VAC–Na–Ca (data from possible
source rocks after Buriánek et al. 2012) reveal a generally
mixed source from both the Moravian Unit (ŽFm 62.5 %,
Eggenburgian beds 70 %) and the Moldanubian Unit (ŽFm
37.5 %, Eggenburgian beds 40 %) (Fig. 8C, D). In general, no
significant differences were recognised between tourmalines
from the ŽFm and Eggenburgian beds.
Interpretation of provenance data
A high portion of metamorphic (phyllites, mica schists)
clasts points to a primary source of low- to medium- grade
metapelites. Phyllites reveal a low resistance to weathering
and transport, which together with their blade shape and clast
angularity point to a short transport and a local source. This
primary source of the ŽFm was located in the adjacent
Moravian Unit (Šafov and/or Lukov Group) towards the W–
NW. Sandstones were redeposited from older Permo–
Carboniferous deposits. The very variable heavy mineral
assemblages and low content of stable and low-stable heavy
minerals (pyroxene, amphibole, etc.) point to relatively deeply
weathered source rocks, the dominant role of the local sources
and an areally restricted depositional environment. The high
content of rutile and zircon (compared to tourmaline) supports
redeposition from older strata. A very similar distribution of
garnet types was recognised in the Permo–Carboniferous
rocks of the Boskovice Basin (Nehyba et al. 2012) also
with the occurrence of “exotic” andradite-grossular garnets.
A source from these deposits is therefore highly probable for
the ŽFm. Moreover, the Permo–Carboniferous deposits were
recognised as a direct underlying rock of the ŽFm in borehole
ZN-5. Short transport and redeposition from weathered bed-
rock is confirmed by an important content of mostly angular
quartz clasts. Batík et al. (1983) described clasts of amphibo-
lites, granites, granodiorites, and aplites in deposits of the ŽFm.
The source of these rocks can also be located W to NW in
the Moldanubian Unit, in the Thaya Batholith or Moravian
Unit. These sources were confirmed by the study of tourma-
line. The presence of garnet confirms metamorphic complexes
(crystalline schists) in the source area. Zircon, tourmaline, and
rutile are common in acidic to intermediate magmatic rocks,
similarly to selected metamorphic rocks (von Eynatten &
Gaupp 1999) and a high content of these ultrastable minerals
Fig. 7. Classification diagrams for studied tourmaline.
252
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
is connected with redeposition from older deposits. The zircon
spectra (subordinate euhedral crystals and grains with high
elongation, numerous broken crystals, etc.) rather supports
the influence of a secondary/recycled source than the primary
source. Generally similar zircon characteristics are known
from the Permo–Carboniferous deposits of the Boskovice
Basin (Nehyba et al. 2012). Recognised euhedral zircons can-
not be correlated in a straightforward manner with zircons
from granitoids of the Brno Massif (Leichmann & Höck 2008)
or Thaya Batholith (F. Finger, personal information).
The overlying Eggenburgian beds reveal different source of
pebbles and granules. The dominance of clastic sandstones
and siltstones points to redeposition from older sedimentary
basin infill (Mesozoic–Paleogene in age?, erosion of deposits
of the ŽFm?). Simple clast spectra and a lower content of
angular clasts (in favour of rounded, subrounded and subangu-
lar clasts) confirm longer transport and/or the more significant
role of secondary source/redeposition. Increased content of
blades and discs (at the expense of rods and spheres — if com-
pared to the ŽFm) could reveal influence of wave action
(Postma & Nemec 1990). The source area was also located W
to NW in the Moldanubian and Moravian Units. These sources
were also confirmed by the tourmaline study. Stable heavy
mineral assemblage, higher content of stable (staurolite,
garnet, apatite, etc.) minerals at the expense of ultrastable
ones reveal a more uniform transportation agent/depositional
environment and a significant provenance shift towards
less weathered crystalline schists. The garnet–staurolite
Fig. 8. Ternary discrimination diagrams for tourmaline. A — The Al–Fe+Mn–Mg diagram (after Henry & Guidotti 1985); B — the Fe–Mg–Ca
diagram (after Henry & Guidotti 1985); C — Provenance-discrimination plot Al–Fe+Mn–Mg; D — provenance-discrimination plot and
VAC–Na–Ca. Data from possible source rocks after Buriánek et al. (2012).
253
FLEXURALLY INDUCED TRANSGRESSION IN THE CARPATHIAN FOREDEEP
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
assemblage is generally typical of lower Miocene beds of
the Car pathian Foredeep and a source of staurolite is commonly
traced to Cretaceous deposits according to results of Krystek
(1981). Rutile studies reveal the higher influence of metamor-
phic rocks mostly originated from metapelites at the expense
of magmatic rocks and metamafics in Eggenburgian beds
compared to the ŽFm. Heavy mineral assemblages of Eggen-
burgian (and often also Ottnangian) beds reflect mainly meta-
sedimentary rocks as the primary source. Nevertheless, there
was a great deal of such minerals such as staurolite, kyanite,
andalusite, sillimanite and partly also ultrastable rutile and
tourmaline derived from residual products of weathering.
The genesis of mainly kaoline deposits started in the area
under study in Early Mesozoic and/or Paleogene times and
was controlled by tropical wet and hot climate (Neužil et al.
1980). There are still preserved large deposits of kaolin in
the close vicinity of Žerotice and Znojmo.
The dominance of almandine garnets taken on a simple
level shows the provenance from gneisses and mica schists.
Absolute dominance of almandine garnet is typical of the sedi-
mentary infill of the Carpathian Foredeep (Francírek & Nehyba
2016) or of Mesozoic deposits along the eastern margin of
the Bohemian Massif (Nehyba & Opletal 2016, 2017). Garnet
spectra of Eggenburgian deposits is more uniform and partly
different from the garnet spectra of the ŽFm. These differen-
ces can be explained by the different role of certain primary
source rocks in the source area of successive beds below and
above transgressive surface and a significant portion of rede-
position from the Permo–Carboniferous beds for the ŽFm (see
Fig. 9).
Gamma-ray spectral analysis
GRS is used for identification of lithology, grain size,
sorting, processes in the source area and its composition,
identification of clay minerals, content of organic matter, basin-
wide correlations, identification of the depositional environ-
ment, etc. (Ruffell & Worden 2000; Akinlotan 2017).
