ArticlePDF Available

Reply to the discussion and comments of Azerêdo et al. (2023) and Schneider et al. (2023) on the paper by Magalhães et al. ‘Middle Jurassic multi‐scale transgressive–regressive cycles: An example from the Lusitanian Basin’, The Depositional Record , 9, 174–202

Wiley
The Depositional Record
Authors:

Abstract

Reply to the discussion and comments of Azerêdo et al. (2023) and Schneider et al. (2023).
Depositional Rec. 2023;00:1–7.
|
1
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dep2
Received: 8 August 2023
|
Revised: 13 August 2023
|
Accepted: 23 August 2023
DOI: 10.1002/dep2.254
COMMENTARY
Reply to the discussion and comments of Azerêdo et al.
(2023) and Schneider et al. (2023) on the paper by Magalhães
et al. ‘Middle Jurassic multi- scale transgressive– regressive
cycles: An example from the Lusitanian Basin, The
Depositional Record, 9, 174– 202
Antonio J. C.Magalhães1,2,3,4
|
Gerson J. S.Terra5
|
FelipeGuadagnin6
|
Daniel G. C.Fragoso7,8
|
Mirian C.Menegazzo7
|
Nuno L. A.Pimentel1
|
SissaKumaira6,9
|
GersonFauth10
|
AlessandraSantos10
|
David K.Watkins11
|
Mauro D. R.Bruno10
|
DaianeCeolin10
|
SimoneBaecker- Fauth10
|
Guilherme P. R.Gabaglia7
|
Washington L. E.Teixeira12
|
Francisco P.Lima- Filho12
1Faculdade de Ciências, Instituto Dom Luiz (IDL), Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
2Programa de Pós- Graduação em Geodinâmica e Geofísica (PPGG- LAE), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil
3China- Brazil Joint Geoscience Research Center IGGCAS, Beijing, China
4Magalgeoconsulting, Lisbon, Portugal
5Terra Carbonates, Porto Alegre, Brazil
6Universidade Federal do Pampa, Caçapava do Sul, Brazil
7Petrobras Exploration and Production, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
8Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
9Programa de Pós- Graduação em Geologia, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Brazil
10Instituto Tecnológico de Micropaleontologia (itt Fossil), Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Brazil
11Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
12Programa de Pós- Graduação em Geodinâmica e Geofísica (PPGG- DG- LAE), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil
Correspondence
Antonio J. C. Magalhães, Faculdade de Ciências, Instituto Dom Luiz (IDL), Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749- 016, Lisbon, Portugal.
Email: jmagalbr@gmail.com
1
|
INTRODUCTION
We want to acknowledge the comments about our re-
cently published paper. The exchange of ideas, data and
interpretation improves our knowledge and is the right
way to discuss science's advances.
This reply considers the points raised by Azerêdo et al.
(2023) and Schneider et al. (2023). In both manuscripts,
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors. The Depositional Record published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association of Sedimentologists.
2
|
COMME NTA RY
these authors raised many issues about sedimentological
and stratigraphic aspects that can be separated into two
groups: (a) those related to the age of the studied succes-
sion; and (b) those assigning the studied succession to the
Candeeiros Formation.
2
|
THE BATHONIAN– EARLY
CALLOVIAN AGE
There is a long tradition of using macropalaeontology in
the Lusitanian Basin, and many authors have used mac-
rofossils as palaeoenvironmental indicators and to date
sedimentary deposits. However, except for ammonoids,
micropalaeontology data are much more accurate than
those from corals or bivalves, for example. This is particu-
larly important in the Consolação– São Bernardino suc-
cession because of the lack of micropalaeontological and
biostratigraphical studies.
It is noteworthy that Magalhães et al. (2023) presented
a hitherto unpublished micropalaeontological and bio-
stratigraphical analysis of the Consolação– São Bernardino
succession. The association of two fossil groups (calcare-
ous nannofossil and dinoflagellates) support our biostra-
tigraphic data, in which we performed taxonomic and
biostratigraphic analyses with care and due importance.
Hence, our analysis assures the age of the studied succes-
sion, which confirms the Bathonianearly Callovian age.
Azerêdo et al. (2023) and Schneider et al. (2023) ques-
tioned our age assignments, but failed to present their mi-
cropalaeontological and biostratigraphical analysis for the
same Consolação– São Bernardino succession. Moreover,
our findings were integrated with facies analysis, ichnofa-
cies, petrography and macrofossil content to support the
proposed age. Azerêdo et al. (2023) and Schneider et al.
(2023) have no doubts about the taxonomy presented,
and their issues about our dating are based on reinterpre-
tations of our data. They assumed that the literature had
already defined the age of the studied succession, which
we consider is beyond debate as a result of the new data.
That paper acknowledged the previous studies in the
Consolação- São Bernardino section. Still, the arguments
by Azerêdo et al. (2023) and Schneider et al. (2023) are
not based on micropalaeontological data collected in the
Consolação- São Bernadino section, but rather on correla-
tions with supposed chronoequivalent units that do not
consider our new age. Their comments failed to include
irrefutable evidence of the Upper Jurassic age based on
micropalaeontological data from the Consolação– São Ber-
nardino succession to contrast with dates presented by
Magalhães et al. (2023).
New data bring new interpretations. Even though all
issues raised by Azerêdo et al. (2023) and Schneider et al.
