Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments

, Volume 92, Issue 3, pp 343–352 | Cite as

Origin, palaeoecology and stratigraphic significance of bored and encrusted concretions from the Upper Cretaceous (Santonian) of southern Israel

Original Paper

Abstract

Reworked concretions have been significant substrates for boring and encrusting organisms through the Phanerozoic. They provide large, relatively stable calcareous surfaces in systems where sedimentation is minimal. Diverse sclerobiont communities have inhabited reworked concretions since the Ordovician, so they have been important contributors to our understanding of the evolution of these ecological systems. Here, we describe reworked concretions from southern Israel where they are critical for interpreting the stratigraphy and paleoenvironment of an Upper Cretaceous sedimentary sequence. These cobble-sized concretions (averaging roughly 1,000 cm3) are found at the base of the Menuha Formation (Santonian to lower Campanian, Mount Scopus Group) unconformably above the top of the Zihor Formation (Turonian-Coniacian, Judea Group) exposed in the Ramon region of the Negev Highlands. The concretions are almost entirely composed of micritic limestone, and many are exhumed, cemented burrow-fills apparently from 10–20 m of upper Zihor Formation strata removed by erosion. There are also a few cobbles of dolomitic limestone and rare vertebrate bone. The cobbles are moderately to heavily bored by bivalves (producing Gastrochaenolites) and worms (forming Trypanites), and a few have cemented oysters. They are densely arrayed in a single layer, often touching each other or only a few centimeters apart. The sclerobionts associated with the cobbles, along with their hydrodynamic arrangement, strongly suggest that these cobbles accumulated in very shallow water above normal wave base. Most of them (77%) are encrusted on their top surfaces only, indicating that they were bored in place and not later delivered to a deeper environment by submarine currents. The rest of the Menuha Formation above is a chalk with relatively few macrofossils (primarily shark teeth and oysters) and a few trace fossils (Planolites and Thalassinoides are the most common). These reworked cobbles show that the initial deposits of the Menuha Formation accumulated in very shallow water. This has important implications for the development of the Syrian Arc structures in this region, especially the Ramon Monocline.

Keywords

Reworked concretions Disconformity Sclerobionts Upper Cretaceous Santonian Israel 

