Moscardelli and Wood 2015

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/280090824
Morphometry of mass-transport deposits as a predictive tool
Article in Geological Society of America Bulletin · July 2015

DOI: 10.1130/B31221.1
CITATIONS READS
83 2,019
2 authors:
Lorena Moscardelli Lesli Wood

Statoil North America Colorado School of Mines
43 PUBLICATIONS 943 CITATIONS 107 PUBLICATIONS 2,056 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sealing Capacity of Mass Transport Deposits View project
Seismic Geomorphology of Reservoir Systems in Rift Basins View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Lorena Moscardelli on 16 July 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geological Society of America Bulletin, published online on 8 July 2015 as doi:10.1130/B31221.1
Morphometry of mass-transport deposits
Lorena Moscardelli† and Lesli Wood§

Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
ABSTRACT morphometric relationships can be used in geometry, increasing our existing understand-
outcrop studies where exposure of the MTD ing of potential causal mechanisms associated
Mass-transport deposits (MTDs) are units is also limited. with the occurrence of MTDs.
gravity-induced units that represent an im-
portant component of modern and ancient INTRODUCTION DATA AND METHODS
deep-water stratigraphic successions. MTDs
have been widely documented in the litera- Mass-transport deposits (MTDs) have been Data Set Collection
ture, but a comprehensive compilation of described extensively in the scientific litera
quantitative morphometric parameters as- ture using both remote data (e.g., seismic A series of morphometric parameters to
sociated with their external architecture and sonar) and core and outcrop localities describe the geometry and dimensions of MTDs
is still lacking. This work presents a mor- (e.g., Macdonald et al., 1993; Frey-Martinez was defined at an early stage and used as a
phometric database that contains 332 data et al., 2006; Moscardelli et al., 2006; Trip framework to populate the database. These mor-
points that document the length, area, vol- sanas et al., 2008; Armitage et al., 2009; phometric parameters are reported values for the
ume, and thickness of MTDs from different Bull et al., 2009; Dykstra et al., 2011). These area, length, thickness, and volume of 332 MTDs
geologic ages and a variety of continental studies have focused on the geomorphologi- from a variety of geologic intervals and basin
margins around the world. The compila- cal characterization of MTDs, the description types around the world (Figs. 1–2; Table 1). Data
tion contains data collected from interpreta- of lithological variations within these units, sources include values collected from author-
tions done by the authors in eastern offshore and the understanding of their causal mecha- interpreted data for eastern offshore Trinidad and
Trinidad and the Gulf of Mexico as well as nisms. There have also been some attempts to the Gulf of Mexico, as well as values mined from
from data mining from the peer-reviewed generate morphometric databases that contain the peer-reviewed literature. In any literature
literature. Preliminary results indicate that information associated with the architecture compilation, there is danger in comparing data
there is a good correlation between a series of MTDs (Hampton et al., 1996; Hühnerbach that have been collected by different observers
of parameters that include the area, length, and Masson, 2004); however, such databases using different means or techniques of investiga-
and volume of MTDs. On the other hand, tend to collect data from few basins, and the tion, such that it may skew the compilation. The
the correlation between thickness and vol- sample is not statistically significant. The simplified format that is presented in this work
ume seems to be harder to document mainly main objective of this work is to present a only includes basic observational measurements
due to lateral variations in thickness that are comprehensive database for MTDs reported (area, length, thickness, and volume) that could
typical within MTDs. in a variety of continental margins around the be confidently extracted from reported values in
Data analysis suggests that previous world and that contains basic morphometric the peer-reviewed literature (Fig. 1). Most of the
qualitative classification of attached and parameters associated with MTD external MTDs reported in this compilation were charac-
detached MTDs can be validated by using architecture (e.g., area, length, etc.) (Table 1). terized on the basis of bathymetric, towed ocean
a quantitative approach. This validation This work also seeks to establish potential bottom instrument (TOBI), side-scan sonar, and
suggests that morphometric parameters quantitative relationships between these dif- seismic data. Only measurements that met the
associated with the architecture of MTDs ferent morphometric parameters and use these following criteria were included in this study:
can be used as a hint to link geologic set- relationships (e.g., area versus length) as a (1) morphometric measurements encompassed
ting, deposit geometry, and potential causal predictive tool to be applied in areas where the entire area affected by the MTD (including
mechanisms. In addition, the defined mor- MTD exposures and remote imaging cover- source areas and depolocations), and (2) the
phometric relationships that were encoun- age are limited. This approach will allow deposits were confidently identified as the prod-
tered between the different morphometric closing the gap that currently exists when uct of mass-wasting processes (slides, slumps,
parameters (e.g., length and area) are use- examining MTDs using remote data (e.g., and debris flows).
ful to predict MTD dimensions in areas seismic and sonar data) versus field studies It is important to clarify that the morphometric
of the subsurface where data are limited (outcrops). These morphometric relationships measurements that are presented here are linked
and/or data quality is low. Likewise, these are intended to improve predictive capabili- to the final deposits associated with the mass-
ties in the subsurface, where data coverage wasting events. For instance, the length of a MTD
†
Current address: Statoil Research Development and quality deteriorate with depth, masking is defined here as the horizontal distance that can
and Innovation, Austin, Texas, USA lmosc@statoil the real extent and nature of these units. Most be measured in the downslope direction following
.com. importantly, through this comparative analy- the main axis of the deposit to its terminal end; this
§
Current address: Colorado School of Mines, sis insight will be gained into the relation- might exclude the evacuation area and is also dif-
Golden, Colorado, USA; lwood@mines.edu.
ships that exist between setting and deposit ferent from the concept of run-out distance (Fig. 1).
GSA Bulletin; Month/Month 2015; v. 1xx; no. X/X; p. 1–34; doi: 10.1130/B31221.1; 18 figures; 3 tables.; published online XX Month 2015.
For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX 1
© 2015 Geological Society of America
2
TABLE 1. MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS OF MASS-TRANSPORT DEPOSITS (MTDs) AND ASSOCIATED DATA SOURCES
A L T V
Attached MTDs Name (km2) (km) (m) (km3) Tectonic setting Age References
1 MTC_1 2017 140 250 242
Moscardelli et al., 2006;
2 Trinidad MTC_2 626 40 60 35 Plio-Pleistocene
Transpressive margin Moscardelli and Wood, 2008
3 MTC_2.1 100 38 60 7.27
4 WMTD 10,000 200 – 2000 45 ka
Piper et al., 1997;
5 Amazon URMTD 11,000 – – 610 Passive margin 70 ka
Maslin et al., 2005
South America
6 BMTD 7000 200 – – 13 ka
7 French Guiana French Guiana 3000 120 – – Passive margin Pliocene–recent Gaullier et al., 2010
8 NS_MTC 250 25 175 44 Cenozoic Campbell et al., 2004
9 West slope MTC1 6200 100 62.5 300 Middle to late
Campbell and Mosher, 2010
10 West slope MTC2 10,500 104 12.5 680 Passive margin / Miocene
Nova Scotia
11 West Wyandot 700 35 – – salt tectonic province
Late Cretaceous Smith et al., 2010
12 East Wyandot 1000 50 – –
13 Shelburne MTC 5990 90 – 862 Plio-Pleistocene Mosher et al., 2010b
14 BCS1 300 20 50 11.7
15 BCS2 200 20 60 7.9
16 Block composite BCS3 300 15 40 15.1
17 submarine slide / BCS4 50 10 30 0.7 Passive margin Quaternary Locat et al., 2010
18 New England BCS5 25 5 10 0.4
19 BCS6 25 5 20 0.4
20 BCS average 1125 20 50 36
21 Southwestern Unit I MTD 670 – 250 167
Passive margin / Miocene to
22 Newfoundland Unit II MTD1 400 – 85 35 Giles et al., 2010
salt tectonic province Pleistocene
23 slope Unit II MTD2 375 – 150 60
24 Flow 1 169.25 32 17.59 2.98
25 Flow 2 107.53 20 18.49 1.99
26 Flow 3 59.1 15 18.44 1.09
Moscardelli and Wood
West Atlantic margin

27 Flow 4 452.1 45 21.06 9.52
28 Flow 5 159.6 25 11.35 1.81
29 Flow 6 306.52 34 23.17 7.1
North America
30 Flow 7 569.24 35 32.08 18.26
31 Flow 8 826.87 65 25.99 21.49
32 Flow 9 469.73 35 22.42 10.53
33 Flow 10 238.07 30 15.4 3.67
Northeast
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

34 Flow 11 463.24 45 37.4 17.33
Newfoundland Passive margin Quaternary Aksu and Hiscott, 1992
35 slope Flow 12 81.9 15 11.75 0.96
36 Flow 13 697.61 45 19.99 13.95
37 Flow 14 223.27 28 14.29 3.19
38 Flow 15 170.15 22 9 1.53
39 Flow 16 117.82 20 14.67 1.73
40 Flow 17 338.28 32 16.75 5.67
41 Flow 18 135.92 25 13.57 1.84
42 Flow 19 746.23 45 26 19.4
43 Flow 20 1003.38 40 27.27 27.36
44 Flow 21 341.02 30 13.88 4.73

45 Flow 22 121.01 20 11.86 1.44
46 Munson-Nygren slide 973 60 – 152 Late Pleistocene to
Georges Bank Passive margin Chaytor et al., 2011
47 Retriever slide 728 62 – 30 Holocene
(continued)

TABLE 1. MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS OF MASS-TRANSPORT DEPOSITS (MTDs) AND ASSOCIATED DATA SOURCES (continued)
A L T V
Attached MTDs (continued) Name (km2) (km) (m) (km3) Tectonic setting Age References
48 Lobe 1 38,740 410 – 1310
49 Lobe 2 20,278 410 – 780
50 Lobe 3 12,900 305 – 205
51 Lobe 4 5530 93 – 138.3
52 Lobe 5 2742 122 – 82.3
53 A1 563 40.2 – 28.2
54 A2 1043 71.8 – 26.1
55 B1 1972 67.4 – 88.7
56 B2 1163 57 – 40.7
57 B3 196.4 37.6 – 4.9
58 B4 1756 54 – 43.9
59 B5 63.7 14 – 1.3
60 B6 81.8 23 – 1.2
61 C1 1497.7 110 – 67.4
62 C2 505 55.8 – 25.3
63 C3 360.5 31 – 21.6
Passive margin 7250 ± 250 to Kvalatad et al., 2002;
64 Storegga slide C4 144.6 31.6 – 5.8
(glacially controlled) 8100 ± 250 yr B.P. Haflidason et al., 2005
65 D1 321 26.8 – 17.7
66 D2 316.8 36.2 – 15.8
67 E1a 48.1 11.3 – 2.17
68 E1b 36.7 20.2 – 1.65
69 E1c 28.7 14.9 – 1.29
70 E1d 67.2 15.2 – 3.02
71 E2 76.3 12.8 – 3.05
72 E3 80.3 11.5 – 3.21
73 E4 80.9 12.9 – 3.24
Europe
74 E5 81.6 13.6 – 3.26
75 E6 40.3 17.3 – 1.81
East Atlantic margin

76 E7 64.1 17.2 – 2.88
77 E8 115.9 26.9 – 5.22
78 F4 24.5 9.4 – 0.74
79 I 123.8 12.5 – 7.43

80 II 50.5 7.8 – 1.77
81 Tampen 27,000 200 90 1400 ca. 0.15–0.13 Ma
82 More 14,000 170 90 1200 ca. 0.4 Ma

83 Vigrid 2500 80 280 700 >0.2 Ma
Passive margin Solheim et al., 2005;
84 Norway Slide R 6800 130 160 1088 ca. 0.3 Ma
(glacial margin) Nygård et al., 2005
85 Sklinnadjupet 7700 150 140 1078 ca. 0.3 Ma
86 Slide S 23,700 160 220 5214 ca. 0.5 Ma
87 Slide W 2400 60 180 432 >1.7 Ma
Africa-Iberia
88 Gibraltar Giant Chaotic Body 50,000 400 4000 80,000 Miocene Torelli et al., 1997
convergent margin
89 Peach 1 debrite – 250 – 823 Pleistocene

90 Peach 2 debrite – 200 – 673 Passive margin 35.5 ka
Northwest British (maybe triggered by Owen et al., 2010;
91 Peach 3 debrite – 170 – 199 21 ka
continental margin post-glacial ground Holmes et al., 1998
92 Peach 4 debrite 700 60 193 135 acceleration) 14.68–19 ka
93 Peach total 1600 250 450 1830 Pleistocene
94 BFS II 120,000 175 500 24,500
Bjornoya Fan slide / Passive margin
95 BFSC I 115,000 150 500 25,500 Pleistocene Hjelstuen et al., 2007
Barents Sea margin (glacial margin)
96 BFSC III 66,000 100 175 11,600
3
(continued )
4
A L T V
Attached MTDs (continued ) Name (km2) (km) (m) (km3) Tectonic setting Age References
97 Tejas A 3000 50 400 1200 Passive margin to
Tarfaya Agadir Basin,
inversion phase of K-T boundary Lee et al., 2004
98 Morocco Tejas B 3000 60 200 600 the High Atlas
Agadir Basin and
99 Bed 5’ – 2000 – 162 Passive margin 60 ka Wynn et al., 2010
Saine abyssal plain
100 Cap Blanc slide Cap Blanc slide 40,000 – – 20 Passive margin 165 ka Krastel et al., 2012
101 Cape Verde Cape Verde slide complex 30,000 500 – – Passive Margin Post-Pliocene Wynn et al., 2000
102 Sahara slide 900 – 600 60 ka Krastel et al., 2012
Western Sahara Passive margin
103 Sahara debris flow 48,000 700 50 1100 60 ka Wynn et al., 2000
104 Chamais 68,688 – 254 17,433
105 Childs Bank 28,512 – 135 3849
West Africa
Post-Pliocene to
106 Unnamed 33,696 – 135 4549
Pleistocene
107 Southwestern Africa Cape Town north 47,952 – 206 8790 Passive margin Dingle, 1980
108 Cape Town south 47,952 – 206 1130
East Atlantic margin (continued)

109 Tripp Seamount – – – 14,400
Late Cretaceous
110 West Cape Town – – – 3663
111 Senegal Dakar slide 8000 100 150 1000 1.2 Ma Henrich et al., 2008;
Passive margin
112 Mauritania Mauritania slide complex 30,000 300 80 600 10.5–10.9 ka Krastel et al., 2012
113 California_A 159 17 96 15.2
114 California_B 208 26 33 6.8
115 California_C 107 26 65 7
116 California California_D 167 11 56 9.4 Convergent margin Holocene McAdoo et al., 2000
117 California_E 295 48 41 12.1
118 California_F 167 16 56 9.4
119 California_G 525 51 53 27.6
North America
120 Heceta slide 2874 76 – – 108–130 ka
121 Coos Basin slide 2304 68 – – 445–466 ka Goldfinger et al., 2000
Oregon Convergent margin
122 Blanco slide 2713 65 – – 1209–1137 ka
East Pacific margin

123 Oregon MTC 239 22 177 42.5 Holocene McAdoo et al., 2000
124 Southern giant slope failure 1145 – – 472 >560 ka
125 Southern Chile Northern giant slope failure 1286 – – 388 Convergent margin 410 ka Geersen et al., 2011
South
America
126 Central giant failure 924 – – 253 250 ka
127 MTC minimum 800 40 400 80 Transpessive and Late Tertiary to
Brunei McGilvery et al., 2004
128 MTC maximum 3200 80 400 1280 gravity-driven tectonics recent

129 Ruatoria debris avalanche 3400 62 1300 3150
Convergent margin 170 ± 40 ka Collot et al., 2001
130 Ruatoria debris flow 8000 100 118 960
131 Raukumara slump 4000 100 350 1400 Pliocene
New Zealand
132 Matakaoa Debris Avalanche 460 22 800 170 Convergent margin
Asia
600 ka Lamarche et al., 2008
133 Matakaoa Debris Avalanche 1100 65 237 260 (fore arc)
134 Matakaoa Debris Flow 9600 210 130 1250 38–100 ka
West Pacific margin

135 Bulli and Shovel slides 65 13 250 20
136 Southern Australia Debris flows (SE Australia) 10 50 0.5 Passive rifted margin 6–25 ka Boyd et al., 2010
137 Box Canyon 280 20 680 455
Dingle, 1977;
138 South Africa Agulhas slump 79,488 137 297 20,331 Passive margin Post-Pliocene
Niemi et al., 2000
139 Bassein slide 2040 40 360 734
140 Bassein Bassein mud flow 1900 40 120 228 Convergent margin Pleistocene Moore et al., 1976
Indian Ocean
141 Bassein slide total 3940 40 480 962
(continued)