The results of gamma-ray spectral analysis are presented in
Table 4. Deposits of the ŽFm reveal relative varied gamma ray
spectra. Concentrations of K are moderate to high and the high
concentrations significantly predominate. Concentrations of U
and the value of the Th/K vary between low to high. Con-
centrations of Th and the values of the Th/U ratio are all rela-
tively high. Evaluations of concentrations are according to
Hasselbo (1996). The Th and K concentrations show a rela-
tively high positive correlation (linear regression coefficient;
R = 0.67), similarly to concentrations of K and U (R = 0.64).
Correlation between the concentrations of Th and U is slightly
lower (R = 0.42). The SGR value shows a very high correlation
to values of U (R = 0.92), K (R = 0.83) and also Th (R = 0.79).
Low to high negative correlations between K (R= − 0.25),
Fig. 9. Interpreted source area for the studied beds of the Žerotice Formation (A) and for the overlying Eggenburgian beds (B).
254
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Th (R = −0.82), U (R = −0.29) and clay content, similar nega-
tive correlations between K (R = −0.71), Th (R = −0.85), U
(R = −0.53) and silt fraction vs. high positive correlations
between K (R = 0.64), Th (R = 0.87), U (R = 0.50) and sand
fraction clearly reflect that the dominant hosting minerals of
these radio elements are contained in the sand fraction.
Concentrations of K and Th of the overlying Eggenburgian
deposits are moderate and high. Concentrations of U can be
evaluated as low to high. The values of both the Th/K and
Th/U ratios vary significantly from low to high values.
Evaluations of concentrations are according to Hasselbo
(1996). Correlation between the concentrations of K and U are
relatively low (R = 0.38), similarly like correlation between U
and Th (R = 0.31). On the other hand, correlation between K
and Th is high (R = 0.73). The value of total radioactivity SGR
shows very high correlation to values of K (R = 0.83), Th (R =
0.82) and also U (R = 0.75).
Interpretation: Recognized concentrations of radioactive
elements are mostly higher than known data from deposits of
the Carpathian Foredeep (Holcová et al. 2015; Nehyba et al.
2016; Kopecká et al. 2018). Significant correlations between
“total radioactivity” SGR and concentrations of K, Th and
U together with correlations between individual elements
(especially Th vs. K) point to common source or signal. It is
obvious that the total radioactivity and the concentrations of
all radiometric elements are significantly higher and in wider
ranges in the ŽFm than in the overlying Eggenburgian depo-
sits. Especially the higher K and Th contents are related to
a greater volume of clay minerals in the deposits of the ŽFm.
Overlaying Eggenburgian deposits are mostly sands. The very
high concentration of Th in the ŽFm points to a significant role
of kaolinite in the studied samples. The relatively high content
of U in some samples from the ŽFm can be explained by
the material provenance (redeposited Cretaceous or Permian
deposits?). High variation in the gamma ray values in the depo-
sits of the ŽFm points to high variations in their lithology and
possibly also to variations in the source and weathering
processes.
According to Doveton & Merriam (2004), the Th/K ratio
can be applied to the recognition of clay minerals and distinc-
tion of micas and K-feldspars. Similar values of Th/K ratio
and its high variability implied high variations in both un stable
and stable minerals in the samples studied. This result reveals
high differences in the mineral maturity of the studied
samples.
The U versus Th plot (Fig. 10A) indicates that whereas most
of the Eggenburgian samples experienced authigenic enrich-
ment in U, the majority of the ŽFm samples is located below
the separation line. The authigenic enrichment of U is explai-
ned mostly by a higher content of organic matter, whereas
the points below the lines correspond to samples, which have
no significant organic matter (Myers & Wignall 1987).
The Th/U ratio has also proved to be useful in the recognition
of geochemical facies or as an indicator of the redox- potential
(Myers & Wignall 1987; Doveton 1991) or even the deposi-
tional environment (Adams & Weaver 1958). The cross plot of
Th/K versus Th/U ratios is presented in Fig. 10B. Higher
values of especially the Th/U ratio and also Th/K for samples
from the ŽFm are obvious. It is explained by an evidence of
a more oxidic condition during their deposition then in the over-
lying Eggenburgian beds. This result supports terrestrial depo-
sitional environments for the ŽFm, because the Eggenburgian
deposits are clearly shallow marine and nearshore deposits.
Deposits reveal a character of mixed clay structures, with
a higher role of kaolinite for samples from the ŽFm. Some
Facies
associations
K [%]
U (ppm)
Th (ppm)
SGR [API]
Th/K
Th/U
AVG
(Min–Max)
SD AVG
(Min-Max)
SD AVG
(Min-Max)
SD AVG
(Min-Max)
SD AVG
(Min-Max)
SD AVG
(Min-Max)
SD
FA 1+2
3.1 (1.8–4.3) 0.8 4.3 (2.5–7.8) 1.7 14.3 (10.3–20.7) 2.8 142.0 (94.0–199.7) 31.1 4.8 (3.1–7.1) 1.1 3.6 (2.2–6.3) 1.1
FA 3
2.0 (1.4–3.0) 0.5 3.5 (1.5–6.4) 1.5 7.8 (3.4–10.8)
2.7 92.0 (56.0–126.7)
25.0 4.4 (1.1–6.3) 1.6 3.2 (1.1–6.3) 1.6
Table 4: Results of gamma-ray spectral analysis.
Fig. 10. Results of gamma-ray spectral analysis. A — Crossplot of U
versus Th with discrimination line Th/U = 2; B — crossplot of Th/K
versus Th/U ratios showing the redox-condition of studied deposits.
255
FLEXURALLY INDUCED TRANSGRESSION IN THE CARPATHIAN FOREDEEP
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
variations can be explained by different weathe-
ring processes in the source area (Ruffell &
Worden 2000; Schnyder et al. 2006). The higher
content of kaolinite can be connected with
a source from highly weathered and kaolinized
crystalline rocks.
Discussion
The sedimentary infill of the Žerotice paleo-
valley generally resembles models of estuarine
incised-valley systems with three-fold vertical
and longitudinal diversification (Dalrymple et al.
