Accepted Manuscript

Contrasting storm- versus tsunami-related shell beds in shallow-

water ramps

Ángel Puga-Bernabéu, Julio Aguirre

PII: S0031-0182(17)30082-2
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.01.033
Reference: PALAEO 8172
To appear in: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Received date: 21 July 2016
Revised date: 19 January 2017
Accepted date: 23 January 2017

Please cite this article as: Ángel Puga-Bernabéu, Julio Aguirre , Contrasting storm- versus
tsunami-related shell beds in shallow-water ramps. The address for the corresponding
author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate.
Palaeo(2016), doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.01.033

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Contrasting storm- versus tsunami-related shell beds in

shallow-water ramps

Ángel Puga-Bernabéu and Julio Aguirre

PT
Departamento de Estratigrafía y Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias, Campus de

Fuentenueva s.n., Universidad de Granada, 18002 Granada, Spain

RI
(angelpb@ugr.es; jaguirre@ugr.es)

SC
NU
Abstract
MA

Shell beds are sedimentary features that can potentially provide significant
ED

palaeoenvironmental and sequence stratigraphic information. High-energy events, such

as storms/hurricanes and tsunamis, might originate sedimentary shell beds due to either
PT

landward-incoming waves or basinward backwash flows. Many papers have dealt with
CE

the taphonomic characterization of storm shell beds (= tempestites) along

palaeobathymetric gradients. On the contrary, only a few taphonomic studies have

AC

examined the skeletal remains deposited in tsunami shell beds (= tsunamiites). These

studies seek to differentiate taphonomic traits of skeletal remains in tempestites and

tsunamiites. These assessments are restricted to tsunamiites deposited inland in

connection with historically well-known tsunami events. To date, no studies of tsunami

shell beds deposited offshore are available in the literature and, consequently, whether

taphonomic attributes can be used to separate storm and tsunami shell beds deposited

along the shelf remain to be demonstrated. In the Sorbas Basin (SE Spain), uppermost

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Tortonian-lowermost Messinian temperate-water carbonate ramp deposits record shell

beds attributed to storm events and one thick shell bed interpreted as a tsunamiite. A

quantitative taphonomic study allows the differentiation of bioclastic tempestites and

tsunamiites deposited on the ramp: 1) Tsunamiites are characterized by a mixture of

organisms coming from different parts along the ramp (from inner to outer ramp), while

tempestites include closely spaced organisms; 2) fragmentation is higher in tempestites

PT
than in tsunamiites; 3) shell fragments are predominantly rounded in tempestites but

RI
preferentially sharp in tsunamiites; 4) skeletal remains are preferentially oriented

SC
horizontally (< 30º with respect to stratification) in tempestites, while obliquely

(between 30º and 60º) and perpendicularly (> 60º) in tsunamiites; 5) concave shells tend
NU
to be concave-up stacked in tempestites but chaotically arranged in tsunamiites; 6)

encrustation and borings are more abundant in tempestites than in tsunamiites. The
MA

intensity and scale of the depositional mechanisms associated with high-energy events,

storms vs. tsunamis, account for the different preservation styles of shells. The key
ED

taphonomic features identified in this study help to discriminate offshore shell beds

originated either by storms or tsunamis in other geological contexts regardless of the

PT

age and the geography, and contributes to the understanding of the scarce examples of
CE

fully marine shelly tsunami deposits.

AC

Keywords: Carbonate ramp, Shell beds, Taphonomic attributes, Azagador Member,

Late Miocene, Sorbas Basin

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

Shell beds are discrete layers formed by the dense concentrations of skeletal remains

(Kidwell, 1985, 1986, 1991a). In the last three decades, interest has increased in the

analysis of shell beds because: 1) they provide significant palaeoenvironmental

implications, and 2) they are relevant in sequence stratigraphy (e.g. Kidwell, 1988,

1989, 1991a, 1991b, 1993; Fürsich, 1995; Aguirre and Yesares-García, 2003; Aguirre

PT
and Mendez-Chazarra, 2010; Patzkowsky and Holland, 2012). The formation of shell

RI
beds is the result of different processes that can be categorized in three end-members,

SC
biogenic, sedimentological or diagenetic, on a triangular diagram (Kidwell et al., 1986).

Within this genetic classification scheme, sedimentological shell beds formed due to
NU
physical processes, mostly linked to high-energy hydraulic events (e.g. Davies et al.,

1989; Boyajian and Thayer, 1995; Dattilo et al., 2008), as well as due to sediment
MA

starvation or bypass, resulting in a net concentration of mineralized skeletons on the sea

floor, such as hiatal concentrations (Beckvar and Kidwell, 1988; Kidwell, 1989, 1991b,
ED

1993; Rivas et al., 1997).

Storms, hurricanes, and tsunamis are high-energy hydraulic events that can
PT

potentially generate sedimentological shell beds. Storms generate downwelling and

CE

offshore flows that might originate discrete shell beds, the so-called storm beds or

tempestites, along the platform (Aigner, 1985; Nummedal, 1991; Seilacher and Aigner,
AC

1991; Héquette and Hill, 1993). Storms, as well as higher-energy processes such as

hurricanes and tsunamis, may also give rise to net sediment transport and deposition

towards the coast along shallow-marine and further onshore settings. These events

produce sheet-like washover deposits and boulder accumulations, which may also

include skeletal remains, in nearshore marine settings such as protected bays, tidal

inlets, reef flats, and lagoons (e.g. Davies et al., 1989; Scoffin, 1993; Goff et al., 2004;

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Donato et al., 2008; Massari et al., 2009; Scheffer et al., 2009; Spiske and Jaffe, 2009;

Caron, 2012; Hawkes and Horton, 2012; Reinhardt et al., 2012; Klostermann et al.,

2014) or onshore settings such as marshes, cheniers and coastal plains (e.g. Moore et al.,

2006; Williams, 2011; Bahlburg and Spiske, 2012; Ercolani, 2014; Rodríguez-Ramirez

et al., 2015). In deeper parts of the platform, in addition to net transport and

sedimentation of skeletal remains, storms/hurricanes as well as tsunamis may also

PT
winnow fine-grained particles, leaving coarser ones (e.g. shells) concentrated on the sea

RI
bottom often capping ravinement surfaces (e.g. Anderson and McBride, 1996). The

SC
sediment transported by the backflows may bury these shell concentrations, forming lag

deposits.
NU
Recent and fossil examples of storm-related marine shell-beds have been intensively

studied (e.g. Aigner, 1985; Seilacher and Aigner, 1991, Molina et al., 1997; Bressan and
MA

Palma, 2010; Dattilo et al., 2012), providing diagnostic sedimentologic and taphonomic

characteristics that can be summarized as follows: a) sharp basal and top contacts with
ED

the embedded sediments; b) erosive or planar bases; c) normal size grading; d) shells

stacked convex-up; e) poor to good size sorting; f) poorly to well-preserved bioclasts; g)

PT

sharp and rounded edges of shell fragments; h) frequent amalgamation (in proximal
CE

tempestites). These features can also be seen in shell beds related to hurricanes and

typhoons both in marine and onshore settings (Davies et al., 1989; Scheffers et al.,
AC

2009; Williams, 2011).

Concerning tsunami-emplaced deposits, the hydrodynamics of the tsunami water

mass differ from those of storms (Bryant, 2008; Shiki et al., 2008a), for example: 1)

larger wavelength; 2) longer wave period; 3) the kinetic energy of the wave is evenly

distributed throughout the water column; 4) larger wave run-up; 5) fewer number of

waves. These hydrodynamic differences have large influence in the distinctive

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

sedimentary features resulting from such intense events, although some

sedimentological criteria may be equivocal if they are considered alone (see recent

summaries in Morton et al., 2007; Shiki et al., 2008b; Sugawara et al., 2008; Engel and

Brückner, 2011; Shanmugam, 2012; Engel et al., 2016).: In onshore settings,

sedimentary characteristics may include for example: 1) tabular and landward-thinning

beds filling and adapting to the antecedent topography in cross-shore section

PT
(Gelfenbaum and Jaffe, 2003); 2) common rip-up clasts (Morton et al., 2008;

RI
Takashimizu et al., 2012); 3) better sorting of sandy deposits (Nanayama et al., 2000).

SC
Distinctive features in marine settings may comprise: 1) the longer transport distance of

large boulders emplaced during the run-up due to different wave periods between
NU
tsunamis and storms (Goto et al., 2010); 2) large-scale scour-and-fill structures (Massari

and D’Alessandro, 2000; Rossetti et al., 2000); 3) sand injections and dikes penetrating
MA

the underlying strata, commonly associated with large intraclasts (Le Roux and Vargas,

2005); 4) Condensed mud or organic bed in the upper part of the deposit (Fujino et al.,
ED

2006); 5) Extensive covering of seafloor areas in the case of tsunamigenic turbidites

(Arai et el., 2013); 6) uncommon terrestrial material or chemical signals, such as tree
PT

trunks, coconuts or terrestrial organic material are sometimes used as indicator for
CE

tsunami backwash sediments (Balance et al., 1981; Paris et al., 2010; Pongpiachan,

2014). The great majority of these studies have focused on sedimentary processes of
AC

siliciclastic tsunamigenic deposits. However, relatively little attention has been paid to

the taphonomic behaviour of the shelly material accumulated in tsunamiites. Several

works have analysed the effects of tsunamis on shelly material and the resulting

taphonomic features to distinguish them from the features produced by storms (e.g.