A L T V
142 GOM_A 452 49 – 13.6
143 GOM_B 1156 79 – 152.2
144 GOM_C 143 12 – 12.5
145 GOM_D 148 12 – 22.9
146 GOM_E 748 45 – 20.6
GOM Recent McAdoo et al., 2000
147 GOM_F 5509 167 – 148
148 GOM_G 1394 79 – 51.4
149 GOM_H 2913 124 – 70.4 Passive margin
150 GOM_I 2460 110 – 119.9 (salt tectonic province)
151 GOM_J 1098 89 – 32.9
152 Brazos-Trinity slope B2_MTC3 – – 42.5 –
Gulf of Mexico (GOM)

Late Pleistocene Beaubouef and Abreu, 2010
153 system B4_MTC3 – – 40 –
East Breaks (salt 18,170–71,000
154 EB_MTC 2250 114 – – Chaytor et al., 2010
province) yr B.P.
Chaytor et al., 2010;
155 West Florida slope WF_MTC 3300 120 300 1000 Miocene
Mullins et al., 1986
156 Red 1674 40 – 70
157 Blue 3101 50 – 246
158 Yellow 1328 30 – 139
Nile Fan, Egypt Converging margin Quaternary Newton et al., 2004
159 Light blue 721 30 – 137
160 Orange 2028 35 – 322
161 Green 1223 28 – 185
162 SW Balearic Formentera debris flow 370 30 45 7 Transtensional margin Holocene Camerlenghi et al., 2009
Urgeles et al., 2003;
163 Spain Big 95’ Ebro 2000 110 150 26 Passive margin 11,500 yr B.P.
Lastras et al., 2005
Convergent /
Mediterranean Sea
164 Israel Slump complex T30 4800 100 200 1000 Late Pleistocene Frey-Martinez et al., 2005, 2006
transform margin
165 South Sicily MTD Gela Basin 1500 120 700 1050 Convergent margin Early Pleistocene Trincardi and Argnani, 1990
166 Gioia Basin, north Nicotera slump 636 28 50 30 Extensional margin Late Pliocene to
Gamberi et al., 2011
167 Sicily Villafranca slide 230 11 200 46 (back arc) recent

168 Gebra slide 160 – – 20 Extensional /
Antarctica Shetland Island Holocene Imbo et al., 2003
169 Gebra slide_A 230 30 175 20 volcanic Margin
170 MacKenzie MTD 132,000 – 700 15,000 Passive margin (?)
Arctic Canada Basin Neogene Mosher et al., 2012
171 Archipelago MTD 15,000 – 920 – (glacial margin)
Masson et al., 1998;
172 Canary Islands Canary debris flow 40,000 600 20 400 Volcanic 15 to >200 ka
Wynn et al., 2000
173 El Golfo 1500 60 233 180
174 El Hierro El Julan 1800 55 72 130 15 to >200 ka Wynn et al., 2000;
Volcanic
175 Las Playas 2 950 45 32 30 Gee et al., 2001
Volcanic islands
176 Tenerife Oratava and Icod Tino debris flow 5500 100 181 1000
(continued )
5
6
A L T V
177 North Kauai 14,000 140 – – 5 Ma
178 South Kauai 6800 100 100 –
179 Kaena 3900 80 300 –
180 Waianae 6100 50 – –
181 Nuuanu 23,,000 235 900 5000
182 Wailau 13,000 195 75 1000 1400 ± 200 ka
183 Hana 4900 85 – –
184 Clark 6100 150 – – 650 ka
185 Hawaii Pololu 3500 130 – – Volcanic ca. 370 ka Moore et al., 1989
186 South Kona 4600 80 – – 13–31 ka
187 Alika-1 2300 88 – –
188 Alika-2 1700 95 – –
189 Ka Lae west 850 85 – –
190 Ka Lae east 950 75 – –
191 Hilina 5200 40 – –
192 Papa’u 200 20 1000 40
193 Loihi 500 15
Montserrat/
194 25 – – 0.5 Recent
deposit 1 Boudon et al., 2007;
Volcanic
Montserrat/ Voight et al., 2012
195 200 30 – 5 112–130 ka
deposit 2
Montserrat/
196 25 – – 0.5 2 ka
English crater
Montserrat/
197 200 30 – 1 112–130 ka
Irish Ghaut
Montserrat/
Volcanic islands (continued)

198 45 – – 0.9
deposit 3
Montserrat/
199 45 – – – >130 ka
deposit 4
Montserrat/
200 27 – – –
Lesser Antilles deposit 5
Dominica/
201 3500 – 240 20
Plat Pays Volcanic Boudon et al., 2007
202 Martinique / Riviere Seche 60 26 – 2 12,000 yr B.P.

Martinique/
203 700 50 – 13 25,000 yr B.P.
St. Pierre
Martinique /
204 1100 60 – 25 >10 ka
Le Precheur
St. Lucia/
205 750 65 – – >100 ka
Qualibou2
St.Lucia/
206 800 70 – –
Qualibou3
Grenada /
207 65 16.5 – 16.5
Kick’em Jenny
Nova Scotia / Jansa et al., 1989;

208 Montagnais MTD 93,000 580 – – Passive margin 51 Ma
Canada Deptuck and Campbell, 2012
209 Chicxulub (GOM + Atlantic) 114 × 105 700 200 259 × 103 Passive margin (salt K/T boundary Grajales-Nishimura et al., 2000;
impacts
GOM / Mexico
Meteorite
210 Chicxulub (GOM) 39 × 105 700 200 158.5 × 103 province) K/T boundary Denne et al., 2013
(continued )

A L T V
Detached MTDs Name (km2) (km) (m) (km3) Tectonic setting Age References
211 MTC_2.2 22 5.6 150 3.3
Moscardelli et al., 2006;
212 Trinidad MTC_2.3 21.4 8.7 136 3 Transpressive margin Plio-Pleistocene
Moscardelli and Wood, 2008
213 MTC_2.4 11.3 5.4 98 1
Blocky MTD,
214 300 30 300 45 Late Cenozoic Alves and Cartwright, 2009
Espiritu Santo Basin Passive margin
Brazil
South America
Rebelde Slide, (salt tectonic province)
215 180 36 300 54 Quaternary Ashabranner et al., 2010
Santos Basin
216 NJ_A 62 21 82 5.1
217 NJ_B 52 16 100 5.2
218 NJ_C 27 12 85 2.3
219 NJ_D 44 8 63 2.8
220 NJ_E 15 6.5 66 1
221 NJ_F 5 5.4 60 0.3
222 New Jersey NJ_G 15 11 46 0.7 Passive margin Holocene McAdoo et al., 2000
West Atlantic margin

223 NJ_H 16 6.9 50 0.8
224 NJ_I 14 8.3 64 0.9
225 NJ_J 11 6.5 63 0.7
North America
226 NJ_K 5.4 2.5 74 0.4
227 NJ_L 9.1 4.6 99 0.9
228 NJ_M 13 5.9 54 0.7
229 Canada Saguenay Fjord 100 65 100 3.06 Intracratonic basin 1662 yr B.P. Syvitski and Schafer, 1996
Passive margin Pleistocene to
230 Newfoundland Unit III MTD – – 30 1 Giles et al., 2010
(salt tectonic province) recent
231 G1 1.4 1.2 21 0.03
232 G2 1.8 0.7 22 0.04
233 G3 0.7 1.2 14 0.01
234 G4 3.5 3.3 20 0.07
235 G5 0.5 0.6 20 0.01
236 G6 1.5 1.6 27 0.04
237 G7 0.5 0.9 20 0.01
238 G8 0.7 1 29 0.02 Passive margin 5700 to 2200 yr

Storegga slide Haflidason et al., 2005
239 G9 0.7 1 14 0.01 (glacially controlled) B.P.
240 G10 1 1.3 20 0.02
241 G11 0.7 1 14 0.01

242 G12 0.3 0.5 33 0.01
Europe
243 G13 0.8 0.9 25 0.02
244 G14 1.7 1 18 0.03
East Atlantic margin

245 G15 9.8 1.3 24 0.24
246 G16 7.6 1.4 30 0.23
247 Ireland Talisman slide 194 15 75 20 Passive margin Holocene Sayago-Gil et al., 2010
248 Afen slide 40 12 – 0.4
249 Afen slide, stage 1 48 12 8 0.142

Passive margin Wilson et al., 2004;
250 Shetland Islands Afen slide, stage 2 15 10 – 0.019 Quaternary
(glacially controlled) Sayago-Gil et al., 2010
251 Afen slide, stage 3 10 10 3 0.03
252 Afen slide, stage 4 4 4 – 0.4
253 Africa West Africa Angola MTD 430 30 200 20 Passive margin Miocene Gee et al., 2006
254 Indian Ocean Indian Swatch of No Ground MTD 0.6 0.3 Convergent margin Recent Rogers and Goodbred, 2010
(continued)
7
8
A L T V
255 Cohesive slump 1 50 10 75 3.75
Convergent margin Late Tertiary to
256 Brunei Cohesive slump 2 2.81 3.75 75 0.21 McGilvery et al., 2004
(back arc) recent
257 Cohesive slump 3 4 2 150 0.6
258 China South China Sea 24 3 – – Extensional margin Early Miocene Janson et al., 2010
Luconia
259 3.75 1.5 – – Bounded by
Province 1
convergent margin
Luconia
260 Malaysia 1 1 – – to the south and Miocene Zampetti et al., 2004
South China Sea

Province 2
West Pacific region

extensional to
Luconia the north
261 0.5 1 – –
Province 3
262 Oregon_A 10 4.2 20 0.2
263 Oregon_B 1 0.8 – –
264 Oregon_C 3 1.3 33 0.1
265 Oregon_D 8 1.5 38 0.3
266 Oregon_E 2 0.9 – –
267 Oregon_F 32 3.9 197 6.3
268 Oregon_G 3 1.4 100 0.3
269 Oregon_H 27 10 41 1.1
260 Oregon_I 4 2.3 25 0.1
261 Oregon_J 7 6 57 0.4
262 Oregon_K 21 3.1 81 1.7
263 Oregon_L 48 10 90 4.3
264 Oregon_M 30 2.9 180 5.4
265 Oregon_N 21 2.1 152 3.2
266 Oregon_O 39 8.7 67 2.6
267 Oregon_P 13 4.4 162 2.1
268 Oregon_Q 13 2.4 23 0.3

269 Oregon_R 24 6.6 188 4.5
Convergent margin Holocene McAdoo et al., 2000
USA
270 California_A 71 15 68 4.8
271 California_B 21 5.6 38 0.8
North America
272 California_C 6.8 2.7 29 0.2
East Pacific margin

273 California_D 78 21 83 6.5
274 California_E 36 8.2 100 3.6

275 California_F 34 7.9 115 3.9
276 California_G 22 5.4 23 0.5
277 California_H 28 5.7 39 1.1
278 California_I 95 21 51 4.8
279 California_J 35 7.1 37 1.3
280 California_K 25 9 60 1.5
281 California_L 62 12 73 4.5
282 California_M 30 8.9 37 1.1
283 California_N 42 17 50 2.1
284 California_O 56 28 98 5.5

285 California_P 17 9.1 106 1.8
286 California_Q 33 6.7 55 1.8
287 California_R 12 8.6 – –
(continued)

A L T V
288 Gaviota 3.93 2.25 5 0.02
289 Goleta east 22 11 15 0.5
290 Goleta central 33 11 23 0.5 300–164,000 yr
Convergent margin Lee et al., 2004
291 Goleta west 56 14 9 0.5 B.P.
(continued )
292 Buried MTD 0.06 0.3 3 0.0002
North America
USA (continued )
293 Palos Verdes debris avalanche 15 10 48 0.72
294 US1 45 – 2.2 0.1 5786 yr B.P.
295 U1 – – 6 – Recent
296 U2 677 – 11 7.45 1584 yr B.P.
Convergent margin Ratzov et al., 2010
297 US2 44 – 5.7 0.25 15674 yr B.P.
Ecuador
East Pacific margin (continued)

298 U3 644 – 5 3.22 2137 yr B.P.
South America
299 US3 – – 8.1 –
300 Dellys slide 0.2 1.6 15 0.003
Dan et al., 2010
301 B1_ slide 4.7 7 6 0.2 Holocene
Algeria Convergent margin
North
Africa
302 SAR27 0.2 1.7 8 0.0063 Nouguès et al., 2010
303 Kramis / Cherchell / Oran-Tenes 85 7 15 0.8 Plio-Quaternary Cattaneo et al., 2010
304 Southern Twin slide 18 9 30 0.36 Convergent margin Minisini et al., 2007;
Late Quaternary
305 Northern Twin slide 21.2 15 100 0.57 (foredeep) Minisini and Trincardi, 2009
306 Italy Debris-flow sheet 100 10 30 0.94
Extensional margin Late Pliocene to
Europe
307 Slab slide 32 – 50 – Gamberi et al., 2011
(back arc) recent
308 Debris-flow lobe 38 – – 1.9
Mediterranean Sea
309 T20 slump 60 10 30 0.36 Pleistocene
Convergent /
Israel Frey-Martinez et al., 2005, 2006
East
transform margin
Pleistocene to
310 T10 Gaza slump 110 22 80 9
recent
Mediterranean
311 B4_MTC1 6 6 30 0.18
312 Brazos-Trinity B4_MTC2 7 7 30 0.21
Late Pleistocene Beaubouef and Abreu, 2010
313 slope system B2_MTC1 – – 10 –
NW GOM
314 B2_MTC2 – – 50 –
315 GOM_S 9.6 4.9 53 0.8
316 GOM_R 10.3 3 83 0.8

317 GOM_P 15 8.8 97 1
318 GOM_Q 15 8.6 29 1
319 GOM_U 28 7.3 80 1.2

Passive margin
320 GOM_L 29 12 55 1.6
(salt tectonic province)
321 GOM_T 34 7.6 37 1.8
322 GOM_Y 40 4.2 96 2.7 Recent McAdoo et al., 2000
Gulf of Mexico (GOM)

323 GOM_V 42 6.8 70 3.1
324 GOM_K 44 3.8 80 3.2
Mississippi Canyon
325 GOM_N 48 5.5 85 3.6
Central Gulf of Mexico

326 GOM_O 52 14 74 4.6
327 GOM_X 55 7.1 72 5.1

328 GOM_M 62 12 100 5.2
329 GOM_W 70 5.8 125 6.9
South Miocene to recent
330 Colombia MTC_1 Magdalena 15 5.7 20 0.27 Convergent Margin Romero-Otero et al., 2010
America (?)
331 Bahamas SE Bahamas 800 40 – – Transpressional margin A.D. 1946? Mullins et al., 1991
Late Miocene–
Caribbean
332 Nicaragua C - Nicaragua 432 16 120 10 Transform margin Hine et al., 1992
early Pliocene
Note: A—Area, L—Length, T—Thickness, V—Volume, MTC—Mass transport complex, K-T—Cretaceous-Tertiary. Cells containing a dash have no data available.
9
meaningful database. In addition, a few data