(2023) are welcome, they need to be supported by compa-
rable data collected from the Consolação– São Bernardino
succession. Those authors offered correlations with other
sections and dating from previous studies but failed to
present new micropalaeontological and biostratigraphic
dating evidence from the Consolação– Sâo Bernardino
succession. Therefore, it is not acceptable to state that the
paper by Magalhães et al. (2023) needs to provide a better
interpretation based on the correlation of data from sup-
posed chrono- equivalent lithological units. We affirm they
are not. For instance, Azerêdo et al. (2023) and Schnei-
der et al. (2023) argued that reworking might explain our
microfossil data. However, there is no sedimentological
evidence for the proposed reworking. At the base of the
section, calcispheres occur associated with the highest
concentration of calcareous nannofossils in the outer
ramp facies association. Facies analysis and microfossil
content indicate this facies association was deposited in
an environment of relatively deep and calm waters incom-
patible with the energy level required to rework, transport
and deposit older Middle Jurassic sediments. This conclu-
sion is supported by evidence and discussion presented in
section 4 ‘Results’ and section 5 ‘Discussion’ of our paper.
Again, it is not true as contended by Azerêdo et al. (2023)
and Schneider et al. (2023) that the paper by Magalhães
et al. (2023) lacks data supporting interpretation.
2.1
|
About calcareous nannofossil
analysis
For the calcareous nannofossil analysis, the criteria for
the taxonomic identifications are mostly based on the
Farinacci and Howe catalogue, which is extensively
used to establish the taxonomy of the Nannotax3 web-
site (see Young et al., 2022), and contains the primary
literature for the recovered species. The biostratigraphic
framework presented by Magalhães et al. (2023) shows
a synthesis of the calcareous nannofossil assemblage
observed in the Consolação– São Bernardino succession.
Thus, the Bathonian– early Callovian age attribution was
based on the co- occurrence of Watznaueria barnesiae, W.
britannica, W. manivitiae, Cyclagelosphaera margerelii,
Lotharingius velatus, L. hauffii, L. contractus and Similis-
cutum novum. The stratigraphic distribution of these spe-
cies was mainly based on the Tethyan biostratigraphic
framework of Mattioli and Erba(1999), as well as on the
stratigraphic ranges published on the Nannotax3 website
(Young et al.,2022) for some studied species (S. novum, L.
hauffii, L. sigillatus and Parhabdolithus liasicus) that were
compiled in this website according to the NW Europe bi-
ostratigraphic scheme of Bown and Cooper(1998). Below
we reinforce our interpretation and demonstrate the
|
3
COMME NTA RY
arguments of Azerêdo et al. (2023) and Schneider et al.
(2023) are flawed.
Azerêdo et al. (2023) wrote:
Several inconsistencies arise because
Magalhães et al. (2023) mix Boreal and
Tethyan biostratigraphic schemes.
as well as:
The micropalaeontological data used to revise
the section's age as Middle Jurassic are not ro-
bust, and the age interpretations are oversim-
plified or inaccurate, because of, for example,
confusion between the Boreal and Tethyan
biostratigraphic schemes.
These claims are only based on reinterpretations of
the micropalaeontological data presented by Magal-
hães et al. (2023) without offering their micropalae-
ontological data from the Consolação– Sâo Bernardino
succession. They also show a misinterpretation of
the bioprovinces and ranges of some of the species
(W. manivitiae, S. novum, L. sigillatus and L. hauffii)
studied by Bown and Cooper(1998) and Mattioli and
Erba(1999). The Ferreira et al.(2019) study of calcare-
ous nannofossils, carried out in five late Sinemurian–
early Bajocian sections of the Lusitanian Basin (Western
Portugal), is used here to explain these discrepancies.
Below we demonstrate there is no mix between Boreal
and Tethyan biostratigraphic schemes.
2.2
|
About Watznaueria manivitiae
According to the NW Europe biostratigraphic scheme
by Bown and Cooper(1998), the first occurrence (FO)
of W. manivitiae was observed as occurring within
the late Bathonian– early Callovian interval in the
predominantly Tethyan taxa table (page 45 of Bown
& Cooper, 1998). However, these authors also in-
dicate the FO of this species in the lower part of the
Bajocian (page 37; according to Italy/South France bi-
ostratigraphic framework, Mattioli et al. apud. Bown
& Cooper, 1998). Considering this inconsistency,
Magalhães et al. (2023) use the FO of W. manivitiae as
suggested by Mattioli and Erba(1999), who proposed
a Tethyan biostratigraphic scheme using sites from
Northern and Central Italy, which was also corre-
lated with Portugal, Morocco, Switzerland and Boreal
realm sites. As a result, the FO of W. manivitiae was
considered an excellent biostratigraphic event within
the middle/early Bajocian (Mattioli & Erba,1999). In
addition, the FO of W. manivitiae was used by Mattioli
and Erba(1999) to define the base of the NJT 10 Zone
(with the top being limited by the FO of W. barnesiae).
Thus, this zone indicates a late/early Bajocian to earli-
est Bathonian interval. For the Lusitanian Basin, the
FO of W. manivitiae marks the NJT 10 Zone in the
Cabo Mondego Section (Ferreira et al.,2019). Magal-
hães et al. (2023) use the FO of W. manivitiae based
on the Tethyan biostratigraphic scheme of Mattioli and
Erba(1999); hence, there is no mix between Boreal and
Tethyan biostratigraphic schemes.
2.3
|
About S. novum and L. sigillatus
The last occurrences (LOs) of S. novum and L. sigillatus
occur at the Bathonian– Callovian boundary (Bown &
Cooper,1998; Young et al.,2022). Similar and even older
biostratigraphic ranges show that the LOs of these species
were reported for Tethyan sites (Mattioli & Erba, 1999;
and the references therein). As previously mentioned,
Mattioli and Erba (1999) also compared their biostrati-
graphic results with data from other studies developed in
several sections of the Tethys and Boreal realms.
Azerêdo et al. (2023) wrote:
Mattioli and Erba(1999) recorded the LO of
S. novum in the Tethyan Aalenian.
Azerêdo et al. (2023) might have confused the LO of S.
novum, which occurs during the early Bajocian based on
the distribution scheme of Mattioli and Erba (1999, p.
353), marked as number 10, with that of another species.
For the LO of L. sigillatus, Azerêdo et al. (2023) wrote:
Moreover, Mattioli and Erba(1999) also iden-
tify the LO of L. sigillatus (mentioned in table
3 and supplementary data S2 of Magalhães et
al., 2023) in the Aalenian.
The LO of L. sigillatus was observed in the Callovian for
the Tethyan sites by Mattioli and Erba(1999, page 354,
number 11), in the early Bajocian– Callovian interval in
the biostratigraphic scheme of Bown and Cooper(1998)
(Mattioli & Erba, 1999) and in the Aalenian according
to Kaenel et al. (1996). In a previous study in the Lusi-
tanian Basin, the last consistent occurrence (LCO) of S.
novum was observed in the NJT 8b Subzone, which spans
the middle/late Toarcian interval of the Brenha Section
(Ferreira et al.,2019). The LO of S. novum was also ob-
served in the NJT 9c Subzone, which encompasses the
early Bajocian of the Cabo Mondego Section (Ferreira
et al.,2019).
4
|
COMME NTA RY
2.4
|
About L. hauffii and P. liasicus
Previous studies indicate that the LO of L. hauffii is either at
the Callovian (Bown & Cooper,1998; Mattioli & Erba,1999;
Young et al.,2022) or at the late Oxfordian stage, with the
subject needing further investigation (Casellato, 2010).
Considering these discrepancies in the biochronostrati-
graphic position of the LO of L. hauffii, we suggest further
studies in the Lusitanian Basin to calibrate this event better.
Azerêdo et al. (2023) wrote:
Magalhães et al. refer to the Early Jurassic
species Parhabdolithus liasicus from one sam-
ple, which they considered to be reworked.
But for the rest of the assemblage, rework-
ing in the context of detrital influxes is not
mentioned.
As mentioned before, reworking is possible in all sedi-
mentary sections worldwide. Yet, this hypothesis must be
supported by sedimentological analysis, which is not the
case in the Consolação– São Bernardino succession.
Magalhães et al. (2023) calcareous nannofossil and di-
noflagellate biostratigraphic frameworks are new to the
Consolação- São Bernardino section. Still, they are well
supported by the recovered assemblages, in which we es-
sentially applied the distribution ranges of Mattioli and
Erba(1999). While future studies are necessary to com-
plement the knowledge about the calcareous nannofossil
occurrences in the Lusitanian Basin, our data allow for
a confident interpretation supported by previously pub-
lished Tethyan Jurassic biostratigraphic schemes.
2.5
|
About dinoflagellates
As many of the species of dinoflagellates found by Magal-
hães et al. (2023) have a wide biostratigraphic range, we
decided to calibrate this dinocyst assemblage with the dis-
tribution of calcareous nannofossils.
Azerêdo et al. (2023) wrote:
In our view, this is an oversimplified ap-
proach: not all taxa mentioned are diagnostic
of a Middle Jurassic age, and abundances are
also an important aspect.
We emphasise that the dinoflagellates assemblage described
in Magalhães et al. (2023), according to the referenced studies
(Borges et al.,2012; Riding,2005; Riding & Thomas,1992), is
characteristic of the Bajocian– Callovian interval. Neverthe-
less, it does not mean that the range of some of these taxa
does not extend beyond it. It is important to highlight that
we are talking about the assemblage. Therefore, not all of
its taxa must obligatorily be diagnostic of a specific age or
abundance. It is also vital to highlight that the abundance of
organisms depends on environmental context, mainly the
physical– chemical conditions of ecosystems. For biostratig-
raphy, however, abundance is only relevant for ACME
Zones, of which none were used. The low diversity observed
in the study is comparable to what Borges et al.(2012) de-
scribed for the Algarve Basin in southern Portugal.
Azerêdo et al. (2023) wrote:
The taxa Ctenidodinium cornigerum,
Gonyaulacysta jurassica subsp. adecta
(Gonyaulacysta adecta in Riding et al., 2022)
and Pareodinia ceratophora, are more abundant
in the Bathonian and Callovian, but may also
occur through the Upper Jurassic, especially
in the Oxfordian (Borges et al.,2011; Correia
et al., 2019; Feist- Burkhardt & Wille, 1992;
Jan du Chêne et al.,1985; Riding et al.,2022;
Smelror,2021; Riding & Thomas, 1992).
The fact that they are not abundant in the studied mate-
rial does not mean that the samples are of the Oxfordian
age. For instance, the low abundance could be justified
due to poor preservation or local palaeoenvironmental fac-
tors. In addition, most of the publications referenced in the
reply (Borges et al.,2011; Correia et al.,2019; Jan du Chêne
et al., 1985; Riding et al., 2022; Riding & Thomas, 1992;
Smelror,2021) do not contain any record of C. cornigerum
in the Oxfordian. It is important to highlight that C. corni-
gerum is considered a typical species of Bajocian– Bathonian
transition (Correia et al., 2019; Feist- Burkhardt & Mon-
teil, 1997; Feist- Burkhardt & Wille, 1992; Jan du Chêne
et al.,1985; Riding & Thomas,1992; Wiggan et al.,2017) or
Callovian (Borges et al.,2011, 2012), in addition to two oc-
currences in the Callovian according to the software Palyn-
odata Inc and White(2008). Thus, the dinocyst association
common to the Callovian is corroborated by the LO of C.
cornigerum (Borges et al.,2011, 2012) as well as by the dis-
tribution of calcareous nannofossils, here considered not to
be younger than Callovian. It is worth noting that Riding
and Thomas(1992) was referred in the text of Azerêdo et al.
(2023).
According to Azerêdo et al. (2023):
It is well established that Meiourogonyaulax
and Sentusidinium occur from the Bajocian
onwards, and various species span the later
Mesozoic.
Considering this information, we consider the distribu-
tion of the genera Meiourogonyaulax and Sentusidinium
|
5
COMME NTA RY
in a Bathonian– Callovian assemblage to be consistent.
Moreover, the biochronostratigraphic range of some spe-
cies of these genera in younger sections does not invali-
date the age interpretation proposed by Magalhães et al.
(2023). Future studies are suggested for a refinement in
the taxonomic classification of microfossils.
Azerêdo et al. (2023) wrote:
Forms of Systematophora occur in the
Bathonian/Callovian interval, but confident
species assignments are usually possible only
in the Upper Jurassic (Borges et al., 2011;
Feist- Burkhardt & Wille, 1992; Riding &
Thomas, 1992; Smelror, 2021). The holo-
type of Systematophora penicillata is of late
Oxfordian age, so the presence of this spe-
cies is more indicative of a Late, rather than
Middle, Jurassic age.
Systematophora is common in the Upper Jurassic, but
there are records of it occurring during the Bathonian/
Callovian as well (Borges et al., 2012). In addition, the
comments of Azerêdo et al. (2023) and Schneider et al.
(2023) about S. penicillata indicate an Upper Jurassic age
just because its holotype was described from Oxfordian
strata. We consider this interpretation incorrect. The oc-
currence of S. penicillata between the Bathonian and the
Kimmeridgian was evidenced by diverse studies (Borges
et al.,2012; Fauconier et al.,1996; Smelror,1993; Smelror
et al.,1991). Thus, it is reliable that this species occurs in a
Callovian assemblage.
Schneider et al. (2023) wrote:
Systematophora penicillata is indicative of a
late Oxfordian age according to Williams et
al. (2017)… while it is displayed as Bajocian
to top Callovian by Magalhães et al. (2023…).
Regarding the age of this taxon, as reported by Williams
et al.(2017):
The age cited for each taxon of species or in-
fraspecific rank is, unless otherwise specified,
that attributed to it in the protologue. The age
cited in the Index is not intended to be a full
or up- to- date statement of the range of the
species; users are advised to consult the litera-
ture for potentially more detailed and precise
information (p. 6).
Thus, Williams et al. (2017) advise users to be careful
and observe that ‘The age cited in the Index is not in-
tended to be a full or up- to- date statement of the range
of the species’. This argument contradicts Schneider et al.
(2023). Moreover, Williams et al.(2017) indicate that age
assignment should be more than just as described in his
catalogue, which shows only the age attributed to the
holotype.
Tahoun et al.(2012) recorded an assemblage char-
acteristic of the Callovian– ?Kimmeridgian (Acan-
thaulax sp. cf. A. crispa, Amphorulacysta? dodekovae,
Epiplosphaera reticulospinosa, Lithodinia jurassica,
Meiourogonyaulax reticulata, and Sentusidinium spp.).
The Kimmeridgian age is indicated by the presence of
Amphorulacysta? dodekovae and Epiplosphaera reticu-
lospinosa, making their biostratigraphy ambiguous, ac-
cording to Riding(2020). In Magalhães et al. (2023), we
noticed the presence of Amphorulacysta in a Callovian
assemblage, similar to Tahoun et al. (2012), suggesting
that this genus can occur in rocks older than the Kim-
meridgian. Considering these discrepancies in the bio-
chronostratigraphic position of Amphorulacysta, we
recommend further studies in the Lusitanian Basin to
calibrate the range of this genera better.
3
|
ASSIGNING TO THE
CANDEEIROS FORMATION, A NEW
DEPOSITIONAL MODEL, AND
THE MIDDLE– UPPER JURASSIC
DISCONFORMITY
Once the Bathonianearly Callovian age was established,
the assignment to the Candeeiros Formation was evident
since it is the lithological unit tied to that age. Again, as-
suming the Candeeiros consists only of carbonate avoids
any possibility of enhancing the understanding of this lith-
ological unit. The local variation from carbonate to mainly
siliciclastic lithology in the study area is explained by the
terrigenous input from the basin's border. This input is
evident in nearby Early Jurassic units (Cabo Carvoeiro
Formation, Peniche section), indicating the proximity of a
western border. The same palaeogeography could explain
the Middle Jurassic input of siliciclastics to the studied
area, which would become predominant in Late Jurassic
times.
The detailed facies analysis, incorporating ichnofacies
and fossil content, and the multicyclic stratal stacking pat-
tern improved the depositional model. Depositional facies
were described at a 1:40 scale to capture slight changes and
enough evidence to propose the depositional model. For
instance, recognising Skolithos, Cruziana and Glossifung-
ites Ichnofacies helped envisage a more appropriate palae-
oecological evolution through time. This is the first time
hummocky cross- stratified sandstone and sharp- based
shoreface strata deposited during forced regression were
6
|
COMME NTA RY
recognised in the Consolação- São Bernardino section.
How could they be formed in shallow, protected water set-
tings? Therefore, the previous interpretation of deposition
in shallow, protected waters is inappropriate following the
evidence presented in Magalhães et al. (2023).