Massari and D’Alessandro, 2000; Reinhardt et al., 2006, 2012; Donato et al., 2008,

2009; Massari et al., 2009; Caron, 2011, 2012). In terms of skeletal preservation,

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Donato et al. (2008) concluded that tsunami-related shelly deposits are characterized by

the abundance of reworked allochthonous articulated bivalves and the dominance of

angular fragmentation. Caron (2011), however, questioned these criteria and considered

them equivocal since the same features may be also seen in storm beds. Caron (2012;

his Table 3) indicated up to eight key taphonomic features useful to discriminate

between storm- and tsunami-related shell beds. Nonetheless, most of these taphonomic

PT
traits are inconclusive since they can be found in both types of shell beds.

RI
The overlapping of taphonomic attributes in storm- and tsunami-linked shelly

SC
deposits shows that the challenging question of distinguishing among shell beds

produced by hydrodynamic processes of largely varying hydrodynamic intensity, i.e.

NU
storms vs. tsunamis, is still open. One of the caveats is that most studies are based on

deposits linked to historically known tsunami events, and thus the interpretation of
MA

ancient high-energy deposits not being clearly correlated with tsunami events is still

unsolved (Caron, 2011). Furthermore, taphonomic results from such studies are valid
ED

only for shell beds formed inland by the incoming tsunami or storm waves (Dawson and

Stewart, 2007, 2008). In fact, in the geological record, the best-known tsunami-related
PT

shell-bed deposits correspond to distinct layers intercalated in lagoon or bay sediments

CE

(Massari and D’Alessandro, 2000; Massari et al., 2009; Varela et al., 2011; Rodríguez-

Ramírez et al., 2015). However, surge currents after tsunamis lead to the deposition of
AC

the reworked sediment on the shelf, within the depositional context where storm beds

may also form (see examples in Dawson and Stewart, 2007, 2008). Inaccessibility to

offshore settings in order to study recent tsunamiites seems to be one of the factors

hampering their study in deep-water conditions. Dawson and Stewart (2007, 2008)

compiled numerous examples of possible tsunami deposits in the ancient geological

record, although all of them deal with siliciclastic tsunamiites. There are so far very few

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

taphonomic studies of fossil tsunami-related shell beds on the continental shelf or

analyses of the taphonomic distinction between storm- and tsunami-related shell beds in

these shallow marine settings (Harzhauser et al., 2015).

In the Sorbas Basin (SE Spain; Fig. 1a), the uppermost Tortonian-lowermost

Messinian Azagador Member comprises temperate-water ramp carbonates that include

tsunami deposits (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007b). The sedimentary record of these

PT
tsunami deposits differs between the northern and southern margins of the basin. In the

RI
northern margin, inflow tsunami waves brought about erosion and local deformation of

SC
unlithified sediments, while backflow currents filled up the erosional surface with

reworked particles, forming distinctive megahummocks. In the southern margin, inflow

NU
currents eroded throughout the whole ramp, reworking sediments from the outer- and

inner-ramp factories, and subsequent backward surges led to the deposition of an

MA

abnormally thick shell bed in the outer ramp, which has an homogenous thickness (50-

60 cm), an irregular bottom and an irregular but undulated top, and it is laterally
ED

extensive in a proximal-distal transect. In the southern margin, thinner shell

concentrations interpreted as storm-bed deposits also occurred (Puga-Bernabéu et al.,

PT

2007 a, b). The tsunami was probably related to seismic events recorded in the adjacent
CE

Tabernas Basin as several coeval seismites but it is uncertain whether the tsunamigenic

deposits formed under the same event as suggested from their similar stratigraphic
AC

position or whether they were generated by different tsunamis (Puga-Bernabéu et al.,

2007b). Another open question is whether the thick shell bed conclusively represents a

tsunami deposit or whether it may represent amalgamated storm/unusually intense

storm deposits.

In this paper, we perform a taphonomic analysis of the shell beds deposited in the

carbonate ramp at the southern margin of the Sorbas Basin in order to investigate the

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

processes involved in their formation. The main objectives are: 1) to characterize the

different shell beds based on their taphonomic signatures; 2) to compare them in the

same sections and materials, where they are exceptionally well exposed; and, 3) to

elucidate the key factors controlling the taphonomic signatures. We explore these issues

to identify key taphonomic features in order to discriminate offshore shell beds

originated either by storms or tsunamis in other geological contexts regardless of the

PT
age and the geography. Furthermore, this study contributes to the understanding of the

RI
scarce examples of fully marine shelly tsunami deposits.

SC
2. Location and geological setting
NU
The Sorbas Basin is a Neogene, Mediterranean-linked intermontane basin bounded

by the Sierra de los Filabres to the north and Sierra Alhamilla and Sierra Cabrera to the
MA

south (Fig. 1b). These surrounding high elevation regions are made up of metamorphic

rocks belonging to the Internal Zones of the Betic Cordillera, which also form the
ED

basement of the basin. The Sorbas Basin is connected with the Tabernas Basin to the

west and with the Vera Basin to the east.

PT

The sedimentary infill of the Sorbas Basin ranges from middle Miocene to
CE

Pleistocene (Ott d’Estevou and Montenat, 1990; Mather, 1993; Martín and Braga, 1994;

Fig. 1c). The uppermost Tortonian–Messinian sedimentary record of the basin can be
AC

divided into three sets of materials, i.e. pre-evaporitic, evaporitic, and post-evaporitic

deposits, according with their stratigraphic position with respect to the gypsum beds of

the so-called Yesares Member of Ruegg (1964). Pre-evaporitic deposition began with

temperate-water carbonates (Azagador Member; Ruegg, 1964) on the basin margins,

which change upwards and laterally towards the centre of the basin to silt and marls of

the lower Abad Member (Ruegg, 1964). Overlying the Azagador carbonates, two

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

tropical carbonate units, the Bioherm Unit and the Fringing Reef Unit (Riding et al.,

1991a; Martín and Braga, 1994; Braga and Martín, 1996), were unconformably

deposited on the basin margins. These carbonates change towards the centre of the basin

to diatomitic marls of the upper Abad Member. The evaporites of the Yesares Member

(Ruegg, 1964), consisting of thick gypsum beds alternating with laminated marl beds,

unconformably overlay the Abad marls in the centre of the basin. Upwards, the Yesares

PT
Member changes gradually to silt and marl of the post-evaporitic deposits in the centre

RI
of the basin, the so-called Sorbas Member (Ruegg, 164). Towards the margins, the

SC
Sorbas Member shifts to terrigenous deposits with intercalated carbonates,

stromatolites, and coral patch-reefs of the Terminal Complex (Riding et al., 1991b;
NU
Martín et al., 1993; Martín and Braga, 1994; Braga et al., 1995). Finally, fluvial and

lake deposits of the Zorreras Member of Ruegg (1964) end the Messinian record of the
MA

Sorbas Basin.

The study deposits belong to the Azagador Member, latest Tortonian-earliest

ED

Messinian in age, which consists of bioclastic calcarenites and calcirudites with variable

terrigenous content. The Azagador carbonates are dominated by coralline red algae,
PT

bivalves, bryozoans, brachiopods, benthic foraminifers, and echinoids. This bioclastic

CE

assemblage is typical of the heterozoan carbonates of James (1997). Stable oxygen

isotope data obtained from planktonic and benthic foraminifer tests collected in the
AC

laterally equivalent lower Abad marls corroborate the temperate nature of the Azagador

carbonates (Sánchez-Almazo et al., 2001; Martín et al., 2010). Along the northern

margin of the Sorbas Basin, the Azagador carbonates were deposited on steepened

ramps formed over an irregular palaeorelief while in the southern margin carbonates

formed in a gentle ramp (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a, b; Fig. 2). During the deposition

of the Azagador Member, the Sorbas Basin was a semi-confined, marine basin with no

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

significant oceanic influence, and thus sheltered from high-energy atmospheric

processes such as hurricanes. However, the southern margin was probably affected by

the dominant eastern storms (Fig. 2) as it occurs along the present-day western coast of

the Almería province, <25 km to the east of the study outcrops. Storm beds are present

only along the southern margin while the tsunami-related deposits are recorded both in

the northern and in the southern margins of the basin (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a, b,

PT
2014). Therefore, we have focused this study on the southern margin, where it is

RI
possible to compare the taphonomic signatures between the different shell beds.

SC
3. Materials and methods
NU
We logged three stratigraphic sections distributed along a proximal-distal transect in

order to identify diagnostic changes in the taphonomic attributes of the different shell
MA

concentrations depending on the water depth (Fig. 2). From proximal to distal areas,

sections are El Cerrón, Cerro Molatas, and Molino del Río Aguas (Fig. 3). Taphonomic
ED

analysis was performed following a quantitative approach according to the methodology

described by Yesares-García and Aguirre (2004). We quantified several taphonomic

PT

attributes: 1) shell density (number of bioclasts per rock volume), 2) size sorting, 3)
CE

fragmentation, 4) articulation, 5) edge roundness-sharpness (an indication of abrasion),

6) epi-infauna (encrusting and borings) infestation, 7) shell mineralogy, 8) angle of

AC

shells with respect to the stratification (horizontal, oblique, and perpendicular;

terminology according to Kidwell et al., 1986), and 9) concavity orientation (excluding

those shell remains vertically oriented or without clear concavity).