Area MTD points from MTD outcrop studies have been
Run Out Distance (R)
Evacuation Area included to try to gain an appreciation of the
Mud Diapirs Syndepositional main differences between these two data types
Thrust (Table 2).
Erosional Shadow
Remnants (ESR's) L = Length
Qualitative Classification of MTDs
(Attached versus Detached)
Scours
It is hypothesized that relationships exist
15 km between MTD geologic setting, causal mecha-
nisms, and geometries. In order to test this
hypothesis, quantitative data that were col-
lected in this work were grouped into two
genetic categories for MTDs as described by
Moscardelli and Wood (2008) (Fig. 3). This
classification system uses two categories of
MTDs: attached MTDs, which sit in a position
L relatively proximal to the shelf and upper-slope
depositional systems and are sourced from
those areas; and detached MTDs, which sit in
a position distal from any shelf break and are
sourced from a variety of distal topographies
(Fig. 3). Moscardelli and Wood (2008) fur-
ther postulated that attached MTDs could be
“shelf attached” and thus fed as multiple, semi-
continuous events coming from a constantly
replenished shelf-edge sediment source (i.e.,
delta, shoreface, storm-induced shelf flows), or
Figure 1. Schematic drawing showcasing the plan-view extent of a mass-transport deposit that the MTDs could be “slope attached” and
(MTD). The length reported for individual MTDs in this work is denoted as “L.” The area fed by submarine failures of the slope. Alterna-
reported in the database is represented by the gray shade in the cartoon; it excludes the tive to being fed downslope by over-supplied
evacuation area of the deposit since identification of this area can be very ambiguous. shelf feeders, slope-attached MTDs were
believed to be triggered by regional events
(e.g., earthquakes, meteorite impacts, etc.) that
have the capacity to destabilize large areas of
For purposes of clarification, the run-out distance rial that was evacuated and additional material the outer shelf and/or upper slope, this causing
of a MTD is defined as the horizontal distance that was incorporated into the flow as it moved the collapse of huge volumes of sediments that
that a single particle within the deposit traveled downslope. Determination of the thickness and are transported downslope. In contrast to these
from its source area to its final settling location volume of a MTD is a more challenging exer- processes, detached MTDs were described as
(Fig. 1). It is important to highlight this differ- cise because the thickness of these units tends to detached from active shelf or slope sedimen-
ence due to its practical implications: the length vary laterally. The thickness values of individual tation systems and are associated with local-
is a relatively simple morphometric parameter MTDs are reported as documented in the origi- ized triggering mechanisms that oftentimes are
that can be obtained from a rough outline of the nal reference with the understanding that there linked to gravitational instabilities affecting
area that contains the MTD; in contrast, the run- is a range of error that goes from mean thick- the flanks of mud volcano ridges, mini-basins,
out distance is a more process-oriented param- ness to maximum values. Despite differences in and deep-water levees. This classification
eter that needs an exhaustive analysis of kine- how thickness and sediment volume for MTDs system was originally proposed using semi-
matic indicators such as scours, rafted blocks, have been reported in the literature, there is still quantitative descriptions of MTDs in eastern
and depositional thrusts (Fig. 1). The run-out value in using this compilation to try to identify offshore Trinidad (Moscardelli et al., 2006;
distance of a MTD cannot be expressed as a sin- general trends. This basic approach also allowed Moscardelli and Wood, 2008). However, it
gle value because different particles within the for the calculation of areas and thicknesses of was also hinted in these previous publications
deposit can reach different distances depending MTDs using maps and cross-sections when that in a generic sense, attached MTDs should
upon the presence of pre-existing bathymetric the publications did not directly report values. be regionally extensive, occupying hundreds
constraints and changes in the rheology of the Even though it is recognized that there are other to thousands of square kilometers in area and
flow as it moves downslope. The area and vol- parameters (e.g., slope angle, height of slope tens of kilometers in width and length, while
ume of the MTDs that are reported in this work failure, etc.) that play an important role when detached MTDs should be smaller, occupying
represent values from the actual deposit and are trying to understand the character and genesis of less than tens of square kilometers in area and
not from calculations of evacuated material. This MTDs, the approach presented here guarantees a few kilometers in width and length (see Mos-
means that the total volume that is reported can homogeneity in the collection of data, and it is cardelli and Wood, 2008, their tables 2 and 3).
encompass a combination of the original mate- a first pass to try to generate a global and more The aim of groupingthe MTD morphometric
10 Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

A, E, I, N
Japan
94–96
170–171 M
48–87
231–246
248–252 Not to scale
247
89–93
U
O,S,X E’
229
Q 24–45 V
230
120–123
21–23
162–163 L
8–13
262–269 216–228 14–20 208 A’ 306–308
46–47 P G B,Y
165
113–119 D,K 311–314 88 166–167 309–310 164
300–303 304–305
270–293 152–153 142–151 97–99 w
154 172–176 156–161
315–329 102–103
155
C 209–210 331
100
332 101 254 258
194–207 112
330 1–3 111
139–141
211–213 259–261
7 255–257
127–128
4–6
294–299
177 Hawaii
179
181
182 253
178 183
180 185
184 Not to scale
186–188
191–193
Not to scale 189–190
214 T
215
104
R, C’ 105–106
107–110 138
124–126
J,Z,B’
135–137 131–134
F
129–130

D’
168–169
H
Detached MTDs
Offshore MTDs
Attached MTDs
Outcrop MTDs
Case studies (this work)
Figure 2. World map showcasing the location of mass-transport deposit (MTD) localities that are part of this compilation. Numbers match
those in Tables 1 and 2. Black circles indicate the location of attached MTDs (offshore), white triangles the location of detached MTDs (off-
shore), white circles MTD outcrop localities, and squares areas where data was collected by the authors.
11
TABLE 2. LENGTH AND THICKNESS FOR SILICICLASTIC MASS-TRANSPORT DEPOSITS AND

CARBONATE BRECCIAS AS REPORTED IN SOME OUTCROP STUDIES
Length Thickness
Name (km) (m) Tectonic setting Age Reference
A Citronens Fjord, North Greenland 50 200 Passive margin Silurian Surlyk and Ineson, 1992
B Ermenek slump A, Turkey 40 10 Passive margin Miocene Janson et al., 2010
C Chicontepec Formation, Tampico-Misatlan Basin, Mexico 40 100 Foreland basin Paleocene / Eocene Cossey, 2011
D Cutoff Formation / Williams Ranch Member, Delaware 30 113 Foreland basin Permian Amerman et al., 2011
Basin, West Texas, USA
E Freja Fjord, North Greenland 30 10 Passive margin Silurian Surlyk and Ineson, 1992
F Mohakatino and Mount Messanger Formations, Taranaki, 30 50 Foredeep Late Miocene King et al., 2011
New Zealand
G Apulia platform, Italy 23 20 Foreland basin Late Cretaceous Borgomano, 2000
H Ablation Point Formation, Antarctica 21 440 Fore-arc basin Jurassic–Cretaceous Macdonald et al., 1993
I Navarana, North Greenland 20 80 Passive margin Silurian Surlyk and Ineson, 1992
J Large-scale slumps, Whangaparaoa Peninsula, 16 122 Convergent tectonism Miocene Gregory, 1969
New Zealand
K Capitan Formation, Delaware Basin, West Texas, USA 15 10 Foreland basin Permian Melim and Scholle, 1995
L Maiella platform, Italy 15 600 Apennine orogeny Cretaceous Morsilli et al., 2000
M Akkeshi Formation, Hokkaido Island, Japan 14 30 Forearc Late Cretaceous– Naruse and Otsubo, 2011
Paleocene
N Kap Brevoort, North Greenland 10 100 Passive margin Silurian Surlyk and Ineson, 1992
O Megabreccia sheet, Alberta, Canada 10 25 Passive margin Devonian Cook et al., 1972
P Gordo megabed, Tabernas Basin, Spain 9 40 Intramontane basin Tortonian Kleverlaan, 1987
Q Canadian Rocky Mountains, Canada 8 200 Passive margin Middle Cambrian Stewart et al., 1993
R Guandacol Formation / Paganzo Basin, Argentina 7 120 Retroarc basin Carboniferous Dykstra et al., 2011
S Finer Rudite, Alberta, Canada 3 3 Passive margin Devonian Cook et al., 1972
T Canning Basin, Australia 2 4 Active crustal extensional Devonian Playford, 1980;
George et al., 1995
U Isaac Formation, Castle Creek, Canada 2 110 Passive margin Neoproterozoic Arnott et al., 2011
V Telpyn Point sheet, Wales 1.6 4.57 Variscan orogeny Carboniferous Kuenen, 1948
W Jbel Bou Dahar, Morocco 1.2 8 Intracratonic rift trough Jurassic Blomeier and Reijmer, 2002
X Allopadic carbonate, Canada 1 1 Passive margin Devonian Cook et al., 1972
Y Ermenek slump B, Turkey 1 250 Passive margin Miocene Janson et al., 2010
Z Small-scale slumps, Waitemata Group, New Zealand 0.32 2.43 Intra-arc / convergent Early Miocene Gregory, 1969
plate margin
A′ Gorbea platform, Spain 0.25 30 Extensional pericratonic Albian Gómez-Pérez et al., 1999
rift
B′ Waitemata Group, Takapuna section, New Zealand 0.18 1.52 Intra-arc / convergent Early Miocene Ballance, 1964
plate margin
C′ Quebrada Las Lajas, Argentina 0.1 50 Retroarc basin Pennsylvanian Dykstra et al., 2006
D′ Singing Creek Formation, Tasmania 0.06 6 foreland Late Cambrian Corbett, 1973
E′ Killary Harbour / Owenduff Group, Ireland 0.02 40 Convergent / strike-slip Silurian Laird, 1968
data collectedin this work into these two cat- were used to manage the scatter of the data, and RESULTS—ANALYSIS OF
egories and crosschecking with the associated a variety of random quantitative relationships MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS
triggering mechanisms is to validate or chal- were applied to the distribution (exponential, lin-
lenge the assumptions presented in this clas- eal, and polynomial functions) (Figs. 9, 11, and An initial analysis of histograms contain-
sification (Fig. 3). 14). The objective was to try to find the best fit ing data associated with the area, length,
to the distribution and to define equations that thickness, and volume of MTDs shows that
Quantitative Analysis of MTDs could express these relationships based on a high the distribution is highly skewed toward low
correlation coefficient (R 2). The degree of corre- values that represent smaller MTDs (Hühner
A series of histograms has been generated lation between some of these parameters varies, bach and Masson, 2004) (Figs. 4–7). This
from the collected database to determine the but one of the objectives is to produce simple tendency seems to be prevalent even after
character of the distribution associated with equations that can be used as predictive tools. breaking up the database into attached and
individual morphometric parameters (e.g., area). These equations can be applied in situations detached MTDs (Figs. 4–7); however, the
Different histograms were generated by group- where the MTD is not completely imaged (e.g., scatter significantly decreases as the analy
ing parameters into a number of categories that insufficient seismic coverage) or where limita- sis narrows into particular basins (Fig. 8).
included all data points (Figs. 4–7), subdivi- tions associated with outcrop exposures prevent This change makes sense, as the MTDs con-
sions by MTD type (attached versus detached) a proper appreciation of the three-dimensionality tained in the global database were not all gen-
(Figs. 4–7), and subdivisions by tectonic domain of the unit. A case study from a shallow MTD erated under the same geological conditions
or geographic location (Fig. 8). The objective in the Gulf of Mexico is also presented to illus- (Hampton et al., 1996). Statistically speak-
of analyzing these different histograms was to trate the potential applicability of these derived ing, this skewed distribution of morphomet-
determine if underlying geological conditions equations as tools to predict the spatial nature of ric values also implies that the use of average
could control the data distribution, or if a ran- MTDs. In addition, a brief discussion regarding values to try to define representative ranges
dom behavior was intrinsic to these measure- the limitations and challenges associated with of areas, lengths, thicknesses, and volumes
ments. In addition, morphometric parameters the study of MTDs in outcrop locations is pre- for both attached and detached MTDs is not
were plotted against each other (e.g., area versus sented by showing some comparative analysis ideal because these results would be highly
length) to try to identify potential relationships between outcrop-derived morphometrics and influenced by larger units within these cate
between these values (Figs. 9–14). Log-log plots those obtained by using remote sensing data. gories. Instead, median values better describe

DETACHED MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSITS ATTACHED MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSITS

controlled by localized gravitational instabilities controlled by extrabasinal processes
Steep Canyons Walls Sea Level Fluctuations and Gas Hydrate Dissociation
e.g. MTDs offshore New Jersey and Mississippi Canyon e.g. Amazon MTD
Time
Temperature Sea
canyon walls Surface
Phase
Boundary
Sea Level
Sea Floor
Bottom simulating
MTD reflector
Earthquakes and Tectonism

e.g. MTD in offshore Trinidad and MTDs in offshore California
Mud/Salt Ridges Sea Level

e.g. MTDs offshore Trinidad and Gulf of Mexico outer shelf
collapsed material
MTD fault
MTD
sea floor
Mud/Salt Ridge
High Sedimentation Rates (Big Deltas)

e.g. MTDs in offshore Trinidad, Gulf of Mexico, Egypt, etc.
Thrust Core Structures

e.g. Cohesive MTDs offshore Brunei
Mississippi
Orinoco
Anticline
Amazon
MTD
Nile
Niger
sea floor
Instabilities Upper Slope Volcanic Islands Meteorite Impacts

e.g. Canary and Sahara MTDs e.g. MTD Gulf of Mexico
Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary
outer shelf
currents
upper slope
MTD
sea floor
1000
Area vs. Length
Detached MTDs log-log plot Attached MTDs
Morphometric Parameters Morphometric Parameters
100
2 2 2 2
0.3 km < A < 100 km 100 km < A < 120,000 km
3
0.01 km < V < 10 km
3
Detached MTDs 3
1 km < V < 80,000 km
3
Length (L) (km)
10 Attached MTDs
0.5 km < L < 11 km 11 km < L < 1,000 km
A = Area
1 L = Length
V = Volume
Attached MTD
Detached MTD
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Area (A) (km 2 )
Figure 3. Schematic figure showcasing the main differences between attached and detached mass-transport deposits (MTDs) in terms of causal
mechanisms and scales (area versus length log-log plot). See Tables 1 and 2 for a complete compilation of data points and associated references.

n A
n=261 Average = 63,388 km2
Bin size = 500 Median = 95 km 2
n B Attached MTDs n C Detached MTDs

n=140 n=121
Bin size = 100 Average = 118,136 km2 Bin size = 5 Average = 44.26 km2
Median = 1,140 km2 Median = 21 km 2
Area (km2 ) Area (km 2 )
Area (km2 )
Figure 4. (A) Histogram showing the distribution of data associated with the areal extent of mass-transport deposits (MTDs). (B) Histogram
showing the distribution of data associated with the areal extent of attached MTDs. (C) Histogram showing the distribution of data associ-
ated with the areal extent of detached MTDs.
a “typical” MTD type (e.g., attached versus nential function seems to represent a good Figure 9B shows this same relationship using
detached) because the influence of the asym- fit with a reasonable correlation coefficient the same data points, but now separating the
metrical distribution of data can be minimized (R 2 = 0.8959): data set into two series that represent detached
(Hühnerbach and Masson, 2004) (Table 3). and attached MTDs. This new plot shows two
L = 1.5051A0.4977, very distinctive zones. The lower zone is com-
Area versus Length Relationships where L is length and A is area. (1) posed by detached MTDs with areas that gener-
ally cover less than 100 km2 and lengths that do
The log-log plot illustrating the relation- The plot in Figure 9A shows data points that cor- not exceed 65 km. On the other hand, the upper
ship between area and length for 297 attached respond with measurements that were obtained zone contains attached MTDs with areas that
and detached MTDs shows a good correlation using remote data (e.g., seismic or sonar data) commonly exceed 100 km2 and lengths that are
between these variables (Fig. 9). An expo- and outcrop studies. greater than 10 km (Fig. 9B). The exponential

n A
n B n=132 Attached MTDs

n C n=115 Detached MTDs
Bin size = 10 Bin size = 2
Average = 113.96 km Average = 8.05 km
Median = 54.5 km Median = 6.5 km
Length (km) Length (km)
n=247
Bin size = 10
Average = 64.65 km
Median = 15.2 km
Length (km)
Figure 5. (A) Histogram showing the distribution of data associated with the length of mass-transport deposits (MTDs). (B) Histogram
showing the distribution of data associated with the length of attached MTDs. (C) Histogram showing the distribution of data associated
with the length of detached MTDs.
functions that define the area versus length rela- However, subdividing the data set by margin 6% of the collected data points and defines a
tionships for attached and detached MTDs have or geographic location and using linear plots region in the plot where MTD lengths are in
the following form: in the case of area versus length relationships the range of 200–700 km with the majority of
seem to highlight certain trends that are not these units covering areas between 14,000 and
Ld = 1.2477Ad0.5415
very obvious in the logarithmic plots (Fig. 40,000 km2. MTDs that fall within zone 2 are
where d indicates detached MTD
10). The linear plot illustrating the area versus mostly located in the east Atlantic margin (e.g.,
(R 2 = 0.76811), (2)
length relationships for attached MTDs allows giant chaotic body in Gibraltar, Storegga slide
and for the identification of at least four distinctive in offshore Norway, and Cape Verde slide com-
zones (Fig. 10A). Zone 1 is where the majority plex in offshore Africa) or are linked to flanks
La = 2.6421Aa0.4253
of data points are concentrated (90%); MTDs of collapsed volcanic islands (Canary Islands
where a indicates attached MTD
within this zone cover areas that are less than and Hawaii) (Moore et al., 1989; Torelli
(R 2 = 0.802). (3)
14,000 km2 and have lengths that do not exceed et al., 1997; Wynn et al., 2000; Haflidason
Attached MTDs 200 km. Zone 1 contains MTDs from all con- et al., 2005). Zone 3 contains 3% of the data
Log-log plots seem to offer a good overall tinental margins, and these types of MTDs are points, with deposits that cover areas between
view of the relationships and magnitude of the most common under the “attached MTD” 14,000 and 120,000 km2; however, the length
scales that govern MTD architectures (Fig. 9). category (Fig. 10A). Zone 2 only contains of these deposits does not exceed 200 km.

n A
n=197
Bin size = 10
n B n=77 Attached MTDs n C n=120 Detached MTDs

Average = 249.33 m Average = 61.22 m
Median = 150 m Median = 50 m
Thickness (m) Thickness (m)
Average = 134.74 m
Median = 66 m
Thickness (m)
Figure 6. (A) Histogram showing the distribution of data associated with the thickness of mass-transport deposits (MTDs). (B) Histogram
showing the distribution of data associated with the thickness of attached MTDs. (C) Histogram showing the distribution of data associated
with the thickness of detached MTDs.
epresentative events within zone 3 are the

R Detached MTDs (Mullins et al., 1991), while the longest MTD in
Bjornoya Fan slide in the Barents Sea and the There are two main zones that can be defined the database (65 km) has been associated with
Agulhas slump in South Africa (Dingle, 1977; using the area versus length linear plot of an earthquake that took place in A.D. 1663 in
Niemi et al., 2000; Hjelstuen et al., 2007) detached MTDs. Zone 1 contains 95.5% of the northeastern Canada (Saguenay Fjord MTD)
(Fig. 10A). Finally, zone 4 only contains 1% data points, with MTDs that cover areas that (Fig. 10B) (Syvitski and Schafer, 1996).
of the collected data points; these deposits are are <200 km2 and lengths that are <30 km (Fig.
exceptionally large with areas that can reach 10B). Only 4.5% of the data points fall into Thickness versus Volume Relationships
11,400,000 km2 and lengths that can reach in zone 2, where the majority of the MTDs cover
excess of 700 km (Fig. 10A). The Montagnais areas that are >200 km2 and have lengths that The relationship between thickness and vol-
mass failure in offshore Nova Scotia and the are >30 km. MTDs that occur within zone 2 ume of MTDs (Fig. 11A) is very poor (R 2 =
carbonate breccias associated with the Chicxu- have been reported in the Caribbean and in the 0.5212) compared to the relationship between
lub impact are representative of zone 4 (Jansa Atlantic margin. The MTD covering the largest length and area (Fig. 9A):
et al., 1989; Grajales-Nishimura et al., 2000; area (800 km2) within zone 2 seems to be an
Norris et al., 2000; Deptuck and Campbell, outlier associated with the carbonate margin of V = 0.0008T 2.1998,
2012; Denne et al., 2013). the southeastern offshore region of the Bahamas where V is volume and T is thickness. (4)

n A n=253
Bin size = 1000
n B n=134 Attached MTDs n C n=119 Detached MTDs

Average = 4,299.53 km3 Average = 2.8 km3
Median = 104.3 km3 Median = 0.8 km 3
3 3
Volume (km ) Volume (km )
*
* smaller bin size (100) 3
Volume (km )
Figure 7. (A) Histogram showing the distribution of data associated with the volume of mass-transport deposits (MTDs). (B) Histogram
showing the distribution of data associated with the volume of attached MTDs. (C) Histogram showing the distribution of data associated
with the volume of detached MTDs.
In this case, the values seem to be more scat- and MTDs are commonly larger than those of
tered, which could also reflect the difficulties their detached counterparts for a given thick-
associated with a proper estimation of sediment Vd = 0.0014Td1.6223 ness range (Fig. 11B).
volume due to the irregular character of the sur- where d indicates detached MTD
faces that define the base and top of MTDs. (R 2 = 0.53138). (6) Attached MTDs
Similarly to the case of the area versus length
plots, it seems more adequate to subdivide this However, this subdivision reduces the scat- The data suggest that the majority of attached
data set into two series for attached and detached ter, providing a more meaningful geologic MTDs (63%) have thicknesses and total vol-
MTDs (Fig. 11B). The new correlation coeffi- context for the data. In terms of thicknesses, umes that do not exceed 400 m and 1000 km3,
cients for these new relationships do not present attached and detached MTDs seem to pre respectively (Fig. 12A). The high degree of scat-
a significant improvement (Fig. 11B): sent a wider overlap than in the area ver- ter shown in Figure 12A is associated with the
sus length plots, with the majority of MTD fact that the correlation between the two variables
Va = 0.0395Ta1.7465 deposits reporting thicknesses in the range (thickness and volume) is very poor, as discussed
where a indicates attached MTD of 10–300 m (Fig. 11B). On the other hand, in the previous section (R 2 = 0.5212), and there-
(R 2 = 0.5526), (5) sediment volumes associated with attached fore the subdivisions (zones) presented in Figure

n A Gulf of Mexico n=12 B

Bin size = 500 Mediterranean Sea n=11
2
n Bin size = 400
Average = 1,797 km
Median = 1,275 km2 Average = 1,601 km2
Median = 1,328 km2
* **
* smaller bin size (200) ** smaller bin size (300)
Area (km 2 ) Area (km 2 )
C n D
n Gulf of Mexico Mediterranean Sea
n=12
Bin size = 30 Average = 83.33 km n=11
Median = 84 km Bin size = 20
Average = 45.63 km
Median = 30 km
Length (km) Length (km)
Figure 8. Histograms showing the distribution of area and length for attached mass-transport deposits in the Gulf of Mexico and in the
Mediterranean Sea. There are significant differences in terms of the scatter of data between these local histograms and the ones presented
in Figures 4 and 5 where all global values were plotted.
12A are somewhat arbitrary. This lack of correla- contain less sediment volume (0.4–680 km3) Vea = 20.188Tea + 786.59,
tion is exacerbated when the data is broken up by (Fig. 12B). These differences in sediment vol- where ea indicates eastern Atlantic
MTD type (attached or detached) and geographic ume between eastern and western Atlantic MTDs (R 2 = 0.8687), (7)
location (Fig. 12A). However, it is still possible could be explained by the presence of larger sedi-
to make some basic observations. For instance, ment delivery systems in West Africa (e.g., Niger
the MTDs associated with the carbonate breccias and Congo Rivers) that have been active for while the western Atlantic MTDs seem to be
linked to the Chicxulub impact in the Yucatan longer periods of geologic time. In contrast, the better represented by an exponential equation:
peninsula and the giant chaotic body in Gibral- eastern coast of North America never developed
tar are the units that present the largest preserved the caliber of rivers and delta systems that have Vwa = 0.0868Twa1.3686,
sediment volumes within the data set (Torelli been present in West Africa for a long time. It is where wa indicates western Atlantic
et al., 1997; Denne et al., 2013). Two very distinc- important to highlight that these data points do (R 2 = 0.4451). (8)
tive trends emerge when MTDs from the eastern not include MTDs triggered by meteorite impacts
and western Atlantic margins are compared (Fig. in the western Atlantic margin (e.g., Montagnais
12B). The MTDs that are located in the eastern and Chicxulub), because including these events These differences in terms of arithmetic rela-
Atlantic margin have larger sediment volumes would unrealistically skew the distribution. The tionships or regression types could be asso-
that range from 600 to 80,000 km3. On the other relationship between thickness and volume for ciated with intrinsic geologic controls within
hand, MTDs in the western Atlantic margin tend the eastern Atlantic MTDs seems to be better these margins that are ultimately influencing
to be thinner, and not surprisingly, these units expressed by a linear equation: the morphometric character of the MTDs.

10000
Area vs Length (nr=290 ; no=7)
A
L = 1.5051A0.4977
R² = 0.8959
1000
100
Length (km)
10
Remote Data Outcrop Data

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000
2
Area (km )
10000
B Area vs Length (na=169 ; nd=121)
1000
La = 2.6421Aa0.4253
R² = 0.802
100
Length (km)
Ld = 1.2477Ad0.5415
R² = 0.76811
10
A ached (A) A ached (outcrop)

Detached (D) Detached (outcrop)
0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000
Area (km2)
Figure 9. (A) Log-log plot showing the relationship between area (A) and length (L) for 297 mass-transport deposits (MTDs). From the
total data points, 290 were MTDs from remote sensing (nr) while only 7 points contain data from outcrop localities (no). (B) Log-log
plot showing the relationship between area and length for 297 MTDs that have been classified as attached (Aa, La) or detached (Ad, Ld)
MTDs according to the classification by Moscardelli and Wood (2008) (na, nd—number of data points from attached and detached
MTDs, respectively). The lower part of the plot concentrates 121 data points corresponding to detached MTDs that have been imaged
using remote data; the upper part of the plot concentrates 169 data points corresponding to attach MTDs. White triangles and gray
squares illustrate data from four attached and three detached MTDs, respectively, that have been measured in outcrop sections.

A
700 Area vs Length Attached MTDs (n=210)
Zone 2
600 (6%) LEGEND
West Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Zone 4
500 East Atlantic
(1%)
Mediterranean Sea
x East Pacific
Length (km)
400 Antarctic
x West Pacific
Volcanic Islands
Indian Ocean
300 Meteorite Triggered
200
100 Zone 3
Zone 1 (3%)
(90%)
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 3900000 11400000
Area (km2 )
change in scale
B 70
Area vs Length Detached MTDs (n=132)

60
Zone 2
50 (4.5%)
Length (km)
40
30
LEGEND
West Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
East Atlantic
20 Mediterranean Sea
x East Pacific
Antarctic
x West Pacific
10 Volcanic Islands
Indian Ocean
Zone 1
(95.5%) Caribbean
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Area (km2 )
Figure 10. (A) Linear plot showing the relationship between area and length for attached mass-transport deposits (MTDs) by geographic
location. Four distinctive zones can be defined (zones 1–4). Ninety percent of the data points are contained within zone 1. (B) Linear plot
showing the relationship between area and length for detached MTDs by geographic location. At least two zones can be defined, with 95.5%
of the data points contained within zone 1.

A Thickness vs Volume (nr=217 ; no=5)

100000
V = 0.0008T2.1998
R² = 0.5212
10000
1000
100
Volume (km3 )
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
Remote Data Outcrop Data

0.0001
1 10 100 1000 10000
Thickness (m)
1000000
B
Thickness vs Volume (na=101 ; nd=116) Va = 0.0395Ta1.7465
100000 Attached (A) Attached (outcrop) R² = 0.5526
10000
1000
100
Volume (km 3)
10
0.1
Vd = 0.0014Td1.6223
R² = 0.53138
0.01
0.001 Thickness Overlap

Detached MTDs Attached MTDs
Attached + Detached MTDs
0.0001
1 10 100 1000 10000
Thickness (m)
Figure 11. (A) Log-log plot showing the relationship between thickness (T) and volume (V) for 222 mass-transport deposits (MTDs). Open
triangles represent data from outcrops (nr, no—number of data points from remote sensing and from outcrop localities, respectively).
The relationship shown in this plot is very poor when compared to the relationship that exists between area and length of MTDs (Fig. 9).
(B) Log-log plot showing the relationship between thickness and volume for 222 MTDs that have been classified as attached (Ta, Va) or
detached (Td, Vd) MTDs according to the classification by Moscardelli and Wood (2008) (na, nd—number of data points from attached and
detached MTDs, respectively). The lower part of the plot concentrates 116 data points corresponding to detached MTDs that have been
imaged using remote data; the upper part of the plot concentrates 101 data points corresponding to attached MTDs. White triangles and
gray squares correspond to data from two attached and two detached MTDs, respectively, that have been measured in outcrop sections.

1000000
A Thickness vs Volume (Attached MTDs) LEGEND
na = 105 West Atlantic
100000
Gulf of Mexico
Zone 2
(37%) East Atlantic
10000
Mediterranean Sea
x East Pacific
Antarctic
Volume (km 3)
1000
x West Pacific
Volcanic Islands
100 Indian Ocean
Meteorite Triggered
10
Zone 1
(63%)
1
0.1
Figure 12. (A) Log-log plot show-
1 10 100 1000 10000 ing the relationship between thick-
100000 ness and sediment volume for
B Vea = 20.188Tea + 786.59 attached mass-transport deposits
R² = 0.8687 (MTDs) by geographic location
10000
(na—number of data points from
attached MTDs). Two zones were
defined, with 63% of the data
1000
points occurring within zone 1.
(B) Thickness (T ) versus volume
(V) log-log plot showing data se-
Volume (km3 )
ries for attached MTDs reported

100
in the eastern (Tea, Vea) and west-
ern (Twa, Vwa) Atlantic continental
margins. Attached MTDs reported
10
Vwa = 0.0868Twa1.3686 in the eastern Atlantic margin
R² = 0.4451 seem to contain larger volumes of
sediments. (C) Thickness versus
1
volume log-log plot showing data
series for attached MTDs reported
in the eastern (Tep, Vep) and western
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
(Twp, Vwp) Pacific margins. MTDs
100000
in the western Pacific margin seem
C to contain larger volumes.
Vwp = 8E-06Twp3 - 0.0128Twp2 + 5.275Twp + 126.12
R² = 0.7007
10000
1000
Volume (km 3)
100
10
Vep = 0.0017Tep2 - 0.1437Tep + 14.652

R² = 0.7114
1
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Thickness (m)

100
A
Thickness vs Volume (Detached MTDs)
nd = 116
10
1
Volume (km3 )
0.1
LEGEND
West Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
0.01 East Atlantic
Mediterranean Sea
x East Pacific
Antarctic
0.001 x West Pacific
Volcanic Islands
Caribbean
Meteorite Triggered
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
100
B
10
Vwa = 0.008Twa1.1871
Volume (km3)
1
R² = 0.303
0.1
0.01
1 10 100 1000
Thickness (m)
Figure 13. (A) Log-log plot showing the relationship between thickness and sediment volume for detached mass-transport
deposits (MTDs) by geographic location (nd—number of data points from detached MTDs). There is a great deal of scatter
for both thickness and volume values. (B) Thickness versus volume log-log plot showing data series for detached MTDs
reported in the eastern and western Atlantic continental margins (Twa, Vwa —thickness and volume, respectively, of western
Atlantic detached MTDs). Detached MTDs reported in the western Atlantic margin seem to be thicker and contain larger
volumes of preserved sediment. Dash rectangles highlight the four detached MTDs which sediment volumes exceed 10 km3.

A 1000000 Area vs Volume MTDs (nr =292 ; no = 4)
100000
10000 V = 0.0281A1.1123
R² = 0.9
1000
100
Volume (km3 )
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000
Area (km2)
1000000
B Area vs Volume Attached and Detached MTDs (na =173 ; nd = 119)
100000
10000 Va = 0.0275Aa1.1127
R² = 0.8345
1000
100
Volume (km3 )
10
0.1
Vd = 0.0261Ad1.1507
0.01 R² = 0.8007
0.001 Attached (A) Attached (outcrop)

0.0001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000
Area (km2)
Figure 14. (A) Log-log plot showing the relationship between area (A) and volume (V ) for 296 mass-transport deposits (MTDs). Open
triangles represent data from outcrops (nr, no—number of data points from remote sensing and from outcrop localities, respectively).
The relationship between these two variables is strong, and the correlation coefficient is similar to the one for the area versus length
plot (Fig. 9). (B) Log-log plot showing the relationship between area and volume for 292 MTDs that have been classified as attached
or detached MTDs according to the classification by Moscardelli and Wood (2008) (na, nd—number of data points from attached and
detached MTDs, respectively). The lower part of the plot concentrates 119 data points corresponding to detached MTDs that have been
imaged using remote data; the upper part of the plot concentrates 173 data points corresponding to attached MTDs. White triangles and
gray squares correspond to data from two attached and two detached MTDs, respectively, that have been measured in outcrop sections.

TABLE 3. AVERAGE AND MEDIAN VALUES FOR MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS ASSOCIATED WITH ATTACHED AND DETACHED
MASS-TRANSPORT DEPOSITS (MTDs) THAT ARE LOCATED IN DIFFERENT CONTINENTAL MARGINS AROUND THE WORLD
Average Median Delta
A L T V A L T V A L T V
MTDs (km2) (km) (m) (km3) (km2) (km) (m) (km3) (km2) (km) (m) (km3)
All 63,388 64.65 134.74 2,278.54 95 15.2 66 5.22 63,293 49.45 68.74 2273.32
Attached 118,136 113.96 249.33 4,299.53 1,140 54.5 150 104.3 116,996 59.46 99.33 4195.23
Detached 44.26 8.05 61.22 2.8 21 6.5 50 0.8 23.26 1.55 11.22 2
Attached MTDs
South America 4820.43 123 123.33 578.85 3,000 130 60 242 1820.43 –7 63.33 336.85
(Atlantic margin)
North America 1756.88 38.38 76.53 104.47 387.5 20 50 35 1369.38 18.38 26.53 69.47
(Atlantic margin)
Europe 11,488.99 100.1 536.76 1,652.43 631.5 57 193 34.45 10,857.49 43.1 343.76 1,617.98
(Atlantic margin)
West Africa 32,533.33 582 202 5,125.09 30,000 300 203 3,663 2,533.33 282 –1 1,462.09
North America 233.38 27.12 72.12 16.25 187.5 24 56 10.75 45.88 3.12 16.12 5.5
(Pacific margin)
Asia (Pacific margin) 2,810.45 71.2 428.63 820.5 1,100 63.5 350 455 1,710.45 7.7 78.63 365.5
Mediterranean Sea 1,601 45.63 239 293.81 1,328 30 200 139 273 15.63 39 154.81
Caribbean Sea 868 81 127.5 – 841 82.5 42.5 – 27 –1.5 85 –
Gulf of Mexico 1797.58 83.33 – 149.49 1,275 84 – 51.4 522.58 –0.67 – 98.09
Indian Ocean 21,842 64.25 314.25 5,563.75 2,990 40 328.5 848 18,852 24.25 –14.25 4,715.75
Volcanic islands 14,250 238.57 105.42 409.42 2,000 100 72 180 12,250 138.57 33.42 229.42
Meteorite impacts 5,131,000 660 200 158,500 3,900,000 700 200 158,500 1,231,000 –40 0 0
Detached MTDs
South America 106.94 – 196.8 21.26 22 – 150 3.3 84.94 – 46.8 17.96
(Atlantic margin)
North America 27.75 12.82 69.06 1.72 15 7.45 64 0.9 12.75 5.37 5.06 0.82
(Atlantic margin)
South America 352.5 17.14 – 2.75 344.5 8.7 – 1.73 8 8.44 – 1.02
(Pacific margin)
North America 27.13 7.61 65.9 2.02 3 6.65 50.5 1.2 24.13 0.96 15.4 0.82
(Pacific margin)

Europe 15.64 3.72 23 0.99 1.6 1.25 20 0.03 14.04 2.47 3 0.96
(Atlantic margin)
West Africa 430 – – 20 430 – – 20 0 – – 0
Asia 18.93 5.25 100 1.52 4 3.75 75 0.6 14.93 1.5 25 0.92
(Pacific margin)
Mediterranean Sea 42.66 9.25 43.4 1.97 32 9 30 0.68 10.66 0.25 13.4 1.29
Caribbean Sea 15 – – 0.27 15 – – 0.27 0 – – 0
Gulf of Mexico 33.34 7.31 66.1 2.52 34 7 72 1.8 –0.65 0.31 –5.9 0.72
Indian Ocean 0.6 – – 0.0036 0.6 – – 0.0036 0 – – 0
Note: A—Area, L—Length, T—Thickness, V—Volume, MTC—Mass transport complex, K-T—Cretaceous-Tertiary. Cells containing a dash have no data available.
25
However, care needs to be taken in not consid- minimum of 2.2 m to a maximum of 300 m (Fig. and 90% of MTDs cover areas that are less
ering these preliminary relationships as a final 13A). No distinctive trends could be identified, than 14,000 km2 (Fig. 10A). On the other hand,
solution because for these particular subsets except for some very poor to lacking correla- detached MTDs generally cover areas that are
(extracted from the global database) the data tion for MTDs from the western Atlantic margin <100 km2 while sediment volumes associated
sample is not robust enough, and therefore more (Fig. 13B): with these units can range from <1 to 10 km3
efforts to produce and collect additional data (Figs. 10B and 11B).
points are necessary. Vwa = 0.008Twa1.1871,
A somewhat similar trend can be observed where wa indicates western Atlantic APPLICABILITY
for MTDs located in continental margins in (R 2 = 0.303). (11)
the eastern and western Pacific, where overall Subsurface Case Study—Erwing Bank
thicknesses and sediment volumes for western Despite the limited amount of data points asso- Detached MTD
Pacific MTDs are higher than the recorded val- ciated with some of these series (Fig. 13), these
ues for their eastern Pacific counterparts (Fig. observations are consistent with the overall One of the advantages of having a set of equa-
12C). MTDs in the eastern Pacific margin trends that were observed when the entire data tions describing the relationships between dif-
present thicknesses that range between 30 and set was examined (poor correlation between ferent morphometric parameters for MTDs is
180 m and sediment volumes that range from thickness and volume) (Fig. 11A). There is also that these equations can be used in situations
7 to 40 km3. On the other hand, the majority an indication that detached MTDs from the where limited data coverage prevents the imag-
of western Pacific MTDs have thicknesses that western Atlantic are thicker, containing more ing of the entire extent of the MTD in the sub-
range between 120 and 1300 m and sediment sediment volume than their eastern Atlantic surface. A case study from the Gulf of Mexico
volumes that range from 237 to 3150 km3. counterparts (Fig. 13B). This is a curious obser- is presented here, where a three-dimensional
There is an outlier within the western Pacific vation because attached MTDs in the eastern (3-D) seismic survey partially imaged a shal-
MTDs, a debris flow in southeastern Australia and western Atlantic show the inverse relation- low MTD. The study area is located in the
that is only 50 m thick and contains 0.5 km3 ship (Fig. 12B). Erwing Bank area of the Gulf of Mexico; the
of preserved sediments (Boyd et al., 2010; 3-D seismic volume covers a total area of 216
Fig. 12C). Second- and third-order polynomial Area versus Volume Relationships km2 and has a vertical coverage that is equiva-
functions seem to better describe the relation- lent to 8 s two-way travel time (Fig. 15). The
ship between thickness and volume for MTDs The log-log plot illustrating the relationship time-migrated volume has an approximate bin
in the Pacific. between area and volume shows a pretty con- spacing of 25 × 12.5 m and a 4 ms vertical sam-
sistent trend, and the exponential function that pling rate. This 3-D survey was processed to
Vwp = 8–06Twp3 – 0.0128Twp2 + 5.275Twp + 126.12, describes this relationship has a high correlation zero phase, and the average frequency content
where wp indicates western Pacific coefficient (R 2 = 0.9) (Fig. 14A): of the full-stack seismic data is 30–35 Hz. For
(R 2 = 0.7007), (9) approximate time-depth conversion at this shal-
V = 0.0281A1.1123 low range, 1 ms is equivalent to 0.75 m. Only
and where V is volume and A is area. (12) line drawings and sketches of the seismic data
are provided here due to the proprietary char-
Vep = 0.0017Tep2 – 0.1437Tep + 14.652, The correlation coefficient of this relationship acter of the data set. Line drawings shown here
where ep indicates eastern Pacific slightly decreases when the series are broken provide the necessary information to estimate
(R 2 = 0.7114). (10) into detached and attached MTDs, but the fit is the thickness and partial length and width of
still good (Fig. 14B): the MTD (Figs. 15 and 16). This information is
Similarly to the Atlantic case, the specific data used as input in the equations to predict the vol-
density presented here for these groups might Va = 0.0275Aa1.1127 ume, area, and length of the deposit.
be insufficient to unequivocally claim that where a is attached It is well known that the Gulf of Mexico is
these relationships are valid, so these equations (R 2 = 0.8345), (13) a basin affected by salt tectonics (Peel et al.,
should be only used as a reference point. 1995); Figure 15A shows an allochthonous salt
and body and how its vertical remobilization has
Detached MTDs influenced the deformation of the stratigraphic
Sediment volumes associated with detached Vd = 0.0261Ad1.1507 column. The vertical component of deforma-
MTDs commonly do not exceed 10 km3; where d is detached tion associated with the movement of the salt
however, there are four exceptions where the (R 2 = 0.8007). (14) has the capacity to increase local slopes and
volumes exceed the 10 km3 mark, reaching a trigger localized mass-transport events. The
maximum of 54 km3 (Fig. 13A). These MTDs The exponential functions defining the relation- local MTDs that are generated as products of
presenting increased sediment volumes are ship between area and volume of attached and this phenomenon have been classified by Mos-
the Rebelde slide of the Santos Basin and the detached MTDs are very similar (Equations 13 cardelli and Wood (2008) as detached MTDs,
Blocky MTD in Espiritu Santo in offshore Bra- and 14) (Fig. 14). In general, attached MTDs and these units are ubiquitous in mini-basin
zil (Ashabranner et al., 2010; Alves and Cart- in this data set cover areas that range from 100 provinces of the Gulf of Mexico (Beaubouef
wright, 2009), the Talisman slide in the west- to 120,000 km2 and contain sediment volumes and Abreu, 2010). The available 3-D seismic
ern slope of Hatton Bank in offshore Ireland that can range from 1 to 80,000 km3 (Fig. 14B). volume only imaged a portion of the detached
(Sayago-Gil et al., 2010), and a detached MTD However, it is important to keep in mind that MTD shown in Figure 15B, but enough ver-
reported in Angola (Gee et al., 2006). Thickness 63% of attached MTDs contain sediment vol- tical coverage was available to estimate its
values are also quite scattered, varying from a umes that are less than 1000 km3 (Fig. 12A) thickness (350 ms, equivalent to 262.5 m).

W Sea Floor E 0.5
A
Fig 16
MTD
Salt
1 km
TWTT (sec) 6
Isopach (TWTT)
B Platform
U.S.A
W > 2.7 km
26°N
Fig 16 Case Study
0 Gulf
350 of 22°N
Mexico Cuba
350
200
Mexico 350 km
98°W 90°W 82°W
350 MTD Figure 15. (A) Line drawing from a west-to-east seismic line covering
L > 7 km
X-section A the study area where the Erwing Banks detached mass-transport de-
posit (MTD) is located. A body of allochthonous salt to the east can be
300 observed, as well as how the upward movement of the salt managed to
deform the entire stratigraphic column around the salt diapir. The de-
tached MTD is in a shallow section between 1 and 2 seconds (two-way
Flow Direction
travel time, TWTT) and highlighted in gray. (B) Map highlighting a por-
0
300 tion of the area that is covered by the three-dimensional seismic volume,
0 showing the isopach map of the detached MTD. W—width; L—length.
3D survey 1 km

N S
Sea Floor
L > 7 km
MTD Flow Direction
0.5 s
MTD
Slides
2 2
3
Slumps
1 Seismic Facies 1 - Rotated Slide Blocks 1 1s
2 Seismic Facies 2 - Debris Flows
3 Seismic Facies 3 - Slumps Detachment Surface
600 m
Figure 16. Line drawing of the shallow portion of a north-south–oriented seismic line covering the study area in the Erwing Bank region of
the Gulf of Mexico.. The gray area highlights the location and character of the main seismic facies associated with the Ewing Bank detached
mass-transport deposit (MTD). The mass-wasting event mobilized sediments for a relatively short distance (less than tens of meters) from
north to south. There is a clear transition from the most proximal to distal parts of the MTD which include slides, slumps, and debris flows.
Vertical axis is in two-way travel time. L—length.
Multiple seismic sections across this detached

Vd = 0.0014(262.5)1.6223 = 11.76 km3. (15) The Outcrop versus Remote Sensing
MTD revealed that the main direction of move- MTD Dilemma
ment for this mass-wasting event was from north A rearranged version of Equation 14 can then be
to south (Figs. 15 and 16). Evidence to infer the used to calculate the area of the detached MTD Relationships presented here can also be
kinematics of this MTD includes the pres- as a function of its sediment volume: used when studying MTDs in outcrop locations
ence of extensional faults in the headwall where a lack of exposure oftentimes hinders the
region of the unit that define the boundaries ability to understand the three-dimensionality of
of at least two slides (Figs. 15 and 16). The Ad = 21.692Vd0.6958; (16) these units (Fig. 18). In the mid-1970s, acqui-
seismic facies associated with these rotated sition of remote-sensing data (high-resolution
slides are high-amplitude continuous reflectors Ad = 21.692(11.76)0.6958 = 120.52 km2. (17) bathymetry, sonar, and seismic surveys) in mod-
that are dipping toward the north as a result of ern continental margins allowed geoscientists to
slide rotation (seismic facies 1) (Fig. 16). In Finally, the length of the MTD is estimated as a image near-seafloor MTDs that could occupy
the downdip direction, there are two distinc- function of the area by using Equation 2: hundreds of square kilometers (Woodcock,
tive seismic facies that are also linked to differ- 1979). In contrast, reported MTDs in outcrops
ent elements that can be present within MTDs. were several orders of magnitude smaller than
Seismic facies 2 is defined by low-amplitude to Ld = 1.2477(120.52)0.5415 = 16.714 km. (18) their equivalents in the modern record. The
transparent reflectors that have been associated apparent absence of large MTDs in outcrops
with debris-flow deposits, and seismic facies 3 This simple procedure allows for the prediction prompted researchers to question if large MTDs
is characterized by semi-continuous, low- to of the dimensions of the MTD following a com- were preferentially developed on present mar-
high-amplitude reflectors that have been associ- bination of criteria that included the location of gins, or if outcrop analogues went unrecognized
ated with slumps (Fig. 16). The distribution of the MTD relative to the mini-basin margin and due to lack of diagnostic criteria in the geologic
these seismic facies suggests a transition from the use of morphometric data collected in this record (Woodcock, 1979; Macdonald et al.,
slides to slumps and debris flows that is typi- work (Fig. 17). 1993). Later recognition of several giant MTDs
cal in these types of deposits (Moscardelli and The ability to predict the areal extend of in the outcrops of the Mesozoic forearc basin in
Wood, 2008; Bull et al., 2009; Frey-Martinez MTDs in situations where imaging of these Alexander Island (Antarctica) helped clarify this
et al., 2006). The internal character of the MTD units is limited is crucial. Shallow MTDs pose issue by demonstrating that the apparent absence
and the tectonic context in which it occurred a geotechnical hazard for offshore infrastructure of large, ancient slide deposits was purely a
strongly suggests that this is a detached MTD and drilling; these units can also affect the qual- function of extent of exposure (Macdonald et al.,
with a total length in the order of tens of meters ity of the seismic imaging in supra-salt domains, 1993). The improvement of recognition criteria
or less. It is also inferred that detached MTDs and petroleum geologists are very interested for MTDs in outcrops brought to light the exis-
linked to the collapsed flanks of mini-basins in in understanding the geometry and extent of tence of several large-scale MTDs in a variety of
the Gulf of Mexico do not present huge lateral MTDs because these units are considered seals locations beyond Antarctica (Kleverlaan, 1987;
variations in terms of thickness, especially when and sometimes reservoirs (Mosher et al., 2010a; Armitage et al., 2009; Dykstra et al., 2011). Fig-
internal architectures are partially preserved. Meckel et al., 2011; Meckel, 2011). MTDs are ure 18 illustrates the relationship between length
The sediment volume of the detached MTD also known for disrupting underlying reservoirs and thickness of MTDs for outcrop studies and
can be estimated by using Equation 6 and assum- and for their capacity to modify the morphology remote-sensing studies (Table 2); this plot clearly
ing a relative uniform thickness of 262.5 m (Td): of the seafloor. illustrates that the ability to identify large-scale

