Advertisement

Eogenetic Karst in Florida

  • Sam Upchurch
  • Thomas M. Scott
  • Michael C. Alfieri
  • Beth Fratesi
  • Thomas L. Dobecki
Chapter
Part of the Cave and Karst Systems of the World book series (CAKASYWO)

Abstract

Florida’s karst constitutes some of Earth’s largest expanses of geologically young carbonate sedimentary deposits (shelly sediments, limestone and dolostone) with bare and covered karst. Because of the large population of Florida and the dependence of that population on carbonate aquifers, the karst of Florida is has been extensively investigated. This book synthesizes our knowledge about Florida karst, beginning with why Florida karst differs from older, telogenetic karst elsewhere in North America and the world.

Florida’s highly productive aquifers are part of an exemplary karst landscape, an extensive, mantled, geologically young carbonate terrain with dozens of first magnitude springs. Florida’s karst has provided water resources to an exploding population and fueled tourism, while creating or exacerbating problems such as sinkhole formation and saltwater intrusion.

The Florida Platform is low and flat and its geology has been dominated by sea-level fluctuations that have left behind a variety of carbonate strata and karst landforms ranging in age from Eocene to Recent. The eogenetic carbonates that comprise these aquifers were never deeply buried and, therefore, they have extensive primary porosity and well developed permeability, distinguishing them from older, telogenetic karst with little remaining primary porosity and very low matrix permeability. Florida’s karst is polygenetic, resulting in a complex array of karst features. The overlying siliciclastic sediments create an environment ripe for damaging sinkholes and other hazards.

Keywords

Florida karst Floridan Aquifer System Biscayne Aquifer Eogenetic karst Carbonate aquifer 

References

  1. Bonn MA and Bell FW (2003) Economic impact of selected Florida springs on surrounding local areas. Report prepared by Florida State University for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  2. Choquette PW and Pray LC (1970) Geologic nomenclature and classification of porosity in sedimentary carbonates. Bulletin, Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 54:207–250Google Scholar
  3. Cvijič J (1893) Das Karstphänomen. Geographische Abhandlungen, 5(3):215–319Google Scholar
  4. Florea LJ (2012) Eogenetic karst aquifers after a decade of investigation. Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs, 44(7):205Google Scholar
  5. Florida Springs Task Force (2000) Florida’s springs: strategies for protection & restoration. Tallahassee, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/SpringsTaskForceReport.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2014
  6. Lucia FJ (1995) Rock fabric/petrophysical classification of carbonate pore space for reservoir characterization. Bulletin, Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 79(9):1275–1300.Google Scholar
  7. Marella RL (2009) Water withdrawals, use, and trends in Florida, 2005. USGS Sci. Inv. Report 2009-5125Google Scholar
  8. Meinzer OE (1927) Large springs in the United States. USGS Water Supply Paper 557.Google Scholar
  9. Middle Tennessee State University (2016) The history of the glades of the Central Tennessee Basin. Available at http://w1.mtsu.edu/glade-center/gladehistory.php. Accessed December 15 2016
  10. Puri HS and Winston GO (1974) Geologic framework of the high transmissivity zones in south Florida. Fla Bur Geology Sp. Pub. No. 20Google Scholar
  11. Smith DL and Griffin GM (eds.) (1977) The geothermal nature of the Floridan Plateau. Fla Bur Geol. Sp. Pub. No. 21Google Scholar
  12. Sweeting MM (1981) Karst geomorphology. Hutchinson Ross Pub. Co., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, Benchmark Papers in Geology, Vol. 59Google Scholar
  13. Vacher HL and Florea LJ (2015) Quantitative hermeneutics: Counting forestructures on a path from W.M. Davis to the concept of multiple permeability karst aquifers. International Journal of Speleology, 44(3):207–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vacher HL and Mylroie JE (2002) Eogenetic karst from the perspective of an equivalent porous medium. Carbonates and Evaporites, 17:182–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Veni G, DuChene H, Crawford NC, Groves, CG, Huppert GH, Kastning EH, Olson R, and Wheeler BJ (2001) Living with karst: A fragile foundation. Environmental Awareness Series, American Geological InstituteGoogle Scholar
  16. Weary DJ and Doctor DH (2014) Karst in the United States: A digital map compilation and database. USGS Open-File Report 2014-1156Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sam Upchurch
    • 1
  • Thomas M. Scott
    • 2
  • Michael C. Alfieri
    • 3
  • Beth Fratesi
    • 4
  • Thomas L. Dobecki
    • 5
  1. 1.SDII Global CorporationLand O’ LakesUSA
  2. 2.SDII Global CorporationHavanaUSA
  3. 3.Water Resource Associates, LLCTampaUSA
  4. 4.Southwest Research InstituteSan AntonioUSA
  5. 5.Dobecki Geosciences, LLCMishawakaUSA

Personalised recommendations