References

  1. Allison PA, Pye K (1994) Early diagenetic mineralization and fossil preservation in modern carbonate concretions. Palaios 9:561–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avni Y (1991) The geology, paleogeography and landscape evolution in the central Negev Highlands and the western Ramon structure. Israel Geol Survey Report GSI/6/91:1–153Google Scholar
  3. Avni Y (1993) The structural and landscape evolution of the western Ramon structure. Israel J Earth Sci 42:177–188Google Scholar
  4. Baird GC (1976) Coral encrusted concretions: a key to recognition of a ‘shale on shale’ erosion surface. Lethaia 9:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baird GC (1981) Submarine erosion on a gentle paleoslope: a study of two discontinuities in the New York Devonian. Lethaia 14:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartov Y, Steinitz G (1982) Senonian ostreid bioherms in the Negev, Israel: Implications on the paleogeography and environment of deposition. Israel J Earth Sci 31:17–23Google Scholar
  7. Bosworth W, Guiraud R, Kessler LG (1999) Late Cretaceous (ca. 84 Ma) compressive deformation of the stable platform of northeast Africa (Egypt): Far-field stress effects of the “Santonian event” and origin of the Syrian arc deformation belt. Geology 27:633–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braissant O, Decho AW, Dupraz C, Glunk C, Przekop KM, Visscher PT (2007) Exopolymeric substances of sulfate-reducing bacteria: Interactions with calcium at alkaline pH and implication for formation of carbonate minerals. Geobiology 5:1472–4669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brett CE, Algeo T, McLaughlin PI (2003) The use of event beds and sedimentary cycles in high-resolution stratigraphic correlation of lithologically repetitive successions: The Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of northern Kentucky and southern Ohio. In: Harries PJ (ed), High-Resolution Stratigraphic Approaches to Paleobiology. Topics Geobiol 21:315–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brett CE, Kirchner BT, Tsujita CJ, Dattilo BF (2008) Depositional dynamics recorded in mixed siliciclastic-carbonate marine successions: Insights from the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of Ohio and Kentucky, USA. In: Pratt BR and Holmden C (eds), Dynamics of Epeiric Seas. Geol Assoc Canada Sp Paper 48:73–102Google Scholar
  11. Bromley RG (1972) On some ichnotaxa in hard substrates, with a redefinition of Trypanites. Paläontol Z 46:93–98Google Scholar
  12. Brown BJ, Farrow GE (1978) Recent dolomitic concretions of crustacean burrow origin from Loch Sunart, west coast of Scotland. J Sediment Petrol 48:825–834Google Scholar
  13. Buchbinder B, Benjamini C, Lipson-Benitah S (2000) Sequence development of Late Cenomanian-Turonian carbonate ramps, platforms and basins in Israel. Cretaceous Res 21:813–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dhondt AV, Malchus N, Boumaza L, Jaillard E (1999) Cretaceous oysters from North Africa; origin and distribution. Bull Soc Geol Fr 170:67–76Google Scholar
  15. Flexer A, Honigstein A (1984) The Senonian succession in Israel—lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy and sea level changes. Cretaceous Res 5:303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flexer A, Starinsky A (1970) Correlation between phosphate content and the foraminiferal plankton/benthos ratio in chalks (Late Cretaceous, northern Israel): Paleoenvironmental significance? Sedimentology 14:245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garfunkel Z (1993) The Arod Pass area: Structural-stratigraphic relations and their implications for the history of the Ramon Lineament. Israel J Earth Sci 42:165–175Google Scholar
  18. Hamm SA, Shimada K (2002) Associated tooth set of the Late Cretaceous lamniform shark, Scapanorhynchus raphiodon (Mitsukurinidae), from the Niobrara Chalk of western Kansas. Trans Kansas Acad Sci 105:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jimenez Millan J, Molina JM, Nieto F, Nieto L, Ruiz-Ortiz PA (1998) Glauconite and phosphate peloids in Mesozoic carbonate sediments (eastern Subbetic Zone, Betic Cordilleras, SE Spain). Clay Miner 33:547–559Google Scholar
  20. Kaźmierczak J (1974) Crustacean associated reworked concretions and eogenetic cementation in the Upper Jurassic of central Poland. N Jb Geol Paläont, Abh 147:329–342Google Scholar
  21. Kelly SRA, Bromley RG (1984) Ichnological nomenclature of clavate borings. Palaeontology 27:793–807Google Scholar
  22. Kennedy WJ, Klinger HC (1972) Hiatus concretions and hardground horizons in the Cretaceous of Zululand (South Africa). Palaeontology 15:539–549Google Scholar
  23. Kennedy WJ, Lindholm RC, Helmold KP, Hancock JM (1977) Genesis and diagenesis of hiatus- and breccia-concretions from the mid-Cretaceous of Texas and northern Mexico. Sedimentology 24:833–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krenkel E (1924) Der Syrische Bogen. Zentralbl Miner 9:274–281, 10:301-313Google Scholar
  25. Lee J, Morse JW (2010) Influences of alkalinity and pCO2 on CaCO3 nucleation from estimated Cretaceous composition seawater representative of "calcite seas". Geology 38:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewy Z (1985) Paleoecological significance of Cretaceous bivalve borings from Israel. J Paleontol 59:643–648Google Scholar
  27. Lewy Z, Avni Y (1988) Omission surfaces in the Judea Group, Makhtesh Ramon region, southern Israel, and their paleogeographic significance. Israel J Earth Sci 37:105–113Google Scholar
  28. Manso CLC, Andrade EJ (2008) Equinóides do Turoniano (Cretáceo Superior) de Sergipe, Brasil. Sao Paulo, UNESP, Geociencias 27:319–327Google Scholar
  29. Palmer TJ, Wilson MA (2004) Calcite precipitation and dissolution of biogenic aragonite in shallow Ordovician calcite seas. Lethaia 37:417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Santos A, Mayoral E, Bromley RG (2011) Bioerosive structures from Miocene marine mobile-substrate communities in southern Spain, and description of a new sponge boring. Palaeontology 54:535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shimada K (2007) Skeletal and dental anatomy of lamniform shark, Cretalamna appendiculata, from Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Chalk of Kansas. J Vertebr Paleontol 27:584–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steinitz G (1976) Paleogeography of the Menuha and Mishash formations in the eastern Ramon area, southern Israel. Israel J Earth Sci 25:70–75Google Scholar
  33. Taylor PD, Wilson MA (2003) Palaeoecology and evolution of marine hard substrate communities. Earth-Sci Rev 62:1–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Houten FB, Purucker ME (1984) Glauconitic peloids and chamositic ooids - favorable factors, constraints, and problems. Earth-Sci Rev 20:211–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Voigt E (1968) Uber Hiatus-Konkretion (dargestellt am Beispielen aus dem Lias). Geol Rundsch 58:281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wetzel A, Allia V (2000) The significance of hiatus beds in shallow-water mudstones; an example from the Middle Jurassic of Switzerland. J Sediment Res 70:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson MA (1985) Disturbance and ecologic succession in an Upper Ordovician cobble-dwelling hardground fauna. Science 228:575–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson MA (1987) Ecological dynamics on pebbles, cobbles and boulders. Palaios 2:594–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson MA, Taylor PD (2001) Palaeoecology of hard substrate faunas from the Cretaceous Qahlah Formation of the Oman Mountains. Palaeontology 44:21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zatoń M, Machocka S, Wilson MA, Marynowski L, Taylor PD (2011a) Origin and paleoecology of Middle Jurassic hiatus concretions from Poland. Facies 57:275–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zatoń M, Wilson MA, Zavar E (2011b) Diverse sclerozoan assemblages encrusting large bivalve shells from the Callovian (Middle Jurassic) of southern Poland. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 307:232–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ziebis W, Forster S, Huettel M, Jørgensen BB (1996) Complex burrows of the mud shrimp Callianassa truncata and their geochemical impact in the sea bed. Nature 382:619–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung and Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeologyThe College of WoosterWoosterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Stratigraphy & Palaeontology, Faculty of Earth SciencesUniversity of SilesiaSosnowiecPoland
  3. 3.Geological Survey of IsraelJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations