Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.

org/ by guest on April 27, 2012

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Carbonate ramps: an introduction

V. P. Wright and T. P. Burchette
Geological Society, London, Special Publications 1998, v.149;
p1-5.
doi: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.149.01.01

Email alerting
service

click here to receive free e-mail alerts when

new articles cite this article

Permission
request

click here to seek permission to re-use all or

part of this article

Subscribe

click here to subscribe to Geological Society,

London, Special Publications or the Lyell
Collection

Notes

The Geological Society of London 2012

Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on April 27, 2012

Carbonate ramps: an introduction

V. P. W R I G H T 1 & T. P. B U R C H E T T E 2

1Department of Earth Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF1 3YE, UK and

BG Exploration and Production, 100 Thames Valley Park Drive, Reading RG6 1PT, UK
2Bp Exploration, Building 200, Chertsey Road, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex
TW16 7LN, UK
Carbonate ramps are carbonate platforms which
have a very low gradient depositional slope
(commonly less than 0.1 ~ from a shallow-water
shoreline or lagoon to a basin floor (Burchette &
Wright 1992). A large proportion of carbonate
successions in the geological record were
deposited in ramp-like settings. Nevertheless,
ramps remain one of the more enigmatic
carbonate platform types. In contrast to steepersloped rimmed shelves and isolated buildups,
where the factors which have controlled their
location and development are commonly quite
evident, the controls on ramp development have
seldom been clearly demonstrated. In order to
shed new light on this topic, and related aspects
of ramp development, this volume addresses a
number of key issues including: terminology
(can we classify ramps?), processes (how important are water temperature controls, production-depth profiles); tectonic controls (are
ramps by necessity restricted to relatively
shallow, flexural basins?); sedimentary processes (e.g. sediment dispersal versus in situ production in maintaining the ramp profile); the
origins of ramp reef-mounds; and the reasons for
the evolution of ramps into other carbonate
platform types (see e.g. Read 1985).

Terminology
The appropriateness of the term 'ramp' continues to be an area of strong debate. General
concensus in this volume is that the currently
applied terms and concepts are indeed useful,
and the historical basis for this debate is
reviewed in this volume by Ahr, who introduced
this term more than 25 years ago. Nevertheless,
even after all this time, a review of the literature
shows that confusion in terminology between
the concepts of carbonate 'shelf', 'ramp', and
'platform' is common.
Our view is that carbonate shelves are
shallow, flat-topped structures with a clearly
defined margin determined by a steep slope
down to the adjacent basin. A modern example
is the east Florida shelf, and many are known
from the geological record, the Permian Capitan
Shelf being a good example for much of its

history. The term shelf is, however, most widely

used in the geological context for any broad,
gently-sloping surface, clastic or carbonate,
which has a break in slope in deeper water, and
is typified by usage of the term 'continental
shelf' (e.g. Bates & Jackson 1987). In addition,
the term ramp is now also widely used by clastic
sedimentologists for low-gradient submarine
slopes, particularly on continental shelves.
Where the dominant sea-floor sediments are of
carbonate mineralogy, however, such a configuration has become known as a 'distally steepened ramp', a morphology which in carbonate
settings is more often than not inherited from an
antecedent morphological feature. The discussion is continued in two papers in this
volume, by Testa & Bosence and by Light &
Wilson, who document present-day carbonate
sedimentation on two continental shelves,
environments which are effectively distallysteepened ramps.
The term carbonate 'platform' has become
generally applied to any thick, more or less flattopped carbonate depositional system and distinguishes such features from the much more
general and widely applied concept of a 'shelf'.
Many ancient ramp systems appear to have
developed into flat-topped 'rimmed' carbonate
platforms and an example is described here by
Hips. A prominent school of thought holds that
ramps might merely represent the incipient,
catch-up stages of rimmed platforms (where
carbonate supply had not filled available
accommodation space) while carbonate shelves
represent true keep-up systems (where the
carbonate pile has built up to sea level and keeps
pace with subsequent sea level changes).
However, from the numerous examples in the
geological record, it is clear that ramps can represent keep-up depositional systems in their own
right and commonly developed into flat-topped
platforms even while maintaining their low-gradient seaward margins.
Understanding modern analogues is a key
factor in deciding whether or not ramps are entities in their own right, or are simply transient
phenomena in the evolution of rimmed platform. A classic modern ramp analogue is the

WRIGHT,V. P. & BURCHETTE,Z. P. 1998. Carbonate ramps: an introduction. In: WRIGHT,V. P. t~; BURCHETTE,Z. P.
(eds) Carbonate Ramps. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 149, 1-5.

Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on April 27, 2012

V.P. WRIGHT & T. P. BURCHETTE

southern margin of the Arabian Gulf. In this

volume, Walkden & Williams question the validity and usefulness of the analogy. These authors
stress the structural, stratigraphic and geomorphic complexity of the substrate upon which the
present thin veneer of ramp sediments lies, and
regard the ramp profile as unstable. They argue
that a true ramp is self sustaining and can be
maintained over geologic time intervals.
Perhaps the answer lies in trying to improve our
understanding of the process of depositon and
controls on ramp development, and with only
short-lived modern analogues available, it is
essential to integrate data from the Recent and
ancient by means of computer modelling.
Processes
While acknowledging that relative sea level is
one of the most significant controls on depositional systems, many now seem to regard it as
the only influence on deposition.Careful analysis of the factors which influence sedimentation
in active carbonate depositional systems is critical. Depositional systems are inherently
complex, yet ancient successions are often
reduced to the simplest of models related to
relative sea-level changes. Thus, a re-evaluation
of the southern Arabian Gulf in terms of
environmental controls is long overdue and
Kirkham reviews the 'classic' inner-ramp area of
the United Arab Emirates, emphasising the
importance of wind control on geomorphology
and sediment dispersal patterns in this regime.
The importance of tidal regime as a control on
the architecture and geometries of inner-ramp
sandbodies is discussed in this volume by
Azeredo in a study of the Middle Jurassic of
west-central Portugal. In mid-ramp settings the
dominant events affecting sediment character
are storms and Light & Wilson re-emphasize this
in their study of rocks of similar age in the NE
Atlantic province. The strong depth-zonation of
foraminifera on Tertiary ramps allows individual
taxa to be used as 'tracers', and the importance of
storms in sediment redistribution on mid-Tertiary ramps is discussed by Pedley for successions
in Italy and Malta. Moreover, computer simulation has advanced to the stage where it is possible to model the sediment dispersal role of
storms, as demonstrated by Aurell et al.
The degree of exposure and orientation of a
coastline to wind, wave and storm activity is a
critical control on ramp facies distribution. The
effects of windward and leeward orientations on
isolated platforms are well known, but have
been less clearly demonstrated for ramps. Intuitively, leeward margins might be expected to

receive more sediment from the platform-top

factory, but Pedley highlights the paradox of
high progradation rates in windward ramps compared to leeward ramps in the mid-Tertiary of
the central Mediterranean.
The role of longshore and contour currents in
shaping sediment bodies on ramps on the Rio
Grande do Norte Shelf of north east Brazil is
illustrated by Testa & Bosence. Such currents
can be active in both shallow and deep-ramp settings. They compare this system with distally
steepened ramps off NW Yucatan and western
Florida. All three are influenced by the Southern
Equatorial Current and its derivatives, the
Yucatan and Loop Currents.
Although most ramps have sufficiently low
gradients that sediment gravity flows are not
active, exceptions exist and Pedley provides
examples from the middle Tertiary, as do
Giiham & Bristow from the lower Tertiary of
north Spain.
Controls
In contrast to siliciclastic sediment, the production of which is closely linked to hinterland tectonism or climate, coarser carbonate sediment is
typically produced in or close to the environment in which it is created. However, carbonate
sediment production rates are water-depth
dependant and are highest in shallow water,
factors which make carbonate systems sensitive
even to small amounts of subsidence and uplift.
Subsidence regime is therefore of great importance in controlling carbonate ramp styles and
drowning history. Carbonate ramp successions
are prominent components of foreland basin fills
and two examples, presented by Sinclair et al.
and Gilham & Bristow respectively, illustrate
sequence development in Eocene foreland
basins of the French Alps and the south-eastern
Pyrenees. An example of ramp development in
an extensional setting is provided by GomezPerez et al. from the Lower Cretaceous of northeastern Spain which emphasizes the complex
facies patterns which can characterise such a
system.
The influence of relative sea-level changes on
ramp development is discussed throughout this
volume. It is a common preconception that sealevel changes simply shift facies belts up and
down ramps, but two examples are presented
which demonstrate that facies partitioning is an
important feature of carbonate ramp successions, just as it is in other carbonate platform
types, leading to marked differences between
facies architectures of the different systems
tracts. Gomez-Perez et al. illustrate this

Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on April 27, 2012

INTRODUCTION
phenomenon for the Lower Cretaceous of
northeastern Spain, while Bachmann & Kuss
provide an example from the Middle Cretaceous
of northern Sinai.
Environmental controls on sediment production have been emphasised in our search to
understand ramp development. In flat-topped,
photo- or mixotroph-dominated carbonate platforms, sediment production is highest in very
shallow water. In many ancient ramp systems
sediment production was less clearly biased
towards narrow depth ranges, partly because of
the more prominent involvement of heterotrophs in sediment production. This is shown
by Testa & Bosence in their Rio Grande de
Norte study in which they note the absence of
any single locus of high sediment production in
an area lacking coral domination.
The importance of high rates of sediment production in mid-ramp settings is emphasized too
by Pedley for middle Tertiary ramps. Rates of
production were high enough in these systems to
create a 'bulge' in the ramp pofile at estimated
water depths of 40-60 m. The change in clinoform angle on some seismic profiles of ramps (e.g.
'ramp slope crest' of Burchette & Wright, 1992)
could conceivably correspond to such 'bulges',
particularly where, as on Tertiary ramps, organic
banks developed in offshore settings.
Carbonate successions in the geological
record have been traditionally regarded as evidence of warm water, but this view has been
questioned recently, with the re-interpretation
of some ramp successions as the product of cool,
or even cold-water environments. This is most
clearly advocated by James & Clarke (1997),
who take the view that ancient platform successions lacking corals and calcareous green algae,
and dominated by heterozoan communities (viz.
a good number of ramp successions) were the
products of cool-water seas. This view appears
to be held by many workers in this field.
However, Testa & Bosence show that corals are
not major sediment contributors on the Rio
Grande de Norte Shelf of Brazil even though the
waters are sufficiently warm and appropriately
low in nutrients, to allow their growth. The
absence of corals from this system probably
reflects the predominantly unstable substrates
available.
Triassic ramps from Hungary, described by
Hips and Torok in this volume were also heterozoan-dominated. These authors both favour the
view that coral absence in these ramps was an
evolutionary phenomenon related to the endPermian extinction event, perhaps also coupled
with other environmental factors, rather than a
simple temperature restriction.

Lasemi et ai. describe heterozoan-dominated

biotas from Carboniferous ramps of Illinois in
which the main faunal components are bryozoans, crinoids and brachiopods. Such organisms are the main sediment producers in modern
deeper, cooler waters, and a strictly uniformitarian approach would lead us to interpret similar
ancient assemblages as cool-water faunas too.
We might be in danger, though, of making oversimplistic interpretations based in an implicit
faith in uniformitarianism. In fact, Taylor &
Allison (1998) have recently shown that bryozoans experienced a major taxonomic turnover
at the end of the Palaeozoic. Direct comparison
of latitudinal distribution between pre-Palaeozoic and post-Palaeozoic bryozoans thus
appears to be invalid. Post-Palaeozoic forms are
most abundant in high latitudes while Palaeozoic bryozoans are more abundant in low latitudes. In the context of this debate, Lasemi e t al.
dismiss both a cool-water model for Carboniferous low-latitude seas as well as any model invoking thermal stratification. Instead, they favour
upwelling as a major control, whereby the faunal
composition of the sediments indicates that
waters were nutrient-rich.
Modelling
One of the most effective methods of testing the
efficacy of these multitude of factors in controlling ramp development is to use computer
models conditioned with appropriate geometric
and stratigraphic data from outcrop and process
data from modern carbonate depositional
environments. The effectiveness of this
approach is illustrated in two papers. Read,
using Bowman's PhilR programme, models
ramp development and architecture during
greenhouse, transitional and icehouse intervals.
His models are tested and refined against many
examples, drawn largely from North America.
Aureli et al. use the programme Carbonate 6 to
analyse the controls on Kimmeridgian (late
Jurassic) ramp development in the Teruel region
of north east Spain. This model tests whether the
mud component of mid-ramp sediment was
more likely to have been redeposited from
inner-ramp sediment factories, or was the
product of pelagic or hemipelagic supply. The
model with redeposition conforms most closely
to the actual facies distribution.

Mud mounds
The enigmatic question of why mud mounds
develop in many outer-ramp successions is
addressed here by three papers. Lasemi et al.

Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on April 27, 2012

V.P. WRIGHT & T. P. BURCHETTE

document Lower Carboniferous mounds from

the Illinois Basin and Wendt & Kauffman and
Kauffman provide separate studies of Devonian
mounds from Algeria and Morocco. All represent intra-shelf basinal settings. The Algerian
mounds show local alignment with tectonic lineaments, but but do not appear to have been
associated with hydrothermal activity (cf. Belka
1998). Some of the Moroccan mounds are coralrich, suggesting that they formed in shallower,
warm waters, in contrast to many ancient mud
mounds which are characteristic of deeper ramp
settings.

Epeiric ramps
Many of the more stylized ramp models from the
literature envisage shoal belts separating stormdominated mid-ramp from lagoons and tidal
flats in the inner ramp. However, there is no lack
of examples in which no such belt can be identified. Choi & Simo provide one such from the
Upper Ordovician of Wisconsin. Should we consider designating such low-energy systems as
'epeiric ramps', or do we already have sufficient
terms to juggle? Nevertheless, this category of
ramps, apparently restricted exclusively to cratonic interiors, do require special consideration.
In the latest Triassic, early Jurassic, and early to
mid-Cretaceous, such ramps were widespread in
what is now Iberia, northwestern Europe and
the Middle East. As with their Ordovician
equivalents in Wisconsin, such ramps were
characterized by low wave energy and low tidal
ranges, such that facies transitions are very
gradual and facies belts are broad, while distinct
shoal deposits are rare. In these Lower to
Middle Jurassic 'Lias'-type successions diagenetic bedding and nodular limestones are dominant features, pointing to low sedimentation
rates and extensive, early diagenetic remobilisation of carbonate in these calcitic seas.

Future initiatives
The fact that modern oceans provide no good
analogues for large, mature ancient ramp successions of the sort discussed in many of the
papers in this volume, and which are so abundant throughout the geological record, makes it
difficult to effectively apply uniformitarian principles to the interpretation of these ancient
structures. The few modern, incipient ramps to
which we do have access can provide an instantin-time view of sediment dynamics in this sort of
system (although little studied), but they actually represent only the recovery stage following
one of the most pronounced global sea-level