equations can be applied. In terms of defining

4.5 km 2.7 km
Platform triggering mechanisms, field geologists need to
Fig 16 determine how far the MTD is located from the
Boundary MTD shelf break and what kind of relationships exist
between the exposed MTD and the surrounding
350 stratigraphy. A detached MTD will have lim-
350
ited areal exposures; the associated paleo–shelf
200 edge will be located hundreds to thousands of
kilometers updip from the location of the out-
350
crop, and intraclasts will be associated with the
Isopach 7 km surrounding stratigraphy (e.g., intraclasts from
(TWTT) Fig 15A underlying turbidites or the flanks of a nearby
shale diapir). Instead, an attached MTD will
300 extend for thousands of square kilometers and
multiple exposures are likely present around the
Flow Direction study area, the paleo–shelf break could be close
300
0 to the updip portions of the MTD, and intra-
clasts or transported blocks could be composed
1 km by outer-shelf stratigraphy (e.g., prodelta depos-
3D survey its, etc.). The accuracy of the prediction will
always depend on the appropriate use of analo-
MTD gies rather than the simple use of an equation.
T = 262.5 m DISCUSSION
A = 120.5 km2
The collection of morphometric parameters
L = 16.7 km
3 to perform quantitative analysis of a wide range
V = 11.7 km
of depositional environments, both in the geo-
logic record and in modern systems, has been
9.7 km identified as an important element to improve
the understanding of these units (Woodcock,
1979; Macdonald et al., 1993; Haflidason et al.,
MTD estimated area 2005). This knowledge can play an important
role when trying to predict the character and
MTD area cover by 3D extension of geologic units both in the subsur-
face and in outcrops. In deep-marine environ-
ments, these efforts have been boosted in recent
years by the abundance of new data sets for con-
tinental margins around the world and by the
proliferation of publications documenting spe-
cific case studies. This abundance of informa-
tion also poses challenges when trying to define
Figure 17. Schematic diagram showing the prediction associated with areal extension of criteria to collect morphometric parameters and
the Ewing Banks detached mass-transport deposit (MTD). This prediction was based on keep updated databases. Unfortunately, there is
a series of morphometric relationships that were derived in this paper using a global data- rarely consensus on how to define individual
base. TWTT—two-way travel time; 3D—three-dimensional; T—thickness; A—area; L— depositional elements, how to measure them,
length; V—volume. and how meaningful specific morphometric
relationships might be (e.g., lobe and channel
hierarchies in turbidite systems). Despite these
MTDs in outcrops has improved significantly insufficient. In order to properly apply these limitations, new challenges have forced geosci-
in the last few years (also compare with Wood- morphometric relationships, several conditions entists to increase efforts to try to quantify the
cock, 1979, his figure 1). However, it is impor- need to be fulfilled in terms of input parameters: character of geologic elements in a variety of
tant to recognize that the scale of observations (1) an average or representative thickness value depositional environments. These challenges
is directly dependent on the extent of outcrop needs to be estimated from the outcrop expo- are mainly associated with an increasing need
exposure, and in many instances recognition of sure because values in areas of pinch-out or in to improve (1) the understanding of depositional
MTD units remains challenging. the core of the MTD would be unrealistic, and processes and external controls that are linked
The morphometric relationships that are pre- (2) it is necessary to have an idea of what kind of to specific depositional elements, and (2) the
sented in this work are proposed as an alterna- triggering mechanisms could be associated with capacity to predict shapes, dimensions, and the
tive to reconstruct the three-dimensionality of the event so that the unit can be classified as a lithological character of depositional elements
MTDs in outcrops when field exposures are detached or attached MTD and the right set of both in the subsurface and in outcrops. In this

Outcrop MTDs
Remote MTDs
Above outcrop resolution

(mainly attached MTDs)
Improved outcrop recognition criteria
(mainly detached MTDs)
Thickness (m)
Below current seismic resolution

(detached MTDs)
Length (km)
Figure 18. Plot of thickness (m) versus length (km) of MTDs; outlined fields have been updated from Woodcock (1979) and Macdonald et al.
(1993), with extra points from this study. Open squares represent MTD data from outcrops while circles represent data points from MTDs
imaged using remote data.
work, the challenges faced when collecting This work in particular documented a series province. This reiterates the observation made
data associated with MTDs were addressed by of morphometric parameters associated with by Hühnerbach and Masson (2004) who pointed
defining a simplified version of morphometric the architecture of MTDs (area, length, volume, out the importance of treating average values of
parameters that could be easily collected from and thickness). The collection of these MTD these MTD morphometric parameters with care.
preexisting work and publications. This strat- morphometric parameters was presented in a At the same time, these observations reinforce
egy, even though simplistic at a first glance, was series of histograms and cross-plots with the the idea that local geological controls play an
effective when extracting data from publica- objective of identifying potential quantitative important role in defining the geometry and
tions where only qualitative or semi-qualitative relationships between these elements. Histo- dimensions of MTDs. This work also confirmed
descriptions were performed. It is important to grams for individual morphometric parameters the existence of strong relationships between
keep in mind that it is impossible to completely in the global database showed that morphomet- some of these morphometric parameters and that
standardize the criteria to collect this kind of ric parameters associated with MTD architec- these relationships could be useful to improve
quantitative information and that any attempt to tures were strongly skewed toward low values the capacity to predict dimensions of MTDs
do so requires proper description and documen- and that this tendency would change as the data both in the subsurface and in outcrops. The
tation of the criteria that were used. were separated by geologic and geographic cross-plots illustrating the relationships between

area, length, and volume of MTDs seem to be 2011). This also brings the issue of siliciclastic more accurate. Interestingly, there is also a good
particularly relevant, showcasing strong corre- versus carbonate MTDs: it has been widely doc- correlation between the area and volume of
lation coefficients that are associated with the umented that carbonate margins can collapse MTDs, and this might be related to the preser-
exponential functions that better describe these and generate carbonate breccias that can consti- vation of proportionality between these param-
links, this is particularly useful since these rela- tute important components of slope systems in eters (e.g., MTDs covering larger area will
tionships have not been extensively documented many ancient and modern continental margins. likely contain more sediment volume). Despite
in the past. On the other hand, the correlation However, even though both siliciclastic MTDs the shortcomings and simplicity associated with
between thickness and other parameters is very and carbonate breccias can be classified as grav- the determination of these equations (equations
poor, reflecting the high degree of lateral vari- ity-induced deposits that share many similarities 1 through 14), the establishment of these rela-
ability that this value usually presents within a in terms of their architectures, there is no com- tionships can be extremely useful as predictive
MTD. Prediction of thickness variations within prehensive quantitative analysis comparing the tools (e.g., Gulf of Mexico case study). It was
a single unit seems to be the most challenging morphometry of these units. Better descriptions also observed that the distribution of individual
aspect when dealing with MTD morphometrics. and analysis of these units is necessary in order parameters in histograms is less random when
In addition, this work also supports the original to understand the potential similarities and dif- the series are subdivided by MTD type (attached
analysis performed by Moscardelli and Wood ferences associated with their formation. Com- versus detached) and by geographic location.
(2008) suggesting that there is a direct link parison of morphometric parameters associated This observation clearly suggests that geologi-
between the dimensions of MTDs, their loca- with turbidite systems and how these relation- cal controls, like the underlying tectonic config-
tion relative to their associated shelf break, and ships differ from their MTD counterparts is also uration of basins, may be controlling the overall
their potential causal mechanisms. The largest necessary. dimensions and geometries of MTDs in specific
MTD categories in terms of areal extension regions. The quantitative analysis presented in
and volume are: (1) MTDs linked to meteorite CONCLUSIONS this work also suggests that the attached versus
impacts, (2) MTDs associated with the collapse detached classification of MTDs as proposed by
of volcanic flanks, and (3) MTDs located in the A comprehensive compilation of morpho- Moscardelli and Wood (2008) can be applied as
eastern Atlantic margin and that have been asso- metric parameters for more than 300 MTDs was a valid approach to try to narrow potential causal
ciated with major glaciation events. Despite this presented in this work. The data set contains mechanisms associated with MTD genesis.
observation, it is important to keep in mind that information regarding the length, area, volume, Finally, the application of these equations in
there are vast areas of continental margins (e.g., and thickness of MTDs that were formed within a subsurface case study in the Gulf of Mexico
Indian Ocean) that are not covered by the same a wide range of tectonic domains and geologic demonstrates that a simple approach can go a
amount of data as the north Atlantic or the Med- times. Only basic observational measurements long way when trying to use predictive models
iterranean Sea, and therefore this could be skew- from preserved deposits that were confidently in areas where subsurface data are of low qual-
ing the observations. Data confidentially issues identified as MTDs were included in the data- ity or incomplete. Comparison of morphometric
are also an impediment to having a complete base. This approach was implemented to guar- data associated with MTDs, both in the subsur-
coverage of these deposits around the world. antee homogeneity in the collection of data, but face and in the field, also demonstrates that the
The results presented in this work are consid- further efforts are necessary to include param- ability to recognize large-scale MTDs in out-
ered as an initial effort in starting to understand eters such as slope angle and height of slope crop exposures has improved during the past 40
the nature of trends and relationships that exist failure (among others). The analysis of the data years as the understanding of external and inter-
between different morphometric parameters that suggests that good correlation exists between nal MTD architectures expands. The equations
are part of MTD architectures. It is acknowl- some of these morphometric parameters while presented in this work are also applicable to
edged here that future work needs to incorpo- other quantitative relationships are very poor to MTDs described in outcrops, and even though
rate additional parameters into the analysis, lacking. The best correlation coefficients (R 2 = the correlations are not perfect, the application
including height of failed escarpments, slope 0.9) are associated with the relationships that of these concepts provides a novel tool that can
angles, real run-out distances, estimations of exist between area and length of MTDs, as well help predict the areal extent of these units in the
original material that failed versus incorporated as between area and volume. The best fit is in all field. There is still a long way to go to establish
material by erosion, etc. It will only be with the cases obtained by using exponential functions to more realistic and accurate quantitative relation-
incorporation of a more comprehensive data- describe these quantitative relationships. In con- ships for MTDs that could be used for predictive
base containing a broader set of morphometric trast, a very poor correlation was documented purposes. These efforts will require continued
parameters that the geologic factors controlling between the thickness of the deposits and their collection of morphometric data, standardiza-
the genesis of MTDs will be unveiled. In addi- estimated volumes (R 2 = 0.5). This very poor tion of measurements and descriptions, as well
tion, the lack of well calibration also poses an correlation can be explained by difficulties as incorporation of new variables (e.g., slope
impediment to understanding the relationship associated with the assignment of a representa- angles, lithologies, etc.). This epic endeavor
between the geometry of the deposits and their tive thickness value to a particular MTD. It is will require a collective effort and a multidisci-
lithological character. It has long been argued important to keep in mind that the thickness of a plinary approach.
that MTDs are predominantly composed of single MTD tends to vary widely along dip and
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
fine-grained lithologies; however, several case strike. At the same time, it is very difficult to
studies have documented the presence of “sur- estimate the sediment volume contained within This work was part of a Ph.D. dissertation by Dr.
prise sands” within MTD units (Beaubouef and a particular MTD; this fact contributes to the Lorena Moscardelli and was supervised by Dr. Lesli
Abreu, 2010). This is a significant observation lack of correlation that is observed in the thick- Wood. This research was possible through the gen-
erous contributions of members of the Quantitative
because these sandstone bodies could poten- ness versus volume plots. In contrast, the area Clastics Laboratory Industrial Associates Program at
tially represent new oil and gas reservoir targets and length of MTDs are usually easier to iden- the Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of
in the subsurface (Meckel, 2011; Meckel et al., tify and measure so that the obtained values are Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin. The