Taphonomic attributes were measured in five quadrats, 20 cm per side and

perpendicularly oriented to stratification, distributed in six sampling sites. Three

sampling sites were in the thin shell beds –tempestites hereafter– (two beds in Molinos

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

del Río Aguas section, MRA-TP1 and MRA-TP2, and another one in the El Cerrón

section, CERRÓN-TP) and three in the thick shell bed (tsunamiite hereafter; one site

per section, MRA-TS, CERRÓN-TS, and CMO-TS; Fig. 3). Exposure of the inferred

tsunami-linked shell bed in the Molino del Río Aguas section (MRA-TS) allowed a 3-D

analysis, both in section and on the bedding plane. Thus, we also measured the umbo

orientation of bivalves on top of the shell-bed.

PT
A Q-mode cluster analysis based on Manhattan distances and group-averaging

RI
linkage method, following Yanes et al. (2008, 2011), was applied to group-sampled

SC
beds based on their taphonomic attributes. In addition, an ordination Principal-

Component Analysis (PCA) was performed.

NU
4. Description of the stratigraphic sections
MA

In this section, we provide a general sedimentological description of the study

sections, which are described in detail and interpreted in Puga-Bernabéu et al. (2007a,
ED

2007b, 2014). The Azagador limestones in the selected sections show similar

sedimentary features. These limestones consist of an alternation of bivalve and coralline

PT

algal beds. The algal beds are composed mainly of encrusting, warty, and fruticose
CE

rhodoliths as well as unattached coralline algal branches (Fig. 4a). The rhodoliths are

embedded in a calcarenitic/calciruditic matrix made up of fragments of algae,

AC

bryozoans, molluscs, echinoids, and small benthic foraminifers. The coralline algal

beds, which include remains of Lithothamnion, Mesophyllum and Lithophyllum (L.

dentatum and L. incrustans) (Braga and Aguirre, 2001), represent the

autochthonous/parautochthonous sediments deposited on a mid- to outer-homoclinal

ramp between 20 and 40 m water depth (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a, b). This depth

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

interval is similar to the present-day depth of the storm-weather wave base in the

modern Mediterranean Sea (Backstrom et al., 2008; Vacchi et al., 2012).

The bivalve beds are dominated mostly either by the oyster Ostrea edulis or by

pectinids (Pecten and Chlamys), with Spondylus fragments as minor components (Figs.

4b, c). Bivalve beds occur as: 1) laterally discontinuous thin (up to 15 cm in thickness)

patches of large oysters that represent shell lags formed by remobilization of fine-

PT
grained sediments due to storm currents; and 2) continuous layers with erosive bases

RI
and 10 to 40 cm thick that are interpreted as storm deposits produced by reworking of

SC
shells and offshore redeposition due to surge currents (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a).

Therefore, both types of shell beds are interpreted as storm-event deposits intercalated
NU
in the background sediment.

Upwards in the sections, the Azagador limestones change gradually to fine-grained

MA

calcarenites/calcisiltites, then to silt and finally to marls (the lower Abad marls). The

fine-grained sediments in the transition to the Abad marls are very rich in planktonic
ED

foraminifers and are intensively burrowed by Thalassinoides trace fossils. In the contact

with the fine-grained calcarenites-calcisiltites, a single shell bed 50-60 cm thick shows
PT

an erosive base and wavy top that has been interpreted as a tsunami deposit (Puga-
CE

Bernabéu et al., 2007b; Fig. 4d). This bed is at least 1 km wide and extends almost 3 km

in a proximal-distal transect. In addition, no internal sedimentary features indicating

AC

amalgamation is observed in the whole extension of this single shell bed.

4.1. Depositional model

In the study area, the Azagador carbonates form a deepening-upward sequence

deposited on a homoclinal ramp gently deepening to the north (Puga-Bernabéu et al.,

2007b). In the most proximal areas, beach and shoal deposits formed a facies belt

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

approximately parallel to the palaeocoast. Offshore of this facies belt, two types of

carbonate factory facies developed (Fig. 5). The innermost factory facies consists of

bivalve-brachiopod-bryozoan floatstone/rudstone formed on the middle ramp. On the

outer ramp, coralline calcareous algal floatstone/rudstone, interpreted as a palaeomaerl

deposit (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007b), formed a deeper factory facies. The factory

facies were affected by occasional storms that generated the tempestites represented by

PT
the shell lag deposits and the shell beds (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a, b, 2014).

RI
Basinwards, the coralline algal-dominated factory facies shifted to planktonic

SC
foraminifer-bearing fine-grained calcarenites-calcisiltites that were deposited in deeper

parts of the ramp, below the storm-wave base (Fig. 5). Eventually, a tsunami event hit
NU
the ramp and the tsunami backwash deposited the thick shell concentration in the

transition to the fine-grained sediments (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007b).

MA

5. Taphonomic results
ED

In terms of biotic composition, tempestites are paucispecific shell beds dominated by

oysters (almost exclusively Ostrea edulis, and Hyotissa as anecdotal) and pectinids
PT

(Chlamys spp.) (Fig. 6). The tsunamiite shows a more diverse shell composition, with
CE

pectinids (Chlamys spp.) as the major components, followed by oysters (O. edulis,

Hyotissa and Neopycnodonte cochlear) and brachiopods (unidentified terebratulids)

AC

(Fig. 6). Coralline algal fragments represent, on average, 25% (from 15% to 35%) of the

rock volume in the tsunamiite. However, they are absent in the storm shell-beds except

in the El Cerrón section, where they are 15% of the rock volume on average (Fig. 7).

Size sorting differs between the tempestites and the tsunamiite (Fig. 8). In the

tempestites, there is a large spread in the bioclast sizes, with a relatively low sorting. On

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the contrary, the tsunami deposit shows a good size sorting with a predominance of

shells between 1 and 4 cm in length (Fig. 8).

The average values of the different taphonomic signatures measured at the six

sampling sites are listed in Table 1. All the preserved bioclasts were originally calcitic,

and only a few moulds of originally aragonitic organisms were found in the tsunami

deposit in the Cerro Molatas section (< 1%). We excluded the aragonitic shells from the

PT
quantitative analysis since they were very rare.

RI
Taphonomic results (Fig. 9) show that fragmentation was high at all the sampling

SC
sites, i.e. more than 60%, but the degree of fragmentation was higher in the tempestites

than in the tsunamiite. Articulation was virtually absent, both in the storm beds and in
NU
the tsunamiite. Concerning the abrasion, bioclasts in the tempestites preferentially

showed rounded edges, while they were mostly sharp in the tsunamiite (Fig. 9). The
MA

only exception is the tsunami shell bed in the El Cerrón section, where shells show

values of edge roundness similar to the tempestites (Fig. 9). In terms of organism
ED

interactions, shells in the tempestites have higher percentages of borings (more than

50%) than those preserved in the tsunamiite. Encrustation is, however, very low,
PT

although higher in tempestites than in the tsunamiite (Fig. 9).

CE

Regarding concavity orientation, shells are mostly concave-up oriented in the

tempestites and concave-down in the tsunamiite (Fig. 9). Further, vertically oriented
AC

shells outnumber in the tsunami deposit. In vertical section, shells show a preferentially

horizontal orientation in the tempestites but oblique and preferentially perpendicular in

the tsunamiite (Fig. 9). The only exception is found in El Cerrón section, where the

tempestites show values of obliquely oriented shells similar to those found in the

tsunamiite. Nevertheless, shells perpendicularly oriented are lower in the tempestite

than in the tsunamiite (Fig. 9).

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Umbo orientation, as an indicator of palaeocurrent reworking, shows a great

dispersion, suggesting a non-preferential arrangement of the shells (Fig. 10).

The Q-mode cluster analysis separates two well-differentiated groups of samples;

one includes the three sampling sites located in the storm beds, and the other clumps the

samples corresponding to the tsunami deposits (Fig. 11). The PCA analysis also

discriminates the two groups of samples along the X-axis (Fig. 12). Tsunami deposits

PT
show positive values characterized by greater number of shells, concave-up and

RI
concave-down orientations, obliquely and perpendicularly orientated shells, and sharp-

SC
edge shell fragments. The storm beds are distributed in the negative part of the X-axis.

They are characterized by high fragmentation and abrasion (rounded shell edges)
NU
degrees, horizontally orientated shells, and abundance of epi- and endobenthic

organisms (Table 1).