The Upper Jurassic age, lithological characteristics
and depositional systems associated with the Lourinhã
Formation are widely accepted (Taylor et al., 2014 and
references herein). For instance, the fluvial strata and
reddish palaeosol interval at the bottom of the Lourinhã
Formation attests to continental origin. The contact be-
tween the Lourinhã and Candeeiros formations is seen in
São Bernardino. In this location, the contrast between the
characteristics of these units is evident, with continental
strata from the Lourinhã Formation truncating offshore
siltstone and shoreface sandstone from the Candeeiros
Formation. Therefore, recognising the Middle– Upper Ju-
rassic disconformity at the contact between the Candee-
iros and Lourinhã formations is straightforward. Besides
erosive, this surface encompasses a significant hiatus, as
demonstrated by the sequence stratigraphic framework.
The local diapir- related uplift explains the absence of
the lower units of the Upper Jurassic (Cabaços and Mon-
tejunto formations) in the studied area. This uplift is re-
sponsible for the significant regional thickness changes
in the Upper Jurassic units, as seen, for example, to the
east and west of the Lourinhã fault. In this western basin
area, close to the Bolhos and Caldas da Rainha diapirs, the
Oxfordian to Kimmeridgian units probably were thinner
and eroded or absent. Therefore, the basinwide Middle–
Upper Jurassic disconformity has a different signature in
the studied section.
4
|
CONCLUSION
The Magalhães et al. (2023) paper presents an innovative
methodology to integrate and interpret the variety of data
gathered in their research. Such an approach, based on mi-
cropalaeontological, ichnofacies and facies analysis sup-
porting a new depositional model and a novel sequence
stratigraphic framework, assures a much more robust in-
terpretation than the more traditional approach founded
on separated methods presented by previous authors.
New studies in the Consolação- São Bernardino section
are welcome to complement the knowledge about the Lu-
sitanian Basin, such as our work seeks. The discussion re-
mains open and is welcome. Meanwhile, we are waiting
for evidence of an irrefutable Upper Jurassic age and dep-
ositional systems characterisation from the Consolação–
São Bernardino succession that explain the observed data
and disagree with the findings of Magalhães et al. (2023).
Our attempts at calibrating the age for these deposits
using dinoflagellates and calcareous nannofossils con-
tribute to the comprehension of this basin's depositional
evolution and biochronostratigraphy. Moreover, our re-
view covered all data we gathered in this research, which
confirmed the interpretation of the depositional facies,
the depositional system, the sequence stratigraphic frame-
work and the assignment of the Consolação– São Ber-
nardino succession to the Candeeiros Formation.
ACKNO WLE DGE MENTS
We acknowledge the questionings of colleagues, which al-
lowed us to review and confirm our interpretation using
the microfossil assemblages.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data
were created or analysed in this study.
ORCID
Antonio J. C. Magalhães https://orcid.
org/0000-0001-9417-6602
Daniel G. C. Fragoso https://orcid.
org/0000-0001-8849-4831
Sissa Kumaira https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8403-1650
Mauro D. R. Bruno https://orcid.
org/0000-0001-5290-9855
Daiane Ceolin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6124-0337
Simone Baecker- Fauth https://orcid.
org/0000-0001-5201-981X
REFERENCES
Azerêdo, A. C., Correia, V. F., & Fraguas, Á. (2023) Discussion on
‘Middle Jurassic multi- scale transgressive– regressive cycles:
An example from the Lusitanian Basin’, by Magalhães et al.
Depositional Record.
Borges, M.E.N., Riding, J.B., Fernandes, P., Matos, V. & Pereira, Z.
(2012) Callovian (Middle Jurassic) dinoflagellate cysts from the
Algarve Basin, southern Portugal. Review of Palaeobotany and
Palynology, 170, 40–56.
Borges, M.E.N., Riding, J.B., Fernandes, P. & Pereira, Z. (2011) The
Jurassic (Pliensbachian to Kimmeridgian) palynology of the
Algarve Basin and the Carrapateira outlier, southern Portugal.
Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 163, 190–204.
Bown, P.R. & Cooper, M.K.E. (1998) Jurassic. In: Bown, P.R. (Ed.)
Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy. London: British
Micropalaeontological Society Publication Series, pp. 34–85.
Casellato, C.E. (2010) Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy
of upper Callovian-lower Berriasian successions from the
Southern Alps, north Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e
Stratigrafia, 116(3), 357–404.
|
7
COMME NTA RY
Correia, V.F., Riding, J.B., Henriques, M.H., Fernandes, P., Pereira,
Z. & Wiggan, N.J. (2019) The Middle Jurassic palynostratigra-
phy of the northern Lusitanian Basin, Portugal. Newsletters on
Stratigraphy, 52(1), 73–96.
Fauconier, D., Courtinat, B., Gardin, S., Lachkar, G. & Rauscher, R.
(1996) Biostratigraphy of Jurassic and Triassic succession in the
Balazuc- 1 borehole (GPF Programme). Stratigraphic setting in-
ferred from dinoflagellate cysts, pollen, spores and calcareous
nannofossils. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 13(6), 705–724.
Feist- Burkhardt, S. & Monteil, E. (1997) Dinoflagellate cysts from
the Bajocian stratotype (Calvados, Normandy, western France).
Bulletin des Centres de Recherches Exploration Production Elf-
Aquitaine, 21, 3–105.
Feist- Burkhardt, S. & Wille, W. (1992) Jurassic palynology in south-
west Germany— state of the art. Cahiers de Micropaléontologie
N.S., 7, 141–156.