1994). These are — the basal/inner valley segment
comprising alluvial/fluvial deposits (i.e. FA1),
diversified facies distribution in the middle seg-
ment (i.e. FA 2) and the outer/upper segment under
the strong influence of nearshore marine pro ces-
ses (i.e. FA 3). The actual distribution of deposi-
tional environments is dependent on the rates of
sediment supply and formation of accommoda-
tion space. The significant role of “muddy cen-
tral infill” of the valley i.e. FA 2 in the ŽFm lithology points to
a gradual base-level rise combined with a relatively low
coarse-sediment supply, results i.e. the classic ‘underfilled’
estuary (Zaitlin et al. 1994; Gobo et al. 2014). The proposed
model of deposition of the ŽFm is presented in Fig. 11.
The preservation of floodbasin strata is typically related to
the establishment of negative floodplain topography protected
from channel erosion (Lewin & Ashworth 2014). This could
have been the result of basin subsidence (Jorgensen & Fielding
1996). However, most rock units hosting a volumetrically sig-
nificant proportion of floodplain deposits accumulated in tec-
tonic realms (Ielpi et al. 2018). The local confined preservation
of the ŽFm is therefore preliminarily explained as deposition
in a tectonically confined paleovalley. The formation of acco-
mmodation space for the ŽFm in this paleovalley is interpreted
as a result of bedrock fault reactivation (Waschbusch &
Royden 1992). Evidence for such a tectonically predisposed
valley seems to be supported by the preservation of Permo–
Carboniferous clastics and Devonian carbonates within
the paleovalley (surrounded by crystalline rocks) and common
intense brittle deformation of Miocene beds (facies T). Reac-
tivation of the faults and formation of accommodation space
for the ŽFm might be connected with orogenic processes in
the Eastern Alps during the Eocene–Oligocene (Kuhlemann &
Kempf 2002; Schuster & Stüwe 2010). The eustatic or relative
sea-level fluctuations could further modify the valley extend
and infill.
Classic models for peripheral foreland basin formation and
development (Beaumont 1981; Flemings & Jordan 1989;
Crampton & Allen 1995; DeCelles & Giles 1996; Sinclair
1997; Leszczyński & Nemec 2015, etc.) connect processes
along the passive/distal cratonward basin margin with flexural
bending of the lithosphere due to tectonic loading and with
formation and evolution of the peripheral forebulge. Evidence
of the relatively thick terrestrial and estuarine ŽFm deposits
below the marine Eggenburgian sediments confirms that
the formation of the depositional space directly preceded
the Eggenburgian marine transgression. The proven local source
of deposits of the ŽFm, evidence of basal alluvial wedge/FA1
and deposition in a narrow confined area, point to the erosion
of structurally controlled topography (Postma 1984; Breda et
al. 2007; Ford et al. 2007; Rohais et al. 2008). Accommodation
in alluvial systems is typically controlled by a tectonic uplift
of the source area, paleotopography, the geology of the drai-
nage basin and climate (Shanley & McCabe 1994; Gupta 1999;
Viseras et al. 2003; Andreucci et al. 2014). Such deposition is
therefore commonly unrelated to the sea-level variations and
therefore it is difficult to characterize deposits of the ŽFm in
the terms of sequence stratigraphic terminology, which is also
complicated by their enigmatic stratigraphy. The top part of
the deposits of the ŽFm (FA 2) might be assigned as “Early
transgressive systems tracts” (Koss et al. 1994; Shanley &
McCabe 1994; Nehyba 2000), especially due to areally res-
tricted preservation, prevalent vertical accretion, lagoonal
to distal flood plain deposition and direct position below
“the main” transgressive surface. Such an interpretation might
be supported by a back-stepping stratigraphic succession rep-
resented by a successive train of FA1, FA 2 and Eggenburgian
beds/FA 3. It is widely accepted that the initial subsidence of
the western margin of the southern segment of the MCF
occurred in the Egerian (Brzobohatý & Cicha 1993; Nehyba &
Šikula 2007). Therefore, these deposits might be probably
Egerian in age. The base of overlying Eggenburgian beds rep-
resents a sequence boundary i.e. flexurally induced transgres-
sive surface/basal forebulge unconformity. Eggenburgian beds
are onlaping on deposits of the ŽFm.
Fig. 11. Schematic model of the possible depositional environment of the Žerotice
Formation and position of facies association FA 1 and FA 2.
256
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
The proven provenance from Permo–Carboniferous depo-
sits (for the deposits of the ŽFm) and the higher content of
staurolite in heavy mineral spectra of the overlaying marine
Eggenburgian beds (redeposited from Cretaceous beds?)
reveals that both Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks
had a significantly higher areal extent in the area under study
than is currently known, and that the basal forebulge uncon-
formity represents a significant change in provenance,
paleodrainage and paleotopography.
Conclusions
The Žerotice Formation, as a basal unit of the sedimentary
succession of the southwestern margin of the Carpathian
Foredeep (Moravia, Czech Republic), was recognised in
the confined area NE–SE of Znojmo. Revision of the borehole
data shows that thickness of the Žerotice Formation highly
varies (up to more than 60 m). Two facies associations were
recognised within the Žerotice Formation. The first facies
association mantles the pre-Neogene basement with an irre-
gular unconformity and is interpreted as alluvial to fluvial
deposits. These deposits are a product of generally arid cli-
matic conditions and flashy discharge of episodic shallow,
high-energy stream flows and/or mass flows. They reveal enig-
matic stratigraphy and their deposition was controlled by tec-
tonics, paleotopography and climate. They might be unrelated
to the sea-level variations, so it is difficult to characterize them
in terms of sequence stratigraphic terminology. The second
facies association is interpreted as lagoonal to distal flood
plain deposits. The unfossiliferous deposits of the Žerotice
Formation are covered by the nearshore marine Eggen-
burgian deposits. The boundary between these beds represents
a sequence boundary (i.e. the basal forebulge unconformity).
Detailed provenance studies of successive beds below and
above this sequence boundary showed differences in the source
area and paleodrainage. Both the local primary crystalline
rocks and older sedimentary cover form the source area of
the Žerotice Formation. The crystalline rocks were represented
mostly by low- to medium-grade metapelites of the adjacent
Moravian Unit. Further sources were formed by the metamor-
phics of the Moldanubian Unit and granitoids of the Thaya
Batholith. All these geological units are located only a few km
in a NW direction, very close to the preserved deposits of
the Žerotice Formation. Very significant for provenance were
Permo–Carboniferous sedimentary rocks. Short transport and
a local source from intensely weathered bedrock was proved.