MA

6. Discussion
ED

6.1. Tempestites vs. tsunamiites

Our results substantiate that fossils preserved in the studied shell beds deposited on a
PT

temperate-water, carbonate ramp show different taphonomic signatures (Figs. 11 and

CE

12). As discussed below, the key factor controlling preservation styles of skeletal

remains is the hydraulic energy producing the shell beds, either tsunamis or storms, and
AC

between these processes, differences are related to their hydrodynamic characteristics

(e.g. wave height, length, period, flow speed, number of waves, duration of inundation,

etc.). In terms of sedimentary expression, marine bioclastic tsunami deposits, here

linked to the backflow, are characterized by denser, thicker, and more extensive beds

than in the case of storm shell-bed deposits (Fig. 13). In conditions of similar carbonate

production and sediment availability on the carbonate ramp, storms normally cannot

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

sort and concentrate enough shell material to form thick accumulations (Reinhardt et al.,

2006). Storms, however, produce frequent amalgamations due to successive storm

events (e.g. Seilacher and Aigner, 1991; Einsele and Seilacher, 1991). Absence of

amalgamation in the tsunami-related shell bed accounts for a single, very intense high-

energy event that concentrated the bioclastic material. The erosive surfaces generated

by tsunami waves extend over a much wider area than the area of common shore-face

PT
erosion by storm waves (Rossetti et al., 2000). Thickness and lateral extension are

RI
distinctive criteria for identifying both sandy (see reviews in Dawson and Stewart,

SC
2007; Morton et al., 2007) and bioclastic tsunami deposits recorded inland (Donato et

al., 2008, 2009; Varela et al., 2011; Reinhardt et al., 2012). These parameters are,
NU
however, less frequently described in offshore backflow tsunami deposits due to their

low preservation potential, and have a variable sedimentary expression. For example,
MA

tsunami-generated turbidity currents of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake deposited an

extensive (>100 km in width) bed, 6.5 to 15 cm thick. In other cases, tsunami backflow
ED

may deposit a few centimetres thick beds restricted to shallow (0.5-2 m deep) channels

(several hundreds of metres wide; Feldens et al., 2009) or accumulate large boulders
PT

over areas a few kilometres wide parallel to the coastline (Paris et al., 2010). Regarding
CE

marine tsunami-related shell beds, the closest comparison to our study case in terms of

dimensions are the inflow-linked coquinoid tsunamiite described by Massari et al.

AC

(2009), which is 0.6-1.8 m thick and extends over a few kilometres, and the ~0.5 m

thick backflow-linked tsunami shell-bed at Caesara, Israel (Reinhardt et al., 2006).

Storm and tsunami beds also differed in biotic composition. As described above, the

study-event beds were deposited on a carbonate ramp with two distinctive factory

facies: an inner factory dominated by bivalves, bryozoans and brachiopods, and an outer

factory constituted by dense concentrations of corallines (Fig. 5). Our results show that

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

storm shell beds are dominated almost exclusively by bivalves of the inner factory,

mostly oysters followed by pectinids, while coralline algae are absent (except in El

Cerrón section; Figs. 6 and 7). In the tsunamiite, corallines from the outer factory,

which represent on average 25% (from 15% to 35%) of the rock volume, are mixed

together with pectinids, oysters, and brachiopods, all being major components in the

inner factory facies. Tsunamis are processes that produce higher hydraulic energy than

PT
storms do, and thus, they may have the capacity to erode deeper areas across the ramp.

RI
Therefore, tsunami may potentially produce a mass flow incorporating a mixture of

SC
organisms from deep settings of the outer ramp with those settled in shallower areas of

the inner ramp (Fig. 13), and also terrigenous clasts sourced from the coastal areas. The
NU
mixing of organisms from different settings has also been observed in the coastal and

inland tsunamiites (e.g. Reinhardt et al., 2006; Donato et al., 2008, 2009; Massari et al.,
MA

2009; Varela et al., 2011; Reinhardt et al., 2012).

According to experimental analyses, bivalves orient their umbones upstream in

ED

unidirectional currents (i.e., Brenchley and Newall, 1970; Allen, 1990). This is one of

the criteria used to infer palaeocurrents in tractive flows. In the study case, the
PT

orientation of umbones of Chlamys shells in the top of the tsunami deposit in Molino
CE

del Río Aguas section shows a random arrangement (Fig. 10). The lack of preferred

orientation may have resulted due to the extremely high energy during offshore
AC

transport of shells by tsunami backwash currents. It is interpreted that under these

conditions, shell material was transported downslope in a more or less coherent mass

flow with high sediment concentration, in which the reorientation of bioclasts was

limited.

Our results show better size sorting in the tsunamiite than in tempestites, indicating a

greater dispersion of shell sizes. This sedimentary feature, at first glance, seems to be

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

counterintuitive and is difficult to be explained. However, sorting in shell beds is not

straightforward comparable to that observed in sandy deposits (Seilacher and Aigner,

1991). Storms often produce bioclast fragments of varying dimensions (e.g. Seilacher,

1991; Seilacher and Aigner, 1991), some of them oversized fragments that storm

currents are not able to transport and are deposited mixed up with the rest of transported

and sorted biogenic and non-biogenic material. This accounts for the great dispersion in

PT
the size sorting observed in the storm beds (Fig. 8). In addition, the storm beds in the

RI
study case are overwhelmingly dominated by oysters that are more resistant to

SC
taphonomic destruction and producing fragments of varying dimensions (e.g. Davies et

al., 1989). These authors found poor sorting in shell gravels in a hurricane-influenced
NU
inlet of Texas. A similar size-sorting pattern occurs in Pliocene storm shell beds

deposited in the Almería-Níjar Basin (SE Spain; Aguirre and Yesares-García, 2003;
MA

Yesares-García and Aguirre, 2004), as well as in tempestites from Pliocene carbonate

deposits of the Almayate Basin (Málaga, S Spain) (Aguirre and Méndez-Chazarra,

ED

2010). In contrast, higher-energy events such as tsunamis would rework complete and

less fragmented bioclasts, originating more homogeneous shell-size distributions that

PT

might account for the better size sorting recorded in the tsunamiite. Unfortunately, the
CE

lack of detailed taphonomic studies on bioclastic-dominated tsunami-related deposits in

ancient shelf settings precludes any comparison with our results.

AC

Regarding the taphonomic attributes, both cluster and PCA analyses confirm the

separation of the two types of shell beds, differentiating a group of samples

corresponding to the tempestites and another group to the tsunamiite. The taphonomic

attributes characterizing both groups are shown in the PCA biplot (Fig. 12) and are

summarized in Fig. 13. Storm beds show higher proportions of fragmentation, abrasion

and biotic interactions (presence of borings and encrusting organisms) than the tsunami

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

shell bed. Furthermore, bioclasts in the tempestites tend to have a preferentially

horizontal arrangement with concave-up stacking. In the tsunamiite, usually a majority

of the shells are vertically and concave-down oriented. Additionally, the tsunamiite

shows more shell remains obliquely arranged than do the tempestites.

The intensity, scale and hydrodynamic characteristics of the depositional

mechanisms involved in the formation of the two types of shell concentrations account

PT
for the differences in the preservation styles, as well as in the biofabric and stacking

RI
patterns (Fig. 13). During the setup and return flow of the storms, shells are subjected to

SC
traction currents transporting the bioclastic material over the seafloor. This sedimentary

mechanism, repeated continuously by the very large number of waves acting during
NU
storm conditions, would produce high fragmentation and abrasion. Additionally, storms

rework shells that are derived from exposed or only shallowly buried zones within the
MA

taphonomic active zone, favouring taphonomic feedback due to colonization by

encrusters and borers. Thus, the resulting tempestites would include more
ED

taphonomically altered shells (fragmented and abraded) and colonized by epi- or

infaunal organisms (encrusting and borings). Under the hydraulic regime brought about
PT

by storms, concave shells are preferentially horizontally concave-down oriented, which

CE

is the hydrodynamically stable position. Furthermore, stacked, concave-up oriented

shells are typical of storm deposits (Middleton, 1967; Kidwell, 1991a; Kidwell and
AC

Holland, 1991; Aguirre and Yesares-García, 2003; Yesares-García and Aguirre, 2004;

Martín et al., 2004; Rico-García et al., 2008; Aguirre and Méndez-Chazarra, 2010).

During storms, skeletal particles are put into suspension in the water column and then

concave shells settle from suspension in a concave-up position. They can be preserved

buried in that unstable position due to rapid entombment by surge-flow sediments.

Seilacher (1991) noted that the same biofabric could also be found in seismites, deposits

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

formed as the result of earthquakes. Nonetheless, we found no sedimentary feature

associated with seismic activity, so that the observed arrangement of shells can be

attributed to the effects of storms.

On the contrary, tsunamis are extremely powerful events that erode and rework

bioclastic particles already buried below the taphonomic active zone and even infaunal

living organisms at deeper areas than storms (Donato et al., 2009; Massari et al., 2009;

PT
Caron, 2011). Thus, the resulting deposits would contain a major proportion of unbored

RI
and non-encrusted skeletal remains. Besides, more material may be entrained compared

SC
to a storm and thus the water is more sediment-laden. The shells are transported in a

dense, matrix-rich, roughly coherent mass of fluid sediment, favouring a lower

NU
percentage of fragmentation and abrasion.. In addition, travelling within dense matrix-

rich flow precludes biological colonization of the shells after deposition. Finally,
MA

transport in a dense matrix-rich flow accounts for the observed chaotic shell orientation,

thus outnumbering obliquely and vertically arranged bioclasts in the tsunamiite.

ED

Coincidently, the non-preferential orientation of the umbones of Chlamys is also

consistent with the chaotic distribution of bioclasts in the tsunami deposit. A chaotic
PT

distribution of clast sizes has been also reported in terrigenous tsunami deposits
CE

(Scheffers et al., 2009)

The tsunami shell bed in the El Cerrón section shows similar taphonomic values of
AC

fragmentation and shell roundness to those observed in the tempestites. According to

the palaeogeography of the study area, the El Cerrón section was located in a proximal

position (Fig. 2). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a mixture of taphonomic attributes

since the tsunami deposit may undergo reworking by currents in this shallow, inner-

ramp setting.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In summary, our analysis shows that the key taphonomic features differentiating

storm-related and tsunami-linked deposits formed in shallow-water, temperate-water

carbonate ramps are related to the intensity and scale of these two high-energy

processes (Fig. 13).

6.2. Comparison with inland/coastal tsunamiites

PT
As commented above, the taphonomic works trying to discriminate between storm

RI
and tsunami shell beds have been restricted to deposits formed onshore (Caron, 2011;

SC
Reinhardt et al., 2012) and to marine coastal and washover deposits formed in lagoons

(Reinhardt et al., 2006; Donato et al., 2008, 2009; Massari et al., 2009; Varela et al.,
NU
2011). Nonetheless, the taphonomic behaviour of the shelly material affected by these

events and the resulting deposits preserved on the platform are unknown. Below, we
MA

compare our results with the taphonomic signatures proposed for inland/coastal

tsunamiite deposits.
ED

Donato et al. (2008) concluded that tsunami deposits in onshore/coastal settings are

characterized by: 1) a thick and extensive lateral distribution of the shell beds; 2) high
PT

proportion of allochthonous articulated bivalves; and, 3) an overabundance of shell

CE

fragments with sharp edges. Donato et al. (2008) noticed that each feature by itself is

not diagnostic of tsunami-linked deposits, but the combination of these three key
AC

attributes together may be.

In the study case, all three taphonomic features suggested by Donato et al. (2008) are

observed in the tsunami deposit. That is, the tsunami shell bed is thicker and laterally

more extensive than tempestites; it includes shells coming from different parts of the

ramp, as well as organisms from both the inner ramp and outer ramp factories; and

sharp-edge fragments are more abundant in the tsunamiite than in the tempestites.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Nonetheless, the significance of these taphonomic traits as indicative of tsunami

deposits has been questioned (Caron, 2011).

The taphonomic signatures that delimit the two groups in the cluster and PCA

analyses (Figs. 11 and 12) coincide with those employed by Caron (2012) to

discriminate between storm and tsunami shell-beds in inland/coastal deposits, except for

the size sorting; storm shell-beds should show good to moderate sorting, while

PT
tsunamiites display moderate to poor sorting (Caron, 2012). In the study case, however,

RI
the tsunami shell-bed shows good sorting and the storm shell-beds show moderate to

SC
poor sorting. The explanation for this apparent contradiction is not straightforward.

Some possible alternatives are presented below.

NU
The sedimentary expression of storm events can be graded storm beds, winnowed

concentrations of shells, washover deposits, sudden burial (obrution) deposits, or a

MA

combination of these (i.e. Anderson and McBride, 1996), depending on, among many

other issues, the place of deposition in the platform (Brett and Baird, 1986).
ED

Consequently, taphonomic signatures might also differ depending on both the

sedimentary process involved in the formation of the storm beds and the location within
PT

a proximal-distal transect in the platform. In high-energy proximal nearshore settings,

CE

size sorting is high due to the continuous remobilization of the particles having fine and

medium grain sizes by currents. In more distal areas, however, shell beds show more
AC

dispersion in the bioclast sizes (Brett and Baird, 1986). The tempestites in Molino del

Río Aguas section (MRA-TP1 and MRA-TP2) are located in the outer ramp, thus

showing poor sorting (Fig. 8). In the case of the tempestites of El Cerrón section

(CERRÓN-TP), located in a proximal position within the ramp, the sorting is, however,

poor to moderate (Fig. 8). The main skeletal components and the sedimentary process

involved in the formation of El Cerrón tempestites account for this poor to moderate

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

sorting. These storm beds are interpreted as lag deposits of large Ostrea edulis shells

(Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007b). Thick oyster shells are relatively heavy to remobilize

and are resistant to fragmentation during transport. Thus, very high water energy would

be needed to cause shell lag deposits with good sorting. Otherwise, a mixture of shell

fragments of different sizes concentrate, producing poor to moderate sorted shell

concentrations. In addition, the source areas of the oyster tempestites are biostromes

PT
preserved in situ in a more proximal position in the ramp. An example of these

RI
biostromes is observed in the Collado de los Molinos section, closely located west of El

SC
Cerrón section (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a). The size range of oysters in the

biostromes is very wide, from 0.6 to 16.5 cm (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a). Therefore,
NU
the storm shell-beds fed by these biological concentrations include a wide size range of

taphonomically resistant oyster shells.

MA

Similarly, poor size sorting has also been observed in proximal channelized storm-

lag deposits in the lower Pliocene deposits of the Almería-Níjar Basin (SE Spain)
ED

(Aguirre and Yesares-García, 2003; Yesares-García and Aguirre, 2004) and in

Callovian-Oxfordian deposits of the Neuquén Basin (Argentina) (Bressan and Palma,

PT

2010). According to these authors, high fragmentation due to high-energy events and
CE

the consequent rapid burial by surge storm currents might account for the poor sorting

in these proximal contexts.

AC

Regarding the tsunami shell bed, most of the well-known examples are terrigenous

tsunamiites. They show poor sorting because deposition occurs from a highly dense

flow, producing chaotic beds with a great variation in clast size. Morton et al. (2007),

however, recognized recent siliciclastic tsunamiites deposited inland displaying good to

moderate sorting. This is the result of the distance of transport and velocity of

deposition (Morton et al., 2007). In the study case, the tsunamiite bed was deposited on

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the outer ramp. While the backflow is travelling offshore, the sediment is progressively

deposited from suspension. Firstly, chaotic and poorly sorted deposits form as the

energy is rapidly dispersed. The remaining flow travelling longer distances in the ramp

is thus better sorted as large particles are deposited in more proximal areas.

Whatever the reason accounting for the good sorting in the tsunami shell bed studied,

the absence of well-characterized offshore tsunami deposits precludes any comparison.

PT
In addition, all the known examples are siliciclastic tsunamiites. Thus, it is still

RI
unknown whether bioclastic tsunamiites behave in the same way as terrigenous ones.

SC
In addition to the size sorting and the taphonomic signatures discussed above, other

features related with the biofabric can help to discriminate tsunami beds from storm
NU
beds deposited in a mid-outer ramp (Fig. 13). Skeletal remains have a predominantly

horizontal orientation in the storm beds but are vertically and obliquely arranged in
MA

tsunamiite. Additionally, shells appear mostly stacked concave-up in the storm beds, but

chaotically and preferentially concave-down oriented in the tsunamiite. These

ED

taphonomic attributes related to the biofabric of the shell beds can be added to the

remaining signatures in distinguishing tsunami-related from storm-linked shell deposits.

PT
CE

7. Conclusions

In the uppermost Tortonian-lowermost Messinian temperate-water carbonate ramp

AC

deposits of the Sorbas Basin (SE Spain), different types of shell beds are present. All

these shell beds are linked to high-energy events, most of them due to storms producing

tempestites deposited in the inner-middle ramp. In the southern margin of the basin,

there is one shell bed intercalated in silts of the transition from the middle to the outer

ramp, this being interpreted as a tsunami-related deposit. A quantitative taphonomic

analysis has been performed to characterize the different shell beds and to test whether

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

taphonomic attributes can be used to infer the sedimentary mechanisms involved in

their formation, whether storms or tsunamis, and the results are as follows:

In terms of bed morphology, 1) tempestites are thinner (15-20 cm) than tsunamiite

(up to 50 cm); 2) tempestites are laterally more restricted (few 10s m) than tsunamiite

(at least 1000 m); 3) tempestites show a sharp, erosive base and a gradual top while

tsunamiite shows a sharp base and top; 4) tempestites usually present a normal grading

PT
but tsunamiite shows a massive and chaotic inner arrangement.

RI
Based on taxonomic composition, tempestites are dominated by oysters and, in lesser

SC
abundance, pectinids reworked from factory facies deposited in the inner ramp. The

tsunamiite includes coralline red algae, pectinids, oysters, and brachiopods, a mixture of
NU
organisms coming from several places of the platform, from the inner to the outer ramp.

The taphonomic signatures characterizing both types of shell beds were: 1) Shell
MA

density (number of shell per rock volume) was higher in the tsunamiite than in the

tempestites; 2) fragmentation and abrasion (shell roundness) were higher in tempestites

ED

than in tsunamiite; 3) tempestites showed poor size sorting while tsunamiite displayed

good sorting; 4) shells were predominantly stacked concave-up in the tempestites but
PT

with no preferential orientation in the tsunamiite; 5) skeletal remains presented a higher

CE

infestation (encrustations and borings) in the tempestites than in the tsunamiite; 6)

regarding the angle of fossils with respect to stratification, shells in the tempestites were
AC

predominantly arranged horizontally while in the tsunamiite they were obliquely or

vertically oriented; 7) the proportion of vertical shells was higher in the tsunamiite than

in the tempestites.

The hydrodynamic characteristics of the depositional mechanisms associated with

high-energy events, storms vs. tsunamis, account for the different preservation styles in

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

marine event-related shell beds which are not fully comparable with onshore

counterparts.

Acknowledgements

This paper has been partially supported by the Research Project CGL2013-47236-P

of the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain, the Research Group RNM-190 of

PT
the Junta de Andalucía and the “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER). We

RI
thank David Nesbitt for correcting the English text. We thank Michaela Spiske for her

SC
constructive revision and the positive comments by an anonymous reviewer.
NU
References

Aguirre, J., Méndez-Chazarra, N., 2010. Tafonomía de los carbonatos templados

MA

pliocenos de la Cuenca de Almayate (Málaga, S de España). Revista Española de

Paleontología 25, 149–163.Aguirre, J., Yesares-García, J. 2003. Tafonomía y análisis

ED

secuencial del Plioceno inferior en el sector NE de la Cuenca de Almería-Níjar (SE

de España). Revista Española de Paleontología 18, 61–82.

PT

Aigner, T., 1985. Storm depositional systems. Dynamic, stratigraphy in modern and
CE

ancient shallow-marine sequences. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences Volume 3,

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 174 p.

AC

Allen, J.R.L., 1990. Transport – Hydrodynamics. Shells. In: Briggs, D.E.G., Crowther,

P.R. (Eds.), Paleobiology. A synthesis. Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 227–

230.

Anderson, L.C., McBride, R.A., 1996. Taphonomic and paleoenvironmental evidence

of Holocene shell-bed genesis and history on the northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf.

Palaios 11, 532–549.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Arai, K., Naruse, H., Miura, R., Kawamura, K., Hino, R., Ito, Y., Inazu, D., Yokokawa,

M., Izumi, N., Murayama, M., Kasaya, T., 2013. Tsunami-generated turbidity current

of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Geology 41, 1195-1198.

Backstrom, J.T., Jackson, D.W.T., Cooper, J.A.G., Malvárez, G.C., 2008. Storm-driven

shoreface morphodynamics on a low-wave energy delta: the role of nearshore

topography and shoreline orientation. Journal of Coastal Research 24, 1379–1387.

PT
Bahlburg, H., Spiske, M., 2012. Sedimentology of tsunami inflow and backflow

RI
deposits:key differences revealed in a modern example. Sedimentology 59, 1063–

SC
1086.

Balance, P.F., Gregory, M.R., Gibson, G.W., 1981. Coconuts in Miocene turbidites in
NU
New Zealand: Possible evidence for tsunami origin of some turbidity currents.

Geology 9, 592–595.
MA

Beckvar, N., Kidwell, S.M., 1988. Hiatal shell concentrations, sequence analysis, and

sealevel history of a Pleistocene coastal alluvial fan, Punta Chueca, Sonora. Lethaia
ED

21, 257–270.

Boyajian, G.e, Thayer, C.W., 1995. Clam calamity: a recent supratidal storm-deposit as
PT

an analog for fossil shell beds. Palaios 10, 484–489.

CE

Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., 1996. Geometries of reef advance in response to relative sea-

level changes in a MEssinian (uppermost Miocene) fringing reef (Cariatiz reef,

AC

Sorbas Basin, SE Spain). Sedimentary Geology 107, 61–81.

Braga, J.C., Aguirre, J., 2001. Coralline algal assemblages in upper Neogene reef and

temperate carbonates in southern Spain. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,

Palaeoecology 175, 27–41.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., Riding, R., 1995. Controls on microbial dome fabric

development along a carbonate-siliciclastic shelf–basin transect, Miocene, SE Spain.

Palaios 10, 347–361.

Brenchley, P.J., Newall, G., 1970. Flume experiments on the orientation and transport

of models and shell valves. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 7,

185–220.

PT
Bressan, G.S., Palma, R.M., 2010. Taphonomic analysis of fossil concentrations from

RI
La Manga Formation (Oxfordian), Neuquen Basin. Journal of Iberian Geology 36,

SC
55–71.

Brett, C.E., Baird, G.C., 1986. Comparative taphonomy: A key to paleoenvironmental

NU
interpretation based on fossil preservation. Palaios 1, 207–227.

Bryant, E., 2008. Tsunami: the underrated hazard. Springer, 330 pp.
MA

Caron, V., 2011. Contrasted textural and taphonomic properties of high-energy waves

deposits cemented in beachrocks (St. Bartholomew Island, French West Indies).

ED

Sedimentary Geology 237, 189–208.

Caron, V., 2012. Geomorphic and sedimentologic evidence of extreme waves events
PT

recorded by beachrocks: A case study from the Island of St. Bartholomew (Lesser
CE

Antilles). Journal of Coastal Research 28, 811–828.

Costa, P.J.M., Andrade, C., Dawson, A.G., Mahaney, W.C., Freitas, M.C., Taborda, R.,
AC

2012. Microtextural characteristics of quartz grains transported and deposited by

tsunamis and storms. Sedimentary Geology 275–276, 55–69.

Dattilo, B.F., Brett, C.E., Tsujita, C.J., Fairhurst, R., 2008. Sediment supply versus

storm winnowing in the development of muddy and shelly interbeds from the Upper

Ordovician of the Cincinnati region, USA. Journal of Canadian Earth Sciences 45,

243–265.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Dattilo, B.F., Brett, C.E., Schramm, T.J., 2012. Tempestites in a teapot? Condensation-

generated shell beds in the Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch, USA.

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 367‒368, 44–62.

Davies, D. J., Powell, E. N., Stanton, Jr., R. J., 1989. Taphonomic signature as a

function of environmental process: shells and shell beds in a hurricane-influenced

PT
inlet on the Texas coast. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 72,

317‒356.

RI
Dawson, A.G., Stewart, I., 2007. Tsunami deposits in the geological record.

SC
Sedimentary Geology 200, 166–183. NU
Dawson, A.G., Stewart, I., 2008. Offshore tractive current deposition: The forgotten

tsunami sedimentation process. In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T., Minoura, K.,
MA

(Eds.), Tsunamiites. Features and implications. Elsevier, pp. 153–161.

Donato, S.V., Reinhardt, E.G., Boyce, J.I., Rothaus, R., Vosmer, T., 2008. Identifying
ED

tsunami deposits using bivalve shell taphonomy. Geology 36, 199–202.

Donato, S.V., Reinhardt, E.G., Boyce, J.I., Pilarczyk, J.E., Jipp, B.P., 2009. Particle-size
PT

distribution of inferred tsunami deposits in Sur Lagoon, Sultanate of Oman. Marine

CE

Geology 257, 54–64.

Einsele, G., Seilacher, A. 1991. Distinction of tempestites and turbidites. In: Einsele, G.,
AC

Ricken, W., Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Cycles and Events in Stratigraphy, Springer-

Verlag, Berlin, pp. 377–382.

Engel, M., Brückner, H., 2011. The identification of palaeo-tsunami deposits – a major

challenge in coastal sedimentary research. Coastal Reports 17, 65–80.

Engel, M., Oetjen, J., May, S.M., Brückner, H., 2016. Tsunami deposits of the

Caribbean – Towards an improved coastal hazard assessment. Earth Science

Reviews 163, 260–296.

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Ercolani, C.P., 2014. Reconstructing the prehistoric record of intense hurricane landfalls

from southwest Florida back-barrier sediments. MSc. Thesis, Florida Gulf Coast

University, 198 pp.

Feldens, P., Schwarzer, K., Szczucinski,W., Stattegger, K., Sakuna, D.,

Somgpongchaiykul, P., 2009. Impact of 2004 tsunami on seafloor morphology and

offshore sediments, Pakarang Cape, Thailand. Polish Journal of Environmental

PT
Studies 18, 63-68

RI
Fujino, S., Masuda, F., Tagomori, S., Matsumoto, D., 2006. Structure and depositional

SC
processes of a gravelly tsunami deposit in a shallow marine setting: Lower

Cretaceous Miyako Group, Japan. Sedimentary Geology 187, 127-138.

NU
Fürsich, F.T., 1995. Shell concentrations. Eclogae geologicae Helvetiae 88, 643–655.

Gelfenbaum, G., Jaffe, B., 2003. Erosion and sedimentation from the 17 July 1998
MA

Papua New Guinea tsunami. Pure and Applied Geophysics 160, 1969–1999.

Goff, J., McFadgen, B.FG., Chagué-Goff, C., 2004. Sedimentary differences between
ED

the 2002 Easter storm and the 15th-century Okoropunga tsunami, southeastern North

Island, New Zealand. Marine Geology 204, 235–250.

PT

Goto, K., Kawana, T., Imamura, F., 2010. Historical and geological evidence of
CE

boulders deposited by tsunamis, southern Ryukyu Islands, Japan. Earth-Science

Reviews 102, 77‒99.

AC

Harzhauser, Djuricic, A., Mandic, O., Zuschin, M., Dorninger, P., Nothegger, C.,

Székely, B., Puttonen, E., Molnár, G., Pfeifer, N., 2015. Disentangling the history of

complex multi-phased shell beds based on the analysis of 3D point cloud data.

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 437, 165–180.

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Hawkes, A.D., Horton, B.P., 2012. Sedimentary record of storm deposits from

Hurricane Ike, Galveston and San Luis Islands, Texas. Geomorphology 171–172,

180–189.

Héquette, A., Hill, P.R., 1993. Storm-generated currents and offshore sediment

transport on a sandy shoreface, Tibjak Beach, Canadian Beaufort Sea. Marine

Geology 113, 283–304.

PT
James, N.P., 1997. The cool-water carbonate depositional realm. In: James, N.P.,

RI
Clarke, A.D. (Eds.), Cool-Water Carbonates. SEPM Special Publication 56, pp. 1–

SC
20.

Kidwell, S.M., 1985. Paleobiological and sedimentological implications of fossil

NU
concentrations. Nature 318, 457–460.

Kidwell, S.M., 1986. Models for fossil concentrations: Paleobiological implications.

MA

Paleobiology 12, 6–24.

Kidwell, S.M., 1988. Taphonomic comparison of passive and active continental

ED

margins: Neogene shell beds of the Atlantic coastal plain and northern Gulf of

California. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 63, 201–223.

PT

Kidwell, S.M., 1989. Stratigraphic condensation of marine transgressive records: Origin

CE

of major shell deposits in he Miocene of Maryland. Journal of Geology 97, 1–24.

Kidwell, S.M., 1991a. The stratigraphy of shell concentrations. In: Allison, P.A.,
AC

Briggs, D.E.G. (Eds.), Taphonomy. Releasing the Data Locked in the Fossil

Record.Topics in Geobiology. Plenum, New York, pp. 211–290.

Kidwell, S.M., 1991b. Condensed deposits in siliciclastic sequences: Expected and

observed features. In: Einsele, G., Ricken, W., Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Cycles and

Events in Stratigraphy. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 682–695.

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kidwell, S.M., 1993. Taphonomic expressions of sedimentary hiatuses: Field

observations on bioclastic concentrations and sequence anatomy in low, moderate

and high subsidence settings. Geologische Rundschau 28, 189–202.

Kidwell, S.M., Holland, S.M., 1991. Field description of coarse bioclastic fabrics.

Palaios 6, 426–434.

Kidwell, S.M., Fürsich, F.T., Aigner, T., 1986. Conceptual framework of the analysis

PT
and classification of fossil concentrations. Palaios 1, 228–238.

RI
Klostermann, L., Gischler, E., Storz, D., Hudson, H., 2014. Sedimentary record of late

SC
Holocene event beds in a mid-ocean atoll lagoon, Maldives, Indian Ocean: Potential

for deposition by tsunamis. Marine Geology 348, 37–43.

NU
Kreisa, R.D., 1981. Storm-generated sedimentary structures in subtidal marine facies

with examples from the Middle and Upper Ordovician of southwestern Virginia.
MA

Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 51, 823–848.

Le Roux, J.P., Vargas, G., 2005. Hydraulic behaviour of tsunami backflows: insights
ED

from their modern and ancient deposits. Environmental Geology 49, 65–75.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., 1994. Messinian events in the Sorbas Basin in southeastern
PT

Spain and their implications in the recent history of the Mediterranean. Sedimentary
CE

Geology 90, 254–268.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Riding, R., 1993. Siliciclastic stromatolites and thrombolites,
AC

Late Miocene, SE Spain. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 63, 131–139.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Sánchez-Almazo, I.M., 1999. The Messinian record of the

outcropping marginal Alboran Basin deposits: significance and implications.

Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program. Scientific Results 161, 543–551.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Aguirre, J., Betzler, C., 2004. Contrasting models of

temperate-carbonate sedimentation in a Pliocene, small Mediterranean-Sea

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

embayment (Carboneras Basin, SE Spain). Journal of the Geological Society of

London 161, 387–399.

Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Sánchez-Almazo, I.M., Aguirre, J., 2010. Temperate and

tropical carbonate-sedimentation episodes in the Neogene Betic basins (southern

Spain) linked to climatic oscillations and changes in Atlantic–Mediterranean

connections: constraints from isotopic data. In: Mutti, M., Piller, W., Beztler, C.

PT
(Eds.), Carbonate Systems during the Oligocene–Miocene Climatic Transition. IAS

RI
Special Publication 42, 49–70.

Massari, F., D’Alessandro, A., 2000. Tsunami-related scour-and-drape undulations in

SC
Middle Pliocene restricted-bay carbonate deposits (Salento, south Italy). Sedimentary
NU
Geology 135, 265–281.

Massari, F., D’Alessandro, A., Davaud, E., 2009. A coquinoid tsunamite from the
MA

Pliocene of Salento (SE Italy). Sedimentary Geology 221, 7–18.

Mather, A.E., 1993. Basin inversion: some consequences for drainage evolution and
ED

alluvial architecture. Sedimentology 40, 1069–1089.

Middleton, G.V., 1967. The orientation of concave-convex particles deposited from

PT

experimental turbidity currents. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 37, 229–232.

CE

Molina, J.M., Ruíz-Ortíz, P.A., Vera, J.A., 1997. Calcareous tempestites in pelagic

facies (Jurassic, Betic Cordilleras, Southern Spain). Sedimentary Geology 109, 95–
AC

109.

Montenat, C., 1990. Les Bassins Neógènes du domaine Bétique Oriental (Espagne).

Documents et Travaux. Institut Geologique Albert-Lapparent, Paris.

Moore, A., Nishimura, Y., Gelfenbaum, G., Kamataki, T., Triyono, R., 2006.

Sedimentary deposits of the 26 December 2004 tsunami on the northwest coast of

Aceh, Indonesia. Earth Planets Space 58, 253–258.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Morton, R.A., Gelfenbaum, G., Jaffe, B.E., 2007. Physical criteria for distinguishing

sandy tsunami and storm deposits using modern examples. Sedimentary Geology

200,184–207.

Morton, R.A., Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E., Gelfenbaum, G., 2008. Clast ridge

complexes of the Caribbean: a preliminary basis for distinguishing tsunami and

storm-wave origins. Journal of Sedimentary Research 78, 624–637.

PT
Nanayama, F., Shigeno, K., Satake, K., Shimokawa, S., Koitabashi, S., Miyasaka, S.,

RI
Ishii, M., 2000. Sedimentary differences between the 1993 Hokkaido-naisei-oki

SC
tsunami and the 1959 Miyakojima typhoon at Taisei, southwestern Hokkaido,

northern Japan. Sedimentary Geology 135, 255–264.Nummedal, D., 1991. Shallow

NU
marine storm sedimentation–the oceanographic perspective. In: Einsele, G., Ricken,

W., Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Cycles and Events in Stratigraphy. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,

MA

pp. 227–248.

Ott d'Estevou, P., Montenat, C., 1990. Le Basin de Sorbas-Tabernas. In: Montenat, C.
ED

(Ed.), Les bassins néogènes du domaine bétique oriental (Espagne). Documents et

Travaux IGAL Paris, vol. 12–13, pp. 101–128.

PT

Paris, R., Fournier, J., Poizot, E., Etienne, S., Morin, J., Lavigne, F.,Wassmer, P., 2010.
CE

Boulder and fine sediment transport and deposition by the 2004 tsunami in Lhok Nga

(western Banda Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia): a coupled offshore-onshore model.

AC

Marine Geology 268, 43–54

Patzkowsky, M.E., Holland, S.M., 2012. Stratigraphic paleobiology. Understanding the

distribution of fossil taxa in time and space. The University of Chicago Press.

Chicago, USA, 256 p.

Pongpiachan, S., 2014. Application of Binary Diagnostic Ratios of Polycyclic Aromatic

Hydrocarbons for Identification of Tsunami 2004 Backwash Sediments in Khao Lak,

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Thailand. The Scientific World Journal, Article ID 485068,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/485068

Puga-Bernabéu, Á., Braga, J.C., Martín, J.M., 2007a. High-frequency cycles in Upper-

Miocene ramp-temperate carbonates (Sorbas Basin, SE Spain). Facies 53, 329–345.

Puga-Bernabéu, Á., Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., 2007b. Tsunami-related deposits in

temperate carbonate ramps, Sorbas Basin, southern Spain. Sedimentary Geology

PT
199, 107–127.

RI
Puga-Bernabéu, Á., Martín, J.M., Braga, J.C., Aguirre, J., 2014. Offshore

SC
remobilization processes and deposits in low-energy temperate-water carbonate-

ramp systems: Examples from the Neogene basins of the Betic Cordillera (Se Spain).
NU
Sedimentary Geology 304, 11–27.

Reinhardt, E.G., Goodman, B.N., Boyce, J.I., Lopez, G., van Hengstum, P., Rink, W.J.,
MA

Mart, Y., Raban, A., 2006. The tsunami of 13 December A.D. 115 and the

destruction of Herod the Great’s harbour at Caesarea Maritima, Israel. Geology 34,
ED

1061–1064.

Reinhardt, E.G., Pilarczyk, J., Brown, Al., 2012. Probable tsunami origin for a shell and
PT

sand sheet from marine ponds on Anegada, British Virgin Islands. Natural Hazards
CE

63, 101–117.

Rico-García, A., Aguirre, J., González-Delgado, J.A., 2008. Taphonomy and

AC

taphofacies models of the Pliocene deposits of Vejer de la Frontera (Cádiz, SW

Spain). Geobios 41, 543–558.

Riding, R., Martin, J.M. and Braga, J.C., 1991a. Coral-stromatolite reef framework,

Upper Miocene, Almerla, Spain. Sedimentology 38, 799–818.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Riding, R., Braga, J.C. and Martin, J.M., 1991b. Oolite stromatolites and thrombolites,

Miocene, Spain: analogues of Recent giant Bahamian examples. Sedimentary

Geology, 71, 121–127.

Rivas, P., Aguirre, J., Braga, J.C., 1997. Entolium beds: hiatal shell concentrations in

starved pelagic settings (middle Liassic, SE Spain). Eclogae geologicae Helvetiae 90,

293–301.

PT
Rodríguez-Ramírez, A., Pérez-Asensio, J.N., Santos, A., Jiménez-Moreno, G., Villarías-

RI
Robles, J.J.R., Mayoral, E., Celestino-Pérez, S., Cerrillo-Cuenca, E., López-Sáez,

SC
J.A., León, A., Contreras, C., 2015. Atlantic extreme wave events during the last four

millennia in the Guadalquivir estuary, SW Spain. Quaternary Research 83, 24–40.

NU
Rossetti, F., Góes, A.M., Truckenbrodt, W., Anaisse, J., 2000. Tsunami-induced large-

scale scour-and-fill structures in Late Albian to Cenomanian deposits of the Grajaú

MA

Basin, northern Brazil. Sedimentology 47, 309–323.