Ferreira, J., Mattioli, E., Suchéras- Marx, B., Giraud, F., Duarte, L.V.,
Pittet, B., Suan, G., Hassler, A. & Spangenberg, J.E. (2019)
Western Tethys early and Middle Jurassic calcareous nannofos-
sil biostratigraphy. Earth- Science Reviews, 197, 102908. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.earsc irev.2019.102908
Jan du Chêne, R., Fauconnier, D.C. & Fenton, J.P.G. (1985) Problèmes
taxonomiques liés a la 357 révision de l'espèce “Gonyaulax”
cornigera Valensi, 1953, kyste fossile de dinoflagellé. Revue de
Micropaleontologie, 28, 109–124.
Kaenel, E., Bergen, J.A. & von Salis Perch-Nielsen, K. (1996) Jurassic
calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy of Western Europe;
compilation of recent studies and calibration of bioevents.
Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, 167(1), 15–28.
Magalhães, A. J. C., Terra, G. J. S., Guadagnin, F., Fragoso, D. G. C.,
Menegazzo, M. C., Pimentel, N. L. A., Kumaira, S., Fauth, G.,
Santos, A., Watkins,D. K., Bruno, M. D. R., Ceolin, D., Baecker-
Fauth, S., Gabaglia, G. P. R., Teixeira, W. L. E., & Lima- Filho, F.
P. (2023). Middle Jurassic multi- scale transgressive– regressive
cycles: An example from the Lusitanian Basin. The Depositional
Record, 9(1), 174–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/dep2.223
Mattioli, E. & Erba, E. (1999) Synthesis of calcareous nannofossil
events in the Tethyan lower and middle Jurassic successions.
Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 105, 343–376.
Palynodata Inc & White, J.M. (2008) Palynodata Datafile: 2006 ver-
sion, with Introduction by J.M. White. Geological Survey of
Canada Open File Report, No. 5793, 1 x CDROM. http://geo-
pub.nrcan.gc.ca/morei nfo_e.php?id¼225704
Riding, J.B. (2005) Middle and Upper Jurassic (Callovian to
Kimmeridgian) palynology of the onshore Moray Firth Basin,
northeast Scotland. Palynology, 29, 87–142.
Riding, J.B. (2020) The literature on Triassic, Jurassic and earliest
Cretaceous dinoflagellate cysts: supplement 4. Palynology,
44(4), 743–756.
Riding, J.B., Mariani, E. & Fensome, R.A. (2022) A review of the
Jurassic dinoflagellate cyst genus Gonyaulacysta Deflandre
1964 emend. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 299(36),
104605.
Riding, J.B. & Thomas, J.E. (1992) Dinoflagellate cysts of the Jurassic
system. In: Powell, A.J. (Ed.) A stratigraphic index of dinoflagel-
late cysts. London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 7–97.
Schneider, S., Fürsich, F. T., Werner, W. & Pierce, C. S. (2023)
Comment on: Magalhães et al., Middle Jurassic multi-
scale transgressive– regressive cycles: An example from the
Lusitanian Basin. Depositional Record.
Smelror, M. (1993) Biogeography of Bathonian to Oxfordian
(Jurassic) dinoflagellates: arctic, northwest Europe and
Circum- Mediterranean. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology, 102, 121–160.
Smelror, M. (2021) Palynostratigraphy, palynofacies, T- R cycles and
paleoenvironments in the Middle Jurassic– Early Cretaceous
Ramså Basin, Andøya, Northern Norway. Geosciences, 11, 354.
Smelror, M., Arhus, N., Melendez, G. & Lardies, M.D. (1991) A re-
connaissance study of Bathonian to Oxfordian (Jurassic) di-
noflagellates and acritarchs from the Zaragoza region (NE
Spain) and Figueira da Foz (Portugal). Revista Española de
Micropaleontología, 23(2), 47–82.
Tahoun, S.S., Ibrahim, M.I.A. & Kholeif, S. (2012) Palynology and
paleoenvironments of Middle Jurassic to Cenomanian succes-
sions, Alamein- IX well, north Western Desert, Egypt. Revista
Española de Micropaleontología, 44, 57–78.
Taylor, A.M., Gowland, S., Leary, S., Keogh, K.J. & Martinius, A.W.
(2014) Stratigraphical correlation of the Late Jurassic Lourinhã
Formation in the Consolação sub- basin (Lusitanian Basin),
Portugal. Geological Journal, 49, 143–162.
Wiggan, N.J., Riding, J.B. & Franz, M. (2017) Resolving the Middle
Jurassic dinoflagellate 896 radiation: the palynology of the
Bajocian of Swabia, southwest Germany. Review of Palaeobotany
and Palynology, 238, 55–87.
Williams, G.L., Fensome, R.A. & MacRae, R.A. (2017) The Lentin and
Williams index of fossil dinoflagellates, 2017 edition. American
Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Contributions Series,
48, 1–1097.
Young, J.R., Bown, P.R. & Lees, J.A. (2022) Nannotax3 website.
International Nannoplankton Association. Available from:
www.mikro tax.org/Nanno tax3 [Accessed 15th June 2023].