Deposits of the Žerotice Formation reveal increased con-
centrations of natural radioactive elements if compared to
the sedimentary infill of the Carpathian Foredeep. The source
area of the overlying marine Eggenburgian beds was located
W to NW in the Moldanubian and Moravian Units. More sta-
ble heavy mineral assemblage and the greater role of stable
(staurolite, garnet) minerals at the expense of ultrastable ones
reveal a more uniform depositional environment, a prove-
nance shift towards less weathered crystalline schists, longer
transport and wave action. The metamorphic rocks (especially
metapelites) highly prevail in the source area at the expense
of magmatic rocks and Paleozoic deposits if compared to
the Žerotice Formation. A possible source from the older
Cretaceous deposits is supposed for the Eggenburgian beds
due to significant content of staurolite. A significantly broader
(and more distant) source area is therefore interpreted for these
marine deposits if compared to the deposits of the Žerotice
Formation. Local confined preservation of the Žerotice For-
mation is preliminarily explained as being connected with
a tectonically predisposed paleovalley.
Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Minis-
try of Regional Development of the Czech Republic (project
INTERREG V-A Austria–Czech Republic — Hydrothermal
potential of the area — ATCZ167). We are obliged to thanks
Petr Gadas for help with management of tourmaline data. Sup-
port was also provided by the project No. 321070 of the Czech
Geological Survey, project leader Oldřich Krejčí. The manu-
script benefited from the reviews of Reinhard Roetzel, Samuel
Rybár and two unknown reviewers. Mr. Christopher A. Rance,
M.A. is thanked for the English correction.
References
Adámek J. 2003: The Miocene of the Carpathian Foredeep in southern
Moravia, geological development and lithostratigraphic classi fi ca-
tion. Zprávy o geolo gických výzkumech v r. 2002, 9–11 (in Czech).
Adámek J., Brzobohatý R., Pálenský P. & Šikula J. 2003: The Karpa-
tian in the Carpathian Foredeep (Moravia). In: Brzobohatý R.,
Cicha I., Kováč M. & Rögl F. (Eds.): The Karpatian, a Lower
Miocene Stage of the Central Paratethys. Masaryk University,
Brno, 75–92.
Adams J.A.S. & Weaver E. 1958: Thorium to uranium ratios as indi-
cators of sedimentary process: example of concept of geochemi-
cal facies. AAPG Bulletin 42, 387–430.
Akinlotan O. 2017: Geochemical analysis for paleoenvironmental
interpretations — a case study of the English Wealden (Lower
Cretaceous, south-east England). Geol. Quarterly 61, 1, 227–238.
Andreucci S., Panzeri L., Martini P., Maspero F., Martini M. &
Pascucci V. 2014: Evolution and architecture of a West Mediter-
ranean Upper Pleistocene to Holocene coastal Apron-fan sys-
tem. Sedimentology 61, 2, 333–361.
Aubrecht R., Méres Š., Sýkora M. & Mikuš T. 2009: Provenance of
the detrital garnets and spinels from the Albian sediments of the
Czorsztyn Unit (Pieniny Klippen Belt, Western Carpathians,
Slovakia). Geol. Carpath. 60, 463–483.
Baker V.R. 1984: Flood sedimentation in bedrock fluvial systems. In:
Koster E.H. & Steel R.J. (Eds.): Sedimentology of Gravels and
Conglomerates. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists,
Memoir 10, 87–98.
Batík P., Čtyroký P., Gabriel M., Holásek O., Klečák J., Líbalová J.,
Mátl V., Matějovská O., Střída M., Šalanský K., Štych J. &
Zeman A. 1983: Explanations to the geological map of ČSSR
1:25,000. Znojmo, 34-113. Ústřední ústav geologický, Praha (in
Czech).
Beaumont C. 1981: Foreland basins. Geoph. Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society 55, 291–329.
Blair T.C. 1999: Cause of the dominance by sheetflood vs. debris-flow
processes on two adjacent alluvial fans, Death Valley, California.
Sedimentology 46, 1015–1025.
257
FLEXURALLY INDUCED TRANSGRESSION IN THE CARPATHIAN FOREDEEP
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Breda A., Mellere D. & Massari F. 2007: Facies and processes in
a Gilbert-delta-filled incised valley (Pliocene of Ventimiglia,
NW Italy). Sediment. Geol. 200, 31–55.
Bridge J.S. & Demicco R. 2008: Earth Surface Processes, Landforms
and Sediment Deposits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1–815.
Brzobohatý R. 2002: The Carpathian Foredeep. In: Geological history
of the Czech Republic. Academia, Praha, 346–353 (in Czech).
Brzobohatý R. & Cicha I. 1993: The Carpathian Foredeep. In:
Přichystal A., Obstová V. & Suk M. (Eds.): Geologie Moravy a
Slezska. MZM a PřF MU, Brno, 123–128 (in Czech).
Buriánek D., Tomanová Petrová P. & Otava J. 2012: Where do the
Miocene sediments of the Brno region come from? Acta Musei
Moraviae, Sci. Geology 97, 1, 153–156 (in Czech).
Collinson J., Mountney N. & Thompson D. 2006: Sedimentary Struc-
tures. Terra Publishing, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England.
1–292.
Crampton S.L. & Allen P.A. 1995: Recognition of forebulge uncon-
formities associated with early stage foreland basin develop-
ment: example from the north Alpine foreland basin. AAPG Bull.
79, 1495–1514.
Čopjaková R., Sulovský P. & Otava J. 2002: Comparison of the
chemistry of detritic pyrope-almandine garnets of the Luleč
Conglomerates with the chemistry of granulite garnets from the
Czech Massif. Geologické výzkumy na Moravě a ve Slezku v
roce 2001, 9, 44–47 (in Czech).
Čtyroký P. 1982: Lower Miocene (Eggenburgian and Ottnangian) of
sw. part of the Carpathian Foredeep in Moravia. Zem. Plyn Nafta
27, 4, 379–394 (in Czech).
Čtyroký, P. 1991: Classification and correlation of the Eggenburgian
and Ottnangian in the south part of the Carpathian Foredeep in
South Moravia. Záp. Karpaty. sér. geol. 15, 67–109 (in Czech).
Čtyroký P. 1993: The Tertiary on Bohemian Massif in South Moravia.