events in the Earth's history. They consequently

lack the continuity with precursor successions
which is critical if such information is to be effectively applied to the interpretation of whole
ramp depositional sequences. Some useful
additional information, on sediment dispersal
patterns for example, can be gleaned from
modern shelfal siliciclastic regimes, although
differences in sediment provenance and
accumulation sites set limits to the analogies
which are possible here. Review of the papers in
this volume shows that, beneath their deceptive
simplicity, ramp depositional systems are every
bit as diverse and complex as those of other
carbonate platform types, with sediment transport paths which may trend for tens of kilometres in both onshore, longshore and offshore
directions. The implications for the interpretation of thick sedimentary accumulations constructed by ramp depositional processes are
clear.
Ideally, studies of ancient ramp depositional
systems should include a mechanism for combining the sort of process sedimentology derived
from the study of modern ramp environments
with the historical, sequential dimension gained
from investigations of large outcrops. The use of
increasingly sophisticated computer models provides one obvious route to test ideas on ramp
dynamics formulated from outcrop studies.
Sediments on ramps appear to have three main
origins: in situ production, redeposition in the
inner and mid-ramp by storms or contour currents, and pelagic fallout on the mid- and outer
ramp. Using computer models, the relative
volumes of these three sources, and variations in
sediment dispersal patterns, can be modelled
and tested against documented ancient
examples.
Complexity is further compounded if biotic
evolution is introduced into the modelling
process. Many Palaeozoic, and possibly early
Tertiary, ramps were clearly strongly influenced
by abundant sediment-producing organisms in
offshore settings and may represent systems
dominated by in situ production of organic particulate (rather than framework) sediment in this
location. In contrast, the offshore environments
of many early to mid-Mesozoic ramps are strikingly muddy and may represent systems in which
offshore sediment transport was the most important process, as suggested by Aurell et ai. From
the early Cretaceous onwards, outer-ramp sediments have been dominated by the remains of
planktonic organisms, such as foraminifera, calcispheres and coccolithophorids. Naturally, sediment is contributed to some extent from most of
these sources on most ramps, but variations in

Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on April 27, 2012

INTRODUCTION
the proportional contribution of carbonate sediment due to evolutionary changes in the sediment
producing
organisms
during
the
Phanerozoic may have influenced ramp profiles
and their response to relative sea-level changes.
This hypothesis could also be tested by means of
computer simulations using multiple realisations.
The role of temperature as a control on ramp
biotic patterns is likely to be another productive
avenue for research and has been neglected historically. Once more, overstrict adherence to
uniformitarianism w h e n assessing the biotic
compositions of ancient platform limestones
seems unwise. New ideas on cool-water carbonate deposition have stimulated attempts to
u n d e r s t a n d which factors really controlled
ancient biotic distributions and we are being
prompted to ask more appropriate questions as
to why ancient carbonate systems differed from
the modern. One possible research direction
might be to more closely correlate palaeolatitude with the nature of carbonate deposystems
within discrete time intervals in order to assess
likely temperature controls. It would also be
appropriate to link this to studies of ancient seawater temperatures using stable isotopes.
Low-energy, cratonic-interior, or epeiric
ramps are a special category of carbonate platform and deserving of more intensive investigation. Were they low-energy or lowproductivity systems - or both? M a n y show
a b u n d a n t evidence for c o n d e n s a t i o n and
reworking of sediments. Does this just reflect
low rates of accommodation-space creation, e.g.
due to locations in slowly subsiding cratonic
interiors? If this were the case, where might any

over-produced carbonate sediment from these

settings have gone? Ancient epeiric ramps of
this sort persist in presenting us with major problems in applying current ideas to these unusual
systems.
We sincerely thank all authors of papers in this volume
for their patience during the reviewing and editing
process and also the many reviewers for their time and
effort. This set of papers derives from a conference
held at the Geological Society on 2-3 July 1996,
entitled Carbonate Ramps: oceanographic and biological controls, modelling and diagenesis. The
meeting was sponsored by the British Sedimentological Research Group, the Geological Society of
London and BP Exploration.

References
BATES, R. & JACKSON,J. A. 1987. Glossary of geology.
American Geological Institute, Alexandria.
BELKA,Z. 1998. Early Devonian Kess-Kess carbonate
mud mounds of the eastern Anti-Atlas
(Morocco), and their relation to submarine
hydrothermal venting. Journal of Sedimentary
Research, 68, 368-377.
BURCHETrE, T. P & WRIGHT, V. P. 1992. Carbonate
ramp depositional systems. Sedimentary Geology,
79, 3-57.
JAMES,N. R & CLARKE,J. A. D. (eds) 1997. Cool-water
carbonates. Society for Sedimentary Geology &
Special Publication 56.
READ, J. E 1985. Carbonate platform facies models.
Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, 69, 1-21.
TAYLOR, P. D. (~; ALLISON, P. A. 1998. Bryozoan carbonates through time and space. Geology, 26,

459-462.