University of Texas at Austin acknowledges the sup- transport, in Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine Mass Movements and
port of this research by Landmark Graphics Corpora- L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, Their Consequences: Dordrecht, Springer, Advances
tion via the Landmark University Grant Program. We R., eds., Submarine Mass Movements and Their Conse- in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, v. 28,
quences: Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and p. 527–539.
thank GSA Bulletin Editor Christian Koeberl and two
Technological Hazards Research, v. 28, p. 491–502. Denne, R.A., Scott, E.D., Eickhoff, D.P., Kaiser, J.S., Hill,
anonymous reviewers. Publication was authorized by Bull, S., Cartwright, J., and Huuse, M., 2009, A review of R.J., and Spaw, J.M., 2013, Massive Cretaceous-Paleo-
the director of the Bureau of Economic Geology, Jack- kinematic indicators from mass-transport complexes gene boundary deposit, deep-water Gulf of Mexico:
son School of Geosciences, The University of Texas using 3D seismic data: Marine and Petroleum Geol- New evidence for widespread Chicxulub-induced
at Austin. ogy, v. 26, p. 1132–1151, doi: 10.1016 /j
.marpetgeo slope failure: Geology, v. 41, p. 983–986, doi:10.1130
.2008.09.011. /G34503.1.
REFERENCES CITED Camerlenghi, A., Accettella, D., Costa, S., Lastras, G., Deptuck, M.E., and Campbell, D.C., 2012, Widespread ero-
Acosta, J., Canals, M., and Wardell, N., 2009, Mor- sion and mass failure from the ~51 Ma Montagnais
Aksu, A.E., and Hiscott, R.N., 1992, Shingled Quaternary phogenesis of the SW Balearic continental slope and marine bolide impact off southwestern Nova Scotia,
debris flow lenses on the north-east Newfoundland adjacent abyssal plain, western Mediterranean Sea: Canada: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 49,
slope: Sedimentology, v. 39, p. 193–206, doi:10.1111/j International Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 98, p. 735– p. 1567–1594, doi:10.1139/e2012-075.
.1365-3091.1992.tb01034.x. 750, doi:10.1007/s00531-008-0354-8. Dingle, R.V., 1977, The anatomy of a large submarine slump
Alves, T.M., and Cartwright, J.A., 2009, Volume balance Campbell, D.C., and Mosher, D.C., 2010, Middle to late on a sheared continental margin (SE Africa): Journal
of a submarine landslide in the Espirito Santo Basin, Miocene slope failure and the generation of a regional of the Geological Society, v. 134, p. 293–310, doi:10
offshore Brazil: Quantifying seafloor erosion, sedi- unconformity beneath the western Scotian slope, east- .1144/gsjgs.134.3.0293.
ment accumulation and depletion: Earth and Planetary ern Canada, in Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, Dingle, R.V., 1980, Large allochthonous sediment masses
Science Letters, v. 288, p. 572–580, doi:10.1016/j.epsl L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, and their role in the construction of the continental
.2009.10.020. R., eds., Submarine Mass Movements and Their Conse- slope and rise off southwestern Africa: Marine Geology,
Amerman, R., Nelson, E., Gardner, M.H., and Trudgill, quences: Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and v. 37, p. 333–354, doi:10.1016/0025-3227(80)90109-7.
B., 2011, Submarine mass-transport deposits of the Technological Hazards Research, v. 28, p. 645–655. Dykstra, M., Kneller, B., and Milana, J.P., 2006, Deglacial
PermianCutoff Formation, West Texas, U.S.A.: In- Campbell, D.C., Shimeld, J.W., Mosher, D.C., and Piper, and postglacial sedimentary architecture in a deeply in-
ternal architecture and controls on overlying reser- J.W., 2004, Relationships between sediment mass- cised paleovalley-paleofjord—The Pennsylvanian (late
voir sand deposition, in Shipp, R.C., Weimer, P., and failure modes and magnitudes in the evolution of the Carboniferous) Jejenes Formation, San Juan, Argen-
Posamentier, H.W., eds., Mass Transport Deposits in Scotian slope, offshore Nova Scotia: Houston, Texas, tina: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 118,
Deepwater Settings: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Offshore Technology Conference Proceedings, OTC p. 913–937, doi:10.1130/B25810.1.
Geology) Special Publication 96, p. 235–267. 16743. Dykstra, M., Garyfalou, K., Kertznus, V., Kneller, B., Milana,
Armitage, D.A., Romans, B.W., Covault, J.A., and Graham, Cattaneo, A., Babonneau, N., Dan, G., Déverchère, J., J.P., Molinaro, M., Szuman, M., and Thompson, P.,
S.A., 2009, The influence of mass-transport-deposit Domzig, A., Gaullier, V., Lepillier, B., de Lépinary, 2011, Mass-transport deposits: Combining outcrop
surface topography on the evolution of turbidite archi- B.M., Nouguès, A., Strzerzynski, P., Sultan, N., and studies and seismic forward modeling to understand
tecture: The Sierra Contreras, Tres Pasos Formation Yelles, K., 2010, Submarine landslides along the Al- lithofacies distributions, deformation, and their seismic
(Cretaceous), southern Chile: Journal of Sedimentary gerian margin: A review of their occurrence and po- stratigraphic expression, in Shipp, R.C., Weimer, P., and
Research, v. 79, p. 287–301, doi:10.2110/jsr.2009.035. tential link with tectonic structures, in Mosher, D.C., Posamentier, H.W., eds., Mass Transport Deposits in
Arnott, R.W.C., Wallace, K., and Laurin, J., 2011, Stratal Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, Deepwater Settings: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary
architecture and temporal evolution of a passive margin C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine Geology) Special Publication 96, p. 293–310.
mass-transport deposit, Neoproterozoic Isaac Forma- Mass Movements and Their Consequences: Dordrecht, Frey-Martinez, J., Cartwright, J., and Hall, B., 2005, 3D seis-
tion, Cariboo Mountains, British Columbia, Canada, Springer, Advances in Natural and Technological Haz- mic interpretation of slump complexes: Examples from
in Shipp, R.C., Weimer, P., and Posamentier, H.W., ards Research, v. 28, p. 515–525. the continental margin of Israel: Basin Research, v. 17,
eds., Mass Transport Deposits in Deepwater Settings: Chaytor, J.D., Twichell, D.C., Lynett, P., and Geist, E.L., p. 83–108, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2005.00255.x.
SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Special 2010, Distribution and tsunamigenic potential of sub- Frey-Martinez, J., Cartwright, J., and James, D., 2006, Fron-
Publication 96, p. 221–234. marine landslides in the Gulf of Mexico, in Mosher, tally confined versus frontally emergent submarine
Ashabranner, L.B., Tripsanas, E.K., and Shipp, R.C., D.C., Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Bax- landslides: A 3D seismic characterisation: Marine and
2010, Multi-direction flow in a mass-transport de- ter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine Petroleum Geology, v. 23, p. 585–604, doi:10.1016/j
posit, SantosBasin, offshore Brazil, in Mosher, D.C., Mass Movements and Their Consequences: Dordrecht, .marpetgeo.2006.04.002.
Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, Springer, Advances in Natural and Technological Haz- Gamberi, F., Rovere, M., and Marani, M., 2011, Mass-trans-
C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine ards Research, v. 28, p. 745–754. port complex evolution in a tectonically active margin
Mass Movements and Their Consequences: Dordrecht, Chaytor, J.D., Twichell, D.C., and ten Brink, U.S., 2011, (Gioia Basin, southeastern Tyrrhenian Sea): Marine
Springer, Advances in Natural and Technological Haz- A reevaluation of the Munson-Nygren-Retriever sub- Geology, v. 279, p. 98–110, doi: 10.1016/j.margeo
ards Research, v. 28, p. 247–255. marine landslide complex, Georges Bank lower slope, .2010.10.015.
Ballance, P.F., 1964, The sedimentology of the Waitemata western North Atlantic, in Yamada, Y., Kawamura, K., Gaullier, V., Loncke, L., Droz, L., Basile, C., Maillard, A.,
Group in the Takapuna section, Auckland: New Zealand Ikehara, K., Ogawa, Y., Urgeles, R., Mosher, D., Chay- Patriat, M., Roest, W.R., Loubrieu, B., Folens, L., and
Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v. 7, p. 466–499. tor, J., and Strasser, M., eds., Submarine Mass Move- Carol, F., 2010, Slope instability on the French Guiana
Beaubouef, R.T., and Abreu, V., 2010, MTCs of the Brazos- ments and Their Consequences: Dordrecht, Springer, transform margin from swath-bathymetry and 3.5 kHz
Trinity Slope System: Thoughts on the sequence stra- Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Re- echograms, in Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli,
tigraphy of MTCs and their possible roles in shaping search, v. 31, p. 135–146. L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles,
hydrocarbon traps, in Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Mos- Collot, J.-Y., Lewis, K., and Lamarche, G., 2001, The giant R., eds., Submarine Mass Movements and Their Conse-
cardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., Ruatoria debris avalanche on the northern Hikurangi quences: Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and
and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine Mass Movements and margin, New Zealand: Result of oblique seamount Technological Hazards Research, v. 28, p. 569–579.
Their Consequences: Dordrecht, Springer, Advances subduction: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 106, Gee, M.J.R., Watts, A.B., Masson, D.G., and Mitchell, N.C.,
in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, v. 28, p. 19,271–19,297, doi:10.1029/2001JB900004. 2001, Landslides and the evolution of El Hierro in the
p. 475–490. Cook, H.E., McDaniel, P.N., Mountjoy, E.W., and Pray, L.C., Canary Islands: Marine Geology, v. 177, p. 271–293,
Blomeier, D.P.G., and Reijmer, J.J.G., 2002, Facies archi- 1972, Allochthonous carbonate debris flows at Devo- doi:10.1016/S0025-3227(01)00153-0.
tecture of an Early Jurassic carbonate platform slope nian bank (‘reef’) margins, Alberta, Canada: Bulletin Gee, M.J.R., Gawthorpe, R.L., and Friedmann, S.J., 2006,
(Jbel Bou Dahar, High Atlas, Morocco): Journal of of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 20, p. 439–497. Triggering and evolution of a giant submarine land-
Sedimentary Research, v. 72, p. 462–475, doi:10.1306 Corbett, K.D., 1973, Open-cast slump sheets and their rela- slide, offshore Angola, revealed by 3D seismic stra-
/111501720462. tionship to sandstone beds in an upper Cambrian flysch tigraphy and geomorphology: Journal of Sedimentary
Borgomano, J.R.F., 2000, The Upper Cretaceous carbonates sequence, Tasmania: Journal of Sedimentary Petrol- Research, v. 76, p. 9–19, doi:10.2110/jsr.2006.02.
of the Gargano-Murge region, southern Italy: A model ogy, v. 43, p. 147–159. Geersen, J., Völker, D., Behrmann, J.H., Reichert, C., and
of platform-to-basin transition: American Association Cossey, S.P.J., 2011, Mass-transport deposits in the upper Krastel, S., 2011, Pleistocene giant slope failures off-
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 84, p. 1561–1588. Paleocene Chicontepec Formation, Mexico, in Shipp, shore Arauco Peninsula, Southern Chile: Journal of the
Boudon, G., Le Friant, A., Komorowski, J.-C., Deplus, C., R.C., Weimer, P., and Posamentier, H.W., eds., Mass Geological Society, v. 168, p. 1237–1248, doi:10.1144
and Semet, M.P., 2007, Volcano flank instability in the Transport Deposits in Deepwater Settings: SEPM (So- /0016-76492011-027.
Lesser Antilles arc: Diversity of scale, processes, and ciety for Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication George, A.D., Playford, P.E., and Powell, C.M., 1995,
temporal recurrence: Journal of Geophysical Research, 96, p. 269–277. Platform-margin collapse during Famennian reef evo-
v. 112, B08205, doi:10.1029/2006JB004674. Dan, G., Sultan, N., Cattaneo, A., Déverchère, J., and Yelles, lution, Canning Basin, Western Australia: Geology,
Boyd, R., Keene, J., Hubble, T., Gardner, J., Glenn, K., K., 2010, Mass-transport deposits on the Algerian v. 23, p. 691–694, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1995)023
Ruming, K., Exon, N., and the crews of Southern Sur- margin (Algiers area): Morphology, lithology and sedi- <0691:PMCDFR>2.3.CO;2.
veyor 10/2006 and 12/2008, 2010, Southeast Australia: mentary processes, in Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Mos- Giles, M.K., Mosher, D.C., Piper, D.J.W., and Wach, G.D.,
A Cenozoic continental margin dominated by mass cardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., 2010, Mass transport deposits on the southwestern

Newfoundland slope, in Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., tralasia: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Offshore Technology Conference Proceedings,
Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, Special Publication 95, 79–98. OTC16780.
H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine Mass Move- King, P.R., Ilg, B.R., Arnot, M., Browne, G.H., Strachan, Meckel, L.D., 2011, Reservoir characteristics and classifica-
ments and Their Consequences: Dordrecht, Springer, L.J., Crundwell, M., and Helle, K., 2011, Outcrop tion of sand-prone submarine mass-transport deposits
Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Re- and seismic examples of mass-transport deposits in deepwater settings, in Shipp, R.C., Weimer, P., and
search, v. 28, p. 657–665. from a late Miocene deep-water succession, Taranaki Posamentier, H.W., eds., Mass Transport Deposits in
Goldfinger, C., Kulm, L.V.D., McNeill, L.C., and Watts, P., Basin, New Zealand, in Shipp, R.C., Weimer, P., and Deepwater Settings: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary
2000, Super-scale failure of the southern Oregon Cas- Posamentier, H.W., eds., Mass Transport Deposits in Geology) Special Publication 96, p. 423–452.
cadia margin: Pure and Applied Geophysics, v. 157, Deepwater Settings: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Meckel, L.D., Angelatos, M., Bonnie, J., McGarva, R.,
p. 1189–1226, doi:10.1007/s000240050023. Geology) Special Publication 96, p. 311–348. Almond, T., Marshall, N., Bourdon, L., and Aurisch,
Gómez-Pérez, I., Fernández-Mendiola, P.A., and García- Kleverlaan, K., 1987, Gordo megabed: A possible seis- K., 2011, Reservoir characterization of sand-prone
Mondéjar, J., 1999, Depositional architecture of a mite in a Tortonian submarine fan, Tabernas Basin, mass-transport deposits within slope canyons, in
rimmed carbonate platform (Albian, Gorbea, western Province Almeria, southeast Spain: Sedimentary Shipp, R.C., Weimer, P., and Posamentier, H.W., eds.,
Pyrenees): Sedimentology, v. 46, p. 337–356, doi:10 Geology, v. 51, p. 165–180, doi:10.1016/0037-0738 Mass Transport Deposits in Deepwater Settings: SEPM
.1046/j.1365-3091.1999.00217.x. (87)90047-9. (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication
Grajales-Nishimura, J.M., Cedillo-Pardo, E., Rosales- Krastel, S., Wynn, R.B., Georgiopoulou, A., Geersen, J., 96, p. 391–421.
Domínguez, C., Morán-Zenteno, D.J., Alvarez, W., Henrich, R., Meyer, M., and Schwenk, T., 2012, Large- Melim, L.A., and Scholle, P.A., 1995, The forereef facies of
Claeys, P., Ruíz-Morales, J., García-Hernández, J., scale mass wasting on the northwest African conti- the Permian Capitan Formation: The role of sediment
Padilla-Avila, P., and Sánchez-Ríos, A., 2000, Chicxu- nental margin: Some general implications for mass supply versus sea-level changes: Journal of Sedimen-
lub impact: The origin of reservoir and seal facies in wasting on passive continental margins, in Yamada, tary Research, v. 65, no. 1b, p. 107–118.
the southeastern Mexico oil fields: Geology, v. 28, Y., Kawamura, K., Ikehara, K., Ogawa, Y., Urgeles, R., Minisini, D., and Trincardi, F., 2009, Frequent failure of the
p. 307–310, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28<307: Mosher, D., Chaytor, J., and Strasser, M., eds., Sub- continental slope: The Gela Basin (Sicily channel):
CITOOR>2.0.CO;2. marine Mass Movements and Their Consequences: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 114, F03014, doi:
Gregory, M.R., 1969, Sedimentary features and penecon- Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and Techno- 10.1029/2008JF001037.
temporaneous slumping in the Waitemata Group, logical Hazards Research, v. 31, p. 189–199. Minisini, D., Trincardi, F., Asioli, A., Canu, M., and Foglini,
Whangaparaoa Peninsula, North Auckland, New Kuenen, P.H., 1948, Slumping in the Carboniferous rocks F., 2007, Morphologic variability of exposed mass-
Zealand: New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geo of Pembrokeshire: Quaternary Journal Geological So- transport deposits on the eastern slope of Gela Basin
physics, v. 12, p. 248–282, doi:1 0.1080/00288306 ciety of London, v. 104, p. 365–385, doi:10.1144/GSL (Sicily channel): Basin Research, v. 19, p. 217–240,
.1969.10420236. .JGS.1948.104.01-04.18. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2007.00324.x.
Haflidason, H., Lien, R., Sejrup, H.P., Forsberg, C.F., and Kvalatad, T.J., Gauer, P., Kayina, A.M., Nadim, F., and Bryn, Moore, D.G., Curray, J.R., and Emmel, F.J., 1976, Large
Bryn, P., 2005, The dating and morphometry of the P., 2002, Slope stability at Ormen Lange: Offshore site submarine slide (olistostrome) associated with Sunda
Storegga Slide: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 22, investigation and geotechnics, in Diversity and Sus- Arc subduction zone, northeast Indian Ocean: Marine
p. 123–136, doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2004.10.008. tainability, Proceedings of an International Confer- Geology, v. 21, p. 211–226, doi:10.1016/0025-3227
Hampton, M.A., Lee, H.J., and Locat, J., 1996, Submarine ence, London, 26–28 November, p. 233–250. (76)90060-8.
landslides: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 34, p. 33–59, Laird, M.G., 1968, Rotational slumps and slump scars in Moore, J.G., Clague, D.A., Holcomb, R.T., Lipman, P.W.,
doi:10.1029/95RG03287. Silurian rocks, western Ireland: Sedimentology, v. 10, Normark, W.R., and Torresan, M.E., 1989, Prodigious
Henrich, R., Hanebuth, T.J.J., Krastel, S., Neubert, N., p. 111–120, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091.1968.tb01103.x. submarine landslides on the Hawaiian ridge: Journal of
and Wynn, R.B., 2008, Architecture and sediment Lamarche, G., Joanne, C., and Collot, J.-Y., 2008, Succes- Geophysical Research, v. 94, p. 17,465–17,484, doi:10
dynamics of the Mauritania Slide Complex: Marine sive, large mass-transport deposits in the south Ker- .1029/JB094iB12p17465.
and Petroleum Geology, v. 25, p. 17–33, doi:10.1016/j madec fore-arc basin, New Zealand: The Matakaoa Morsilli, M., Rusciadelli, G., Vichi, G. and Bosellini, A.,
.marpetgeo.2007.05.008. Submarine Instability Complex: Geochemistry 2000, Gravity-driven processes: Controls on margin
Hine, A.C., Locker, S.D., Tedesco, L.P., Mullins, H.T., Hal- Geophysics Geosystems, v. 9, Q04001, doi:10.1029 architecture and slope evolution in a Cretaceous car-
lock, P., Belknap, D.F., Gonzalez, J.L., Neumann, A.C., /2007GC001843. bonate platform (Montagna della Maiella, Italy): Bali,
and Snyder, S.W., 1992, Megrabreccia shedding from Lastras, G., De Blasio, F.V., Canals, M., and El Verhøi, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Search
modern, low-relief carbonate platforms, Nicaraguan A., 2005, Conceptual and numerical modeling of the and Discovery Article #90913.
Rise: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 104, BIG’95 debris flow, western Mediterranean Sea: Jour- Moscardelli, L., and Wood, L., 2008, New classification sys-
p. 928–943, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1992)104<0928: nal of Sedimentary Research, v. 75, p. 784–797, doi:10 tem for mass transport complexes in offshore Trinidad:
MSFMLR>2.3.CO;2. .2110/jsr.2005.063. Basin Research, v. 20, p. 73–98, doi:10.1111/j.1365
Hjelstuen, B.O., Eldholm, O., and Faleide, J.I., 2007, Recur- Lee, C., Nott, J.A., and Keller, F.B., 2004, Seismic ex- -2117.2007.00340.x.
rent Pleistocene mega-failures on the SW Barents Sea pression of the Cenozoic mass transport complexes, Moscardelli, L., Wood, L., and Mann, P., 2006, Mass-
margin: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 258, deepwater Tarfaya-Agadir basin, offshore Morocco: transport complexes and associated processes in the
p. 605–618, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.04.025. Houston, Texas, Offshore Technology Conference Pro- offshore area of Trinidad and Venezuela: American
Holmes, R., Long, D., and Dodd, L.R., 1998, Large-scale ceedings, OTC16741. Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 90,
debrites and submarine landslides on the Barra Fan, Locat, J., ten Brink, U.S., and Chaytor, J.D., 2010, The block p. 1059–1088, doi:10.1306/02210605052.
west of Britain, in Stoker, M.S., Evans, D. and Cramp, composite submarine landslide, southern New England Mosher, D.C., Moscardelli, L., Shipp, R.C., Chaytor, J.D.,
A., eds., Geological Processes on Continental Mar- slope, U.S.A.: A morphological analysis, in Mosher, Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., 2010a, Sub-
gins: Sedimentation, Mass-Wasting and Stability: D.C., Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Bax- marine mass movements and their consequences, in
Geological Society of London Special Publication 129, ter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor,
p. 67–79. Mass Movements and Their Consequences: Dordrecht, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds.,
Hühnerbach, V., and Masson, D.G., 2004, Landslides in the Springer, Advances in Natural and Technological Haz- Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences:
North Atlantic and its adjacent seas: An analysis of ards Research, v. 28, p.267–277. Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and Techno-
their morphology, setting and behaviour: Marine Geol Macdonald, D.I.M., Moncrieff, A.C.M., and Butterworth, logical Hazards Research, v. 28, p. 1–8.
ogy, v. 213, p. 343–362, doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2004.10 P.J., 1993, Giant slide deposits from a Mesozoic fore- Mosher, D.C., Xu, Z., and Shimeld, J., 2010b, The Pliocene
.013. arc basin, Alexander Island, Antarctica: Geology, Shelburne mass-movement and consequent tsunami,
Imbo, Y., De Batist, M., Canals, M., Prieto, M.J., and v. 21, p. 1047–1050, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1993)021 western Scotian slope, in Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C.,
Baraza, J., 2003, The Gebra Slide: A submarine slide <1047:GSDFAM>2.3.CO;2. Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee,
on the Trinity Peninsula margin, Antarctica: Marine Maslin, M., Vilela, C., Mikkelsen, N., and Grootes, P., 2005, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine Mass Move-
Geology, v. 193, p. 235–252, doi:10.1016/S0025-3227 Causes of catastrophic sediment failures of the Ama- ments and Their Consequences: Dordrecht, Springer,
(02)00664-3. zon fan: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 24, p. 2180– Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Re-
Jansa, L.F., Pepiper, G., Robertson, P.B., and Friedenreich, 2193, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.01.016. search, v. 28, p. 765–775.
O., 1989, Montagnais: A submarine impact structure Masson, D.G., Canals, M., Alonso, B., Urgeles, R., and Mosher, D.C., Shimeld, J., Hutchinson, D., Lebedeva-
on the Scotian shelf, eastern Canada: Geological So- Huhnerb ach, V., 1998, The Canary Debris Flow: Ivanova, N., and Chapman, C.B., 2012, Submarine
ciety of America Bulletin, v. 101, p. 450–463, doi: Source area morphology and failure mechanisms: landslides in Arctic sedimentation: Canada basin, in
10.1130/0016-7606(1989)101<0450:MASISO>2.3 Sedimentology, v. 45, p. 411–432, doi:10.1046/j.1365 Yamada, Y., Kawamura, K., Ikehara, K., Ogawa, Y.,
.CO;2. -3091.1998.0165f.x. Urgeles, R., Mosher, D., Chaytor, J., and Strasser, M.,
Janson, X., Eberli, G.P., Lomando, A.J., and Bonnaffé, F., McAdoo, B.G., Pratson, L.F., and Orange, D.L., 2000, eds., Submarine Mass Movements and Their Conse-
2010, Seismic characterization of large-scale platform- Submarine landslide geomorphology, US continental quences: Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and
margin collapse along the Zhujiang carbonate platform slope: Marine Geology, v. 169, p. 103–136, doi:10 Technological Hazards Research, v. 31, p. 147–157.
(Miocene) of the South China Sea, based on Miocene .1016/S0025-3227(00)00050-5. Mullins, H.T., Gardulski, A.F., and Hine, A., 1986, Cata-
outcrop analogs from Mut basin, Turkey, in Morgan, McGilvery, T.A., Haddad, G., and Cook, D.L., 2004, Sea- strophic collapse of the west Florida carbonate plat-
W.A., George, A.D., Harris, P.M., Kupecz, J.A. and floor and shallow subsurface examples of mass transform margin: Geology, v. 14, p. 167–170, doi:10.1130
Sarg, J.F., eds., Cenozoic Carbonate Systems of Aus- port complexes, offshore Brunei: Houston, Texas, /0091-7613(1986)14<167:CCOTWF>2.0.CO;2.