Jahrb. Geol. Bundesanst. 136, 4, 707–713.
Dalrymple R.W. 2004: Incised valleys in time and space: an inroduc-
tion to the volume and examination of the controls on valley
formation and filling. In: Dalrymple R.W., Lecke D.A. &
Tillman R.W. (Eds.): Incised valleys in time and space. SEPM
Spec. Publ. 85, 5–12.
Dalrymple R.W., Boyd R. & Zaitlin B.A. (Eds.) 1994: Incised-valley
systems: origin and sedimentary sequences. SEPM Spec. Publ.
51, 391.
DeCelles P.G. & Giles K.A. 1996: Foreland basin systems. Basin
Research 8, 105–123.
Dietrich P., Ghienne F., Schuster M., Lajeunesse P., Nutz A.,
Deschamps R., Roquin C. & Duringer P. 2017: From outwash
to coastal systems in the Portneuf–Forestvilledeltaic complex
(Quebec North Shore): Anatomy of a forcedregressive deglacial
sequence. Sedimentology 64, 1044–1078.
Dlabač M. 1976: Neogene on the se. margin of the Bohemian–Mora-
vian Highlands. Výzk. Práce. Ústř. Úst. geol. 13, 7–21 (in Czech).
Doveton J.H. 1991: Lithofacies and geochemical facies profiles from
nuclear wireline logs: new subsurface templates for sedimentary
modelling. In: Franseen E.K., Watney W.L., Kendall C.J. &
Ross W. (Eds.): Sedimentary modelling-computer simulations
and methods for improved parameter definition. Kansas Geolo
gical Society Bulletin 233, 101–110.
Doveton J.H. & Merriam D.F. 2004: Borehole petrophysical chemo-
stratigraphy of Pennsylvanian black shales in the Kansas subsur-
face. Chem. Geol. 206, 249–258.
Fernández L.P., Agueda J.A., Colmenero J.R., Salvador C.I. & Barba P.
1988: A coal-bearing fan-delta complex in the Westphalian D of
the Central Coal Basin, Cantabrian Mountains, northwestern
Spain: imlications for the recognition of humid-type fan deltas.
In: Nemec W. & Steel R.J. (Eds.): Fan Deltas: Sedimentology
and Tectonic Settings. Blackie and Son, 286–302.
Fielding C.R. 1985: Coal depositional models and the distinction
between alluvial and delta plain environments. Sediment. Geol.
42, 41–48.
Finger F. & Haunschmid B. 1988: Die mikroskopische Untersuchung
der akzessorischen Zirkone als Methode zur Klärung der Intru-
sionsfolge in Granitgebieten — eine Studie im nordöstlichen
oberösterreichischen Moldanubikum. Jahrb. Geol. Bundesanst.
131, 2, 255–266.
Flemings P.B. & Jordan T.E. 1989: A synthetic stratigraphic model
of foreland basin development. J. Geophys. Res. 94, B4,
3851–3866.
Folk R.L. & Ward W. 1957: Brazos River bar: a study in the
sig nificance of grain-size parameters. J. Sediment. Petrol. 27,
3–26.
Force E.R. 1980: The provenance of rutile. J. Sediment. Res. 50, 2,
485–488.
Ford M., Williams E.A., Malartre F. & Popescu S.M. 2007: Strati-
graphic architecture, sedimentology and structure of the
Vouraikos Gilbert-type fan delta, Gulf of Corinth, Greece. In:
Nichols G., Williams E. & Paola C. (Eds.): Sedimentary Pro-
cesses, Environments and Basins. A Tribute to Peter Friend. Int.
Assoc. Sedimentol. Spec. Publ. 38, 49–90.
Fralick P. & Zaniewski K. 2012: Sedimentology of a wet, pre-vegeta-
tion floodplain assemblage. Sedimentology 59, 1030–1049.
Francírek M. & Nehyba S. 2016: Evolution of the passive margin of
the peripheral foreland basin: an example from the Lower Mio-
cene Carpathian Foredeep (Czech Republic). Geol. Carpath. 67,
1, 39–66.
Gobo K., Ghinassi M., Nemec W. & Sjursen E. 2014: Development of
an incised valley-fill at an evolving rift margin: Pleistocene
eustasy and tectonics on the southern side of the Gulf of Corinth,
Grece. Sedimentology 61, 1086–1119.
Głuszyʼnski A. & Aleksandrowski P. 2016: A deep palaeovalley in the
floor of the Polish Carpathian Foredeep Basin near Pilzno and its
control on Badenian (Middle Miocene) evaporite facies. Geol.
Quarterly 60, 2, 493–516.
Gupta S. 1999: Controls on sedimentation in distal margin palaeoval-
leys in the Early Tertiary Alpine foreland basin, south-eastern
France. Sedimentology 46, 357–384.
Hampton B.A. & Horton B.K. 2007: Sheetflow fluvial processes in
a rapidly subsiding basin, Altiplano plateau, Bolivia. Sedimento
logy 54, 1121–1148.
Henry D.J. & Guidotti C.V. 1985: Tourmaline as a petrogenetic indi-
cator mineral: An example from the staurolite-grade metapelites
of NW Maine. Am. Mineral. 70, 1–15.
Hasselbo S.P. 1996: Stratigraphy, Cenozoic of the Atlantic margin,
offshore New Jersey. In: Mountain G.S., Miller K.G., Blum P.,
Poag C.W. & Twichell D.C. (Eds.): Proceedings of the Ocean
Drilling Program. Scientific Results 150, 411–422.
Holcová K., Hrabovský J., Nehyba S., Hladilová Š., Doláková N.
& Demény A. 2015: The Langhian (Middle Badenian) car-
bonate production event in the Moravian part of the Carpathian
Foredeep (Central Paratethys): a multiproxy record. Facies
61, 1.
Hoppe G. 1966: Zirkone aus Granuliten. Berichte der Deutschen
Gesellschaft für Geologische Wissenschaften – Reihe B: Mine
ralogie und Lagerstättenforschung 11, 1, 47–81.
Hubert J.F. 1962: A zircon-tourmaline-rutile maturity index and the
interdependence of the composition of heavy mineral assem-
blages with the gross composition and texture of sandstones. J.
Sediment. Res. 32, 3, 440–450.