How to cite this article: Magalhães, A.J.C., Terra,
G.J.S., Guadagnin, F., Fragoso, D.G.C., Menegazzo,
M.C., Pimentel, N.L.A. et al. (2023) Reply to the
discussion and comments of Azerêdo et al. (2023)
and Schneider et al. (2023) on the paper by
Magalhães et al. ‘Middle Jurassic multi- scale
transgressive– regressive cycles: An example from
the Lusitanian Basin’, The Depositional Record, 9,
174– 202. The Depositional Record, 00, 1–7.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/dep2.254
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Multi‐scale transgressive‐regressive cycles from the mid‐Jurassic were recognised in the Central Lusitanian Basin, Portugal. These cycles allow the depositional evolution of the basin to be better understood and aid in the construction of stratigraphic sequences composed of three hierarchies. The stacking pattern of high‐frequency transgressive‐regressive sequences forms larger clusters that define medium‐frequency transgressive‐regressive sequences. Likewise, the stacking pattern of medium‐frequency transgressive‐regressive sequences generates two Bathonian–early Callovian low‐frequency transgressive‐regressive sequences. Integration of several methods supported the interpretation of facies associations representing clastic deposition in offshore to shoreface environments and carbonate sediments in outer to inner ramp settings. New data from calcareous nannofossils and dinoflagellate assemblages constrained the interval's Bathonian–early Callovian age, thus unveiling the Middle‐Upper Jurassic disconformity and filling the Middle Jurassic stratigraphic record gap in the Central Lusitanian Basin. This study may be helpful for similar successions in Tethyan domains and comparable depositional settings elsewhere.
Article
Full-text available
Palynostratigraphy and palynofacies analyses are applied to identify transgressive-regressive sequences and changes in paleoenvironment through the Middle Jurassic–Early Cretaceous succession of the Ramså Basin on Andøya. The conglomerate, the succeeding lacustrine-swamp deposits of the Hestberget and Kullgrøfta members (Ramså Formation) and the overlying terrestrial to marginal marine deposits of the lower Bonteigen Member (Ramså Formation), comprise the Bajocian T-R sequence. Bathonian–Oxfordian strata appear to be missing in the studied boreholes, and the second T-R cycle spans the Kimmeridgian to Berriasian open marine deposits of the upper Bonteigen Member and the Dragneset Formation (Breisanden, Taumhølet and Ratjønna members). The overlying Nybrua Formation comprises a condensed marine succession of Valanginian–Early Barremian calcareous sandstone and marl, followed by brownish-red siltstone. The upper T-R sequence (Skarstein Formation) consists of marine transgressive Barremian dark siltstones, silty shales and mudstones, followed by dark mudstone and shale. Marine palynomorphs recovered in these stacked marine slope turbidite sediments are of Late Barremian age, but possibly the youngest T-R cycle also includes Aptian deposits elsewhere in the basin.
Article
Full-text available
Dinoflagellates underwent a major radiation during the Bajocian (Middle Jurassic, ~ 170–168 Ma). The group originated in the Middle Triassic and dinoflagellate cysts were relatively low in diversity until the Bajocian, when over 100 species appeared. The Gonyaulacaceae expanded during this interval to become the dominant family of cyst-forming dinoflagellates, and has remained the principal dinoflagellate family throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. However, Bajocian dinoflagellate cysts have received relatively little study. In order to unravel the pattern of the Bajocian dinoflagellate radiation, we have generated a high resolution, quantitative, palynological record through an expanded Middle Jurassic succession in Swabia, southwest Germany. Previous research has indicated a rapid, stepwise order of first appearances through the Bajocian. By contrast, we clearly demonstrate that there was a more gradual, continuous increase in diversity from the Late Aalenian to the Early Bathonian, although the number of first appearances was highest during the latest Early Bajocian to Late Bajocian. Major experimentation in excystment mode in the gonyaulacaceans occurred during the Late Aalenian and Early Bajocian, when multi-plate precingular, single-plate precingular and epicystal archaeopyle types first appeared. Through the integration of our data with published information from northwest Europe, we demonstrate that the appearance of dinoflagellate cyst taxa through the Late Aalenian–Early Bathonian appears to have been controlled by a major second-order transgression. Although the cause of this radiation is yet to be constrained, given the contemporaneous diversifications of other plankton groups, as well as ammonites, bivalves and fishes, it is likely that it formed part of the wider Mesozoic Marine Revolution. There is a prominent acme of Dissiliodinium giganteum in the Lower Bajocian which is a useful stratigraphical marker. Acanthaulax crispa is confirmed as a key index species for the Bajocian. One new species, Korystocysta aldridgeii sp. nov., is described.
Article
Full-text available
Dinoflagellates underwent a major radiation during the Bajocian (Middle Jurassic, ~ 170–168 Ma). The group originated in the Middle Triassic and dinoflagellate cysts were relatively low in diversity until the Bajocian, when over 100 species appeared. The Gonyaulacaceae expanded during this interval to become the dominant family of cyst-forming dinoflagellates, and has remained the principal dinoflagellate family throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. However, Bajocian dinoflagellate cysts have received relatively little study. In order to unravel the pattern of the Bajocian dinoflagellate radiation, we have generated a high resolution, quantitative, palynological record through an expanded Middle Jurassic succession in Swabia, southwest Germany. Previous research has indicated a rapid, stepwise order of first appearances through the Bajocian. By contrast, we clearly demonstrate that there was a more gradual, continuous increase in diversity from the Late Aalenian to the Early Bathonian, although the number of first appearances was highest during the latest Early Bajocian to Late Bajocian. Major experimentation in excystment mode in the gonyaulacaceans occurred during the Late Aalenian and Early Bajocian, when multi-plate precingular, single-plate precingular and epicystal archaeopyle types first appeared. Through the integration of our data with published information from northwest Europe, we demonstrate that the appearance of dinoflagellate cyst taxa through the Late Aalenian–Early Bathonian appears to have been controlled by a major second-order transgression. Although the cause of this radiation is yet to be constrained, given the contemporaneous diversifications of other plankton groups, as well as ammonites, bivalves and fishes, it is likely that it formed part of the wider Mesozoic Marine Revolution. There is a prominent acme of Dissiliodinium giganteum in the Lower Bajocian which is a useful stratigraphical marker. Acanthaulax crispa is confirmed as a key index species for the Bajocian. One new species, Korystocysta aldridgeii sp. nov., is described.