Mullins, H.T., Dolan, J., Breen, N., Andersen, B., Gaylord, Playford, P.E., 1980, Devonian “Great Barrier Reef” of Can- deep of Sicily: Geo-Marine Letters, v. 10, p. 13–21,
M., Petruccione, J.L., Wellner, R.W., Melillo, A.J., ning basin, Western Australia: American Association doi:10.1007/BF02431017.
and Jurgens, A.D., 1991, Retreat of carbonate plat- of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 64, p. 814–840. Tripsanas, E.K., Piper, D.J.W., Jenner, K.A., and Bryant,
forms: Response to tectonic processes: Geology, v. 19, Ratzov, G., Collot, J.-Y., Sosson, M., and Migeon, S., 2010, W.R., 2008, Submarine mass-transport facies: New
p. 1089–1092, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1991)019 Mass-transport deposits in the northern Ecuador sub- perspectives on flow processes from cores on the east-
<1089:ROCPRT>2.3.CO;2. duction trench: Result of frontal erosion over multiple ern North American margin: Sedimentology, v. 55,
Naruse, H., and Otsubo, M., 2011, Heterogeneity of inter- seismic cycles: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, p. 97–136.
nal structures in a mass-transport deposit, upper Cre- v. 296, p. 89–102, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.04.048. Urgeles, R., Lastras, G., Canals, M., Willmott, V., Moreno,
taceous to Paleocene Akkeshi Formation, Hokkaido Rogers, K.G., and Goodbred, S.L., 2010, Mass failures asso A., Casas, D., Baraza, J., and Berné, S., 2003, The
island, northern Japan, in Shipp, R.C., Weimer, P., and ciated with the passage of a large tropical cyclone over BIG’95 debris flow and adjacent unfailed Sediments
Posamentier, H.W., eds., Mass Transport Deposits in the Swatch of No Ground submarine canyon (Bay of in the NW Mediterranean Sea: Geotechnical-sedimen-
Deepwater Settings: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Bengal): Geology, v. 38, p. 1051–1054, doi:10.1130 tological properties, and age dating, in Locat, J., and
Geology) Special Publication 96, p. 279–290. /G31181.1. Miebert, J., eds., Submarine Mass Movements and
Newton, C.S., Shipp, R.C., and Wach, G.D., 2004, Im- Romero-Otero, G.A., Slatt, R.M., and Pirmez, C., 2010, Their Consequences: Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
portance of mass transport complexes in the Quater- Detached and shelf-attached mass transport complexes Kluwer Academic Publishers, Advances in Natural and
nary development of the Nile Fan, Egypt: Houston, on the Magdalena deepwater fan, in Mosher, D.C., Technological Hazards Research, v. 19, p. 479–487.
Texas, Offshore Technology Conference Proceedings, Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, Voight, B., Le Friant, A., Boudon, G., Deplus, C.,
OTC16742. C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine Komorowski, J.C., Lebas, E., Sparks, R.S.J., Talling,
Niemi, T.M., Ben-Avraham, Z., Hartnady, C.J.H., and Mass Movements and Their Consequences: Dordrecht, P., and Trofimovs, J., 2012, Undrained sediment load-
Reznikov, M., 2000, Post-Eocene seismic stratigraphy Springer, Advances in Natural and Technological Haz- ing key to long-runout submarine mass movements:
of the deep ocean basin adjacent to the southeast Afri- ards Research, v. 28, p. 593–606. Evidence from the Caribbean volcanic arc, in Yamada,
can continental margin: A record of geostrophic bottom Sayago-Gil, M., Long, D., Fernandez-Salas, L.M., Hitchen, Y., Kawamura, K., Ikehara, K., Ogawa, Y., Urgeles, R.,
current systems: Marine Geology, v. 162, p. 237–258, K., Lopez-Gonzalez, N., Diaz-del-Rio, V., and Duran- Mosher, D., Chaytor, J., and Strasser, M., eds., Sub-
doi:10.1016/S0025-3227(99)00062-6. Munoz, P., 2010, Geomorphology of the Talismán Slide marine Mass Movements and Their Consequences:
Norris, R.D., Firth, J., Blusztajn, J.S., and Ravizza, G., 2000, (Western slope of Hatton Bank, NE Atlantic Ocean), in Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and Techno-
Mass failure of the North Atlantic margin triggered by Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, logical Hazards Research, v. 31, p. 417–428.
the Cretaceous-Paleogene bolide impact: Geology, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Wilson, C.K., Long, D., and Bulat, J., 2004, The morphol-
v. 28, p. 1119–1122, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28 Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences: ogy, setting and processes of the Afen Slide: Marine
<1119:MFOTNA>2.0.CO;2. Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and Techno- Geology, v. 213, p. 149–167, doi: 10
.1016/j
.margeo
Nouguès, A., Sultan, N., Cattaneo, A., Dan, G., Yelles, K., logical Hazards Research, v. 28, p. 289–300. .2004.10.005.
and PRISME Team, 2010, Detailed analysis of a sub- Smith, B.M., Deptuck, M.E., and Kendell, K.L., 2010, Woodcock, N.H., 1979, Sizes of submarine slides and
marine landslide (SAR-27) in the deep basin offshore Upper Cretaceous mass transport systems above the their significance: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 1,
Algiers (western Mediterranean), in Mosher, D.C., Wyandot Formation Chalk, offshore Nova Scotia, in p. 137–142, doi:10.1016/0191-8141(79)90050-6.
Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, Wynn, R.B., Masson, D.G., Stow, D.A.V., and Weaver,
C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., P.P.E., 2000, The Northwest African slope apron: A
Mass Movements and Their Consequences: Dordrecht, Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences: modern analogue for deep-water systems with com-
Springer, Advances in Natural and Technological Haz- Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and Techno- plex seafloor topography: Marine and Petroleum
ards Research, v. 28, p. 541–552. logical Hazards Research, v. 28, p. 619–630. Geology, v. 17, p. 253–265, doi:10.1016/S0264-8172
Nygård, A., Sejrup, H.P., Haflidason, H., and Bryn, P., Solheim, A., Nerg, K., Forsberg, C.F., and Bryn, P., 2005, (99)00014-8.
2005, The glacial North Sea Fan, southern Norwegian The Storegga Slide complex: Repetitive large scale Wynn, R.B., Talling, P.J., Masson, D.G., Stevenson, C.J.,
margin: Architecture and evolution from the upper sliding with similar cause and development: Marine Cronin, B.T., and Le Bas, T.P., 2010, Investigating the
continental slope to the deep-sea basin: Marine and and Petroleum Geology, v. 22, p. 97–107, doi:10.1016 timing, processes and deposits of one of the world’s
Petroleum Geology, v. 22, p. 71–84, doi:10.1016/j /j.marpetgeo.2004.10.013. largest submarine gravity flows: The ‘Bed 5 event’ off
.marpetgeo.2004.12.001. Stewart, W.D., Dixon, O.A., and Rust, B.R., 1993, Middle northwest Africa, in Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Mos-
Owen, M., Day, S., Long, D., and Maslin, M., 2010, Investi- Cambrian carbonate-platform collapse, southeast- cardelli, L., Chaytor, J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J.,
gations on the Peach 4 Debrite, a Late Pleistocene mass ern Canadian Rocky Mountains: Geology, v. 21, and Urgeles, R., eds., Submarine Mass Movements and
movement on the northwest British continental margin, p. 687–690, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1993)021<0687: Their Consequences: Dordrecht, Springer, Advances
in Mosher, D.C., Shipp, R.C., Moscardelli, L., Chaytor, MCCPCS>2.3.CO;2. in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, v. 28,
J.D., Baxter, C.D.P., Lee, H.J., and Urgeles, R., eds., Surlyk, F., and Ineson, J.R., 1992, Carbonate gravity flow p. 463–474.
Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences: deposition along a platform margin scarp (Silurian, Zampetti, V., Schlager, W., van Konijnenburg, J.-H., and
Dordrecht, Springer, Advances in Natural and Techno- north Greenland): Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Everts, A.-J., 2004, 3-D seismic characterization of
logical Hazards Research, v. 28, p. 301–311. v. 62, p. 400–410. submarine landslides on a Miocene carbonate plat-
Peel, F.J., Travis, C.J., and Hossack, J.R., 1995, Genetic Syvitski, J.P.M., and Schafer, C.T., 1996, Evidence for an form (Luconia province, Malaysia): Journal of Sedi-
structural provinces and salt tectonics of the Cenozoic earthquake-triggered basin collapse in Saguenay Fjord, mentary Research, v. 74, p. 817–830, doi:10.1306
offshore US Gulf of Mexico: A preliminary analysis, in Canada: Sedimentary Geology, v. 104, p. 127–153, doi: /040604740817.
Jackson, M.P.A., Roberts, D.G., and Snelson, S., Salt 10.1016/0037-0738(95)00125-5.
Tectonics: A Global Perspective: American Associa- Torelli, L., Sartori, R., and Zitellini, N., 1997, The giant Science Editor: Christian Koeberl
tion of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 65, p. 153–175. chaotic body in the Atlantic Ocean off Gibraltar: New Associate Editor: Henning Dypvic
Piper, D.J.W., Pirmez, C., Manley, P.L., Long, D., Flood, results from a deep seismic reflection survey: Marine
Manuscript Received 14 October 2014
R.D., Normark, W.R., and Showers, W., 1997, Mass and Petroleum Geology, v. 14, p. 125–138, doi:10.1016 Revised Manuscript Received 11 May 2015
transport deposits of the Amazon fan, in Proceedings /S0264-8172(96)00060-8. Manuscript Accepted 9 June 2015
of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, Col- Trincardi, F., and Argnani, A., 1990, Gela submarine slide:
lege Station, Texas, Volume 155: p. 109–146. A major basin-wide event in the Plio-Quaternary fore- Printed in the USA

Geological Society of America Bulletin

Lorena Moscardelli and Lesli Wood
Geological Society of America Bulletin published online 8 July 2015;

doi: 10.1130/B31221.1
Email alerting services click www.gsapubs.org/cgi/alerts to receive free e-mail alerts when new
articles cite this article
Subscribe click www.gsapubs.org/subscriptions/ to subscribe to Geological Society of
America Bulletin
Permission request click http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/copyrt.htm#gsa to contact GSA
Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of
their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further
requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in subsequent
works and to make unlimited copies of items in GSA's journals for noncommercial use in classrooms
to further education and science. This file may not be posted to any Web site, but authors may post
the abstracts only of their articles on their own or their organization's Web site providing the posting
includes a reference to the article's full citation. GSA provides this and other forums for the
presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race,
citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect
official positions of the Society.
Notes
Advance online articles have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not
yet appeared in the paper journal (edited, typeset versions may be posted when available
prior to final publication). Advance online articles are citable and establish publication
priority; they are indexed by GeoRef from initial publication. Citations to Advance online
articles must include the digital object identifier (DOIs) and date of initial publication.
Copyright © 2015 Geological Society of America
View publication stats

Moscardelli and Wood 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moscardelli and Wood 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Morphometry of mass-transport deposits as a predictive tool

Article in Geological Society of America Bulletin · July 2015

Lorena Moscardelli Lesli Wood

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sealing Capacity of Mass Transport Deposits View project

Seismic Geomorphology of Reservoir Systems in Rift Basins View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Morphometry of mass-transport deposits

Morphometry of mass-transport deposits as a predictive tool

Lorena Moscardelli† and Lesli Wood§

For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org

West Atlantic margin

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

44 Flow 21 341.02 30 13.88 4.73

East Atlantic margin

79 I 123.8 12.5 – 7.43

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

89 Peach 1 debrite – 250 – 823 Pleistocene

East Atlantic margin (continued)

122 Blanco slide 2713 65 – – 1209–1137 ka

East Pacific margin

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

West Pacific margin

Gulf of Mexico (GOM)

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

Volcanic islands (continued)

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

Nova Scotia / Jansa et al., 1989;

West Atlantic margin

238 G8 0.7 1 29 0.02 Passive margin 5700 to 2200 yr

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

East Atlantic margin

249 Afen slide, stage 1 48 12 8 0.142

South China Sea

West Pacific region

268 Oregon_Q 13 2.4 23 0.3

East Pacific margin

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

284 California_O 56 28 98 5.5

East Pacific margin (continued)

316 GOM_R 10.3 3 83 0.8

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

Gulf of Mexico (GOM)

Central Gulf of Mexico

327 GOM_X 55 7.1 72 5.1

Moscardelli and Wood

meaningful database. In addition, a few data

10 Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

Case studies (this work)

Moscardelli and Wood

TABLE 2. LENGTH AND THICKNESS FOR SILICICLASTIC MASS-TRANSPORT DEPOSITS AND

12 Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX

Morphometry of mass-transport deposits

DETACHED MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSITS ATTACHED MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSITS

Earthquakes and Tectonism

Mud/Salt Ridges Sea Level

High Sedimentation Rates (Big Deltas)

Thrust Core Structures

Instabilities Upper Slope Volcanic Islands Meteorite Impacts

Area (A) (km 2 )

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 1XX, no. XX/XX 13

Moscardelli and Wood

epresentative events within zone 3 are the