Ielpi A., Fralick P., Ventrac D., Ghinassi M., Lebeaua L-E., Marco-
nato A., Meeka R. & Rainbirdfet R.H. 2018: Fluvial floodplains
prior to greening of the continents: Stratigraphic record, geody-
namic setting, and modern analogues. Sediment. Geol. 372,
140–172.
258
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Jarosiñski, M., Poprawa, P. & Ziegler, P.A. 2009: Cenozoic dynamic
evolution of the Polish Platform. Geol. Quarterly 53, 1, 3–26.
Jorgensen P.J. & Fielding C.R. 1996: Facies architecture of alluvial
floodbasin deposits: three-dimensional data from the Upper
Triassic Callide coal measures of eastcentral Queensland, Aus-
tralia. Sedimentology 43, 479–495.
Jucha S. 1985: New features of structure of the Carpathian Foredeep
and basement of the Carpathians. Przegląd Geologiczny 33,
333–344 (in Polish with English summary).
Karnkowski P. 1989: Deltaic deposits of the Carpathian foreland.
Przegląd Geologiczny 37, 28–32 (in Polish with English sum-
mary).
Karnkowski P.H. & Ozimkowski W. 2001: Structural evolution of
the pre-Miocene basement in the Carpathian Foredeep (Kraków–
Przemyśl region, SE Poland). Przegląd Geologiczny 49, 431–436
(in Polish with English summary).
Kempf O. & Pfiffner O.A. 2004: Early Tertiary evolution of the North
Alpine Foreland Basin of the Swiss Alps and adjoining areas.
Basin Res. 16, 549–567.
Kopecká J., Holcová K., Nehyba S., Hladilová Š., Brzobohatý R. &
Bitner M.A. 2018: The earliest Badenian Planostegina bloom
deposit: reflection of an unusual environment in the westernmost
Carpathian Foredeep (Czech Republic). Geol. Quarterly 62, 1,
18–37.
Koss J.E., Ethridge F.G. & Schumm S.A. 1994: An experimental
study of the effect of base-level change on fluvial, coastal and
shelf systems. J. Sediment. Res. B64, 90–98.
Krejčí O., Ambrozek V., Bubík M., Drábková J., Gilíková H., Kryšto-
fová E., Otava J., Tomanová Petrová P., Švábenická L., Hubatka
F., Nehyba S. & Kuda F. 2017: Definition of the Žerotice trough
in the Znojmo Region and valuing its perspectives from ground-
water resources point of view. Final report. Open File Report,
MS Archives CGS, Prague, 1–49 (in Czech).
Krystek I. 1981: Using of assemblages of heavy minerals in sedimen-
tary complexes. Folia Univ. Purkyn. Brunn., Geologia 22, 3,
101–107 (in Czech).
Krystková L. & Krystek I. 1981: New data from hydrogeology dril
holes in SW part of the Carpathian Foredeep in Moravia. Scripta
Univ. Purkyn. Brunn., Geologia 11, 2, 73–80.
Krzywiec P. 1997: Large-scale tectono-sedimentary Middle Miocene
history of the central and eastern Polish Carpathian Foredeep
Basin — results of seismic data interpretation. Przegląd Geolo
giczny 45, 1039–1053.
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.
Kuhlemann J. & Kempf O. 2002: Post-Eocene evolution of the North
Alpine Foreland Basin and its response to Alpine tectonics.
Sediment. Geol. 152, 45–78.
Leichmann J. & Höck V. 2008: The Brno Batholit: an insight into the
magmatic and metamorphic evolution of the Cadomian Bruno-
vistulian Unit, eastern margin of the Bohemian Massif. J. Geosci.
53, 281–305.
Leszczyński S. & Nemec W. 2015: Dynamic stratigraphy of compo-
site peripheral unconformity in a foredeep basin. Sedimentology
62, 645–680.
Lewin J. & Ashworth P.J. 2014: The negative relief of large river
floodplains. EarthSci. Rev. 129, 1–23.
Lihou J.C. & Mange-Rajetzky M.A. 1996: Provenance of the Sardona
Flysch, eastern Swiss Alps: example of high-resolution heavy
mineral analysis applied to an ultrastable assemblage. Sediment.
Geol. 105, 141–157.
Lottes A.L. & Ziegler A.M., 1994: World peat occurrence and the
seasonality of climate and vegetation. Palaeogeogr. Palaeocli
matol. Palaeoecol. 106, 23–37.
Lowe D.R. 1982: Sediment gravity flows: II. Depositional models
with special reference to the deposits of high-density turbidity
currents. J. Sediment. Petrol. 52, 279–297.
Mader D. 1980: Weitergewachsene Zirkone im Bundsandstein der
Westeifel. Der Aufschluss 31, 163–170.
Mange M.A. & Morton A.C. 2007: Geochemistry of heavy minerals.
In: Mange M.A. & Wright D.T. (Eds.): Heavy Minerals in Use.
Developments in Sedimentology 58, 345–391.
Marconato A., Almeida R.P., Turra B.B. & Fragoso-Cesar A.R.S.
2014: Pre-vegetation fluvial floodplains and channel-belts in the
Late Neoproterozoic-Cambrian Santa Bárbara Group (Southern
Brazil). Sediment. Geol. 300, 49–61.
Meinhold G., Anders B., Kostopoulos D. & Reischmann T. 2008:
Rutile chemistry and thermometry as provenance indicator:
An example from Chios Island, Greece. Sediment. Geol. 203,
98–111.
Méres S. 2008: Garnets — important information resource about source
area and parental rocks of the siliciclastic sedimentary rocks. In:
Jurkovič L. (Ed.): Cambelove dni 2008, Geochémia — Základná
a aplikovaná geoveda. UK, Bratislava, 37–43 (in Slovak).
Mertz K.A. & Hubert J.F. 1990: Cycles of sand-flat sandstone and
playa-lacustrine mudstone in the Triassic-Jurassic Blomidon
redbeds, Fundy rift basin, Nova Scotia: implications for tectonic
and climatic implications. Can. J. Earth Sci. 27, 442–451.
Morton A.C. 1984: Stability of detrital heavy minerals in Tertiary
sandstones from the North Sea Basin. Clay Miner. 19,
287–308.
Morton A.C. & Hallsworth C. 1994: Identifying provenance-specific
features of detrital heavy mineral assemblages in sandstones.
Sediment. Geol. 90, 241–256.
Mulder T. & Alexander J. 2001: The physical character of subaqueous
sedimentary density flows and their deposits. Sedimentology 48,
269–299.
Myers K.J. & Wignall P.B. 1987: Understanding Jurassic organic-
rich mudrocks-new concepts using gamma-ray spectrometry and
palaeoecology: examples from the Kimmeridge Clay of Dorset
and the Jet Rock of Yorkshire. In: Legget J.K. & Zuffa G.G.
(Eds.): Marine clastic sedimentology. Graham and Trotman,
London, 172–189.
Nehyba S. 2000: The cyclicity of Lower Miocene deposits of the SW
part of the Carpathian Foredeep as the depositional response to
sediment supply and sea-level changes. Geol. Carpath. 51, 1,
7–17.
Nehyba S. & Opletal V. 2016: Depositional environment and prove-
nance of the Gresten Formation (Dogger) on the southeastern
slopes of the Bohemian Massif (Czech Republic, subsurface
data). Austrian J. Earth Sci. 109, 2.
Nehyba S. & Opletal V. 2017: Sedimentological study of the Nikolčice
Formation — evidence of the Middle Jurassic transgression onto
the Bohemian Massif (subsurface data). Geol. Quarterly
61, 1, 138–155.
Nehyba S. & Roetzel R. 2010: Fluvial deposits of the St. Marein–
Freischling Formation — insights into initial depositional pro-
cesses on the distal external margin of the Alpine-Carpathian
Foredeep in Lower Austria. Austrian J. Earth Sci. 103, 2,
50–80.
Nehyba S. & Roetzel R. 2015: Depositional environment and pro-
venance analyses of the Zöbing Formation (Upper Carboni fe-
rous–Lower Permian), Austria. Austrian J. Earth Sci. 108, 2,
245–276.
Nehyba S. & Šikula J. 2007: Depositional architecture, sequence stra-
tigraphy and geodynamic development of the Carpathian Fore-
deep (Czech Republic). Geol. Carpath. 58, 1, 53–69.
Nehyba S., Roetzel R. & Adamová M. 1999: Tephrostratigraphy of
the Neogene volcaniclastics (Moravia, Lower Austria, Poland).
Geol. Carpath. 50, Spec. Iss. 126–128.
259
FLEXURALLY INDUCED TRANSGRESSION IN THE CARPATHIAN FOREDEEP
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Nehyba S., Roetzel R. & Maštera L. 2012: Provenance analysis of the
Permo-Carboniferous fluvial sandstones of the southern part of
the Boskovice Basin and the Zöbing Area (Czech Republic,
Austria): implications for paleogeographical reconstructions of
the post-Variscan collapse basins. Geol. Carpath. 63, 365–382.
Nehyba S., Holcová K., Gedl P. & Doláková N. 2016: The Lower
Badenian transgressive-regressive cycles — a case study from
Oslavany (Carpathian Foredeep, Czech Republic). Neues Jahrb.
Geol. Paläontol. 279, 2, 209–238.
Nemec W. & Steel R.J. 1984: Alluvial and coastal conglomerates:
their significant features and some comments on gravelly mass-
flow deposits. In: Koster E.H. & Steel R.J. (Eds.): Sedimentolo-
gy of Gravels and Conglomerates. Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol.
Memoir 10, 1–31.
Neužil J., Kužvart M. & Šeba P. 1980: Kaolinization of the rock
of the Thaya Batholith. Sbor. geol. Věd, řada LG 21, 7–41 (in
Czech)
Nichols G.J. & Fisher J.A. 2007: Processes, facies and architecture
of fluvial distributary system deposits. Sediment. Geol. 195,
75–90.
Oszczypko N. & Ślączka A. 1985: An atempt to palinspastic recon-
struction of Neogene basins of the Carpathian Foredeep. Annales
Societatis Geologorum Poloniae 55, 55–75.
Oszczypko N. & Tomaś A. 1976: Pre-Tortonian relief of the Carpa-
thian Foreland between Kraków and Dębica and its effect on
Miocene sedimentation. Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Geo
logicznego. 46, 525–548 (in Polish with English summary).
Oszczypko N., Krzywiec P., Popadyuk I. & Peryt T. 2006: Carpa-
thian Foredeep Basin (Poland and Ukraine): its sedimentary,
struc
tural, and geodynamic evolution. AAPG Memoir 84,
261–318.
Otava J., Sulovský P. & Čopjaková R. 2000: Provenance changes of
the Drahany Culm greywackes: statistical evaluation. Geolo
gické výzkumy na Moravě a ve Slezku v r. 1999, Brno, 94–98
(in Czech).
Picha F. 1979: Ancient submarine canyons of Tethyan continental
margins, Czechoslovakia. AAPG Bulletin 63, 67–86.
Picha F., Stráník Z. & Krejčí O. 2006: Geology and hydrocarbon
resources of the Outer Western Carpathians and their foreland,
Czech Republic. AAPG Memoir 84, 49–175.
Poldervaart A. 1950: Statistical studies of zircon as a criterion in
granitization. Nature 165, 574–575.
Połtowicz S. 1998: Middle-Badenian submarine erosion in Carpa-
thian Foreland. Exploratory implications. NaftaGaz 54, 209–215
(in Polish with English summary).
Postma G. 1984: Mass-flow conglomerates in a submarine canyon:
abrioja fan delta, Pliocene, Southeast Spain. In: Koster E.H.
& Steel R.J. (Eds.): Sedimentology of Gravels and Conglome-
rates, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 10,
237–258.
Postma G. & Nemec W. 1990: Regressive and transgressive sequen-
ces in a raised Holocene gravelly beach, southwestern Crete.
Sedimentology 37, 907–920.
Powers M.C. 1982: Comparison chart for estimating roundness and
sphericity. AGI Data Sheet 18.
Prachař L. 1970: Final report about the results of the drill prospection
in Miocene of the Carpathian Foredeep between Miroslav,
Znojmo and Hrušovany nad Jevišovkou. Open File Report,
ČGSGeofond, Praha (in Czech).
Pupin J.P. 1980: Zircon and Granite Petrology. Contrib. Mineral.
Petrol. 73, 207–220.
Pupin J.P. 1985: Magmatic zoning of hercynian granitoids in France
based on zircon typology. Schweiz. Mineral. Petrograph. Mitt.