Article
The Middle–Late Jurassic gonyaulacacean dinoflagellate cyst genus Gonyaulacysta is characterised by an epicyst which is around twice the length of the hypocyst. The sulcus is L-type and may be slightly sigmoidal in shape, but is never S-type sensu stricto. The forms with slightly sigmoidal L-type sulcuses may have developed into species with S-type sulcuses. Gonyaulacysta jurassica, the holotype of which is the nomenclatural type of the genus, had a global distribution. A total of 151 species have been assigned to Gonyaulacysta although 126 of these have been transferred to other genera. Prior to this contribution, 25 species were accepted in the current Lentin and Williams Index. This is herein reduced to eight and 18 species are transferred to other genera. The accepted species are: Gonyaulacysta adecta stat. nov., emend. nov.; Gonyaulacysta australica comb. nov., emend. nov.; Gonyaulacysta ceratophora; Gonyaulacysta desmos stat. nov., emend. nov.; Gonyaulacysta dualis emend. nov.; Gonyaulacysta fenestrata emend. nov.; Gonyaulacysta jurassica emend. nov.; and Gonyaulacysta longicornis stat. nov., emend. nov. These species form a closely related plexus, and are distinguished on differences in cavation style, form of sutural crests/ridges and size of the apical horn. All except Gonyaulacysta australica are reliable marker taxa. Our main taxonomic proposals involve the elevation of all subspecies and varieties of species here retained in Gonyaulacysta to species rank, or their synonymisation. This avoids cumbersome infraspecific names. Gonyaulacysta exhibits substantial provincialism; for example Gonyaulacysta dualis is confined to the Oxfordian–Kimmeridgian of the Boreal Realm. Gonyaulacysta adecta, Gonyaulacysta desmos and Gonyaulacysta longicornis are present in the Bathonian to Oxfordian of Laurasia and surrounding areas. Three species, Gonyaulacysta australica, Gonyaulacysta ceratophora and Gonyaulacysta fenestrata, are restricted to the Oxfordian to Tithonian of Australasia. Gonyaulacysta adecta and the cosmopolitan Gonyaulacysta jurassica both exhibit overall size increases throughout the Bathonian to Kimmeridgian of Europe.
Article
Since the publication of four compilations issued between 2012 and 2019, 93 further published contributions on Triassic, Jurassic and earliest Cretaceous (Berriasian) dinoflagellate cysts from Africa, North America, South America, the Arctic, Australasia, East Europe, West Europe, the Middle East and Russia have been discovered in the literature, or were issued in the last 12 months (i.e. between February 2018 and January 2019). Of these, 55 were published during 2018 and 2019, making this period a very productive one. These studies are mostly on the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic of Europe. All the 93 items are listed herein with digital object identifier (doi) numbers where available, as well as a description of each item as a string of keywords. Publications on West Europe comprise 31.2% of the total, and items on Africa, the Arctic, Australasia, East Europe and Russia are also significant (15.1%, 6.5%, 7.5%, 9.7% and 14.0% respectively). The least well-represented regions are North America, South America and the Middle East (2.2%, 1.1% and 1.1% respectively).
Article
A composite largely Middle Jurassic succession spanning the Toarcian–Aalenian transition to the lowermost Bathonian exposed at Cabo Mondego and São Gião in the northern Lusitanian Basin, western Portugal, was examined palynologically. The 129 samples are correlated to ammonite biozones spanning Pleydellia aalensis to Zigzagiceras zigzag. The Cabo Mondego succession comprises the type section of the Cabo Mondego Formation and spans virtually the entire interval studied. This is a significant interval because it includes the Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) and the Auxiliary Stratigraphical Section and Point (ASSP) for the Bajocian and Bathonian stages respectively. The Cabo Mondego Formation largely yielded relatively abundant palynomorph associations in the 68 productive samples recovered. By contrast, the Pó'voa da Lomba Formation at São Gião only includes the Toarcian–Aalenian transition; the 21 productive horizons produced sparse assemblages. The uppermost Toarcian to lowermost Bajocian is characterised by a low diversity dinoflagellate cyst association, typified by Nannoceratopsis. Above this is a markedly more diverse assemblage. This influx, in the Witchellia laeviuscula ammonite biozone AB, represents a global evolutionary radiation which may be linked to sea level rise. The trend of increasing dinoflagellate cyst diversity continued at the Bajocian–Bathonian transition. The Middle Jurassic dinoflagellate cyst assemblages of the Lusitanian Basin are significantly less diverse than coeval palynobiotas from eastern and northern Europe, and the Arctic. The Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event (T-OAE) profoundly inhibited cyst-forming dinoflagellates in this depocentre, and the recovery was protracted. Hence the T-OAE may have suppressed dinoflagellate cyst diversity well into the Middle Jurassic. This phenomenon may have been exacerbated by the absence of typically Arctic taxa through latitudinal controls and/or global cooling during the early Aalenian. These low levels of dinoflagellate cyst species richness may also be related to the palaeogeography of the Lusitanian Basin. This relatively isolated deepwater depocentre close to the Proto Atlantic, may have precluded extensive biotal exchange with the widespread shelfal areas of the western Tethys. The absence of Dissiliodinium giganteum in the Lusitanian Basin is consistent with this scenario. The pollen and spores observed in this study are typical of Middle Jurassic assemblages worldwide. Araucarian pollen, largely Callialasporites, diversified and became prominent during the Aalenian.