Ruegg, G.J.H., 1964. Geologische onderzoekingen in het bekken van Sorbas, S Spanje.
ED

Geological Institute, University of Amsterdam, 64 p.

Sánchez-Almazo, I., Spiro, B., Braga, J.C., Martín, J.C., 2001. Constraints of stable
PT

isotope signatures on the depositional palaeoenvironments of upper Miocene reef and

CE

temperate carbonates in the Sorbas Basin, SE Spain. Palaeogeography,

Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 175, 153–172.

AC

Scheffers, S.R., Haviser, J., Browne, T., Scheffers, A., 2009. Tsunamis, hurricanes, the

demise of coral reefs and shifts in prehistoric human populations in the Caribbean.

Quaternary International 195, 69–87.

Scoffin, T.P., 1993. The geological effects of hurricanes on coral reefs and the

interpretation of storm deposits. Coral Reefs 12, 203–221.

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Seilacher, A. 1991. Events and their signatures. An overview. In: Einsele, G., Ricken,

W., Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Cycles and Events in Stratigraphy, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,

pp. 283–297.

Seilacher, A., Aigner, T., 1991. Storm deposition at the bed, facies and basin scale: The

geologic perspective In: Einsele, G., Ricken, W., Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Cycles and

Events in Stratigraphy. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 249–267.

PT
Shanmugam, G., 2012. Process-sedimentological challenges in distinguishing

RI
paleotsunami deposits. Natural Hazards 63, 5–30.

SC
Shiki, T., Tachibana, T., Fujiwara, O., Goto, K., Nanayama, F., Yamazaki, T., 2008a.

Characteristic features of tsunamiites. In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Minoura, K.,
NU
Yamazaki, T. (Eds.), Tsunamiites. Elsevier, pp. 319–337.

Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T., Minoura, K., (Eds.), 2008b. Tsunamiites. Features
MA

and implications. Elsevier, 411 p.

Spiske, M., Jaffe, B.E., 2009. Sedimentology and hydrodynamic implications of a

ED

coarse-grained hurricane sequence in a carbonate reef setting. Geology 37, 839–842.

Sugawara, D., Minoura, K., Imamura, F., 2008. Tsunamis and tsunami sedimentology.
PT

In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Minoura, K., Yamazaki, T. (Eds.), Tsunamiites. Elsevier, pp.
CE

9–51.

Takashimizu, Y., Urabe, A., Suzuki, K., Sato, Y., 2012. Deposition by the 2011
AC

Tohoku-oki tsunami on coastal lowland controlled by beach ridges near Sendai,

Japan. Sedimentary Geology 282, 124–141.

Vacchi, M., Montefalcone, M., Bianchi, C.N., Morri, C., Ferrari, M., 2012.

Hydrodynamic constraints to the seaward development of Posidonia oceanica

meadows. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 97, 58–65.

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Varela, A.N., Richiano, S., Poiré, D.G., 2011. Tsunami vs storm origin for shell bed

deposits in lagoon environment: an example from the upper Cretaceous of southern

Patagonia, Argentina. Latin American Journal of Sedimentology and Basin Analysis

18, 63–85.

Williams, H.F.L., 2011. Shell bed tempestites in the Chenier Plain of Louisiana: late

Holocene example and modern analogue. Journal of Quaternary Science 26, 199–

PT
206.

RI
Yanes, Y., Tomasovych, A., Kowalewski, M., Castillo, C., Aguirre, J., Alonso, M.R.,

SC
Ibáñez, M., 2008. Taphonomy and compositional fidelity of Quaternary fossil

assemblages of terrestrial gastropods from carbonate-rich environments of the

NU
Canary Islands. Lethaia 41, 235–256.

Yanes, Y., Aguirre, J., Alonso, M.R., Ibáñez, M., Delgado, A., 2011. Ecological fidelity
MA

of Pleistocene-Holocene land snail shell assemblages preserved in carbonate-rich

paleosols. Palaios 26, 406–419.

ED

Yesares-García, J., Aguirre, J., 2004. Quantitative taphonomic analysis and taphofacies

in lower Pliocene temperate carbonate-siliciclastic mixed platform deposits

PT

(Almería-Níjar basin, SE Spain). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,

CE

Palaeoecology 207, 83–103.

AC

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Neogene basins (A) and geological map of the Sorbas Basin at southeastern

Spain (B). Inset marks the location of the study area. Asterisks indicate the location of

the study sections in the Azagador Member. 1: El Cerrón section; 2: Cerro Molatas

section; 3: Molino del Río Aguas section. Modified from Montenat (1990). C)

Stratigraphic scheme of the Neogene sedimentary filling of the Sorbas Basin (modified

PT
from Martín and Braga, 1994). Se: Serravalian, To: Tortonian, Me: Messinian, Pl:

RI
Pliocene.

SC
Fig. 2. Palaeogeographic map of the Sorbas Basin during the deposition of the
NU
Azagador limestones (latest Tortonian-earliest Messinian). Asterisks indicate the

location of the study sections. 1: El Cerrón section; 2: Cerro Molatas section; 3: Molino
MA

del Río Aguas section. Modified from Martín et al. (1999).

ED

Fig. 3. Stratigraphic columns of the study sections (see Figs. 1b and 2 for location) with

indication of the sampling sites. Arrowheads mark the position of the storm shell beds
PT

(Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007a). Arrowsh mark the position of the tsunami deposits (thick
CE

shell-debris bed sensu Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007b).

AC

Fig. 4. Sedimentary facies comprising the Azagador limestone in the study sections. A)

Branching coralline algal facies characteristic of the autochthonous/parautochthonous

coralline algal beds. Coin is 2.2 cm in diameter. B) Oyster-rich bivalve bed interpreted

as a storm deposit. Pencil is 14.5 cm in length. C) Pectinid shells in a storm shell

concentration formed by a storm. Pencil is 14.5 cm in length. D) Shell bed interpreted

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

as a tsunami deposit. Note the heterogenous bioclastic mixing within this bed, which

contrast with bivalve-rich beds in B and C. Coin is 2.4 cm in diameter.

Fig. 5. Depositional model of the Azagador limestones at the southern margin of the

Sorbas Basin (adapted from Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2007b). Fwwb: Fair-weather wave

base; swwb: storm-weather wave base.

PT
RI
Fig. 6. Pie diagrams showing the relative abundance of the biotic components in the

SC
studied shell beds. CMO: Cerro Molatas section; MRA: Molino del Río Aguas section;

TP: tempestites; TS: tsunamiite.

NU
Fig. 7. Relative abundance of coralline red algae in the studied shell beds. Except for
MA

the tempestites in the Cerrón section, coralline algae are more abundant in the

tsunamiite.
ED

Fig. 8. Size sorting of bioclasts in the studied shell beds.

PT
CE

Fig. 9. Results of the taphonomic attributes measured in the different shell beds. Yellow

bars represent values of the tempestites while orange bars represent values of the
AC

tsunamiite.

Fig. 10. Rose diagram showing preferential orientation of pectinid umbo on top of the

tsunami shell-bed in the Molino del Río Aguas section.

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 11. Q-mode cluster analysis based on Manhattan distances and group-averaging

linkage method. Yellow pattern represents values of the tempestites while orange

pattern represents values of the tsunamiite.

Fig. 12. Biplot of ordination principal-component analysis (PCA) showing the

distribution of the different taphonomic attributes along the first and second component

PT
axes.

RI
SC
Fig. 13. Idealized model of formation of shell beds under tsunami and storm events and

resulting taphonomic attributes observed in the sedimentary record (see section 5.1 for
NU
details). The key taphonomic features differentiating storm vs tsunami shell beds are

related to the intensity and scale of the hydraulic events.

MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Summary of the taphonomic signatures measured at the study sampling sites.

shell angle with shell

stratification concavity shell edge shell infestation
No.
0- 30- 60-
shel vertic round shar borin encrusti
ls frag. art. 30º 60º 90º al up down ed p gs ng
Cerrón-
TP 134 97.8 0.8 48.5 27.6 23.9 7.5 58.5 41.5 100 0 53 0.8
MRA-
TP1 90 88.9 6.7 64.4 5.6 30 6 47.8 45.2 98.9 1.1 60 1.1
MRA-
TP2 103 90.3 0 69.9 11.7 19.4 5.8 56.7 43.3 100 0 67 0

PT
Cerrón-
TS 287 85.6 0 43.9 22.3 33.8 8.7 40.8 59.2 98.3 1.7 5.2 0
CMO-

RI
TS 249 71.1 0.4 38.6 26.1 35.3 6.8 40.9 59.1 69.9 30.1 34.1 0.4
MRA-
TS 210 70.5 0 12.4 25.7 61.9 15.2 40.4 59.6 65.7 34.3 13.8 0

SC
TP: tempestite; TS: tsunamite; MRA: Molinos del Río Aguas section; CMO: Cerro Molatas section; frag.:
fragmentation; art.: articulation
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

47
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

48
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

49
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

50
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

51
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

52
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

53
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

54
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

55
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

Graphical abstract

56
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

Two types of shell beds deposited on a shallow-water ramp by high-energy events

Taphonomic attributes enabled discrimination between tempestites and tsunamiite

Tsunamiite includes a mixture of organisms coming from inner to outer ramp

Tempestites are thinner, laterally restricted, normally graded and with gradual top

Intensity and scale of the events account for the different preservation styles

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

57