65, 29–56.
Rider M. 1996: The Geological Interpretation of Wireline Logs.
Whittles, Caithness, 1–175.
Roetzel R. 2002: Legende un kurtze erläuterung zur Geologische
Karte von Niederösterreich 1:200,000. In: Schnabel W., Kren-
mayer H-G., Mandl G.W., Novotny A., Roetzel R., Scharbert S.
&. Schnabel W. (Eds.): Geologie der Österreichischen Bundes-
länder. Geologische Bundesanstalt, Wien, 1–47.
Roetzel R. 2017: Bericht 2013–2016 über geologische Aufnahmen
auf Blatt 21 Horn. Jahrbuch Geol. Bundesanst. 157, 317–328.
Roetzel R., Fuchs G., Batík P., Čtyroký P., Havlíček P. (Eds.) 2004:
Geologische Karte der Nationalparks Thayatal und Podyjí
1:25,000. Geologische Bundesanstalt, Wien.
Rohais S., Eschard R. & Guillocheau F. 2008: Depositional model
and stratigraphic architecture of rift climax Gilbert-type fan del-
tas (Gulf of Corinth, Greece). Sediment. Geol. 210, 132–145.
Ruffell A. & Worden R. 2000: Palaeoclimate analysis using spectral
gamma-ray data from the Aptian (Cre ta ceous) of southern
England and southern France. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.
Palaeoecol. 155, 265–283.
Schnyder J., Ruffell A., Deconinck J.-F. & Baudin F. 2006: Conjunc-
tive use of spectral gamma-ray logs and clay mineralogy in
defining late Jurassic–early Cretaceous palaeoclimate change
(Dorset, U.K.). Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 229,
303–320.
Schumm S.A. & Etheridge F.G. 1994: Origin, evolution and morpho-
logy of fluvial valleys. In: Dalrymple R.W., Boyd R. & Zaitlin
B.A. (Eds.): Incised Valley Systems. Origin and Sedimentary
Sequences. Spec. Publ. Soc. Econ. Paleont. Miner. 51, 11–27.
Schuster R. & Stüwe K. 2010: Die Geologie der Alpen im Zeitraffer.
Mitteilungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins für Steiermark
140, 5–21.
Shanley K.W. & McCabe P.J. 1994: Perspectives on the sequence
stratigraphy of continental strata. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull.
78, 544–568.
Shpak P.F., Vishniakov I.B., Vul A.Y. & Ladyzhensky G.N. 1999:
Geological structure peculiarities and oil and gas content of the
Ukrainian Carpathian platform autochthon. Biuletyn Państwo
wego Instytutu Geologicznego 387, 175–181.
Sinclair H.D. 1997: Tectonostratigraphic model for underfilled peri-
pheral foreland basin: An Alpine perspective. Geol. Soc. Amer.
Bull. 109, 3, 324–346.
Triebold S., Eynatten H. von, Luvizotto G.L. & Zack T. 2007: Dedu-
cing source rock lithology from detrital rutile geochemistry:
An example from the Erzgebirge, Germany. Chem. Geol. 244,
421–436.
Triebold S., von Eynatten H. & Zack T. 2012: A recipe for the use of
rutile in sedimentary provenance analysis. Sediment. Geol. 282,
268–275.
Tucker M. (Ed.) 1995: Techniques in Sedimentology. Blackwell
Science, Oxford, 1–394.
Viseras C., Calvache M.L., Soria J.M. & Fernandez J. 2003: Differen-
tial features of alluvial fans controlled by tectonic or eustatic
accommodation space. Examples from the Betic Cordillera,
Spain. Geomorphology 50, 181–202.
von Eynatten H. & Gaupp R. 1999: Provenance of Cretaceous syn-
orogenic sandstones in the Eastern Alps: constraints from frame-
work petrography, heavy mineral analysis and mineral chemis-
try. Sediment. Geol. 124, 81–111.
Walker R.G. & James N.P. 1992: Facies Models: Response to Sea
Level Changes. Geological Association of Canada, St. John’s,
1–317.
Waschbusch P.J. & Royden L.H. 1992: Spatial and temporal evolu-
tion of foredeep basins: lateral strength variations and inelastic
yielding in continental lithoshere. Basin Res. 4, 179–196.
Weissmann G.S., Hartley A.J., Nichols, G.J., Scuderi L.A., Olsen M.,
Buehler H. & Banteah R.. 2010: Fluvial form in modern conti-
nental sedimentary basins: distributive fluvial systems. Geology
38, 39–42.
260
NEHYBA, OTAVA, TOMANOVÁ PETROVÁ and GAZDOVÁ
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 3, 241–260
Went D.J. 2005: Pre-vegetation alluvial fan facies and processes: an
example from the Cambro–Ordovician Rozel Conglomerate
Formation, Jersey, Channel Islands. Sedimentology 52, 693–713.
Winter J. 1981: Exakte tephro-stratigraphische Korrelation mit
morphologisch differenzierten Zironpopulationen (Grenzbe-
reich Unter/Mitteldevon, Eifel-Ardennen). Neues Jahrb. Geol.
Paläontol., Abh. 162, 1, 97–136.
Zack T., von Eynatten H. & Kronz A. 2004a: Rutile geochemistry and
its potential use in quantitative provenance studies. Sediment.
Geol. 171, 37–58.
Zack T., Moraes R. & Kronz A. 2004b: Temperature dependence of Zr
in rutile: empirical calibration of a rutile thermometer. Contrib.
Mineral. Petrol. 148, 471–488.
Zaitlin B.A., Dalrymple R.W. & Boyd R. 1994: The stratigraphic
organization of incised-valley systems associated with relative
sea-level change. In: Dalrymple R.W., Boyd R. & Zaitlin
B.A. (Eds.): Incised Valley Systems. Origin and Sedimentary
Sequences. Spec. Publ. Soc. Econ. Paleont. Miner. 51,
45–60.
Zimmerle W. 1979: Accessory Zircon from Rhyolite, Yellowstone
National Park (Wyoming, U.S.A.). Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Geologischen Gesellschaft. 130, 361–369.
Zingg T. 1935: Beitrag zur Schotteranalyse. Die Schotteranalyse
und ihre Anwendung auf die Glattalschotter. Schweizerische
Mineralogische und Petrographische Mitteilungen 15,
39–140.